thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--NPR Reporter Removed From State Department Trip After Pompeo’s Ire, Press Group Says

The State Department removed an NPR reporter from the press corps that will travel to Europe and Asia with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later this week , just days after he angrily confronted one of the news organization ’ s journalists for asking questions about Ukraine .
Shaun Tandon , the president of the State Department Correspondents ’ Association , said Monday that Michele Kelemen , NPR ’ s diplomatic correspondent , had been barred from the trip , which will see the secretary travel to Britain , Ukraine , Belarus and Central Asia .
Tandon said the timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unleashed a profanity-laden tirade toward another NPR reporter , Mary Louise Kelly , last week after she asked about the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yavanovitch .
Yavanovitch ’ s removal is a key piece of the two articles of impeachment filed against President Donald Trump in the House and his ongoing trial in the Senate .
“ We can only conclude that the State Department is retaliating against National Public Radio as a result of this exchange , ” Tandon said in a statement on Monday .
“ Michele is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department for nearly two decades.
” Kelly , the co-host of NPR ’ s “ All Things Considered , ” said last week that Pompeo asked to speak with her privately after she pressed him about Ukraine in an interview .
She said she was led to a living room near his office where the secretary “ shouted ” at her for about 10 minutes .
“ He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine , ” she told NPR ’ s Ari Shapiro .
“ He asked , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.
” She said the secretary then asked if she could even find Ukraine on a map .
When she said she could , he had an aide bring in an unlabeled map for her to prove it .
Pompeo responded after Kelly shared details of the exchange , blaming what he called the “ unhinged ” media and accusing the journalist of lying to him .
“ It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
“ This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration.
” Tandon called on the State Department to reconsider its decision to bar Kelemen from Pompeo ’ s trip this week , saying the press corps that covers the agency is “ dedicated to informing the public and holding this and every administration accountable by asking questions about the issues of the day.
” “ The State Department has courageously defended journalists around the world through statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .
“ We are committed to do our part to preserve a respectful , professional relationship with the institution we cover .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The State Department removed an NPR reporter from the press corps that will travel to Europe and Asia with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later this week, just days after he angrily confronted one of the news organization’s journalists for asking questions about Ukraine.
Shaun Tandon, the president of the State Department Correspondents’ Association, said Monday that Michele Kelemen, NPR’s diplomatic correspondent, had been barred from the trip, which will see the secretary travel to Britain, Ukraine, Belarus and Central Asia. Tandon said the timing appeared to be direct retaliation after Pompeo unleashed a profanity-laden tirade toward another NPR reporter, Mary Louise Kelly, last week after she asked about the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
Advertisement
Yovanovitch’s removal is a key piece of the two articles of impeachment filed against President Donald Trump in the House and his ongoing trial in the Senate.
“We can only conclude that the State Department is retaliating against National Public Radio as a result of this exchange,” Tandon said in a statement on Monday. “Michele is a consummate professional who has covered the State Department for nearly two decades.”
The State Department removed NPR reporter Michele Kelemen from the press pool on @SecPompeo trip this week to Europe and Central Asia following his dustup w @NPRKelly. Read statement by @shauntandon, State Department Correspondents' Association president: pic.twitter.com/XksXaInNCJ — Lara Jakes (@jakesNYT) January 27, 2020
The State Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Kelly, the co-host of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” said last week that Pompeo asked to speak with her privately after she pressed him about Ukraine in an interview. She said she was led to a living room near his office where the secretary “shouted” at her for about 10 minutes.
Advertisement
“He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine,” she told NPR’s Ari Shapiro. “He asked, ‘Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.” She said the secretary then asked if she could even find Ukraine on a map. When she said she could, he had an aide bring in an unlabeled map for her to prove it.
Pompeo responded after Kelly shared details of the exchange, blaming what he called the “unhinged” media and accusing the journalist of lying to him.
“It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism and decency,” the secretary said in a statement. “This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration.”
Tandon called on the State Department to reconsider its decision to bar Kelemen from Pompeo’s trip this week, saying the press corps that covers the agency is “dedicated to informing the public and holding this and every administration accountable by asking questions about the issues of the day.”
“The State Department has courageously defended journalists around the world through statements under its seal,” Tandon said Monday. “We are committed to do our part to preserve a respectful, professional relationship with the institution we cover.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Federal Workers Say They've Been Gagged From Speaking Out On Trump's Impeachment

For more than a year , a federal ethics agency has instructed federal employees to steer clear of taking a stand at work for or against the impeachment of President Donald Trump , saying that doing so could run afoul of the Hatch Act that bars them from participating in certain political activities .
As part of a lawsuit that began last year , the American Federation of Government Employees ( AFGE ) filed an emergency motion in federal court last Friday asking a judge to block the guidance with an injunction .
The union argues that the OSC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump appointee , has misread the Hatch Act in a way that ’ s created a “ chilling effect ” among federal employees .
Impeachment is “ all that ’ s in the news , ” Ward Morrow , AFGE ’ s assistant general counsel , told HuffPost .
“ If you ’ re going to enforce [ the OSC ] advisory in the conditions we have now , they ’ ll be investigating employees for the next 100 years .
It ’ s all anybody is talking about , especially in Washington.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which dates to 1939 , forbids most federal workers from engaging in electoral politics while on the clock or in their official capacity .
While employees can make political donations or sign up new voters on their own time , they can ’ t urge their underlings to donate to someone ’ s reelection bid or pass out a candidate ’ s literature during the morning meeting .
The restrictions tend to boil down to advancing a candidate or party , and that ’ s where AFGE said the OSC misses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by The Washington Post in 2018 , argues that impeachment amounts to electoral politics because it can result in a president being barred from holding federal office ― i.e.
, that impeachment amounts to a scuttled reelection bid .
But impeachment is a legislative process playing out in Congress , with the House sending charges ― in this case , that Trump abused his office and obstructed a congressional inquiry ― to the Senate for a trial .
Morrow said that , for the purposes of the Hatch Act , supporting or opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposing a spending bill being debated on the Senate floor .
He added that someone ’ s views about witnesses being called in the Senate impeachment trial ― a key issue the chamber has yet to decide ― may have nothing to do with partisan politics .
The legal guidance drew enough heat immediately after it was released in November 2018 that the OSC quickly tried to clarify it , as Federal News Network reported at the time .
But AFGE said the followup guidance only created confusion .
The clarification stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent all discussions of impeachment in the federal workplace.
” For instance , it would be acceptable to “ discuss whether reported conduct by the president warrants impeachment , ” but it would not be acceptable to “ advocate ” for impeachment .
One example of off-limits behavior would be displaying an ” # Impeach45″ poster at work .
AFGE said the line between proper and improper speech is unclear enough to muzzle workers entirely on the impeachment issue , for fear of prompting a Hatch Act investigation .
Two workers at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of the lawsuit : One in Maryland who wants to express views on impeachment , and another in Missouri who wants to be able to use the term “ resistance.
” The OSC ’ s legal guidance states that using the terms “ resist ” and “ resistance ” in relation to Trump could be a violation of the Hatch Act , since the words are “ inextricably linked with the electoral success ( or failure ) of the president.
” AFGE argues that those terms are not necessarily political , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Make America Great Again.
” As Morrow put it , “ If they decide a year from now that it would be okay to talk about impeachment , you can ’ t go back in time ” to when the president was the subject of the current trial .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
For more than a year, a federal ethics agency has instructed federal employees to steer clear of taking a stand at work for or against the impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying that doing so could run afoul of the Hatch Act that bars them from participating in certain political activities.
With Trump now impeached and the subject of a Senate trial, a union representing federal employees says that the controversial legal guidance from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) tramples on workers’ First Amendment rights.
Advertisement
As part of a lawsuit that began last year, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed an emergency motion in federal court last Friday asking a judge to block the guidance with an injunction. The union argues that the OSC, an independent agency now headed by a Trump appointee, has misread the Hatch Act in a way that’s created a “chilling effect” among federal employees.
Drew Angerer via Getty Images
Impeachment is “all that’s in the news,” Ward Morrow, AFGE’s assistant general counsel, told HuffPost. “If you’re going to enforce [the OSC] advisory in the conditions we have now, they’ll be investigating employees for the next 100 years. It’s all anybody is talking about, especially in Washington.”
AFGE has been waging its legal fight with an assist from American Oversight, a non-profit watchdog group founded by former Obama staffers that’s been hounding the Trump administration over conflicts of interest.
Advertisement
Generally speaking, the Hatch Act, which dates to 1939, forbids most federal workers from engaging in electoral politics while on the clock or in their official capacity. While employees can make political donations or sign up new voters on their own time, they can’t urge their underlings to donate to someone’s reelection bid or pass out a candidate’s literature during the morning meeting.
The restrictions tend to boil down to advancing a candidate or party, and that’s where AFGE said the OSC misses the mark. The guidance, first reported by The Washington Post in 2018, argues that impeachment amounts to electoral politics because it can result in a president being barred from holding federal office ― i.e., that impeachment amounts to a scuttled reelection bid.
“If you’re going to enforce [the OSC] advisory in the conditions we have now, they’ll be investigating employees for the next hundred years.” - Ward Morrow, AFGE
But impeachment is a legislative process playing out in Congress, with the House sending charges ― in this case, that Trump abused his office and obstructed a congressional inquiry ― to the Senate for a trial.
Morrow said that, for the purposes of the Hatch Act, supporting or opposing impeachment is no different from supporting or opposing a spending bill being debated on the Senate floor. He added that someone’s views about witnesses being called in the Senate impeachment trial ― a key issue the chamber has yet to decide ― may have nothing to do with partisan politics.
Advertisement
The legal guidance drew enough heat immediately after it was released in November 2018 that the OSC quickly tried to clarify it, as Federal News Network reported at the time. But AFGE said the followup guidance only created confusion.
The clarification stated that it didn’t intend “to prevent all discussions of impeachment in the federal workplace.” For instance, it would be acceptable to “discuss whether reported conduct by the president warrants impeachment,” but it would not be acceptable to “advocate” for impeachment. One example of off-limits behavior would be displaying an ”#Impeach45″ poster at work.
AFGE said the line between proper and improper speech is unclear enough to muzzle workers entirely on the impeachment issue, for fear of prompting a Hatch Act investigation. Two workers at the National Archives and Records Administration filed declarations as part of the lawsuit: One in Maryland who wants to express views on impeachment, and another in Missouri who wants to be able to use the term “resistance.”
The OSC’s legal guidance states that using the terms “resist” and “resistance” in relation to Trump could be a violation of the Hatch Act, since the words are “inextricably linked with the electoral success (or failure) of the president.” AFGE argues that those terms are not necessarily political, unlike a formal campaign slogan such as “Make America Great Again.”
AFGE and American Oversight filed a lawsuit over the legal guidance last August, but they are now asking for an injunction because of timeliness concerns.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Chris Wallace Scolds Fox News Contributor: 'Get Your Facts Straight' On Impeachment

