Allegations against Cuomo become headache for Democrats from Albany to Washington

The still-unfolding sexual misconduct scandal surrounding Gov. Andrew Cuomo has left the three-term governor politically stranded and created a new dilemma for top members of the Democratic party in both New York and Washington.

The allies that Cuomo has in the past relied on to weather previous political storms have all but deserted him in public. And at least one, Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), has since joined the calls from Republicans and left-leaning Democrats for the governor to resign.

Democrats who control both houses of the state Legislature on Tuesday announced an agreement to reel in the extraordinary authority extended to Cuomo to act unilaterally during the coronavirus pandemic, a source of growing frustration that predated the recent allegations as the public health crisis eclipses its first anniversary in New York and elsewhere.

The governor’s weakened standing as a result of the recent accusations by three women has emboldened many of Cuomo’s frequent intra-party critics, many of whom have chaffed under his decadelong death-grip on state politics and are keen to cast him aside. It was also forcing leading Democrats who are less predisposed to criticizing Cuomo to respond.

“The behavior described in these allegations against Governor Cuomo is completely unacceptable and every allegation of sexual harassment must be taken seriously and be reviewed,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Tuesday evening.

The governor remained silent on Tuesday, six days after former aide Lindsey Boylan accused him of sexual harassment in a personal essay posted on Medium. A second former aide, Charlotte Bennett, came forward on Saturday night with her own accusations that were published in The New York Times. The claims follow controversy over the governor's handling of the deaths of nursing home residents early in the pandemic, as well as a spate of stories about his aggressive style of leadership.

Cuomo released a statement Sunday in which he claimed his comments to Bennett were meant to be “good natured” and said he was sorry the interactions were “misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation.” The governor on Monday authorized state Attorney General Tish James to appoint a “qualified private lawyer” to launch an investigation into the allegations. James pledged to disclose the findings of the investigation in a public report.

A half-dozen Democratic socialist state lawmakers on Tuesday jointly called for Cuomo’s impeachment, a process that’s only been used once in New York to remove a sitting governor. Meanwhile, the New York State Young Democrats demanded the governor’s resignation, as did the Working Families Party, which has long had a tortured relationship with the governor despite granting him their ballot line in all four of his successful statewide elections.

“Governor Cuomo’s reign of fear, harassment and intimidation cannot continue,” the Working Families Party said in a message posted to Twitter. “We are calling on the Governor to resign immediately because he is unfit to serve the people of New York.”

Other leading Democrats are proceeding more cautiously, but nonetheless have steered clear of reflexively siding with Cuomo as they often had in years past. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who overlapped with Cuomo in Albany prior to being elected to Congress, told reporters Tuesday the state’s congressional delegation has not collectively discussed the issue.

“Everyone is going to have to make an individual decision as it relates to these very serious allegations, in terms of the manner in which they communicate with people that they represent,” said Jeffries, who is also a member of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team. “Everybody’s monitoring the situation closely.”

New York Democratic Committee chair Jay Jacobs on Tuesday urged members of the party to hold off on judgment while Attorney General Tish James’ office conducts an investigation — a process that could take months — and tend to other pressing matters in the interim.

“[O]ur state has a budget to compete, a pandemic to fight and the people’s work must continue,” he said in a statement.

Jacobs in 2010 notably came to the defense of former Gov. David Paterson when he, too, faced calls to resign, beseeching New Yorkers to “get the other side of the story.“

Beyond New York, the accusations against Cuomo have begun to follow even fellow Democratic governors. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who chairs the Democratic Governor’s Association, said the group is weighing how to respond to the sexual harassment allegations against one of its members, adding that it was “premature” to say whether it would push for him to resign but expected it “will be a significant part of the discussion.”

“I don’t want to jump ahead, but we will have a very serious conversation about what we ought to do, and what standard we expect all elected leaders to adhere to and stand by,” she said during a Washington Post live event Tuesday.

Republicans in New York and elsewhere have wholly seized on the matter in hopes of cracking open an opportunity to win on the statewide level for the first time in years. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), one of a handful of GOP politicians talked about as potential gubernatorial candidates, this week said that he is now “actively exploring” the idea of running next year.

With Democrats splinted among themselves on how to handle the allegations against Cuomo, some instead have directed their fire at Republicans, who they argue have no credibility on the issue after being silent for years on the suite of sexual harassment claims levied against former president Donald Trump.

“While they may have just now discovered their moral compass, Republican leaders have absolutely no standing whatsoever to share their opinion on the current matter,” Jacobs said.

Lobbing recriminations at Republicans is clearly safer ground for Democrats amid the uncertain terrain ahead. But the escalating crisis surrounding Cuomo’s alleged conduct around women — all of whom are decades his junior, and two of whom were under his employ at the time — has bedeviled New York’s senators and the Biden White House for more than a week.

Gillibrand was recently excoriated in a column in progressive publication The Nation for being less strident as it relates to Cuomo than when she was among the Democrats leading the charge for former Sen. Al Franken’s ouster in 2017 over past sexual misconduct allegations. That push, though, was held against her by members of the Democratic donor class ahead of her ill-fated presidential bid, demonstrating the difficult political calculus faced by some.

Gillibrand declined to answer questions earlier Tuesday about whether Cuomo should resign in light of the third accusation against him, in which a woman whom he had not previously met said the governor made unwanted advances toward her at a wedding reception in 2019, calling her “aggressive” after she removed his hand from the small of her back and asking, “Can I kiss you?” Gillibrand shied away from another question related to Cuomo, before later releasing the statement.

