thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-31--COVID-19-Related Terms Dominate Annual List Of Banished Words

SAULT STE .
MARIE , Mich. ( AP ) — Even as vaccines are being rolled out to battle the coronavirus , wordsmiths at Lake Superior State University in Michigan ’ s Upper Peninsula say they want to kick any trace of it from the English language .
“ COVID-19 ” and “ social distancing ” are thrown in with “ we ’ re all in this together , ” “ in an abundance of caution ” and “ in these uncertain times ” on the school ’ s light-hearted list of banned words and phrases for 2021 .
Out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the school , about 250 words and terms suggested for banishment due to overuse , misuse or uselessness had something to do with the virus .
Seven of the 10 selected are connected to the virus , with “ COVID-19 ” leading the way .
“ Unprecedented , ” which was banished back in 2002 , has been restored to the list .
“ To be sure , COVID-19 is unprecedented in wreaking havoc and destroying lives , ” Banished Words List committee members said Thursday in a release .
“ But so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to frame things , so it has to go , too.
” The school in Sault Ste .
Marie has compiled the list each year since 1976 it says to “ uphold , protect , and support excellence in language by encouraging avoidance of words and terms that are overworked , redundant , oxymoronic , clichéd , illogical , nonsensical — and otherwise ineffective , baffling , or irritating.
” So far , more than 1,000 words or phrases have made the list .
Nominations come from across the U.S. and a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID , coronavirus , Rona ) .
“ A large number of nominators are clearly resentful of the virus and how it has overtaken our vocabulary , ” the committee wrote .
“ No matter how necessary or socially and medically useful these words are , the committee can not help but wish we could banish them along with the virus itself.
” — Social distancing .
“ This phrase is useful , as wearing a mask and keeping your distance have a massive effect on preventing the spread of infection , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be lying if we said we weren ’ t ready for this phrase to become ‘ useless.
’ ” — Pivot .
“ Reporters , commentators , talking heads , and others from the media reference how everyone must adapt to the coronavirus through contactless delivery , virtual learning , curbside pickup , video conferencing , remote working , and other urgent readjustments , ” the committee wrote .
“ That ’ s all true and vital .
But basketball players pivot ; let ’ s keep it that way.
” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-racist critique of the behavior of white women in response to Black and brown people has become a misogynist umbrella term for critiquing the perceived overemotional behavior of women , ” the committee said .
“ Real-world concerns preoccupied word watchdogs this year , first and foremost COVID-19 , and that makes sense , ” Lake Superior State President Rodney Hanley said in the release .
“ In a small way , maybe this list will help ‘ flatten the curve , ’ which also was under consideration for banishment .
We trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another contender among nominations — for next year won ’ t have to include that anymore .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SAULT STE. MARIE, Mich. (AP) — Even as vaccines are being rolled out to battle the coronavirus, wordsmiths at Lake Superior State University in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula say they want to kick any trace of it from the English language.
“COVID-19” and “social distancing” are thrown in with “we’re all in this together,” “in an abundance of caution” and “in these uncertain times” on the school’s light-hearted list of banned words and phrases for 2021.
Advertisement
Out of more than 1,450 nominations sent to the school, about 250 words and terms suggested for banishment due to overuse, misuse or uselessness had something to do with the virus.
Seven of the 10 selected are connected to the virus, with “COVID-19” leading the way. “Unprecedented,” which was banished back in 2002, has been restored to the list.
“To be sure, COVID-19 is unprecedented in wreaking havoc and destroying lives,” Banished Words List committee members said Thursday in a release. “But so is the overreliance on ‘unprecedented’ to frame things, so it has to go, too.”
The school in Sault Ste. Marie has compiled the list each year since 1976 it says to “uphold, protect, and support excellence in language by encouraging avoidance of words and terms that are overworked, redundant, oxymoronic, clichéd, illogical, nonsensical — and otherwise ineffective, baffling, or irritating.”
Advertisement
So far, more than 1,000 words or phrases have made the list. Nominations come from across the U.S. and a number of other countries.
Joining past inductees such as “absolutely,” “BFF,” “covfefe,” and “yuh know” are:
— COVID-19 (COVID, coronavirus, Rona). “A large number of nominators are clearly resentful of the virus and how it has overtaken our vocabulary,” the committee wrote. “No matter how necessary or socially and medically useful these words are, the committee cannot help but wish we could banish them along with the virus itself.”
— Social distancing. “This phrase is useful, as wearing a mask and keeping your distance have a massive effect on preventing the spread of infection,” members said. “But we’d be lying if we said we weren’t ready for this phrase to become ‘useless.’”
— We’re all in this together.
— In an abundance of caution (various phrasings).
— In these uncertain times (various phrasings).
— Pivot. “Reporters, commentators, talking heads, and others from the media reference how everyone must adapt to the coronavirus through contactless delivery, virtual learning, curbside pickup, video conferencing, remote working, and other urgent readjustments,” the committee wrote. “That’s all true and vital. But basketball players pivot; let’s keep it that way.”
— Unprecedented.
— Karen. “What began as an anti-racist critique of the behavior of white women in response to Black and brown people has become a misogynist umbrella term for critiquing the perceived overemotional behavior of women,” the committee said.
Advertisement
— Sus, short for “suspicious.”
— I know, right?


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-31--Woman Falsely Accuses Black Teen Of Stealing Her Phone

“ This is my phone.
” A Black teen was falsely accused of stealing a woman ’ s phone at @ @ @ @

Woman Falsely Accuses Black Teen Of Stealing Her Phone
“This is my phone.” A Black teen was falsely accused of stealing a woman’s phone at a Manhattan hotel.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-12-31--Minneapolis Police Kill Man During Traffic Stop, Pledge To Release Video

