thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Mitch McConnell Warns White House Not To Accept Stimulus Deal Before Election

McConnell has always been an obstacle to an agreement between Pelosi and the White House , with the Kentucky Republican mostly staying on the sidelines as the speaker and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have tried ― and failed ― for months to find a compromise on another coronavirus relief bill .
A senior GOP aide told HuffPost on Tuesday that McConnell had informed Senate Republicans that he advised the White House not to finalize an agreement before the Nov. 3rd election , warning President Donald Trump that adding a major measure to the legislative calendar now could derail the confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
Such a warning is , of course , outlandish .
Barrett ’ s confirmation hasn ’ t been in doubt since even before she was nominated , and it ’ s looking like the Senate will confirm her next Monday .
But keeping senators in town past Oct. 26 will eat into valuable campaigning time for many vulnerable Republicans seeking reelection .
And passing $ 2 trillion in new spending is anathema to McConnell and many Republicans .
Many GOP senators have privately said they ’ d like to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rediscovering their debt clocks and penny-pinching ways as the prospects of a Joe Biden presidency grow by the day .
If a deal had Trump ’ s backing , however , it ’ d be difficult for many Republicans to vote against it , particularly just days before the election .
A recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College suggests that a $ 2 trillion stimulus is extremely popular : 72 % of respondents support such a deal , while only 21 % oppose it .
So the best-case scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is if such a deal never materializes .
“ The number I ’ m less concerned with than the provisions , ” added Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-N.C. ) Tuesday when asked if he could support a larger stimulus package .
The vulnerable North Carolina Republican opposes providing aid to cities and states but is supportive of other popular items like unemployment benefits and another round of stimulus checks .
GOP senators would certainly prefer not having to publicly oppose a deal or the president .
So many have chosen to positively posture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s currently on the table .
After passing trillion-dollar tax cuts and spending roughly $ 3 trillion on coronavirus relief already ― on top of the roughly $ 3 trillion that the Federal Reserve has spent easing the stock market ― Republicans are once again finding their tea party tricorn hats just in time to handicap the economic recovery under a Democratic president .
Should Biden win , it ’ s unlikely any Republican senator would go along with a stimulus deal , making it difficult to find 60 votes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority .
So if Pelosi and the White House can ’ t reach a deal soon and have Trump pressure Republicans before the election , it ’ s possible there ’ s never another stimulus .
But there ’ s been some sudden hope about the prospects of a deal .
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Tuesday that it was a “ false choice ” between confirming Barrett and passing a stimulus deal before the election .
“ We can actually do both , we will do both , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t that this day is the day we would have a deal , ” she said .
“ It ’ s a day when we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step .
Legislation takes a long time.
” A senior aide for Pelosi tweeted that she and Mnuchin had spoken for about 45 minutes Tuesday afternoon and that the deadline that Pelosi set on Sunday “ enabled ” both sides to see that “ decisions could be reached and language could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious about finding a compromise.
” Still , there is a long way from trading paper and working on language to a final agreement .
And with just those two weeks before Election Day , it ’ s very possible McConnell and other Republicans slow down a deal enough that it ’ s impossible to do before the election .
Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-Ala. ) , the veteran Republican negotiator and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee , is already expressing concern about the debt and said that passing a bill in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump fully threw his weight behind it at this point .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once again extending a self-imposed deadline for a stimulus bill on Tuesday, an already doubtful deal is now running into a new roadblock: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell has always been an obstacle to an agreement between Pelosi and the White House, with the Kentucky Republican mostly staying on the sidelines as the speaker and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have tried ― and failed ― for months to find a compromise on another coronavirus relief bill.
Advertisement
But with Pelosi and the Trump administration finally making strides just two weeks before Election Day, McConnell has finally started lobbying against a deal.
A senior GOP aide told HuffPost on Tuesday that McConnell had informed Senate Republicans that he advised the White House not to finalize an agreement before the Nov. 3rd election, warning President Donald Trump that adding a major measure to the legislative calendar now could derail the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Such a warning is, of course, outlandish. Barrett’s confirmation hasn’t been in doubt since even before she was nominated, and it’s looking like the Senate will confirm her next Monday. But keeping senators in town past Oct. 26 will eat into valuable campaigning time for many vulnerable Republicans seeking reelection. And passing $2 trillion in new spending is anathema to McConnell and many Republicans.
“It’s clear Senate Republicans are uncomfortable spending $2 trillion right before an election,” a senior GOP aide told HuffPost on Tuesday.
Advertisement
Many GOP senators have privately said they’d like to avoid voting on new spending, with conservatives rediscovering their debt clocks and penny-pinching ways as the prospects of a Joe Biden presidency grow by the day. If a deal had Trump’s backing, however, it’d be difficult for many Republicans to vote against it, particularly just days before the election.
“After passing trillion-dollar tax cuts and spending roughly $3 trillion on coronavirus relief already, Republicans are once again finding their tea party tricorn hats just in time to handicap the economic recovery under a Democratic president.”
A recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College suggests that a $2 trillion stimulus is extremely popular: 72% of respondents support such a deal, while only 21% oppose it. So the best-case scenario for Senate Republicans, it seems, is if such a deal never materializes.
“Right now, procedurally, the mechanics of getting the deal done [before the election] would be challenging, to say the least,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters on Tuesday.
“The number I’m less concerned with than the provisions,” added Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) Tuesday when asked if he could support a larger stimulus package. The vulnerable North Carolina Republican opposes providing aid to cities and states but is supportive of other popular items like unemployment benefits and another round of stimulus checks.
Advertisement
GOP senators would certainly prefer not having to publicly oppose a deal or the president. So many have chosen to positively posture about a theoretical agreement while picking apart what’s currently on the table. After passing trillion-dollar tax cuts and spending roughly $3 trillion on coronavirus relief already ― on top of the roughly $3 trillion that the Federal Reserve has spent easing the stock market ― Republicans are once again finding their tea party tricorn hats just in time to handicap the economic recovery under a Democratic president.
Should Biden win, it’s unlikely any Republican senator would go along with a stimulus deal, making it difficult to find 60 votes in the Senate even if Democrats take back the majority. So if Pelosi and the White House can’t reach a deal soon and have Trump pressure Republicans before the election, it’s possible there’s never another stimulus.
But there’s been some sudden hope about the prospects of a deal. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Tuesday that it was a “false choice” between confirming Barrett and passing a stimulus deal before the election. “We can actually do both, we will do both,” he said.
And Pelosi said Tuesday she was “optimistic” about a deal before the election, walking back a Tuesday deadline for movement on a stimulus bill.
“It isn’t that this day is the day we would have a deal,” she said. “It’s a day when we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step. Legislation takes a long time.”
Advertisement
A senior aide for Pelosi tweeted that she and Mnuchin had spoken for about 45 minutes Tuesday afternoon and that the deadline that Pelosi set on Sunday “enabled” both sides to see that “decisions could be reached and language could be exchanged, demonstrating that both sides are serious about finding a compromise.”
The aide added that committee chairs would work to resolve differences about funding levels and language and that Pelosi and Mnuchin would talk again on Wednesday.
Still, there is a long way from trading paper and working on language to a final agreement. And with just those two weeks before Election Day, it’s very possible McConnell and other Republicans slow down a deal enough that it’s impossible to do before the election.
And afterward, if Biden does win, those same GOP senators skittish about opposing Trump might finally feel emboldened enough to openly break from the president. Some are already introducing daylight.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the veteran Republican negotiator and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is already expressing concern about the debt and said that passing a bill in the Senate would be difficult even if Trump fully threw his weight behind it at this point.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--LGBTQ Advocates Shred Tiffany Trump's Speech At 'Trump Pride' Event