The tense exchange occurred as Pavlich , a news editor for conservative website Townhall , pitched in on Fox News ’ special coverage of Trump ’ s Senate trial .
She said Republicans are figuring out how to maintain “ the dignity and integrity of the Senate ” while considering whether to appease Democrats ’ demand for the chamber to call additional witnesses .
“ The Senate is not the House , ” Pavlich said .
“ The House did not come with a complete case , and every impeachment beforehand the witnesses that had been called had been called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , so there are questions here about the process ... ” “ That ’ s not true , ” he said .
“ They hadn ’ t all been called in the House .
In the Clinton impeachment , they had been called by ... the independent counsel .
They had not been called in the House.
” Pavlich began to clarify that some of the witnesses had been called during the Justice Department ’ s investigation of the Clinton case , which preceded the Senate trial .
Pavlich went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call all of the witnesses during Clinton ’ s impeachment but that the grand jury material from the Justice Department ’ s investigation was voted on and handed over to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment .
Co-host Bret Baier tried to move on from the tense exchange by noting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) was walking into the Senate chamber at that moment .
“ I just want to pick up on this because , Katie , what you ’ re saying just isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that the whistleblower complaint on Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine was given the inspector general for the intelligence community who then handed it over to the Justice Department , which subsequently decided not to investigate it .
“ That is why it went to the House , ” Wallace added .
“ So to say that in the Clinton investigation that these people were interviewed by the House ― one , they weren ’ t ― and ... the Justice Department refused to carry out the investigation .
Get your facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomplete information and gave it to the Senate and now they are saying the Senate should call additional witnesses who have not been called before and who were not part of the House evidence that Mitch McConnell put into the record , ” she said .
“ So we just shouldn ’ t listen to what John Bolton has to say ?
” Wallace asked , prompting Pavlich to say she ’ s “ not taking a side ” and is simply “ talking about what senators are saying and whether they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out before .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News host Chris Wallace lashed out at network contributor Katie Pavlich on Monday, moments before the Senate resumed President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, for misrepresenting what happened during President Bill Clinton’s 1998-1999 impeachment trial.
The tense exchange occurred as Pavlich, a news editor for conservative website Townhall, pitched in on Fox News’ special coverage of Trump’s Senate trial. She said Republicans are figuring out how to maintain “the dignity and integrity of the Senate” while considering whether to appease Democrats’ demand for the chamber to call additional witnesses.
Advertisement
“The Senate is not the House,” Pavlich said. “The House did not come with a complete case, and every impeachment beforehand the witnesses that had been called had been called in the House before being brought to the Senate, so there are questions here about the process ...”
Wallace interrupted to note that her statement was inaccurate.
“That’s not true,” he said. “They hadn’t all been called in the House. In the Clinton impeachment, they had been called by ... the independent counsel. They had not been called in the House.”
Pavlich began to clarify that some of the witnesses had been called during the Justice Department’s investigation of the Clinton case, which preceded the Senate trial.
“I understand, but they weren’t called in the House, so that’s just wrong, Katie,” Wallace said.
Whoa, sparks fly on Fox News: Chris Wallace tells @KatiePavlich, "Get your facts straight!" @BretBaier then says, "Let's tone it down." pic.twitter.com/7IyBch5q6K — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 27, 2020
Advertisement
Pavlich went on to explain that the House did not call all of the witnesses during Clinton’s impeachment but that the grand jury material from the Justice Department’s investigation was voted on and handed over to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment.
“That is the difference, and the process here does matter,” she said.
Co-host Bret Baier tried to move on from the tense exchange by noting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was walking into the Senate chamber at that moment.
But Wallace wasn’t done digging into Pavlich’s remarks.
“I just want to pick up on this because, Katie, what you’re saying just isn’t true,” Wallace said.
He noted that the whistleblower complaint on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine was given to the inspector general for the intelligence community who then handed it over to the Justice Department, which subsequently decided not to investigate it.
“That is why it went to the House,” Wallace added. “So to say that in the Clinton investigation that these people were interviewed by the House ― one, they weren’t ― and ... the Justice Department refused to carry out the investigation. Get your facts straight.”
Baier then told Wallace to “tone it down” before Pavlich jumped in to defend herself again.
“The House voted on incomplete information and gave it to the Senate and now they are saying the Senate should call additional witnesses who have not been called before and who were not part of the House evidence that Mitch McConnell put into the record,” she said.
Advertisement
“So we just shouldn’t listen to what John Bolton has to say?” Wallace asked, prompting Pavlich to say she’s “not taking a side” and is simply “talking about what senators are saying and whether they should go with the process that has been laid out before.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Ex-Republicans Are Inundating Twitter With Reasons Why They Quit The Party