MINNEAPOLIS ( AP ) — Police in Minneapolis said they would release body camera video on Thursday from a traffic stop that ended with a man shot dead , the city ’ s first police-involved death since George Floyd died while being restrained by officers in May .
Police said the man was a suspect in a felony and that he died in an exchange of gunfire Wednesday on the city ’ s south side .
Chief Medaria Arradondo said witnesses said the man fired first .
He said the officers ’ body cameras were turned on and promised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a state-led investigation proceeds .
“ I want our communities to see that so they can see for themselves , ” he said .
Until then , Arradondo said , “ Please allow me , the ( state ) investigators , allow us the time , let us get the evidence , get the facts , so we can process this.
” Police spokesman John Elder said the shooting happened about 6:15 p.m. at a Holiday gas station as officers were carrying out a traffic stop .
Police did not provide details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about the man , including his race .
Elder said medical personnel pronounced the man dead at the scene .
A woman in the car was unhurt , and no officers were hurt , Elder said .
He declined to say whether police recovered a gun at the site of the shooting .
Bayle Gelle , of Eden Prairie , told the Star Tribune on Thursday that the dead man was his son , 22-year-old Dolal Idd .
Gelle told the newspaper that authorities haven ’ t given him any more information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers carried out a search warrant at his home Wednesday night .
Online court records showed a string of minor traffic charges against Idd , but also a felony theft conviction in 2018 and a felony drug conviction in 2017 .
The records , which included a birthdate that would make Idd 23 years old , did not include detailed summaries of the cases .
The records also included a misdemeanor conviction in 2019 for carrying a pistol in a public place .
The Star Tribune reported that charges in the case said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shower of his parents ’ home in suburban Eden Prairie with two children sleeping nearby .
The charges said Idd was later arrested with a handgun that had been reported stolen in North Dakota .
Arradondo said the traffic stop was carried out by members of a police community response team — long-standing units that respond to situations such as drug investigations and gun crime .
He said he did not have additional details on why the man was sought .
The shooting happened less than a mile ( 1.6 kilometers ) from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black man , died in May after a Minneapolis officer pressed his knee on Floyd ’ s neck for minutes , even as Floyd pleaded that he couldn ’ t breathe .
Floyd ’ s death sparked days of sometimes violent protest that spread around the country and resonated worldwide .
In Minneapolis , Floyd ’ s death also led to a push for radical change in the police department , long criticized by activists for what they called a brutal culture that resisted change .
A push by some City Council members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public safety unit failed this summer .
Mayor Jacob Frey and Arradondo , who opposed doing away with the department , have offered several policy changes since Floyd ’ s death , including revising use-of-force policies and requiring officers to report on their attempts to de-escalate situations .
Just this week , the chief and mayor unveiled a new plan to involve the city attorney ’ s office more quickly in investigations of officers accused of misconduct .
Frey said in a statement late Wednesday that he was working with Arradondo for information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get it out as quickly as possible in coordination with the state investigation .
“ Events of this past year have marked some of the darkest days in our city , ” Frey said .
“ We know a life has been cut short and that trust between communities of color and law enforcement is fragile .
... We must all be committed to getting the facts , pursuing justice , and keeping the peace .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Police in Minneapolis said they would release body camera video on Thursday from a traffic stop that ended with a man shot dead, the city’s first police-involved death since George Floyd died while being restrained by officers in May.
Police said the man was a suspect in a felony and that he died in an exchange of gunfire Wednesday on the city’s south side. Chief Medaria Arradondo said witnesses said the man fired first. He said the officers’ body cameras were turned on and promised to release the video on Thursday, even as a state-led investigation proceeds.
Advertisement
The shooting stirred anxiety about renewed protests, seven months after unrest following Floyd’s death.
“I want our communities to see that so they can see for themselves,” he said. Until then, Arradondo said, “Please allow me, the (state) investigators, allow us the time, let us get the evidence, get the facts, so we can process this.”
Police spokesman John Elder said the shooting happened about 6:15 p.m. at a Holiday gas station as officers were carrying out a traffic stop. Police did not provide details of the supposed felony nor release any information about the man, including his race.
Elder said medical personnel pronounced the man dead at the scene. A woman in the car was unhurt, and no officers were hurt, Elder said. He declined to say whether police recovered a gun at the site of the shooting.
Advertisement
The state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is handling an investigation.
Bayle Gelle, of Eden Prairie, told the Star Tribune on Thursday that the dead man was his son, 22-year-old Dolal Idd. Gelle told the newspaper that authorities haven’t given him any more information about what happened. He said several officers carried out a search warrant at his home Wednesday night.
“The police, they are brutality,” he told the Star Tribune. “I want to get justice.”
Online court records showed a string of minor traffic charges against Idd, but also a felony theft conviction in 2018 and a felony drug conviction in 2017. The records, which included a birthdate that would make Idd 23 years old, did not include detailed summaries of the cases.
The records also included a misdemeanor conviction in 2019 for carrying a pistol in a public place. The Star Tribune reported that charges in the case said Idd fired a gun in the basement shower of his parents’ home in suburban Eden Prairie with two children sleeping nearby. The charges said Idd was later arrested with a handgun that had been reported stolen in North Dakota.
Idd was Somali-American.
Arradondo said the traffic stop was carried out by members of a police community response team — long-standing units that respond to situations such as drug investigations and gun crime. He said he did not have additional details on why the man was sought.
The shooting happened less than a mile (1.6 kilometers) from the street corner where Floyd, a Black man, died in May after a Minneapolis officer pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for minutes, even as Floyd pleaded that he couldn’t breathe. Floyd’s death sparked days of sometimes violent protest that spread around the country and resonated worldwide.
Advertisement
In Minneapolis, Floyd’s death also led to a push for radical change in the police department, long criticized by activists for what they called a brutal culture that resisted change. A push by some City Council members to replace the department with a new public safety unit failed this summer.
Mayor Jacob Frey and Arradondo, who opposed doing away with the department, have offered several policy changes since Floyd’s death, including revising use-of-force policies and requiring officers to report on their attempts to de-escalate situations. Just this week, the chief and mayor unveiled a new plan to involve the city attorney’s office more quickly in investigations of officers accused of misconduct.
Frey said in a statement late Wednesday that he was working with Arradondo for information on the shooting, and pledged to get it out as quickly as possible in coordination with the state investigation.
“Events of this past year have marked some of the darkest days in our city,” Frey said. “We know a life has been cut short and that trust between communities of color and law enforcement is fragile. ... We must all be committed to getting the facts, pursuing justice, and keeping the peace.”
All four officers involved in Floyd’s death were fired and quickly charged. They are scheduled for trial in March.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Elizabeth Warren Brilliantly Trolls Chief Justice Roberts ― And He's Not Happy

Chief Justice John Roberts probably isn ’ t a fan of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
after the epic way she trolled him during Thursday ’ s question-and-answer portion of the impeachment trial .
While other senators were throwing questions at the opponents , Warren decided to ask whether the chief justice has hurt the credibility of the Supreme Court by participating in a trial with no witnesses or evidence .
― Per the rules of the Senate trial , Roberts had to read Warren ’ s question out loud : “ At a time when large majorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice , the Supreme Court and the Constitution ?
” As one Twitter user noted , the look on his face after he read it was priceless .
“ I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice , ” Schiff said , according to Mother Jones .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Many Twitter users were impressed that the Massachusetts senator went there , though some joked that it could have consequences .
Sorry , I missed the last ten minutes getting myself up off the floor .
Has Roberts revoked Warren 's citizenship yet ?
— Elie Mystal ( @ ElieNYC ) January 30 , 2020 Others thought the question was very savvy on Warren ’ s part since Roberts takes the image of the Supreme Court very seriously .
It was a terrific question by Elizabeth Warren .
Maybe it will serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote for witnesses is 50-50 .
— Ron Waxman 🏳🌈 ( @ RonWaxman ) January 30 , 2020 Warren knows how to leverage power .
She knows that Roberts cares most about his legacy as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court .
And she is laying down a marker that this trial will define him .
Brilliant .
https : //t.co/hC41qM0k5E — 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 ( @ DanteAtkins ) January 30 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Chief Justice John Roberts probably isn’t a fan of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) after the epic way she trolled him during Thursday’s question-and-answer portion of the impeachment trial.
While other senators were throwing questions at the opponents, Warren decided to ask whether the chief justice has hurt the credibility of the Supreme Court by participating in a trial with no witnesses or evidence.
Advertisement
Per the rules of the Senate trial, Roberts had to read Warren’s question out loud:
“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”
As one Twitter user noted, the look on his face after he read it was priceless.
Damn, the look on his face after he read it! pic.twitter.com/meXP7rH1YE — Bigly Nasty (@GeeJustG) January 30, 2020
Roberts let House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) respond to Warren’s query.
“I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice,” Schiff said, according to Mother Jones. “I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”
Many Twitter users were impressed that the Massachusetts senator went there, though some joked that it could have consequences.
Advertisement
Sorry, I missed the last ten minutes getting myself up off the floor. Has Roberts revoked Warren's citizenship yet? — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 30, 2020
Others thought the question was very savvy on Warren’s part since Roberts takes the image of the Supreme Court very seriously.
It was a terrific question by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it will serve to make Chief Justice Roberts think if the vote for witnesses is 50-50. — Ron Waxman 🏳🌈 (@RonWaxman) January 30, 2020
Warren knows how to leverage power. She knows that Roberts cares most about his legacy as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And she is laying down a marker that this trial will define him. Brilliant. https://t.co/hC41qM0k5E — 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 (@DanteAtkins) January 30, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Lamar Alexander Says He'll Vote Against Witnesses In Trump Impeachment Trial

Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) said Thursday he ’ ll vote against the Senate calling witnesses in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , all but eliminating the prospect of individuals like former national security adviser John Bolton testifying and making acquittal almost certain .
Alexander , who is retiring from the Senate after this term , said in a Thursday evening statement that “ it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.
” “ But the Constitution does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president from office and ban him from this year ’ s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate , ” he continued , adding that voters should decide whether Trump remains in office .
Four Republicans would need to side with Senate Democrats to allow more witnesses .
With Alexander out , it ’ s extremely likely Republicans will have the votes to reject witnesses and move to conclude the trial .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) announced late Thursday she will vote to hear from witnesses .
Two other Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mitt Romney ( Utah ) — have strongly hinted they would vote in favor of allowing witnesses .
Murkowski told reporters she would announce her decision on Friday morning .
If those three do side with Democrats and the vote results in a tie , Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , could be called in to break the tie , although most legal experts agree he ’ s unlikely to weigh in .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has opposed extending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional witnesses , arguing that House investigators should have conducted the necessary subpoenas and that allowing further testimony would unnecessarily drag out the proceedings .
Most Republicans have followed his lead — including some viewed as potential swing voters , such as Sen. Cory Gardner ( R-Colo. ) .
Gardner , who is up for reelection in the fall , announced his decision Wednesday .
Despite McConnell ’ s opposition , Democrats have pressed for witness testimony .
Their efforts have focused on Bolton , who declined to participate during the House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , revelations from a leaked draft of Bolton ’ s forthcoming book renewed scrutiny on the former Trump administration official , particularly his claim that Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to the country announcing it would investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
“ We have a witness with firsthand evidence of the president ’ s actions for which he is on trial .
He is ready and willing to testify .
How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-N.Y. ) said in a Monday news conference .
“ We ’ re all staring a White House cover-up in the face.
” Although Alexander said he did not need to hear from witnesses , he suggested he agrees with the impeachment managers that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a political rival ― he just doesn ’ t want to hear from more witnesses about it .
Alexander said there was “ no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an impeachable offense.
” “ There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son , Hunter ; he said this on television on October 3 , 2019 , and during his July 25 , 2019 , telephone call with the president of Ukraine , ” Alexander said .
“ There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid , at least in part to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens ; the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call a ‘ mountain of overwhelming evidence.
’ ” He was more firmly behind Trump in terms of the allegation that he obstructed justice , calling it a “ frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said Thursday he’ll vote against the Senate calling witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, all but eliminating the prospect of individuals like former national security adviser John Bolton testifying and making acquittal almost certain.
Alexander, who is retiring from the Senate after this term, said in a Thursday evening statement that “it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.”
Advertisement
“But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate,” he continued, adding that voters should decide whether Trump remains in office.
Four Republicans would need to side with Senate Democrats to allow more witnesses. With Alexander out, it’s extremely likely Republicans will have the votes to reject witnesses and move to conclude the trial.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced late Thursday she will vote to hear from witnesses. Two other Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Utah) — have strongly hinted they would vote in favor of allowing witnesses. Murkowski told reporters she would announce her decision on Friday morning. If those three do side with Democrats and the vote results in a tie, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, could be called in to break the tie, although most legal experts agree he’s unlikely to weigh in.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has opposed extending the trial to allow new evidence from additional witnesses, arguing that House investigators should have conducted the necessary subpoenas and that allowing further testimony would unnecessarily drag out the proceedings.
Advertisement
Most Republicans have followed his lead — including some viewed as potential swing voters, such as Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). Gardner, who is up for reelection in the fall, announced his decision Wednesday.
Despite McConnell’s opposition, Democrats have pressed for witness testimony. Their efforts have focused on Bolton, who declined to participate during the House of Representatives’ impeachment proceedings last year. However, revelations from a leaked draft of Bolton’s forthcoming book renewed scrutiny on the former Trump administration official, particularly his claim that Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to the country announcing it would investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
“We have a witness with firsthand evidence of the president’s actions for which he is on trial. He is ready and willing to testify. How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a Monday news conference. “We’re all staring a White House cover-up in the face.”
Although Alexander said he did not need to hear from witnesses, he suggested he agrees with the impeachment managers that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a political rival ― he just doesn’t want to hear from more witnesses about it.
Alexander said there was “no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.”
Advertisement
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine,” Alexander said. “There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--‘The Fix Is In!’ Twitter Users Shred ‘Coward’ Lamar Alexander After Vote Reveal

Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) found himself trending on Twitter late Thursday after announcing he would not vote to allow witnesses at the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
And the word trending alongside his name wasn ’ t exactly a compliment : The House impeachment managers were hoping to summon testimony from former national security advisor John Bolton , who could speak to Trump ’ s attempts to use U.S. military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals .
Bolton ’ s upcoming book reportedly confirms many of the details .
Alexander was considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely ensure that no witnesses will be called .
However , he claimed the point was moot : Trump ’ s actions , he said , were “ inappropriate , ” but he could not be impeached for them .
“ Let the people decide ” via this year ’ s presidential election , Alexander wrote .
That didn ’ t sit well with his critics , who slammed the decision on Twitter and caused “ coward ” to trend along with Alexander ’ s name : The fix is in .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be as easy as getting an all white jury to spring a Mississippi Klansman in 1965.https : //t.co/2oDVcGZ2ZC — Richard W. Painter ( @ RWPUSA ) January 31 , 2020 This is how you will be remembered .
As a coward .
Bought and sold .
https : //t.co/fHFtb8e1WE — Judd Apatow ( @ JuddApatow ) January 31 , 2020 Lamar Alexander another coward We won ’ t forget the ones who sold America down the drain — Rosanna Arquette🌎✌🏼 ( @ RoArquette ) January 31 , 2020 BREAKING : Lamar Alexander says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acquit .
# LamarsLegacy # ComplicitGOP https : //t.co/Uv2AoOhFwb — Richard Hine ( @ richardhine ) January 31 , 2020 You could 've just tweeted `` I 'm a coward '' and forgone this entire thread you worked so hard on .
Way too many extra words .
D- .
https : //t.co/i38rgZQ0QL — Randi Mayem Singer ( @ rmayemsinger ) January 31 , 2020 Trump 's actions were n't just `` inappropriate , '' per the GAO , they were illegal , you worthless coward .
You will never be remembered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country.https : //t.co/tjrDiFNgQr — Polly Sigh ( @ dcpoll ) January 31 , 2020 The entirety of Lamar Alexander 's career tanked over 1 vote .
History will destroy him and should — Shannon4OH ( @ ShannonFreshour ) January 31 , 2020 Tonight , u can express your anger by considering a donation to @ harrisonjaime @ SaraGideon @ AmyMcGrathKY @ ShuttleCDRKelly @ Hickenlooper @ ossoff @ GreenfieldIowa @ GaryPeters to ensure that the cowards in the Senate who denied a 75 % majority of Americans the right to witnesses , pay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) January 31 , 2020 Lamar Alexander and his Republican colleagues have forever shamed the United States Senate .
This is a very dark moment in our history — Joe Lockhart ( @ joelockhart ) January 31 , 2020 “ The president ’ s conduct is a national embarrassment ... .
All he has to do is give us a day of honesty , to come out and say this is what happened.
” — Lamar Alexander , speaking about President Bill Clinton in 1998 pic.twitter.com/yXccZUGr5O — David Priess ( @ DavidPriess ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling out his country on his way out the door .
Lower than low .
— Adam Parkhomenko ( @ AdamParkhomenko ) January 31 , 2020 The verdict is in on Lamar Alexander .
Party over country .
No integrity .
No courage .
No moral core .
This is his legacy .
— Norman Ornstein ( @ NormOrnstein ) January 31 , 2020 Lamar Alexander joins fellow Republicans in voting for the first impeachment trial in U.S. history with no witnesses .
Shame on him and his party .
They are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
https : //t.co/dP1N0R4j2o — Keith Boykin ( @ keithboykin ) January 31 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
And the word trending alongside his name wasn’t exactly a compliment:
HuffPost
Advertisement
House impeachment managers have been pressing senators to allow testimony from former White House national security adviser John Bolton, who could speak to Trump’s attempts to use U.S. military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals. Bolton’s upcoming book reportedly confirms many of the details.
Alexander was considered the swing vote and his decision will likely ensure that no witnesses will be called. However, he argued witnesses would be irrelevant. Trump’s actions, he said, were “inappropriate,” but not bad enough to warrant removal from office.
“Let the people decide” via this year’s presidential election, Alexander wrote.
That didn’t sit well with his critics, who slammed the decision on Twitter and caused “coward” to trend along with Alexander’s name:
The fix is in.
No witnesses.
The rest of this should be as easy as getting an all white jury to spring a Mississippi Klansman in 1965.https://t.co/2oDVcGZ2ZC — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) January 31, 2020
Advertisement
They are all cowards. Every. Single. One. — Elizabeth Thorp (@ElizabethEThorp) January 31, 2020
The people did decide - we chose a republic. You chose a king. #coward https://t.co/2XUrVCZpjp — Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) January 31, 2020
This is how you will be remembered. As a coward. Bought and sold. https://t.co/fHFtb8e1WE — Judd Apatow (@JuddApatow) January 31, 2020
Lamar Alexander another coward We won’t forget the ones who sold America down the drain — Rosanna Arquette🌎✌🏼 (@RoArquette) January 31, 2020
Advertisement
BREAKING: Lamar Alexander says the glove fits but he still plans to acquit. #LamarsLegacy #ComplicitGOP https://t.co/Uv2AoOhFwb — Richard Hine (@richardhine) January 31, 2020
You could've just tweeted "I'm a coward" and forgone this entire thread you worked so hard on. Way too many extra words. D-. https://t.co/i38rgZQ0QL — Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) January 31, 2020
Trump's actions weren't just "inappropriate," per the GAO, they were illegal, you worthless coward.
You will never be remembered for anything but this – betraying your country.https://t.co/tjrDiFNgQr — Polly Sigh (@dcpoll) January 31, 2020
The entirety of Lamar Alexander's career tanked over 1 vote.
History will destroy him and should — Shannon4OH (@ShannonFreshour) January 31, 2020
Advertisement
You are a HISTORIC coward. — Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) January 31, 2020
Tonight, u can express your anger by considering a donation to @harrisonjaime @SaraGideon @AmyMcGrathKY @ShuttleCDRKelly @Hickenlooper @ossoff @GreenfieldIowa @GaryPeters to ensure that the cowards in the Senate who denied a 75% majority of Americans the right to witnesses, pay. pic.twitter.com/h22oAw0y10 — Josh Gad (@joshgad) January 31, 2020
Lamar Alexander and his Republican colleagues have forever shamed the United States Senate. This is a very dark moment in our history — Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 31, 2020
“The president’s conduct is a national embarrassment.... All he has to do is give us a day of honesty, to come out and say this is what happened.”
— Lamar Alexander, speaking about President Bill Clinton in 1998 pic.twitter.com/yXccZUGr5O — David Priess (@DavidPriess) January 31, 2020
Lamar Alexander is selling out his country on his way out the door. Lower than low. — Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) January 31, 2020
Advertisement
The verdict is in on Lamar Alexander. Party over country. No integrity. No courage. No moral core. This is his legacy. — Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) January 31, 2020
Lamar Alexander joins fellow Republicans in voting for the first impeachment trial in U.S. history with no witnesses. Shame on him and his party. They are now accomplices in Donald Trump’s crimes. https://t.co/dP1N0R4j2o — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 31, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Law Professor Who Alan Dershowitz Cites In Trump Defense Says Dershowitz Is Wrong

