thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Gov. Newsom Pressured To Declare Climate Emergency In California

More than three dozen environmental groups sent a joint letter to California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) on Tuesday urging him to be bolder on environmental issues during his second year in office and declare a sweeping climate emergency .
The letter was delivered on the first anniversary of Newsom taking office .
It demanded , among other things , that he issue an immediate moratorium on new fossil fuel permits , ban fracking and produce a plan for a public utility company as part of that emergency declaration .
“ Governor Newsom has recognized the extreme threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question now is if he will do what science , and his constituents demand ― stop drilling for oil , ” 350.org Special Projects Director Matt Leonard said in a statement about the letter .
“ The same way California catalyzed national shifts on gay marriage or marijuana ― this is Newsom ’ s opportunity to create a just transition to a clean-energy economy that protects workers , communities , and the climate.
” “ The time for half-measures is long gone , ” Food & Water Action state director Alexandra Nagy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to take courageous action before it ’ s too late.
” Newsom has acted or vowed to act on many of the issues addressed in Tuesday ’ s letter , albeit not as quickly as the signatories want .
In November , he won praise from some for issuing a halt on the approval of any new fracking in California until the permits for those gas-extraction projects are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists .
The Center for Biological Diversity , which did not sign on to Tuesday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major step .
“ This marks the turning of the tide against the oil industry , which has been allowed to drill at will in our state for more than 150 years , ” Kassie Siegel , the director of the group ’ s Climate Law Institute , said at the time .
But he move was in line with Newsom ’ s vision of phasing out fracking and other fossil fuel practices so that people who make their livelihoods in the industry ― especially those in poorer , rural counties ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn off the tap , what ’ s the plan to take care of the folks here ?
” Newsom told the Los Angeles Times while visiting California ’ s Kern County over the summer .
“ What ’ s the plan to take care of the workers ?
If you can ’ t look people in the eye and say you have an answer to that , then I think you ’ re doing a disservice to people in the community , and I can ’ t do that .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
More than three dozen environmental groups sent a joint letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday urging him to be bolder on environmental issues during his second year in office and declare a sweeping climate emergency.
The letter was delivered on the first anniversary of Newsom taking office. It demanded, among other things, that he issue an immediate moratorium on new fossil fuel permits, ban fracking and produce a plan for a public utility company as part of that emergency declaration.
Advertisement
“Governor Newsom has recognized the extreme threats that the climate crisis presents, and the question now is if he will do what science, and his constituents demand ― stop drilling for oil,” 350.org Special Projects Director Matt Leonard said in a statement about the letter. “The same way California catalyzed national shifts on gay marriage or marijuana ― this is Newsom’s opportunity to create a just transition to a clean-energy economy that protects workers, communities, and the climate.”
350.org is one of 37 signatories to the letter initiated by Food & Water Action.
“The time for half-measures is long gone,” Food & Water Action state director Alexandra Nagy added. “Governor Newsom still has the opportunity to take courageous action before it’s too late.”
Newsom has acted or vowed to act on many of the issues addressed in Tuesday’s letter, albeit not as quickly as the signatories want. In November, he won praise from some for issuing a halt on the approval of any new fracking in California until the permits for those gas-extraction projects are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which did not sign on to Tuesday’s letter, applauded the fracking decision as a major step.
Advertisement
“This marks the turning of the tide against the oil industry, which has been allowed to drill at will in our state for more than 150 years,” Kassie Siegel, the director of the group’s Climate Law Institute, said at the time.
Tuesday’s letter was more critical of that announcement.
“Creating a different process for approving fracking permits is not the same as stopping them,” the groups wrote.
But he move was in line with Newsom’s vision of phasing out fracking and other fossil fuel practices so that people who make their livelihoods in the industry ― especially those in poorer, rural counties ― are accounted for.
“Before we turn off the tap, what’s the plan to take care of the folks here?” Newsom told the Los Angeles Times while visiting California’s Kern County over the summer. “What’s the plan to take care of the workers? If you can’t look people in the eye and say you have an answer to that, then I think you’re doing a disservice to people in the community, and I can’t do that.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Trump And Bloomberg To Ruin Superbowl Ads For Everyone

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images Which rich New Yorker will come out on top in the battle of the Superbowl ads ?
