thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-18--The Bernie Sanders Attack Joe Biden Can’t Ignore

ROBYN BECK/Getty Images Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , right , did not get a chance to litigate his criticism of former Vice President Joe Biden 's Social Security record at a debate this past Tuesday .
The Sanders campaign has circulated video of part of a speech Biden delivered to the Brookings Institution in April 2018 in which he discusses his views about Social Security and appears to credit then-House Speaker Paul Ryan ( R-Wis. ) for zeroing in on the program ’ s financial problems .
Below is a version of the clip that Sanders advisor Warren Gunnels shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did the tax code .
What ’ s the first thing he decided we had to go after ?
Social Security and Medicare , ” Biden said at the time .
“ That ’ s the only way you can find room to pay for it.
” “ We need a pro-growth , progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators , as well , not just investors ; that gets rid of un-protective loopholes like stepped-up basis ; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs adjustments , but can stay ; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country , ” he added .
“ Politifacts [ sic ] looked at it and they doctored the photo , they doctored the piece and it ’ s acknowledged that it ’ s a fake , ” Biden responded .
“ What we ’ re doing is we ’ re putting out what the actual exchange between [ former House Speaker ] Paul Ryan and I were .
And I have been a gigantic supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact-checking site PolitiFact indeed rated Sirota ’ s claims in his newsletter “ false , ” because Sirota omitted some words from Biden ’ s speech to Brookings .
Sirota , and a video that PolitiFact does not directly address , do not include Biden ’ s insistence that a progressive tax code must raise “ enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay ” though those programs “ still needs adjustments.
” But “ doctoring ” a video such that it could be considered “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is fabricated or tampered with , rather than a video excerpt that is simply lacking the full context .
What ’ s more , Biden ’ s uses the term “ adjustments ” in reference to Social Security after going on a riff about whether affluent Americans actually need their benefits , making it sound as if he implicitly is interested in some form of means-testing or income-based benefit reductions .
Biden ’ s campaign maintains that the plan on his campaign website , which would increase benefits , is what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so much as consider cutting Social Security benefits in any way , according to the campaign .
“ Now , I don ’ t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire .
I don ’ t know a lot of them .
Maybe you guys do , ” he said in his speech to Brookings , before launching into his plans for a “ pro-growth , progressive tax code.
” As Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday , his Social Security plan would increase benefits and extend the program ’ s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income for Social Security purposes .
The benefit increases he proposes include the creation of a minimum benefit at 125 % of the federal poverty level , tackling poverty in late old age through a benefit bump-up for people collecting benefits for 20 years or more , and a change allowing surviving spouses to keep a larger share of benefits .
But in the past , some proposals to reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these benefit increases also cut benefits in other ways .
As then-President Barack Obama ’ s vice president , Biden served as Obama ’ s liaison to Senate Republicans at a time when Obama had put a cut to Social Security cost-of-living adjustment on the table in pursuit of “ grand bargain ” that would also increase tax revenue .
Obama would make that technical change , the “ chained ” consumer price index , part of his 2013 budget resolution , prompting a White House protest where Sanders spoke .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut Social Security .
The facts are very clear : Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security ― he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions , ” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement on Saturday evening .
“ The vice president must stop dodging questions about his record , and start explaining why he has so aggressively pushed to slash one of the most significant and successful social programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans rely on for survival .
”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, right, did not get a chance to litigate his criticism of former Vice President Joe Biden's Social Security record at a debate this past Tuesday. ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
Former Vice President Joe Biden is finally firing back at Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ depiction of him as a longtime proponent of Social Security cuts, following a Tuesday debate in Des Moines, Iowa, that omitted the issue entirely.
But in seeking to reassure voters about his commitment to protecting Social Security, Biden is mischaracterizing Sanders’ tactics.
Advertisement
Biden inaccurately claimed on Saturday that a video circulated by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign had been “doctored” to make him seem more supportive of Social Security cuts than he really is.
The Sanders campaign has circulated video of part of a speech Biden delivered to the Brookings Institution in April 2018 in which he discusses his views about Social Security and appears to credit then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for zeroing in on the program’s financial problems. Below is a version of the clip that Sanders advisor Warren Gunnels shared.
Ever since Paul Ryan 1st proposed paying for Trump's tax breaks to the top 1% by cutting Social Security & Medicare, I've been proud to be by @BernieSanders side fighting against it.
To hear Biden say "Ryan was correct" to go after Social Security & Medicare is soul-wrenching. https://t.co/kfZz9qlqJd — Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) January 2, 2020
Here is the clip with more context. Watch the full speech at C-SPAN.
Advertisement
Sanders adviser David Sirota has also referenced the speech in the Jan. 7 edition of his email newsletter, “Bern Notice,” claiming that Biden had “lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”
“Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare,” Biden said at the time. “That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.”
“We need a pro-growth, progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators, as well, not just investors; that gets rid of un-protective loopholes like stepped-up basis; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay, it still needs adjustments, but can stay; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country,” he added.
A voter asked Biden at a campaign event in Indianola, Iowa, on Saturday about claims she had heard in phone calls that Biden supports Social Security cuts.
“Politifacts [sic] looked at it and they doctored the photo, they doctored the piece and it’s acknowledged that it’s a fake,” Biden responded. “What we’re doing is we’re putting out what the actual exchange between [former House Speaker] Paul Ryan and I were. And I have been a gigantic supporter of Social Security from the beginning.”
Advertisement
The fact-checking site PolitiFact indeed rated Sirota’s claims in his newsletter “false,” because Sirota omitted some words from Biden’s speech to Brookings. Sirota, and a video that PolitiFact does not directly address, do not include Biden’s insistence that a progressive tax code must raise “enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay” though those programs “still needs adjustments.”
But “doctoring” a video such that it could be considered “a fake,” generally refers to footage that is fabricated or tampered with, rather than a video excerpt that is simply lacking the full context.
What’s more, Biden’s uses the term “adjustments” in reference to Social Security after going on a riff about whether affluent Americans actually need their benefits, making it sound as if he implicitly is interested in some form of means-testing or income-based benefit reductions.
Biden’s campaign maintains that the plan on his campaign website, which would increase benefits, is what he meant by “adjustments.” Biden would not so much as consider cutting Social Security benefits in any way, according to the campaign.
“Now, I don’t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire. I don’t know a lot of them. Maybe you guys do,” he said in his speech to Brookings, before launching into his plans for a “pro-growth, progressive tax code.”
Advertisement
As Biden notes in his conversation with the voter on Saturday, his Social Security plan would increase benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income for Social Security purposes. The benefit increases he proposes include the creation of a minimum benefit at 125% of the federal poverty level, tackling poverty in late old age through a benefit bump-up for people collecting benefits for 20 years or more, and a change allowing surviving spouses to keep a larger share of benefits.
But in the past, some proposals to reform the program that have included at least one of these benefit increases also cut benefits in other ways.
Joe Biden has a 40-year history of trying to cut Social Security, and he is doing everything he can to hide that record from voters. You can see Biden's record right here for yourself in 3 videos:
1. https://t.co/HAJGvAjKMe
2. https://t.co/ixQattKIXy
3. https://t.co/k5G0fI5iXc https://t.co/kKMsRjbOVI — David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 18, 2020
And as the Sanders campaign is fond of noting, Biden has a long history of endorsing Social Security benefit cuts dating back to the 1980s and 1990s.
As then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden served as Obama’s liaison to Senate Republicans at a time when Obama had put a cut to Social Security cost-of-living adjustment on the table in pursuit of “grand bargain” that would also increase tax revenue. Obama would make that technical change, the “chained” consumer price index, part of his 2013 budget resolution, prompting a White House protest where Sanders spoke.
Advertisement
“Joe Biden should be honest with voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut Social Security. The facts are very clear: Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security ― he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement on Saturday evening. “The vice president must stop dodging questions about his record, and start explaining why he has so aggressively pushed to slash one of the most significant and successful social programs in American history, which millions of Americans rely on for survival.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-18--Trump's Latest Reason For Soleimani Hit: He Was Talking 'S**t' About America