Nikolas Bowie , an assistant professor at Harvard Law School , clarified on CNN Thursday that Alan Dershowitz was incorrectly citing his work in arguments against the impeachment of President Donald Trump .
Dershowitz , a Harvard Law professor emeritus who serves on Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , has repeatedly invoked Bowie ’ s work to assert that the president should not have been impeached because the charges against him can ’ t be considered crimes .
In his opening statement at the impeachment trial Monday , Dershowitz referenced a Harvard Law Review article Bowie published in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which contends that impeachment can not occur without a crime .
Dershowitz had also cited the law review article during a CNN appearance last week , prompting Bowie to publish an op-ed in The New York Times to clarify that Dershowitz had misinterpreted his work .
“ Even if you think impeachment requires a crime , as I do , that belief hardly supports the president ’ s defense or Mr. Dershowitz ’ s position , ” Bowie wrote .
“ President Trump has been accused of a crime .
Two in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall on false ears : Dershowitz claimed the Times op-ed was also in his favor during his Senate remarks and another CNN appearance on Tuesday .
Dershowitz selected parts of Bowie ’ s writing to contend that abuse of power ― one of two charges leveled against the president ― is not a criminal act and that it can be equated to maladministration .
“ He agrees with me that maladministration , abuse of power and abuse of office are essentially the same , ” Dershowitz said on CNN Tuesday .
“ Abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowie said when asked to explain his position .
“ There are people around the country who have been convicted of it recently .
It ’ s a crime that ’ s existed since this country was founded .
“ To equate it with maladministration , as my colleague Professor Dershowitz does , is the equivalent of saying that criminal corruption is the same as getting a bad performance evaluation.
” “ Maladministration is just an 18th century term for doing a bad thing at your job , ” he added , agreeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be impeached for getting a bad performance evaluation .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Nikolas Bowie, an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, clarified on CNN Thursday that Alan Dershowitz was incorrectly citing his work in arguments against the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus who serves on Trump’s impeachment defense team, has repeatedly invoked Bowie’s work to assert that the president should not have been impeached because the charges against him can’t be considered crimes.
Advertisement
In his opening statement at the impeachment trial Monday, Dershowitz referenced a Harvard Law Review article Bowie published in 2018 called “High Crimes Without Law,” which contends that impeachment cannot occur without a crime.
Dershowitz had also cited the law review article during a CNN appearance last week, prompting Bowie to publish an op-ed in The New York Times to clarify that Dershowitz had misinterpreted his work.
“Even if you think impeachment requires a crime, as I do, that belief hardly supports the president’s defense or Mr. Dershowitz’s position,” Bowie wrote. “President Trump has been accused of a crime. Two in fact.”
But this clarification seemed to fall on false ears: Dershowitz claimed the Times op-ed was also in his favor during his Senate remarks and another CNN appearance on Tuesday.
Advertisement
Dershowitz selected parts of Bowie’s writing to contend that abuse of power ― one of two charges leveled against the president ― is not a criminal act and that it can be equated to maladministration.
“He agrees with me that maladministration, abuse of power and abuse of office are essentially the same,” Dershowitz said on CNN Tuesday.
CNN host Anderson Cooper welcomed Bowie to Thursday’s segment to seek clarity.
“Abuse of power is a crime,” Bowie said when asked to explain his position. “There are people around the country who have been convicted of it recently. It’s a crime that’s existed since this country was founded.
“To equate it with maladministration, as my colleague Professor Dershowitz does, is the equivalent of saying that criminal corruption is the same as getting a bad performance evaluation.”
“Maladministration is just an 18th century term for doing a bad thing at your job,” he added, agreeing that “a president shouldn’t be impeached for getting a bad performance evaluation.”
Advertisement
“But to equate that with criminal corruption? That’s a joke.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Senate Poised To Acquit Trump After Final Day Of Impeachment Questioning