The event , which took place Saturday at the Westshore Grand Hotel in Tampa , Florida , comprised “ a diverse coalition dedicated to re-electing President Trump , the first president to begin his presidency in support of marriage equality , ” according to its website .
Video footage of the event , featured on local NBC affiliate WFLA and widely circulated on social media , showed Tiffany Trump emerging from the crowd in a pink face mask before taking the stage to deliver a speech .
“ I know what my father believes in , ” she told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marla Maples , along with many attendees who did not appear to be wearing masks .
“ Prior to politics , he supported gays , lesbians , the LGBQIIA+ community.
” Tiffany went on to note that she was “ saddened ” by the “ fabricated lies ” that appeared on social media with regard to the Trump administration ’ s stance on LGBTQ rights .
“ You , unfortunately , see social media and you see these fabricated lies , ” she said .
“ I have friends of mine who reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could you support your father ?
We know you .
We know your best friends are gay.
’ ...
I say , ‘ It ’ s because my father has always supported all of you.
’ He ’ s never done it for politics.
” “ I ’ m here because I support my father , ” she continued .
“ He supports all of you and we are to fight for equality , democracy ― to keep America and make it better.
” Not surprisingly , Tiffany ’ s comments received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights advocates on social media .
Some singled out what appeared to be her omission of the transgender community from the LGBTQ+ acronym during the speech .
Others , however , drew attention to the president ’ s anti-LGBTQ platform ― which has included attempting to ban trans recruits from the U.S. military and permitting foster agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples ― during his time in office .
“ Donald Trump is the worst president the LGBTQ community has ever seen , ” Nadine Smith , the group ’ s director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event is a pathetic attempt to hide his appalling record and it ’ s fooling no one .
We are tired of Trump ’ s lies and our community understands a second term would be devastating.
” Tiffany Trump has made only a few appearances on the 2020 campaign trail for her father , including a much-criticized speech at the Republican National Convention in August .
That same month , she took a swipe at Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by calling him “ a liar ” on social media .
Many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out her hypocrisy given her father ’ s record of misinformation .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The event, which took place Saturday at the Westshore Grand Hotel in Tampa, Florida, comprised “a diverse coalition dedicated to re-electing President Trump, the first president to begin his presidency in support of marriage equality,” according to its website.
Advertisement
The 27-year-old first daughter and former National Intelligence Director Richard Grenell, who is gay, co-hosted the event.
Video footage of the event, featured on local NBC affiliate WFLA and widely circulated on social media, showed Tiffany Trump emerging from the crowd in a pink face mask before taking the stage to deliver a speech.
“I know what my father believes in,” she told the crowd, which included her mother, Marla Maples, along with many attendees who did not appear to be wearing masks. “Prior to politics, he supported gays, lesbians, the LGBQIIA+ community.”
Advertisement
Tiffany Trump hosts ‘Trump Pride’ event in Tampa... 👀 pic.twitter.com/9Jpa3t2lPt — Washington Blade (@WashBlade) October 20, 2020
Tiffany went on to note that she was “saddened” by the “fabricated lies” that appeared on social media with regard to the Trump administration’s stance on LGBTQ rights.
“You, unfortunately, see social media and you see these fabricated lies,” she said. “I have friends of mine who reach out ... they say, ‘How could you support your father? We know you. We know your best friends are gay.’ ... I say, ‘It’s because my father has always supported all of you.’ He’s never done it for politics.”
“I’m here because I support my father,” she continued. “He supports all of you and we are to fight for equality, democracy ― to keep America and make it better.”
Not surprisingly, Tiffany’s comments received a frosty response from media personalities and LGBTQ rights advocates on social media. Some singled out what appeared to be her omission of the transgender community from the LGBTQ+ acronym during the speech.
Advertisement
Tiffany Trump led a tiny rally in which she claimed to have gay friends and eliminated the T from LGBTQ. Just when I thought I couldn’t hate the Trumps more, and it’s hard to believe Tiffany has any friends — Paul Rudnick (@PaulRudnickNY) October 20, 2020
Others, however, drew attention to the president’s anti-LGBTQ platform ― which has included attempting to ban trans recruits from the U.S. military and permitting foster agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples ― during his time in office.
1. He reversed Obama's trans protections in schools.
2. He banned transgender service members.
3. He banned homeless trans people in shelters.
4. He tried to reverse Obama's protections for trans people in health care.
5. He nominated anti-LGBTQIA+ judges.
Tiffany Trump... https://t.co/Y5RyqlX6hl — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) October 20, 2020
Since Tiffany Trump's appearance at the Trump Pride campaign event is trending, heres a rundown of how the Trump administration rolled back LGBTQ rights https://t.co/gO2cvcfbCR — Moiz Syed (@moizsyed) October 20, 2020
Equality Florida, a local LGBTQ advocacy group, condemned the event as part o the Trump campaign’s “desperate” effort to “disguise their abhorrent record on LGBTQ issues.”
Advertisement
“Donald Trump is the worst president the LGBTQ community has ever seen,” Nadine Smith, the group’s director, said in a statement. “This event is a pathetic attempt to hide his appalling record and it’s fooling no one. We are tired of Trump’s lies and our community understands a second term would be devastating.”
Tiffany Trump has made only a few appearances on the 2020 campaign trail for her father, including a much-criticized speech at the Republican National Convention in August.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Joe Biden Sends Birthday Wishes To Kamala Harris — And Hints At Next Year

For the Nov 3 election : States are making it easier for citizens to vote absentee by mail this year @ @ @ @ @ Each state has its own rules for mail-in absentee voting .
Visit your state election @ @ @ @ @ if you can vote by mail .

By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Twitter Users Roast Kayleigh McEnany's Tweet About Trump's 'HUGE' Health Care Feats

Kayleigh McEnany made a “ HUGE ” deal about a book to “ 60 Minutes ” correspondent Lesley Stahl and is getting hugely roasted on Twitter .
Stahl visited the White House on Tuesday for an interview with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence .
Although the president reportedly ended his interview early , claiming in a tweet that it was “ FAKE and BIASED , ” McEnany later posted a tweet showing Stahl holding a book that the White House press secretary claimed represented “ just a small part of what [ President Donald Trump ] has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” Handing Lesley Stahl just a small part of what President @ realDonaldTrump has done for healthcare in the United States .
She couldn ’ t believe how HUGE it was and said , “ I can hardly lift this‼ ” pic.twitter.com/RSWrzKo1or — Kayleigh McEnany ( @ PressSec ) October 20 , 2020 Considering the tragic way the Trump administration has handled the coronavirus pandemic , it ’ s not surprising the tweet inspired a “ HUGE ” amount of snarky comments from Twitter users speculating on what was in the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's just a list of all the nearly 300,000 Americans dead and 8.3 MILLION illnesses from the Trump administration 's negligent and criminal handling of the pandemic .
https : //t.co/GulfOM46ME — Peter Gleick 🇺🇸 ( @ PeterGleick ) October 20 , 2020 '' And every single name in this book has lost health insurance during Donald Trump 's presidency ?
Wow no wonder it 's so heavy . ''
https : //t.co/xaztiq10la — David Frum ( @ davidfrum ) October 20 , 2020 Inside there 's just a tape of that Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell did I do ?
Killed them all , of course . ''
https : //t.co/XXJbnaoqAN — Vince Mancini ( @ VinceMancini ) October 20 , 2020 Oh , is this a binder of all the times the GOP has tried to destroy protections for people with pre-existing conditions and take away health care ?
?
?
https : //t.co/2RbipVFnTF — Little Lobbyists ( @ LittleLobbyists ) October 20 , 2020 Those are transcripts of the lawsuits he 's brought against the ACA ?
https : //t.co/b9lA131dm6 — David Knowles ( @ writerknowles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman summed things up in the most accurate way possible .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Kayleigh McEnany made a “HUGE” deal about a book to “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl and is getting hugely roasted on Twitter.
Stahl visited the White House on Tuesday for an interview with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
Advertisement
Although the president reportedly ended his interview early, claiming in a tweet that it was “FAKE and BIASED,” McEnany later posted a tweet showing Stahl holding a book that the White House press secretary claimed represented “just a small part of what [President Donald Trump] has done for health care in the United States.”
McEnany said Stahl seemed impressed.
Handing Lesley Stahl just a small part of what President @realDonaldTrump has done for healthcare in the United States.
She couldn’t believe how HUGE it was and said, “I can hardly lift this‼” pic.twitter.com/RSWrzKo1or — Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) October 20, 2020
Considering the tragic way the Trump administration has handled the coronavirus pandemic, it’s not surprising the tweet inspired a “HUGE” amount of snarky comments from Twitter users speculating on what was in the book.
Advertisement
It's so heavy because it's just a list of all the nearly 300,000 Americans dead and 8.3 MILLION illnesses from the Trump administration's negligent and criminal handling of the pandemic. https://t.co/GulfOM46ME — Peter Gleick 🇺🇸 (@PeterGleick) October 20, 2020
"And every single name in this book has lost health insurance during Donald Trump's presidency? Wow no wonder it's so heavy." https://t.co/xaztiq10la — David Frum (@davidfrum) October 20, 2020
Inside there's just a tape of that Robert Durst clip, muttering "What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course." https://t.co/XXJbnaoqAN — Vince Mancini (@VinceMancini) October 20, 2020
Because everyone knows you measure health accomplishment by weight https://t.co/BPn2t4FD1l — Matt Wilstein (@mattwilstein) October 20, 2020
A reliable source informed me it's in comic sans font, weight 48 https://t.co/IpQWacccLB — Michael Dunlap (@DunlapSports) October 20, 2020
Advertisement
Oh, is this a binder of all the times the GOP has tried to destroy protections for people with pre-existing conditions and take away health care??? https://t.co/2RbipVFnTF — Little Lobbyists (@LittleLobbyists) October 20, 2020
Those are transcripts of the lawsuits he's brought against the ACA? https://t.co/b9lA131dm6 — David Knowles (@writerknowles) October 20, 2020
But one woman summed things up in the most accurate way possible.
this is ... a little sad maybe? https://t.co/p3qrTx0K9b — Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) October 20, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Most Presidents Who Lose Deal With Shame. Trump Could Have To Deal With Prison.