“The women who have come forward have shown tremendous courage and must be treated with respect and dignity,” she said in the statement, before calling his behavior unacceptable. “That is why I called for the attorney general to conduct an independent investigation with subpoena power — I’m confident that it will be comprehensive and will cover all allegations against the governor in order to get the answers we need.”

The controversy comes at a time when New York’s influence in Washington should be higher than it has in recent years, given Cuomo’s relationship with President Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, the first Senate majority leader to hail from the state. Instead, national Democrats are distancing themselves from Cuomo and deflecting pointed questions from reporters about the recent reports.

Schumer called the accusations “serious and very troubling,” but entrusted the state attorney general’s office to delve into the matter.

“I know the attorney general will conduct a thorough investigation that will be totally independent,” Schumer told reporters Tuesday. “I have a great deal of faith in the attorney general’s investigation.”

And White House press secretary Jen Psaki has faced questions daily related to Cuomo. She has said the Biden administration supports the women who have come forward and backed an independent investigation into the matter.

Psaki also declined Tuesday to weigh in on whether Cuomo should be removed as head of the National Governors Association, saying it’s up to the members of the organization to decide.

Newsom strikes school reopening deal with California lawmakers

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers struck a deal Sunday that would push school districts to open classrooms to the youngest students by the end of March while stopping short of new requirements regarding vaccines and collective bargaining.

The deal more closely aligns with what the governor originally proposed in December than what Democratic lawmakers detailed in a bill in February. It does not require schools to open but instead offers financial incentives for those that do, according to sources close to the deal who asked not to be named because it had not yet been made public.

The new proposal would offer $2 billion in grants to schools that open transitional kindergarten through second grade by the end of March and bring back at-risk students in all grades. That includes districts in counties that are still in the state's purple tier, with infection rates higher than what teachers unions previously said are too unsafe for reopening.

Under the plan, once counties move into the red tier — with daily case rates below 7 per 100,000 residents — schools eligible for the grant funding must open to all elementary grades, plus at least one grade in middle and high school.

The deal speeds up the clock and more strictly ties the grants to in-person instruction than what the Legislature proposed. If schools do not open by the end of March, they will start to lose a percentage of money for each day they remain closed starting April 1.

Most of California's 6 million public schoolchildren have been out of classrooms for almost a year. The state's deference to local school decision-making, along with union resistance and high winter case rates, have made it difficult for California to bring students back. While a Capitol deal may propel districts toward reopening, local school boards and their labor unions still have final say — and many want safety assurances that include vaccines and ventilation improvements.

The deal could lead to California reopening most schools by President Joe Biden's 100-day deadline at the end of April, but not necessarily for five days per week. The bill would allow hybrid schooling to qualify for in-person instruction grants, and some large districts are considering plans to bring back elementary school students for two days a week or less.

The initial legislative proposal would have offered the funding to K-6 schools that opened by April 15 in the less restrictive red tier. Newsom's plan had proposed schools open Feb. 15 and allowed schools to reopen to K-6 grades in the purple tier as long as they were in a county with an average daily rate of infections under 25 positive cases per 100,000 residents.

The Governor had publicly criticized the legislative bill, saying it was stricter than what the Biden administration recommends for schools and would make California "an extreme outlier."

A December bill proposed by Assembly Democrats would have forced all schools except those in the purple tier to reopen by March, but teachers unions quickly mobilized against it.

While both Newsom's plan and the Legislature's plan made union signoff a requirement in order for schools to be eligible for grant funding, the new proposal avoids any mention of collective bargaining after superintendents said that language could upend existing agreements or create more hurdles than solutions.

That doesn't mean that unions can't or won't push to negotiate reopening requirements with their districts. The California Teachers Association did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

While SB 86 and AB 86, the identical school reopening bills, contained language that said counties shall offer vaccines to in-person school staff, the new deal makes it clear that schools can open without teachers being vaccinated.

However, all sides may have seen that language as less necessary now that counties are quickly moving to vaccinate teachers and Newsom has earmarked shots for educators for the first time. Starting Monday, the state will set aside 10 percent of first doses for those reporting classrooms or planning to soon, with weight given to those who serve high numbers of low income students, foster youth and other at-risk students.

Newsom initially said he expected 75,000 doses to be dedicated for teachers this week, and the California Department of Public Health on Sunday night suggested the state will exceed that by a fair amount. Los Angeles County alone is planning to devote more than 50,000 for school staff, according to CDPH.

The vaccine push has given new momentum to local negotiations already. San Diego Unified and Elk Grove Unified, two of the state's largest districts, have reached conditional agreements with their teachers unions, while others are in serious talks about reopening this spring.

The legislative plan required county public health departments to make vaccines available to on-site school personnel where class is in session, but the bill language left districts confused about what they were required to do and what could be negotiated in collective bargaining regarding vaccines.

The deal also addresses concerns about virus testing requirements being too stringent for schools in order to be eligible for the grants. Under the new plan, only schools opening in the purple tier will be required to regularly test students and staff for the virus, and schools that are already open or plan to do so soon will be exempt from those requirements.

We asked governors what they want from Biden. Here’s what they told us.

Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama, who was a supporter of former President Donald Trump, has something in mind she would welcome from a new president who she voted against: money.