But the retiring Tennessee Republican argued that Trump ’ s actions , though “ inappropriate , ” do not meet the bar for an impeachable offense and that the matter ought to instead be remedied in November ’ s presidential election ― the very same election Trump has tried to influence by seeking dirt his leading Democratic rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
Democrats were hoping that they could expand the scope and length of the trial by getting four Republicans to join them in a key vote to allow witnesses that is expected to take place on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) now likely has at least 50 GOP votes to block witnesses and end the trial by Saturday .
During the proceedings on Thursday , the second day of marathon questioning by senators of both the House managers and Trump ’ s defense team , Republicans and Democrats shadowboxed over witnesses , the Ukraine whistleblower , foreign election interference , the legal standard for impeachment and the timing of Trump ’ s hold on Ukraine aid , among a number of other issues .
Republicans were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had enough support to block the consideration of witnesses , although Alexander gave Republicans some heartburn Thursday afternoon .
Most GOPers have dismissed the need to hear from individuals with firsthand knowledge of the president ’ s actions , including former Trump national security adviser John Bolton .
Bolton , a longtime figure in conservative politics , essentially confirmed the House impeachment managers ’ case against Trump in the draft of an upcoming book , which alleges that the president told Bolton directly that release of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations into Biden and his son Hunter .
Murkowski previously expressed an openness to calling witnesses , but the Alaska moderate has been tight-lipped about how she intends to vote .
She met privately with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) on Wednesday , and the two were spotted deep in conversation on the Senate floor on Thursday .
In a possible hint of her position regarding witnesses , Murkowski asked Trump ’ s team on Thursday why Bolton shouldn ’ t be called to testify , noting specifically that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge.
” White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin argued that it would be “ very damaging ” for the Senate as an institution if it voted to seek information the House did not uncover .
Democrats would likely lose the vote on witnesses even if three Republicans vote with them , however .
In that scenario , with 50 Republicans opposed and 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and three of the GOP senators in favor , the Senate would reject a motion to call witnesses due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 51 votes for passage .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , the presiding officer , could cast a tie-breaking vote in that event .
In fact , he could point to precedent : The chief justice in the trial of President Andrew Johnson was allowed to cast a tie-breaking vote on two procedural motions .
But Roberts , a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush , isn ’ t expected to interject himself into a messy political dispute , especially when Republicans could simply vote to overrule him .
In one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) attempted to ask a question that would have named a person suspected of being the Ukraine whistleblower , whose complaint led to the opening of the House impeachment inquiry against Trump .
Roberts declined to read it , however , prompting Paul to storm out of the Senate chamber and then name the alleged whistleblower at a news conference , while insisting he wasn ’ t identifying the whistleblower .
But Republicans argued that allowing witnesses in the trial would open a Pandora ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the testimony of Biden , Hunter Biden , Schiff and others .
They warned that Trump was likely to assert executive privilege over the testimony of witnesses such as Bolton and Mick Mulvaney , the director of Office of Management and Budget , tying up the matter in courts potentially for weeks , if not months .
Friday ’ s session is expected to go late into the night .
After the Senate gavels in at 1 p.m. Eastern time , senators will debate for four hours on the issue of witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote on whether to allow them at all .
If the vote is rejected , which is all but certain , Republicans hope to move to a final vote to acquit the president .
Before they can do that , however , they must defeat a series of motions expected to be offered by Democrats seeking to pressure Republicans before the trial ends .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― A quick acquittal of President Donald Trump with no witnesses in his impeachment trial became an almost certain outcome after Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a key swing vote, announced his opposition to both on Thursday evening.
In a statement, Alexander said he believed there was “no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven,” referring to Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine to open investigations into a political rival.
Advertisement
But the retiring Tennessee Republican argued that Trump’s actions, though “inappropriate,” do not meet the bar for an impeachable offense and that the matter ought to instead be remedied in November’s presidential election ― the very same election Trump has tried to influence by seeking dirt his leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), also considered a potential vote for witnesses, announced Friday that she would also vote “no” ― putting a final nail in the coffin of the chance to hear from witnesses.
Democrats were hoping that they could expand the scope and length of the trial by getting four Republicans to join them in a key vote to allow witnesses that is expected to take place on Friday. But with Alexander opposed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) now likely has at least 50 GOP votes to block witnesses and end the trial by Saturday.
That means the Republican-controlled chamber will set a precedent in not allowing witnesses and other evidence to be admitted into the proceedings, as the Senate did during the impeachment trials of President Bill Clinton and President Andrew Johnson.
Advertisement
The Senate wrapped up 16 hours of questioning in the impeachment trial of Trump on Thursday much in the way the ordeal began: with Democrats urging consequences for the president and Republicans largely unified on protecting him.
During the proceedings on Thursday, the second day of marathon questioning by senators of both the House managers and Trump’s defense team, Republicans and Democrats shadowboxed over witnesses, the Ukraine whistleblower, foreign election interference, the legal standard for impeachment and the timing of Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid, among a number of other issues.
Republicans were mostly confident throughout the day that they had enough support to block the consideration of witnesses, although Alexander gave Republicans some heartburn Thursday afternoon. Most GOPers have dismissed the need to hear from individuals with firsthand knowledge of the president’s actions, including former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.
Bolton, a longtime figure in conservative politics, essentially confirmed the House impeachment managers’ case against Trump in the draft of an upcoming book, which alleges that the president told Bolton directly that release of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine was being tied to the Ukrainian government announcing investigations into Biden and his son Hunter.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is trailed by reporters as she arrives Thursday before the Senate impeachment trial. Collins announced late Thursday that she favors allowing witnesses. Samuel Corum via Getty Images
Advertisement
Two Republicans said they would vote for witnesses: Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine. But their votes won’t be enough to force the matter.
Murkowski waited until Friday soon after 1 p.m. to announce her opposition. She previously expressed an openness to calling witnesses, but the Alaska moderate has been tight-lipped about how she intends to vote. She met privately with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, and the two were spotted deep in conversation on the Senate floor on Thursday.
In a possible hint of her position regarding witnesses, Murkowski asked Trump’s team on Thursday why Bolton shouldn’t be called to testify, noting specifically that the “dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge.” White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin argued that it would be “very damaging” for the Senate as an institution if it voted to seek information the House did not uncover.
Ultimately, Murkowski said she believed the impeachment had been “partisan” and that she had “come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.” Therefore, she said she would vote against hearing from witnesses.
Democrats would have likely lose the vote on witnesses even if three Republicans voted with them, however. In that scenario, with 50 Republicans opposed and 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and three of the GOP senators in favor, the Senate would reject a motion to call witnesses due to the chamber’s rules requiring 51 votes for passage.
Advertisement
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the presiding officer, could have needed to cast a tie-breaking vote in that event. In fact, he could point to precedent: The chief justice in the trial of President Andrew Johnson was allowed to cast a tie-breaking vote on two procedural motions. But Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, was not expected to interject himself into a messy political dispute, especially when Republicans could simply vote to overrule him.
“I would hope for the chief justice to break a tie. I don’t know that he will,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) acknowledged on Thursday.
A 50-50 tie would put the Senate into “uncharted territory,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).
“If it’s two, the deal is over. If it’s three, we don’t know,” Braun said. “There’s not real certainty what the power of the presiding officer has.”
In one of the more dramatic moments of the day, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) attempted to ask a question that would have named a person suspected of being the Ukraine whistleblower, whose complaint led to the opening of the House impeachment inquiry against Trump. Roberts declined to read it, however, prompting Paul to storm out of the Senate chamber and then name the alleged whistleblower at a news conference, while insisting he wasn’t identifying the whistleblower.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, urged Republicans to allow witnesses by suggesting limiting depositions of testimony to one week, following the model in the Clinton impeachment trial.
Advertisement
“Let’s take a week. Let’s take a week to have a fair trial,” Schiff said. “Is that too much to ask in the name of fairness?”
But Republicans argued that allowing witnesses in the trial would open a Pandora’s box, leading their members to call for the testimony of Biden, Hunter Biden, Schiff and others. They warned that Trump was likely to assert executive privilege over the testimony of witnesses such as Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the director of Office of Management and Budget, tying up the matter in courts potentially for weeks, if not months.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--NPR Donations Surge After Mike Pompeo's Ugly Confrontation With Reporter

Donations to National Public Radio jumped after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yelled at a reporter for daring to ask him about Ukraine .
Pompeo last week launched a profanity-laced tirade against Kelly after his on-air interview over her questions about Ukraine — even though Kelly had cleared the subject with his office beforehand .
Pompeo later did not dispute Kelly ’ s account of the ugly confrontation — but insisted it was “ off the record , ” which NPR denied .
President Donald Trump later attacked NPR on Twitter and praised Pompeo for his behavior ( see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up benefiting NPR .
Donations from listeners are up across the network ’ s 1,000 member stations , according to Lara .
“ It is always wonderful to hear from listeners who value public radio , ” said Lara , who encouraged listeners to continue to donate to their local stations and “ support local journalism.
” Lara said the network hasn ’ t yet tabulated the total increase since donations are spread over so many localities .
The NPR station in Austin , Texas , KUT , attributed a surge of 124 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment of Kelly , according to the Post .
Over half of the contributions are from first-time donors .
“ Debbie Hiott , GM of  @ KUT in Austin , tells  @ ErikWemple she attributes 100 donations in recent days to the Kelly situation ... .
Of the 124 gifts that the station has received since Friday , nearly half are from first-time givers.
” https : //t.co/ubCNCU1SEO — Isabel Lara ( @ isalara ) January 30 , 2020 After Pompeo ’ s tirade , the State Department removed another NPR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trip this week to Britain , Ukraine , Belarus and Central Asia , despite strenuous objections from journalists who called the punitive move suppression of free speech .
“ We can only conclude that the State Department is retaliating against National Public Radio as a result of this exchange , ” said Shaun Tandon , the president of the State Department Correspondents ’ Association .
In a statement about Kelly after their face-off , Pompeo indicated she had mistakenly identified Bangladesh as Ukraine in a map challenge Pompeo presented to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one else was buying it .
Kelly , a longtime national security reporter who has extensively traveled the world , has a master ’ s from Cambridge University in European Studies .
Some suspected it was Pompeo who goofed and intended to say Kelly had mistaken pointed to Ukraine ’ s neighbor Belarus in his failed attempt to embarrass her .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Donations to National Public Radio jumped after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yelled at a reporter for daring to ask him about Ukraine.
“Donations are up!” NPR spokeswoman Isabel Lara emailed Washington Post columnist Eric Wemple.
Several messages with the recent contributions express support for “All Things Considered” co-host Mary Louise Kelly.
Advertisement
Pompeo last week launched a profanity-laced tirade against Kelly after his on-air interview over her questions about Ukraine — even though Kelly had cleared the subject with his office beforehand.
Pompeo later did not dispute Kelly’s account of the ugly confrontation — but insisted it was “off the record,” which NPR denied. President Donald Trump later attacked NPR on Twitter and praised Pompeo for his behavior (see the video above).
But it ended up benefiting NPR. Donations from listeners are up across the network’s 1,000 member stations, according to Lara.
“It is always wonderful to hear from listeners who value public radio,” said Lara, who encouraged listeners to continue to donate to their local stations and “support local journalism.”
Advertisement
Lara said the network hasn’t yet tabulated the total increase since donations are spread over so many localities. The NPR station in Austin, Texas, KUT, attributed a surge of 124 donations since Friday to Pompeo’s treatment of Kelly, according to the Post. Over half of the contributions are from first-time donors.
“Debbie Hiott, GM of @KUT in Austin, tells @ErikWemple she attributes 100 donations in recent days to the Kelly situation.... Of the 124 gifts that the station has received since Friday, nearly half are from first-time givers.” https://t.co/ubCNCU1SEO — Isabel Lara (@isalara) January 30, 2020
The executive director at WBHM in Alabama called the donation bounce “extraordinary.”
After Pompeo’s tirade, the State Department removed another NPR reporter, Michele Kelemen, from Pompeo’s trip this week to Britain, Ukraine, Belarus and Central Asia, despite strenuous objections from journalists who called the punitive move suppression of free speech.
“We can only conclude that the State Department is retaliating against National Public Radio as a result of this exchange,” said Shaun Tandon, the president of the State Department Correspondents’ Association.
In a statement about Kelly after their face-off, Pompeo indicated she had mistakenly identified Bangladesh as Ukraine in a map challenge Pompeo presented to her. She denied it, and no one else was buying it. Kelly, a longtime national security reporter who has extensively traveled the world, has a master’s from Cambridge University in European Studies. Some suspected it was Pompeo who goofed and intended to say Kelly had mistaken pointed to Ukraine’s neighbor Belarus in his failed attempt to embarrass her.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--Brian Kilmeade Goes Rogue On Fox News: John Bolton Is 'Not A Liar'