President Donald Trump offered chilling details to GOP donors about the airstrike assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 2 — and a new reason for the hit : He was saying “ bad things ” about America .
“ How much of this shit do we have to listen to ?
” Trump asked his audience of well-heeled contributors Friday night at Mar-a-Lago , his resort in Palm Beach , Florida , according to audio recordings of his comments obtained by CNN and The Washington Post .
“ He was saying bad things about our country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack , we ’ re going to kill your people , ’ ” Trump said , according to the Post .
At the Friday night gathering , which was attended by some 100 donors expected to raise $ 10 million for Trump ’ s reelection campaign and the Republican Party , the president said Soleimani had to be killed because he was a “ noted terrorist ” who was “ down on our list.
” He also called Soleimani the “ father of the road side bomb ” who was responsible for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who see walking around with no legs , no arms.
” “ ‘ They ’ re in the car , they ’ re in an armored vehicle , ’ ” Trump said , supposedly quoting the officer .
“ ‘ Sir , they have approximately one minute to live , sir ... 30 seconds ... 10 , nine , eight ... ’ Then , all of a sudden , boom !
‘ They ’ re gone , sir.
’ I said , ‘ Where is this guy ?
’ [ laughter ] That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump boasted that the hit “ shook up the world .
“ He was supposed to be invincible , ” he added , referring to Soleimani .
Trump also repeated his claim that ISIS leader Abu Bakr-Baghdadi died “ screaming ” after an American raid on this compound — a version no one else seems able to confirm .
“ He was screaming , going crazy , ” the president said .
Since the Soleimani hit , the Trump administration has been criticized for a lack of transparency and for failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that Soleimani posed an imminent threat .
In other comments to donors , Trump bragged about boosting the defense budget by $ 2.5 trillion ( even though the Pentagon budget is a fraction of that , at $ 738 billion ) .
He asked “ who the hell cares ” about the growing deficit , adding , “ We ’ ll have a country.
” ( The deficit was nearly $ 1 trillion in 2019 , even though Trump promised during his campaign to eliminate the national debt . )
“ As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be here long after us , ” he said , according to the Post .
“ The rattlesnake , you can kill every son-of-a-bitchin ’ rattlesnake .
”

President Donald Trump offered chilling details to GOP donors about the airstrike assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 2 — and a new reason for the hit: He was saying “bad things” about America.
“How much of this shit do we have to listen to?” Trump asked his audience of well-heeled contributors Friday night at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to audio recordings of his comments obtained by CNN and The Washington Post.
Advertisement
“He was saying bad things about our country, like ‘we’re going to attack, we’re going to kill your people,’” Trump said, according to the Post.
The president didn’t mention any “imminent attack” planned by the military commander.
At the Friday night gathering, which was attended by some 100 donors expected to raise $10 million for Trump’s reelection campaign and the Republican Party, the president said Soleimani had to be killed because he was a “noted terrorist” who was “down on our list.”
He also called Soleimani the “father of the road side bomb” who was responsible for “every young, beautiful man or woman who see walking around with no legs, no arms.”
Advertisement
Trump also described a military officer’s narration of the attack to him.
“‘They’re in the car, they’re in an armored vehicle,’” Trump said, supposedly quoting the officer. “‘Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir ... 30 seconds ... 10, nine, eight ...’ Then, all of a sudden, boom! ‘They’re gone, sir.’ I said, ‘Where is this guy?’ [laughter] That was the last I heard from him.”
Trump boasted that the hit “shook up the world. “He was supposed to be invincible,” he added, referring to Soleimani.
Trump also repeated his claim that ISIS leader Abu Bakr-Baghdadi died “screaming” after an American raid on this compound — a version no one else seems able to confirm. “He was screaming, going crazy,” the president said.
Since the Soleimani hit, the Trump administration has been criticized for a lack of transparency and for failing to provide adequate substantiation of Trump’s claim that Soleimani posed an imminent threat.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called a briefing given to lawmakers and the exhortation not to challenge the assassination “insulting and demeaning.”
Advertisement
In other comments to donors, Trump bragged about boosting the defense budget by $2.5 trillion (even though the Pentagon budget is a fraction of that, at $738 billion).
He asked “who the hell cares” about the growing deficit, adding, “We’ll have a country.” (The deficit was nearly $1 trillion in 2019, even though Trump promised during his campaign to eliminate the national debt.)
He also mocked environmental concerns over his border wall, and singled out worries about disrupting turtle and rattlesnake nesting sites.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-18--'Get Your Mops & Buckets Ready!' — Trump's Infuriating Answer To Rising Seas

President Donald Trump offered a definitively low-tech — and maddening — “ solution ” to rising sea levels amid global warming : “ Get your mops and buckets ready !
” He came up with the snide , unhelpful suggestion in a tweet as he criticized ongoing discussions about the possibility of constructing a sea wall to protect New York City , where low-lying areas have already experienced increased flooding from the encroaching ocean .
The president called it an “ environmentally unfriendly idea ” that will “ look terrible.
” A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall , built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare storms , is a costly , foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea that , when needed , probably won ’ t work anyway .
It will also look terrible .
Sorry , you ’ ll just have to get your mops & buckets ready !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 18 , 2020 The proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers for New York would create a six-mile-long barrier of man-made islands with retractable gates .
The cost would not be $ 200 billion , as Trump falsely claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be constructed over 25 years .
A finalized proposal isn ’ t expected to be presented to Congress until at least 2022 .
Some experts fear the massive proposal is already too little too late .
Critics were absolutely gobsmacked by Trump ’ s mocking comeback — particularly because the president has his own “ environmentally unfriendly ” wall that “ looks terrible.
” The “ environmentally unfriendly ” president has also won approval to construct two sea walls at his Turnberry golf resort in Ireland to keep the ocean at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has called a “ hoax , ” but now says is “ serious.
” A massive 200 billion dollar sea wall may not even be enough to protect New York residents from massive storms like Sandy and the tragic reality of climate change and rising sea levels .
If Trump thinks a sea wall is environmentally unfriendly , climate change is truly apocalyptic .
— Eugene Gu , MD ( @ eugenegu ) January 18 , 2020 What will mops and buckets do when you are under 10 feet of water ?
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have you ?
Glad you will be in Florida , which also is under threat from a rising sea .
— mj caswell ( @ mjcaswell ) January 19 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump offered a definitively low-tech — and maddening — “solution” to rising sea levels amid global warming: “Get your mops and buckets ready!”
He came up with the snide, unhelpful suggestion in a tweet as he criticized ongoing discussions about the possibility of constructing a sea wall to protect New York City, where low-lying areas have already experienced increased flooding from the encroaching ocean. The president called it an “environmentally unfriendly idea” that will “look terrible.”
Advertisement
A massive 200 Billion Dollar Sea Wall, built around New York to protect it from rare storms, is a costly, foolish & environmentally unfriendly idea that, when needed, probably won’t work anyway. It will also look terrible. Sorry, you’ll just have to get your mops & buckets ready! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2020
The proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers for New York would create a six-mile-long barrier of man-made islands with retractable gates. The cost would not be $200 billion, as Trump falsely claimed, but $119 billion, and it would be constructed over 25 years. A finalized proposal isn’t expected to be presented to Congress until at least 2022. Some experts fear the massive proposal is already too little too late.
Critics were absolutely gobsmacked by Trump’s mocking comeback — particularly because the president has his own “environmentally unfriendly” wall that “looks terrible.” The “environmentally unfriendly” president has also won approval to construct two sea walls at his Doonbeg golf resort in Ireland to keep the ocean at bay amid climate change, which Trump has called a “hoax,” but now says is “serious.”
Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant. — Angela Belcamino (@AngelaBelcamino) January 18, 2020
Advertisement
What if we get Mexico to pay for it? — Helen Kennedy (@HelenKennedy) January 18, 2020
I'll leave this here for no reason. pic.twitter.com/V78SgZGjS3 — Chidi® (@ChidiNwatu) January 18, 2020
A massive 200 billion dollar sea wall may not even be enough to protect New York residents from massive storms like Sandy and the tragic reality of climate change and rising sea levels. If Trump thinks a sea wall is environmentally unfriendly, climate change is truly apocalyptic. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) January 18, 2020
Shorter: Trump admits wall won't work. — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) January 18, 2020
What will mops and buckets do when you are under 10 feet of water? You haven’t thought this through, have you? Glad you will be in Florida, which also is under threat from a rising sea. — mj caswell (@mjcaswell) January 19, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Trump Considering Changing Law That Makes Foreign Bribes Illegal

In the newest chapter on President Donald Trump and the rule of law , administration officials are considering changing the statute making it illegal for American corporations to bribe foreign officials .
Asked Friday about the possibility of changes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said it was under consideration , Bloomberg reported .
“ I would just say : We are aware of it , we are looking at it , and we ’ ve heard complaints from some of our companies , ” Kudlow told a reporter .
“ I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy-wise , but we are looking at it.
” Trump ’ s reported push to make it legal to bribe foreign officials was raised in the new book “ A Very Stable Genius , ” written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig .
The authors said that Trump clashed with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as he pressed to scrap FCPA .
“ It ’ s just so unfair that American companies aren ’ t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a passage published by The Washington Post .
“ We ’ re going to change that.
” Trump hasn ’ t responded to that passage , but on Saturday he lashed the “ demeaning ” book by authors he called “ two-third Washington Post reporters.
” He called it “ Another Fake Book , ” that has “ already proved to be inaccurately reported.
” He offered no details of that apparently false claim , however .
Another Fake Book by two third rate Washington Post reporters , has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their great embarrassment , all for the purpose of demeaning and belittling a President who is getting great things done for our Country , at a record clip .
Thank you !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 18 , 2020 The book is a scathing portrayal of Trump as an ill-informed , reckless , explosive bully .
The passage published by the Post involves an attempt by military leaders and Tillerson to provide an extended briefing for the president early in his administration to educate him about such issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the location of nations .
Trump , who repeatedly barked during the briefing that other countries have to start paying up for American defense help , suddenly blasted the officials as a “ bunch of dopes and babies , ” the authors reported .
It was after that meeting that Tillerson called the president a “ fucking moron , ” according to the book , which was reported at the time .