Specifically, the Republican leader is urging President Joe Biden to lead the charge for new spending on infrastructure, which she regards as key to “the rebuilding and strengthening of the manufacturing sector.”

A thousand miles to the north of Montgomery, a Democratic governor who is in most ways the ideological opposite of Ivey is hoping that Biden and Congress will work together on precisely the same goal. “Infrastructure is critical to our state,” said New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. “Hundreds of thousands of our residents are employed in New York and Philadelphia, and rely on mass transit to get to their jobs.“

In his inaugural address, Biden issued an appeal for “unity” and a revival of functional government. The weeks since — with an impeachment trial and gaping differences over the size of a pandemic relief package — have made clear the low probability in the near-term of changing the relentless partisanship of the nation’s capital.

But a POLITICO survey of select governors, which collectively represents a quasi-symposium, suggests the revival of the practical-minded center Biden extols might be attainable for his administration. Its path likely would run though places like Montgomery and Trenton, as well as Montpelier and Salt Lake City and Olympia, before finally arriving (if at all) in Washington, D.C.

It is not that polarization and grievance don’t exist in the states. No one following the way that Republican state parties in multiple locations have been taken over by Trump acolytes — who have passed resolutions denouncing Republican lawmakers who show insufficient fealty to the former president and his bogus claims that he won the election — could harbor that illusion.

But the survey respondents did illuminate a kind of steady, practical-minded focus that crossed both partisan and geographic divides.

Democrats, not surprisingly, are more eager than Republicans for the new administration to robustly expand government’s role in fighting the pandemic and its economic and social consequences. Several Democrats wish for a national mask mandate from Washington, for instance, while no Republicans do.

More striking, however, is the relative blurring of ideology in the answers. All seven governors who participated in POLITICO’s queries expressed concern about the condition of their state’s economy. Most said assistance from the federal government is necessary for their state governments to meet the demands of the moment, though a couple said they would make do without it.

The survey had two parts. In the first, governors answered multiple choice questions with the understanding that answers would be described cumulatively but the answers of individual governors would not be shared by name. The second part of the survey invited governors to expand on their views and experiences with on-the-record answers.

Both sections highlighted a sense of urgency — and in some cases, a sense of precariousness — that governors perceive about the condition of a pandemic-stricken country as Biden begins.

Their concerns were in every instance about what might be called material politics — that is, problems and remedies which have a tangible manifestation, from job rates to infection rates to energy supply and transition to low-carbon alternatives. In no case did the answers gravitate to the cultural issues — from concern about race relations, or "cancel culture," or even the all-consuming debates about Trump — that have animated so much of national politics over the past 12 months or the past four years.

Almost certainly, this reflects the nature of a governor’s job, rather than that these particular politicians are somehow wired differently in their interests. But the answers do suggest a way that Biden might transcend a style of politics that often defaults toward remorseless personal and ideological conflict and away from problem-solving. It is by organizing his own administration — as by most appearances he seems to be doing — around material politics. These types of issues by nature tend to reward concrete results rather than rhetorical appeals, and allow for a degree of practical difference-splitting on the way to those results.

What follows are excerpts of the on-the-record portion of the survey results.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Republican

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

Striking a balance between protecting people's personal health and their livelihood has been the primary goal of mine throughout the pandemic. Alabama went from a pre-pandemic record low unemployment rate to now being in recovery mode. I look forward to regaining that momentum, while helping distribute a successful vaccine to people in all 67 counties.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

Continually investing in our infrastructure is important to Alabama. Throughout the Trump Administration, we have put Alabama and America first, which has launched business and industry forward. Alabama is a great example of the rebuilding and strengthening of the manufacturing sector. When you prioritize business, you are prioritizing middle America.

Maine Gov. Janet T. Mills, Democrat

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

Making life and death decisions and decisions that affect the economy, schools and people's livelihoods; making sure people have confidence in the decisions our public policy and public health officials are making. What disturbs me most about recent events, including the election and the effect of the pandemic, is the widening gap between the haves and have-nots, the learnings gap in our schools and the earnings gap in our working communities, things that the vaccine alone will not cure.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

Taking measures to combat and mitigate the effects of climate change — rejoining the Paris Climate Accord; enforcing CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards, mercury and ozone emission regulations and appliance efficiency standards; providing incentives for energy efficient and safe homes and buildings, renewable energy sources, electric vehicles and home heating apparatuses such as heat pumps.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, Democrat

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

As we navigate the second wave, what worries me is the many hard decisions that are ahead if the pandemic continues to worsen. This pandemic has left Governors with options that can only be described as bad and worse. [Last] March, I made the immensely difficult decision to shut down our state, a decision many other Governors around the country made as well. While this was the right choice, it had a massive economic impact on our state, and the struggles that New Jerseyans, whether they are essential workers, small business owners, students, or anyone else, are going through are always at the top of my mind.

We must also continue to serve low-income residents and our communities of color. These residents have been amongst the hardest-hit by this pandemic, not only in terms of the death toll, but also in terms of the economic impact. Food insecurity and demand for essential social services are at all-time highs and we need as much federal aid as we can get to protect the most vulnerable among us.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

New Jersey serves as a gateway to New York City and Philadelphia, the first and sixth largest cities in the United States. As such, infrastructure is critical to our state. Hundreds of thousands of our residents are employed in New York and Philadelphia, and rely on mass transit to get to their jobs. We have made meaningful progress on portions of the Gateway Program, but we must complete this project in order to avoid economic catastrophe, not just for our region, but our nation. The area covered by the Northeast Corridor rail line is responsible for 20 percent of the GDP of the United States.