But Trump ’ s activities in recent years ― from paying hush money to a porn star to his claiming of a massive tax refund to obstructing an investigation into his campaign ’ s ties to Russia ― combined with a ticking statute of limitations clock potentially make Election Day far more consequential for him than it had been for his predecessors .
“ Winning this election for him is not an option .
It ’ s a necessity , ” said Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former personal lawyer and “ fixer ” who was sentenced for , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep women he ’ d had affairs with from speaking out before the 2016 election .
“ He knows that if his tax returns are revealed that he and his children ― Don Jr. , Ivanka , Eric ― and others will be charged with a host of criminal tax issues , which will not only cost him his freedom but his entire business , ” Cohen said .
Daniel Goldman , a former federal prosecutor who a year ago served as the lead lawyer in the House ’ s impeachment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 could also face charges of bribery for his commutation of aide Roger Stone ’ s prison sentence as well as extortion charges for his attempts to coerce Ukraine into smearing his political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
Trump was impeached for that but was permitted by Republicans in the Senate to remain in office .
Any federal tax or bank fraud Trump may have committed in the first three years of his first term would likely be beyond the reach of prosecutors if they have to wait until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2025 .
A similar fate could befall Trump ’ s work to throttle special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s 2017-2019 investigation into Russia ’ s work to help Trump win the last presidential campaign .
In spring , a mailing to every household in the country from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the coronavirus prominently included Trump ’ s name , even though he had spent months downplaying the virus , at one point even calling it a hoax .
When the Treasury Department sent out $ 1,200 relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s name .
More recently , Trump has resisted warnings from public health experts to curtail large gatherings by resuming a frantic schedule of the campaign rallies that he believes are key to winning on Nov. 3 .
He has again started downplaying the virus and insisting ― against all evidence ― that the pandemic is all but over .
And on Tuesday , he added to his baseless claims of “ corruption ” against Democratic opponent Biden by calling on Attorney General William Barr to open an investigation .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general to act .
He ’ s got to act , and he ’ s got to act fast , ” Trump said during a lengthy interview with Fox News .
“ This is major corruption , and this has to be known about before the election.
” The sole possible precedent in American politics is that of Republican Nixon , who resigned from office in 1974 after GOP senators made it clear they would not save him if articles of impeachment regarding his role in the Watergate scandal made it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been appointed Nixon ’ s vice president in 1973 after the resignation of Spiro Agnew following his indictment for bribery , issued Nixon a blanket pardon just 30 days after assuming the presidency .
“ I can not prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed , ” Ford said in a taped 10-minute Oval Office speech .
Biden , who has run on the theme of bringing the country together and “ healing ” after Trump ’ s years in office , in May committed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but said he would not direct his attorney general to do anything one way or the other .
“ It is not something the president is entitled to do , to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case , ” Biden said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― If Donald Trump seems more desperate than most incumbents about the coming election, he may have good reason: Presidents do not typically have to worry about going to prison if they lose.
But Trump’s activities in recent years ― from paying hush money to a porn star to his claiming of a massive tax refund to obstructing an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia ― combined with a ticking statute of limitations clock potentially make Election Day far more consequential for him than it had been for his predecessors.
Advertisement
If Trump wins a second term, the time limit for starting a prosecution would run out in the next four years for a number of those activities, given Justice Department guidelines not to prosecute a sitting president. If Trump loses, indictments could quickly follow.
“Winning this election for him is not an option. It’s a necessity,” said Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and “fixer” who was sentenced for, among other charges, arranging illegal payments to keep women he’d had affairs with from speaking out before the 2016 election.
“There’s so much criminality here.” - Nick Ackerman, former federal prosecutor
“He knows that if his tax returns are revealed that he and his children ― Don Jr., Ivanka, Eric ― and others will be charged with a host of criminal tax issues, which will not only cost him his freedom but his entire business,” Cohen said.
Advertisement
Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to HuffPost queries for this report.
Trump was already described as “Individual-1” in Cohen’s prosecution. With a five-year statute of limitations for many federal crimes, the clock would run out on the hush money cases in late 2021.
Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who a year ago served as the lead lawyer in the House’s impeachment of Trump, said an ex-President Trump in 2021 could also face charges of bribery for his commutation of aide Roger Stone’s prison sentence as well as extortion charges for his attempts to coerce Ukraine into smearing his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump was impeached for that but was permitted by Republicans in the Senate to remain in office.
“There’s so much criminality here,” said Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor and, prior to that, a prosecutor in the task force created to investigate President Richard Nixon for the 1972 Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up.
Any federal tax or bank fraud Trump may have committed in the first three years of his first term would likely be beyond the reach of prosecutors if they have to wait until the end of a second term in January 2025. A similar fate could befall Trump’s work to throttle special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2017-2019 investigation into Russia’s work to help Trump win the last presidential campaign.
Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, leaves his Park Avenue apartment May 6, 2019, to begin a three-year prison sentence. Cohen later was allowed to serve home confinement because of the coronavirus. TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
“Again, it would lapse in a second term,” Ackerman said.
Though there is no prohibition on state-level prosecutions against a sitting president, a New York City district attorney told the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving Trump’s business records that they were cognizant of the time demands on a president.
“We’re mindful that as a state actor, our office cannot investigate a president for any official acts and that we cannot prosecute a president while in office,” said Carey Dunne, general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney’s office during oral arguments in May.
The possibility of prosecution and incarceration may explain Trump’s apparent mania in recent months, with repeated use and, at times, abuse of the powers of his office to aid his reelection.
In spring, a mailing to every household in the country from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the coronavirus prominently included Trump’s name, even though he had spent months downplaying the virus, at one point even calling it a hoax. When the Treasury Department sent out $1,200 relief checks to Americans, those also included Trump’s name.
More recently, Trump has resisted warnings from public health experts to curtail large gatherings by resuming a frantic schedule of the campaign rallies that he believes are key to winning on Nov. 3. He has again started downplaying the virus and insisting ― against all evidence ― that the pandemic is all but over.
Advertisement
And on Tuesday, he added to his baseless claims of “corruption” against Democratic opponent Biden by calling on Attorney General William Barr to open an investigation. “We’ve got to get the attorney general to act. He’s got to act, and he’s got to act fast,” Trump said during a lengthy interview with Fox News. “This is major corruption, and this has to be known about before the election.”
America has a history of treating presidential losers poorly, essentially stamping a giant capital “L” on their foreheads. Democrat Jimmy Carter was scorned, even by many Democrats, after losing in 1980 to Ronald Reagan. Republican Bob Dole, a longtime senator, was left to making self-deprecating television commercials after losing in 1996 to incumbent Bill Clinton.
But though they and others faced ignominy, they never had to worry about the possibility of years of imprisonment in the event of a loss.
The sole possible precedent in American politics is that of Republican Nixon, who resigned from office in 1974 after GOP senators made it clear they would not save him if articles of impeachment regarding his role in the Watergate scandal made it to their chamber. Gerald Ford, who had been appointed Nixon’s vice president in 1973 after the resignation of Spiro Agnew following his indictment for bribery, issued Nixon a blanket pardon just 30 days after assuming the presidency. “I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed,” Ford said in a taped 10-minute Oval Office speech.
Similarly, just because Trump could face criminal charges does not mean he necessarily will.
Biden, who has run on the theme of bringing the country together and “healing” after Trump’s years in office, in May committed in an MSNBC interview not to pardon Trump but said he would not direct his attorney general to do anything one way or the other. “It is not something the president is entitled to do, to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case,” Biden said.
Advertisement
Others, though, including Republicans, say it is critical to bringing back a sense of normalcy that a president as openly and regularly lawless as Trump be held to account.
“The integrity of our constitutional republic depends on holding our elected leaders accountable. Trump is no exception,” said Rick Tyler, a GOP consultant who worked on Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2016 bid for president.
“We cannot reward criminal behavior, by Trump or any of his miscreants in the Cabinet, White House or elsewhere,” agreed Norman Ornstein, with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at scoops@huffpost.com.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Donald Trump Causes A Fuss Over Upcoming ‘60 Minutes’ Interview

