Here & Now

Here & Now for November 1, 2019

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” coverage of House approval of the impeachment resolution. A look ahead to Affordable Care Act enrollment. The sign-up window started today. And an inside look at a new criminal expungement proposal circulating at the State Capitol. It’s “Here & Now” for November 1st.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at the U.S. House of Representatives’ vote to advance the presidential impeachment inquiry into the public phase. The resolution authorizes the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to conduct open hearings and allows the president and his attorneys to cross-examine witnesses once taken up by the Judiciary Committee. That committee would then write any articles of impeachment to be voted on by the House. For his part, President Trump again declares this as a witch hunt and Republicans called the vote part of a “Soviet-style process.” The Democratic leader calls the procedures in the resolution transparent and open. The vote was almost entirely along party lines. In Wisconsin, all Republicans voted against the resolution. All Democrats voted in favor, including U.S. Representative Ron Kind of La Crosse. He joins us now by telephone. And thank you for being here.

Ron Kind:

My pleasure, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Some were wondering whether you would vote yes on this resolution, representing a district carried by Donald Trump in 2016. Why did you vote in favor?

Ron Kind:

First of all, I’ve always been in favor of a full, thorough investigation to get to the bottom of these extremely serious allegations. As a former special prosecutor here in Wisconsin, I know it’s important for us to gather all the facts, all the evidence so we know what an appropriate remedy should look like. But I also remind people, I voted in favor of opening up the Clinton impeachment inquiry back then because I view my role as a co-equal branch of government seriously. We have a Constitutional obligation to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules, including the executive branch. If we don’t do it, no one else will. I think it’s important that we do go forward on the investigation, gather the information in regards to this matter.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the Clinton impeachment, in the end you voted against that. Am I right?

Ron Kind:

I did. That’s correct.

Frederica Freyberg:

What political concerns do you have, though, with voting to proceed to the public phase given your district?

Ron Kind:

Truth? Zero. I don’t think you can make political calculations with something as serious as this. And I’ve always said impeachment needs to be a last resort, a last option. It’s an extraordinary remedy that the founders put in the Constitution in order to check unchecked presidential power and the abuse of that power. And I would hope at the end of the day that we all can agree as Americans that no president should be shaking down another foreign government to get them to do a political hit job on their rival. And yet that’s the basis of the allegation, that President Trump was using leverage over the Ukrainian president. The withholding of military assistance that Congress already appropriated and where our national security is directly involved since Ukraine was invaded by Russia and also withheld a White House visit. Even more than that, there’s a story that came out that said they were withholding trade assistance to Ukrainian now because of the same reason, to get that government to do a political investigation against the Biden family. That, I would hope, is deeply troubling to all Americans.

Frederica Freyberg:

What have your constituents said to you about impeachment of the president and the process?

Ron Kind:

Well, I think they appreciate the gravity of the allegations. I’ve been having a lot of listening sessions and that’s what I hear. Most of them haven’t even read the four-page whistle-blower complaint. That’s another important point here. This was initiated by nonpartisan career intelligence officials working in the White House who are deeply disturbed by what they heard and what they saw the president doing with this foreign government. That’s what initiated this entire investigation, not some political witch hunt. And those are serious allegations I don’t think any member of Congress should take lightly or turn their back to. And that’s why we’ve had witnesses come forward now, to corroborate what was in the whistle-blower. And they have been. And soon that will be leading to public hearings so the American people can be privy to this testimony firsthand.

Frederica Freyberg:

In your mind is quid pro quo, withholding Ukrainian aid unless that country investigated Joe Biden, a necessary element for impeachment?

