We want to plant a tree in your name. TOM STEYER.

DAVID, what if making our planet safer and healthier could start with a single tree? A problem as massive as the climate crisis can feel overwhelming. Tom has plans to take bold action to protect our planet, starting with declaring a state of emergency on day one of his presidency. He’s also pledged to plant 1.2 trillion trees around the world to offset the destruction of our natural sources of oxygen — and he wants to start now. Become a volunteer with Team Tom, and we’ll plant a tree in your honor. A single tree can process and remove one ton of carbon over its lifetime, help reduce urban heat islands, and support countless animal and plant species. Imagine what hundreds of brand-new trees will do over the next few decades — and what hundreds of new volunteers can do to talk to folks about the importance of prioritizing the climate crisis. What are you waiting for?

I'll volunteer

Thanks! Team Tom

Stopping Trump's unlawful "gag rule" in court. BOB FERGUSON.

David -- Last month, my team and I asked the 9th Circuit Court to reinstate an injunction against the Trump administration’s Title X “gag rule.” This “gag rule” is a thinly-veiled attack on Planned Parenthood and a direct attack upon the women in our state. I’m committed to stopping this unlawful attack. Trump has no right to insert his politics between women and their health care providers. As any judge or lawyer will tell you, winning an injunction against a policy is difficult. Even if the court does not reinstate the injunction we won in front of a federal judge in Yakima, we will continue presenting our evidence that the “gag rule” is unlawful and unconstitutional. This case will ultimately be decided at the United States Supreme Court. We have not lost a single lawsuit against the administration yet. We will continue standing up to President Trump’s ideological attacks on women’s health care. More updates to come, Bob DONATE

POLITICO: “Support for impeaching Trump hits new high”

This is HUGE: Since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, polls show support for impeachment rising.

But in order to hold Trump accountable, we need to know where grassroots Democrats stand. Tell us before midnight:

Should Donald Trump be impeached? YES NO

THE MUELLER REPORT AND TESTIMONY, ARTICLES AND POSTS, START TO FINISH: LETTING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OFF THE HOOK.

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."
IF THIS IS THE ONLY DEFINITION USED, THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT CLEARS UP NOTHING, AND OPENS
UP SOME DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES.

HOW SO?

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS THE 
SOLE MEASUREMENT FOR PROSECUTION, IT LEAVES US WITH  THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO #1- A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE ENLISTS A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER WITH A PLAN TO AID DONALD TRUMP, BY GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT IS ANECDOTAL IN NATURE, AND FULL OF INNUENDO AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.

SCENARIO #2- A TRUMP ELECTION OFFICIAL APPROACHES A RUSSIAN NATIONAL,WHO CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN THE U.S. THE REASON? HE ASKS THE BUSINESSMAN IF HE COULD OBTAIN "SPECIAL INFORMATION" THAT WOULD AID DONALD TRUMP IN WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES, NOT ACCUSATIONS. THE POINT IS THIS: IF SCENARIOS LIKE THIS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ONES DID OCCUR, NO LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHY? BECAUSE IN NEITHER CASE WAS THE DEFINITION OF PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT MET.

REMEMBER, IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE "TRUMP CAMPAIGN," AND THE "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" HAD TO BOTH BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST ONE. THE EXAMPLES OF A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER, OR A RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN, SHOW US THAT "COLLUSION," OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" COULD OCCUR. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEING INNOCENT OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS, AS THE SUMMARY LETTER IMPLIES, WOULD BE VALID, EVEN IF CRIMINAL ACTS WERE PRESENT IN BOTH SCENARIOS.

THE CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THIS: THE DEFINITION USED BY THE MUELLER COMMITTEE IS SO NARROW, WHEN REFERRING TO "COORDINATION" TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW(S), THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF "CONSPIRACY" OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", BUT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED UNLESS THERE WAS A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. 

THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE AGENTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE "OFFICIAL " APPROVAL OF THE LEADESHIP. IN FACT, AGENTS OF ONE OR BOTH COULD HAVE BEEN "ENCOURAGED" TO ACT IN A CERTAIN MANNER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, BUT WITHOUT AN ACKNOWLEDGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE "OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP," NO ONE COULD BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY. THIS EXTREMELY NARROW DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY MADE "CONSPIRACY", "COORDINATION", OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" PERFECTLY LEGAL.