Prepare for the Super Bowl matchup of your nightmares .
On Feb. 2 , millions of Americans will reportedly be subjected to two dueling ads : One from the campaign of billionaire Michael Bloomberg urging voters not to support President Donald Trump in the 2020 election , and another from Trump , urging voters to do the opposite , according to reports .
Their Super Bowl ad time ― 60 seconds each ― will likely cost the campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg spokesman Michael Frazier told The New York Times that “ the biggest point is getting under Trump ’ s skin ” ― which conveniently is no thicker than tissue paper .
The Trump campaign started planning the mammoth ad buy in the fall but confirmed it on Tuesday after Bloomberg ’ s team told the Times that it also planned to buy Super Bowl ad time .
Bloomberg is driving his campaign using his own money , unlike Trump .
The former New York City mayor ’ s spot will likely target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s failure to improve national infrastructure and health care .
We don ’ t normally see presidential candidates advertise during the Super Bowl for a simple reason : It costs too much .
Campaigns typically favor spending money on more targeted , local spots to make more efficient use of their funds — but both Trump and Bloomberg are running unconventional campaigns .

Which rich New Yorker will come out on top in the battle of the Superbowl ads? BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images
Prepare for the Super Bowl matchup of your nightmares.
On Feb. 2, millions of Americans will reportedly be subjected to two dueling ads: One from the campaign of billionaire Michael Bloomberg urging voters not to support President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, and another from Trump, urging voters to do the opposite, according to reports.
Their Super Bowl ad time ― 60 seconds each ― will likely cost the campaigns around $10 million per ad.
Advertisement
Bloomberg spokesman Michael Frazier told The New York Times that “the biggest point is getting under Trump’s skin” ― which conveniently is no thicker than tissue paper.
The Trump campaign started planning the mammoth ad buy in the fall but confirmed it on Tuesday after Bloomberg’s team told the Times that it also planned to buy Super Bowl ad time. Bloomberg is driving his campaign using his own money, unlike Trump.
The former New York City mayor’s spot will likely target Trump’s broken promises, highlighting the president’s failure to improve national infrastructure and health care.
We don’t normally see presidential candidates advertise during the Super Bowl for a simple reason: It costs too much. Campaigns typically favor spending money on more targeted, local spots to make more efficient use of their funds — but both Trump and Bloomberg are running unconventional campaigns.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--George Conway: 'Desperate, Evil' Trump Is Escalating With Iran Because Of Impeachment

Conservative attorney George Conway says it ’ s “ extremely difficult now to escape the conclusion ” that President Donald Trump is escalating conflict with Iran just to distract from his impeachment .
“ I ’ d be perfectly happy to be wrong about this , ” the husband of counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway wrote on Twitter .
“ But the evidence is hard to ignore.
” He let all sorts of transgressions by the Iranians go previously , and is perfectly happy to kowtow to evil foreign leaders ( KJU , Putin ) , but suddenly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought too extreme to actually select , and then threatens to commit war crimes .
— George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 7 , 2020 “ He ’ s a narcissistic sociopath .
He cares only about himself and not about the country , ” Conway noted .
“ He ’ s desperate .
And evil.
” Conway said that Trump in 2011 repeatedly claimed that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to help his reelection .
That means Trump believes it ’ s something a president would do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s president , it is , ” Conway said .
“ Pure projection ― falsely accusing someone of possibly doing something he would do.
” 💯—no plan , no strategy , no rhyme , no reason , just impulse from the man who thinks a president could try to stay in office by starting a war .
That Americans face iota of added danger because of the president ’ s narcissism and idiocy is a travesty beyond words .
https : //t.co/bXbBjSWRFE — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 8 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as soon as possible .
— George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 8 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Conservative attorney George Conway says it’s “extremely difficult now to escape the conclusion” that President Donald Trump is escalating conflict with Iran just to distract from his impeachment.
