قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Who is Tom Steyer? Billionaire Leading Trump's insult

Who is Tom Steyer? Billionaire Leading Trump's insult



It is obvious to many Progressives that President Trump deserves to be charged. From the collaboration of his campaign with Russia to his admittedly cumbersome justice to bring James Comey to his advantage from the presidency's office to his incessant lies and attacks on the free press – the prosecution's articles are almost self-written.

But Top Democrats In Washington, impeachment charges are seen as a headache for the middle of 2018, where the party's focus is on winning independent voters on issues such as health care and paperback economics. In a recent Rolling Stone profile, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi argued that the rumors surrounding the removal of Trump would benefit the GOP. This attitude brings Pelosi into conflict with one of the Party's richest supporters, their "friend" and "former neighbor" Tom Steyer. The liberal San Francisco billionaire has invested $ 40 million in a grassroots campaign to create momentum for the impeachment. "I wish he spent the money pointing out the horror show that the tax bill is," Pelosi said of Steyer.

Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager, built the "Need to Impeach" campaign as an offshoot on his NextGen America group, best known for climate advocacy. He says his impeachment initiative is not only indispensable for protecting the rule of law in America, but can also be a strong electoral force, mobilizing millions of young voters who normally have no more elections because they have lost confidence in the Democratic Party [19659003] Need to Impeach has collected 5.4 million signatures supporting Trump's removal from office – primarily for violating the Constitutional Compensation clause (by taking on foreign government revenue) and obstructing justice in the Russia probe [19659003] Rolling Stone turned to Steyer to discuss the practicability of Trump's removal (which would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate), the risks of "normalizing" the president's behavior, and whether Steyer himself greater is Political Ambition

Why do you think that demo should accept crate impeachment as an election campaign topic?
We consider it important to champion America's democracy. It's not much more complicated than that. We believe the fight against a reckless and lawless president will not repel voters. In fact, doing so is the way to build faith and trust. The way we see impeachment is: We tell the truth about the most important political issue of the day. I know, Nancy does not think that's a good idea. But we believe that what we do will inspire people to choose who would not otherwise, and that's not just a vague hope. We have 5.4 million people who have signed our petition. We communicate with them all the time. Over 60 percent of them do not vote. They are registered voters, but they do not vote.

Do you know why?
They say because our leaders of the Democrats stand for nothing. They have lost faith and trust the party. Take a look at Women's March – the biggest protest in history. Look Indivisible. View the 2017 election in Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama. People want to protect our democracy. This election will be, to a large extent, a referendum on this president, this government and its policies and behavior.

The concern is, "Will we incite the Republicans?" – And I think that's Nancy's fear. Or will we energize Americans and Democrats and independents by doing what is right?

Young people get by at half the rate of other American citizens. They tell us every day that the reason why they do not come about is that they do not believe in the system and do not trust the parties. It is very hard for me to believe – as the father of four millennials – that the way to convince them that we are trustworthy, that we are moral, that we take things seriously and that we have their backs by to bury the truth. 19659003] You feel that the removal from the table "buried the truth"? Help me to understand that.
The first question is: has this President met the criteria for dismissal? We think it is clear that he has. You can visit our website and hear a two-hour essay by constitutional scientists. But I refer you only to the fact that his personal company, which belongs to him, has just taken a $ 500 million loan from the Chinese government, which is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution. If you are looking for a "smoking weapon", you will spit out smoke. He can say, "I did not fire Comey over Russia," but he already said, "I fired him because of the Russian thing." We do not ask ourselves if this guy has met the eligibility criteria.

And then the question is: are these important things? The impeachment is a political act. I am aware of that. For that to happen, it can not be a partisan thing. We do not choose a president. We "I'm going to get rid of a president, and the next president would be a conservative Republican from Indiana, but there's something else, we see the president breaking the law and reducing our democracy on a daily basis, I'm aware of that." that people in the press like to preserve their objectivity without objectivity. But he attacks you daily. The whole concept of the free press – objectivity, the ability to report evenly – it attacks this every day. [19659003] In a recent interview, you proposed not to offend Trump, but to normalize him. What do you think? 19659007] If you do not speak out against lawlessness, lawlessness is allowed. So, if you do not say anything about the President receiving a $ 500 million loan from the Chinese government, you may receive $ 500 million from a foreign government. That is expressly forbidden in the constitution. His family gets all of this [foreign trademarks] and his son-in-law [Jared Kushner] gets another $ 500 million loan from the government of Qatar. And you can not say [bring it up] two years later, "Now we are against it."

It's like a dinner party and somebody makes a racist denigration and you speak up and say, "I think that's really wrong, and you should take that back," and everybody says, "Ooooh, you're making a big fuss here "Yes, we make a fuss – because something is wrong. Everyone pretends that it is somehow rude to stand up for American democracy.

