I was going to do a brief analysis of what the Mueller report says about Obstruction, but once I began reading the details, I realized that wasn’t going to be as easy I’d hoped. But, given the significance of the story, and Mueller’s recent appearance in front of Congress, I wanted to at least do an update on the pertinent points the summary contained. I should also preface this by saying I am not a lawyer, so this is entirely a layman’s interpretation of Mueller’s report.

Most significant to me was the amount of time and effort spent explaining the reasoning behind the analysis and the findings in the report- without entirely clarifying what, if anything, had been established. Given the extensive explanation, I thought the information to be important, and most of what I focused on here. Rather than give the ample examples of Obstruction that were also included (which are telling in and of themselves), I focused on a few key aspects related to whether impeachment is warranted.

But first, we should have some context for what we are talking about. I’ve included an explanation of what Obstruction of Justice is, legally, and how it has been applied to sitting presidents in the past. I also included a brief summary of the kinds of obstruction the Mueller report mentioned that could apply in this case.

1. The legal definition for Obstruction of Justice:

“The crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.”

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

2. From the Mueller Report, on the issue of Obstruction by Trump:

“These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

3. How has the obstruction charge been used in the past?

There were three articles of impeachment brought against Nixon. The first article of Impeachment was for Obstruction of justice.

“Richard Nixon, using the power of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry, to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”

How do the two investigations compare?

The biggest difference between the Trump and Nixon investigations is that the underlying crime in Nixon’s case was established, while conspiracy with the Russians to rig the election was not. Still, the last sentence of Nixon’s obstruction charge says, “to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.” This could inform how the obstruction charge might be applied to Trump.

Another more minor difference between Nixon and Trump’s investigation was the way in which they both engaged in obstructing the FBI. In Nixon’s case, he and his allies attempted to delay the FBI’s investigation into Watergate. Trump instead made continual attempts to shut the entire investigation down, arguably a much more egregious offense. Though whether that is true under the law, I cannot say.

Several similarities exist between Nixon and Trump and the possible impeachment charge(s) as well. One such similarity is the charge against Nixon of withholding funds from congress for federally approved projects he didn’t agree with. This parallels Trump’s recent efforts to divert funds allocated for other purposes to pay for the border wall. Like Nixon, Trump violated congressional budget agreements that , in Trump’s case, put an end to the month and a half long government shutdown. Trump’s reallocation of funds approved for other purposes to pay for building the wall that congress had denied increased funding for, may have been an act of presidential overreach. While this isn’t an obstruction of justice charge, it is related to another article of impeachment that Nixon faced- Presidential Abuse of Power.

Another notable similarity between the two is how each of them were named in Grand Jury indictments. Nixon was named an ‘un-indicted co-conspirator’ in court documents. Similarly, Trump was named “individual number one” (the President) in Cohen’s Grand Jury indictments, an indictment which resulted in a guilty plea from Cohen. However, this is also a point of some confusion. In Mueller’s summary, it states that prosecutors were not allowed to name Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator, even in sealed Grand Jury indictments. Yet, Nixon and Trump were both so named in their Grand Jury indictments which resulted from the Special Counsel’s investigation.

After some preliminary research, it seems this might be due to the difference between what a prosecutor can reveal and what a Grand Jury indictment can include, even in its release to the public. According to an article written by law expert Carol C. Lam, former US attorney for the Southern District of California, there is a difference between the two:

“Government prosecutors — and that includes the special counsel and his team, and anyone who works at the U.S. Department of Justice — cannot disclose to Congress or the public any transcripts or summaries of witness testimony before the grand jury. A cautious prosecutor probably also won’t publicly release documents obtained by grand jury subpoena…But the grand jury secrecy requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) do not apply to a grand jury indictment itself, which is a public document. In an indictment, the prosecutor and the grand jury are free to include information obtained in the grand jury.”