President Donald Trump caused a fuss on Tuesday about his upcoming interview on “ 60 Minutes , ” reportedly leaving the set early and then complaining about it online .
Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spent the day participating in the CBS show ’ s episode , which is set to air on Sunday , just over a week until the election .
The episode is also expected to feature interviews with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) .
The president abruptly stopped his interview at the White House with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stahl , after he had become irritated with her line of questioning , two people familiar with the situation told The New York Times .
Trump reportedly spent more than 45 minutes filming with Stahl and her crew , but cut the interview short when the taping didn ’ t finish when aides had expected it to .
The president then declined to participate in a “ walk and talk ” segment with Stahl and Pence , according to the Times .
Soon afterward , Trump tweeted a six-second video clip appearing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The president , who went maskless even when he had COVID-19 , tweeted that Stahl was “ not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me .
Much more to come.
” According to the Times , Stahl wore a mask at the White House right up until the start of her taping with Trump , including when she first greeted him .
The video Trump posted shows the anchor conferring with two masked CBS producers immediately after the interview ended .
The CBS crew had been tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House on Tuesday , the paper reported .
Stahl has interviewed Trump twice since the beginning of his presidency , including his first televised interview after winning the election .
She also filmed with the president at the White House in October 2018 .
The anchor was hospitalized with COVID-19 in the spring and has since recovered .
“ I am pleased to inform you that , for the sake of accuracy in reporting , I am considering posting my interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes , PRIOR TO AIRTIME !
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a glimpse of what a FAKE and BIASED interview is all about , ” he wrote , giving no hints at when specifically he would release footage and whose footage it would be .
Trump also tweeted that everyone “ should compare this terrible Electoral Intrusion ” to recent interviews of Biden .
It ’ s unclear what the president means by “ electoral intrusion.
” The former vice president taped his interview with “ CBS Evening News ” anchor Norah O ’ Donnell on Monday .
He has not yet tweeted @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump caused a fuss on Tuesday about his upcoming interview on “60 Minutes,” reportedly leaving the set early and then complaining about it online.
Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spent the day participating in the CBS show’s episode, which is set to air on Sunday, just over a week until the election. The episode is also expected to feature interviews with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).
Advertisement
The president abruptly stopped his interview at the White House with the show’s star, Lesley Stahl, after he had become irritated with her line of questioning, two people familiar with the situation told The New York Times.
Trump reportedly spent more than 45 minutes filming with Stahl and her crew, but cut the interview short when the taping didn’t finish when aides had expected it to. The president then declined to participate in a “walk and talk” segment with Stahl and Pence, according to the Times.
Soon afterward, Trump tweeted a six-second video clip appearing to show Stahl at the White House post-interview. The president, who went maskless even when he had COVID-19, tweeted that Stahl was “not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me. Much more to come.”
Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me. Much more to come. pic.twitter.com/0plZG6a4fH — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2020
Advertisement
According to the Times, Stahl wore a mask at the White House right up until the start of her taping with Trump, including when she first greeted him. The video Trump posted shows the anchor conferring with two masked CBS producers immediately after the interview ended. The CBS crew had been tested for the coronavirus before entering the White House on Tuesday, the paper reported.
Stahl has interviewed Trump twice since the beginning of his presidency, including his first televised interview after winning the election. She also filmed with the president at the White House in October 2018. The anchor was hospitalized with COVID-19 in the spring and has since recovered.
After the Times reported Trump’s walkout, the president posted another tweet about the interview.
“I am pleased to inform you that, for the sake of accuracy in reporting, I am considering posting my interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, PRIOR TO AIRTIME! This will be done so that everybody can get a glimpse of what a FAKE and BIASED interview is all about,” he wrote, giving no hints at when specifically he would release footage and whose footage it would be.
Trump also tweeted that everyone “should compare this terrible Electoral Intrusion” to recent interviews of Biden. It’s unclear what the president means by “electoral intrusion.”
The former vice president taped his interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell on Monday. He has not yet tweeted about it.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--USA Today Says To Elect Joe Biden In First-Ever Presidential Endorsement

USA Today ’ s editorial board delivered a powerful endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , telling readers they “ unanimously ” support him as he “ offers a shaken nation a harbor of calm and competence.
” This is the first time the publication has endorsed a specific presidential candidate .
In 2016 , the board urged people to not vote for Donald Trump , calling him “ unfit for office because he lacked the ‘ temperament , knowledge , steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents ’ .
” However , it did not directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial board members said they ’ ve been driven to take a stand as it is “ not a normal election ” and are these not “ normal times.
” “ This year , character , competence and credibility are on the ballot .
Given Trump ’ s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses , so , too , is the future of America ’ s democracy , ” they wrote , adding that they stand for core values like “ truth , accountability , civility in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions to the nation ’ s problems , and steadfast support for First Amendment rights.
” They stressed that these values “ aren ’ t partisan issues , or at least they shouldn ’ t be.
” “ Donald Trump has trampled each of these principles , making more than 20,000 false or misleading statements , ducking responsibility for his actions , spewing streams of invective at his critics , trafficking in racial fearmongering , governing more as the leader of the red states than of the United States , and relentlessly attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Everything about Biden ’ s nearly half-century political career suggests he would do a far better job of respecting these values.
” The board also said it believed Biden would handle the coronavirus pandemic more effectively .
“ During the campaign , Biden has modeled mask wearing and other public health recommendations that Trump has flouted while downplaying the threat .
A Biden administration would follow the science and build trust in emerging vaccines , ” they wrote .
The board said its endorsement piece is for undecided voters , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , and those who might be doubting their intentions to vote to reelect the president .
USA Today also said it had spoken to dozens of people in battleground states who had expressed “ anguish and dismay about the nation ’ s direction ” under Trump .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
USA Today’s editorial board delivered a powerful endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, telling readers they “unanimously” support him as he “offers a shaken nation a harbor of calm and competence.”
This is the first time the publication has endorsed a specific presidential candidate.
In 2016, the board urged people to not vote for Donald Trump, calling him “unfit for office because he lacked the ‘temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents’.” However, it did not directly endorse Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement
This year, editorial board members said they’ve been driven to take a stand as it is “not a normal election” and are these not “normal times.”
“This year, character, competence and credibility are on the ballot. Given Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, so, too, is the future of America’s democracy,” they wrote, adding that they stand for core values like “truth, accountability, civility in public discourse, opposition to racism, common-ground solutions to the nation’s problems, and steadfast support for First Amendment rights.”
They stressed that these values “aren’t partisan issues, or at least they shouldn’t be.”
“Donald Trump has trampled each of these principles, making more than 20,000 false or misleading statements, ducking responsibility for his actions, spewing streams of invective at his critics, trafficking in racial fearmongering, governing more as the leader of the red states than of the United States, and relentlessly attacking the free press,” they wrote. “Everything about Biden’s nearly half-century political career suggests he would do a far better job of respecting these values.”
USA TODAY’s Editorial Board is endorsing Joe Biden for president, an extraordinary step for @usatodayopinion, which previously had never endorsed a presidential candidate. https://t.co/Xio705JiXJ — USA TODAY (@USATODAY) October 20, 2020
Advertisement
The board also said it believed Biden would handle the coronavirus pandemic more effectively.
“During the campaign, Biden has modeled mask wearing and other public health recommendations that Trump has flouted while downplaying the threat. A Biden administration would follow the science and build trust in emerging vaccines,” they wrote.
The board said its endorsement piece is for undecided voters, people who haven’t decided whether to vote, and those who might be doubting their intentions to vote to reelect the president.
USA Today also said it had spoken to dozens of people in battleground states who had expressed “anguish and dismay about the nation’s direction” under Trump.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--The Levee Breaks Against Big Tech

The Levee Breaks Against Big Tech

It is the most sweeping federal attack on an American monopoly since the DOJ filed suit against Microsoft in 1998 , which was a landmark case widely credited with fostering digital innovation in the 21st century .
In the years since , the federal government has shied away from confrontations with large corporations , approving blockbuster mergers and issuing only modest fines against rogue firms .
The case against Google , by contrast , is an attack on the company ’ s business model itself .
According to the complaint , Google unlawfully ties its search engine to its popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars a year to phone manufacturers and software developers to ensure that its products are given priority over competitors .
In doing so , the government argues , Google illegally blocks out competitors and stifles innovation .
Anti-monopoly thinkers hailed the case as a breakthrough .
“ A right wing Republican administration is trying to break up a trillion-dollar corporation , ” noted Matthew Stoller , director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project .
“ This is a total repudiation of the libertarian ideology that has been running America for 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era of public accountability for dominant tech platforms , ” said Charlotte Slaiman , competition policy director at the think tank Public Knowledge .
“ It is now a matter of when , not if , we develop meaningful oversight of harms to innovation , competition , and people.
” The suit could also impact big companies that rely on payments from Google as part of their revenue base .
Apple , for instance , received $ 12 billion from Google last year in exchange for making it the default search engine on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Microsoft case from two decades past .
In that suit , the Justice Department alleged that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the operating system market in an attempt to create a new monopoly for its Internet Explorer web browser .
Desktop and laptop manufacturers who wanted to sell computers with Microsoft Windows had to include Internet Explorer as part of the package .
Many antitrust experts credit Google ’ s early success as a search engine to the Microsoft case ― without it , Microsoft would have been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bing , and block out competitors .
But in important respects , the Google case is a disappointment for reform advocates .
State attorneys general in Texas , Colorado and Nebraska have been building broader cases against Google not only on the mobile device market , but for its core search and advertising activities .
The Justice Department has taken a narrower purview , focusing on the way Google distributes its search engine as a product , rather than the way the search engine itself functions .
Critics and competitors have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ properties instead of providing them with better information from across the web .
“ This self-serving bias by Google happens literally billions of times per week in the United States , ” said Luther Lowe , senior vice president of public policy at Yelp !
― a longtime Google critic .
“ By systematically reducing the quality of its search results in order to entrench and extend its search and search advertising monopolies , Google is directly harming consumers.
” Anti-monopoly leaders in Washington gave cautious approval to the DOJ case , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rep. David Cicilline ( D-R.I. ) , who spearheaded the House investigation into Big Tech over the past two years , called the DOJ suit “ long overdue , ” but argued that the government must launch a more direct attack on Google ’ s “ monopolization of search and search advertising.
” Though Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a corporate ally of the Democratic Party , bipartisan frustration with Google and other tech behemoths has been building over recent years .
In 2016 , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the progressive senator indicted Big Tech for a litany of abuses and called for a broad reconsideration of merger and competition policy .
At the time , Warren ’ s speech was a not-so-subtle rebuke of the Obama administration .
To make her case , Warren cited a 2012 Federal Trade Commission investigation that had uncovered serious abuses at Google .
Democratic appointees at the head of the FTC failed to act on that investigation , however , and reform watchdogs suspected the close ties between Google and the Obama administration were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , then-Google Chairman Eric Schmidt personally oversaw the Obama campaign ’ s voter turnout software .
But over the ensuing years , Warren ’ s vision has come to dominate the conventional wisdom among liberals .
During his 2020 presidential campaign , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) railed against Amazon and its CEO , Jeff Bezos .
In her own presidential run , Warren presented a detailed reform agenda to break up Big Tech firms .
And earlier this month , Cicilline ’ s House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-competitive behavior across the digital economy , detailing titans like Google , Facebook , Apple and Amazon .
The result of a 16-month investigation , the report called for a series of reforms including the break-up of large tech companies to prohibit them from serving as both a platform for digital products and a provider of those same products .
“ Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition , improves innovation , and safeguards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
House Republicans dissented from the remedies that Cicilline and other Democrats suggested , but issued a report of their own that agreed with the underlying monopoly problem in digital commerce .
With a Republican administration now taking action against Google , anti-monopoly advocates believe the tide has at last turned against Big Tech in Washington .