The North River Tunnel [that runs under the Hudson River] is in need of imminent repair, and if shut down without a replacement tunnel, will cause immense damage to the state, regional, and national economies, something that the country could not afford before the pandemic, but certainly won’t be able to after. It is of immense importance that the ... administration and Congress fund the Gateway Program. We are fortunate to have a [president] that understands more than almost anyone else in government, the importance of a functioning Northeast corridor, and I am more hopeful than I have ever been before that we ... have a true partner in the White House.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, Republican

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

There are many things that have kept governors up at night these past nine months, but one of the most serious challenges we face is the amount of COVID-related misinformation and denial we see, fueled by online conspiracy theories and fact-free ideological websites.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

There is no shortage of problems the Federal government must address: COVID-19, the cost of healthcare, infrastructure, the debt, the economy, restoring global alliances, etc. But one of the most impactful initiatives they should pursue is a major federal effort to expand rural broadband across the country. States have worked hard and struggled for years to expand coverage with some success, but we simply cannot get to the last mile without federal help. The digital divide between urban and rural parts of our country has seriously hampered rural economic development in a 21st Century economy increasingly dependent on reliable connectivity. And the pandemic has demonstrated just how critical this need is for rural states.

We have faced a similar problem before and must pursue a similar solution. In the early 20th Century, the urban-rural divide was electricity. Recognizing the importance of electrification to the economy and quality of life in rural America, Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act (REA), which helped states like Vermont get to the last mile. Our country needs an REA-type approach to broadband to help grow our economy, which will help states raise revenue organically to invest in other critical areas.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Democrat

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

Answering in December, before cases began falling: The growth of COVID-19 cases throughout my state and the ability of our health care system to serve all who need care. We must slow the spread of new cases, hospitalizations and death. I remain deeply concerned about the economic impact of the virus on workers and businesses.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

Congress: Financial assistance to help individuals, workers and businesses who have been impacted by the virus.

Next president: Stronger direction and coordination from the federal government, the states have been left to their own devices for the past year and strong federal leadership would have saved lives and protected health.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, Republican

Gordon chose not to answer most of the on-the-record portion, but he did respond to this question:

For the sake of your state’s economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, what’s the most urgent unsolved problem to address?

Supporting businesses so that they are able to survive through the winter months, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding [an] additional relief package.

Former Utah Gov. Gary Richard Herbert, Republican

Herbert left office shortly after completing this survey.

What about your job worries you the most right now, and why?

Economic development in rural Utah.

From your perspective as governor, what one major policy area do you want the president and Congress to address? Why?

They should focus on balancing the budget.

Trump aides build out the MAGA-verse with new groups

Brooke Rollins spent nearly three years in Donald Trump’s White House, part of it as the former president’s chief domestic policy adviser.

Now she’s trying on a new role: Helping to oversee a Trump-aligned nonprofit devoted to pushing the former president’s agenda while he’s out of office.

Rollins has moved aggressively since Trump left the White House, with her soon-to-be-launched organization — America First Policy Institute — taking up office space in Arlington, Va., hiring about 30 staffers so far, and, according to Rollins, raising millions of dollars.

Rollins is joining an increasingly long list of former White House officials who’ve set up Trump-allied political groups since the 2020 election, a roster that includes prominent figures in the former president’s orbit like ex-Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson. With Trump out of office and plotting his political future, the emerging ecosystem promises to bolster the former president as he prepares to dive into the 2022 midterm elections — and potentially launch a 2024 comeback bid.

The former aides are capitalizing on widespread donor interest in funding projects aligned with the former president, with pro-Trump givers ready to shell out big checks in order to keep the Trump agenda front and center. Now that the presidential campaign is no longer consuming donors, who can give unlimited amounts to nonprofits or super PACs, a space has emerged for former Trump advisers to finance their own endeavors.

“I think the investors that are out there,” Rollins said, are “really, really excited” about the idea of a vehicle that advocates for Trump’s policies. “For the people that are funding us,” she added, “they get it, they see the vision, they understand what’s at stake.”

Parscale’s new vehicle, the American Greatness Fund, is not explicitly pro-Trump, but its core themes are unmistakably aligned with the former president. The group’s mission statement describes it as a “nonprofit social welfare organization devoted to retaining, cultivating, and inspiring the grassroots energy of the ‘Make America Great Again’” movement. The organization, it adds, will focus on voter integrity issues by creating a website that will catalog legal and legislative efforts surrounding elections and combat what it describes as “cancel culture against conservatives.”

Parscale was fired as Trump’s campaign manager in July 2020, but he has since made a return to the former president’s orbit and is helping to run his post-White House political efforts. Parscale said the American Greatness Fund, the existence of which was first reported by Axios, has so far raised $300,000.

Corey Lewandowski, another former Trump campaign manager, has created Fight Back Now America, a political action committee that according to its website is devoted to “supporting candidates and policies that seek to advance the America First Agenda.”

The organization is expected to be heavily involved in 2022 Republican primaries by targeting those who backed Trump’s impeachment such as Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, though it will also be focused on ousting Democrats in the general election. Lewandowski has separately been tapped to oversee the principal pro-Trump super PAC, though its unclear how that outfit will interface with Fight Back Now America.

