thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Trump Administration Violated Religious Liberty Of Border Volunteers, Judge Finds

The Trump administration has spent years cracking down on the work of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes , a Unitarian Universalist ministry in Arizona that provides water and food to migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the border where dozens have died .
Various members of No More Deaths have faced fines and even jail for what they consider to be faith-based , life-saving humanitarian aid .
The case against the four volunteers ― Natalie Hoffman , Oona Holcomb , Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick ― goes back to December 2017 , a year when 32 sets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prieta National Wildlife Refuge .
The volunteers were charged with misdemeanors for entering the wildlife refuge without proper permits and leaving behind jugs of water and cans of beans , which the government called abandonment of property .
The volunteers ’ defense hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ( RFRA ) .
The law states that if a defendant can prove that the government is substantially burdening her “ sincerely held religious beliefs , ” then the government has to show that it ’ s using the “ least restrictive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right , as the Trump administration would have us believe .
Parker Deighan , spokesperson for No More Deaths RFRA initially had broad bipartisan support .
But more recently , the religious right has been using RFRA as a way to secure exemptions for conservative beliefs about abortion and LGBTQ rights .
The evangelical Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores famously used RFRA to avoid paying for insurance coverage for contraception .
During testimonies , the four described feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by beliefs about the sanctity of human life .
They also spoke about taking moments of silence in the refuge to reflect on the suffering of those crossing the desert .
In its response to the volunteers ’ appeal , the government argued that their beliefs were not truly religious because they didn ’ t explain how they fit into a “ particular system of religious or spiritual beliefs.
” The government also asserted that the volunteers were “ draping religious garb ” over “ secular philosophical concerns.
” In her opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims can ’ t be dismissed just because they described their beliefs in broad terms and don ’ t belong to an established religion .
She pointed out that religious and political motivations overlapped in the Hobby Lobby case .
That Supreme Court verdict has shown that government faces an “ exceptionally demanding ” obligation to be minimally restrictive while imposing on a person ’ s religious exercise , Márquez said .
Márquez ’ s decision comes months after another No More Deaths volunteer , Scott Warren , was acquitted of a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge for migrants .
The judge in that case also acknowledged that Warren ’ s action was protected by his right to religious freedom .
That was one of the first times progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected in this way , the Law , Rights , and Religion Project told HuffPost in November .
Franke said there are other cases where progressive people of faith are making religious exemption claims .
The Rev .
Kaji Douša , a New York pastor and immigrant rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her religious freedom when she was detained and placed on a watch list for ministering to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border .
The government has “ trivialized ” Douša ’ s RFRA claims and urged the court to dismiss them , Franke said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration, which often boasts about defending religious liberty, has violated the religious rights of a group of volunteers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Trump administration has spent years cracking down on the work of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a Unitarian Universalist ministry in Arizona that provides water and food to migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the border where dozens have died. Various members of No More Deaths have faced fines and even jail for what they consider to be faith-based, life-saving humanitarian aid.
Advertisement
But for the second time in months, a judge has ruled that the government shouldn’t be punishing these volunteers for putting their faith into practice.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled Monday that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” As a result, the government substantially burdened the volunteers’ religious liberty by prosecuting them for this work, Marquez said.
“Given Defendants’ professed beliefs, the concentration of human remains on the [refuge], and the risk of death in that area, it follows that providing aid on the [refuge] was necessary for Defendants to meaningfully exercise their beliefs,” the judge wrote.
Márquez’s ruling reversed the decision of a lower court, where another judge dismissed the volunteers’ religious liberty claims and sentenced them to probation and fines last March.
Advertisement
A federal judge has ruled that four volunteers who left water and food for migrants at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge were acting according to their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” From left, they are Natalie Hoffman, Madeline Huse, Zaachila Orozco-McCormick, and Oona Holcomb. Courtesy No More Deaths
The case against the four volunteers ― Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick ― goes back to December 2017, a year when 32 sets of human remains were recovered from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The volunteers were charged with misdemeanors for entering the wildlife refuge without proper permits and leaving behind jugs of water and cans of beans, which the government called abandonment of property.
The volunteers’ defense hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The law states that if a defendant can prove that the government is substantially burdening her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” then the government has to show that it’s using the “least restrictive” path to achieving its goals.
“This ruling shows that religious freedom is not just for the Christian right, as the Trump administration would have us believe.” - Parker Deighan, spokesperson for No More Deaths
RFRA initially had broad bipartisan support. But more recently, the religious right has been using RFRA as a way to secure exemptions for conservative beliefs about abortion and LGBTQ rights. The evangelical Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores famously used RFRA to avoid paying for insurance coverage for contraception.
Advertisement
Under Trump, the Department of Justice has urged a narrow reading of RFRA claims made by people of faith who do not share the administration’s policy goals, according to Katherine Franke, faculty director of Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
“The Trump Department of Justice has taken a biased approach to defending and enforcing religious liberty rights under RFRA, robustly protecting the rights of conservative Evangelical Christians while prosecuting people whose faith moves them to oppose the government’s policies,” Franke told HuffPost in an email.
Michael Bailey, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Arizona, said his team has no issue with Márquez’s finding that strong religious beliefs motivated the defendants’ acts.
“We highly value religious freedom without regard to where on the spectrum one’s beliefs might fall,” Bailey told HuffPost in a statement.
A volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths delivers water along a trail used by undocumented immigrants in the desert on May 10, 2019 near Ajo, Arizona. John Moore via Getty Images
Advertisement
No More Deaths is a Unitarian Universalist ministry. But all four volunteers are technically religiously unaffiliated, which means they are part of a growing group of Americans who decline to identify with any specific religious tradition.
During testimonies, the four described feeling a spiritual calling to volunteer, inspired by beliefs about the sanctity of human life. They also spoke about taking moments of silence in the refuge to reflect on the suffering of those crossing the desert.
Holcomb said that she had constructed a “personal altar” at her home that included a ring of water bottles she picked up in the desert.
“There is ... for me, I will say, like a deep spiritual need and a calling to do work based on what I believe in the world,” Holcomb testified, according to the judge’s opinion.
In its response to the volunteers’ appeal, the government argued that their beliefs were not truly religious because they didn’t explain how they fit into a “particular system of religious or spiritual beliefs.” The government also asserted that the volunteers were “draping religious garb” over “secular philosophical concerns.”
Advertisement
In her opinion, Márquez said that the volunteers’ RFRA claims can’t be dismissed just because they described their beliefs in broad terms and don’t belong to an established religion. She pointed out that religious and political motivations overlapped in the Hobby Lobby case. That Supreme Court verdict has shown that government faces an “exceptionally demanding” obligation to be minimally restrictive while imposing on a person’s religious exercise, Márquez said.
Ultimately, the government had failed to demonstrate that prosecuting the volunteers was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest, the judge said.
Scott Warren, a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths, walks into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to deliver food and water along remote desert trails used by undocumented immigrants on May 10, 2019, near Ajo, Arizona. John Moore via Getty Images
Márquez’s decision comes months after another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, was acquitted of a federal misdemeanor charge for leaving water jugs in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge for migrants. The judge in that case also acknowledged that Warren’s action was protected by his right to religious freedom. That was one of the first times progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected in this way, the Law, Rights, and Religion Project told HuffPost in November.
Franke said there are other cases where progressive people of faith are making religious exemption claims. The Rev. Kaji Douša, a New York pastor and immigrant rights activist, claims the federal government violated her religious freedom when she was detained and placed on a watch list for ministering to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The government has “trivialized” Douša’s RFRA claims and urged the court to dismiss them, Franke said.
Advertisement
In Philadelphia, the DOJ is trying to prevent a faith-based overdose prevention organization from opening a safe injection site, arguing that its “true motivation is socio-political or philosophical — not religious — and thus not protected by RFRA.”
Franke said that when Congress passed RFRA in 1993, the statute was meant to protect the religious liberty of people across a wide spectrum of beliefs, “not just some, and certainly not only those who hold religious beliefs that were shared with the current federal administration.”
Parker Deighan, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, told HuffPost that Márquez’s ruling on Monday reaffirms that “providing humanitarian aid is never a crime.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Bernie Madoff Asks To Be Released From Prison Due To Failing Health