Bolton , who was previously well-received on the network and appeared as a paid contributor for over a decade , has been harshly criticized by numerous Fox News hosts this week .
The change of heart comes in the wake of reported allegations in Bolton ’ s forthcoming book , a copy of which was leaked to The New York Times .
The manuscript reportedly confirms the key charge against President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial : that he explicitly tied the exchange of congressionally approved military aid to the opening of an investigation into a leading rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden , and Biden ’ s son Hunter .
On “ Fox & Friends ” on Thursday , co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt and Steve Doocy picked at the veracity of Bolton ’ s account , playing a video of the former diplomat from a Wednesday night Trump tweet captioned “ Game Over.
” In the August 2019 interview , the then-national security adviser characterized Trump ’ s calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “ warm and cordial , ” and mentioned that rooting out corruption in the country was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped to Bolton ’ s defense : “ So John Bolton had a different take there .
I don ’ t like the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar.
” He reminded his colleagues that Bolton was once a regular contributor to their program .
“ He has sat on this couch before .
He ’ s not a liar .
They have a differing of opinion .
But , questioning his credibility , I don ’ t think there is , ” he said , trailing off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re saying maybe The New York Times , maybe whoever reported that , read the book and got something out of it that John Bolton didn ’ t say , ” Earhardt posited .
“ I would say that , ” Kilmeade replied .
“ He could answer a question but not answer a question completely and not be a liar.
” Kilmeade ’ s allegiance to his ex-colleague seems to be in contrast to other Fox News personalities , who were quick to cast Bolton as deceitful and backstabbing after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had blasted him as “ a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state.
” Tucker Carlson said he was not surprised Bolton was a “ snake.
” And Laura Ingraham labeled the reported claims in the book draft a “ red herring .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade broke rank with his colleagues on the network Thursday, defending former national security adviser John Bolton.
Bolton, who was previously well-received on the network and appeared as a paid contributor for over a decade, has been harshly criticized by numerous Fox News hosts this week.
Advertisement
The change of heart comes in the wake of reported allegations in Bolton’s forthcoming book, a copy of which was leaked to The New York Times. The manuscript reportedly confirms the key charge against President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial: that he explicitly tied the exchange of congressionally approved military aid to the opening of an investigation into a leading rival for the November presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter.
On “Fox & Friends” on Thursday, co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt and Steve Doocy picked at the veracity of Bolton’s account, playing a video of the former diplomat from a Wednesday night Trump tweet captioned “Game Over.”
In the August 2019 interview, the then-national security adviser characterized Trump’s calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “warm and cordial,” and mentioned that rooting out corruption in the country was a priority for the Trump administration.
After playing the clip, Earhardt declared, “That’s interesting. Completely contradicts his forthcoming book.”
Advertisement
“Which is so secret they can’t publish it,” Doocy added.
Brian Kilmeade: "I don't like the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar. He's sat on this couch before. He's not a liar." pic.twitter.com/nowrpE6ul3 — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) January 30, 2020
Kilmeade jumped to Bolton’s defense: “So John Bolton had a different take there. I don’t like the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar.”
He reminded his colleagues that Bolton was once a regular contributor to their program. “He has sat on this couch before. He’s not a liar. They have a differing of opinion. But, questioning his credibility, I don’t think there is,” he said, trailing off as Earhardt offered a suggestion.
“You’re saying maybe The New York Times, maybe whoever reported that, read the book and got something out of it that John Bolton didn’t say,” Earhardt posited.
“I would say that,” Kilmeade replied. “He could answer a question but not answer a question completely and not be a liar.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Susan Collins Says She'll Vote For Witnesses In Trump Impeachment Trial

Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) announced Thursday evening that she will vote to hear from witnesses in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Collins was considered one of a small group of swing votes on the matter , which has largely broken along party lines as the Senate considers whether to remove Trump from office .
The House impeached Trump in December on charges of pressuring the president of Ukraine to open an investigation that would benefit him in the 2020 election and of obstructing Congress ’ s efforts to investigate .
Collins posted a statement Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear from witnesses and subpoena documents .
But it ’ s unlikely there will be enough votes to proceed to witnesses .
At least three Republican senators would need to join Democrats for a vote to allow witnesses .
That possibility diminished dramatically just moments after Collins released her statement .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) said he would vote against calling new witnesses even though he acknowledged it was “ inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.
” “ The Constitution does not give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president from office and ban him from this year ’ s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate , ” Alexander continued .
With Alexander firmly on the GOP ’ s side of the political calculus , it ’ s unlikely Democrats would get enough votes even if the two other likely swing votes , Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) and Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , are in favor of more witnesses .
If the chamber deadlocks 50-50 on the matter , Chief Justice John Roberts could step in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts agree that ’ s an unlikely scenario .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced Thursday evening that she will vote to hear from witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
Collins was considered one of a small group of swing votes on the matter, which has largely broken along party lines as the Senate considers whether to remove Trump from office. The House impeached Trump in December on charges of pressuring the president of Ukraine to open an investigation that would benefit him in the 2020 election and of obstructing Congress’s efforts to investigate.
Advertisement
Collins posted a statement Thursday on Twitter saying she will vote to hear from witnesses and subpoena documents.
But it’s unlikely there will be enough votes to proceed to witnesses. At least three Republican senators would need to join Democrats for a vote to allow witnesses. That possibility diminished dramatically just moments after Collins released her statement.
I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed. My full statement: https://t.co/VuhZv6CO5e pic.twitter.com/LhQlnvPaoc — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) January 31, 2020
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he would vote against calling new witnesses even though he acknowledged it was “inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.”
Advertisement
“The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate,” Alexander continued.
With Alexander firmly on the GOP’s side of the political calculus, it’s unlikely Democrats would get enough votes even if the two other likely swing votes, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), are in favor of more witnesses. If the chamber deadlocks 50-50 on the matter, Chief Justice John Roberts could step in to break the tie, although many legal experts agree that’s an unlikely scenario.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Sen. Lindsey Graham Was 'In The Loop' On Ukraine Scheme, Says Lev Parnas

Rudy Giuliani ’ s indicted business associate Lev Parnas accused Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) of being “ in the loop ” on the scheme to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into unfounded accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden , a leading Democratic presidential candidate .
Parnas , a Florida businessman who had donated to President Donald Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , said he was “ 1 million percent ” certain that Graham was aware of the Ukraine operation .
“ Rudy told me not once but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always aware , ” he told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview Wednesday night .
Graham was “ aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018 , maybe even earlier , ” Parnas said .
( Check out the video above beginning at 1:30 . )
Parnas said it was “ surreal ” to watch Graham “ talking about all the stuff , that this is a sham , this should go away ” — when “ at the end of the day he was in the loop just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been indicted for alleged campaign finance violations , has said that he worked to pressure Ukraine into announcing a probe against Biden and his son Hunter Biden to try to smear Trump ’ s political rival .
He has alleged he was following the president ’ s wishes as he worked with Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal attorney .
Trump ’ s own pressure on Ukraine to launch a probe into the Bidens , along with other political conspiracy theories , while he was withholding U.S. military funds became a catalyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n the House .
The Trump administration initially insisted the president was merely seeking an investigation into corruption .
But in a bombshell claim at Wednesday ’ s session of the Senate impeachment trial , Trump defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that a president can essentially do anything to get reelected — apparently including seeking foreign influence in a U.S. election — if that president believes it ’ s in the public interest .
When a president “ does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quid pro quo that results in impeachment , ” Dershowitz said .
White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin also argued in the Senate trial that Trump could take such action if the information he was pursuing was “ credible.
” The Republicans have yet to substantiate any wrongdoing by Biden or his son .