Thousands of Twitter users have embraced a new hashtag to share why they chose to abandon the Republican Party .
# ILeftTheGOP was among the top trending topics Monday on Twitter , as people gave a range of reasons and dates for their decisions to opt out of the party .
Many cited the Republican Party ’ s nomination of Donald Trump for president or specific decisions made by Trump during his presidency as the stimulus for their departure .
Political commentator Cheri Jacobus kicked off the hashtag Sunday night with her own declaration that she ’ d left the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican nominee for president .
Christian author Susan Bagwell chimed in with her reasoning on Monday .
“ # ILeftTheGOP because they no longer represent me or my values as a Christian or a conservative .
They ’ re p***y-grabbing , lying , hateful , immoral weasels .
I ’ m a happy Independent , now .
No party owns my vote .
It has to be EARNED !
” she wrote .
Sophia A. Nelson , an author , opinion writer and political strategist , said she reached her turning point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP January 2020 because I am appalled at the GOP Senators lack of courage and excuses to Convict & Remove TRUMP , ” she wrote .
Some people pointed to Trump ’ s 2017 endorsement of Alabama Senate hopeful Roy Moore as a catalyst .
The president threw his support behind Moore even though the candidate was facing multiple allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate conduct from teenage girls and women .
Media strategist Kurt Bardella , who formerly worked as a spokesperson for Breitbart News , the Daily Caller and multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote for USA Today at the time , announcing that the Moore endorsement was the “ last straw ” for him as a Republican .
Other former Republicans explained the reasons for their departure prior to the Trump presidency .
# ILeftTheGOP in July , 2016 as they nominated Trump .
When did you ?
Use the hashtag and give us your date !
Tag those you know cut the cord : ) cc : @ IAmSophiaNelson @ BillKristol @ JoeNBC — Cheri Jacobus ( @ CheriJacobus ) January 27 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend @ CheriJacobus started it last night and it was picked up by the news media .
There are MANY of us .
I left the GOP January 2020 because I am appalled at the GOP Senators lack of courage and excuses to Convict & Remove TRUMP .
— Sophia A. Nelson ( @ IAmSophiaNelson ) January 27 , 2020 Seeing # ILeftTheGOP trending # 1 nationally first thing on a Monday morning gives me hope .
Top reasons : - Trump [ sic ] - Roy Moore - Charlottesville complicity - the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are dwindling , which is a sign that truth and reason are alive .
— Grant Stern ( @ grantstern ) January 27 , 2020 # ILeftTheGOP because they no longer represent me or my values as a Christian or a conservative .
They 're p***y-grabbing , lying , hateful , immoral weasels .
I 'm a happy Independent , now .
No party owns my vote .
It has to be EARNED !
— Susan [ Needs a literary agent ] Bagwell ( @ SweetieWalker ) January 27 , 2020 I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is registered to vote and ready to flip the script in November.
# BlueUnity2020 — John Pavlovitz ( @ johnpavlovitz ) January 27 , 2020 # ILeftTheGOP after 30 years when I saw the GOP ’ response to Trump ’ s Helsinki performance .
I did NOT vote for Trump , and will never vote Republican again .
I am now , and always will be , a Democrat .
The corrupt GOP has lost all semblance of credibility and strength .
— I Hate His Ass ( @ 145Mainstreet ) January 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve grown to love and respect on this thread of ex-Republicans .
You have principles .
I admire that .
👊 — 🏝 Kim ( @ kim ) January 27 , 2020 # ILeftTheGOP last year when it was clear that none of the @ GOP was going to stand up to Trump .
Now I am sick that I stayed as long as I did .
Wake up and stop defending the criminal you keep bowing down to .
— Stacey ( @ sshruff1 ) January 27 , 2020 # ILeftTheGOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her Say Anything and Pander Tour .
I knew the toothpaste was out of the tube and never going back in .
I had been an R for 20 years and had worked for two different Republican U.S .
Senators and a state elected official .
— Brian Jay Jones ( @ brianjayjones ) January 27 , 2020 # ILeftTheGOP in 1989 .
I grew up in a conservative Christian community and did n't understand the difference between parties until I went to college .
I am so enjoying reading through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter is n't real life , but y'all give me hope.❤ — Holly Figueroa O'Reilly ( @ AynRandPaulRyan ) January 27 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Thousands of Twitter users have embraced a new hashtag to share why they chose to abandon the Republican Party.
#ILeftTheGOP was among the top trending topics Monday on Twitter, as people gave a range of reasons and dates for their decisions to opt out of the party. Many cited the Republican Party’s nomination of Donald Trump for president or specific decisions made by Trump during his presidency as the stimulus for their departure.
Advertisement
Political commentator Cheri Jacobus kicked off the hashtag Sunday night with her own declaration that she’d left the GOP in July 2016 when Trump became the Republican nominee for president.
Christian author Susan Bagwell chimed in with her reasoning on Monday. “#ILeftTheGOP because they no longer represent me or my values as a Christian or a conservative. They’re p***y-grabbing, lying, hateful, immoral weasels. I’m a happy Independent, now. No party owns my vote. It has to be EARNED!” she wrote.
Sophia A. Nelson, an author, opinion writer and political strategist, said she reached her turning point just this month.
“I left the GOP January 2020 because I am appalled at the GOP Senators lack of courage and excuses to Convict & Remove TRUMP,” she wrote.
Advertisement
Some people pointed to Trump’s 2017 endorsement of Alabama Senate hopeful Roy Moore as a catalyst. The president threw his support behind Moore even though the candidate was facing multiple allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate conduct from teenage girls and women. Media strategist Kurt Bardella, who formerly worked as a spokesperson for Breitbart News, the Daily Caller and multiple Republican politicians, shared an opinion column he wrote for USA Today at the time, announcing that the Moore endorsement was the “last straw” for him as a Republican.
Other former Republicans explained the reasons for their departure prior to the Trump presidency.
Here’s some of the commentary:
#ILeftTheGOP in July, 2016 as they nominated Trump.
When did you? Use the hashtag and give us your date!
Tag those you know cut the cord:)
cc: @IAmSophiaNelson @BillKristol @JoeNBC — Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) January 27, 2020
Please follow the #ILeftTheGOP hashtag my friend @CheriJacobus started it last night and it was picked up by the news media. There are MANY of us. I left the GOP January 2020 because I am appalled at the GOP Senators lack of courage and excuses to Convict & Remove TRUMP. — Sophia A. Nelson (@IAmSophiaNelson) January 27, 2020
Seeing #ILeftTheGOP trending #1 nationally first thing on a Monday morning gives me hope.
Top reasons:
- Trump [sic]
- Roy Moore
- Charlottesville complicity
- the #TreasonSummit
And so many more...
Republicans are dwindling, which is a sign that truth and reason are alive. — Grant Stern (@grantstern) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP because they no longer represent me or my values as a Christian or a conservative. They're p***y-grabbing, lying, hateful, immoral weasels. I'm a happy Independent, now. No party owns my vote. It has to be EARNED! — Susan [Needs a literary agent] Bagwell (@SweetieWalker) January 27, 2020
Advertisement
I just hope everyone who says #ILeftTheGOP is registered to vote and ready to flip the script in November.#BlueUnity2020 — John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP after 30 years when I saw the GOP’response to Trump’s Helsinki performance. I did NOT vote for Trump, and will never vote Republican again. I am now, and always will be, a Democrat. The corrupt GOP has lost all semblance of credibility and strength. — I Hate His Ass (@145Mainstreet) January 27, 2020
Seeing so many people I’ve grown to love and respect on this thread of ex-Republicans.
You have principles. I admire that. 👊 — 🏝 Kim (@kim) January 27, 2020
Donald Trump not only self-impeached himself, he's now self-removing himself with his lies. #ILeftTheGOP — (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP last year when it was clear that none of the @GOP was going to stand up to Trump. Now I am sick that I stayed as long as I did. Wake up and stop defending the criminal you keep bowing down to. — Stacey (@sshruff1) January 27, 2020
Advertisement
#ILeftTheGOP May 4, 2016 when Trump became the nominee. https://t.co/Gv2zZGckPA — Wendy- AKA Human scum (@wendy_soxy1girl) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP in 2008, after watching Sarah Palin and her Say Anything and Pander Tour. I knew the toothpaste was out of the tube and never going back in. I had been an R for 20 years and had worked for two different Republican U.S. Senators and a state elected official. — Brian Jay Jones (@brianjayjones) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP in 1989. I grew up in a conservative Christian community and didn't understand the difference between parties until I went to college. I am so enjoying reading through the tweets in this hashtag. I know Twitter isn't real life, but y'all give me hope.❤ — Holly Figueroa O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP because their party is built on lies, hate, racism and hypocrisy. https://t.co/7aRPkgZVoc — David Weissman (@davidmweissman) January 27, 2020
#ILeftTheGOP right before I registered to vote in 1987. I thought Republicans were learned sophisticates like Buckley, but when I went south for college I discovered they were...not. — Virginia Heffernan (@page88) January 27, 2020
Advertisement
I voted for @HillaryClinton in 2016 but officially #ILeftTheGOP in 2017 ... I wrote about why in this piece for @usatodayopinion - https://t.co/4ZfsF24fZd — Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) January 27, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Ari Melber Brutally Sums Up Trump's Day: 'Total, Unmitigated Legal Disaster'

MSNBC host Ari Melber said President Donald Trump ’ s defense got off to a rough start at his impeachment trial on Monday .
“ This was a disaster for Republicans , ” Melber said .
“ A total , unmitigated legal and Constitutional disaster.
” Melber singled out Ken Starr for failing to reconcile “ his own hypocritical history ” with impeachment .
When Starr played a key role in the 1998-99 impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton , he argued that Clinton had abused his power .
Now , Trump ’ s defense team claims that abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ken Starr is Mr .
Abuse of Power , ” Melber said .
That history , Melber added , meant that Starr ’ s real opponent was essentially himself and his own arguments from the past .
“ He was out there shadow-boxing with himself , ” Melber said .
“ Constitutionally , we watched Ken Starr punch himself in the face and then walk off the floor.
” Melber also cited a passage from Starr ’ s book which referred to the potential abuse of power argument against Clinton as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He read : “ Abuse of power stood at the center of the president ’ s behavior.
” Melber also summed up Starr in a tweet : Shorter Ken Starr : Take MY word for it , you should do the opposite of WHAT I DID .
— Ari Melber ( @ AriMelber ) January 27 , 2020 See more of his takedown above .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MSNBC host Ari Melber said President Donald Trump’s defense got off to a rough start at his impeachment trial on Monday.
“This was a disaster for Republicans,” Melber said. “A total, unmitigated legal and Constitutional disaster.”
Advertisement
Melber singled out Ken Starr for failing to reconcile “his own hypocritical history” with impeachment. When Starr played a key role in the 1998-99 impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton, he argued that Clinton had abused his power. Now, Trump’s defense team claims that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
“Ken Starr is Mr. Abuse of Power,” Melber said.
That history, Melber added, meant that Starr’s real opponent was essentially himself and his own arguments from the past.
“He was out there shadow-boxing with himself,” Melber said. “Constitutionally, we watched Ken Starr punch himself in the face and then walk off the floor.”
Melber also cited a passage from Starr’s book which referred to the potential abuse of power argument against Clinton as the “capstone” of the impeachment case. He read: “Abuse of power stood at the center of the president’s behavior.”
Advertisement
Melber also summed up Starr in a tweet:
Shorter Ken Starr:
Take MY word for it, you should do the opposite of WHAT I DID. — Ari Melber (@AriMelber) January 27, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Lawyers Aren’t Supposed To Lie In Court, But Bolton Shows Trump’s Already May Have