Carol C. Lam, former US attorney for the Southern District of California

Other key similarities between the Trump and Nixon investigations are related to whether or not you can indict a sitting president. Following the Grand Jury indictments of his aides, Nixon’s prosecutors informed the court they would likely be unable to indict a sitting president due to constitutional rules. This left impeachment the only option. However, when Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski turned over evidence to Congress, he offered no analysis of the material. Nor did he make recommendations on whether or not to impeach the President. Similarly, while Mueller does include analysis and a conclusion on conspiracy and obstruction, he does not make a determination on the possible Obstruction charge. His reasons were similar to that of Nixon’s Special Prosecutor, Jaworski. Due to Department of Justice rules and constitutional concerns over indicting a sitting president, Mueller and his team determined not to make a recommendation on any indictable offenses.

Obstruction of Justice & How it Applies to Trump

After a lengthy section of the report listing at least ten examples describing Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice, Mueller concluded that obstruction did apply in this case and could be used by congress as grounds for impeachment. Here are some examples of what Mueller concluded would fall under the legal definition of obstruction:

  • “The crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law.”
  • “Influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer.”
  • “Furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.”

Three Key Findings on Obstruction vs. Collusion:

The biggest difference in question is what the Mueller report concluded about Collusion-and why, versus what they concluded in the case of obstruction. Here are key experts to highlight those differences:

1. “When substantial evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

2. “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released (by) the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

3. “If (the Mueller team) found the President clearly did NOT commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to make that judgment.”

Mueller and his team used the framework of “conspiracy law”, not collusion in their investigation since collusion is not a crime under the law. But, in their detailed explanation on the obstruction of Justice charge, Mueller and his team explain that they “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” Instead, they offered an opinion finding, for the following reasons:

“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers”.

The report goes on to say that “while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.” The report further states:

“The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.”

In other words, Mueller and his team never intended to make a judgment on any indictable crime while the president was still in office, leaving impeachment the only current option, with possible future indictments in mind once he left office. The report also mentions concerns about making a declarative statement on a possible criminal indictment without violating constitutional rights and DOJ rules.

Some ‘Difficult Issues’ to talk about

With the sheer number of examples illustrating Trump’s myriad attempts to thwart the FBI investigation, it’s unlikely that not enough evidence was established for an obstruction charge. Rather, the underlying crime Trump appeared to be obstructing an investigation of was not established. This appears to be one of the “difficult issue” referred to in Mueller’s report:

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

-from the Mueller Report

A second “issue” surrounds Justice Department rules that prohibit prosecutors from naming un-indicted co-conspirators in an indictment. 

“The courts struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves”. 

This seems to further confirm how limited Mueller and his team felt they were in what their assessment could conclude, due to the rules governing the special prosecutor’s role, laid out by the Justice Department, and constitutional concerns.

“Under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited…the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing…it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge…from (these rules) we concluded that we would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime.”

-excerpts from Mueller’s press conference statement, following the summary of the report made by Attorney General Barr-From the Mueller report

2 Key Phases to Trump’s Obstruction

The summary also identifies two phases to Trump’s obstruction efforts that indicate more “difficulties” in determining no “wrong-doing”. The first phase, before firing James Comey. The second, after his firing when Trump “became aware that his own conduct was being investigated for obstruction-of-justice inquiry”. At which point, Trump began engaging in “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

Eyewitness accounts of Trump’s behavior claim that upon learning he was being investigated by the FBI, Trump purportedly slumped down in his seat and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f#!%ed,” That’s a strange response from someone with nothing to hide from the FBI. But, reactions like these are what made the conspiracy charge so plausible to investigators. There was clearly something he was trying to cover up, but what that something was remains undetermined since the ‘conspiracy’ concern was not established.

Questions were also raised about if, in fact, it’s considered obstruction if actions occur in the public view. Mueller clarifies this point succinctly:

“Many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.”

To me, it’s clear that sufficient evidence was found of Trump’s attempts to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into his ties with Russia, and possible discovery of other crimes that fell outside the scope of conspiracy to rig the election. But, Mueller and his team were limited by the scope of what they could investigate, or reveal without directly implying grounds for an indictment, based on DOJ rules. Further, that by even hinting at a possible indictment would violate the same constitutional rights of due process and Justice department rules that prevented them from indicting a sitting president, which I believe is why this passage is so murky.