“I’d be perfectly happy to be wrong about this,” the husband of counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway wrote on Twitter. “But the evidence is hard to ignore.”
Advertisement
He added:
He let all sorts of transgressions by the Iranians go previously, and is perfectly happy to kowtow to evil foreign leaders (KJU, Putin), but suddenly, he chooses the option that the military thought too extreme to actually select, and then threatens to commit war crimes. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 7, 2020
What’s different now? — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 7, 2020
“He’s a narcissistic sociopath. He cares only about himself and not about the country,” Conway noted. “He’s desperate. And evil.”
Advertisement
Conway said that Trump in 2011 repeatedly claimed that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to help his reelection. That means Trump believes it’s something a president would do.
“And now that Trump’s president, it is,” Conway said. “Pure projection ― falsely accusing someone of possibly doing something he would do.”
He also wrote:
💯—no plan, no strategy, no rhyme, no reason, just impulse from the man who thinks a president could try to stay in office by starting a war. That Americans face iota of added danger because of the president’s narcissism and idiocy is a travesty beyond words. https://t.co/bXbBjSWRFE — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 8, 2020
Later, he added:
.@realDonaldTrump needs to go—period. And as soon as possible. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 8, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Trump Opts Not To Escalate Iran Conflict, Announces New Sanctions

President Donald Trump pledged to disrupt Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear material , announced additional sanctions on Iran , and said the U.S. wouldn ’ t escalate conflict with the country .
Trump addressed the nation Wednesday for the first time since ordering an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week , which prompted Iran to fire more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. soldiers on Tuesday night .
He said Tuesday ’ s attack did not result in any American or Iraqi casualties , and the damage sustained at the bases was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a good thing for the world , ” Trump said , flanked by military brass and joined by Vice President Mike Pence , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper .
Several Trump administration officials told CNN they believed Iran may have intentionally targeted areas so as to avoid American casualties , signaling an attempt to deescalate the crisis .
“ We do not seek escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack .
Iran launched over a dozen ballistic missiles at Iraqi military facilities housing U.S. troops on Tuesday night , an act of retaliation for the U.S. airstrike that killed Soleimani last week .
Soleimani ’ s death has brought renewed volatility to the standoff between the U.S. and Iran as leaders of both countries threatened each other with destruction and reprisal attacks in the days after the airstrike .
Iran targeted two main locations in the strike ― a base in Erbil and the Al Asad Air Base , which officials said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. and Iran have been engaged in an escalating series of clashes since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal back in May 2018 , sometimes nearing open conflict during the disputes .
But the U.S. assassination of Soleimani , a top Iranian military official who was central to its foreign policy and operations abroad , marked the most dramatic rise in tensions yet .
Iran ’ s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened “ forceful revenge ” against the U.S. after Soleimani ’ s killing , and proclaimed after the missile strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States in the region should come to an end.
” Iran also earlier announced on Sunday that it would step further away from agreements under the 2015 nuclear deal meant to curb its nuclear weapons program .
Although both Trump and Iranian officials appeared to not push for further ramping up of the conflict following Iran ’ s strike on Iraqi military facilities on Tuesday , neither has there been a dramatic deescalation in the dispute .
Trump tweeted that “ all is well ” after the attack and proclaimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military in the world .
There are over 5,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq as part of the operation against the Islamic State militant group .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump pledged to disrupt Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear material, announced additional sanctions on Iran, and said the U.S. wouldn’t escalate conflict with the country.
Trump addressed the nation Wednesday for the first time since ordering an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week, which prompted Iran to fire more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. soldiers on Tuesday night.
Advertisement
He said Tuesday’s attack did not result in any American or Iraqi casualties, and the damage sustained at the bases was “minimal.”
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a good thing for the world,” Trump said, flanked by military brass and joined by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.
Several Trump administration officials told CNN they believed Iran may have intentionally targeted areas so as to avoid American casualties, signaling an attempt to deescalate the crisis.