Rudy Giuliani’s indicted business associate Lev Parnas accused Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of being “in the loop” on the scheme to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into unfounded accusations against former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic presidential candidate.
Parnas, a Florida businessman who had donated to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, said he was “1 million percent” certain that Graham was aware of the Ukraine operation.
Advertisement
“Rudy told me not once but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation, that Lindsey was always aware,” he told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview Wednesday night. Graham was “aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018, maybe even earlier,” Parnas said. (Check out the video above beginning at 1:30.)
Parnas said it was “surreal” to watch Graham “talking about all the stuff, that this is a sham, this should go away” — when “at the end of the day he was in the loop just like everybody else.”
Graham could not immediately be reached for comment on Parnas’s allegations.
Parnas, who has been indicted for alleged campaign finance violations, has said that he worked to pressure Ukraine into announcing a probe against Biden and his son Hunter Biden to try to smear Trump’s political rival. He has alleged he was following the president’s wishes as he worked with Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.
Trump’s own pressure on Ukraine to launch a probe into the Bidens, along with other political conspiracy theories, while he was withholding U.S. military funds became a catalyst for the president’s impeachment iinquiry n the House.
Advertisement
The Trump administration initially insisted the president was merely seeking an investigation into corruption. But in a bombshell claim at Wednesday’s session of the Senate impeachment trial, Trump defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that a president can essentially do anything to get reelected — apparently including seeking foreign influence in a U.S. election — if that president believes it’s in the public interest.
When a president “does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--Ex-GOP Senator Urges Republicans To ‘Uphold The Constitution’ And Allow Witnesses In Trump Trial

Former Sen. John Warner ( R-Va. ) has warned of “ the lasting damage ” that could be done to the Senate and the country should Republicans not allow key witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct .
Warner wrote in a statement released Thursday — on the eve of the Senate ’ s vote on witnesses — that “ as conscientious citizens from all walks of life are trying their best to understand the complex impeachment issues now being deliberated in the U.S. Senate , the rules of evidence are central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator John Warner , a Republican and elder statesman of Virginia politics , has issued a statement calling on fellow Republicans to follow “ judicial norms ” by “ welcoming relevant witnesses and documents ” in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
pic.twitter.com/GeRRjIkHfo — Sheryl Gay Stolberg ( @ SherylNYT ) January 31 , 2020 Warner , who retired in 2009 after serving 30 years in the Senate , claimed the chamber was also on trial and “ as such , I am strongly supportive of the efforts of my former Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate accept the introduction of additional evidence that they deem relevant.
” “ If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a sham , I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the Senate , and to our fragile national consensus , ” he added , concluding : I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow our nation ’ s judicial norms , precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of this impeachment trial .
Democrats need four Republicans to side with them to allow more witnesses , However , Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) on Thursday said he will vote against in a move that many political pundits calculated would now see the bid fail .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) has warned of “the lasting damage” that could be done to the Senate and the country should Republicans block witnesses from testifying in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Warner, in a Thursday statement on the eve of the Senate’s vote on witnesses, said that “as conscientious citizens from all walks of life are trying their best to understand the complex impeachment issues now being deliberated in the U.S. Senate, the rules of evidence are central to the matter.”
Advertisement
NEW: Former Senator John Warner, a Republican and elder statesman of Virginia politics, has issued a statement calling on fellow Republicans to follow “judicial norms” by “welcoming relevant witnesses and documents” in President Trump’s impeachment trial. pic.twitter.com/GeRRjIkHfo — Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) January 31, 2020
Warner, who retired in 2009 after serving 30 years in the Senate, argued the chamber was also on trial and “as such, I am strongly supportive of the efforts of my former Republican Senate colleagues who are considering that the Senate accept the introduction of additional evidence that they deem relevant.”
“If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a sham, I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the Senate, and to our fragile national consensus,” he added.
He continued:
I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow our nation’s judicial norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this impeachment trial.
Democrats need four Republicans to side with them to allow witnesses,


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--Anthony Scaramucci Breaks Down The 3 Stages Of ‘Trump Employment Syndrome'

Anthony Scaramucci on Thursday broke down the three stages of what he calls “ Trump Employment Syndrome ” in a scathing editorial for The Washington Post .
Namely , the cycle that people go through working with President Donald Trump .
“ The typical person who has worked for Trump or who currently supports him at one point found him very odd , ” wrote Scaramucci , whose tenure as White House communications director in 2017 ended after just 11 days .
He has since become a fierce critic of the Trump administration .
Scaramucci noted how himself , Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House counselor Kellyanne Conway , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) and others had all prior to the 2016 election “ made public statements against then-candidate Trump and criticized his bizarre taunts and misbehavior.
” But after Trump won , Scaramucci said the second part of the cycle kicked in and they tried “ to see the positives , beginning a process of cognitive dissonance and moral equivocation ” during which “ respect for the office of the presidency ” allowed them “ to normalize what he is doing.
” Eventually , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mitigate the worst outcomes or moderate the president at all , you must either disavow your self-worth and personal integrity or else stand up and speak out .
Scaramucci ’ s editorial was ostensibly a letter of support to John Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser who nows finds himself at the center of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign after reportedly confirming the Democrats ’ case for the impeachment of the president in his forthcoming book .
“ I , for one , never felt more alive than when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ‘ unstable nutjob ’ on Twitter , ” Scaramucci concluded the op-ed .
“ His bullying and intimidating methods have frozen many in his party , but when I began receiving them myself , I realized I was finally free , ” he said .
“ Bolton might learn that speaking the truth is the best method of recovery for Trump Employment Syndrome .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Anthony Scaramucci on Thursday broke down the three stages of what he called “Trump Employment Syndrome” in a scathing op-ed for The Washington Post.
Namely, the cycle that people go through working for President Donald Trump.
“The typical person who has worked for Trump or who currently supports him at one point found him very odd,” wrote Scaramucci, whose tenure as White House communications director in 2017 ended after just 11 days. He has since become a fierce critic of the Trump administration.
Advertisement
Scaramucci noted how he himself, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others prior to the 2016 election “made public statements against then-candidate Trump and criticized his bizarre taunts and misbehavior.”
But after Trump won, Scaramucci said the second part of the cycle kicked in and they tried “to see the positives, beginning a process of cognitive dissonance and moral equivocation” during which “respect for the office of the presidency” allowed them “to normalize what he is doing.”
The third stage, he wrote, is binary.
Explained Scaramucci:
Eventually, after you’ve realized you can’t mitigate the worst outcomes or moderate the president at all, you must either disavow your self-worth and personal integrity or else stand up and speak out.
Scaramucci’s column ostensibly was a letter of support for John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who nows finds himself at the center of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign after reportedly confirming the Democrats’ case for the impeachment of the president in his forthcoming book.
Advertisement
“I, for one, never felt more alive than when the president of the United States called me an ‘unstable nutjob’ on Twitter,” Scaramucci concluded his op-ed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--FAA Whistleblower Reported Concern Over 2 Deadly Helicopter Crashes In Hawaii

“ Tour helicopter and small aircraft operations are not safe , and innocent lives are paying the price , ” @ @ @ @ @ In our Hawaii alone , ” he added , “ the industry , while stridently @ @ @ @ @ and sensitive to neighborhoods , has in fact ignored any sensible safety improvements , instead @ @ @ @ @ its volume of flights , at all times of day and night , in seemingly @ @ @ @ @ neighborhoods , and to more risky and remote locations , at lower altitudes , while @ @ @ @ @ safety and community disruption concerns .
”

“Tour helicopter and small aircraft operations are not safe, and innocent lives are paying the price,” Case told AP.
“In our Hawaii alone,” he added, “the industry, while stridently arguing that it is safe and sensitive to neighborhoods, has in fact ignored any sensible safety improvements, instead dramatically increasing in recent years its volume of flights, at all times of day and night, in seemingly all weather over more residential neighborhoods, and to more risky and remote locations, at lower altitudes, while completely failing to address ground safety and community disruption concerns.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--State Department Issues 'Do Not Travel' Advisory For China As Coronavirus Spreads