I fully concede that my assessment may not be legally correct. I am also not a mind reader, so I can’t say with certainty that this was what Mueller and his team were inferring. But, given what Mueller included in his press conference statements, and reaffirmed during his congressional hearing, it seems a fair assessment of their intent.

Types of Obstruction that Apply to Trump

The summary concludes with an explanation of the two types of obstruction that would apply to obstruction if congress were to conduct an impeachment investigation and trial. The Mueller team determined that both statutory and constitutional defenses could be applied, meaning either or both were applicable to their findings on Trump’s actions to obstruct the FBI investigation, or for other impeachable offenses.

More specifically, the Mueller report states that,  “Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” and that the president cannot use his Article II powers to give himself immunity.

“The conclusion is that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one is above the law.”

-In other words, congress, unlike special counsel, can totally impeach the president on grounds of obstruction, based on what Mueller found and documented in his summary report on Trump’s Obstruction of Justice.



What’s really behind the continuing attacks against Ilhan Omar: Part One

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments, mainly because this is the tool used to shut down debate and silence voices of dissent. Voices like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others who have spoken out against the inhumane treatment of Palestinians suffering Apartheid-like conditions and anti-humanitarian abuses at the hands of Israel’s military, funded in large part by the U.S.

But, I also don’t want to dwell too little on their relevance because they also reveal the very real attack, launched by both parties against Ilhan Omar, and the potential reasons behind it that we shouldn’t ignore.

Given the scale and scope of issues involved, this will be the first of two articles. Part One gives an outline of the now four incidents criticizing Omar for her comments and subsequent attacks on her safety and others by the President, members of congress, and special interest groups. Part Two exposes the possible reasons for these ongoing attacks, and looks further into who’s really driving the anti-Muslim agenda in America, and why Omar has been targeted as such a threat to their interests.

Part One

“It’s all about the Benjamins” baby…and “AIPAC”

The original efforts to smear Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments as “anti-Semitic” were led by the pro-Israel lobby  and advocacy groups like A JC and AIPAC, who successfully lobby congress for billions of dollars in military funding for Israel every year, push anti-BDS legislation at the federal and state level, and work to insure the long-standing policy of unquestioned US support for Israel remains intact.

The influence special interest groups like these can wield over US policy and political support touch at the heart of issues we should be discussing, and why they’ve gone to such lengths to silence any criticism or further debate.

Without the context of her words, however, it is easy to misinterpret what Ilhan Omar meant by her two tweets that led to such a swift and singular attack against her. The tweets were reacting to a tweet Journalist Glenn Greenwald posted:

“GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel.

It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans”.

~Glenn Greenwald

Rep. Ilhan Omar responded by retweeting Greenwald with her own comment, “It’s all about the Benjamin’s.”, referring to what motivated McCarthy’s threats over her criticisms of Israel, and the influence special interest groups use to sway political support and policy decisions in the US. When asked what she meant, specifically, Omar responded simply with “AIPAC,” referring to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that in 2018 alone was successful in lobbying senate approval for a $38 billion dollar military aid package to Israel.

Within the context of Ilhan Omar’s initial twitter exchange, there was nothing anti-Semitic in what Ilhan Omar said. She was not making a stereotype about Jewish people, but stating a fact- that money in politics has power, and her criticisms of the ‘problematic role of lobbyists in our politics’ have remained consistent, ‘whether it be (about) AIPAC, the NRA or the Fossil Fuel Industry’, as she referenced in her apology for having offended members of the Jewish community. An apology, worth noting, that was rejected by most of her accusers who continue to condemn her comments.

McCarthy’s own earlier statements highlight the hypocrisy of his finger- pointing at Omar, and indicate what may have been the real motivation behind his threats- Omar’s position on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and McCarthy’s longstanding ties and loyalty to AIPAC.

“Why am I expected to have allegiance/pledge loyalty to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee?”
-Ilhan Omar

A question Ilhan Omar posed a few weeks later while speaking at a Town Hall panel sparked even more controversy. Not about the subject matter of her comments, but of one singular question she posed. What followed was a swift condemnation, and further shouts of Antisemitism, spurred in large part by some of the media coverage which seemed to intentionally misconstrue what Ilhan Omar said.