That analysis dovetails with a statement from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who positioned the missile salvo as a defensive measure.
Advertisement
“We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression,” he tweeted after the attack.
Iran launched over a dozen ballistic missiles at Iraqi military facilities housing U.S. troops on Tuesday night, an act of retaliation for the U.S. airstrike that killed Soleimani last week. Soleimani’s death has brought renewed volatility to the standoff between the U.S. and Iran as leaders of both countries threatened each other with destruction and reprisal attacks in the days after the airstrike.
Iran targeted two main locations in the strike ― a base in Erbil and the Al Asad Air Base, which officials said was hit with 17 missiles.
The U.S. and Iran have been engaged in an escalating series of clashes since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal back in May 2018, sometimes nearing open conflict during the disputes. But the U.S. assassination of Soleimani, a top Iranian military official who was central to its foreign policy and operations abroad, marked the most dramatic rise in tensions yet.
Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened “forceful revenge” against the U.S. after Soleimani’s killing, and proclaimed after the missile strikes on Wednesday that the “corrupt presence of the United States in the region should come to an end.” Iran also earlier announced on Sunday that it would step further away from agreements under the 2015 nuclear deal meant to curb its nuclear weapons program.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Angry GOP Senator Trashes 'Insulting' Trump Administration Briefing On Iran

The Utah Republican called the closed-door briefing ― which was attended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper , as well as other top Trump administration officials ― “ probably the worst briefing , at least on a military issue , I ’ ve seen in my nine years ” in the Senate .
Lee , a constitutional law expert , said administration officials told lawmakers that they ought not to publicly debate the merits of taking military action against Iran , a suggestion he called “ insulting and demeaning ” to Congress .
“ One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the briefers was : Do not debate , do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran .
And that if you do , you ’ ll be emboldening Iran , ” he added .
Lee said the briefing left him “ unsatisfied ” with the administration ’ s “ legal , factual and moral justification ” for last week ’ s attack that killed a top Iranian general .
He added the briefing convinced him to support a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-Va. ) seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also took issue with officials telling lawmakers they couldn ’ t discuss certain information about U.S. military action against Iran because it was too sensitive ― while sitting in a secure area of the Senate dedicated to discussing classified matters .
The Trump administration ’ s stated rationale for the attack has evolved over the past week .
Immediately following the strike , top U.S. officials said it was meant to head off an “ imminent ” attack on American troops in the Middle East .
Days later , however , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death of an American contractor at an Iraqi military base , as well as other acts of Iranian aggression .
Most Republicans who attended Wednesday ’ s briefing in the Senate said they were satisfied by the administration ’ s rationale for the attack , heaping praise on Trump for what they said was his decisive action to eliminate a longstanding threat to the U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) said the administration acted properly in response to what he called a lethal “ threat with a short time frame ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East .
Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) dismissed talk of debating the merits of U.S. military action against Iran as “ silly , ” saying the administration had acted defensively .
“ It is ridiculous , ” he told reporters after the briefing .
“ This administration is not talking about invading Iran or starting another Gulf War or massive troop deployments.
” Most Democrats , meanwhile , said they weren ’ t convinced that the Iranian general , Qassem Soleimani , presented an imminent threat to U.S. troops .
Several questioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Iran .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) excoriated the Trump administration on Wednesday after a classified Senate briefing on U.S. military action against Iran.
The Utah Republican called the closed-door briefing ― which was attended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, as well as other top Trump administration officials ― “probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I’ve seen in my nine years” in the Senate.
Advertisement
Lee, a constitutional law expert, said administration officials told lawmakers that they ought not to publicly debate the merits of taking military action against Iran, a suggestion he called “insulting and demeaning” to Congress.
“I find that absolutely insane. I think it’s unacceptable,” a visibly angry Lee told reporters afterward.
“One of the messages that we received from the briefers was: Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do, you’ll be emboldening Iran,” he added.
Lee said the briefing left him “unsatisfied” with the administration’s “legal, factual and moral justification” for last week’s attack that killed a top Iranian general. He added the briefing convinced him to support a resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) seeking to limit hostilities with Iran.