NEW YORK , Feb 5 ( Reuters ) - Bernard Madoff is dying of kidney failure and seeking early “ compassionate release ” from his 150-year prison sentence for masterminding what prosecutors have called the largest Ponzi scheme ever , according to a court filing on Wednesday .
Madoff , 81 , suffers from terminal kidney failure and has less than 18 months to live , according to the filing from his lawyer .
He is seeking release under the First Step Act , a bipartisan law signed in December 2018 that lets some older prisoners obtain freedom , often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty in 2009 to orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history .
He 's now seeking early release from prison .
A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan , whose office prosecuted Madoff , declined to comment .
Madoff pleaded guilty in March 2009 to 11 criminal counts for running what prosecutors called a $ 64.8 billion fraud .
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin called Madoff ’ s crimes “ extraordinarily evil ” when he imposed the 150-year sentence in June 2009 .
Bernard Ebbers , the former WorldCom Inc chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December from his 25-year prison sentence for orchestrating an accounting scandal at his phone company .
He died on Sunday at age 78 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW YORK, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Bernard Madoff is dying of kidney failure and seeking early “compassionate release” from his 150-year prison sentence for masterminding what prosecutors have called the largest Ponzi scheme ever, according to a court filing on Wednesday.
Madoff, 81, suffers from terminal kidney failure and has less than 18 months to live, according to the filing from his lawyer.
Advertisement
He is seeking release under the First Step Act, a bipartisan law signed in December 2018 that lets some older prisoners obtain freedom, often for health reasons.
Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty in 2009 to orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history. He's now seeking early release from prison. ASSOCIATED PRESS
A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan, whose office prosecuted Madoff, declined to comment.
Madoff pleaded guilty in March 2009 to 11 criminal counts for running what prosecutors called a $64.8 billion fraud.
Advertisement
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin called Madoff’s crimes “extraordinarily evil” when he imposed the 150-year sentence in June 2009.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Barnes & Noble Cancels Black History Month Covers After Backlash

The store planned to host an event Wednesday evening launching its new “ Diverse Editions ” project , which would showcase ” classic ” books ― like “ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz ” and “ Moby-Dick ” ― with new covers illustrating the main characters as people of color .
The store planned to feature the newly jacketed books in its window display all month .
People on Twitter suggested Barnes & Noble promote diversity by featuring works by actual writers of color .
Most of the books the bookseller created new covers for , including “ Emma ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Adventures in Wonderland ” by Lewis Carroll , were written by white authors and feature white protagonists .
“ You have to look at the obstacles already facing writers from marginalized communities , ” Frederick Joseph , who is Black and the author of the upcoming “ The Black Friend : On Being a Better White Person , ” told HuffPost .
“ Instead of platforming Black writers during Black History Month , they ’ re basically doing blackface .
They ’ re using our imagery , our likeness , to still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is also Black , noted how Barnes & Noble chose to invest significant time and funding on making over “ all these old stories by predominantly white authors featuring white characters ” rather than put those resources into boosting Black authors .
“ The covers are not a substitute for black voices or writers of color , whose work and voices deserve to be heard , ” the bookseller wrote , saying it created the project to “ help drive engagement with these classic titles , ” as well as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black History Month.
” It noted that its stores in February would “ highlight a wide selection of books to celebrate black history and great literature from writers of color.
” McKinney suggested Barnes & Noble reconsider “ what the canon classic is , ” noting that many of the books they planned to feature come from an era in American history when Black people were segregated and pushed out of education and work opportunities by law .
“ Because we didn ’ t get a chance to get our foot in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up being this way , ” McKinney said , adding that if Barnes & Noble wanted to celebrate classics during Black History Month , they should have modernized the covers of books by W.E.B .
Dubois , Maya Angelou , James Baldwin — “ our greats , ” as she put it .
The statistics are stark when it comes to the lack of diversity in the publishing industry .
Just 6 % of children ’ s and young adult books published in the U.S. in 2018 were written by Black authors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Book Center .
About 76 % of publishing industry staff in the U.S. was white and 5 % Black in 2019 , according to a survey from Lee & Low Books released last month .
The survey results came from nearly 8,000 responses from employees at more than 150 publishers and literary agencies across the U.S. Carla Bruce-Eddings , senior publicist at Catapult , Counterpoint Press and Soft Skull Press , noted how diversity in publishing has “ barely shifted ” in the past four years , pointing to the Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when 79 % of publishing staff identified as white .
“ And yet , when the time comes to take action , during Black History Month , they effectively ‘ color-wash ’ the covers of books that actually don ’ t need extra promotion .
It ’ s maddening , ” Bruce-Eddings said .
“ It feels like yet another instance of powerful gatekeepers sitting around and coming to a baffling , tone-deaf decision , and being surprised by the immediate backlash.
” Meanwhile , there are many groups working hard to promote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as to expand racial diversity in the publishing industry , such as Well-Read Black Girl , People of Color in Publishing and Latinx in Publishing .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Major bookseller Barnes & Noble canceled a Black History Month initiative at its flagship Fifth Avenue store in New York City after public backlash.
The store planned to host an event Wednesday evening launching its new “Diverse Editions” project, which would showcase ”classic” books ― like “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and “Moby-Dick” ― with new covers illustrating the main characters as people of color. The store planned to feature the newly jacketed books in its window display all month.
Advertisement
But after significant outrage online, the company canceled the initiative midday Wednesday.
People on Twitter suggested Barnes & Noble promote diversity by featuring works by actual writers of color. Most of the books the bookseller created new covers for, including “Emma” by Jane Austen and “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll, were written by white authors and feature white protagonists.
“You have to look at the obstacles already facing writers from marginalized communities,” Frederick Joseph, who is Black and the author of the upcoming “The Black Friend: On Being a Better White Person,” told HuffPost. “Instead of platforming Black writers during Black History Month, they’re basically doing blackface. They’re using our imagery, our likeness, to still sell white narratives.”
Author Elle McKinney, who is also Black, noted how Barnes & Noble chose to invest significant time and funding on making over “all these old stories by predominantly white authors featuring white characters” rather than put those resources into boosting Black authors.
“It’s literary blackface,” she echoed.
If Barnes & Noble was serious about this #BlackHistoryMonth celebration, they would feature and push renditions of the "classics" actually written by Black authors. — LL McKinney (@ElleOnWords) February 5, 2020
Advertisement
At WNDB we believe diversity goes beyond book covers; it needs to be present in the specificity of the storytelling.
For #BlackHistoryMonth, here are picture, MG, and YA books about Black characters by Black authors and illustrators — across genres. What are your faves? pic.twitter.com/1EPbFCu4Ch — WeNeedDiverseBooks (@diversebooks) February 5, 2020
Barnes & Noble said in its statement canceling the project that it acknowledged “the voices who have expressed concerns about the Diverse Editions project.”
“The covers are not a substitute for black voices or writers of color, whose work and voices deserve to be heard,” the bookseller wrote, saying it created the project to “help drive engagement with these classic titles,” as well as to “help raise awareness and discussion during Black History Month.” It noted that its stores in February would “highlight a wide selection of books to celebrate black history and great literature from writers of color.”
A Barnes & Noble spokesperson told HuffPost Thursday that the project “looked to identify books that did not specify race for the protagonist.”
McKinney suggested Barnes & Noble reconsider “what the canon classic is,” noting that many of the books they planned to feature come from an era in American history when Black people were segregated and pushed out of education and work opportunities by law.
Advertisement
“Because we didn’t get a chance to get our foot in the door, the canon by default ended up being this way,” McKinney said, adding that if Barnes & Noble wanted to celebrate classics during Black History Month, they should have modernized the covers of books by W.E.B. Dubois, Maya Angelou, James Baldwin — “our greats,” as she put it.
“I’d much rather young Black people be able to read Black stories about Black people by Black people.” - Frederick Joseph
The statistics are stark when it comes to the lack of diversity in the publishing industry. Just 6% of children’s and young adult books published in the U.S. in 2018 were written by Black authors, according to data from the Cooperative Children’s Book Center.
About 76% of publishing industry staff in the U.S. was white and 5% Black in 2019, according to a survey from Lee & Low Books released last month. The survey results came from nearly 8,000 responses from employees at more than 150 publishers and literary agencies across the U.S.
Carla Bruce-Eddings, senior publicist at Catapult, Counterpoint Press and Soft Skull Press, noted how diversity in publishing has “barely shifted” in the past four years, pointing to the Lee & Low Books survey from 2015, when 79% of publishing staff identified as white.
Advertisement
“And yet, when the time comes to take action, during Black History Month, they effectively ‘color-wash’ the covers of books that actually don’t need extra promotion. It’s maddening,” Bruce-Eddings said. “It feels like yet another instance of powerful gatekeepers sitting around and coming to a baffling, tone-deaf decision, and being surprised by the immediate backlash.”
“At this point, one has to wonder if these are genuine blunders or calculated publicity stunts,” she added.
Meanwhile, there are many groups working hard to promote works by authors of color, as well as to expand racial diversity in the publishing industry, such as Well-Read Black Girl, People of Color in Publishing and Latinx in Publishing.
In terms of how to repair Barnes & Noble’s misstep, Joseph had some suggestions.
“Take some of the Black narratives we already have and lift them,” he said, listing books by Toni Morrison and Zora Neale Hurston.
“Barnes & Noble is a powerhouse and could absolutely change the game for someone like myself,” he added. “I’d much rather young Black people be able to read Black stories about Black people by Black people.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Trump Accuses Romney Of ‘Posing As A Republican’ During Impeachment Vote