Rather than give a direct quote or a clip of her comments, or even attempt an honest interpretation, her words and their intent were continually either taken out of context, intentionally misquoted, or completely fabricated. And once removed from their context, the question she’d asked was purposefully re-positioned to mean something entirely different.

“Let’s be clear. Omar did accuse Jews of dual loyalty, a common anti-Semitic trope, and also said the Israel lobby was too powerful. As to the second remark, it is not clear who is too powerful in Omar’s eyes. If she thinks the “Israel lobby” constitutes American Jews who act out of loyalty to a foreign country, she is simply doubling down on the anti-Semitism. If, however, she is saying that Israel, not American Jews, is too influential or powerful in American foreign policy, she’s wrong but within the bounds of civil discourse.”

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post

“This dual loyalty charge has led to the mass murder of millions of Jews in history. I’m not sure that everyone understands how grave this issue is.”

Juan Vargas on Delaware Public Media

“Omar, who in January became one of the first Muslim women to serve in Congress, said Israel’s supporters push lawmakers to pledge “allegiance to a foreign country”, a remark that was viewed by lawmakers of both parties as playing into the antisemitic trope of “dual loyalty” –a myth that Jewish people are more loyal to Israel than their country of residence.”

Lauren Gambino, The Guardian,

Ilhan Omar’s actual comment did not refer to Jewish people, American Jews, Israel, or dual loyalty by anyone, nor was it her intent to imply an anti-Semitic trope about dual loyalty. Her comments were in response to the pressure placed on her, the expectation that she have loyalty to Israel as a member of the foreign affairs committee and as a sitting member of congress. This expectation was made explicitly clear to her by fellow committee members and other members of congress. This includes McCarthy, whose earlier threats to retaliate against her for criticizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians, led to her AIPAC tweets and the subsequent condemnation y other members of congress and fellow committee members.

The threats of retaliation against Omar for not heeding the warnings over her criticism of the Israeli government are reflected in the statement made by Eliot Engel, the chair of the foreign affairs committee, following her second comment.

“I welcome debate in Congress based on the merits of policy, but it’s unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur. This episode is especially disappointing following so closely on another instance of Ms. Omar seeming to invoke an anti-Semitic stereotype. Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize, and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.”

Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs

It’s hard to appreciate how idiotic and untrue the characterizations of Omar and her statements are without first understanding the full context of what Ilhan Omar said. Here’s a quote of her actual words while discussing the influence of money in politics and silencing debate by a foreign government over their humanitarian abuses, funded by the US.

“ It is almost as if every single time we (Ilhan Omar & Rashida Tlaib) say something, regardless of what it is we say, that is supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement, or advocacy,...about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life and wanting dignity...we get to be labeled as something that ends the discussion because we end up defending that...and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of what is happening with Palestine. " (...Cheers & Applause)

"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. "

I want to ask why it is OK for me to talk about the influence of NAFTA or Fossil Fuel Industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy?”
-Ilhan Omar
The allegiance she is referring to is her own, as she made clear in a later tweet, clarifying her words and their meaning.
“Why am I expected to have allegiance/pledge loyalty to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee?”
-Ilhan Omar

Instead of a legitimate debate about an important issue, Omar faced swift condemnation. A continuing escalation of anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks were hurled at her, insisting that what was said was yet another example of her anti-Semitic hatred. This led to an attempt at censure and reprimand in front of congress, and potential removal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, led by leaders of her own party. 

The swift call to judgement by Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in Congress who pushed for an immediate Resolution to reprimand Ilhan Omar over her remarks, also put a spotlight on Omar that has threatened her safety.

As reports of a hit-list and assassination threats grew, so did the glaring double-standard in the way we respond to an unintentional misstep by a Muslim woman of color versus the repeated anti-Semitic and bigoted remarks made by other white, mostly republican males in congress that have, for the most part , gone completed ignored. It also ignores the undertones, and at times very blatant anti-Muslim sentiment aimed at Omar over her comments.

The awful irony of the anti-Muslim poster surfacing, first displayed at a Republican booth in the lobby of the West Virginia State House on GOP Day, and later circulating across the internet, for example. The poster depicted Ilhan Omar in front of the Twin Towers engulfed in flames with a caption that read: “Never forget’-you said” and another below next to Omar, “I am the proof- you have forgotten”.