Advertisement
Lee also took issue with officials telling lawmakers they couldn’t discuss certain information about U.S. military action against Iran because it was too sensitive ― while sitting in a secure area of the Senate dedicated to discussing classified matters.
BREAKING: Sen. Lee, Republican from Utah, heavily criticizes Trump admin.'s briefing for senators today on Iran, saying officials expect Senate to be "good little boys and girls" and not debate in public. pic.twitter.com/9yXIskA0zq — NBC News (@NBCNews) January 8, 2020
The Trump administration’s stated rationale for the attack has evolved over the past week. Immediately following the strike, top U.S. officials said it was meant to head off an “imminent” attack on American troops in the Middle East. Days later, however, the U.S. has cast the attack as retribution for the death of an American contractor at an Iraqi military base, as well as other acts of Iranian aggression.
Most Republicans who attended Wednesday’s briefing in the Senate said they were satisfied by the administration’s rationale for the attack, heaping praise on Trump for what they said was his decisive action to eliminate a longstanding threat to the U.S.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the administration acted properly in response to what he called a lethal “threat with a short time frame” directed at U.S. troops in the Middle East.
Advertisement
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed talk of debating the merits of U.S. military action against Iran as “silly,” saying the administration had acted defensively.
“It is ridiculous,” he told reporters after the briefing. “This administration is not talking about invading Iran or starting another Gulf War or massive troop deployments.”
Most Democrats, meanwhile, said they weren’t convinced that the Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, presented an imminent threat to U.S. troops. Several questioned the Trump administration’s overall strategy on Iran.
“I was presented with no evidence about this threshold of imminence,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said, calling Wednesday’s briefing “wholly unsatisfactory.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story described Lee as a former professor. He has never been a professor.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Trump Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Heads To Top New York Court

A panel of judges in Manhattan on Tuesday granted a request from Trump ’ s legal team to send the case to the state Court of Appeals , which will consider whether Zervos can sue the sitting president .
She claims Trump defamed her after she came forward in 2016 to accuse him of unwanted groping and kissing .
Last March , a mid-level appeals court ruled Zervos ’ lawsuit could proceed .
But Trump ’ s legal team has repeatedly tried to get the courts to drop or delay the case , arguing the Constitution prevents Trump from being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In their March decision , the Appellate Division panel ruled that the Constitution “ was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state ’ s constitution , ” citing a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed Paula Jones ’ sexual misconduct case against then-President Bill Clinton to proceed .
But Trump ’ s legal team , led by Marc Kasowitz , continued to press the case , and now the Court of Appeals will weigh in .
“ We believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Constitution bars state court actions while the President is in office , ” a spokesperson for Kasowitz said Tuesday .
In a statement , Zervos ’ attorney Beth Wilkinson said : “ We look forward to presenting our arguments before the Court of Appeals and continuing to advocate on Ms. Zervos ’ s behalf.
” “ We remain confident that we will prove her defamation claim in court and that Mr. Trump will face responsibility for his actions , ” she continued .
In October , Zervos ’ lawyers submitted records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly corroborate ” her claims , including Trump ’ s phone records and personal calendar from the time period of his alleged sexual misconduct .
Zervos is one of at least 20 women who have accused the president of sexual misconduct .
She claims Trump forcibly kissed her and groped her in 2007 , after she appeared as a contestant on his reality show “ The Apprentice.
” Elle magazine advice columnist and author E. Jean Carroll has also sued Trump for defamation , after revealing last summer that Trump allegedly raped her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was elected president after a tape revealed him bragging about sexual assault , has denied all of the women ’ s claims .
He has regularly attacked the accusers , claiming they are all liars — including by mocking their appearance and suggesting they weren ’ t attractive enough to be sexually assaulted .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos’ sexual misconduct lawsuit against President Donald Trump is headed to New York state’s highest court.
A panel of judges in Manhattan on Tuesday granted a request from Trump’s legal team to send the case to the state Court of Appeals, which will consider whether Zervos can sue the sitting president. She claims Trump defamed her after she came forward in 2016 to accuse him of unwanted groping and kissing.