Make bribes great again ... krisanapong detraphiphat via Getty Images
In the newest chapter on President Donald Trump and the rule of law, administration officials are considering changing the statute making it illegal for American corporations to bribe foreign officials.
Asked Friday about the possibility of changes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow said it was under consideration, Bloomberg reported.
Advertisement
“I would just say: We are aware of it, we are looking at it, and we’ve heard complaints from some of our companies,” Kudlow told a reporter. “I don’t want to say anything definitive policy-wise, but we are looking at it.”
Trump’s reported push to make it legal to bribe foreign officials was raised in the new book “A Very Stable Genius,” written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig. The authors said that Trump clashed with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as he pressed to scrap FCPA.
“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump is quoted in the book as saying, according to a passage published by The Washington Post. “We’re going to change that.”
Trump hasn’t responded to that passage, but on Saturday he lashed the “demeaning” book by authors he called “two third-rate Washington Post reporters.” He called it “Another Fake Book,” that has “already proved to be inaccurately reported.” He offered no details of that apparently false claim, however.
Advertisement
Another Fake Book by two third rate Washington Post reporters, has already proven to be inaccurately reported, to their great embarrassment, all for the purpose of demeaning and belittling a President who is getting great things done for our Country, at a record clip. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2020
The book is a scathing portrayal of Trump as an ill-informed, reckless, explosive bully. The passage published by the Post involves an attempt by military leaders and Tillerson to provide an extended briefing for the president early in his administration to educate him about such issues as American history, alliances and even the location of nations. Trump, who repeatedly barked during the briefing that other countries have to start paying up for American defense help, suddenly blasted the officials as a “bunch of dopes and babies,” the authors reported. It was after that meeting that Tillerson called the president a “fucking moron,” according to the book, which was reported at the time.
So I’m reading a certain book. And ... oh my. I’ve never read anything like it. I’m almost at a loss for words. Almost. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 18, 2020
Let’s just say, someone is not A Very Stable Genius. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 18, 2020
Been reading @CarolLeonnig and @PhilipRucker new book #AVeryStableGenius.
Omg. The excerpts thus far are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone should read. — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 18, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-18--Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders Dispute Reverberates On Campaign Trail

DES MOINES , Iowa ― Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) said they ’ re ready to move beyond last week ’ s controversy about what was said at a 2018 meeting , but it ’ s still a live issue for many of their supporters .
“ I am here to tell you that as a woman working in construction and reporting on sports , I believe you 100 % , ” Tanya Keith , 48 , told Warren at a Planned Parenthood house party here on Saturday .
“ Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at him and I ’ m like , ‘ He did that.
’ ” “ I know that Bernie Sanders said those things to you , because I have seen your body language , and I ’ ve seen his body language , ” added Keith , who was backing Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) and is now undecided .
“ And I know what men say to us in rooms and then what they say to us in person to gaslight us , and I just want you to know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , CNN reported that in 2018 , Sanders told Warren in a private meeting that he didn ’ t believe a woman could defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 .
Warren later confirmed it , saying , “ Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate .
I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
” Warren said she wanted to move on , but it came up again at the debate .
Sanders denied that he had ever said such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught Warren confronting Sanders , accusing him of calling her a liar on national television .
At the Planned Parenthood event on Saturday , Keith said she had “ a little PTSD ” from the 2016 primary , when she was a Hillary Clinton supporter , and watched how vicious it became within the Democratic Party .
She said she didn ’ t “ want to see Bernie Sanders ’ people doing to your supporters what they did to us.
” She asked Warren “ what your plans are for shutting that down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” if she becomes the nominee .
“ We fight for the same issues .
We ’ ve been allies in these fights long before I ever got into politics .
I knew Bernie and worked with him on a whole lot of issues that affect working people , families , poor people around this country , ” she said .
“ That ’ s all I want to say about that topic .
Because what I truly believe is , we ’ re going to have to pull together.
” Her campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter had asked her about it on the campaign trail .
Watch the exchange here , captured by HuffPost : “ Men will say one thing to you in a closed room and then say something else when you ’ re in public .
I wish Bernie would just own up to it , ” Keith told HuffPost afterward .
She said with Booker out of the race , she ’ s considering supporting Warren , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Mass . )
or billionaire investor and activist Tom Steyer .
The controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
Politico reported that some female politicians and activists were upset that he would be speaking at the women ’ s march in Portsmouth after the issue with Warren .
“ I was disturbed enough that when the senator spoke I took a break from the rally and went elsewhere , ” said former state Sen. Iris Estabrook , who is backing Klobuchar in the primary .
But Sanders ’ supporters were also paying attention to the episode .
Alex Andrade , 29 , is a volunteer for the campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night in Des Moines .
He said that he had really admired Warren and she was his second choice .
But after the past week , he had changed his mind .
Progressives in the party have been urging both sides to move on , worried that fueling attention and bad feelings will ultimately hurt both of them ― potentially allowing a more moderate candidate to take advantage of the situation .
But it ’ s also started a wider discussion about something that ’ s been lingering throughout the primary ― the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Former Vice President Joe Biden made similar , but more direct , comments to what Sanders allegedly said , but they received far less attention .
A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in March found that 3 in 10 Democratic voters think that most of the electorate would be less likely to vote for a female candidate because of her gender , compared to just 4 % who think a male candidate would face a similar disadvantage .
Similarly , 28 % think a nonwhite candidate would face more difficulty with voters .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
DES MOINES, Iowa ― Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said they’re ready to move beyond last week’s controversy about what was said at a 2018 meeting, but it’s still a live issue for many of their supporters.
“I am here to tell you that as a woman working in construction and reporting on sports, I believe you 100%,” Tanya Keith, 48, told Warren at a Planned Parenthood house party here on Saturday. “Because I looked at you and I looked at him and I’m like, ‘He did that.’”
Advertisement
“I know that Bernie Sanders said those things to you, because I have seen your body language, and I’ve seen his body language,” added Keith, who was backing Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and is now undecided. “And I know what men say to us in rooms and then what they say to us in person to gaslight us, and I just want you to know that I believe you 100%.”
CNN reported last week that Sanders told Warren in a 2018 private meeting that he didn’t believe a woman could defeat President Donald Trump in 2020. Warren later confirmed the report, saying, “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
Warren said she wanted to move on, but the issue came up again at the debate. Sanders denied that he had ever said such a thing. And then afterward, cameras caught Warren confronting Sanders, accusing him of calling her a liar on national television.
At the Planned Parenthood event on Saturday, Keith said she had “a little PTSD” from the 2016 primary. She was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and watched how vicious it became within the Democratic Party. She said she didn’t “want to see Bernie Sanders’ people doing to your supporters what they did to us.” She asked Warren “what your plans are for shutting that down” and “winning his supporters over” if she becomes the nominee.
Advertisement
Warren refused to elaborate on the meeting or criticize Sanders, saying that they had been “friends for a long time.”
“We fight for the same issues. We’ve been allies in these fights long before I ever got into politics. I knew Bernie and worked with him on a whole lot of issues that affect working people, families, poor people around this country,” she said. “That’s all I want to say about that topic. Because what I truly believe is, we’re going to have to pull together.”
Her campaign said it was the first time a voter had asked her about it on the campaign trail. Watch the exchange here, captured by HuffPost:
“Men will say one thing to you in a closed room and then say something else when you’re in public. I wish Bernie would just own up to it,” Keith told HuffPost afterward. She said with Booker out of the race, she’s considering supporting Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) or billionaire investor and activist Tom Steyer.
Advertisement
Both Warren and Sanders have repeatedly declined to discuss their disagreement with reporters since the debate.
The controversy followed Sanders to New Hampshire this weekend as well. Politico reported that some female politicians and activists were upset that he would be speaking at the women’s march in Portsmouth after the issue with Warren.
“I was disturbed enough that when the senator spoke, I took a break from the rally and went elsewhere,” said former state Sen. Iris Estabrook, who is backing Klobuchar in the primary.
But Sanders’ supporters were also paying attention to the episode. Alex Andrade, 29, is a volunteer for the campaign and was at a soccer tournament/caucus training Saturday night in Des Moines. He said he had really admired Warren and that she was his second choice ― but that he had changed his mind after the past week.
“Ever since everything happened, I feel like she’s dividing us,” he said. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is now his second choice.
Advertisement
Vanessa Marcano-Kelly, 34, said she was “disappointed.”
Progressives in the party have been urging both sides to move on, worried that fueling attention and bad feelings will ultimately hurt both of them ― potentially allowing a more moderate candidate to take advantage of the situation.
But it’s also started a wider discussion about something that’s been lingering throughout the primary: the issue of a female candidate running against Trump. Former Vice President Joe Biden made similar, but more direct, comments to what Sanders allegedly said, but they received far less attention.
A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in March found that 3 in 10 Democratic voters think that most of the electorate would be less likely to vote for a female candidate because of her gender, compared to just 4% who think a male candidate would face a similar disadvantage. Similarly, 28% think a nonwhite candidate would face more difficulty with voters.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-18--Biden Calls Sanders' Social Security Attacks "A Lie"

“ Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code .
What ’ s the first thing he decided we had to go after ?
” Biden continued , leaning into the microphone .
“ Social Security and Medicare … That ’ s the only way you can find room to pay for it.
” It was part of a broader speech in which Biden outlined his economic vision .
He previewed his 2020 campaign emphasis on the middle-class but declared that billionaires are not “ the problem , ” an implicit contrast with progressives .
The statement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the 2020 campaign : that Republicans pushed a tax cut whose benefits are tilted to corporations and the wealthiest Americans , knowing it would balloon the deficits , so the GOP could then justify cutting Social Security and Medicare .
“ What I ’ d do is I make sure that we expand Social Security coverage , ” Biden insisted Friday when a voter in Iowa asked him about the program .
Biden , like most Democrats , proposes raising the cap on the level of income that is subject to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That cap is set at $ 137,700 for the current tax year , meaning any income beyond that threshold is still subject to personal income tax , but not payroll taxes .
Biden —

“Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after?” Biden continued, leaning into the microphone. “Social Security and Medicare … That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.”
It was part of a broader speech in which Biden outlined his economic vision. He previewed his 2020 campaign emphasis on the middle-class but declared that billionaires are not “the problem,” an implicit contrast with progressives. The statement that Gunnels highlighted reflects a common Biden argument from the 2020 campaign: that Republicans pushed a tax cut whose benefits are tilted to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, knowing it would balloon the deficits, so the GOP could then justify cutting Social Security and Medicare.
“What I’d do is I make sure that we expand Social Security coverage,” Biden insisted Friday when a voter in Iowa asked him about the program.
Biden, like most Democrats, proposes raising the cap on the level of income that is subject to the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That cap is set at $137,700 for the current tax year, meaning any income beyond that threshold is still subject to personal income tax, but not payroll taxes. Biden —


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Schiff, Nadler Slam Trump Team's Defense That 'Abuse Of Power' Isn't Impeachable

Tom Williams via Getty Images Impeachment managers arrive at the Senate to read the articles of impeachment on Thursday , led by Reps. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , left , and Jerrold Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) .
Two of the most prominent impeachment managers rejected arguments from Donald Trump ’ s defense team claiming the president shouldn ’ t have been impeached for abusing the power of his office .
In separate interviews on Sunday , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the Intelligence Committee chairman and lead impeachment manager , and Jerrold Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president for arguing that the conduct at the heart of Trump ’ s impeachment isn ’ t impeachable .
On Sunday , Schiff called their claims “ absurdist.
” Over the past week , Trump ’ s defense team , which includes lawyer Alan Dershowitz , amplified its assertions that Trump ’ s demands for Ukraine to investigate his political rivals did not warrant impeachment .
In December , the House voted to impeach the president on two articles : abuse of power and obstructing the congressional investigation into the alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the host of ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” George Stephonopoulos , that Trump should not have been impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact .
“ The vote was to impeach on abuse of power ― which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment , ” Dershowitz said .
The claim rests on Dershowitz ’ s belief that abuse of power is not among the “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” for which a president can be impeached .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact ? ''
Alan Dershowitz : `` That 's right . ''
https : //t.co/8PCqr913hS pic.twitter.com/HfDSNz4YDI — ABC News ( @ ABC ) January 19 , 2020 Dershowitz has frequently appeared on news broadcasts as one of Trump ’ s staunchest legal allies , arguing against oversight by Congress and against former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian election interference .
“ That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the facts are so dead-set against you , ” Schiff responded in a separate “ This Week ” interview .
Schiff noted that along with several administration officials , Trump himself has already admitted to the conduct at the core of his impeachment .
Schiff rejected the suggestion Trump ’ s conduct is unimpeachable .
“ You had to go so far out of the mainstream to find someone to make that argument , you had to leave the realm of constitutional law scholars and go to criminal defense lawyers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff : `` The only thing really new about the president 's defense is that they 're now arguing – I think because they ca n't contest the facts — that the president can not be impeached for abusing the power of his office . ''
https : //t.co/weB5AekBmw pic.twitter.com/Rpe6e1vBr2 — This Week ( @ ThisWeekABC ) January 19 , 2020 “ The logic of that absurdist position that ’ s being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska , he could withhold execution of sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one , ” Schiff added .
During an interview on “ Face the Nation , ” Nadler said the argument from Trump ’ s defense team is “ simply ignorance , ” adding previous impeachments prove “ there is no question ” as to whether a president can be charged for abuse of power .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Two of the most prominent impeachment managers rejected arguments from Donald Trump’s defense team claiming the president shouldn’t have been impeached for abusing the power of his office.
In separate interviews on Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the Intelligence Committee chairman and lead impeachment manager, and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the Judiciary Committee chairman, lambasted defenders of the president for arguing that the conduct at the heart of Trump’s impeachment isn’t impeachable. On Sunday, Schiff called their claims “absurdist.”
Advertisement
Impeachment managers arrive at the Senate to read the articles of impeachment on Thursday, led by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), left, and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). Tom Williams via Getty Images
Over the past week, Trump’s defense team, which includes lawyer Alan Dershowitz, amplified its assertions that Trump’s demands for Ukraine to investigate his political rivals did not warrant impeachment.
In December, the House voted to impeach the president on two articles: abuse of power and obstructing the congressional investigation into the alleged abuse.
On Sunday, Dershowitz told the host of ABC’s “This Week,” George Stephonopoulos, that Trump should not have been impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact.
Advertisement
“The vote was to impeach on abuse of power ― which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment,” Dershowitz said. The claim rests on Dershowitz’s belief that abuse of power is not among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which a president can be impeached.
.@GStephanopoulos: "Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact?"
Alan Dershowitz: "That's right." https://t.co/8PCqr913hS pic.twitter.com/HfDSNz4YDI — ABC News (@ABC) January 19, 2020
Dershowitz has frequently appeared on news broadcasts as one of Trump’s staunchest legal allies, arguing against oversight by Congress and against former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.
“That’s the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead-set against you,” Schiff responded in a separate “This Week” interview. Schiff noted that along with several administration officials, Trump himself has already admitted to the conduct at the core of his impeachment. Schiff rejected the suggestion Trump’s conduct is unimpeachable.
“You had to go so far out of the mainstream to find someone to make that argument, you had to leave the realm of constitutional law scholars and go to criminal defense lawyers,” he said of Dershowitz.
Advertisement
Rep. Adam Schiff: "The only thing really new about the president's defense is that they're now arguing – I think because they can't contest the facts — that the president cannot be impeached for abusing the power of his office." https://t.co/weB5AekBmw pic.twitter.com/Rpe6e1vBr2 — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 19, 2020
“The logic of that absurdist position that’s being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska, he could withhold execution of sanctions on Russia for interfering in the last election, to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one,” Schiff added.
During an interview on “Face the Nation,” Nadler said the argument from Trump’s defense team is “simply ignorance,” adding previous impeachments prove “there is no question” as to whether a president can be charged for abuse of power.
.@RepJerryNadler says he was “surprised” to hear claims from Trump impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz that @realDonaldTrump has not committed impeachable offenses. “That’s simply ignorance.” pic.twitter.com/QCYFaHNaAK — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 19, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Republican Senator On Trump Soliciting Foreign Interference: Humans 'Make Mistakes'