President Donald Trump released a conspiracy theory-laden video Wednesday disparaging Sen. Mitt Romney after the Republican from Utah announced he was voting to convict him in the Senate impeachment trial over abuse of power .
“ Slick , slippery , stealthy Mitt Romney had us fooled , ” the video he tweeted starts out .
“ Posing as a Republican , he tried to infiltrate Trump ’ s administration as Secretary of State .
Now his cover ’ s blown , exposed by news reports as a Democrat secret asset.
” The video then suggests that Romney threw the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee for president vying to unseat President Barack Obama .
“ That was a race , I have to say , folks , that should have been won , ” Trump says in one of the clips included in the video .
Romney , one of Trump ’ s few consistent critics in the GOP , became the sole Republican to split from the party on Wednesday when he slammed the president for pressuring the Ukrainian government to open an investigation that could benefit his chances for reelection later this year , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust , ” Romney said on the Senate floor .
“ What he did was not perfect .
No , it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights , our national security and our fundamental values.
” Romney , however , voted to acquit the president on the other charge that he obstructed Congress .
His announcement was largely symbolic , though , as the Senate had enough Republicans to acquit Trump on both charges .
Sens .
Susan Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-Alaska ) , the two other members who have flirted with breaking from their party on impeachment , both announced earlier this week that they would not vote to convict Trump .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump released a conspiracy theory-laden video Wednesday disparaging Sen. Mitt Romney after the Republican from Utah announced he was voting to convict him in the Senate impeachment trial over abuse of power.
“Slick, slippery, stealthy Mitt Romney had us fooled,” the video he tweeted starts out. “Posing as a Republican, he tried to infiltrate Trump’s administration as Secretary of State. Now his cover’s blown, exposed by news reports as a Democrat secret asset.”
Advertisement
The video then suggests that Romney threw the race in 2012 when he was the Republican nominee for president vying to unseat President Barack Obama.
“That was a race, I have to say, folks, that should have been won,” Trump says in one of the clips included in the video.
Romney, one of Trump’s few consistent critics in the GOP, became the sole Republican to split from the party on Wednesday when he slammed the president for pressuring the Ukrainian government to open an investigation that could benefit his chances for reelection later this year, all while threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine.
Advertisement
“The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” Romney said on the Senate floor. “What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values.”
Romney, however, voted to acquit the president on the other charge that he obstructed Congress.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--U.S. Citizen Dies In Border Patrol Custody In South Texas

The man , identified as James Paul Markowitz , was arrested Tuesday after being identified as a suspect in a “ smuggling case ” involving undocumented immigrants , U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said in a statement to HuffPost .
Border Patrol agents assigned to a station in Brackettville , Texas , arrested Markowitz at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday , according to the statement .
Markowitz started showing signs of distress during processing at the station and EMT-certified agents administered first aid , the agency said .
He was transferred to a local hospital and pronounced dead at 9:37 p.m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which first reported on the death , CBP said Markowitz exhibited signs of distress around 6 p.m .
Emergency services arrived on the scene at 6:40 p.m. to transport the patient according to the agency .
In a media release on Wednesday , CBP also said agents assigned to the Brackettville station arrested a U.S. citizen who was driving a Dodge Charger after stopping the vehicle on U.S. Highway 277 .
It ’ s unclear if the death is related to that arrest , though the federal agency said one of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The press release did not include any details on why agents pulled over the Dodge Charger .
According to the press release , the agents arrested a second U.S. citizen , identified as a 25-year-old , who was driving a Jeep Renegade with five other occupants in the vehicle .
The 25-year-old suspect failed to yield to the agents , prompting agents to disable the vehicle with a controlled tire deflation device near the city of Del Rio , which is close to the U.S. Mexico border .
CBP agents arrested all six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on foot .
The statement did not address whether the incidents were related , though Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Raul L. Ortiz said they both involved “ smugglers.
” “ The swift response of our agents and law enforcement partners helped put a stop to an extremely dangerous situation , ” Ortiz said in a statement .
“ Smugglers continue to endanger the lives of those in our communities without hesitation .
Thanks to the excellent communication and cooperation between our agents and law enforcement partners , the pursuit ended safely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A 32-year-old U.S. citizen died in custody of Border Patrol agents in South Texas, the government agency announced Wednesday.
The man, identified as James Paul Markowitz, was arrested Tuesday after being identified as a suspect in a “smuggling case” involving undocumented immigrants, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said in a statement to HuffPost.
Advertisement
Border Patrol agents assigned to a station in Brackettville, Texas, arrested Markowitz at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, according to the statement. Markowitz started showing signs of distress during processing at the station and EMT-certified agents administered first aid, the agency said. He was transferred to a local hospital and pronounced dead at 9:37 p.m.
In a statement to BuzzFeed, which first reported on the death, CBP said Markowitz exhibited signs of distress around 6 p.m. Emergency services arrived on the scene at 6:40 p.m. to transport the patient according to the agency.
The statement provided to HuffPost did not include further details surrounding Markowitz’s health or death.
Jinitzail Hernández via Getty Images
Advertisement
In a media release on Wednesday, CBP also said agents assigned to the Brackettville station arrested a U.S. citizen who was driving a Dodge Charger after stopping the vehicle on U.S. Highway 277.
It’s unclear if the death is related to that arrest, though the federal agency said one of the people arrested was a 32-year-old U.S. citizen. The press release did not include any details on why agents pulled over the Dodge Charger.
According to the press release, the agents arrested a second U.S. citizen, identified as a 25-year-old, who was driving a Jeep Renegade with five other occupants in the vehicle. The 25-year-old suspect failed to yield to the agents, prompting agents to disable the vehicle with a controlled tire deflation device near the city of Del Rio, which is close to the U.S. Mexico border.
CBP agents arrested all six occupants of the car after they fled on foot.
The statement did not address whether the incidents were related, though Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Raul L. Ortiz said they both involved “smugglers.”
“The swift response of our agents and law enforcement partners helped put a stop to an extremely dangerous situation,” Ortiz said in a statement. “Smugglers continue to endanger the lives of those in our communities without hesitation. Thanks to the excellent communication and cooperation between our agents and law enforcement partners, the pursuit ended safely with no injuries to the community or law enforcement.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Will Mitt Romney Face Punishment For Having A Conscience?

WASHINGTON ― With Sen. Mitt Romney ’ s ( R-Utah ) somewhat surprising announcement Wednesday that he would vote with Democrats to convict President Donald Trump over abuse of power in the Senate impeachment trial , the rest of the Senate GOP is confronting a new question : Should they do something about Romney ?
It ’ s a slightly ridiculous question ― all Romney was doing was voting his conscience ― but in the current GOP , where being a Republican means supporting Trump , senators all have to consider what they now say and do about their colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced , ” Romney said on the Senate floor during his emotional statement .
“ I ’ m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters.
” Romney said his willingness to face the abuse shows how strongly he feels he made the right choice to vote for the first of Democrats ’ articles of impeachment .
( He voted against the second . )
“ Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded of me ?
” he said .
There are plenty of ways for the GOP to potentially punish Romney .
Some are as simple ― and petty ― as no longer inviting him to the weekly Republican lunches .
Some involve stripping him of committee assignments , or making sure he gets less enviable assignments in the future .
And some consequences are less direct ; Romney will long be a pariah in this GOP .
That retribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might be satisfying to formally ostracize Romney from the party .
But then Republicans have one less Republican in the chamber , even if Romney votes with them the vast majority of the time .
For purposes of controlling the Senate , even for purposes of unanimous consent requests ― a standard procedure where the Senate suspends certain rules with no objection ― all that could be jeopardized by punishing Romney .
That is probably the smartest advice , but it would be unsatisfying to the most bloodthirsty Republicans , particularly when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age generally just means supporting Trump .
One of the House GOP impeachment surrogates , Rep. Debbie Lesko ( R-Ariz. ) , inadvertently made it clear how she views membership to her party when she argued that Romney was the only Republican to support impeachment .
While that statement is true , that ’ s partially because Rep. Justin Amash ( I-Mich. ) left the party over Trump .
Lesko did say she didn ’ t think punishing Romney was a good idea .
“ I would just , like , leave it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s one person and , you know , so what ?
” If Trump began tweeting similar sentiments as his son , many Republicans would instantly be put in a difficult position : They ’ ve defined their conservatism by their support for Trump , so splitting from the president , particularly in the more Republican states , could be perilous .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― With Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) somewhat surprising announcement Wednesday that he would vote with Democrats to convict President Donald Trump over abuse of power in the Senate impeachment trial, the rest of the Senate GOP is confronting a new question: Should they do something about Romney?
It’s a slightly ridiculous question ― all Romney was doing was voting his conscience ― but in the current GOP, where being a Republican means supporting Trump, senators all have to consider what they now say and do about their colleague.
Advertisement
Except for the president’s adult son, who said Romney should be expelled from the party, Republicans were mostly evasive about Romney Wednesday.
“It’s a personal decision,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “I don’t agree with it, but I respect his right to vote the way he sees fit.”
“Who can answer that question, ‘What’s the future of another senator?’ I mean, that’s for him to determine with Utah,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) told HuffPost.
Romney said he fully anticipated all kinds of recrimination from the president’s supporters.
“I’m aware there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced,” Romney said on the Senate floor during his emotional statement. “I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters.”
Advertisement
In this screengrab taken from a Senate Television webcast, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate on Feb. 5, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Handout via Getty Images
Romney said his willingness to face the abuse shows how strongly he feels he made the right choice to vote for the first of Democrats’ articles of impeachment. (He voted against the second.)
“Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded of me?” he said.
There are plenty of ways for the GOP to potentially punish Romney. Some are as simple ― and petty ― as no longer inviting him to the weekly Republican lunches. Some involve stripping him of committee assignments, or making sure he gets less enviable assignments in the future. And some consequences are less direct; Romney will long be a pariah in this GOP.
But the most extreme punishment would be expelling him from the conference.
That retribution cuts both ways. For Republicans, it might be satisfying to formally ostracize Romney from the party. But then Republicans have one less Republican in the chamber, even if Romney votes with them the vast majority of the time. For purposes of controlling the Senate, even for purposes of unanimous consent requests ― a standard procedure where the Senate suspends certain rules with no objection ― all that could be jeopardized by punishing Romney.
Advertisement
Republicans could be well-served to just try and forget Romney breaking ranks. Focusing on Romney’s decision will only draw more attention to the president’s actions.
That is probably the smartest advice, but it would be unsatisfying to the most bloodthirsty Republicans, particularly when being a Republican in this day and age generally just means supporting Trump.
One of the House GOP impeachment surrogates, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), inadvertently made it clear how she views membership to her party when she argued that Romney was the only Republican to support impeachment. While that statement is true, that’s partially because Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) left the party over Trump.
“He’s definitely not a Republican,” Lesko said of Amash, who has one of the most ideologically conservative voting records in Congress.
Lesko did say she didn’t think punishing Romney was a good idea. “I would just, like, leave it alone,” she said. “He’s one person and, you know, so what?”
Advertisement
But some Republicans are already calling for retribution. Donald Trump Jr. repeatedly affixed the hashtag “ExpelMitt” to tweets Wednesday, and he said the 2012 Republican presidential nominee was “forever bitter” that he’d never be president.
“He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now,” Trump Jr. tweeted. “He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be expelled from the @GOP.”
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham already issued a statement Wednesday after the impeachment vote where she referred to Romney as a “failed Republican presidential candidate.”
While Senate Republicans didn’t initially seem overly eager about expelling Romney on Wednesday, that could quickly change if President Trump got behind the idea.
If Trump began tweeting similar sentiments as his son, many Republicans would instantly be put in a difficult position: They’ve defined their conservatism by their support for Trump, so splitting from the president, particularly in the more Republican states, could be perilous.
Advertisement
The question now is: How much ire will Romney draw?
The Utah Senator seems at peace with his decision, and at 71 years old, he may not be thinking of running for reelection in 2024.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Fox News Hosts Freak Out Over 'Priggish' Mitt Romney's Vote To Convict Trump