WASHINGTON ― Lawyers are not supposed to make false assertions in a courtroom , but President Donald Trump ’ s legal team has already violated that standard by pushing a claim on the Senate floor disputed by former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s description of Trump ’ s hold-up of military aid to Ukraine .
If that were actually true , though , Trump ’ s legal team could face sanctions from the presiding judge for spending much of its argument period on Saturday claiming there was no evidence that Trump had held up the aid in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of his political opponent .
Barely a day later , published reports revealed that Trump ’ s former national security adviser has stated exactly that in a book draft , which Trump ’ s White House has had access to for nearly a month .
Lawyers in courtrooms across the country are expected to behave as “ officers of the court ” and are not supposed to say things they do not believe to be true .
As it happens , no such truth-only rule appears to apply to lawyers in impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be truthful to judges , but I suspect the lawyers for Trump would argue that the impeachment trial is not actually a legal proceeding but is instead a political process , ” said Renato Mariotti , a former federal prosecutor in Chicago .
The White House on Monday would not address HuffPost ’ s specific questions about when Trump ’ s legal team came to know what was contained in Bolton ’ s manuscript that was sent to the National Security Council on Dec. 30 .
Officials would only refer to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ambassador Bolton ’ s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the NSC .
No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript.
” That specific wording does not speak to whether White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his staff learned about the contents by some other means , however .
Last autumn , for example , the office and Trump himself learned of details in a whistleblower ’ s complaint about Trump ’ s actions on Ukraine and attempted to block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before White House lawyers concluded that they had no legal basis for doing so .
On Saturday , Trump ’ s lawyers continued arguing the same thing the White House has been claiming since the impeachment inquiry began four months ago : that Trump had been fully within his rights to put a hold on the Ukrainian military aid and that his decision had nothing to do with the hope of harming the candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democrat whom Trump had most feared as a 2020 challenger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no coercion at all .
“ The best evidence that there was no pressure or quid pro quo is the statements of the Ukrainians themselves , ” he said .
“ All the Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations is Ambassador ( Gordon ) Sondland ’ s assumptions and presumptions.
” On Monday , Trump lawyer Jane Raskin continued that theme , telling senators that the House managers presenting the impeachment case to the Senate had no proof of a link between the withheld aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond “ assumptions , presumptions and unsupported conclusions ” ― essentially ignoring the existence of Bolton ’ s claims in his book manuscript .
Bolton , as first reported by The New York Times on Sunday , has included in his coming book a description of Trump ’ s explicit desire to withhold $ 391 million in military assistance to Ukraine until its new president announced investigations into Biden and his son Hunter , who had been a board member for a Ukrainian energy company .
“ Their strategy seems to be to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the evidence before it and that unsworn evidence not currently part of the record is irrelevant , ” said Bradley Moss , a national security lawyer who handles security clearance and employment law cases .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Lawyers are not supposed to make false assertions in a courtroom, but President Donald Trump’s legal team has already violated that standard by pushing a claim on the Senate floor disputed by former national security adviser John Bolton’s description of Trump’s hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.
“We’re in court,” Trump lawyer Ken Starr told senators Monday. “We’re in democracy’s ultimate court.”
Advertisement
If that were actually true, though, Trump’s legal team could face sanctions from the presiding judge for spending much of its argument period on Saturday claiming there was no evidence that Trump had held up the aid in an attempt to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation of his political opponent. Barely a day later, published reports revealed that Trump’s former national security adviser has stated exactly that in a book draft, which Trump’s White House has had access to for nearly a month.
Lawyers in courtrooms across the country are expected to behave as “officers of the court” and are not supposed to say things they do not believe to be true. As it happens, no such truth-only rule appears to apply to lawyers in impeachment proceedings.
“There is an obligation to be truthful to judges, but I suspect the lawyers for Trump would argue that the impeachment trial is not actually a legal proceeding but is instead a political process,” said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago.
The White House on Monday would not address HuffPost’s specific questions about when Trump’s legal team came to know what was contained in Bolton’s manuscript that was sent to the National Security Council on Dec. 30.
Advertisement
Officials would only refer to a statement from NSC spokesman John Ullyot: “Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the NSC. No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript.”
That specific wording does not speak to whether White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his staff learned about the contents by some other means, however. Last autumn, for example, the office and Trump himself learned of details in a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s actions on Ukraine and attempted to block it from being turned over to Congress before White House lawyers concluded that they had no legal basis for doing so.
President Donald Trump meets with the Hungarian prime minister on May 13, 2019, as White House national security adviser John Bolton looks on in the Oval Office. Carlos Barria/Reuters
On Saturday, Trump’s lawyers continued arguing the same thing the White House has been claiming since the impeachment inquiry began four months ago: that Trump had been fully within his rights to put a hold on the Ukrainian military aid and that his decision had nothing to do with the hope of harming the candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrat whom Trump had most feared as a 2020 challenger.
Cipollone’s deputy Michael Purpura argued there was no coercion at all. “The best evidence that there was no pressure or quid pro quo is the statements of the Ukrainians themselves,” he said. “All the Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations is Ambassador (Gordon) Sondland’s assumptions and presumptions.”
Advertisement
On Monday, Trump lawyer Jane Raskin continued that theme, telling senators that the House managers presenting the impeachment case to the Senate had no proof of a link between the withheld aid and a request for politically useful investigations beyond “assumptions, presumptions and unsupported conclusions” ― essentially ignoring the existence of Bolton’s claims in his book manuscript.
Bolton, as first reported by The New York Times on Sunday, has included in his coming book a description of Trump’s explicit desire to withhold $391 million in military assistance to Ukraine until its new president announced investigations into Biden and his son Hunter, who had been a board member for a Ukrainian energy company.
“Their strategy seems to be to argue that the Senate should only act upon the evidence before it and that unsworn evidence not currently part of the record is irrelevant,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who handles security clearance and employment law cases.
In a White House photo opportunity on Monday, Trump called Bolton’s allegations “totally false.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Ken Starr Decries 'An Age Of Impeachment.' Democrats Find His Comments 'Surreal.'

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense team turned over its presentation on Monday to former independent counsel Ken Starr , who , in an ironic turn , argued that Congress tries to impeach presidents too often .
“ Like war , impeachment is hell , ” Starr told senators during the second week of Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
The lawyer and former federal judge called the constitutional process for removing a president “ a war of words and of ideas ” that “ divides the country like nothing else.
” Starr would know .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department , he conducted a yearslong investigation into President Bill Clinton that concluded in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern .
The House impeached Clinton that year ; the Senate acquitted him the following February .
“ The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently , ” Starr said Monday during his hourlong presentation .
“ Indeed , we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Starr said that , after the acrimonious Clinton impeachment , Congress had wisely allowed the expiration of the law that established his independent counsel investigation .
But he lamented that the “ political culture ” is still overly fond of impeachment .
Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives ( President Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 as the House was on the cusp of impeaching him ) .
“ It was really incredibly surreal to see him talking about impeachment as something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraint , ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) said .
“ For a man who spent millions of dollars of taxpayers ’ money to come up with , ‘ Oh , my God , the president has to be impeached because of sex ’ during the Clinton time , [ that ’ s ] probably not a person who should talk , ” Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vt. ) said .
One of the articles of impeachment against Trump says he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by investigating a political rival ( Joe Biden , who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination ) .
The other article charges that Trump obstructed Congress in its investigation of his dealings with Ukrainian officials .
Democrats have pointed out that in the past , some of Trump ’ s biggest defenders disputed the position that the Constitution requires statutory violations for a legitimate allegation of “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” against a president .
“ What is a high crime ?
I think it ’ s truth .
I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
Doesn ’ t have to be a crime .
It ’ s just when you start using your office and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you committed a high crime , ” then-Rep. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said in 1999 when he served as an impeachment manager in Clinton ’ s Senate trial .
Graham , elected to the Senate in 2002 , now is one of the most vocal critics of Trump ’ s impeachment , arguing it is invalid .
Alan Dershowitz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense team , similarly said in 1998 that a high crime or misdemeanor “ certainly doesn ’ t have to be a crime ” to warrant impeachment .
The Harvard law professor attempted to wave off his past comments last week , telling CNN his stance against Trump ’ s impeachment is “ far more correct now.
” With Republicans controlling the Senate , the prospect loomed that the chamber would quickly acquit Trump in a trial that featured no witnesses .
But in a bombshell development Sunday , The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Bolton ’ s upcoming book that say Trump tied releasing congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to the country ’ s announcement that it would investigate Biden and his son Hunter .
The report caught Senate Republicans by surprise and upped the pressure on allowing witnesses to be heard and other evidence to be presented in the trial .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) said Monday he believes it ’ s “ increasingly likely ” enough Republicans will now join Democrats to approve a motion to call Bolton to testify .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team turned over its presentation on Monday to former independent counsel Ken Starr, who, in an ironic turn, argued that Congress tries to impeach presidents too often.
“Like war, impeachment is hell,” Starr told senators during the second week of Trump’s impeachment trial. The lawyer and former federal judge called the constitutional process for removing a president “a war of words and of ideas” that “divides the country like nothing else.”
Advertisement
Starr would know. As an independent counsel appointed by the Justice Department, he conducted a yearslong investigation into President Bill Clinton that concluded in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern. The House impeached Clinton that year; the Senate acquitted him the following February.
“The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently,” Starr said Monday during his hourlong presentation. “Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment.”
Speaking in a somnambulant tone, Starr said that, after the acrimonious Clinton impeachment, Congress had wisely allowed the expiration of the law that established his independent counsel investigation. But he lamented that the “political culture” is still overly fond of impeachment.
Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives (President Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 as the House was on the cusp of impeaching him).
Advertisement
Democrats were flabbergasted that Trump’s defense team put Starr at the lectern to decry the frequency of impeachment.
“I thought it was an absurd argument and quite rich coming from Ken Starr,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said.
“It was really incredibly surreal to see him talking about impeachment as something that should be done with solemnity and restraint,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said.
“For a man who spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to come up with, ‘Oh, my God, the president has to be impeached because of sex’ during the Clinton time, [that’s] probably not a person who should talk,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said.
One of the articles of impeachment against Trump says he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government ― Ukraine ― into helping his reelection campaign by investigating a political rival (Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination). The other article charges that Trump obstructed Congress in its investigation of his dealings with Ukrainian officials.
Advertisement
Starr argued that the House should allege the president broke specific laws to merit impeachment and removal ― a theory disputed by legal experts but embraced by Trump’s defense team.
Democrats have pointed out that in the past, some of Trump’s biggest defenders disputed the position that the Constitution requires statutory violations for a legitimate allegation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against a president.
“What is a high crime? I think it’s truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you committed a high crime,” then-Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in 1999 when he served as an impeachment manager in Clinton’s Senate trial. Graham, elected to the Senate in 2002, now is one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s impeachment, arguing it is invalid.
Alan Dershowitz, another member of Trump’s defense team, similarly said in 1998 that a high crime or misdemeanor “certainly doesn’t have to be a crime” to warrant impeachment. The Harvard law professor attempted to wave off his past comments last week, telling CNN his stance against Trump’s impeachment is “far more correct now.”
With Republicans controlling the Senate, the prospect loomed that the chamber would quickly acquit Trump in a trial that featured no witnesses. But in a bombshell development Sunday, The New York Times revealed drafts from former national security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book that say Trump tied releasing congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to the country’s announcement that it would investigate Biden and his son Hunter.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Fox News Hosts Turn On 'Tool For The Left' John Bolton Like Never Before