AP Photo/J .
Scott Applewhite Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-Ala. ) speaking to reporters last February about a bipartisan compromise to avoid a government shutdown .
Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-Ala. ) on Sunday shrugged off President Donald Trump ’ s requests for foreign countries to interfere in U.S. elections , stating that the president is “ human ” and makes mistakes from time to time .
ABC ’ s “ This Week ” host George Stephanopoulos asked Shelby , chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee , a series of questions about the upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the president to solicit foreign interference in our election ?
” Stephanopoulos asked Shelby , who claimed it ’ s “ in dispute ” whether Trump actually did so .
The House voted to impeach Trump over his efforts to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating former Vice President Joe Biden , a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary , as well as over his decision to block witnesses from testifying during the chamber ’ s impeachment inquiry .
Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump has publicly called on Ukraine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton ’ s emails when they were both candidates in the 2016 presidential election .
Shelby noted that Trump is human .
“ He ’ s going to make mistakes of judgment and everything else , ” he said .
“ They have historically ― both parties ― from the beginning of our republic.
” The senator added that he does not believe Trump ’ s actions rise “ to the standard of an impeachable offense ” but said he would wait to see what comes out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soliciting foreign interference : `` Those are just statements , political '' @ GStephanopoulos : `` So it 's OK ? ''
Sen. Shelby : `` I did n't say it was OK ... '' GS : This is the president of the U.S. Shelby : He 's `` human '' and is going to `` make mistakes '' https : //t.co/cqiFPziHtO pic.twitter.com/EdNVyHfy8p — This Week ( @ ThisWeekABC ) January 19 , 2020 “ Let me make something 100 % clear to the American public and anyone running for public office : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solicit , accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election , ” Weintraub wrote in a statement in June that she shared again on Twitter in October .
“ Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginning of our nation , ” her statement continued .
“ Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.
” The House impeachment managers delivered two articles of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week .
The president has denied any wrongdoing .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Sunday shrugged off President Donald Trump’s requests for foreign countries to interfere in U.S. elections, stating that the president is “human” and makes mistakes from time to time.
ABC’s “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos asked Shelby, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a series of questions about the upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate.
Advertisement
“Do you think it was proper for the president to solicit foreign interference in our election?” Stephanopoulos asked Shelby, who claimed it’s “in dispute” whether Trump actually did so.
The House voted to impeach Trump over his efforts to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, as well as over his decision to block witnesses from testifying during the chamber’s impeachment inquiry.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) speaking to reporters last February about a bipartisan compromise to avoid a government shutdown. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump has publicly called on Ukraine and China to investigate Biden. Trump also urged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails when they were both candidates in the 2016 presidential election.
Advertisement
But Shelby said such statements were simply “political.”
“So it’s OK?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“I didn’t say it was OK,” Shelby responded. “But people make ’em ― people do things. Things happen.”
“Well, this is the president of the United States,” Stephanopoulos said.
Shelby noted that Trump is human. “He’s going to make mistakes of judgment and everything else,” he said. “They have historically ― both parties ― from the beginning of our republic.”
The senator added that he does not believe Trump’s actions rise “to the standard of an impeachable offense” but said he would wait to see what comes out of the Senate trial.
Shelby on Trump soliciting foreign interference: "Those are just statements, political"@GStephanopoulos: "So it's OK?"
Sen. Shelby: "I didn't say it was OK ..."
GS: This is the president of the U.S.
Shelby: He's "human" and is going to "make mistakes" https://t.co/cqiFPziHtO pic.twitter.com/EdNVyHfy8p — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 19, 2020
Federal Election Commission Chair Ellen Weintraub reminded Americans during the House impeachment inquiry that seeking foreign interference in a U.S. election is illegal.
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” Weintraub wrote in a statement in June that she shared again on Twitter in October.
Advertisement
“Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginning of our nation,” her statement continued. “Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.”
The House impeachment managers delivered two articles of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― to the Senate last week. The president has denied any wrongdoing.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--GOP Senator Struggles While Dismissing Report About Trump Admin Breaking The Law

Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) on Sunday tried to dismiss a report from a nonpartisan government watchdog group that concluded the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld authorized aid to Ukraine for political purposes .
The Government Accountability Office released a report on Thursday that said the Trump administration had misused the Office of Management and Budget to impound over $ 240 million in aid Congress had allocated for Ukraine .
An impeachment investigation found President Donald Trump withheld the aid in an attempt to coerce Ukrainian officials into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation , ” Cornyn chose his words carefully as he defended Trump ’ s conduct in the wake of the GAO report .
“ It ’ s certainly not a crime , and [ it ’ s ] something no one had ever dreamed in the past would have risen to the level of impeachment , ” Cornyn said .
.
@ JohnCornyn appears to dispute a watchdog report on Trump 's withholding of aid to Ukraine : `` [ It 's ] Certainly not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever dreamed in the past would have risen to the level of impeachment , '' he argues .
pic.twitter.com/937yftfMSn — Face The Nation ( @ FaceTheNation ) January 19 , 2020 The GAO report does not allege that the Trump administration ’ s misconduct rose to the criminal level , although it does say the administration broke the law .
“ Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , ” the report reads , adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons .
The Constitution says U.S. officials can be impeached for “ Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors ” — the last of which is a term many legal scholars have interpreted to include both literal crimes and severe violations of public trust .
Two articles of impeachment filed in the House charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Investigators found Trump ’ s efforts to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election amounted to “ high crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did not agree with that classification , although he did not provide details to support his argument .
“ He ’ s been charged with abuse of power , which is not treason , which is not bribery , which is not a high crime and misdemeanor , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Sunday tried to dismiss a report from a nonpartisan government watchdog group that concluded the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld authorized aid to Ukraine for political purposes.
The Government Accountability Office released a report on Thursday that said the Trump administration had misused the Office of Management and Budget to impound over $240 million in aid Congress had allocated for Ukraine. An impeachment investigation found President Donald Trump withheld the aid in an attempt to coerce Ukrainian officials into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary.
Advertisement
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Cornyn chose his words carefully as he defended Trump’s conduct in the wake of the GAO report.
“It’s certainly not a crime, and [it’s] something no one had ever dreamed in the past would have risen to the level of impeachment,” Cornyn said.
.@JohnCornyn appears to dispute a watchdog report on Trump's withholding of aid to Ukraine: "[It's] Certainly not a crime and something that no one had ever dreamed in the past would have risen to the level of impeachment," he argues. pic.twitter.com/937yftfMSn — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 19, 2020
The GAO report does not allege that the Trump administration’s misconduct rose to the criminal level, although it does say the administration broke the law.
Advertisement
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report reads, adding that the Impoundment Control Act does not allow the OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.
The Constitution says U.S. officials can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — the last of which is a term many legal scholars have interpreted to include both literal crimes and severe violations of public trust.
Two articles of impeachment filed in the House charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Investigators found Trump’s efforts to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Cornyn on Sunday suggested he did not agree with that classification, although he did not provide details to support his argument.
“He’s been charged with abuse of power, which is not treason, which is not bribery, which is not a high crime and misdemeanor,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Rod Rosenstein Says He Authorized FBI Officials' Texts To Be Released To Media

Former deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was the official who approved releasing to the media hundreds of text messages — many of which were politically charged ― between high-ranking FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2017 , according to a Justice Department court filing released Friday night .
Rosenstein said in an affidavit that he ’ d authorized the release of the messages on Dec. 12 , 2017 , the day before he provided testimony before the House Judiciary Committee , because he believed there was a “ legitimate ” need for Congress to see them .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of Congress would publicly disclose the messages and said he wanted to avoid the “ additional harm ” that could be caused by a cherry-picked release .
“ The disclosure obviously would adversely affect public confidence in the FBI , but providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI , ” Rosenstein wrote .
NEW OVERNIGHT : In late-night court filing from DOJ , @ RodRosenstein acknowledges he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have fueled many a POTUS attack on the former FBI employees .
Both are suing over release , saying it invaded their privacy https : //t.co/SUSfl2yy8m — Josh Gerstein ( @ joshgerstein ) January 18 , 2020 The Justice Department released some 375 text messages between Strzok , then an FBI agent , and Page , a former attorney with the bureau .
The messages , which were sent on government-issued phones , included disparaging comments that Strzok and Page had made about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign .
The pair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe into Russian election meddling , lambasted Trump as an “ idiot ” and expressed support for his Democratic rival , Hillary Clinton .
Strzok and Page were removed from the Mueller investigation after the messages were released .
Strzok was later fired over the messages , and Page resigned from the FBI .
It was unclear before Friday who had authorized the texts to be made available to the press .
Trump has repeatedly mocked and lambasted Strzok and Page , including accusing them of committing treason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks about their extramarital affair .
Both Strzok and Page have since sued the DOJ , alleging the department violated the federal Privacy Act by releasing their texts .
The former deputy attorney general refuted this allegation in a statement filed as part of DOJ ’ s defense to Strzok ’ s lawsuit .
“ If I had believed that the disclosure was prohibited by the Privacy Act , I would have ordered Department employees not to make the disclosure , ” Rosenstein wrote .
“ All I can say is this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s deposition , ” Page tweeted Saturday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was the official who approved releasing to the media hundreds of text messages — many of which were politically charged ― between high-ranking FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2017, according to a Justice Department court filing released Friday night.
Rosenstein said in an affidavit that he’d authorized the release of the messages on Dec. 12, 2017, the day before he provided testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, because he believed there was a “legitimate” need for Congress to see them.
Advertisement
He said he also believed it inevitable that members of Congress would publicly disclose the messages and said he wanted to avoid the “additional harm” that could be caused by a cherry-picked release.
“The disclosure obviously would adversely affect public confidence in the FBI, but providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI,” Rosenstein wrote.
NEW OVERNIGHT: In late-night court filing from DOJ, @RodRosenstein acknowledges he made decision to release Strzok-Page texts that have fueled many a POTUS attack on the former FBI employees. Both are suing over release, saying it invaded their privacy https://t.co/SUSfl2yy8m — Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) January 18, 2020
The Justice Department released some 375 text messages between Strzok, then an FBI agent, and Page, a former attorney with the bureau. The messages, which were sent on government-issued phones, included disparaging comments that Strzok and Page had made about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. The pair, who both briefly worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling, lambasted Trump as an “idiot” and expressed support for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement
Strzok and Page were removed from the Mueller investigation after the messages were released. Strzok was later fired over the messages, and Page resigned from the FBI. It was unclear before Friday who had authorized the texts to be made available to the press.
Trump has repeatedly mocked and lambasted Strzok and Page, including accusing them of committing treason. The president has also made crude remarks about their extramarital affair.
Both Strzok and Page have since sued the DOJ, alleging the department violated the federal Privacy Act by releasing their texts.
The former deputy attorney general refuted this allegation in a statement filed as part of DOJ’s defense to Strzok’s lawsuit.
“If I had believed that the disclosure was prohibited by the Privacy Act, I would have ordered Department employees not to make the disclosure,” Rosenstein wrote.
Advertisement
“All I can say is this: I very much look forward to Rod’s deposition,” Page tweeted Saturday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Virginia GOP Leader: 'White Supremacist Garbage' Isn't Welcome At Pro-Gun Rally