Tucker Carlson , Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham each launched attacks on Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) after he became the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump in his impeachment trial .
Trump was later acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate .
Carlson refused to say Romney ’ s name on his show .
“ That senator shall go unnamed on this show on the grounds that silly moral preening should not be rewarded with the publicity it is designed to garner , ” he said in this segment : “ Clearly , losing a presidential election ruins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” host , who frequently defends Trump and has promised to campaign for the president ’ s re-election .
He later suggested Romney “ clearly can not accept and get over the fact he lost ” to former President Barack Obama in 2012 .
“ The difference between him ( Romney ) and Donald Trump is Donald Trump fought every single day , was tough , and tough enough to win , ” he added .
“ Mitt , you made your stand .
Now you should resign , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of Utah , on the Republican Party , on the Constitution and have thoroughly embarrassed yourself.
” Laura Ingraham says Mitt Romney should resign : `` You committed a fraud on the people of Utah , on the Republican Party , on the Constitution '' pic.twitter.com/c1pFKloKbH — Jason Campbell ( @ JasonSCampbell ) February 6 , 2020 Ingraham also gave Romney a new nickname with this tweet :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News prime time hosts jumped into full-on defense of President Donald Trump mode on Wednesday night.
Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham all used their popular cable shows to attack Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) after he was the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump in his impeachment trial. Trump was later acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate.
Advertisement
Carlson refused to say Romney’s name on his show.
“That senator shall go unnamed on this show on the grounds that silly moral preening should not be rewarded with the publicity it is designed to garner,” Carlson said in this segment:
Tucker Carlson refuses to say Mitt Romney’s name pic.twitter.com/TIhkE5YCqg — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) February 6, 2020
Hannity claimed Romney “is now a diminished figure.”
“Clearly, losing a presidential election ruins people,” said the “Hannity” host, a reliable Trump defender who has promised to campaign for the president’s reelection. He later suggested Romney “clearly cannot accept and get over the fact he lost” the 2012 presidential election to former President Barack Obama.
“The difference between him (Romney) and Donald Trump is Donald Trump fought every single day, was tough, and tough enough to win,” Hannity added.
Advertisement
Ingraham, meanwhile, demanded Romney quit the Senate.
“Mitt, you made your stand. Now you should resign,” the cable personality said. “You committed a fraud on the people of Utah, on the Republican Party, on the Constitution and have thoroughly embarrassed yourself.”
Check out the clip here:
Laura Ingraham says Mitt Romney should resign: "You committed a fraud on the people of Utah, on the Republican Party, on the Constitution" pic.twitter.com/c1pFKloKbH — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) February 6, 2020
Ingraham also gave Romney a new nickname with this tweet:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Lou Dobbs Unleashes On ‘Judas’ Mitt Romney With A List Of Notorious Traitors

In the eyes of Lou Dobbs , Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) can now be marked alongside Judas , Brutus and Benedict Arnold as traitors in the history books .
The Fox Business host trashed the senator Wednesday after Romney voted to convict President Donald Trump of abuse of power in the Senate impeachment trial .
Romney , the sole Republican to vote against Trump , called the president ’ s actions “ grievously wrong ” and “ a flagrant assault on our electoral rights , our national security and our fundamental values ” in a historic Senate floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw Trump acquitted on both charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Dobbs celebrated the president ’ s acquittal on his “ Lou Dobbs Tonight ” show and had strong words for the senator ’ s “ betrayal.
” “ Romney is going to be associated with Judas , Brutus , Benedict Arnold forever when he is not even a footnote in a footnote otherwise , because of his betrayal , ” Dobbs told his guest , Ed Rollins , co-chair of the pro-Trump Great America PAC .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Actually operating as if he ’ s got several personalities , and all of them coming together for this one vote today in which he simply is pitiful .
He ’ s pathetic.
” Earlier Wednesday , Donald Trump Jr. had jumped to his father ’ s defense in a Twitter rant suggesting Romney should be “ expelled from the GOP.
” “ Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS .
He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he ’ s joining them now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump supporters to tweet using the # ExpelMitt hashtag .
Dobbs echoed this rhetoric on his show , calling on Fox Business viewers to vote on Romney ’ s fate , labeling him a RINO , Republican in name only .
Lou Dobbs called on Fox News viewers to vote on whether Romney should be booted from the Republican Party .
The president took the expulsion rhetoric one step further , releasing a conspiracy-laden video suggesting “ slick , slippery ” Romney had been a Democratic mole .
“ Posing as a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s administration as Secretary of State .
Now his cover ’ s blown , exposed by news reports as a Democrat secret asset.
” Romney had acknowledged in an interview with The Atlantic before the vote that his decision to vote outside party lines would leave him an outcast on the political right .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In the eyes of Lou Dobbs, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) can now be marked alongside Judas, Brutus and Benedict Arnold as traitors in the history books.
The Fox Business host trashed the senator Wednesday after Romney voted to convict President Donald Trump of abuse of power in the Senate impeachment trial.
Advertisement
Romney, the sole Republican to vote against Trump, called the president’s actions “grievously wrong” and “a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values” in a historic Senate floor speech before the vote, which ultimately saw Trump acquitted on both charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Dobbs celebrated the president’s acquittal on his “Lou Dobbs Tonight” show and had strong words for the senator’s “betrayal.”
He blasted Romney, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as the “big losers” of the scenario.
“Romney is going to be associated with Judas, Brutus, Benedict Arnold forever when he is not even a footnote in a footnote otherwise, because of his betrayal,” Dobbs told his guest, Ed Rollins, co-chair of the pro-Trump Great America PAC.
Advertisement
“The man obviously is confused” Dobbs said. “Actually operating as if he’s got several personalities, and all of them coming together for this one vote today in which he simply is pitiful. He’s pathetic.”
“The most self-important, sanctimonious, silly son-of-a-gun there is,” he added.
Earlier Wednesday, Donald Trump Jr. had jumped to his father’s defense in a Twitter rant suggesting Romney should be “expelled from the GOP.”
“Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now,” he tweeted, prompting fellow Trump supporters to tweet using the #ExpelMitt hashtag.
Dobbs echoed this rhetoric on his show, calling on Fox Business viewers to vote on Romney’s fate, labeling him a RINO, Republican in name only.
Advertisement
Lou Dobbs called on Fox News viewers to vote on whether Romney should be booted from the Republican Party. Fox Business
The president took the expulsion rhetoric one step further, releasing a conspiracy-laden video suggesting “slick, slippery” Romney had been a Democratic mole.
“Posing as a Republican, he tried to infiltrate Trump’s administration as Secretary of State. Now his cover’s blown, exposed by news reports as a Democrat secret asset.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Senator Susan Collins Gambles Her 'Moderate' Reputation On Impeachment Vote