Carson said in an interview that his American Cornerstone Institute is a conservative think tank that will emphasize election integrity, one of the ex-president’s fixations. Carson has also set up a PAC, Think BIG America, which can engage in elections and dish out funds to favored candidates.

“We’ll be very interested,” Carson said, “in who are the people who are advocating visions that are logical and that make sense.”

Russ Vought, who was Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director, has set up Center for American Restoration, a think tank that espouses Trump’s fiery populist message. Vought blasted the political establishment in a recent piece published on The Federalist, a conservative website, and said his organization aimed “to give voice to the common, forgotten men and women across this great country.”

Vought, a veteran of Heritage Action, a prominent conservative advocacy group, has among other issues zeroed in on conservative censorship on online platforms, a cause that Trump has taken up after being banned by Twitter.

Whether Trump assists any of the organizations remains unclear. The former president has been focused on establishing his own political apparatus, and during a meeting last week with top advisers he signaled that he wanted to establish a Lewandowski-run super PAC, which would be able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.

Trump previously set up a leadership PAC, Save America, which could contribute directly to candidates but has restrictions on the amounts individual donors can contribute. During an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference over the weekend, he urged supporters to donate to Save America, which has already banked tens of millions of dollars.

Republicans have expressed interest in building out a constellation of new conservative nonprofit groups, believing that Democrats have established a critical advantage in that space in recent years. While nonprofits are limited in some ways in their ability to spend money on elections, they can raise unrestricted amounts of money and spend vast sums to influence voters. Unlike super PACs, they don’t have to disclose their donors.

Republicans point to Fair Fight, a collection of political and nonprofit organizations overseen by Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams devoted to voting rights, as a vehicle that has been particularly effective. Abrams has been credited with helping Democrats make gains in Georgia during the election, when President Joe Biden carried the state and the party seized both of its Senate seats.

Rollins said she has drawn staffers from the White House, the Trump campaign and Capitol Hill. She added that the outfit, which is also spearheaded by former Trump adviser Larry Kudlow, will focus on an array of policy issues that were central to the Trump White House, including school choice, energy independence and immigration reform.

We’re “taking all those ideas that we built out over the last four years and leaning into them,” said Rollins, who prior to joining the White House oversaw the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin.

The glut of Trump-aligned organizations could create complications. Some senior Republicans have expressed concern that there may be competition over donors, who may be confused about which outfit to support. They say major contributors are waiting for the former president’s political apparatus to fully form and are waiting for guidance from him on where they should direct their funds.

Carson dismissed the idea that there would be clashing between the different groups and noted that his organization had been in touch with Vought’s. The two organizations are headquartered in close proximity to one another on Capitol Hill.

“The way I look at it, we’re fighting for the same things,” Carson said. “We need as many people in that fight as we can get.”

George Floyd’s killing started a movement. Nine months later, what’s changed?

George Floyd didn’t live to see Kamala Harris become vice president. Nor was he alive to see an investigation into Breonna Taylor’s death find that her killer’s gunfire was justified.

But his legacy will determine which America his daughter, Gianna — and the next generation of young Americans — will grow up in: the nation in which a record number of voters can elect a Black woman into the White House. Or the country in which Taylor's killer isn't going to trial, but the officer who shot her neighbors' wall is.

After a summer of protests, the coming weeks will show how much has really changed since Floyd’s death — in Washington, D.C., the judicial system, and America itself. Next week, jury selection commences for the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who was filmed pinning his knee into Floyd’s neck for seven minutes and 46 seconds.

And in Congress this week, Democrats are trying once again to shape Floyd’s legacy by advancing federal legislation to reform policing. The House is expected to vote on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act — again. The bill passed the chamber last summer but was never taken up by the then-Republican-controlled Senate.

“In light of what happened to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, now is the time to get this bill passed and on President Biden’s desk,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The bill would ban chokeholds, end racial and religious profiling, eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement and mandate data collection on police encounters. Civil rights leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton are pushing for its passage. But centrist Democrats have their concerns about some provisions of the bill. And it’s not clear how it’ll fare in the Senate.

Which means it’ll be up to cities and states to overhaul the nation’s beleaguered criminal justice system. But so far, results are mixed.

In the wake of Floyd’s death in May, 25 states enacted new policing laws. But even so, some of those new laws have little to do with improved policing or increased accountability. Instead, they focus on lessening bureaucratic hurdles such as easing residency requirements.

Other laws prohibit chokeholds, update training standards and require officers to have body-worn cameras. Other notable policies include laws that increase penalties for falsely summoning officers or making false reports. Whether those reforms represent real change depends on whom you ask.

“If ‘reimagining policing’ is a phrase, if ‘defund the police’ is a phrase, if ‘abolish the police’ is a phrase, how do we move from essentially a hashtag to budget-specific, legislative-specific, regulatory-specific, community-specific solutions in real time?” said Cornell William Brooks, professor of the practice of public leadership and social justice at Harvard University and a former NAACP president.

“It’s one thing to call for a whole-scale transformation,” said Brooks who is working with a team of students to help mayors reimagine what policing looks like in terms of budgets, legislation, regulation and police culture.

But it’s just as necessary, Brooks said, “to figure out, ‘What does that mean at a granular level?’”