Virginia House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert said white supremacists and other extremists planning to attend a pro-gun rally in Richmond on Monday are “ not welcome ” as tensions mount ahead of the controversial event .
Thousands of activists are expected to descend upon the Virginia State Capitol for Lobby Day , a rally officially billed as a peaceful event to protest gun control measures pushed by the state ’ s Democratically-controlled legislature .
But the event has drawn interest and threats of violence from some far-right extremist groups , prompting Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban weapons on Capitol grounds .
“ Lobby Day is a time for people to peacefully assemble and petition their government , ” Gilbert said Saturday in a statement .
“ It is not a place for hate or violence.
” “ Any group that comes to Richmond to spread white supremacist garbage , or any other form of hate , violence , or civil unrest isn ’ t welcome here , ” he added .
“ This includes extremist rhetoric similar to what has been seen before major incidents , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement , referring to the violent white supremacist rally in the state that left one counterprotester dead .
Authorities have arrested six suspected neo-Nazis who were potentially planning to commit violence at the rally on Monday .
Several of them believed a race war might ensue , reported The New York Times , citing the FBI .
Gilbert said Virginia House Republicans “ reject any attempt by any group to infuse any kind of twisted or extreme worldview ” into the rally .
“ So there ’ s no mistake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would subvert this event : you are not welcome here , ” he said in his statement .
“ While we and our Democratic colleagues may have differences , we are all Virginians and we will stand united in opposition to any threats of violence or civil unrest from any quarter.
” Although Virginia lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have issued statements seeking to quell any potential acts of violence , President Donald Trump on Saturday stoked fears of Second Amendment rights activists who say Democrats are out to snatch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia , ” the president tweeted .
“ That ’ s what happens when you vote for Democrats , they will take your guns away.
” Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia .
That ’ s what happens when you vote for Democrats , they will take your guns away .
Republicans will win Virginia in 2020 .
Thank you Dems !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 17 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Virginia ’ s House of Delegates as early as next week seek to limit purchases of handguns to one each month , require universal background checks for gun buyers and allow the government to ban guns in parks and public buildings .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Virginia House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert said white supremacists and other extremists planning to attend a pro-gun rally in Richmond on Monday are “not welcome” as tensions mount ahead of the controversial event.
Thousands of activists are expected to descend upon the Virginia State Capitol for Lobby Day, a rally officially billed as a peaceful event to protest gun control measures pushed by the state’s Democratically-controlled legislature.
Advertisement
But the event has drawn interest and threats of violence from some far-right extremist groups, prompting Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) to declare a state of emergency and temporarily ban weapons on Capitol grounds.
“Lobby Day is a time for people to peacefully assemble and petition their government,” Gilbert said Saturday in a statement. “It is not a place for hate or violence.”
“Any group that comes to Richmond to spread white supremacist garbage, or any other form of hate, violence, or civil unrest isn’t welcome here,” he added.
My statement on Monday’s 2nd Amendment rally in Richmond: pic.twitter.com/41imrpW6Ey — Todd Gilbert (@cToddGilbert) January 18, 2020
Advertisement
Law enforcement agencies have uncovered credible threats of violence surrounding the rally, Northam said Wednesday.
“This includes extremist rhetoric similar to what has been seen before major incidents, such as Charlottesville in 2017,” he wrote in a statement, referring to the violent white supremacist rally in the state that left one counterprotester dead.
Authorities have arrested six suspected neo-Nazis who were potentially planning to commit violence at the rally on Monday. Several of them believed a race war might ensue, reported The New York Times, citing the FBI.
Gilbert said Virginia House Republicans “reject any attempt by any group to infuse any kind of twisted or extreme worldview” into the rally.
“So there’s no mistake, this is my message to any group that would subvert this event: you are not welcome here,” he said in his statement. “While we and our Democratic colleagues may have differences, we are all Virginians and we will stand united in opposition to any threats of violence or civil unrest from any quarter.”
Advertisement
Although Virginia lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have issued statements seeking to quell any potential acts of violence, President Donald Trump on Saturday stoked fears of Second Amendment rights activists who say Democrats are out to snatch away their guns.
“Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,” the president tweeted. “That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away.”
Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
The three gun control measures facing approval in Virginia’s House of Delegates as early as next week seek to limit purchases of handguns to one each month, require universal background checks for gun buyers and allow the government to ban guns in parks and public buildings.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Democratic Senator Says He’d Be ‘Fine’ With Republicans Calling Hunter Biden To Testify