Ron Kind:

I never believed it is. I don’t know where that standard came from. It’s certainly not in the Constitution. I think just the fact that any president — listen. Any president that is asking a foreign government to do something, there’s an inherent power imbalance with that to begin with. It’s hard for another government to say no to the United States of America because of our military and economic weight throughout the globe. I’ve never thought that was a valid argument. There had to be a showing of some quid pro quo, something for something. But clearly the evidence is pointing in that direction, that he was withholding the military aid. In fact just remember, that aid was finally released a few days after the whistle-blower report came out. So there was pressure on the White House to do it then because everything was blowing up on them. It’s clear now from the testimony that we’ve heard from a lot of the nonpartisan professional people in the White House with firsthand information that that’s exactly what was going on here. So it is troubling. And I did not go to Congress to impeach this president or any president. The last thing on our minds. But, again, if the Congress doesn’t step forward and act as a co-equal branch and assume our Constitutional responsibility to keep an eye on the president and what he’s doing, no one else will. And he would move forward with unfettered, unchecked power, which could prove dangerous to the American people.

Frederica Freyberg:

You touched on this briefly, but what is your response to Republicans who call this merely a witch hunt or a Soviet-style process?

Ron Kind:

Well, it’s funny that they’re not arguing about the facts and the evidence, that they’re attacking the process. They’re trying to make this seem it’s just a political adventure. Yet there’s been no rebuttal at all with the underlying whistle-blower report or the corroborating witnesses and there have been many of them now coming forward with firsthand information. Now, you can argue whether you think this rises to the level of an impeachable offense, but to deny those facts and to try to divert and obstruct attention from it I think is very dangerous because it sends a dangerous signal to this president and future presidents that it’s fair game now, that we can ask foreign governments to meddle in our election process. That was the one thing that our founders feared the most, when they were creating this republic of ours, was outside foreign interference in our domestic affairs.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about…

Ron Kind:

For the first time, we’ve got a president who seems to be actively courting that, not just with Ukraine, but he’s publically called for Russia and China to do the same thing. He’s asked Australia and Great Britain to conduct political investigations against some of his rivals.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about the GOP argument that Democrats are simply trying to undo the results of the 2016 election or preempt the next one for all those Trump voters that are in your district?

Ron Kind:

Well, again, Fred, it wasn’t our call to start this investigation. This was based on a whistle-blower complaint from intelligence career officers in the White House that brought it to our attention. And it would be, I think, extremely irresponsible if we didn’t look into these allegations, if we didn’t interview witnesses to find out what was going on here. So, again, they’re trying to make this into some political football, but we’re responding to a nonpartisan whistle-blower complaint and it was our duty to follow up on that and I think it would be unpatriotic if we didn’t do it.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We need to leave it there. U.S. Representative Ron Kinds, thanks very much for joining us.

Ron Kind:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

We asked Republicans in the Wisconsin delegation to join us. They declined. House Judiciary Committee Member Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner released a statement on the House impeachment resolution saying, “An unfair process can only lead to an unfair result and this entire process,” he says, “has been fundamentally unfair to the president. Just as no American including the president is above the law, no one is below it, either. Yet Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff continue to rob the president of his due process rights. The rules outlined in today’s resolution,” he says, “fall embarrassingly short of any objective fairness and will further damage the credibility of our institution.”

The impeachment process is a dizzying display of partisan divide in our country and our state. In tonight’s closer look, an expert on elections, media, American politics, the presidency, political communication, political behavior and public opinion. He should be able to sort this out. UW-Madison Professor of Journalism Mike Wagner joins us. Sorry to go on and on like that, but you are the expert in all those things and more.

Mike Wagner:

Yikes, thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How much do you think the average Wisconsin voter is tuning into this so-called impeachment showdown?

Mike Wagner:

Well, I think maybe a little bit more than before because some official things have started to happen. So I think people are a little more in tune to it. Change is starting to happen. More Wisconsinites are becoming favorable toward impeachment but still more Wisconsinites are not on board with that as compared to not being on board. I would say the average person is still probably seeing this through the lens of their partisanship and following what elites on their side are saying about President Trump and what should happen to him next.

Frederica Freyberg:

In fact, my next question was do you think that as this progresses, potentially, that this will change the mind of some Trump voters in terms of voting for him?