The Department of Justice filed the most ambitious antitrust case in more than two decades on Tuesday, accusing digital search giant Google of manipulating the mobile phone market to shut out its competitor apps and products.
It is the most sweeping federal attack on an American monopoly since the DOJ filed suit against Microsoft in 1998, which was a landmark case widely credited with fostering digital innovation in the 21st century. In the years since, the federal government has shied away from confrontations with large corporations, approving blockbuster mergers and issuing only modest fines against rogue firms.
Advertisement
The case against Google, by contrast, is an attack on the company’s business model itself. According to the complaint, Google unlawfully ties its search engine to its popular Chrome web browser and pays billions of dollars a year to phone manufacturers and software developers to ensure that its products are given priority over competitors. In doing so, the government argues, Google illegally blocks out competitors and stifles innovation.
Anti-monopoly thinkers hailed the case as a breakthrough. “A right wing Republican administration is trying to break up a trillion-dollar corporation,” noted Matthew Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project. “This is a total repudiation of the libertarian ideology that has been running America for 40 years.”
“This begins a new era of public accountability for dominant tech platforms,” said Charlotte Slaiman, competition policy director at the think tank Public Knowledge. “It is now a matter of when, not if, we develop meaningful oversight of harms to innovation, competition, and people.”
The suit could also impact big companies that rely on payments from Google as part of their revenue base. Apple, for instance, received $12 billion from Google last year in exchange for making it the default search engine on its Safari browser.
Advertisement
Google dismissed these concerns in a company blog post response, writing that “People don’t use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.”
The case mirrors the Microsoft case from two decades past. In that suit, the Justice Department alleged that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the operating system market in an attempt to create a new monopoly for its Internet Explorer web browser. Desktop and laptop manufacturers who wanted to sell computers with Microsoft Windows had to include Internet Explorer as part of the package. Many antitrust experts credit Google’s early success as a search engine to the Microsoft case ― without it, Microsoft would have been able to steer users to its own search engine, Bing, and block out competitors.
But in important respects, the Google case is a disappointment for reform advocates. State attorneys general in Texas, Colorado and Nebraska have been building broader cases against Google not only on the mobile device market, but for its core search and advertising activities.
The Justice Department has taken a narrower purview, focusing on the way Google distributes its search engine as a product, rather than the way the search engine itself functions. Critics and competitors have long complained that Google steers users to Google-owned properties instead of providing them with better information from across the web.
“This self-serving bias by Google happens literally billions of times per week in the United States,” said Luther Lowe, senior vice president of public policy at Yelp! ― a longtime Google critic. “By systematically reducing the quality of its search results in order to entrench and extend its search and search advertising monopolies, Google is directly harming consumers.”
Advertisement
Anti-monopoly leaders in Washington gave cautious approval to the DOJ case, while insisting that more needs to be done. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who spearheaded the House investigation into Big Tech over the past two years, called the DOJ suit “long overdue,” but argued that the government must launch a more direct attack on Google’s “monopolization of search and search advertising.”
Conservative Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) concurred, calling the Google suit “the most important antitrust case in a generation” but also “just a first step.”
Though Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a corporate ally of the Democratic Party, bipartisan frustration with Google and other tech behemoths has been building over recent years. In 2016, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gave a major speech in which the progressive senator indicted Big Tech for a litany of abuses and called for a broad reconsideration of merger and competition policy.
At the time, Warren’s speech was a not-so-subtle rebuke of the Obama administration. To make her case, Warren cited a 2012 Federal Trade Commission investigation that had uncovered serious abuses at Google. Democratic appointees at the head of the FTC failed to act on that investigation, however, and reform watchdogs suspected the close ties between Google and the Obama administration were to blame. On election night 2012, for instance, then-Google Chairman Eric Schmidt personally oversaw the Obama campaign’s voter turnout software.
But over the ensuing years, Warren’s vision has come to dominate the conventional wisdom among liberals. During his 2020 presidential campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against Amazon and its CEO, Jeff Bezos. In her own presidential run, Warren presented a detailed reform agenda to break up Big Tech firms.
Advertisement
And earlier this month, Cicilline’s House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee released a devastating 450-page report detailing patterns of anti-competitive behavior across the digital economy, detailing titans like Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon. The result of a 16-month investigation, the report called for a series of reforms including the break-up of large tech companies to prohibit them from serving as both a platform for digital products and a provider of those same products.
“Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation, and safeguards our democracy,” Cicilline said at the time.
House Republicans dissented from the remedies that Cicilline and other Democrats suggested, but issued a report of their own that agreed with the underlying monopoly problem in digital commerce. With a Republican administration now taking action against Google, anti-monopoly advocates believe the tide has at last turned against Big Tech in Washington.
“This is a truly important day,” said Barry Lynn, director of the Open Markets Institute. “You have to make this first step … we’re going to see a truly significant, top-to-bottom reorganization of the internet economy in the next few years.”
Zach Carter is the author of the New York Times bestseller “The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes,” available from Random House wherever books are sold.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Grand Jury For Breonna Taylor Never Presented With Homicide Charges, Juror Says

The new allegations raise additional questions over how prosecutors handled the killing of Taylor , a Black woman shot by police in her own apartment in Louisville , Kentucky , earlier this year during a “ no-knock ” raid .
Only one detective , Brett Hankison , was ultimately charged in connection with the incident , and it wasn ’ t even for her death ; he was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for shots fired into a neighboring apartment .
“ The grand jury was not presented any charges other than the three Wanton Endangerment charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand juror said in a statement via attorney Kevin Glogower .
“ The grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them .
The grand jury never heard anything about those laws.
” The grand jury , an anonymous panel of 12 people , came under swift criticism in September for declining to file any murder charges against the three Louisville police officers .
Hankison was fired from the force in June .
The other two cops , Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly and officer Myles Cosgrove , have been placed on administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force , and did not face charges .
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron repeatedly said at a news conference last month that he was not legally allowed to bring charges against the other two officers , and that the grand jury agreed with him .
“ While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law , these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation showed ― and the grand jury agreed ― that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September .
But the anonymous juror said that wasn ’ t the case , Glogower told reporters last month .
On Tuesday , Jefferson Circuit Judge Annie O ’ Connell issued a ruling allowing the juror to speak about their experience on the panel .
Grand jury proceedings are not normally available to the public , but O ’ Connell ruled that the juror can speak and may remain anonymous .
“ The grand jury didn ’ t agree that certain actions were justified , nor did it decide the indictment should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , ” the juror continued .
“ The grand jury was not given the opportunity to deliberate on those charges and deliberated only what was presented to them .
I can not speak for other jurors but I can help the truth be told.
” “ We now know what we suspected : Attorney General Daniel Cameron took the decision out of the grand jury ’ s hands .
They didn ’ t allow the grand jury to do what the law says they have the right to do , ” Crump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a despicable miscarriage of justice that is disrespectful to the life of Breonna Taylor that AG Cameron white washed what his office presented to the grand jury.
” Taylor , a Black 26-year-old EMT , was shot eight times by police when they executed a “ no-knock ” warrant and died in a pool of blood on her apartment floor as her boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , looked on .
The “ no-knock ” warrant , which multiple cities including Louisville have now banned , listed Taylor ’ s name and address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor ’ s former boyfriend , who lived more than 10 miles away from her apartment .
The family of Taylor reached a $ 12 million settlement last month in a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Louisville .
The settlement is the largest sum paid out by the city of Louisville in a police misconduct case .
Just a week before the grand jury reached their decision , Tamika Palmer , Taylor ’ s mother , urged advocates and supporters to focus on the main goal .
“ We must not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , ” she said .
“ It ’ s time to move forward with the criminal charges because she deserves that and much more .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A juror in the Breonna Taylor case said Tuesday that prosecutors never presented the grand jury with homicide charges against the three police officers involved in Taylor’s killing.
The new allegations raise additional questions over how prosecutors handled the killing of Taylor, a Black woman shot by police in her own apartment in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this year during a “no-knock” raid. Only one detective, Brett Hankison, was ultimately charged in connection with the incident, and it wasn’t even for her death; he was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for shots fired into a neighboring apartment.
Advertisement
“The grand jury was not presented any charges other than the three Wanton Endangerment charges against Detective Hankison,” the anonymous grand juror said in a statement via attorney Kevin Glogower. “The grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them. The grand jury never heard anything about those laws.”
The anonymous juror said the grand jury inquired about additional charges but were told there wouldn’t be any “because the prosecutors didn’t feel they could make them stick.”
The grand jury, an anonymous panel of 12 people, came under swift criticism in September for declining to file any murder charges against the three Louisville police officers. Hankison was fired from the force in June. The other two cops, Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and officer Myles Cosgrove, have been placed on administrative leave but are still employed by the force, and did not face charges.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron repeatedly said at a news conference last month that he was not legally allowed to bring charges against the other two officers, and that the grand jury agreed with him.
Advertisement
“While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation showed ― and the grand jury agreed ― that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon,” Cameron said in September.
But the anonymous juror said that wasn’t the case, Glogower told reporters last month. On Tuesday, Jefferson Circuit Judge Annie O’Connell issued a ruling allowing the juror to speak about their experience on the panel. Grand jury proceedings are not normally available to the public, but O’Connell ruled that the juror can speak and may remain anonymous.
“This Court finds the traditional justifications for secrecy in this matter are no longer relevant and that the ends of justice require disclosure,” O’Connell wrote in her ruling.
The juror released their statement just hours after the ruling.
“The grand jury didn’t agree that certain actions were justified, nor did it decide the indictment should be the only charges in the Breonna Taylor case,” the juror continued. “The grand jury was not given the opportunity to deliberate on those charges and deliberated only what was presented to them. I cannot speak for other jurors but I can help the truth be told.”
Cameron’s office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Ben Crump, an attorney for the Taylor family, called for a new independent prosecutor to be assigned to case in light of the juror’s statement.
Advertisement
“We now know what we suspected: Attorney General Daniel Cameron took the decision out of the grand jury’s hands. They didn’t allow the grand jury to do what the law says they have the right to do,” Crump said in a statement. “It is a despicable miscarriage of justice that is disrespectful to the life of Breonna Taylor that AG Cameron white washed what his office presented to the grand jury.”
Taylor, a Black 26-year-old EMT, was shot eight times by police when they executed a “no-knock” warrant and died in a pool of blood on her apartment floor as her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, looked on. The “no-knock” warrant, which multiple cities including Louisville have now banned, listed Taylor’s name and address, but the main investigation centered on Taylor’s former boyfriend, who lived more than 10 miles away from her apartment.
The family of Taylor reached a $12 million settlement last month in a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Louisville. The settlement is the largest sum paid out by the city of Louisville in a police misconduct case.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--New Bill Seeks To Reduce Police Violence Against People With Mental Illness