“ We take the position that we want to hear from witnesses , ” Brown said during an interview with CNN ’ s “ State Of The Union , ” adding that he ’ d be “ fine ” with hearing from former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son .
Brown , ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking , Housing and Urban Affairs , repeated that he ’ d be “ fine ” with hearing from Hunter Biden before saying many Republicans believe it would be “ a distraction.
” “ That ’ s what Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Republican senators also quietly tell me this president is a bigot and tell me this president lies a lot.
” “ The point is we need witnesses , ” he added .
“ I don ’ t understand how you can to the American public make the case that this is a real trial if there are no witnesses and there is no new evidence.
” Trump has accused then-Vice President Joe Biden of calling for Ukraine ’ s notoriously corrupt top prosecutor to be removed for the sole purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company with ties to Hunter .
Trump pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 phone call to investigate the Bidens , prompting a whistleblower to file a complaint and the House to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump .
Several current and former State Department officials testified that Trump withheld U.S. military aid in an effort to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating Joe Biden , a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary .
Trump has denied any wrongdoing , claiming he was simply urging Ukraine to investigate potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world leaders , as well as a bipartisan group of members of Congress , were also calling for the Ukrainian prosecutor ’ s ouster at the time .
Ukrainian authorities have said Joe Biden did nothing wrong .
Democrats have largely punted on questions related to Republican lawmakers potentially calling Hunter Biden to testify if the Senate were to vote in favor of allowing additional witnesses to be called during the trial .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) has called for four additional witnesses ― acting White House chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser John Bolton , senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey ― to be called during the trial .
Although a handful of Republican senators have said they are open to hearing from additional witnesses , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , who has pledged to work hand in hand with the White House during the upcoming trial , has expressed reluctance to do so .
“ Did the president , as the evidence shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiring with a foreign country to try to rig the election ?
Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that , ” he added .
Nadler said the decision on whether to allow Hunter Biden to testify should be left up to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the impeachment trial .
“ If we call one witness , we ’ re going to call all the witnesses , ” Graham said during an appearance on “ Fox News Sunday.
” “ There ’ s not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their witnesses and the president gets shut out .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday that he’d be OK with Republicans calling on Hunter Biden to testify during the upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate.
“We take the position that we want to hear from witnesses,” Brown said during an interview with CNN’s “State Of The Union,” adding that he’d be “fine” with hearing from former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.
Advertisement
“I don’t know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call ―” he continued.
“But you’re fine hearing from him?” host Brianna Keilar interrupted.
Brown, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, repeated that he’d be “fine” with hearing from Hunter Biden before saying many Republicans believe it would be “a distraction.”
“That’s what Republican senators tell me quietly,” Brown said. “Republican senators also quietly tell me this president is a bigot and tell me this president lies a lot.”
“The point is we need witnesses,” he added. “I don’t understand how you can to the American public make the case that this is a real trial if there are no witnesses and there is no new evidence.”
Democratic @SenSherrodBrown says he would be fine with Hunter Biden testifying: “We take a position that we want to hear from witnesses… I understand both sides get to call witnesses… I think many Republicans think that’s a distraction.” #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/3pnKu4W6sJ — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) January 19, 2020
Advertisement
Trump has accused then-Vice President Joe Biden of calling for Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt top prosecutor to be removed for the sole purpose of impeding an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company with ties to Hunter.
Trump pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 phone call to investigate the Bidens, prompting a whistleblower to file a complaint and the House to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump. Several current and former State Department officials testified that Trump withheld U.S. military aid in an effort to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating Joe Biden, a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, claiming he was simply urging Ukraine to investigate potential corruption committed by the Bidens. But world leaders, as well as a bipartisan group of members of Congress, were also calling for the Ukrainian prosecutor’s ouster at the time. Ukrainian authorities have said Joe Biden did nothing wrong.
Democrats have largely punted on questions related to Republican lawmakers potentially calling Hunter Biden to testify if the Senate were to vote in favor of allowing additional witnesses to be called during the trial.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called for four additional witnesses ― acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey ― to be called during the trial.
Advertisement
Although a handful of Republican senators have said they are open to hearing from additional witnesses, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has pledged to work hand in hand with the White House during the upcoming trial, has expressed reluctance to do so.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the impeachment managers, on Sunday questioned Hunter Biden’s relevance to the trial.
“Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president,” Nadler said during an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”
“Did the president, as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that,” he added.
Nadler said the decision on whether to allow Hunter Biden to testify should be left up to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the impeachment trial.
Advertisement
“No chief justice would think of admitting evidence that is not relevant,” he said.
.@RepJerryNadler suggests Hunter Biden should not be a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, adds that Chief Justice John Roberts should make a determination. “I’m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president." pic.twitter.com/Uh7w5KJAtQ — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 19, 2020
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the president’s fiercest defenders in Congress, said he will vote against a motion to subpoena additional witnesses during the trial.
“If we call one witness, we’re going to call all the witnesses,” Graham said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “There’s not going to be a process where the Democrats get their witnesses and the president gets shut out.”
“Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to be consistent,” he added. “I’m going to vote against calling the four witnesses requested by Sen. Schumer.”
Graham said he wants the trial to be over by the State of the Union address, which Trump is scheduled to deliver on Feb. 4.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Puerto Rico's Emergency Services Director Fired After Unused Disaster Aid Found

SAN JUAN , Puerto Rico ( AP ) — People in a southern Puerto Rico city discovered a warehouse filled with water , cots and other unused emergency supplies , then set off a social media uproar Saturday when they broke in to retrieve goods as the area struggles to recover from a strong earthquake .
With anger spreading in the U.S. territory after video of the event in Ponce appeared on Facebook , Gov .
Wanda Vázquez quickly fired the director of the island ’ s emergency management agency .
The governor said she had ordered an investigation after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the warehouse since Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico in September 2017 .
“ There are thousands of people who have made sacrifices to help those in the south , and it is unforgivable that resources were kept in the warehouse , ” the governor said .
Members of the US army reserve assemble a cot as they set up a tent city to house hundreds of people displaced by earthquakes in Guanica , Puerto Rico , Tuesday , Jan. 14 , 2020 .
Puerto Rico ’ s secretary of state , Elmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not told him about the contents of the warehouse .
News of the warehouse spread after online blogger Lorenzo Delgado relayed live video on Facebook of people breaking into the building .
The scene became chaotic at times as people pushed their way in and began distributing water , baby food and other goods to those affected by the earthquake .
Delgado later told reporters that he had received a tip about the warehouse , but gave no specifics on when .
The mayor of Ponce , María Meléndez , said he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contents .
“ This is outrageous , ” she said .
“ Everyone knows what us mayors went through after Hurricane Maria to try and get help to our cities and how we ’ ve worked these weeks to provide basic supplies to people affected by earthquakes .
Those involved owe us an explanation.
” In this Friday , Jan. 10 photo , people shade themselves under a tarp on a private hay farm where residents from the Indios neighborhood affected by earthquakes set up shelter amid aftershocks in Guayanilla , Puerto Rico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city of Ponce , told The Associated Press that the warehouse is owned by Puerto Rico ’ s Company of Commerce and Export .
Officials with the company could not be reached for comment .
The information upset many in Puerto Rico already angry over the government ’ s botched response to Hurricane Maria , with similar incidents of supplies going unused being uncovered months later .
Ponce is one of several cities in the island ’ s southern region hit by the recent 6.4 magnitude earthquake that killed one person and caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in damage .
More than 7,000 people remain in shelters since the quake .
The governor said she has sent the Senate her nomination of José Reyes , who oversees the National Guard in Puerto Rico , to be the new commissioner for the State Bureau for Emergency Management and Disaster Management .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — People in a southern Puerto Rico city discovered a warehouse filled with water, cots and other unused emergency supplies, then set off a social media uproar Saturday when they broke in to retrieve goods as the area struggles to recover from a strong earthquake.
With anger spreading in the U.S. territory after video of the event in Ponce appeared on Facebook, Gov. Wanda Vázquez quickly fired the director of the island’s emergency management agency.
Advertisement
The governor said she had ordered an investigation after learning the emergency supplies had been piled in the warehouse since Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico in September 2017.
Vázquez said inaction by the fired official, Carlos Acevedo, was unacceptable.
“There are thousands of people who have made sacrifices to help those in the south, and it is unforgivable that resources were kept in the warehouse,” the governor said.
Members of the US army reserve assemble a cot as they set up a tent city to house hundreds of people displaced by earthquakes in Guanica, Puerto Rico, Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Puerto Rico’s secretary of state, Elmer Román, told reporters that Acevedo had not told him about the contents of the warehouse.
Advertisement
News of the warehouse spread after online blogger Lorenzo Delgado relayed live video on Facebook of people breaking into the building. The scene became chaotic at times as people pushed their way in and began distributing water, baby food and other goods to those affected by the earthquake.
Delgado later told reporters that he had received a tip about the warehouse, but gave no specifics on when.
The mayor of Ponce, María Meléndez, said he had not known about the warehouse and its contents.
“This is outrageous,” she said. “Everyone knows what us mayors went through after Hurricane Maria to try and get help to our cities and how we’ve worked these weeks to provide basic supplies to people affected by earthquakes. Those involved owe us an explanation.”
In this Friday, Jan. 10 photo, people shade themselves under a tarp on a private hay farm where residents from the Indios neighborhood affected by earthquakes set up shelter amid aftershocks in Guayanilla, Puerto Rico. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Inés Rivera, spokeswoman for the city of Ponce, told The Associated Press that the warehouse is owned by Puerto Rico’s Company of Commerce and Export. Officials with the company could not be reached for comment.
Advertisement
The information upset many in Puerto Rico already angry over the government’s botched response to Hurricane Maria, with similar incidents of supplies going unused being uncovered months later.
Ponce is one of several cities in the island’s southern region hit by the recent 6.4 magnitude earthquake that killed one person and caused more than an estimated $200 million in damage. More than 7,000 people remain in shelters since the quake.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-19--Progressive Leader’s Endorsement Of Kennedy In Senate Primary Rankles Some Activists