Mike Wagner:

I think it depends upon what we learn about President Trump throughout this process. I think if we learn much of what’s already been reported, I think people have already then made up their minds about President Trump and those who like him will continue to like him and think this process is unfair. And those who have opposed him will see this as evidence that they were right to oppose him. If we learn more or if there’s more opportunities for more people to explain why the charges against him are problematic for someone in the position of the presidency, that might change some opinions among some Republicans or independents who just honestly, right now are maybe ambivalent or just torn.

Frederica Freyberg:

How resonant do you think the argument on the part of the GOP is that this is just an attempt by Democrats to undo the results of the 2016 election?

Mike Wagner:

The Constitution outlines a process for impeachment. The founders always thought this should be something that should happen. It is not undoing an election. It is in fact doing the Constitutional duty of the House of Representatives. They may ultimately decide they should not impeach the president, but it’s not trying to undo the results of the election. It’s not like Hillary Clinton becomes president if President Trump was impeached and removed. That would really undo the results of the election. Mike Pence, Republican, would become president of the United States.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you believe that voters think of Rudy Giuliani’s so-called shadow diplomacy as no big deal? Or, again, is this just the way the partisan mindset works?

Mike Wagner:

I don’t think that the average voter has been able to learn enough about that behavior to know much more than was it on my side or not. The more we learn about that, which I presume we might in the impeachment inquiry, the more some voters may decide that that’s really particularly troubling because it’s foreign policy being negotiated outside of the apparatus of the executive branch. Really it’s outside of what the Department of State might do or the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security or other relevant departments that engage in foreign policy making. So it could be that the more we learn, the more troubling people’s attitudes become toward it. Or it could be that it was much ado about less than we currently think.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is President Trump’s kind of fighting style attractive to voters potentially, despite the facts?

Mike Wagner:

Again, I would say it’s attractive to his voters. I don’t think it’s attractive to everyone. I think that his strategy to create a cacophony of stories and accusations and wild tweets and statements that are not true are designed to win the short-term news cycle. And the way that impeachment is different is that it’s a long process. President Trump has not really had to go through a long process of a meticulous case being built against him. The Mueller Report was sort of that way but it wasn’t a set of hearings that lasted for months on end. It was drip, drip, drip with some leaks here and there. Then the release of the report and then Mueller comes to Congress but then it sort of stopped. This is something that could go on for a very long time in a sustained way that wouldn’t stop and his strategy may be less effective against that or it may be constantly effective as it has been in turning people’s attention away from the objectionable issue and turning it to the next thing the president wants us to focus on.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel as though this is almost entirely his strategy and that there isn’t a concerted effort?

Mike Wagner:

I don’t know that there’s a set of meetings where they agree on exactly what the president’s going to be tweeting or saying at a news conference or saying as he stands out by the helicopter before it takes off. I think those often come as shocks to his staff, it’s been reported, shocks to Republican leadership and others. And so it seems that so far the strategy for most Republican leaders has been to first say, “I didn’t hear what he said.” And then after they’ve had time to talk about it, end up supporting the president.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is it about the kind of forever-growing partisan divide that make people on both sides cover their ears and shield their eyes in favor of talking points on the part of their favorite party?

Mike Wagner:

I think we’ve all become a little too quick to dismiss any problem with what we might colloquially call “what about-ism.” So, something objectionable is raised about Republicans. And they say, “Oh, what about President Clinton did something else that might be something similar to that. Or a Democrat gets accused of something and the Democrats say, “Well, what about President Trump and all of the things he’s doing.” Rather than just saying this behavior is not okay. Let us address it. People are too quick, I think, to put on their home team colors and defend their side and begin attacking the other.

Frederica Freyberg:

Professor Mike Wagner, thanks very much.

Mike Wagner:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

The new enrollment period for the Federal Health Insurance Exchange, the insurance marketplace, starts today and runs through December 15. In tonight’s look ahead, what’s new for insurance plans? Who can enroll? And where can you get information? For those and other answers, we turn to Adam Van Spankeren, the Covering Wisconsin lead navigator. Thanks for being here.