Minutes after arriving at her New York City apartment , a police officer fatally shot Donner .
The officer claimed he acted in self-defense and was later acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges .
Donner ’ s story , while tragic , isn ’ t uncommon .
A recent analysis by The Washington Post found that roughly one in four fatal police shootings involved someone with mental illness .
Those with mental illness who are arrested , meanwhile , often get needlessly incarcerated without the care they really need , contributing to the crowding of jails and the drain on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday by Rep. Katie Porter ( D-Calif. ) seeks to reduce the risk disabled people may face in police encounters by allowing trained mental health professionals to respond to such calls instead of law enforcement .
The legislation , called the Mental Health Justice Act , would establish a federal grant program encouraging states and local governments to develop the capacity to send mental health responders rather than police in response to 911 calls .
Its co-sponsors include Rep. Tony Cárdenas ( D-Calif. ) , Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D-Mass . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
“ What this would do basically is take away some of the burdens our police officers face in having to respond to what clearly come in as calls for mental health assistance , ” Porter said in an interview with HuffPost .
“ Just like we might dispatch fire [ responders ] if someone calls 911 and says there ’ s a fire , if someone calls in to report someone having a mental health issue , we ought to dispatch people who are qualified to do this.
” The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program in Eugene , Oregon , called CAHOOTS ( Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets ) that redirects non-emergency 911 calls that involve mental health , substance abuse and homelessness to a team of medics and crisis-care workers .
The idea has gained popularity following this year ’ s protests against police brutality , which sparked a national conversation about smarter policing , and even the redirecting of funding away from police departments entirely .
Denver started its own pilot program based off of CAHOOTS in June .
Portland , Oregon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice in recent months , is also giving a version a try .
Mental health hotlines in the U.S. have seen a sharp spike in calls during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , prompting concerns about a historic wave of depression , substance abuse and suicide .
Porter , a progressive congresswoman who has made mental health a priority during her first term , argued that it should be part of the conversation as lawmakers push for criminal justice and police reforms .
Although the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act , the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures to hold police officers more accountable for their actions , it did not focus on addressing mental health .
“ We need to be thinking of those with mental illnesses as part of the community of people who are disproportionately harmed by police violence , ” Porter said .
Porter did not specify how much funding the bill would ultimately offer to states if passed into law .
The proposal also leaves it up to states how best to set up the logistics for requesting such services ― whether within the existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Countless people with psychiatric disabilities continue to be killed or needlessly incarcerated in situations where dispatching someone other than law enforcement could have avoided these senseless and tragic outcomes , “ Mathis said in a statement .
“ The Mental Health Justice Act is precisely the type of legislation that Congress should be considering now and we will work with Representative Porter to secure its passage .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Four years ago, the neighbors of 66-year-old Deborah Danner, a Black woman with schizophrenia, called the police to report that she had been behaving erratically.
Minutes after arriving at her New York City apartment, a police officer fatally shot Donner. The officer claimed he acted in self-defense and was later acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges.
Advertisement
Donner’s story, while tragic, isn’t uncommon. A recent analysis by The Washington Post found that roughly one in four fatal police shootings involved someone with mental illness. Those with mental illness who are arrested, meanwhile, often get needlessly incarcerated without the care they really need, contributing to the crowding of jails and the drain on taxpayer resources.
A new bill introduced on Tuesday by Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) seeks to reduce the risk disabled people may face in police encounters by allowing trained mental health professionals to respond to such calls instead of law enforcement.
The legislation, called the Mental Health Justice Act, would establish a federal grant program encouraging states and local governments to develop the capacity to send mental health responders rather than police in response to 911 calls. Its co-sponsors include Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.).
“What this would do basically is take away some of the burdens our police officers face in having to respond to what clearly come in as calls for mental health assistance,” Porter said in an interview with HuffPost. “Just like we might dispatch fire [responders] if someone calls 911 and says there’s a fire, if someone calls in to report someone having a mental health issue, we ought to dispatch people who are qualified to do this.”
Advertisement
The proposal is modeled on a long-running and successful program in Eugene, Oregon, called CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) that redirects non-emergency 911 calls that involve mental health, substance abuse and homelessness to a team of medics and crisis-care workers.
The idea has gained popularity following this year’s protests against police brutality, which sparked a national conversation about smarter policing, and even the redirecting of funding away from police departments entirely. Denver started its own pilot program based off of CAHOOTS in June. Portland, Oregon, the site of fierce protests against racial injustice in recent months, is also giving a version a try.
Mental health hotlines in the U.S. have seen a sharp spike in calls during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, prompting concerns about a historic wave of depression, substance abuse and suicide.
Porter, a progressive congresswoman who has made mental health a priority during her first term, argued that it should be part of the conversation as lawmakers push for criminal justice and police reforms. Although the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Democrats’ police reform bill, included several measures to hold police officers more accountable for their actions, it did not focus on addressing mental health.
“We need to be thinking of those with mental illnesses as part of the community of people who are disproportionately harmed by police violence,” Porter said.
Advertisement
Porter did not specify how much funding the bill would ultimately offer to states if passed into law. The proposal also leaves it up to states how best to set up the logistics for requesting such services ― whether within the existing 911 system or a new number.
Jennifer Mathis, the Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a disability rights group, applauded Porter’s legislation.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Republican Pollster: Trump's Is The 'The Worst Campaign I've Ever Seen'