'I can’t breathe'

Floyd’s death nine months ago was unlike any of those before him. It was familiar in the sense that, yet again, an unarmed Black American was killed by a white police officer. And as he begged for oxygen, his cries mirrored the language of Eric Garner nearly six years prior. Garner, a Black man who was put into a fatal chokehold by police, repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe,” while under restraint.

The deaths of Taylor, Garner, Ahmaud Arbery, Atatiana Jefferson, Botham Jean, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Laquan McDonald, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and so many others like them who were killed by police officers or vigilantes sparked outrage and protests. But the aftermath of Floyd’s death was different.

“It was just disappointing and really heartbreaking to see just how little progress was made to the point where a police officer could kneel on someone for almost nine minutes, with people videotaping — and they could see folks filming them — with the whole world watching and not care,” said Erika Maye, deputy director of criminal justice and democracy campaigns with the racial justice organization Color of Change.

Footage of Floyd’s fatal encounter reverberated across the globe, uniting people of all races, and igniting worldwide protests for racial justice and against police brutality.

“I never expected it to turn into what it did,” New York state Sen. Brian Benjamin said of the ensuing movement. “This took on a life of its own.”

“That level of interaction and interest across the board is what changed the game here in New York state,” said Benjamin, a candidate for New York City comptroller, who introduced anti-chokehold legislation after Garner’s death. The bill passed in June in “record time,” Benjamin said.

“All of a sudden this became an issue for everybody,” Benjamin said.

Last week, leaders from civil rights groups convened a virtual news conference to demand the passage of the federal police reform bill.

Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, said the bill is just as important as the legislation that came out of the 1960s civil rights movement — the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

“We’ll be going to Minneapolis for the jury selection of the police officer that lynched George Floyd with his knee,” Sharpton told reporters. “The family will have to sit there and relive this.

“I would hope that they would be able to sit there knowing that the laws have changed and that George was not lynched in vain and that the Senate of 2021 has the same backbone and integrity that the Senate had in 1964.”

Reimagining policing

Floyd’s death has opened a new level of conversation about policing in communities across the country. Despite the villainization of the slogan to “defund the police,” policymakers and policy experts say they’re now able to have conversations about reimagining policing and holding police accountable in a way they couldn’t before.

“The defund movement is about taking away resources or shifting resources, which doesn’t do anything for improving accountability and oversight for whatever remains after the defunding or shifting of resources,” said Loren Taylor, an Oakland city councilmember. “The reality is if you want police to do better, you hold them accountable. If you want them to do less, you take away resources.”

Floyd’s death showed plainly the type of experiences Black people have long had with law enforcement, leading to increased support for the Black Lives Matter movement, the acknowledgment of racism and the role it plays in American society, and conversations about addressing the many inequities African Americans face in housing, health care, education, employment and other areas.

Still, that talk hasn’t led to action everywhere. As the Chauvin trial nears, Dave Bicking, a board member of Minneapolis-based Communities United Against Police Brutality, said the city is already off to a bad start.

Bicking said Minneapolis is creating a false narrative by putting up fences and barbed wire and planning to bring in the National Guard, arguing that police violence is what the city should be concerned about. He also said the city council has fallen short on enacting meaningful, post-Floyd policy changes.

“There has been very little change,” Bicking said. “There’s radical talk but no action to speak of. A few steps backward and a process, I think, designed to lead to nowhere.”

Despite talk of defunding or even abolishing police in Minneapolis, Bicking said, neither outcome looks likely.

“The net effect of it has been virtually nothing has changed,” he added. “The people in our city government don’t act like they realize this is the epicenter of a movement, a huge movement, and something which is history-making and which is for better or worse going to really cause some change here.”

Black Americans are hopeful Chauvin will be convicted. But many have learned not to get their hopes up after disappointing outcomes in high-profile cases that have led to acquittal or no indictment in recent years.

“Black people have been let down a lot, on so many levels, and when it comes to trust, I think as a people we definitely have trust issues. Rightfully so,” said Kamau Marshall, a former spokesman for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and ex-senior congressional staffer. “We all know what the outcome should be, but what we’ve seen in the past with various outcomes in most cases have not gone the best way.”

Last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that a grand jury voted not to indict any officers involved in the death of Daniel Prude, a Black man who was experiencing a psychotic episode when police handcuffed him, put a mesh hood over his head and pinned him to the ground until he was unconscious.

The grand jury’s decision was a disappointment, but not a surprise for Tianna Mañón, CEO of Mañón Media Management and a former journalist who now works with reporters and newsrooms on equity in coverage and storytelling.

“You knew this was coming and yet it still hurts,” Mañón said. “It’s a pain you can’t prepare for because these people are just gonna continue living their lives, and not even just continue living their lives but within this community, so to speak.”

Sakira Cook, senior director of the justice program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said she hopes the prosecution can prove that Chauvin acted outside the bounds of the law and took Floyd’s life with what he thought was impunity.

“It is not often the case that officers are arrested, indicted and then put on trial for these types of incidents,” she said. “So anytime that does happen, that is a step in the right direction.”

There’s no consensus on what Floyd’s legacy will be. Some say it’s too soon to say, while others envision a future where police departments cease to exist as conversations about rethinking public safety and who should respond to what continue. But perhaps Floyd’s daughter said it best.

“I keep replaying in my mind the clip of his daughter saying, ‘My daddy changed the world,’” Cook said. “And that, for me, sums up beautifully what I hope his legacy will be. I hope we will look at that moment as the spark that ignited a transformation in this country on all fronts but also one that permeated the rest of the globe.”