Fox hosts flipped the switch on their former longtime colleague John Bolton on Monday following his bombshell revelation about the Ukraine scandal .
Tucker Carlson , Sean Hannity , Laura Ingraham , Lou Dobbs and others condemned the former national security adviser ― who was a paid Fox News contributor for 11 years until he joined Donald Trump ’ s administration in 2018 ― over his forthcoming book that reportedly confirms the impeachment case against the president .
Bolton claims in “ The Room Where It Happened ” that Trump tied the release of congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation into his potential 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden .
Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs claimed Bolton “ has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dims and the deep state.
” An accompanying graphic also called Bolton ― who has served in every Republican administration since former President Ronald Reagan ― “ a tool for the left.
” Carlson , a longtime critic of Bolton , suggested he had always been “ a snake.
” “ Republicans in Washington tonight seem shocked to discover that John Bolton has turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
But they shouldn ’ t be shocked .
That ’ s who John Bolton is .
That ’ s who John Bolton has always been .
That ’ s what John Bolton does , ” he claimed .
“ Now they ’ re acting like this is a big bombshell , Bolton ’ s book .
Okay .
The problem is , it ’ s a New York Times story .
How often did this New York Times get things wrong ?
” he asked .
Ingraham dismissed Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a picture of Bolton with , well , a red herring .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox hosts flipped the switch on their former longtime colleague John Bolton on Monday following his bombshell revelation in the Ukraine scandal.
Advertisement
Bolton writes in “The Room Where It Happened” that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to the country’s announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden.
Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs claimed Bolton “has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dims and the deep state.”
An accompanying graphic also called Bolton ― who has served in every Republican administration since former President Ronald Reagan ― “a tool for the left.”
Check out the clip here:
Lou Dobbs: "John Bolton himself has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dims and the Deep State" pic.twitter.com/84AORpfWUg — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
Carlson, a longtime critic of Bolton, suggested he had always been “a snake.”
“Republicans in Washington tonight seem shocked to discover that John Bolton has turned and betrayed his former boss, President Trump. But they shouldn’t be shocked. That’s who John Bolton is. That’s who John Bolton has always been. That’s what John Bolton does,” Carlson said.
Check out the clip here:
.@TuckerCarlson:
John Bolton has always been a snake
https://t.co/yvga0GY2tc — Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) January 28, 2020
Sean Hannity cast doubt on Bolton’s revelation in a rant on his radio show.
“Now they’re acting like this is a big bombshell, Bolton’s book. Okay. The problem is, it’s a New York Times story. How often did this New York Times get things wrong?” he asked.
Check out the audio here:
Ingraham dismissed Bolton’s claim as a “red herring” with a picture of Bolton with, well, a red herring.
Advertisement
Check out the clip here:
Contributor Dan Bongino, meanwhile, claimed twice in one tweet that “nobody cares.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Trump Lawyers Ignore John Bolton Bombshell In Senate Trial

Bolton ’ s book alleges that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to the Ukrainians ’ announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden , The New York Times reported on Sunday .
The report caught Senate Republicans by surprise and upped the pressure for them to allow witnesses ― Bolton included ― to be heard and other evidence to be presented in the trial .
But Trump ’ s lawyers conspicuously avoided referring to Bolton during Monday ’ s arguments .
Instead , they kept insisting there was no connection between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation desired by Trump , contrary to Bolton ’ s reported account and the testimony of more than a dozen diplomats last fall .
“ We deal with transcript evidence .
We deal with publicly available information .
We do not deal with speculation , allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards , ” said Jay Sekulow , one of Trump ’ s personal attorneys , in a brief allusion to the Times story .
Only Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz , a member of Trump ’ s defense team , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in passing .
He did so late in the evening in the middle of a one-hour lecture on why abuse of power isn ’ t an impeachable offense ― a theory contradicted by many experts , including Attorney General William Barr .
“ Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if true , would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense .
That is clear from the history , that is clear from the language of the Constitution — you can not turn conduct that is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words like ‘ quid pro quo ’ and ‘ personal benefit , ’ ” Dershowitz said .
In his remarks before the Senate , White House deputy counsel Mike Purpura said that nobody testified “ in House records ” that Trump had linked the aid to Ukraine with investigations of the Bidens or with a White House meeting between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
That ’ s not true .
Gordon Sondland , the U.S. ambassador to the European Union , testified in the House impeachment inquiry last year that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was his understanding that the Ukraine aid was linked to investigations of the Bidens and that “ everyone was in the loop.
” Trump ’ s defenders have argued that Sondland ’ s statements were based merely on his own assumptions .
The House asked Bolton to testify in October , but he did not appear because the White House did not authorize him to do so .
House Democrats decided not to pursue the matter in court , arguing that doing so would have taken months of legal action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from witnesses like Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , who as firsthand witnesses could shed more light on the Ukraine aid delay .
The 45 Democratic senators and two Democratic-leaning independents need four Republican senators to vote with them to support motions to subpoena witnesses and other evidence .
“ Right now I don ’ t see any need to have more witnesses , unless we have a lot more witnesses , ” Sen. Kevin Cramer ( R-N.D. ) said .
“ I don ’ t think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate as a fishing hole.
” “ My view is witnesses would just be prolonging the same outcome , ” Cramer said .
“ I ’ m not so naive as to think the Bolton revelation didn ’ t cause some people some pause , but I don ’ t know what any individual is thinking one way or the other.
” In the phone call , the president specifically asked for an investigation of the Bidens and did not mention any general concerns about corruption .
But Trump ’ s attorneys described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption for his role on the board of Burisma , a Ukrainian energy company , while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president of the United States .
However , Kurt Volker , the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine , testified in the House inquiry that he saw no validity to Trump ’ s allegations against the Bidens .
Other diplomats said pushing an investigation of the Bidens benefited Trump , not the U.S. national interest .
Bondi said Democrats themselves had brought up the Bidens , and she frequently referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s board seat , including a Washington Post story in which a controversial former Ukrainian prosecutor claimed that Joe Biden had urged the prosecutor ’ s firing because he ’ d been investigating Burisma .
( In fact , the prosecutor was widely accused of being insufficiently aggressive in pursuing corruption . )
In the House impeachment articles , Democrats allege that Trump withheld military assistance , as well as a coveted White House visit , in order to get Zelensky to announce the investigations Trump wanted .
Because Ukraine ultimately received the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and because Trump ultimately did meet with Zelensky , Trump ’ s lawyers insisted on Monday that no harm was done .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― The bombshell revelation that former national security adviser John Bolton has written a book essentially confirming the Democrats’ case against President Donald Trump went curiously unaddressed by the president’s lawyers on Monday in the Senate impeachment trial.
Bolton’s book alleges that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to the Ukrainians’ announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, The New York Times reported on Sunday. The report caught Senate Republicans by surprise and upped the pressure for them to allow witnesses ― Bolton included ― to be heard and other evidence to be presented in the trial.
Advertisement
Following the Times story, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said it was “increasingly likely” that at least four Republicans would join Democratic senators in passing a motion to subpoena Bolton.
But Trump’s lawyers conspicuously avoided referring to Bolton during Monday’s arguments. Instead, they kept insisting there was no connection between the security assistance to Ukraine and any investigation desired by Trump, contrary to Bolton’s reported account and the testimony of more than a dozen diplomats last fall.
“We deal with transcript evidence. We deal with publicly available information. We do not deal with speculation, allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards,” said Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, in a brief allusion to the Times story.
Only Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team, referred to the Bolton allegations, albeit in passing. He did so late in the evening in the middle of a one-hour lecture on why abuse of power isn’t an impeachable offense ― a theory contradicted by many experts, including Attorney General William Barr.
Advertisement
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution — you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit,’” Dershowitz said.
In his remarks before the Senate, White House deputy counsel Mike Purpura said that nobody testified “in House records” that Trump had linked the aid to Ukraine with investigations of the Bidens or with a White House meeting between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
That’s not true. Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified in the House impeachment inquiry last year that, based on his conversations with the president, it was his understanding that the Ukraine aid was linked to investigations of the Bidens and that “everyone was in the loop.” Trump’s defenders have argued that Sondland’s statements were based merely on his own assumptions.
The House asked Bolton to testify in October, but he did not appear because the White House did not authorize him to do so. House Democrats decided not to pursue the matter in court, arguing that doing so would have taken months of legal action.
Now, Senate Democrats want to hear from witnesses like Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who as firsthand witnesses could shed more light on the Ukraine aid delay. The 45 Democratic senators and two Democratic-leaning independents need four Republican senators to vote with them to support motions to subpoena witnesses and other evidence.
Advertisement
Republicans, meanwhile, sought to dismiss the Bolton development and its potential impact on the length and scope of the trial.
“Truly, there’s nothing new here. It does seem to be an effort to sell books,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters on Monday, suggesting Bolton’s credibility was at issue.
“Right now I don’t see any need to have more witnesses, unless we have a lot more witnesses,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the U.S. Senate as a fishing hole.”
“My view is witnesses would just be prolonging the same outcome,” Cramer said. “I’m not so naive as to think the Bolton revelation didn’t cause some people some pause, but I don’t know what any individual is thinking one way or the other.”
The president’s defense team argued that Trump did nothing wrong during that July 25 phone call last year when he asked Zelensky to investigate Trump’s domestic political opponent.
Advertisement
“Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath,” Sekulow said.
In the phone call, the president specifically asked for an investigation of the Bidens and did not mention any general concerns about corruption. But Trump’s attorneys described Hunter Biden as a one-man whirlwind of corruption for his role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president of the United States.
“Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement at Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest,” former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi said Monday, describing House testimony.
However, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, testified in the House inquiry that he saw no validity to Trump’s allegations against the Bidens. Other diplomats said pushing an investigation of the Bidens benefited Trump, not the U.S. national interest.
Bondi said Democrats themselves had brought up the Bidens, and she frequently referred to media reports questioning Hunter Biden’s board seat, including a Washington Post story in which a controversial former Ukrainian prosecutor claimed that Joe Biden had urged the prosecutor’s firing because he’d been investigating Burisma. (In fact, the prosecutor was widely accused of being insufficiently aggressive in pursuing corruption.)
Advertisement
“All we’re saying is there was a basis to raise this, to talk about this issue, and that is enough,” Bondi said.
In the House impeachment articles, Democrats allege that Trump withheld military assistance, as well as a coveted White House visit, in order to get Zelensky to announce the investigations Trump wanted. Because Ukraine ultimately received the security assistance that had been withheld, and because Trump ultimately did meet with Zelensky, Trump’s lawyers insisted on Monday that no harm was done.
Trump and Zelensky met in New York on Sept. 25, “all without anyone making any statement about any investigations,” Purpura said. “So much for quid pro quo for a meeting with the president.”
Zelensky never got the White House visit he wanted, however. At their New York meeting, he thanked Trump for an invitation but seemed to complain that he’d been left hanging.
“You invited me,” Zelensky said. “But I think — I’m sorry, but I think you forgot to tell me the date.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--'I'm Not Impeached, You're Impeached': Ex-Ethics Boss Mocks Pam Bondi's Hypocrisy