The silence, or lackluster responses from Nancy Pelosi and other democratic leadership is all the more baffling and horrific in light of their recent assault against Omar for far less egregious offenses.

But more troubling is what happened as a result. The Islamophobic mania stroked by repeated references to Omar and 9/11 terrorists by Trump and others that went without comment, for the most part, culminated amidst the newest attack against her for yet another comment taken out of context. This time, for allegedly dismissing the seriousness of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

“Here’s the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. So you can’t just say that today someone is looking at me strange and that I am trying to make myself look pleasant. You have to say that this person is looking at me strange, I am not comfortable with it, and I am going to talk to them and ask them why. Because that is the right you have.”
-Ilhan Omar, speaking at a CAIR event in March, 2019

Her comment was made during an event for CAIR, the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations. She was referencing why CAIR had been established and the high price that actions by a few radical extremists can have in fomenting hate and intolerance. An intolerance that Muslims in America are acutely aware of and that infringes on their rights as American citizens.

This one comment, again taken out of context, and the reaction to it clearly reflects the exact anti-Muslim sentiment Omar was pointing out. But, it wasn’t until after the NY Post front page story using the same image of the twin towers engulfed in flames that was used in the anti-Muslim poster of Omar and 9/11, that there was even a modicum of recrimination, the only ‘action’ taken by democratic leaders at the time.

However, their comments didn’t come to the defense of Omar, or mention the ongoing assault against Omar by the president and others that has continued to escalate since democrats first jumped on the bandwagon to accuse and reprimand Omar for perceived anti-Semitic tropes. Instead, Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders waited until enough negative attention forced a response, largely due to the the quick and unequivocal defense of Omar by other progressive democrats and presidential candidates following Trump’s targeting of Omar

In his twitter post equating Omar with 9/11 terrorists, Trump also made reference to the anti-Muslim poster of the twin towers and Omar. His comments and the video montage of Omar’s ‘some people did something’ comment juxtaposed to the horrific events of 9/11 have further jeopardized her safety. An increased level of threats have been aimed at her and other Muslims as a result, including Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.

In Nancy Pelosi’s initial comment, however, she chose only to criticize Trump, not for his ongoing anti-Muslim remarks aimed at Omar, but for using images of 9/11 for a “political attack”, while also validating the accusations against Omar in response to her comment.

The threats against Omar’s life and other congress members have continued to escalate. Recent violent death threats aimed at Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the other ‘first’ Muslim woman in congress, have since caused Pelosi to up the security level for Omar. However, this has only further escalated the president’s attacks against her.

So, why the leap to judgement and strict condemnation of Ilhan Omar, but such a reluctant response to the anti-Muslim bigotry by the President of the United States and other republicans, some of which at least borders on incitement of racially and religiously motivated hatred and violence?

Much of this can be traced back to that initial attack, led by the pro-Israel lobby, on behest of Netanyahu’s right-wing government, and the anti-Muslim and anti-BDS political operatives acting on their behalf.

For a deeper look into these influencers and why they may be targeting Omar, please stay tuned for Part Two of, “The Ilhan Omar Debate & Why it Matters: What’s Really Behind the Continuing Attacks Against Ilhan Omar?”


The Green New Deal first gained notoriety after activists from the Sunrise Movement, along with freshman legislator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, held an impromptu protest in Nancy Pelosi’s office. Their ‘sit-in’ was to pressure support for a select committee to work on the Green New Deal. While ultimately unsuccessful, their push did draw enough attention to gain support from quite a few congress members. Twelve senators and a whopping ninety-one house members have since signed on as co-sponsors to the resolution.

The bold new initiative to transition the US to a clean energy, emissions-free economy within 10 years has continued to gain interest. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and others have used that interest to put a much-needed spotlight back on climate, with an urgent call to meet the grave warnings of Climate scientists in their 2018 updated IPCC report.

While support for the Green New deal continues to grow,  little focus has been on New Consensus.  Many may be unaware of the little-known policy group and think tank behind the current resolution. New Consensus, however, has been steadily working behind the scenes to turn the ambitious goals of the Green New Deal into reality.