Her vote to call witnesses could save face back home in Maine where 71 % of voters said senators should “ insist ” on introducing new documents and witnesses during the trial , according to a poll conducted by the Garin Hart Yang Research Group and released last month .
A recent CNN poll found Maine voters were split on whether Trump should be removed from office , however .
Collins ’ maneuvering throughout the impeachment trial was a carefully orchestrated balancing act .
Behind the scenes , she pushed her party to give at least the appearance of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and closing arguments by both the House managers and Trump ’ s defense team .
But even with her vote to allow witnesses , few observers actually expected her to vote to convict Trump and anger his most ardent supporters , especially considering that McConnell had already secured the necessary majority to acquit him anyway .
During the proceedings , Collins made headlines for taking jabs at the Democratic House impeachment managers .
She chided Rep. Jerry Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) for accusing the Senate of engaging in a cover-up by blocking witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts a note that resulted in an admonishment of both Nadler and White House counsel Pat Cipollone .
And when Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) mentioned during his arguments a CBS News report that the White House threatened to punish GOP senators who voted against Trump , Collins shook her head and said , “ not true.
” “ There were many points during this process when Senator Collins could have demanded witnesses and evidence , but instead , she voted twelve times to block them , ” Maine House Speaker Sara @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge Collins , said in a statement last week .
“ It was only when Senate Republicans knew they had the votes to block witnesses that Mitch McConnell gave Senator Collins a hall pass to break with her party for political cover.
” “ I had no meetings with Mitch McConnell on how I was going to vote on witnesses .
None .
Zero .
I think it ’ s tremendously sexist .
After all , I don ’ t hear anyone on the far left saying that [ Mitt ] Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , referring to the Utah GOP senator who voted in lockstep with her on the issue of witnesses .
Maine ’ s Senate race has shaped up to be one of the more-watched contests in 2020 with vast amounts of money pouring in from out of state .
Winning Collins ’ seat is key for Democrats hoping to flip the Senate in November .
A crowdfunding campaign organized around the Kavanaugh vote has raked in millions of dollars for whoever wins the Democratic nomination .
Collins , a self-proclaimed “ pro-choice ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times since taking office in 1997 and a Democrat hasn ’ t held her seat since 1979 .
But the backlash against her voting record in recent years suggests she could find herself in a close race this time around , and Democrats are confident that Trump ’ s impeachment trial will resonate enough with voters to boost their chances of retaking the Senate in November .
“ I think there ’ s probably a bunch of Republicans in a position where they ’ re damned no matter what they do politically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said this week .
“ If you vote against the president , then his base is going to come calling .
If you vote to defend what he did , then you don ’ t look terribly independent-minded .
I think that ’ s a problem for a lot of Republicans.
” Still , there ’ s some reason to be skeptical that the events in recent weeks will create a lasting impression on the public , especially with nine months until the election and likely dozens of turbulent Trump-fueled news cycles until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention the impeachment trial drew on Capitol Hill .
Compared to the huge protests over Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearing , Trump ’ s impeachment trial barely drew a handful of sign-toting protesters outside the Capitol every day .
“ I personally don ’ t think it has been nearly as divisive as Kavanaugh was .
One , because everybody knew what was going to happen .
With Kavanaugh , one or two folks were undecided .
Nobody ever had any reason to think that the president would be removed from office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) said .
Collins said this week that she believes Trump learned “ a big lesson ” from the impeachment trial and suggested he will be “ more cautious ” about potentially seeking foreign interference in the future .
( She later said it may have been more accurate for her to say she “ hopes ” Trump learned a lesson . )

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Susan Collins’ (R-Maine) vote for hearing from new witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial wasn’t enough to make a difference in the result, particularly given her vote to acquit him on Wednesday.
But there’s one place where it could make a difference: Collins’ political career.
As she faces her toughest reelection battle yet in Maine, Collins has attempted to show independent-minded Maine voters that she remains willing to buck her party when the moment calls for it.
Advertisement
But like many of her votes against the party line, Collins’ support for allowing witnesses couldn’t overcome opposition from nearly every other Republican senator, who voted last week to block witnesses and other evidence from the trial, culminating in Trump’s acquittal on Wednesday.
“I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office,” Collins said on Tuesday, echoing other Republicans who argued that Trump’s conduct, while “wrong,” didn’t merit his conviction.
Collins’ tendency to stick with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Trump and the Republican Party on key votes ― including voting for Trump’s tax bill in 2017 and, in 2018, voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite several sexual misconduct allegations against him ― has sparked backlash.
Since voting against repealing Obamacare in 2017, Collins’ support among Maine voters has suffered, and it dropped even further after her vocal support for Kavanaugh’s nomination. Last month, a Morning Consult tracking poll showed the Maine Republican had surpassed McConnell as the most unpopular senator in the country.
Advertisement
Her vote to call witnesses could save face back home in Maine where 71% of voters said senators should “insist” on introducing new documents and witnesses during the trial, according to a poll conducted by the Garin Hart Yang Research Group and released last month. A recent CNN poll found Maine voters were split on whether Trump should be removed from office, however.
Collins’ maneuvering throughout the impeachment trial was a carefully orchestrated balancing act. Behind the scenes, she pushed her party to give at least the appearance of a fair trial by insisting on longer opening and closing arguments by both the House managers and Trump’s defense team. But even with her vote to allow witnesses, few observers actually expected her to vote to convict Trump and anger his most ardent supporters, especially considering that McConnell had already secured the necessary majority to acquit him anyway.
Ahead of opening arguments, Collins joined Republicans in voting against several Democratic motions to subpoena witnesses and documents during the impeachment trial. In explaining her decision, she said she first needed to hear the case and ask questions.
During the proceedings, Collins made headlines for taking jabs at the Democratic House impeachment managers. She chided Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) for accusing the Senate of engaging in a cover-up by blocking witnesses, sending Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts a note that resulted in an admonishment of both Nadler and White House counsel Pat Cipollone. And when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) mentioned during his arguments a CBS News report that the White House threatened to punish GOP senators who voted against Trump, Collins shook her head and said, “not true.”
Democrats laughed off Collins’ maneuvering on the floor, accusing her of voting to include witnesses in the trial only after receiving approval from Republican leadership.
Advertisement
“There were many points during this process when Senator Collins could have demanded witnesses and evidence, but instead, she voted twelve times to block them,” Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, one of the Democrats running to challenge Collins, said in a statement last week. “It was only when Senate Republicans knew they had the votes to block witnesses that Mitch McConnell gave Senator Collins a hall pass to break with her party for political cover.”
But Collins forcefully denied the charge, which she called “tremendously sexist.” In an interview earlier this week, she said she felt no pressure from McConnell.
“I had no meetings with Mitch McConnell on how I was going to vote on witnesses. None. Zero. I think it’s tremendously sexist. After all, I don’t hear anyone on the far left saying that [Mitt] Romney got a hall pass,” Collins said, referring to the Utah GOP senator who voted in lockstep with her on the issue of witnesses.
Maine’s Senate race has shaped up to be one of the more-watched contests in 2020 with vast amounts of money pouring in from out of state. Winning Collins’ seat is key for Democrats hoping to flip the Senate in November. A crowdfunding campaign organized around the Kavanaugh vote has raked in millions of dollars for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
Several Democrats in addition to Gideon are vying for the chance to unseat Collins: former gubernatorial candidate Betsy Sweet, former Google executive Ross LeJeunesse, attorney Bre Kidman and travel agent Michael Bunker. Two independent candidates ― attorney Tiffany Bond and call center worker Danielle VanHelsing ― and Maine Green Independent Party candidate Lisa Savage are also running.
Advertisement
Collins, a self-proclaimed “pro-choice” moderate, has easily won reelection three times since taking office in 1997 and a Democrat hasn’t held her seat since 1979. But the backlash against her voting record in recent years suggests she could find herself in a close race this time around, and Democrats are confident that Trump’s impeachment trial will resonate enough with voters to boost their chances of retaking the Senate in November.
“I think there’s probably a bunch of Republicans in a position where they’re damned no matter what they do politically,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said this week. “If you vote against the president, then his base is going to come calling. If you vote to defend what he did, then you don’t look terribly independent-minded. I think that’s a problem for a lot of Republicans.”
Still, there’s some reason to be skeptical that the events in recent weeks will create a lasting impression on the public, especially with nine months until the election and likely dozens of turbulent Trump-fueled news cycles until then. One sign is the lackluster attention the impeachment trial drew on Capitol Hill. Compared to the huge protests over Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Trump’s impeachment trial barely drew a handful of sign-toting protesters outside the Capitol every day.
“I personally don’t think it has been nearly as divisive as Kavanaugh was. One, because everybody knew what was going to happen. With Kavanaugh, one or two folks were undecided. Nobody ever had any reason to think that the president would be removed from office,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.
Collins said this week that she believes Trump learned “a big lesson” from the impeachment trial and suggested he will be “more cautious” about potentially seeking foreign interference in the future. (She later said it may have been more accurate for her to say she “hopes” Trump learned a lesson.)
Advertisement
On Wednesday, it was another senator who boldly broke with the Republican Party by voting to convict Trump of abuse of power over his dealings with Ukraine.
“Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke, and the censure of my own conscience,” Romney said on the Senate floor Wednesday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Washington Post, New York Times Editorial Boards Warn Donald Trump: 'It's Not Over'

The editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times on Wednesday each issued searing responses to the GOP-controlled Senate ’ s vote to acquit Donald Trump on impeachment charges , warning the president may now feel able to act however he wants .
The Post ’ s board— in a column titled “ It ’ s not over .
Congress must continue to hold Trump accountable ” — predicted Trump would take his acquittal over the Ukraine scandal “ as vindication and license for further improper actions.
” “ That makes it incumbent upon responsible members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do what they can to protect the integrity of the November election , as well as that of the Constitution , ” it wrote .
Given how Trump “ has said he would accept dirt on an opponent if it were offered by a foreign government , ” the Post ’ s board said there is “ no reason to believe that Russia , Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes favored by Mr. Trump won ’ t try to help his campaign , as Russia did in 2016.
” The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Donald Trump , under the guidance of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , pictured , as “ a joke at the Constitution ’ s expense.
” “ If evidence of such interference or other wrongdoing emerges , Congress must not hesitate to pursue it , ” it continued .
“ Mr .
Trump ’ s supporters crow that the impeachment investigation backfired politically , boosting the president ’ s poll ratings .
Even if that is true , it must not deter Congress from holding the president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial concluded .
“ The lesson of the Ukraine affair must not be that there is no remedy for a president who would use his powers to undermine U.S. democracy.
” The Times ’ board , meanwhile , suggested Trump can now “ do whatever it takes to win re-election , and the Republican Party will have his back.
” It described the Senate impeachment trial of Trump , under the guidance of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) who successfully blocked witnesses from testifying , as “ a joke at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It did illustrate , however , how beholden Republicans are to Mr. Trump and his destructive approach to leadership , ” it added .
“ In that sense , the trial provided an important service to Americans , clarifying the stakes in the coming election.
” The Times also claimed the 2020 presidential election “ is a critical opportunity to defend the Republic through the straightforward expedient of voting Mr. Trump from office and thereby issuing an essential rebuke to the leaders of today ’ s Republican Party .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times on Wednesday issued searing responses to the GOP-controlled Senate’s vote to acquit Donald Trump on impeachment charges, warning the president may now feel empowered to act however he wants.
The Post, in an editorial titled “It’s not over. Congress must continue to hold Trump accountable,” predicted Trump would take his acquittal “as vindication and license for further improper actions.”
Advertisement
“That makes it incumbent upon responsible members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do what they can to protect the integrity of the November election, as well as that of the Constitution,” the newspaper’s board wrote.
Given how Trump “has said he would accept dirt on an opponent if it were offered by a foreign government,” the Post’s said there is “no reason to believe that Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes favored by Mr. Trump won’t try to help his campaign, as Russia did in 2016.”
The New York Times editorial board described the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, under the guidance of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pictured, as “a joke at the Constitution’s expense.” ASSOCIATED PRESS
“If evidence of such interference or other wrongdoing emerges, Congress must not hesitate to pursue it,” the Post continued.
Advertisement
“Mr. Trump’s supporters crow that the impeachment investigation backfired politically, boosting the president’s poll ratings. Even if that is true, it must not deter Congress from holding the president to account,” the Post’s editorial concluded. “The lesson of the Ukraine affair must not be that there is no remedy for a president who would use his powers to undermine U.S. democracy.”
The Times editorial board, meanwhile, suggested Trump can now “do whatever it takes to win re-election, and the Republican Party will have his back.” It described the Senate impeachment trial of Trump, under the guidance of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who successfully blocked witnesses from testifying, as “a joke at the Constitution’s expense.”
“It did illustrate, however, how beholden Republicans are to Mr. Trump and his destructive approach to leadership,” it added. “In that sense, the trial provided an important service to Americans, clarifying the stakes in the coming election.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--New York Daily News Declares ‘Long National Nightmare’ Far From Over

The New York Daily News on Thursday went dark to mark the GOP-controlled Senate ’ s vote to acquit Donald @ @ @ @ @ the Ukraine scandal .
The tabloid ’ s front page declared in big white letters @ @ @ @ @ “ Our Long National Nightmare Is Over ( Far From It ) ” above a @ @ @ @ @ : “ GOP lackeys rubber-stamp Trump acquittal , ” the newspaper , which has a @ @ @ @ @ , wrote underneath .
It teased an accompanying story that detailed “ the shortest and @ @ @ @ @ history.
” Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch ’ s New York Post , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ with this cover : The Washington Post , New York Times and USA TODAY also @ @ @ @ @ news : A look at Thursday 's paper : President Trump acquitted : Hours of @ @ @ @ @ ; Buttigieg 's narrow lead over Sanders , others is still holding up in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ USATODAY ) February 6 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The New York Daily News on Thursday went dark to mark the GOP-controlled Senate’s vote to acquit Donald Trump on impeachment charges.
The tabloid’s front page declared in big white letters on a black background that “Our Long National Nightmare Is Over (Far From It)” above a smaller image of the smiling president:
Advertisement
Republican lackeys rubber-stamp Trump acquittal after shortest impeachment trial in history https://t.co/2f3HlkSa9y pic.twitter.com/yqwHb0u4fL — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 6, 2020
“GOP lackeys rubber-stamp Trump acquittal,” the newspaper, which has a long history of anti-Trump covers, wrote underneath.
It teased an accompanying story that detailed “the shortest and only witness-free impeachment trial in history.”
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, meanwhile, celebrated Trump’s acquittal with this cover:
Advertisement
The Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today also gave top spot to the news:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Top Biden Campaign Adviser Won't Say Iowa Caucus Data Is Accurate

As the Iowa Democratic Party worked through Wednesday to clarify the outcome of Monday night ’ s botched caucuses , a top campaign surrogate for former Vice President Joe Biden declined to say whether his campaign believes the data reported so far is accurate .
Speaking to CNN ’ s Brianna Keilar , Biden adviser Symone Sanders hammered the party for its string of failures while refusing to say whether she believes the numbers that have been reported .
“ I guess we ’ ll have to take the Iowa Democratic Party at their word , ” she said toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closest she came to voicing support for the data .
While a series of disastrous technical problems has prevented the party from releasing the full results of the caucus , there is no evidence to suggest the results are flawed .
Party officials expressed confidence on Tuesday that the data had not been subject to hacking or manipulation .
Watch this .
Biden adviser @ SymoneDSanders will NOT say she believes the data coming in from Iowa is correct .
This is not going to help anyone trust the process .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa Democratic party at their word . ''
pic.twitter.com/s0dYhaoWX0 — Zach Wolf ( @ zbyronwolf ) February 5 , 2020 They pinned the delay on a “ coding error ” in an app that was supposed to be used to document results .
A phone line that officials could call with questions about the app was also backlogged on Monday , fueling the confusion .
When asked point-blank whether she thought the data was correct , Sanders replied that she had “ not analyzed the back ends of the data.
” “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implored to the Iowa Democratic Party are two things : One , we have to make sure we get it right .
Getting it right means checking , checking again and triple-checking .
Making sure that there is a paper trail , ” Sanders said .
“ Don ’ t try to paint this as we ’ re trying to say this is some kind of conspiracy theory , OK ?
” She wasn ’ t the only Biden campaign official questioning the results of Iowa ’ s caucus .
Kate Bedingfield , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications director , told CNN on Tuesday morning that the campaign has “ real concerns about the integrity of the process ” and that the party ’ s mistakes “ should raise concerns for voters.
” After Buttigieg , the limited information released so far shows Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in second place and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
in third , according to the number of state delegate equivalents won by each candidate .
By another metric ― the popular vote ― the preliminary results show Sanders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden have led the candidate to go on the attack on the campaign trail in New Hampshire , where he questioned Sanders ’ commitment to socialism and pointed out Buttigieg ’ s relative inexperience .
The Biden campaign has written a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party demanding “ an opportunity to respond ” to the results before they are made public , and calling for a full explanation of what happened to be delivered to each campaign .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As the Iowa Democratic Party worked through Wednesday to clarify the outcome of Monday night’s botched caucuses, a top campaign surrogate for former Vice President Joe Biden declined to say whether his campaign believes the data reported so far is accurate.
Partial results released Tuesday afternoon showed former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the lead, with Biden in fourth place despite having enjoyed a long stint as the Democratic front-runner.
Advertisement
Speaking to CNN’s Brianna Keilar, Biden adviser Symone Sanders hammered the party for its string of failures while refusing to say whether she believes the numbers that have been reported.
“I guess we’ll have to take the Iowa Democratic Party at their word,” she said toward the end of the interview ― the closest she came to voicing support for the data.
While a series of disastrous technical problems has prevented the party from releasing the full results of the caucus, there is no evidence to suggest the results are flawed. Party officials expressed confidence on Tuesday that the data had not been subject to hacking or manipulation.
Watch this. Biden adviser @SymoneDSanders will NOT say she believes the data coming in from Iowa is correct.
This is not going to help anyone trust the process. "I guess we'll have to take the Iowa Democratic party at their word." pic.twitter.com/s0dYhaoWX0 — Zach Wolf (@zbyronwolf) February 5, 2020
Advertisement
They pinned the delay on a “coding error” in an app that was supposed to be used to document results. A phone line that officials could call with questions about the app was also backlogged on Monday, fueling the confusion.
When asked point-blank whether she thought the data was correct, Sanders replied that she had “not analyzed the back ends of the data.”
“What we are saying and what we have implored to the Iowa Democratic Party are two things: One, we have to make sure we get it right. Getting it right means checking, checking again and triple-checking. Making sure that there is a paper trail,” Sanders said. “Don’t try to paint this as we’re trying to say this is some kind of conspiracy theory, OK?”
She wasn’t the only Biden campaign official questioning the results of Iowa’s caucus. Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager and communications director, told CNN on Tuesday morning that the campaign has “real concerns about the integrity of the process” and that the party’s mistakes “should raise concerns for voters.”
After Buttigieg, the limited information released so far shows Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in second place and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in third, according to the number of state delegate equivalents won by each candidate. By another metric ― the popular vote ― the preliminary results show Sanders in the lead.
Advertisement
The disappointing results for Biden have led the candidate to go on the attack on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, where he questioned Sanders’ commitment to socialism and pointed out Buttigieg’s relative inexperience.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--In Unhinged Propaganda Rally, Trump Proclaims Victory After Impeachment Acquittal