Adam Van Spankeren:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So as to those questions, what can consumers expect to see in terms of plan options this year?

Adam Van Spankeren:

Sure. There are more plan options than ever in the state and they have, in general — the premiums have gone down by an average of 4%. In some cases, a lot more than that. You have more plan options than ever. I think 61 counties or something like that have three plans at least to choose from.

Frederica Freyberg:

And we were talking just a moment ago about how consumers have to be a little bit careful this year in looking at those plan options because the federal government has allowed a different kind of array.

Adam Van Spankeren:

Sure. So it’s really important that people go to healthcare.gov if they’re actually dealing with the marketplace. At the same time, the plans you’re talking about, the short-term plans are marketed at the same time and they tend to look appealing because they’re cheaper. But they don’t have the same coverage. They don’t necessarily cover pre-existing conditions. They often have a lot of limits. So they don’t adhere to the same ACA rules.

Frederica Freyberg:

And those plans will describe that’s the case?

Adam Van Spankeren:

In the fine print. So it’s important that people know what they’re doing and if they need assistance, they can come to an expert like a navigator, who will help them choose between different options.

Frederica Freyberg:

They can do that by phone, in person or online?

Adam Van Spankeren:

Yes. So they can definitely enroll by themselves at healthcare.gov or by calling, but to work with a person, we like to do it face-to-face because it’s the best outcome for the consumer. It’s the most educational. You get the best result that way. But we can do it over the phone and plan to do that for a lot of the more rural areas of the state.

Frederica Freyberg:

Who is eligible to enroll?

Adam Van Spankeren:

Anyone who is uninsured right now, honestly. Basically, anybody who needs insurance and is over the limit for BadgerCare. And the people who are under the limit for BadgerCare might be eligible for that and we would check for that as well.

Frederica Freyberg:

Who gets subsidies and how much do they offset the premiums?

Adam Van Spankeren:

Sure. The subsidies go up to 400% of the poverty level, which is kind of a useless number, so if you’re thinking, you know, one person I think like $50,000 or a little bit less than that would be 400% of the poverty level. You get help to pay your premium up to that level. Now the lower you are, the more help you get. In some cases, when you’re struggling to make ends meet and you’re not making a lot of money, those premiums can go down dramatically, even as low as like 15 cents.

Frederica Freyberg:

According to state officials, about 400,000 people in Wisconsin were uninsured at some point in 2018. Why has enrollment in the ACA plan slipped?

Adam Van Spankeren:

That’s a really good question. There are a number of factors. One of which is the enrollment period shortened in that time. It used to be three months and now it’s six weeks. And outreach and marketing has stopped. The federal government has stopped marketing the insurance marketplace. So it’s been a burden on a lot of partners and nonprofit groups, our group Covering Wisconsin to really spread the word about open enrollment.

Frederica Freyberg:

Where should people go if they want to get information?

Adam Van Spankeren:

The easiest thing to remember is to call 211 because that is a resource that anyone can do. Just dial 211 and get referred to an assister in your area, maybe a navigator, or call Covering Wisconsin. Go to our website where all our schedules are. Plus we have walk-in events in this area every Saturday and throughout the state.

Frederica Freyberg:

Wow. And also Healthcare.gov.

Adam Van Spankeren:

Always Healthcare.gov. Never dotcom, always Healthcare.gov.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Adam Van Spankeren, thanks very much.

Adam Van Spankeren:

Great. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

New long-form reporting from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism looks at a proposal to make it easier in the state to expunge some nonviolent criminal records. In tonight’s inside look, proponents of a bipartisan legislative bill say such a law change would help people with past records for such things as marijuana possession get jobs or professional licenses, for example. Legal Action of Wisconsin says marijuana expungements could be especially important for those who were convicted decades ago, when first-time even minor possession was often charged as a felony. Here to talk with this issue, Susan Lund of Legal Action of Wisconsin. She joins us from Milwaukee. Thanks for being here.