In a recent interview with Ocasio-Cortez on MS-NBC’s  All in with Chris Hayes, some attention was gained for the group. The interview about the resolution included Co-Founder and Executive Director, Demond Drummer and Policy Director, Rhiana Gunn -Wright, who both spoke about their role with New Consensus. Ms. Gunn-Wright, the architect behind the current version of the plan, and its initial push promoting the Green New Deal, describes her work further in an interview with Cenk Uygur on the progressive online news site, The Young Turks ( TYT). A synopsis of what she shared on the inner workings of New Consensus and their role going forward, as well as a little about the organization itself, is below.

What is New Consensus?

New Consensus is a policy institute and think tank created by progressive activists and policy experts specifically to develop and promote the Green New Deal. Not only the birthplace of the current resolution, New Consensus has been the catalyst for “a World War Two-Scale mobilization to fix America’s Greatest problems.” according to their website. New Consensus has worked as advisers to the Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, AOC and others to build a “sweeping economic mobilization” for a “clean and just economy”.

New Consensus is based on the belief that the obstacles to climate reform are not technical. They are political.  The old Neoliberal, “Washington Consensus” that led to incrementalism has centered around the pro-business, pro-Wall Street mindset of the political elite. That Neoliberal bubble inside the beltway directs the “economics, government, technology, labor and business” priorities that often stand in the way of fixing systemic economic problems exacerbated by climate change.

“Over a period when multiple existential threats to life as we know it have emerged into plain view, the Washington Consensus has deliberately sought to paralyze societies to prevent them from acting collectively.”

New Consensus.

As more people move away from the status quo mentality of Neoliberalism, a new world view has begun to emerged with a different set of priorities. From this, New Consensus formed.  The focus of the group has been on the critical role that government and public institutions must play in transforming our economy and society to a more sustainable, equitable system, just as they have done during times of great change in America’s past.

“New consensus thinkers are exploring how government and other public institutions can lead the transition to a green economy, close wealth and income gaps between groups, spearhead innovation and research, kick-start new high wage industries, and more.”

What’s Next for New Consensus & the Green New Deal?

March has been a busy month for New Consensus. They have been hard at work developing a plan for bringing experts, activists, and people in front-line communities together to create the critical policies and legislation needed to implement the fourteen goals outlined in the Green New Deal. While still in the initial development stage, policy reforms and legislation remain several months away. However, Policy Director Rhiana Gunn-Wright did share a few of the priorities for the Green New Deal in her interview with Cenk Uygur, outlined here.


  • Develop Policies to create a smart grid and/or decarbonize the electricity sector.
  • Investments in distributed renewable and solar energy.
  • A look towards energy governance and how to make energy systems more efficient.


  • Investment in a clean, affordable public transit system using zero-emissions vehicles and high-speed rail.
  • Adoption and employment of Electric Vehicles (E Vs)
  • Find better ways to use bio-fuels, offset emissions, and other ways to decarbonize air travel.


  • Upgrade and develop new sustainable infrastructure.
  • Public investments, beyond just highways and roads. Identifying what sort of investments are needed to reduce energy use.
  • A look towards land use and how to create more energy efficient communities.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the lofty, yet incredibly urgent goals outlined in the Green New Deal. To learn more about New Consensus and their efforts to mobilize a mass movement around the Green New Deal Resolution, their nifty 2-page guide on their site can help. For a more detailed, in-depth view, here’s a link to the fourteen-page outline of the goals, specific projects, and mobilization efforts that they are working on.

You can also find additional information about the Green New Deal Resolution on the various websites listed in this article, and from the TYT-Army website. Check in for future updates here as well!



I’m seventeen. That means that when I get petitions in the mail I can’t sign them, which can be so hard sometimes. There are so many things I want to say and I want to stand for, but I can’t yet. So today, when I opened a petition letter from the pro-choice movement I really just wanted to sign it, and I couldn’t.

But I realized that didn’t mean I didn’t have a voice, so I sat down and started writing a letter of support to the movement. This is what I wrote:

Dear “the pro-choice” movement,

I would love to support and join this movement. Currently, I am only seventeen & I cannot sign the petition. I don’t have much money to give because I’m a full-time college student & don’t have a job yet.