In more than an hour of improvisational ramblings that appeared more like propaganda than a White House event , President Donald Trump on Thursday declared victory the day after Senate Republicans acquitted him in impeachment proceedings that were largely favorable toward him .
As the former reality television host walked to his lectern , he received a standing ovation while “ Hail to the Chief ” played , before launching into an unhinged riff targeting some of his favorite and most frequently mentioned subjects , listing them off in a Mad Libs-like frenzy .
The speech , which resembled his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the East Room , typically reserved for more measured and sometimes somber official White House events .
“ We had the witch hunt .
It started the day we came down the elevator , ” he said , referring to his campaign launch in June of 2015 .
“ And it never really stopped.
” “ It was evil , it was corrupt , it was dirty cops , it was leakers , it was liars , and no president should ever have to go through this , ” he continued .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We went through hell , unfairly , ” Trump continued , after pontificating on various subjects , as he does at his campaign rallies .
“ We did nothing wrong.
” “ It ’ s the only good headline I ’ ve ever had in The Washington Post , ” he said of the newspaper , a frequent subject of his attacks against the media .
At the end of his hour-plus remarks , he offered his only apology : to his family “ for having them have to go through a phony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sick people.
” On Wednesday , in an expected party-line vote , the Republican majority in the Senate voted to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
During the trial , they voted down Democrats ’ efforts to demand witness testimony and documents , which Trump and the White House had repeatedly refused to provide .
“ The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust , ” he said on the Senate floor .
“ What he did was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagrant assault on our electoral rights , our national security and our fundamental values.
” “ As everybody knows , my family , our great country and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people , ” he said .
“ They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing very badly hurt our nation.
” His East Room remarks were similarly an airing of grievances , before turning into an extended thank-you speech , as if he were accepting an Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks to thanking numerous Republican lawmakers and allies , sometimes taking personal credit for their electoral victories .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In more than an hour of improvisational ramblings that appeared more like propaganda than a White House event, President Donald Trump on Thursday declared victory the day after Senate Republicans acquitted him in impeachment proceedings that were largely favorable toward him.
As the former reality television host walked to his lectern, he received a standing ovation while “Hail to the Chief” played, before launching into an unhinged riff targeting some of his favorite and most frequently mentioned subjects, listing them off in a Mad Libs-like frenzy.
Advertisement
The speech, which resembled his ad-libbed campaign rallies, was held in the East Room, typically reserved for more measured and sometimes somber official White House events.
“We had the witch hunt. It started the day we came down the elevator,” he said, referring to his campaign launch in June of 2015. “And it never really stopped.”
“It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops, it was leakers, it was liars, and no president should ever have to go through this,” he continued. “Dirty cops. Bad people.”
“We went through hell, unfairly,” Trump continued, after pontificating on various subjects, as he does at his campaign rallies. “We did nothing wrong.”
Advertisement
He then held up the front page of Thursday’s Washington Post, with the headline “Trump Acquitted.”
“It’s the only good headline I’ve ever had in The Washington Post,” he said of the newspaper, a frequent subject of his attacks against the media.
President Donald Trump holds a copy of The Washington Post as he speaks in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. ASSOCIATED PRESS
“We first went through Russia, Russia, Russia. It was all bullshit,” he continued, with his remarks turning into a comedy roast at times.
At the end of his hour-plus remarks, he offered his only apology: to his family “for having them have to go through a phony, rotten deal by some very evil and sick people.”
On Wednesday, in an expected party-line vote, the Republican majority in the Senate voted to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. During the trial, they voted down Democrats’ efforts to demand witness testimony and documents, which Trump and the White House had repeatedly refused to provide.
Advertisement
Only one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), joined the Democratic minority in voting to convict Trump on the abuse of power article.
“The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” he said on the Senate floor. “What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values.”
Trump and his allies immediately began attacking the senator and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, including spreading conspiracy theories, such as suggesting “slick, slippery, stealthy Mitt Romney” threw the 2012 race, which he lost to President Barack Obama.
Earlier Thursday, Trump also went after Romney in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, traditionally a venue where presidents have promoted bipartisanship.
Instead, Trump treated the event — attended by lawmakers of both parties, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — as an airing of grievances.
Advertisement
“As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people,” he said. “They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing very badly hurt our nation.”
His East Room remarks were similarly an airing of grievances, before turning into an extended thank-you speech, as if he were accepting an Academy Award. He devoted much of his remarks to thanking numerous Republican lawmakers and allies, sometimes taking personal credit for their electoral victories.
While thanking House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Trump spent several minutes graphically detailing the 2017 shooting that wounded Scalise and several other lawmakers, police officers and aides.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--DNC Chairman Tom Perez Calls For Recanvass In Iowa Caucuses

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said Thursday that he ’ s calling for a recanvass of the results in the Iowa caucuses .
Perez tweeted about his demand for the Iowa Democratic Party following days of chaos over a third-party caucus app failing to properly submit results .
Carrying out a recanvass , he said , is essential to “ assure public confidence in the results.
” Enough is enough .
In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to immediately begin a recanvass .
— Tom Perez ( @ TomPerez ) February 6 , 2020 IDP ’ s recanvass plan involves a hand audit of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to ensure they were correctly tallied and reported .
By comparison , a recount would be a hand count and audit of presidential preference cards ― which caucusgoers use to vote ― to ensure they were correctly tallied and reported in those worksheets and reporting forms .
When it comes to requesting a precinct-level review of Iowa caucus results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following in its delegate plan on pages 9 , 10 and 11 : https : //t.co/qlp2F688PO pic.twitter.com/SII29ZmjFj — Chris Keller ( @ ChrisLKellerLAT ) February 6 , 2020 Two people familiar with the matter told CNN that the IDP did not have advance warning of Perez ’ s announcement .
Later , IDP Chair Troy Price released a statement reiterating the party ’ s commitment to reporting accurate results and said it ’ s up to candidates to request a recanvass .
“ Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IDP is prepared , ” Price said .
With 97 % of precincts reporting Thursday , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) remain closely tied for first place in Iowa .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) trail behind them .
Amid the kerfuffle happening at the party level , both Sanders and Buttigieg have declared themselves victorious in Iowa .
However , he ’ s expected to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of national delegates toward the nomination as Buttigieg , who declared himself the winner on Monday night before any results had come out .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said Thursday that he’s calling for a recanvass of the results in the Iowa caucuses.
Perez tweeted about his demand for the Iowa Democratic Party following days of chaos over a third-party caucus app failing to properly submit results. Carrying out a recanvass, he said, is essential to “assure public confidence in the results.”
Advertisement
Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass. — Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 6, 2020
IDP’s recanvass plan involves a hand audit of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to ensure they were correctly tallied and reported. By comparison, a recount would be a hand count and audit of presidential preference cards ― which caucusgoers use to vote ― to ensure they were correctly tallied and reported in those worksheets and reporting forms.
When it comes to requesting a precinct-level review of Iowa caucus results, the Iowa Democratic Party put forth the following in its delegate plan on pages 9, 10 and 11: https://t.co/qlp2F688PO pic.twitter.com/SII29ZmjFj — Chris Keller (@ChrisLKellerLAT) February 6, 2020
Two people familiar with the matter told CNN that the IDP did not have advance warning of Perez’s announcement. Later, IDP Chair Troy Price released a statement reiterating the party’s commitment to reporting accurate results and said it’s up to candidates to request a recanvass.
Advertisement
“Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan request a recanvass, the IDP is prepared,” Price said.
With 97% of precincts reporting Thursday, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) remain closely tied for first place in Iowa. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) trail behind them.
Amid the kerfuffle happening at the party level, both Sanders and Buttigieg have declared themselves victorious in Iowa.
“A margin of 6,000 votes is pretty decisive,” Sanders told reporters Thursday shortly after Perez’s announcement.
However, he’s expected to end up with with approximately the same number of national delegates toward the nomination as Buttigieg, who declared himself the winner on Monday night before any results had come out.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Bernie Sanders Declares Victory In Iowa