Former White House ethics chief Walter Shaub could not believe impeachment defense team member Pam Bondi presented herself on Monday as a corruption fighter after her own political scandal .
Bondi , the former attorney general of Florida , dropped plans to join a class-action suit against Trump University after Donald Trump ’ s charity donated $ 25,000 to her re-election campaign in 2013 .
Since the charity payment violated tax laws , Trump was fined $ 2,500 in 2016 .
The Trump Foundation was finally shuttered in 2018 after what officials described as a “ shocking pattern of illegality.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president agreed to pay $ 25 million to settle fraud claims in a class-action suit that started in California and New York .
But on Monday , Bondi railed against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden without ever pointing to which laws they ’ d allegedly broken .
Ah , we 've arrived at the `` I 'm not impeached , you 're impeached '' part of the proceedings in which Pam Bondi will lecture us on corruption and why Biden should be impeached .
https : //t.co/L3HwBThROV — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 , 2020 Bondi also attacked nepotism in the White House even as Donald Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner serve as senior advisers to the president and sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. profit from U.S. business ventures around the world .
But it was Hunter Biden whom Bondi focused on — and seemed to want to “ impeach ” — for serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president and working to oust a corrupt prosecutor .
Her hypocrisy did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what office is Hunter Biden running for and what the fuck does this have to do with @ realDonaldTrump shaking down Ukraine ?
# PamBondi — FactsStillMatter ( @ GoldenGirlsRu ) January 27 , 2020 Got ta love Pam Bondi - the former Florida attorney general who took $ 25,000 from Trump 's foundation , just as she was considering an investigation into his sham university , before ultimately blocking the case and hiding the donation - lecturing us on corruption right now .
— Brian Tyler Cohen ( @ briantylercohen ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kid with a famous last name would be given a job they were hopelessly unqualified for # PamBondi pic.twitter.com/6VO5C4GdiA — Race Bannon Resists ( @ WildBunchTagz ) January 27 , 2020 Why does # PamBondi keep pronouncing Jared Kushner as “ Hunter Biden ?
” Anyway , looking forward to her investigation into Jared ’ s nepotistic unqualifications , failure of security clearance , his criminal father and his shakedown of Qatar to get $ 1.5B for his personal business .
pic.twitter.com/fimFZQrsSM — Bougie Muffin ( @ refinedmess ) January 27 , @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former White House ethics chief Walter Shaub could not believe impeachment defense team member Pam Bondi presented herself on Monday as a corruption fighter after her own political scandal.
Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, dropped plans to join a class-action suit against Trump University after Donald Trump’s charity donated $25,000 to her reelection campaign in 2013. Trump was fined $2,500 in 2016 for his charity’s tax law violations.
Advertisement
The Trump Foundation was finally shuttered in 2018 after what officials described as a “shocking pattern of illegality.” As for Trump University, the president agreed to pay $25 million to settle fraud claims in a class-action suit that started in California and New York.
But on Monday, Bondi railed against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden without ever pointing to which laws they’d allegedly broken.
Shaub responded to Bondi’s comments on Twitter:
Ah, we've arrived at the "I'm not impeached, you're impeached" part of the proceedings in which Pam Bondi will lecture us on corruption and why Biden should be impeached. https://t.co/L3HwBThROV — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 27, 2020
Bondi also attacked nepotism in the White House, even as Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner serve as senior advisers to the president and sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. profit from U.S. business ventures around the world.
Advertisement
But it was Hunter Biden whom Bondi focused on — and seemed to want to “impeach” — for serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president and working to oust a corrupt prosecutor.
Her hypocrisy did not go unnoticed:
I’m confused, what office is Hunter Biden running for and what the fuck does this have to do with @realDonaldTrump shaking down Ukraine? #PamBondi — FactsStillMatter (@GoldenGirlsRu) January 27, 2020
Gotta love Pam Bondi - the former Florida attorney general who took $25,000 from Trump's foundation, just as she was considering an investigation into his sham university, before ultimately blocking the case and hiding the donation - lecturing us on corruption right now. — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) January 27, 2020
Shocking to think some kid with a famous last name would be given a job they were hopelessly unqualified for #PamBondi pic.twitter.com/6VO5C4GdiA — Race Bannon Resists (@WildBunchTagz) January 27, 2020
Why does #PamBondi keep pronouncing Jared Kushner as “Hunter Biden?” Anyway, looking forward to her investigation into Jared’s nepotistic unqualifications, failure of security clearance, his criminal father and his shakedown of Qatar to get $1.5B for his personal business. pic.twitter.com/fimFZQrsSM — Bougie Muffin (@refinedmess) January 27, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--New York Daily News Hits Mitch McConnell With A Yellow-Bellied Cover Nickname

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) will likely not be cock a hoop over the New York Daily News ’ Tuesday front page .
“ Chicken Kiev , ” read the tabloid ’ s headline , next to an image of a chicken with McConnell ’ s head .
“ Mitch refuses to budge on witnesses despite Bolton ’ s Ukraine bombshell , ” the newspaper added underneath .
The Daily News ’ cover story centered on McConnell ’ s refusal to allow witnesses to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton reportedly confirming Democrats ’ case against the president in his upcoming book “ The Room Where it Happened.
” Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine ’ s president to announce an investigation into his potential 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden , allegedly in exchange for withheld military aid .
Trump is also alleged to have stonewalled the investigation into the original allegation .
Trump denies any wrongdoing .
Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein last week gave McConnell the mocking nickname of “ Midnight Mitch , ” over his schedule for the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after dark .
The Daily News has a long history of using its eye-catching front pages to take aim at Trump , his allies and members of his administration : The New Three Stooges : Larry , Moe and ... Rudy Rudy ’ s cronies tried to find political dirt on Biden .
Now they ’ re charged with running a scheme that funneled $ backing Trump ’ s reelection .
See it → https : //t.co/hWAvY0c9W7 pic.twitter.com/6ueupp1jEG — New York Daily News ( @ NYDailyNews ) October 11 , 2019 Trump wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the island is “ not for sale.
” https : //t.co/CoBUwWJ6Xc A look at Saturday ’ s front page … pic.twitter.com/POOo6hhjKx — New York Daily News ( @ NYDailyNews ) August 17 , 2019