Vernon Jordan, activist and former Clinton advisor, dies at 85

ATLANTA — Vernon Jordan, who rose from humble beginnings in the segregated South to become a champion of civil rights before reinventing himself as a Washington insider and corporate influencer, has died, according to a statement from his daughter. He was 85.

Jordan’s daughter, Vickee Jordan Adams, released the statement Tuesday to CBS News.

“My father passed away last night around 10p surrounded by loved ones his wife and daughter by his side,” she said.

After stints as field secretary for the Georgia NAACP and executive director of the United Negro College Fund, he became head of the National Urban League, becoming the face of Black America’s modern struggle for jobs and justice for more than a decade. He was nearly killed by a racist’s bullet in 1980 before transitioning to business and politics.

His friendship with Bill Clinton took them both to the White House. Jordan was an unofficial Clinton aide, drawing him into controversy during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

After growing up in the Jim Crow South and living much of his life in a segregated America, Jordan took a strategic view of race issues.

“My view on all this business about race is never to get angry, no, but to get even,” Jordan said in a July 2000 New York Times interview. “You don’t take it out in anger; you take it out in achievement.”

Jordan was the first lawyer to head the Urban League, which had traditionally been led by social workers. Under Jordan’s leadership, the Urban League added 17 more chapters and its budget swelled to more than $100 million. The organization also broadened its focus to include voter registration drives and conflict resolution between Blacks and law enforcement.

He resigned from the Urban League in 1982 to become a partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld.

Jordan was a key campaign adviser to Clinton during his first presidential campaign and co-chaired Clinton’s transition team. He was the first Black to be assigned such a role.

His friendship with Clinton, which began in the 1970s, evolved into a partnership and political alliance. He met Clinton as a young politician in Arkansas, and the two connected over their Southern roots and poor upbringings.

Although Jordan held held no official role in the Clinton White House, he was highly influential and had such labels as the “first friend.” He approached Colin Powell about becoming Secretary of State and encouraged Clinton to pass the NAFTA agreement in 1993. Jordan also secured a job at Revlon for Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern whose sexual encounters with the president spawned a scandal.

Jordan’s actions briefly drew the attention of federal prosecutors investigating Clinton’s actions, but he ultimately was not mentioned in a final report issued by special prosecutor Ken Starr.

Vernon Eulion Jordan Jr., was born in Atlanta on Aug. 15, 1935, the second of Vernon and Mary Belle Jordan’s three sons. Until Jordan was 13, the family lived in public housing. But he was exposed to Atlanta’s elite through his mother, who worked as a caterer for many of the city’s affluent citizens.

Jordan went to DePauw University in Indiana, where he was the only Black in his class and one of five at the college. Distinguishing himself through academics, oratory and athletics, he graduated in 1957 with a bachelor’s degree in political science and went on to attend Howard University School of Law in Washington. While there, he married his first wife, Shirley Yarbrough.

The young couple moved to Atlanta after Jordan earned his law degree in 1960, and Jordan became a clerk for civil rights attorney Donald Hollowell, who successfully represented two Black students — Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter — attempting to integrate the University of Georgia. In an iconic photograph, Jordan, an imposing 6 feet, 4 inches, is seen holding at bay the white mob that tried to block Hunter from starting her first day of classes.

In 1961, Jordan became Georgia field secretary for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. During his two years in the role, Jordan built new chapters, coordinated demonstrations and boycotted businesses that would not employ Blacks.

Jordan moved to Arkansas in 1964 and went into private practice. He also became director of the Voter Education Project of the Southern Regional Council. During his tenure, millions of new Blacks joined the voter rolls and hundreds of Blacks were elected in the South.

Jordan considered running for Georgia’s fifth congressional district seat in 1970, but was tapped that year to head the United Negro College Fund. Holding the position for just 12 months, Jordan used his fundraising skills to fill the organization’s coffers with $10 million to help students at historically Black colleges and universities.

In 1971, after the death of Whitney Young Jr., Jordan was named the fifth president of the National Urban League, which is dedicated to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.

“I believe that working with the Urban League, the NAACP, PUSH and SCLC is the highest form of service that you can perform for Black people,” Jordan said in a December 1980 interview in Ebony Magazine. “And if you serve Black people you serve the country as well. So if I do a good job here, the Black people are not the only beneficiary; so is the country. The country has a vested interest in Black people doing well.”

The high-profile position landed him in the crosshairs of a racist in May 1980 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Jordan was shot with a hunter’s rifle outside his hotel after returning from dinner following a speaking engagement.

Jordan had five surgeries and was visited by President Jimmy Carter during his 3-month recovery in the hospital.

“I’m not afraid and I won’t quit,” Jordan told Ebony after the shooting.

Joseph Paul Franklin, an avowed white supremacist who targeted Blacks and Jews in a cross-country killing spree from 1977 to 1980, later admitted to shooting Jordan. He was never prosecuted in Jordan’s case, but was put to death in 2013 for another slaying in Missouri.

Jordan left the organization in 1981, but said his departure was not related to the shooting.

In 2000, Jordan joined the New York investment firm of Lazard Freres & Co. as a senior managing partner. The following year, he released an autobiography, “Vernon Can Read!: A Memoir.” Also in 2001, Jordan was awarded the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor given to a Black American for outstanding achievement.

He has received more than 55 honorary degrees, including ones from both of his alma maters and sat on several boards of directors.