Bernie Sanders Declares Victory In Iowa

MANCHESTER , N.H. ― Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) declared victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday , even as the Democratic Party in the state was still rolling out the final results .
Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , has also been declaring himself victorious in Iowa ― doing so on the night of the caucuses , before any results had come out .
Sanders conceded that he and Buttigieg both had a good showing there , and that ultimately , they will end up with approximately the same number of national delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ melted down this year .
An app that was supposed to make transmitting results easier was rife with problems , and the backup hotline was overloaded .
The state party also tried to be more transparent by reporting the totals each candidate received in both the first and second rounds of caucusing , as well as the “ state delegate equivalent ” results ― a complicated formula that helps determine how many national delegates the candidate receives .
Sanders said the media was putting too much emphasis on the state delegate equivalents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter because the national delegates and popular vote were more important .
“ This difference , no matter who inches ahead in the end , is meaningless , because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee , ” he said .
Sanders also said he ’ d like to see changes to the Iowa caucuses for the next election cycle .
“ The Iowa caucus is just much much too complicated .
... What will not happen again , if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a caucus this complicated , ” he said .
On Thursday , Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez called for a recanvass of the votes in Iowa ― essentially an audit of the reporting forms , rather than a full recount ― in light of all the problems there .
“ All I can say is what I just said , ” Bernie replied when asked about Perez ’ s tweet .
“ We won an eight-person election by some 6,000 votes .
That is not going to be changed.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winners out of Iowa , neither of them received the full boost of momentum that they would have had if the results had come out earlier and the process hadn ’ t had so many problems .
But while they are declaring victory , it ’ s been clear that former Vice President Joe Biden struggled that night , placing fourth — a disappointing showing for the man who was supposed to be the undisputed front-runner .
Biden started going on the attack against both Buttigieg and Sanders on Wednesday , warning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cause problems for “ every Democrat in America , up and down the ballot — blue states , red states , purple states , easy districts , competitive ones ” who “ will have to carry the label Senator Sanders has chosen for himself.
” “ Let me tell my good friend Joe that when we ’ re dealing with someone like Donald Trump who lies all the time , he will pin any label he wants on any candidate , ” Sanders said .
“ It doesn ’ t really matter @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MANCHESTER, N.H. ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, even as the Democratic Party in the state was still rolling out the final results.
“A margin of 6,000 votes is pretty decisive,” Sanders told reporters in a press conference in New Hampshire, which is set to hold its primary on Tuesday.
Advertisement
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has also been declaring himself victorious in Iowa ― doing so on the night of the caucuses, before any results had come out.
Sanders conceded that he and Buttigieg both had a good showing there, and that ultimately, they will end up with approximately the same number of national delegates toward the nomination.
The Iowa caucuses melted down this year. An app that was supposed to make transmitting results easier was rife with problems, and the backup hotline was overloaded.
The state party also tried to be more transparent by reporting the totals each candidate received in both the first and second rounds of caucusing, as well as the “state delegate equivalent” results ― a complicated formula that helps determine how many national delegates the candidate receives.
Advertisement
Sanders said the media was putting too much emphasis on the state delegate equivalents, arguing that number didn’t ultimately matter because the national delegates and popular vote were more important.
“This difference, no matter who inches ahead in the end, is meaningless, because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee,” he said.
Sanders also said he’d like to see changes to the Iowa caucuses for the next election cycle.
“The Iowa caucus is just much much too complicated. ... What will not happen again, if I have anything to say about it, is a caucus this complicated,” he said.
On Thursday, Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez called for a recanvass of the votes in Iowa ― essentially an audit of the reporting forms, rather than a full recount ― in light of all the problems there.
Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass. — Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 6, 2020
Advertisement
“All I can say is what I just said,” Bernie replied when asked about Perez’s tweet. “We won an eight-person election by some 6,000 votes. That is not going to be changed.”
While Sanders and Buttigieg are emerging as the winners out of Iowa, neither of them received the full boost of momentum that they would have had if the results had come out earlier and the process hadn’t had so many problems.
But while they are declaring victory, it’s been clear that former Vice President Joe Biden struggled that night, placing fourth — a disappointing showing for the man who was supposed to be the undisputed front-runner.
Biden started going on the attack against both Buttigieg and Sanders on Wednesday, warning that Sanders’ self-proclaimed belief in democratic socialism will cause problems for “every Democrat in America, up and down the ballot — blue states, red states, purple states, easy districts, competitive ones” who “will have to carry the label Senator Sanders has chosen for himself.”
“Let me tell my good friend Joe that when we’re dealing with someone like Donald Trump who lies all the time, he will pin any label he wants on any candidate,” Sanders said. “It doesn’t really matter.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--FBI Puts Threat Posed By Racist Extremists On Par With ISIS

The FBI now considers threats posed by white supremacists and other racist extremists to be a top investigative priority for the agency , FBI Director Christopher Wray said as he explained his agency ’ s counterterrorism strategy on Wednesday .
“ Racially motivated violent extremism ” has been elevated to “ a national threat priority ” for the fiscal year 2020 , Wray told the House Judiciary Committee , saying that “ puts it on the same footing as ISIS and homegrown violent extremists ” inspired by foreign terrorist groups .
Over 2018 and 2019 , domestic terrorists motivated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary source of ideologically motivated lethal incidents and violence , ” the director said .
They have also been considered the most deadly of all domestic extremism movements since 2001 , he said .
A majority of hate-based attacks in recent years have been “ fueled by some type of white supremacy , ” Wray said .
White supremacist attacks have indeed been on the rise globally , and some of the country ’ s most deadly mass shootings in recent years have been carried out by extremists motivated by race or religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at two mosques in Christchurch , New Zealand , last year had posted a manifesto online praising white supremacist ideals .
The mass shooter at an El Paso , Texas , Walmart who left 22 dead and more than 20 wounded back in August also wrote a manifesto .
His railed against immigrants .
Though the FBI identifies white supremacist extremism as a threat on par with foreign-born terrorism , the federal government has a hard time classifying racist extremists as domestic terrorists , and rarely prosecutes them as such .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t be prosecuted as a stand-alone crime ― it is defined , but no criminal penalties are associated with its definition .
After Dylann Roof opened fire on a black church in South Carolina in 2015 , he was charged with hate crimes ― 33 of them ― for killing nine parishioners .
Roof , a young white man , grew to hate black people through the internet .
Similarly , Robert Bowers was charged with hate crimes for killing 11 people inside a Pennsylvania synagogue in 2018 .
The way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorism has also come under scrutiny , and some lawmakers and FBI agents agree there should be a law making it easier to charge domestic extremists as terrorists .
Others fear that such a law could be used to go after civil liberties groups such as Black Lives Matter or environmental organizations , and argue the government has enough tools to prosecute extremists without needing to call them terrorists .
Labels aside , the threat they pose is not going away anytime soon thanks to the internet , which allows for at-home self-radicalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI , the Domestic Terrorism-Hate Crimes Fusion Cell , created last year , aims “ to combat the threat at home ” by ensuring “ seamless information sharing , ” Wray said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The FBI now considers threats posed by white supremacists and other racist extremists to be a top investigative priority for the agency, FBI Director Christopher Wray said as he explained his agency’s counterterrorism strategy on Wednesday.
“Racially motivated violent extremism” has been elevated to “a national threat priority” for the fiscal year 2020, Wray told the House Judiciary Committee, saying that “puts it on the same footing as ISIS and homegrown violent extremists” inspired by foreign terrorist groups.
Advertisement
Over 2018 and 2019, domestic terrorists motivated by racial or religious hatred were “the primary source of ideologically motivated lethal incidents and violence,” the director said. They have also been considered the most deadly of all domestic extremism movements since 2001, he said.
A majority of hate-based attacks in recent years have been “fueled by some type of white supremacy,” Wray said.
White supremacist attacks have indeed been on the rise globally, and some of the country’s most deadly mass shootings in recent years have been carried out by extremists motivated by race or religion. The gunman who killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last year had posted a manifesto online praising white supremacist ideals. The mass shooter at an El Paso, Texas, Walmart who left 22 dead and more than 20 wounded back in August also wrote a manifesto. His railed against immigrants.
Though the FBI identifies white supremacist extremism as a threat on par with foreign-born terrorism, the federal government has a hard time classifying racist extremists as domestic terrorists, and rarely prosecutes them as such. According to federal law, “domestic terrorism” can’t be prosecuted as a stand-alone crime ― it is defined, but no criminal penalties are associated with its definition.
Advertisement
After Dylann Roof opened fire on a black church in South Carolina in 2015, he was charged with hate crimes ― 33 of them ― for killing nine parishioners. Roof, a young white man, grew to hate black people through the internet. Similarly, Robert Bowers was charged with hate crimes for killing 11 people inside a Pennsylvania synagogue in 2018.
The way domestic terrorism is treated differently than international terrorism has also come under scrutiny, and some lawmakers and FBI agents agree there should be a law making it easier to charge domestic extremists as terrorists. Others fear that such a law could be used to go after civil liberties groups such as Black Lives Matter or environmental organizations, and argue the government has enough tools to prosecute extremists without needing to call them terrorists.