GOP pollster Frank Luntz said President Donald Trump and his team are emphasizing all the wrong issues ahead of the Nov. 3 election , calling the political campaign the worst he ’ s ever seen .
According to The Hill , Luntz slammed Trump and his advisers at a briefing for the British strategic advising company Global Counsel on Tuesday .
“ I ’ ve never seen a campaign more miscalibrated than the Trump campaign .
Frankly , his staff ought to be brought up on charges of political malpractice , ” Luntz said , according to the outlet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve ever seen , and I ’ ve been watching them since 1980 .
They ’ re on the wrong issues .
They ’ re on the wrong message .
They ’ ve got their heads up their asses , ” he added .
“ Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need to reach .
And if you can ’ t do your damn job then get out.
” Luntz said that “ nobody cares about Hunter Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and a favored target of right-wing media attacks .
With weeks before Election Day , the Trump camp has seized aggressively on a dubious story published by the New York Post that alleges the Bidens were involved in high-level political corruption .
That allegation is based on the contents of a laptop hard drive purportedly left at a repair shop in Delaware by Hunter Biden and obtained by Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
Other media outlets have been unable to verify critical elements of the story , and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign intended to influence the upcoming election .
The FBI is said to be investigating if that ’ s the case .
Luntz said the Trump campaign was focusing on this story when polls indicate Americans are more concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy .
“ Hunter Biden does not help put food on the table .
Hunter Biden does not help anyone get a job .
Hunter Biden does not provide health care or solve COVID .
And Donald Trump spends all of his time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Luntz said .
The conservative pollster ’ s harsh words come in contrast to some of his previous comments about the president .
Last year , he insisted during one of his regular appearances on Fox News that World Series fans who booed Trump be held accountable .
“ You may disagree with him .
You may think that he ’ s not what you wanted , but you don ’ t boo him .
You show respect to him , ” Luntz said at the time .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
GOP pollster Frank Luntz said President Donald Trump and his team are emphasizing all the wrong issues ahead of the Nov. 3 election, calling the political campaign the worst he’s ever seen.
According to The Hill, Luntz slammed Trump and his advisers at a briefing for the British strategic advising company Global Counsel on Tuesday.
Advertisement
“I’ve never seen a campaign more miscalibrated than the Trump campaign. Frankly, his staff ought to be brought up on charges of political malpractice,” Luntz said, according to the outlet.
“It is the worst campaign I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been watching them since 1980. They’re on the wrong issues. They’re on the wrong message. They’ve got their heads up their asses,” he added. “Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need to reach. And if you can’t do your damn job then get out.”
Luntz said that “nobody cares about Hunter Biden,” the son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden and a favored target of right-wing media attacks. With weeks before Election Day, the Trump camp has seized aggressively on a dubious story published by the New York Post that alleges the Bidens were involved in high-level political corruption.
That allegation is based on the contents of a laptop hard drive purportedly left at a repair shop in Delaware by Hunter Biden and obtained by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Other media outlets have been unable to verify critical elements of the story, and former intelligence officials have said it has the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign intended to influence the upcoming election. The FBI is said to be investigating if that’s the case.
Advertisement
Luntz said the Trump campaign was focusing on this story when polls indicate Americans are more concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy.
“Hunter Biden does not help put food on the table. Hunter Biden does not help anyone get a job. Hunter Biden does not provide health care or solve COVID. And Donald Trump spends all of his time focused on that and nobody cares,” Luntz said.
The conservative pollster’s harsh words come in contrast to some of his previous comments about the president. Last year, he insisted during one of his regular appearances on Fox News that World Series fans who booed Trump be held accountable.
“You may disagree with him. You may think that he’s not what you wanted, but you don’t boo him. You show respect to him,” Luntz said at the time.
He’s offered more muted criticism of Trump in the past.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Biden's Approach To Brazil's Bolsonaro Could Prove He's Serious About Climate Change

And should he win , Biden is unlikely to back down in the face of Bolsonaro ’ s anger .
Few countries are more important to the fight for planetary survival than Brazil : Preservation of the Amazon rainforest is one of the simplest ways to reduce carbon emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures .
From 2004 to 2014 , for instance , Brazil ’ s successful efforts to limit deforestation in the Amazon were almost solely responsible for global emissions reductions .
Without Brazil on board , Biden ’ s efforts to make international progress on climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he makes the U.S. as bold and forward-thinking as it should have been long ago .
His climate agenda depends not only on his own ambition but on his ability to alter Brazil and Bolsonaro ’ s too .
Climate has become a more prominent issue for Democrats in Congress and among their base of voters across the country over the last four years .
At the same time , Bolsonaro ’ s ties to Trump and the perception that his efforts to roll back environmental regulations worsened the outbreak of fires in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rod among an increasingly large share of Democratic lawmakers and officials in Washington .
( The Brazilian leader ’ s rhetoric on social issues and his anti-democratic actions haven ’ t helped , either . )
A former Army captain , Bolsonaro has leaned heavily into the idea that international efforts to protect the Amazon rainforest are a colonialist plot to gain control of the country ’ s resources , an idea that first became prominent during the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985 .
In 2019 , as fires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were occurring in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly .
His top diplomat , Ernesto Araujo , has denied the existence of climate change , and Bolsonaro has taken a combative public stance against world leaders , like France ’ s Emmanuel Macron , who have pushed him to change course .
The Bolsonaro government will likely be willing to talk climate with a Biden administration and even make some changes in an effort to foster stronger relations , said Ricardo Mendes , a Brazilian international consultant , at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month in Washington .
But it will be difficult , he added , to reconcile the key difference between the Bolsonaro government and its chief environmental critics : The former sees the Amazon as key to Brazil ’ s own development , while the latter views its preservation as vital to the planet ’ s survival .
What An Aggressive Plan Looks Like