Susan Lund:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How hard is it currently in Wisconsin to get such criminal records expunged?

Susan Lund:

Well, people call Legal Action every day seeking access to expungement. And when we take those calls, oftentimes they are trying to move forward, right, to have access to education, safe and stable housing, finding family-sustaining work. And what we have to tell a lot of them is that they don’t qualify to petition for expungement because of two main aspects of our current law. The first one is that you have to have been under the age of 25 at the time of the commission of the offense to qualify to petition for expungement. And the second aspect is a pretty unusual procedural requirement that the individual has to have expungement granted at the time of sentencing in order to qualify. So that is very limiting.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. Both those rules seem unusual to me, but, you know, who knows what was going on when they wrote those laws. But what does it mean for a record to be expunged?

Susan Lund:

The practical impact of having a record expunged would mean that the court removes access, public access to that file, in the courthouse and also takes it down from the free and easily searchable court records database online.

Frederica Freyberg:

And presumably employers and landlords and others are accessing that CCAP, as it’s known, those online records available to the public, and finding these criminal records of these people?

Susan Lund:

Yes. The free, searchable court records online in CCAP has been a real game-changer in Wisconsin. It has really enhanced the stigmatizing impact of a criminal conviction because now it’s nearly universal for prospective employers or prospective landlords to do some sort of court record search before they will extend a job offer or housing opportunity.

Frederica Freyberg:

According to Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reporting, arrests for marijuana are the number one drug offense in Wisconsin, affecting they say, nearly 20,000 people in 2018 alone. So in your experiences, is this the kind of case that is most often brought to your office?

Susan Lund:

Folks bring a variety of low level cases to our office seeking expungement, a lot of nonviolent drug possession cases, some public benefits over payments cases, a variety of cases that are impacting their ability to find housing, educational opportunities and employment.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you have a particular case of one of your clients — of course, not naming anyone, but that stands out, of an experience where it just seemed as though this process really hurt their business going forward?

Susan Lund:

Well, one that comes to mind is just last week an individual called our office seeking access to expungement because of a nonviolent conviction on their record from the ’80s. So they were calling because they’d served their sentence and they’d paid all their court fees and they hadn’t thought about this case in decades, but just this month they had applied for a job and been turned down based on it. So I easily pulled the record of that case up on online and I saw what they were talking about. So that’s just something that has come into our office in the last month that sticks with me.

Frederica Freyberg:

The Wisconsin Policy Forum says that more than 80,000 cases could be eligible for expungement under the proposed law change. What are the significant changes under the bill that would broaden the ability for expungement to that extent?

Susan Lund:

Sure. A couple of the aspects of the proposal is it removes the age requirement, right? So the person would no longer have to be under the age of 25 to qualify to ask a judge for expungement. The second thing is it does remove this unusual procedural requirement that a judge would have to order expungement at the time of sentencing, which, again, is just — it’s the punishment phase of the case and judges are understandably reluctant to order expungement at that time, and so that limiting aspect of the current law is removed in the proposal. A third thing is that the proposal makes this retroactive, so it would mean that people who were previously sentenced under the old expungement law could now have a process to petition for expungement. And a fourth component that’s important is the proposal makes clear that it would now be unlawful employment discrimination to deny an individual a job based on an expunged conviction.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We will watch the progress of that legislative bill. Susan Lund, thanks very much for explaining it to us.

Susan Lund:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

You can see the full Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism report by going to WisconsinWatch.org.

Now for an update on the achievement gap between white and black students in Wisconsin. This week the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s report card, released results finding Wisconsin has the widest achievement gap in the country. Scores show the gap between black and white students increasing in both math and reading. Of the students who took the test last spring, white 4th graders scored an average of 227 in reading, whereas black 4th graders scored 188, widening the score gap by seven points since 2017. In math, white 4th graders scored 249, while black students scored an average of 212, increasing the gap by one point. The Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction said the results indicate “crisis” and that closing the gap is imperative for the state.

And that is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television