Navarro penned 15-page memo falsely accusing Coates of being Anonymous

Former President Donald Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro penned a 15-page dossier falsely accusing his colleague Victoria Coates of being Anonymous, according to a copy of the document that was obtained by POLITICO and captures the backbiting that was rife in the Trump White House.

The December 2019 memo goes into great detail to make the case that Coates — who was then a deputy national security adviser — was the author of both the New York Times op-ed and a tell-all book that described a resistance force within the administration aiming to undermine President Donald Trump.

Coates, who is not named in the memo but is clearly identified through specific information, was transferred out of the White House to the Department of Energy in February, just weeks after Navarro wrote and circulated the document.

The dossier lists fifteen bullet points as the likely profile of the author, and several of them turned out to be wrong, including that the person was a “Female With Several Children,” a “Middle East Expert, Pro-Israel, Iran Hawk,” an “Experienced Writer” who had ties to former national security adviser John Bolton and who worked at the National Security Council and not at a Cabinet agency.

The Dec. 2, 2019, memo, entitled “Identity of Anonymous” and which has never been published publicly, seems to reverse-engineer the search for Anonymous and cherry-pick clues to pin the blame on Coates.

The memo — which was riddled with incorrect theories — shows how Anonymous set off significant turmoil inside the White House and also how senior officials were eager to go after their colleagues.

Anonymous turned out to be Miles Taylor, who was the chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security and eventually became an outspoken Trump critic before revealing himself as Anonymous in late October of last year.

Besides pushing a populist trade agenda for Trump, Navarro focused heavily on trying to figure out who Anonymous was. Ironically, for a dossier discussing who Anonymous was, the memo is unsigned. But three former Trump administration officials said that Navarro had written it. Two officials said that he gave it to then-White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in January, who never believed Navarro’s findings.

Navarro did not have a comment.

Mulvaney was “irritated” by Navarro’s memo and told Navarro, “I don’t have time for this,” said one of the former officials.

The person said that Navarro had shared that Trump was “aware” of the memo, and another said that “Navarro was pimping the idea that Victoria was Anonymous to the President.”

Mulvaney declined to comment on the record.

Coates told POLITICO that she had heard that the memo was sent to Trump. A spokesperson for Trump had no comment.

“There is no question in my mind that it got Victoria fired,” said one of the former officials.

Asked why Navarro targeted Coates in the first place, another former official said only he had “decided she was a globalist early on.”

Despite telling CNN in February 2020 that the extent of his hunt was just reading and thinking about the book and op-ed, a person familiar with the matter said that Navarro was clearly circulating his theory around town and that he floated the notion that Coates was Anonymous to a reporter at The Washington Post, but the Post was not able to verify Navarro’s claims. A Post spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Asked by CNN last February if he thought Coates was Anonymous, he said: “Suspects are everywhere.” He also called hunting for the author a “vocation.”

“It’s shocking to realize senior administration officials were so easily duped by this garbage,” Coates said in a statement. “President Trump was not well served.”

The report lists six points that Navarro offered as “major corroborating evidence” that Coates was Anonymous, including that she had written under an anonymous pen name before on a blog and had two “indirect” links to the word “lodestar” and the Flight 93 metaphor used in the book’s epilogue.

Part of the memo discusses Navarro’s contention that because the op-ed and book were made up of “short declarative sentences,” that it was likely that they had the person had written previous op-eds or books.

That helped Navarro point to Coates as the likely author, given that she had written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and a 2016 book called “David’s Sling: A History of Democracy in Ten Works of Art” and helped in the writing of books by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The real author, Taylor, had never written a book before; “A Warning” was his first published book.

The memo also believes that the author is a “Female with Several Children” and points to how Coates dedicated her art history book to her husband and her two kids “who make everything worthwhile.” “A Warning” was dedicated to “My children” even though Taylor currently has no kids. (The book did say: “Certain details have been withheld or modified without changing the facts in order to preserve the anonymity of those involved.”)

The strongest piece of evidence that Navarro seemed to have was Coates’ ties to the two former Rumsfeld aides who started the literary agency that sold Anonymous’ book, Javelin.

“It is an open debate as to whether Javelin is simply a mercenary that will sell anything that will sell or whether it is an agency with a particular Never Trump agenda,” Navarro writes.

While Keith Urbahn and Matt Latimer of Javelin had initially said they would not confirm or deny specific individuals had written “A Warning,” after Coates got on thin ice at the White House because of the Anonymous rumors, they backtracked and publicly denied she was the author.

“To be very clear so there is no chance of any misunderstanding: Dr. Coates is not Anonymous,” Latimer said in a statement last February. “She does not know who Anonymous is. We have never discussed Anonymous or the book, A WARNING, with her prior to its publication. She did not write it, edit it, see it in advance, know anything about it, or as far we know ever read it.”

But that was not enough to save her job, and she was eventually moved to the Department of Energy as the senior policy adviser in late February. (Her boss at the time, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, said in a statement that she had “served the president loyally since the earliest days of the administration” but did not publicly say at the time she wasn’t Anonymous.)

The only “conclusions” listed in the memo appeared to reflect the possibility that Coates wasn’t actually anonymous.

“While there is a reasonable probability that our POI may be Anonymous, our POI may also be innocent,” Navarro wrote. “Extreme care must be taken in any investigation of this matter, and one should presume innocence until actually proven guilty.”