She is an institutionalist – and seems to believe that less heroic control than impeachment can correct the course.
May I appeal? that you just threw kerosene into the fire? The normal control and balance are for the Senate justice and the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the president's behavior – that does not happen. You can believe in checks and balances as much as you want, but that's not the real world.

Maybe I did not realize if the Democrats returning to power in the house would have the summons to summon power. She pointed out how she treated George W. Bush – whom many wanted to sue. She believes that the decision to drop the indictment helped the Democrats take over the house in 2006, paving the way for Obama and a deeper correction.
I remember 2006. What is George W. Bush, he divided us into two devastating wars and we were heading for the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. So if the answer is that we need these three things for a course correction, I would prefer to be a little faster. How is it? But I take your point. Maybe we can have a nuclear war and then we get a real course correction.

Wow – that's … sobering.
We try to do what is right. And 2006/2008 did not happen because George W. Bush was not charged, I say. I should be a bit more balanced: I take back this remark about the nuclear war. The correction happened because the United States was screwed and American citizens lost their homes and American citizens lost their lives – and by the way, there was a terrible climate crisis, New Orleans, which the president fumbled. The course correction was based on the suffering of the American citizens. We try to act quickly to avoid the suffering of American citizens.

OK, you say the Democrats re-conquer the house and reject the indictment. To play the devil's advocate – unless you have a huge Senate majority (the Democrats are unlikely to enjoy), you risk no acquittal? Would not that "normalize" the things Trump did even more?
If republicans never, depending on what happened, ever break partisan ranks, an impeachment can not be done mathematically. I understand that. I have always felt that the only thing that would make them break their ranks is the American people. Therefore, we do not ask Nancy Pelosi not to recruit senators – we are going to the American people.

There are two questions here: One is, is it realistic to ask for indictment? And the second is, is it politically prudent?

The question I want to focus on is, is it politically possible to gain conviction on prosecution articles?
The answer is: Only when events make it possible and only when the American people insist. If you look at 1974 [when Nixon was forced to resign the presidency]the Republicans beat the president because he turns out to be a liar – on tape. The American people thought it was totally unacceptable that the American president would deliberately lie to them.

We passed it. According to the Washington Post Trump lied more than 3000 times. So we passed the lies. I would have expected $ 500 million from a foreign government, but you tell me you do not see it as a smoking weapon.

That can only happen if the American people insist. And they only insist that there is a smoking weapon they understand – and refuse to swallow. Some people … there is nothing to be accused of by Mr. Mueller that people will accept them as a smoking weapon. I understand that it depends on events. And I know, if the Republicans do not decide it's in their interest to attack this president, that will not happen.

There's a separate question as to what's right – that's really important to me. And there is a third question about what makes political sense in 2018. I'll apologize for the sports analogy, but I'm [storied former UCLA basketball coach] John Wooden – that means we're playing our game. We stand for our values. We say what we believe to be true and that motivates our team to go out and play. And I believe that elections are actually won by talking to people about what matters to them and motivating our team.

Are you talking to people about impeachment?
We are organizing more people in the United States of America to vote on November 6 than any other. And we did not miss Nancy's point of view. We will, of course, talk to them about how important it is to vote. We are absolutely in the process of reclaiming the house. In terms of health care and jobs as well as clean air and clean water – we should absolutely tell the truth about these things. And we should also tell the truth about impeachment, because Americans can talk about more than one topic.

What I think was the problem that we need to be close to the American people. I spend my time going through the country to hear what patriots have to say about the loss of our democracy. In some of our town halls we get a whole bunch of veterinarians – whether Vietnam veterans or Iraqi veterinarians or Afghan veterinarians – coming out saying they are worried about losing our democracy in the country they were fighting for

I am fascinated by how you cut and roll this 5.4 million person list –
I would like to make one last point. I have great respect for Nancy Pelosi. Nancy did a fantastic job, worked incredibly hard, is an incredibly brilliant politician. Honestly. She is my congressman. I voted for her again and again. We disagree For a second, do not let me respect Nancy Pelosi – intellectually, personally and morally. I want to stand on the log. I love her. For years, I've been saying to people, "What part of Nancy Pelosi do you dislike? The brilliant politician or the really nice Italian grandma?" Because I like both very much. But I do not agree with her here.

Last question: The indictment is directed against the petition, but build up something else with this enormous list? People have talked about you doing a run on the office.
The only other thing we're building is November 6, 2018. I have no idea what's going to happen that day. And not Nancy and you either. And of course not the pollsters. I know that Nancy works her ass off to try to do the right thing. And we work to do the right thing. And where it ends on election day and how the world looks on the 7th, I really do not know.

The range of results is extremely broad. Much wider than people really understand. Did I think I was in that position and talked to a reporter from Rolling Stone about impeachment a year ago? No. This is closest to me. But the facts have changed. We are dealing with the truth and the facts – and we will do that on the 7th of November. I try to find out how to achieve the most positive effect. I will say this: we will work for justice in America on November 7, 2018. As? I dont know. But we will be. Because it will not be over.


Source link