The State Department urged Americans to avoid all travel to China , dramatically raising its advisory to the highest level Thursday as health officials declared the spread of a new coronavirus a global emergency .
The State Department raised its travel advisory to Level 4 : Do Not Travel , its strongest warning for American citizens .
Other countries currently under similar warnings include Iraq , North Korea and South Sudan .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the decision came amid the ongoing spread of the new coronavirus around the globe and the World Health Organization ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday .
.
@ StateDept is increasing the # China Travel Advisory to Level 4 – Do Not Travel .
This is due to the spread of the novel # coronavirus throughout China & the @ WHO determination that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern .
https : //t.co/BIIUdavoP0 — Secretary Pompeo ( @ SecPompeo ) January 31 , 2020 “ Those currently in China should consider departing using commercial means , ” the State Department said .
“ The Department of State has requested that all non-essential U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light of the novel coronavirus.
” The U.S. announced its sixth case of the virus on Thursday and said that it had been spread by person-to-person contact for the first time in the country .
WHO declared the novel coronavirus an emergency after initially declining to do so last week .
The declaration can help the international community craft a coordinated response to the outbreak .
The designation does not carry the force of law , though , and mostly signals that the top health advisory body considers the virus a serious matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed cases as the number of those infected topped 9,600 in China by Friday , even as the country worked to effectively quarantine about 50 million people .
Officials also reported 213 deaths linked to the outbreak .
The majority of those infections and all of the deaths have so far occurred in China , where the virus was first seen in the city of Wuhan .
Other cases have been reported in 22 countries and territories , including the U.S. , Australia , France , Canada , Japan and South Korea .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit further spread , ” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Thursday .
“ Our greatest concern is for the virus to spread to other countries with weaker assistance and which are ill-prepared to deal with it.
” The U.S. has begun evacuating some Americans from Wuhan and has already flown nearly 200 people to a military base in California , mostly State Department employees and their families .
Many still remain , however .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The State Department urged Americans to avoid all travel to China, dramatically raising its advisory to the highest level Thursday as health officials declared the spread of a new coronavirus a global emergency.
The State Department raised its travel advisory to Level 4: Do Not Travel, its strongest warning for American citizens. Other countries currently under similar warnings include Iraq, North Korea and South Sudan.
Advertisement
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the decision came amid the ongoing spread of the new coronavirus around the globe and the World Health Organization’s decision to declare a global health emergency on Thursday.
.@StateDept is increasing the #China Travel Advisory to Level 4 – Do Not Travel. This is due to the spread of the novel #coronavirus throughout China & the @WHO determination that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. https://t.co/BIIUdavoP0 — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 31, 2020
“Those currently in China should consider departing using commercial means,” the State Department said. “The Department of State has requested that all non-essential U.S. government personnel defer travel to China in light of the novel coronavirus.”
The U.S. announced its sixth case of the virus on Thursday and said that it had been spread by person-to-person contact for the first time in the country.
Advertisement
WHO declared the novel coronavirus an emergency after initially declining to do so last week. The declaration can help the international community craft a coordinated response to the outbreak. The designation does not carry the force of law, though, and mostly signals that the top health advisory body considers the virus a serious matter.
The body cited a surge in confirmed cases as the number of those infected topped 9,600 in China by Friday, even as the country worked to effectively quarantine about 50 million people. Officials also reported 213 deaths linked to the outbreak. The majority of those infections and all of the deaths have so far occurred in China, where the virus was first seen in the city of Wuhan.
Other cases have been reported in 22 countries and territories, including the U.S., Australia, France, Canada, Japan and South Korea.
“We must all act together now to limit further spread,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Thursday. “Our greatest concern is for the virus to spread to other countries with weaker assistance and which are ill-prepared to deal with it.”
The U.S. has begun evacuating some Americans from Wuhan and has already flown nearly 200 people to a military base in California, mostly State Department employees and their families. Many still remain, however.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Last Year's Economic Growth Slowest Of Trump's Presidency, New Figures Reveal

The economy grew 2.3 % last year in the weakest performance of President Donald Trump ’ s time in office , according to data released Thursday by the Commerce Department .
Trump promised annual economic growth — measured by gross domestic product — of at least 3 % .
The slowdown was attributed to the continuing costs and uncertainty of Trump ’ s trade war , and a consumer spending dip in the final quarter .
Consumer spending , which accounts for more than two-thirds of the current $ 21.7 trillion U.S. economy , fell as job gains slowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous quarter .
Many experts have derided Trump ’ s massive tax cut passed in 2017 , largely benefiting corporations , as a short-lived “ sugar rush ” that failed to trigger significant business investment and a new level of sustained growth as deficits zoomed .
“ The remarkable thing is how weak wages are , how weak the economy is , given that , as a result of the tax bill , we have a $ 1 trillion deficit , ” Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz complained at the recent World Economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy ’ s moderate showing last year , it racked up an 11th year in the nation ’ s record-breaking stretch of economic expansion .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The economy grew 2.3% last year in the weakest performance of President Donald Trump’s time in office, according to data released Thursday by the Commerce Department.
Trump promised annual economic growth — measured by gross domestic product — of at least 3%.
The slowdown was attributed to the continuing costs and uncertainty of Trump’s trade war, and a consumer spending dip in the final quarter. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the current $21.7 trillion U.S. economy, fell as job gains slowed to 1.8% from 3.2% in the previous quarter.
Advertisement
Many experts have derided Trump’s massive tax cut passed in 2017, largely benefiting corporations, as a short-lived “sugar rush” that failed to trigger significant business investment and a new level of sustained growth as deficits zoomed.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--Fox News Legal Analyst: GOP Senators Suppressing Truth If They Don’t Call Witnesses

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano in a new editorial on Thursday suggested Senate Republicans are suppressing the truth by not wanting witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
“ If the Senate is faithful to the Constitution , then Trump ’ s trial will be a search for the truth , ” Napolitano wrote in the op-ed published on the conservative news network ’ s website , adding : “ And those offering to tell the truth should be welcomed , not pilloried .
How can the Senate be faithful to the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats need four Republicans to vote to call witnesses such as Trump ’ s former national security adviser John Bolton , who reportedly confirms the Democrats ’ case against the president in his upcoming book .
But Sen. Lamar Alexander ’ s ( R-Tenn. ) announcement Thursday that he will vote against allowing witnesses will likely ensure they will not be allowed to testify .
Elsewhere in Napolitano ’ s piece , titled “ Trump ’ s impeachment trial should hear from witnesses offering to tell the truth ” ― the former New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal team for offering up spurious arguments in defense of the president .
“ The president ’ s lawyers have misrepresented the separation of powers by arguing that when Congress and the president are at loggerheads over congressional demands for documents or testimony , it becomes the duty of the Congress to turn to the courts , ” he wrote , later adding : That is a general proposition of law , yet an incomplete one , as it does not apply in cases of presidential impeachment where the House has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Stated differently , the president has no legal or constitutional basis to reject House subpoenas when the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry .
Napolitano last week argued there was “ ample ” evidence to remove Trump from office over his Ukraine misconduct .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano suggested in a column on Thursday that Senate Republicans are suppressing the truth by not wanting witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
“If the Senate is faithful to the Constitution, then Trump’s trial will be a search for the truth,” Napolitano wrote in the op-ed published on the conservative news network’s website, adding: “And those offering to tell the truth should be welcomed, not pilloried. How can the Senate be faithful to the Constitution if it suppresses the truth?”
Advertisement
Democrats need four Republicans to join them in voting to call witnesses, such as Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, who reportedly confirms the Democrats’ case against the president in his upcoming book. But Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) announcement Thursday that he will vote against allowing witnesses likely ensures that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will succeed in blocking witnesses.
Elsewhere in Napolitano’s piece, titled “Trump’s impeachment trial should hear from witnesses offering to tell the truth” ― the former New Jersey Superior Court judge called out Trump’s legal team for spurious arguments in defense of the president.
“The president’s lawyers have misrepresented the separation of powers by arguing that when Congress and the president are at loggerheads over congressional demands for documents or testimony, it becomes the duty of the Congress to turn to the courts,” he wrote, adding:
That is a general proposition of law, yet an incomplete one, as it does not apply in cases of presidential impeachment where the House has more than primacy — it alone has power. Stated differently, the president has no legal or constitutional basis to reject House subpoenas when the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-31--Carl Bernstein Rips Senate Republicans: 'This Is A Cover-Up, Plain and Simple'

And there has been no attempt throughout this proceeding by the Republicans in this Senate of the United States , @ @ @ @ @ greatest deliberative body , which we now can see how deliberative it is , that @ @ @ @ @ really shameful episode in our history that is going to read down for many , @ @ @

And there has been no attempt throughout this proceeding by the Republicans in this Senate of the United States, the so-called world’s greatest deliberative body, which we now can see how deliberative it is, that we have seen now a really shameful episode in our history that is going to redound for many, many years.