When announcing his support for “ Medicare for All ” in February 2019 , Kennedy maintained ― and Pocan affirmed to HuffPost ― that his objections to previous iterations of the bill were on progressive grounds .
He was concerned that , prior to improvements in the new legislation , the bill did not cover long-term care and did not strike down the Hyde Amendment , which bars federal funds from being used to cover abortions .
Pocan said he endorsed Kennedy months ago privately and the campaign chose to announce it when it did for its own reasons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign for Kennedy , but is due to hit the trail for Sanders .
Meanwhile , Pocan has not announced his support for any of the progressive primary challengers taking on conservative House incumbents .
He backed nonprofit executive Marie Newman ’ s bid against abortion rights opponent Rep. Dan Lipinski ( D-Ill. ) in 2018 , but has yet to weigh in on her rematch run this cycle .
He has also stayed out of Cisneros ’ race against Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) , a longtime gun regulations opponent who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian General Qassem Soleimani .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a leading progressive in the House, disappointed some liberal activists by endorsing a left-leaning senator’s challenger this past week.
Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced that he is backing Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), who is challenging veteran lawmaker Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the Senate’s leading champion of a Green New Deal.
Advertisement
Markey’s collaboration with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on the original Green New Deal resolution has earned him the support of Ocasio-Cortez and left-leaning Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), as well as backing from Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate group.
Kennedy’s bid to unseat Markey is the unusual contest where a somewhat more moderate Democrat is trying to unseat a progressive stalwart.
But on Tuesday, Pocan — along with former CPC co-chair Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and 16 other House Democrats — announced that they were endorsing Kennedy, shocking progressive activists in Markey’s corner.
“As a proud, progressive voice in Washington, Joe has been a tireless champion for social and economic justice,” Pocan said in a statement. “From fighting for mental health parity, to protecting the rights of transgender Americans and advocating for a more inclusive economy, Joe offers the moral clarity and energized leadership that our country and party need today more than ever before.”
Advertisement
In an accompanying statement, Grijalva focused on Kennedy’s ability to “build coalitions and unite his colleagues behind progressive causes.”
“If the head of the Progressive Caucus is going to weigh in on primaries, our hope is that he would do it on the side of progressive champions.” - Waleed Shahid, Justice Democrats
NARAL Pro-Choice America and the influential local union 32BJ SEIU have endorsed Markey. But there are plenty of national groups that have yet to weigh in on the race one way or another, including MoveOn, Democracy for America, and Our Revolution.
A newer generation of left-leaning activists, many of whom have embraced an intersectional vision for tackling climate change, see Markey as the obvious choice.
“Progressives should endorse progressives,” said Julian NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy at the think tank Data for Progress. “It’s not complicated. If we want power we have to stick out for our own.”
Advertisement
“Markey going out and working with Ocasio-Cortez was an incredible act of leadership,” said Evan Weber, a political strategist at the Sunrise Movement. “If he doesn’t win his primary, the right-wing narrative will be that it’s because he supported the Green New Deal.”
He added that the move “undermines” Pocan’s own support of the Green New Deal.
In addition to climate change, Markey is a seasoned expert in telecommunications policy. He has become Senate Democrats’ top spokesman for reinstating net neutrality rules. Among other things, those rules — which the Trump administration discarded — forbid internet service providers from providing internet at different speeds based on what content creators pay them.
Activists have been closely watching where lawmakers are choosing to endorse challengers to incumbents in the 2020 election, encouraging sitting legislators to stand up for progressive allies and jump in where it can count. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) drew criticism in December for his refusal, thus far, to endorse immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros, a primary challenger in Texas backed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ocasio-Cortez and the left-wing Justice Democrats.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argues that Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) would raise the profile of liberal priorities in the Senate. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images
Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for Justice Democrats (which has not endorsed in the Massachusetts primary), said the Bay State race was not where he’d like to see top progressive members endorse someone against the incumbent.
Advertisement
“If the head of the progressive caucus is going to weigh in on primaries, our hope is that he would do it on the side of progressive champions,” he said.
Spokespeople for Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna, both of whom are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, declined requests to comment on the matter. A spokesperson for Grijalva did not respond to a request for comment.
In an interview with HuffPost, Pocan disputed the idea that Kennedy is a “centrist,” noting that Kennedy has a 97% score on the left-leaning congressional voting scorecard site Progressive Punch, while Markey’s is 99%. (Scorecards are inherently limited, and Progressive Punch gives Markey a higher rating than Sanders.)
Part of Kennedy’s appeal is his family pedigree (he is a grandson of New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and grand-nephew of former President John F. Kennedy), and the money and attention it can bring.
“When Joe Kennedy supports something it gets lots of attention because he’s Joe Kennedy ― far more than when Ed Markey gets his name behind something,” Pocan said, adding that Kennedy is also “a passionate speaker. He does a very good job of relating to the public.”
Advertisement
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveils the Green New Deal resolution alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in Feb. 2019. Alex Wong/Getty Images
‘A Pretty Silly Debate’?
Kennedy’s defenders, including Pocan, insist that the differences between him and Markey on policy are minor to the point of being inconsequential.
“If people want to debate that you’re saying ‘six’ instead of ‘half a dozen,’ I think that’s a pretty silly debate,” Pocan said.
In fact, Kennedy, a member of the CPC, is a solid progressive by national standards. His campaign notes that he both rejected corporate PAC money and got behind marijuana legalization sooner than Markey.
Both Markey and Kennedy have endorsed Warren for president. And though Markey voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, he and Kennedy both voted against the bipartisan 2019 defense spending bill, which omitted legal restrictions on the Trump administration’s ability to escalate the crisis with Iran.
Advertisement
Broadly speaking, Kennedy is personally close to House Democratic leadership, a proximity evident in his selection to deliver the official response to President Donald Trump’s state of the union address in January 2018.
Markey, by contrast, has sought to more explicitly ally himself with the ascendant grassroots left. In speeches, he has begun cheekily arguing that if the oil and gas industry’s tax subsidies amount to “socialism,” then the U.S. should give renewable energy sources “some of that socialism.”
The two candidates’ divergent approaches to a race for district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes Boston, are also revealing.
Markey declined to endorse a candidate in the primary. Kennedy did not formally endorse his friend Greg Henning, the centrist candidate, but campaigned with him the day before the primary vote.
Rachael Rollins, who defeated Henning and three others in the tight September 2018 race, is one of the most progressive prosecutors in the country. Rollins endorsed Markey’s reelection in October.
Advertisement
There is also apparent concern that an expensive Senate primary, which will last until September, will prevent progressives from devoting their resources to competitive state legislature primaries and hotly contested federal contests in neighboring Maine and New Hampshire.
Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) is able to generate money and attention partly due to his pedigree. But Kennedy's boosters say he is a talented speaker and deal-maker as well. Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images
“A lot of people in Massachusetts, even if they like primary challenges in general, are irritated with the idea of a very drawn out, expensive primary battle,” said Jonathan Cohn, chair of the elections committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide left-wing group, which has yet to endorse in the Senate race.
The left’s most specific knock on Kennedy is likely his refusal to join the House’s single-payer health care bill until March 2019. Markey, who is a co-sponsor of Sanders’ Senate bill, has backed single-payer legislation since 2009, when he was in the House.
“I don’t know [Kennedy] as pushing the ball forward on issues and I know on something like single payer there was a lot of organizing that it took to get him to that position,” Cohn said. “The question for Massachusetts voters is: Who is it easier to push?”
Advertisement
When announcing his support for “Medicare for All” in February 2019, Kennedy maintained ― and Pocan affirmed to HuffPost ― that his objections to previous iterations of the bill were on progressive grounds. He was concerned that, prior to improvements in the new legislation, the bill did not cover long-term care and did not strike down the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds from being used to cover abortions.
“Joe is proud of his progressive record and deeply grateful for the support of leaders like Rep. Pocan and Rep. Grijalva,” said Kennedy campaign spokeswoman Emily Kaufman.
Kennedy has been endorsed by three local progressive elected officials: Boston City Councilor Matt O’Malley; Berkshire County District Attorney Andrea Harrington; and Brookline Select Board Member Raul Fernandez, who was endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez, a former college student of his.
Kennedy and Markey attend a speech by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in Boston on Dec. 31. Both men have endorsed her White House bid. Brian Snyder / Reuters
A ‘Strong Personal Relationship’
In his interview with HuffPost, Pocan also admitted that the endorsement is partly based on his “strong personal relationship” with Kennedy, who entered Congress in 2013, the same year Pocan did.
Advertisement
That some members of Congress prioritize personal relationships over policy and ideology is a sore point with progressives. For example, activists were dismayed when then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke decided not to endorse the Democrat who was challenging his friend, Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), in a close race.
“Pocan is choosing friendship over progressive alliances and it’s sad to see from the CPC head,” said an aide to a progressive House Democrat, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.
Then there’s the matter of Pocan endorsing Kennedy just two days before announcing his support Bernie Sanders’ presidential race, which struck even unaligned progressives as dissonant.
“Bernie and Kennedy is a weird pairing,” said a progressive strategist, who declined to be named because their organization has not endorsed in the race.
Pocan said he endorsed Kennedy months ago privately and the campaign chose to announce it when it did for its own reasons. He said he has no plans to campaign for Kennedy, but is due to hit the trail for Sanders.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Pocan has not announced his support for any of the progressive primary challengers taking on conservative House incumbents. He backed nonprofit executive Marie Newman’s bid against abortion rights opponent Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) in 2018, but has yet to weigh in on her rematch run this cycle. He has also stayed out of Cisneros’ race against Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), a longtime gun regulations opponent who approved of Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
The CPC’s political action committee is still discussing which candidates it will back before getting further involved in races. The Texas House primaries are on March 3, which is Super Tuesday ― a day when 40% of the Democratic presidential nomination delegates are in play.
Will Pocan eventually endorse Cisneros?
“I have no fucking idea. How’s that for an answer?” he replied. “I don’t know yet.”