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will likely not be cock-a-hoop over the New York Daily News Tuesday front page.
“Chicken Kiev,” reads the tabloid’s headline, next to an image of a chicken with McConnell’s head. “Mitch refuses to budge on witnesses despite Bolton’s Ukraine bombshell,” the newspaper adds underneath.
Advertisement
Chicken Kiev 🐔🍗
Mitch refuses to budge on witnesses despite Bolton's Ukraine bombshell
Tuesday's front page: https://t.co/fqqBWSkI2Y pic.twitter.com/5pak4WsG4x — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 28, 2020
The Daily News’ cover story centers on McConnell’s refusal to allow witnesses to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct, despite former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly confirming Democrats’ case against the president in his upcoming book “The Room Where it Happened.”
Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation into his potential 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden, allegedly in exchange for withheld military aid. Trump is also accused of stonewalling the House impeachment investigation. Trump denies wrongdoing.
Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein last week gave McConnell the mocking nickname of “Midnight Mitch” for a trial schedule that forced proceedings to stretch into the evening.
Advertisement
The Daily News has a long history of using its eye-catching front pages to take aim at Trump, his allies and members of his administration:
The New Three Stooges: Larry, Moe and ... Rudy
Rudy’s cronies tried to find political dirt on Biden.
Now they’re charged with running a scheme that funneled $ backing Trump’s reelection.
See it → https://t.co/hWAvY0c9W7 pic.twitter.com/6ueupp1jEG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) October 11, 2019
Trump wants to buy Greenland — But Denmark says the island is “not for sale.” https://t.co/CoBUwWJ6Xc
A look at Saturday’s front page … pic.twitter.com/POOo6hhjKx — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 17, 2019


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Hate Crime Trial Begins For White Supremacist Accused Of Shooting Black Man

TOWSON , Md .
— Opening statements were delivered Monday in the hate crime trial of Brandon Troy Higgs , a 25-year-old white supremacist accused of attacking two Black men and shooting one of them .
Higgs , a former Navy cryptologist , appeared at the Circuit Court of Baltimore County in a red prison jumpsuit , his tattoo of a yellow identitarian lambda , a white nationalist symbol , visible on his arm .
He has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder , assault , committing hate crimes and firearms-related charges stemming from an incident on Dec. 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Baltimore .
Higgs , who has ties to organized neo-Nazi groups , faces up to life in prison if convicted of the attempted murder charge .
Smith and Peete , both of whom are Black , were “ just doing their job , ” Magee said , on a cold and rainy day in December .
They were laying concrete on a driveway when a dog belonging to Higgs ran through the wet concrete .
Higgs and the two workers exchanged some angry words , Magee said .
Higgs , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned the dog to his house nearby .
It was Higgs , Magee emphasized , who escalated things by coming back with a “ loaded gun and a spare magazine ” in the pocket of a hooded sweatshirt he ’ d put on .
That ’ s when Higgs allegedly pulled out his gun .
Smith started to “ fight for his life , ” Magee said , and Peete jumped in to help his co-worker .
At some point , Magee said , Higgs had “ control of his loaded handgun and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith is struck in the leg.
” Ultimately , Magee argued to the jurors , evidence will show that Higgs “ brought a gun to a word-fight of his own making ” and that he should be convicted of all charges .
The evidence , he insisted , will show that what took place “ was a struggle for a weapon ” and that Higgs “ did not have control of the weapon when the bullet went off.
” The court adjourned after Crawford ’ s opening statement .
As the 12 jurors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — filed out of the court , Higgs smiled and blew a kiss to family and friends in the courtroom .
Earlier that day during jury selection , Higgs looked out over a diverse crowd of 100 potential jurors .
He took notes as jurors were questioned .
His attorney ultimately rejected seven Black potential jurors from the jury pool .
The trial is likely to conclude later this week , when the 12 jurors — four white women , six white men , one Black man and one Black woman — determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s yet to be seen whether white supremacist group chat logs leaked last year , which show Higgs spewing racist vitriol , will be submitted as evidence in the trial .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
TOWSON, Md. — Opening statements were delivered Monday in the hate crime trial of Brandon Troy Higgs, a 25-year-old white supremacist accused of attacking two Black men and shooting one of them.
Higgs, a former Navy cryptologist, appeared at the Circuit Court of Baltimore County in a red prison jumpsuit, his tattoo of a yellow identitarian lambda, a white nationalist symbol, visible on his arm.
Advertisement
He has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, assault, committing hate crimes and firearms-related charges stemming from an incident on Dec. 20, 2018, in Reisterstown, a suburb of Baltimore.
Higgs, who has ties to organized neo-Nazi groups, faces up to life in prison if convicted of the attempted murder charge.
His two alleged victims, Elvis Smith and Robert Peete, talked exclusively to HuffPost last year for a story examining hate in America.
Brandon Higgs got beat up "pretty good" after allegedly shooting Elvis Smith, a prosecutor told jurors at the Circuit Court of Baltimore County on Monday. Baltimore County Police Department
Advertisement
John Magee, a prosecutor for the state’s attorney’s office, recounted Higgs’s alleged attack to jurors in vivid detail during his opening statement Monday.
Smith and Peete, both of whom are Black, were “just doing their job,” Magee said, on a cold and rainy day in December. They were laying concrete on a driveway when a dog belonging to Higgs ran through the wet concrete.
Higgs and the two workers exchanged some angry words, Magee said. Higgs, who was shirtless and shoeless at the time, returned the dog to his house nearby.
“It should’ve ended there,” Magee told the jurors. Smith and Peete just “went back to work.”
It was Higgs, Magee emphasized, who escalated things by coming back with a “loaded gun and a spare magazine” in the pocket of a hooded sweatshirt he’d put on.
Magee told the jurors that Higgs then accosted Smith and Peete with racial remarks, including “go back to Africa” and “the n-word.”
Advertisement
Magee repeated these alleged racial remarks to the jurors five times throughout his opening statement for emphasis.
“Go back to Africa.”
“The n-word.”
Higgs then allegedly pushed Smith, who pushed Higgs back and hit him with a small rake.
That’s when Higgs allegedly pulled out his gun. Smith started to “fight for his life,” Magee said, and Peete jumped in to help his co-worker.
At some point, Magee said, Higgs had “control of his loaded handgun and he pulls the trigger, and Elvis Smith is struck in the leg.”
Smith and Peete then “rightfully” beat up Higgs, Magee said, and restrained him until police arrived.
Ultimately, Magee argued to the jurors, evidence will show that Higgs “brought a gun to a word-fight of his own making” and that he should be convicted of all charges.
Advertisement
James Crawford, an attorney for Higgs, told jurors that this is a “complicated” case.
Did Higgs make racist statements? Yes, Crawford told the jury, he might have.
“It’s easy to say ‘Bad Mr. Higgs,’” Crawford said. “That’s fine. But I’m here for justice.”
The evidence, he insisted, will show that what took place “was a struggle for a weapon” and that Higgs “did not have control of the weapon when the bullet went off.”
The court adjourned after Crawford’s opening statement. As the 12 jurors — only two of whom are Black — filed out of the court, Higgs smiled and blew a kiss to family and friends in the courtroom.
Earlier that day during jury selection, Higgs looked out over a diverse crowd of 100 potential jurors. He took notes as jurors were questioned. His attorney ultimately rejected seven Black potential jurors from the jury pool.
The trial is likely to conclude later this week, when the 12 jurors — four white women, six white men, one Black man and one Black woman — determine Higgs’s fate.
It’s yet to be seen whether white supremacist group chat logs leaked last year, which show Higgs spewing racist vitriol, will be submitted as evidence in the trial.
Advertisement
The chat logs show Higgs was well-connected to the neo-Nazis and other assorted fascists who organized 2017’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“Brb hookjng [sic] up my nigger mulcher to the truck,” he wrote in one chat group for people planning Unite the Right.
The chat logs also show Higgs talking on several occasions about killing Black people in Baltimore.
“I decided I’m going to create my own group called Baltimore Animal Control and buy those dog patrol poles with the snare at the end and wrangle niggers with it,” he wrote. “Also want to leave bear traps in Baltimore city with buckets of KFC chicken.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Jake Tapper Calls Out Rudy Giuliani About How He Got Joe Biden 'Dirt'