Personally, I think it’s horrifying that anyone would ever agree to / vote for any kind of anti-choice movement in America. In school, they tell us we’re a country built on the belief that everyone should have freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, why should we exclude freedom to control our own bodies?

I grew up in a pretty liberal family in a very blue state, but at the start of the last election, I really started to struggle. I felt helpless, not having a vote… see all my friends and I wanted was to have a voice & at sixteen we felt that we didn’t, but we were wrong. I might not be able to vote yet, & I might not be able to sign that petition yet, but I can write this letter & it can be published.

See at sixteen we knew exactly what was going on in the world. We understood that we’d just gotten stuck with a racist, sexist cheeto for president. We understood that our little sisters and brothers wouldn’t grow up in a world where they felt safe, or beautiful, or strong. We understood how lucky we had been growing up, that we had a president who gave us support.

I don’t agree with everything the Obama’s did, but thank god for them really. Michelle appeared on Disney channel every week encouraging kids to eat well. She was this strong woman we could look up to.

I grew up thinking I could do anything. Rock climb? No biggy. Ride a skateboard? Sure. I never cared I was the only girl doing it. I did it because I could, because I didn’t mind a bit of dirt or scratches, because I’m the god-damn toughest person I know.

I’ve dealt with crappy boyfriends, catcalls, girls who tell me I’m weird because I’m not concerned with being someone else’s definition of perfect, and my own father telling me I’m out of shape and “ just looking after me as a fitness trainer”. I’ve fought sexist dress codes that target girls, especially curvy ones by tearing down the school posters and ripping them up. I punched a boyfriend in the face when he called me a bitch, because I was a strong woman who wasn’t going to put up with his constant insults.

I am a woman. I am strong, & powerful, & nothing will ever hold me back. I am perfectly capable of making my own choices and no man is going to tell me that I can’t do something. Not now, not ever.

Thank you,

Claire Isabella Palmer-PageIMG_3225


This week I had a rude reminder of just how close to the surface the wounds from this past election still are. Somehow, I thought enough time had passed for the scabs to have grown over, calloused and toughened and better prepared for the next round, only to discover they are all still open wounds lying just beneath a nebulous surface, dissolving in the face of opposition.

Rather than building a calloused, toughened skin, hardening my armor and resolve, I find I am only that much more vulnerable than ever before, a raw nerve exposed that jostles all the way to the core with each new attack, injustice, or unsubstantiated claim.  Knowing what is coming, doesn’t lessen the blow. It just opens the wounds anew, cutting deeper, and I am fighting that same old battle against disillusionment and apathy I’d thought finally put to rest.

No such luck.

Still, it is a year later, and nothing has entirely ceased. The sentiment I felt when Trump won- that we were all activists now, like it or not, hasn’t faded into silence completely. We all still seem to be standing here, clued in speaking up and acting out, organizing, rallying, uniting, dividing, and polarizing once again. I guess a part of me thought as the tide turned towards our favor, we’d all be friends again, the opposition from my same side would end.

No such luck, again.

One sentiment still rings clear, however, hurt or ruffled as my feathers may be. That there is no time for more petty arguing and there’s no more patience for this wasteful game. I will not play or take the bait. The only point of view is forward, the only argument is for a cause, and the only debate is one on issues, not personalities, identity politics, the blame-game-smoke-screen bait-and-switch smearing all over media, op-eds, and tweets.

So organize your attacks upon us. Spread fear and sow seeds that purity tests are a threat. Spin your articles turning fact to fiction, slander into truth, and lies to anger against allies within your camp. I have no time for any of that.

My battle remains where it started, still with Bernie and against Trump, fighting for some kind of a recognizable future where hopes and dreams and aspirations all are possible and worthy, not pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams never to be achieved.

Fighting fire with fire, playing dirty, and compromising all our beliefs away, those tactics are futile and over and won’t be crammed down our throats again, no matter how much twisting, conniving, or attacking there is.


Now, back to organizing around the issues, and not the politics…

See you at the polls!








<a href=”https://dailypost.wordpress.com/prompts/organize/”>Organize</a&gt;