The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Sunday refused to participate in an MSNBC panel to discuss the importance of black women voters.
In an open letter to the DNC Chairman Tom Perez last week, a group of Democratic black women noted that “Black women voters are the very foundation to a winning coalition, yet most Black voters feel like the Democrats take them for granted.”
“This February, in the DNC elections, we saw an increase in overall diversity within the officer ranks, but no increase in leadership representation of Black women,” the letter pointed out. “We have demonstrated our commitment to the Party. It is time for the Party to demonstrate its commitment to us. We stand ready to join you, your team, and Party leadership on the front lines — but not as silent partners.”
Political strategist L. Joy Williams, one of the signatories of the letter to Perez, told MSNBC host Joy Reid that the problem “was not something new.”
“Noticably absent is an investment and a listening tour of black women leaders and black women as a voting block when were are primarily the most loyal voting block to the party,” Williams said.
According to Williams, the DNC made no effort to respond to the letter until the party was contacted by MSNBC.
“The Democratic Party has become so obsessed with trying to figure out and psych out white working class voters that they are forgetting that black voters really are the core of the base,” Reid explained.
And although the Democratic Party provided a spokesperson — Associate Chair Jaime Harrison — he refused to appear on the panel with Williams.
“In the interest of full disclosure to our viewers, we wanted Jaime to join the panel with L. Joy and [Krystal Ball], but the DNC preferred that he respond one-on-one,” Reid revealed.
Watch the video below.
Watergate’s John Dean thinks Trump wrote part of his legal team’s brief — because it’s so terrible
Former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, John Dean, explained that the legal brief out of President Donald Trump's White House was so bad that it had to have been dictated by Trump himself.
Saturday evening, Trump's legal team, chaired by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, filed their own form of a legal brief that responded to the case filed by Democrats ahead of Tuesday's impeachment trial.
The document called the proceedings “constitutionally invalid” and claims House Democrats are staging a “dangerous attack” with a “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.”
WATCH: Prince Harry explains why he and Meghan are leaving the royal family — but promises ‘a life of service’
Prince Harry posted a video from an HIV/AIDS fundraiser his mother once supported, where he explained his methodology for leaving his profile role as a royal.
"I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear," said Harry.
He went on to say that he doesn't intend to walk away and he certainly won't walk away from his causes and interests. "We intend to live a life of service."
In the speech, he thanked those who took him under their wing in the absence of his mother
"I hope you can understand that it's what it had come to," he said for why their family intends to step back.
‘You cannot expect anything but fascism’: Pedagogy theorist on how Trump ‘legitimated a culture of lying, cruelty and a collapse of social responsibility’
The impeachment of Donald Trump appears to be a crisis without a history, at least a history that illuminates, not just comparisons with other presidential impeachments, but a history that provides historical lessons regarding its relationship to a previous age of tyranny that ushered in horrors associated with a fascist politics in the 1930s. In the age of Trump, history is now used to divert and elude the most serious questions to be raised about the impeachment crisis. The legacy of earlier presidential impeachments, which include Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, provide a comparative historical context for analysis and criticism. And while Trump’s impeachment is often defined as a more serious constitutional crisis given his attempt to use the power of the presidency to advance his personal political agenda, it is a crisis that willfully ignores the conditions that gave rise to Trump’s presidency along with its recurring pattern of authoritarian behavior, policies, and practices. One result is that the impeachment process with its abundance of political theater and insipid media coverage treats Trump’s crimes as the endpoint of an abuse of power and an illegal act, rather than as a political action that is symptomatic of a long legacy of conditions that have led to the United States’ slide into the abyss of authoritarianism.