Rudy Giuiliani insisted Monday that purported negative information about Joe Biden he claims to have obtained simply fell into his lap — and that he didn ’ t make any attempt to “ dig ” it up .
Then CNN ’ s Jake Tapper nailed him on Twitter , posting a clip on the cable news network from last year in which President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney boasted to host Chris Cuomo that “ of course ” he pressed Ukraine for information .
Giuliani also previously told The New York Times that he was “ meddling ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Trump ’ s re-election campaign .
CUOMO : So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden ?
GIULIANI : Of course I did .
https : //t.co/qyvwDA5VUg https : //t.co/ultUqQIlYh — Jake Tapper ( @ jaketapper ) January 27 , 2020 Giuliani began the vetting of his claims with a Monday Twitter post concerning assertions on Monday by Trump ’ s defense team in the Senate impeachment trial of the president .
He noted that lawyer Jane Raskin told senators that Giuliani did not “ dig up dirt ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani ’ s words , information on the former vice president ’ s “ outrageous criminal conduct was handed to me.
” Giuliani ’ s claims about alleged Biden misdeeds have yet to be shown to have any credibility .
Tapper , in addition to spotlighting Giuliani ’ s comments to Cuomo last year , also retweeted a response from the lawyer for Giuliani ’ s one-time business associate Lev Parnas debunking the idea that the former New York mayor was some kind of passive , “ minor ” player in the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Florida businessman Igor Fruman for alleged campaign finance violations , has admitted he tried to strong-arm Ukrainian officials into launching an investigation into unfounded accusations against Biden to aid Trump ’ s campaign .
Parnas said he was following the president ’ s wishes , communicated to him by Giuliani .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rudy Giuiliani insisted Monday that purported negative information about Joe Biden he claims to have obtained simply fell into his lap — and that he didn’t make any attempt to “dig” it up.
Then CNN’s Jake Tapper nailed him on Twitter, posting a clip on the cable news network from last year in which President Donald Trump’s personal attorney boasted to host Chris Cuomo that “of course” he pressed Ukraine for information. Giuliani also previously told The New York Times that he was “meddling” in an investigation in Ukraine in a bid to help Trump’s re-election campaign.
Advertisement
CUOMO: So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course I did. https://t.co/qyvwDA5VUg https://t.co/ultUqQIlYh — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 27, 2020
NYT May 2019: "Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump"https://t.co/4jlSxQk4no — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 27, 2020
Giuliani began the vetting of his claims with a Monday Twitter post concerning assertions on Monday by Trump’s defense team in the Senate impeachment trial of the president. He noted that lawyer Jane Raskin told senators that Giuliani did not “dig up dirt” on Biden — but that, in Giuliani’s words, information on the former vice president’s “outrageous criminal conduct was handed to me.”
Giuliani’s claims about alleged Biden misdeeds have yet to be shown to have any credibility.
Tapper, in addition to spotlighting Giuliani’s comments to Cuomo last year, also retweeted a response from the lawyer for Giuliani’s one-time business associate Lev Parnas debunking the idea that the former New York mayor was some kind of passive, “minor” player in the Ukraine operation.
Advertisement
Parnas, indicted along with fellow Florida businessman Igor Fruman for alleged campaign finance violations, has admitted he tried to strong-arm Ukrainian officials into launching an investigation into unfounded accusations against Biden to aid Trump’s campaign. Parnas said he was following the president’s wishes, communicated to him by Giuliani.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--GOP Senator Joni Ernst Ponders Whether Senate Impeachment Trial Will Hurt Joe Biden

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) says she ’ ll be watching the upcoming Iowa caucus results to see if Democratic voters sour on former Vice President Joe Biden , a 2020 presidential contender , after the arguments presented by President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense team on Monday .
“ I ’ m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters .
Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point ?
” Ernst , a member of GOP leadership , asked at a press conference Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , Trump ’ s lawyers painted Biden and his son Hunter as corrupt actors worthy of investigation .
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , in particular , zeroed in on the younger Biden for his role serving on the board of Burisma , a Ukrainian energy company , while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president of the United States .
“ Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden ’ s involvement at Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest , ” Bondi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There has been no evidence of corruption on the part of the former vice president or his son .
Kurt Volker , the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine , testified in the House impeachment inquiry that he saw no validity to Trump ’ s allegations of corruption on the Bidens ’ part .
Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) speaks to the media during a recess in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in Washington , D.C. , on January 27 .
Democrats slammed the strategy on Monday , describing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial proceedings to smear one of Trump ’ s top 2020 rivals ― again .
“ It ’ s so clear they want us to become complicit in helping the administration continue to destroy the Bidens , ” Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) told reporters on Monday .
“ I ’ m not going to be a party to the same scheme that the president ’ s been impeached for.
” But Ernst , who is also up for re-election this year , said it was “ entirely appropriate ” for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bidens .
She said the information aired about them on Monday might be useful to the voting public .
“ It really , I think , opened the eyes , maybe of not just the folks in the Senate , but maybe those folks at home that were watching this afternoon , ” she said .
“ And with the Iowa caucuses coming up next Monday night , maybe it will influence some of those voters as well.
” Biden ’ s campaign pushed back in a statement , arguing that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are afraid he will become the Democratic presidential nominee .
“ Senator Ernst just said the quiet part out loud : Republicans are terrified that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee , defeat Donald Trump , and help progressives gain seats in the House and take the Senate , ” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said .
“ We are in a battle for the soul of this nation , and the GOP can ’ t stop revealing that Vice President Biden is the best candidate to win it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) says she’ll be watching the upcoming Iowa caucus results to see if Democratic voters sour on former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential contender, after the arguments presented by President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team on Monday.
“I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point?” Ernst, a member of GOP leadership, asked at a press conference Monday.
Advertisement
During the day’s proceedings in the Senate, Trump’s lawyers painted Biden and his son Hunter as corrupt actors worthy of investigation. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, in particular, zeroed in on the younger Biden for his role serving on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president of the United States.
“Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement at Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest,” Bondi said Monday, describing House testimony.
There has been no evidence of corruption on the part of the former vice president or his son. Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, testified in the House impeachment inquiry that he saw no validity to Trump’s allegations of corruption on the Bidens’ part.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) speaks to the media during a recess in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., on January 27. MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images
Advertisement
Democrats slammed the strategy on Monday, describing it as an attempt to use the Senate trial proceedings to smear one of Trump’s top 2020 rivals ― again.
“It’s so clear they want us to become complicit in helping the administration continue to destroy the Bidens,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters on Monday. “I’m not going to be a party to the same scheme that the president’s been impeached for.”
But Ernst, who is also up for re-election this year, said it was “entirely appropriate” for the president’s defense team to attack the Bidens. She said the information aired about them on Monday might be useful to the voting public.
“It really, I think, opened the eyes, maybe of not just the folks in the Senate, but maybe those folks at home that were watching this afternoon,” she said. “And with the Iowa caucuses coming up next Monday night, maybe it will influence some of those voters as well.”
Biden’s campaign pushed back in a statement, arguing that Republicans are targeting the former vice president because they are afraid he will become the Democratic presidential nominee.
Advertisement
“Senator Ernst just said the quiet part out loud: Republicans are terrified that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee, defeat Donald Trump, and help progressives gain seats in the House and take the Senate,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said. “We are in a battle for the soul of this nation, and the GOP can’t stop revealing that Vice President Biden is the best candidate to win it.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Congressman Demands Records On New Border Chief's Reported Links To Racist Group

The chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security has demanded any documents that link the new chief of the U.S. Border Patrol to a secret Facebook group that has posted racist and sexist messages , as well as vulgar attacks on lawmakers .
Rep. Bennie Thompson ( D-Miss . )
called for records concerning Chief Rodney Scott to determine “ the extent to which Customs and Border Protection ... evaluated Mr. Scott ’ s engagement with social media sites in which CBP personnel engaged in racist and hateful dialogue regarding immigrants and members of Congress.
” The Border Patrol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Border Protection .
The Monday letter from Thompson followed articles by ProPublica and The Intercept last summer .
According to The Intercept , Scott was one of a number of CBP leaders who participated in the “ I ’ m 10-15 ” Facebook group , which refers to the code for “ aliens in custody.
” The group , created in 2016 , includes about 9,500 current and former Border Patrol agents .
Participants have posted messages calling Latina lawmakers visiting Texas immigrant detention centers “ hoes , ” and one responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrant who died in U.S. custody : “ If he dies , he dies , ” according to screenshots from the Facebook site obtained by ProPublica .
One illustration depicted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant , according to the article .
Another image showed Donald Trump pushing Ocasio-Cortez ’ s head toward his crotch and saying : “ That ’ s right bitches .
The masses have spoken and today democracy won.
” Thompson called for any information or documents concerning any investigation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , including what he posted , when he joined and when he left , “ if he did so.
” Thompson gave Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan a deadline of Feb. 7 to provide the information .
Since the ProPublica and Intercept stories were published , CBP has fired three border agents for their participation in the Facebook site .
An internal CBP review recommended the agency fire at least seven people and take disciplinary action against 20 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security has demanded any documents that link the new chief of the U.S. Border Patrol to a secret Facebook group that has posted racist and sexist messages, as well as vulgar attacks on lawmakers.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) called for records concerning Chief Rodney Scott to determine “the extent to which Customs and Border Protection ... evaluated Mr. Scott’s engagement with social media sites in which CBP personnel engaged in racist and hateful dialogue regarding immigrants and members of Congress.” The Border Patrol is the law enforcement arm of Customs and Border Protection.
Advertisement
The Monday letter from Thompson followed articles by ProPublica and The Intercept last summer. According to The Intercept, Scott was one of a number of CBP leaders who participated in the “I’m 10-15” Facebook group, which refers to the code for “aliens in custody.” The group, created in 2016, includes about 9,500 current and former Border Patrol agents.
Participants have posted messages calling Latina lawmakers visiting Texas immigrant detention centers “hoes,” and one responded to a post about a teenage Guatemalan immigrant who died in U.S. custody: “If he dies, he dies,” according to screenshots from the Facebook site obtained by ProPublica.
One illustration depicted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to the article. Another image showed Donald Trump pushing Ocasio-Cortez’s head toward his crotch and saying: “That’s right bitches. The masses have spoken and today democracy won.”
Advertisement
Thompson called for any information or documents concerning any investigation into Scott’s participation in the Facebook group, including what he posted, when he joined and when he left, “if he did so.” Thompson gave Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan a deadline of Feb. 7 to provide the information.