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As record numbers of fires scorched the Amazon rainforest during each of the past two summers, far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro knew where to turn for refuge from international scorn: the United States. President Donald Trump is an ideological ally and one of the few world leaders whose climate skepticism matches Bolsonaro’s own.
At the first presidential debate in early October, however, Democratic nominee Joe Biden made clear that if he were to defeat Trump in November’s election, the U.S. government would no longer sympathize with climate change denial. Biden said he would create a $20 billion international fund to incentivize Brazil to stop tearing down the Amazon. If Bolsonaro rejected the plan, Biden said, Brazil would face “economic consequences.”
Advertisement
The proposal wasn’t new, but this time it drew Bolsonaro’s ire. Brazil “does not accept bribes,” he said in a statement posted to Twitter and Facebook. Biden’s statement, Bolsonaro said, was “a clear sign of contempt for cordial and fruitful coexistence between two sovereign nations.”
For months, Biden has insisted that climate change will feature prominently in his agenda at home and abroad. Choosing Brazil as his go-to example of Trump’s failure on the world stage was perhaps the clearest indication yet that he intends to follow through on that pledge.
And should he win, Biden is unlikely to back down in the face of Bolsonaro’s anger. Few countries are more important to the fight for planetary survival than Brazil: Preservation of the Amazon rainforest is one of the simplest ways to reduce carbon emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures. From 2004 to 2014, for instance, Brazil’s successful efforts to limit deforestation in the Amazon were almost solely responsible for global emissions reductions. Without Brazil on board, Biden’s efforts to make international progress on climate won’t accomplish much even if he makes the U.S. as bold and forward-thinking as it should have been long ago. His climate agenda depends not only on his own ambition but on his ability to alter Brazil and Bolsonaro’s too.
“In any relationship that Joe Biden has with leaders around the world, climate change will be at the top of that agenda, and that includes Brazil,” said Juan Gonzalez, a longtime Latin America adviser to Biden who served as a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration. “Anybody, in Brazil or elsewhere, who thinks they can advance an ambitious relationship with the United States while ignoring important issues like climate change, democracy, and human rights clearly hasn’t been listening to Joe Biden on the campaign trail.”
Advertisement
Risking Pariah Status
Thanks in large part to the countries’ shared economic interests, the U.S.-Brazil relationship has remained strong, if often overlooked, even during times of deep ideological differences and occasional chills. As vice president, Biden played a central role in that relationship at one of its modern low points. Following 2015 revelations that the U.S. had spied on its South American neighbor, President Barack Obama sent Biden to repair relations with Brazil’s then-leader, Dilma Rousseff.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (right) rejected Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's pledge to raise $20 billion in international funds to help Brazil protect the Amazon rainforest, which has suffered record outbreaks of fires over the last two years. Getty Images
Biden’s history with Brazil and his fairly conventional approach to foreign policy have left some officials within Bolsonaro’s government thinking that not much would change under a Democratic White House. When the U.S. and Brazil reached an agreement on a small trade deal this week, for instance, former Brazilian Trade Secretary Welber Barral said it was the type of economic agreement that would pass “even in an eventual Joe Biden government.”
But that may underestimate how seriously a Biden administration would take climate change, and Bolsonaro could find himself quickly isolated on the global stage if, alongside the U.S., he doesn’t move closer to the international consensus on the issue.
“It would be a mistake to assume that we were somehow going to give Brazil a pass on important issues,” said Thomas Shannon, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Brazil under President Obama. “Biden signaled one of them, which is the Amazon ― and deforestation’s impact on biodiversity and the climate.”
Advertisement
U.S. politics have shifted, Shannon said, in ways that Bolsonaro’s close relationship with Trump may have shielded him from so far. Biden’s climate agenda, and the central role of the Amazon in it, is a reflection not just of his own priorities but of the Democratic Party’s.
Climate has become a more prominent issue for Democrats in Congress and among their base of voters across the country over the last four years. At the same time, Bolsonaro’s ties to Trump and the perception that his efforts to roll back environmental regulations worsened the outbreak of fires in the Amazon have made him a lightning rod among an increasingly large share of Democratic lawmakers and officials in Washington. (The Brazilian leader’s rhetoric on social issues and his anti-democratic actions haven’t helped, either.)
“He’s just been awful,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) told HuffPost this summer, a sentiment that some progressives have shared since the start of Bolsonaro’s presidency but that has intensified on Capitol Hill in the two years since. “I think, as in so many situations around the world or at home, when you get layers of evidence piled upon one another, people begin to pay attention.”
The U.S. and Brazil have a significant trade relationship, and Bolsonaro has sought to expand that economic partnership to Brazil’s benefit. Although he won Trump’s support for Brazil’s entry into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bolsonaro has not been able to move forward on another major goal: a new trade deal with the United States that goes far beyond the smaller agreement the two countries reached this week.
“There’s always been illegal logging in the Amazon, there’s been spotty enforcement, there’s been a push for development. But [Bolsonaro] has put all these policies on steroids.” - U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Advertisement
Bolsonaro interpreted Biden’s mention of “economic consequences” as a threat of broad sanctions, but it’s more likely that Biden simply won’t make Brazil’s economic goals a priority without clear commitments on climate.
That’s a position at least some congressional Democrats may already hold. In June, a group of House Democrats, including Beyer, signed onto a letter opposing any new trade deal with Brazil ― a move that was driven largely by concerns about Bolsonaro’s environmental and human rights record, said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on trade.
“There’s always been illegal logging in the Amazon, there’s been spotty enforcement, there’s been a push for development,” Blumenauer told HuffPost in June, not long after the lawmakers sent their letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. “But [Bolsonaro] has put all these policies on steroids.”
“It is an assault on the global environment,” Blumenauer said, adding that he was also alarmed by Bolsonaro’s policies toward Indigenous Brazilians and environmentalists who opposed his government. “It is a pretty ruthless regime. Why would we want to facilitate them economically?”
Political Pressure At Home
If Biden wins, both he and Bolsonaro will face significant domestic pressure to act more urgently on climate change.
Advertisement
In the U.S., Biden’s relative aggression on the issue is, in part, a response to the progressive push to do more. That will likely only intensify if he’s in the White House, given that progressive groups are already skeptical that he will appoint the sort of climate-focused officials they want to see in key Cabinet positions.
Progressives will demand that Biden and congressional Democrats who prioritize trade over environmental concerns take a harder line against Bolsonaro, said Andrew Miller, the advocacy director at Amazon Watch, which has brought Brazilian Indigenous leaders and environmental activists to Congress to raise awareness about their right-wing president.
Bolsonaro, meanwhile, has faced his own internal pushback from environmental groups and Indigenous organizations, although he rarely pays them much mind. Key actors in Brazil’s influential agribusiness and financial sectors have also pressured him to change course, amid fears that his anti-environment reputation harms Brazil’s ability to attract vital foreign investment and threatens trade relationships with Europe. That pressure, too, will likely increase if Biden wins the White House and makes climate a priority.
At the same time, substantial portions of the Brazilian state, including Bolsonaro, regard international demands on climate as misdirected and even devious.
A woman holds a sign reading "Climate Justice Now!" during a protest against Bolsonaro's environmental policies in the Brazilian capital of Brasilia. Bolsonaro has faced domestic and international pressure to alter his approach to the environment. AP Photo/Eraldo Peres
Advertisement
A former Army captain, Bolsonaro has leaned heavily into the idea that international efforts to protect the Amazon rainforest are a colonialist plot to gain control of the country’s resources, an idea that first became prominent during the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. In 2019, as fires raged across the Amazon, Bolsonaro denied they were occurring in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. His top diplomat, Ernesto Araujo, has denied the existence of climate change, and Bolsonaro has taken a combative public stance against world leaders, like France’s Emmanuel Macron, who have pushed him to change course.
Inside Bolsonaro’s government, there is a belief that Brazil has become an international scapegoat thanks to misperceptions, half-truths and historical amnesia. Amid scrutiny over the fires, officials have argued that Brazil has protected more of its land than the U.S. or any of the European countries that criticize it and has done more to shift away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources.
Although deforestation rates have spiked under Bolsonaro, the current increases began before he took office. The president has pointed to his mobilization of the military to combat fires in the Amazon and the Pantanal, Brazil’s vast wetland savanna that also burned at record rates this year, as evidence that he’s not ignoring the country’s environmental challenges but confronting them.
Brazilians point out that, unlike the U.S. under Trump, their country has not left the Paris climate accords. There is frustration that developed nations like France, Germany and the U.S. have not matched their words about climate with action or followed through on commitments they made to Brazil and other developing countries ― not just under the Paris agreement, but dating back to the Kyoto Protocol of 1992.
Environmental minister Ricardo Salles has argued for two years that wealthy countries that long ago destroyed their own environments have little standing to chastise Brazil now for pursuing its economic interests on its own terms. Last year, Brazil rejected environmental aid packages from the G-7 countries.
Advertisement
Still, Brazilian officials insist their country is prepared to partner with others on climate-related issues if those countries are ready to take action instead of solely demanding it from elsewhere.
And there will be significant pressure to do so. The Bolsonaro-Trump alliance has also helped Brazilian and U.S. environmental activists forge closer partnerships. They are likely to continue pressing legislators in both governments.
Biden has campaigned on climate change and environmentalism, but he'll likely still face pressure from U.S. progressives, who have demanded that he act aggressively should he win November's election. Drew Angerer via Getty Images
How that pressure “affects the U.S.-Brazil relationship will in many ways depend on how skillful Brazil and Bolsonaro are in dealing with this [diplomatically],” Shannon said. “So far they have not shown themselves to be skillful. They have shown that they’re defensive, resentful and suspicious.”
The Bolsonaro government will likely be willing to talk climate with a Biden administration and even make some changes in an effort to foster stronger relations, said Ricardo Mendes, a Brazilian international consultant, at a discussion hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center earlier this month in Washington. But it will be difficult, he added, to reconcile the key difference between the Bolsonaro government and its chief environmental critics: The former sees the Amazon as key to Brazil’s own development, while the latter views its preservation as vital to the planet’s survival.
Advertisement
“They’re not talking about the same things,” Mendes said at the event. “It’s not just a PR problem, it’s not something that will just go away by replacing ministers, it’s not something that will just go away by controlling the fires. It’s a different mindset on what needs to be done on the Amazon.”
What An Aggressive Plan Looks Like
Biden hasn’t specified what pressure on Brazil might look like, but activists and environmental organizations have ideas. A Biden administration could take aggressive steps to bar imports of products from illegally deforested lands, something that Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) has already proposed. That would put intense pressure on agribusiness giants and food companies, as is the case in France, where supermarket chain Casino Group is facing potential penalties and lawsuits from environmental groups over its sale of meat from animals raised on cleared land in the Amazon.
Investors are another potential pressure point. The Securities and Exchange Commission could make new rules requiring Wall Street titans like BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase to account for environmentally destructive investments. Curbing U.S. incentives to make biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol, could also encourage Brazilian regulators to stop opening up more land to make sugar-based fuels.
“The Biden administration could do a lot more domestically and frame that in terms of a call to arms or a challenge to Bolsonaro to match what they’re doing,” said Sarah Lake, the Latin America director at the environmental campaign group Mighty Earth. “There’s an opportunity for Biden to pressure companies and create regulation that requires much stricter environmental standards, even for portions of businesses that operate internationally.”
There’s no time to waste, groups like Mighty Earth argue. Scientists have issued dire warnings about the fate of the Amazon if nothing is done now. As much as 40% of the rainforest, a recent study found, is near the “tipping point” that will turn it into savanna. That’s a loss that would be nearly impossible to reverse ― and that would further imperil the international fight against climate change, even if Biden acts with the sort of resolve that’s long been lacking in the United States.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-20--Hundreds Of Parents Separated From Their Kids Under Trump Still Can't Be Found: ACLU

Lawyers tasked with identifying and reuniting families separated in 2017 and 2018 under the Trump administration ’ s so-called “ zero tolerance ” border policy say they still haven ’ t been able to locate the parents of at least 545 migrant children , according to a Tuesday court filing from the American Civil Liberties Union .
A majority of these parents — “ approximately two-thirds , ” the filing said — are believed to have been deported to Central America without their children , some of whom were “ just babies ” at the time of the separation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
We just reported tonight to the court in # aclu case that we still can not find parents of 545 kids separated by Trump admin - some just babies when taken years ago .
We will not stop till we find EVERY one — Lee Gelernt ( @ leegelernt ) October 21 , 2020 Between 2017 and 2018 , the Trump administration separated at least 4,200 children from their parents — and , according to the ACLU , U.S. immigration officials deported hundreds of these parents without their kids , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thousands of separated families have since been reunited , thanks to the efforts of the ACLU and other organizations .
Gelernt said the ACLU , which is part of a court-appointed “ steering committee ” that ’ s been tracking down families separated under the Trump administration policy , is determined to help reunite every affected child with their loved ones .
But the process of locating separated parents has been arduous , he said .
“ People ask when we will find all of these families and , sadly , I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just don ’ t know , ” Gelernt told NBC News , noting that the COVID-19 pandemic had further complicated the search process .
“ But we will not stop looking until we have found every one of the families , no matter how long it takes .
The tragic reality is that hundreds of parents were deported to Central America without their children , who remain here with foster families or distant relatives .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Lawyers tasked with identifying and reuniting families separated in 2017 and 2018 under the Trump administration’s so-called “zero tolerance” border policy say they still haven’t been able to locate the parents of at least 545 migrant children, according to a Tuesday court filing from the American Civil Liberties Union.
A majority of these parents — “approximately two-thirds,” the filing said — are believed to have been deported to Central America without their children, some of whom were “just babies” at the time of the separation, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told CNN this week.
Advertisement
We just reported tonight to the court in #aclu case that we still cannot find parents of 545 kids separated by Trump admin - some just babies when taken years ago. We will not stop till we find EVERY one — Lee Gelernt (@leegelernt) October 21, 2020
Between 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration separated at least 4,200 children from their parents — and, according to the ACLU, U.S. immigration officials deported hundreds of these parents without their kids, and often without retaining adequate contact information.
Thousands of separated families have since been reunited, thanks to the efforts of the ACLU and other organizations.
Gelernt said the ACLU, which is part of a court-appointed “steering committee” that’s been tracking down families separated under the Trump administration policy, is determined to help reunite every affected child with their loved ones. But the process of locating separated parents has been arduous, he said.
Advertisement