Advertisement
Last March, a mid-level appeals court ruled Zervos’ lawsuit could proceed. But Trump’s legal team has repeatedly tried to get the courts to drop or delay the case, arguing the Constitution prevents Trump from being sued on state claims while in office.
In their March decision, the Appellate Division panel ruled that the Constitution “was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution,” citing a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed Paula Jones’ sexual misconduct case against then-President Bill Clinton to proceed.
But Trump’s legal team, led by Marc Kasowitz, continued to press the case, and now the Court of Appeals will weigh in.
“We believe that the Court of Appeals will agree that the U.S. Constitution bars state court actions while the President is in office,” a spokesperson for Kasowitz said Tuesday.
Advertisement
Summer Zervos leaves an appeals court on Oct. 18, 2018, in New York City. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The ruling also delays a previous deadline for Trump to submit a deposition by Jan. 31.
In a statement, Zervos’ attorney Beth Wilkinson said: “We look forward to presenting our arguments before the Court of Appeals and continuing to advocate on Ms. Zervos’s behalf.”
“We remain confident that we will prove her defamation claim in court and that Mr. Trump will face responsibility for his actions,” she continued.
In October, Zervos’ lawyers submitted records in the case that they say “strongly corroborate” her claims, including Trump’s phone records and personal calendar from the time period of his alleged sexual misconduct.
Zervos is one of at least 20 women who have accused the president of sexual misconduct. She claims Trump forcibly kissed her and groped her in 2007, after she appeared as a contestant on his reality show “The Apprentice.”
Advertisement
Elle magazine advice columnist and author E. Jean Carroll has also sued Trump for defamation, after revealing last summer that Trump allegedly raped her in the 1990s.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Justice Department Backs GOP Effort To Block Equal Rights Amendment

That ’ s because the Equal Rights Amendment , which passed Congress in 1972 and would amend the Constitution to give women equal standing under the law , is on the verge of ratification .
Within the next few weeks , Virginia is expected to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA , clearing the Constitutional threshold for ratification , which is three-fourths of the states .
“ The ERA should have been passed and ratified a long time ago and the fact that it ’ s 2020 and some states are trying to block equality from the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding that litigation was not out of the question .
“ We will do everything we can to make sure it ’ s part of the Constitution.
” “ I think in 2020 the fact that there are people that don ’ t believe [ equality ] should be enshrined in the Constitution is a little bit of a mind bender , ” he said .
“ And I think from the campaign side this is something that we ’ ll be able to spend the next 10 months talking about.
” Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the amendment into the Constitution is just a first step , Kelly said .
It takes time ― if not decades or centuries ― for the meaning of amendments to become clear .
If it becomes law , courts and legislators will be figuring out the ERA for years to come .
Right now the key issue is ― what happens when Virginia ratifies ?
Until Wednesday , the answer to that question was within the purview of the National Archives and Records Administration , the agency responsible for registering ratifications and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the AGs and the activists .

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost; Photos: Getty
UPDATE ― 6:06 p.m. EST Wednesday: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice made it clear that it opposes the Equal Rights Amendment.
PREVIOUSLY:
There’s a constitutional showdown heating up over equal rights for women, somehow still a contentious issue in 2020.
Advertisement
That’s because the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed Congress in 1972 and would amend the Constitution to give women equal standing under the law, is on the verge of ratification. Within the next few weeks, Virginia is expected to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA, clearing the Constitutional threshold for ratification, which is three-fourths of the states.
Already, Republicans are in court trying to block the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution. At the end of December, three GOP attorneys general filed a suit in a federal court in Alabama to block the ERA’s ratification, arguing that it’s not constitutional.
On Tuesday, activists at the women’s rights group Equal Means Equal and the young women’s group Yellow Roses filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court, seeking to make sure the amendment makes its way into the Constitution after Virginia ratifies, pushing back on the arguments in the GOP lawsuit.
The litigation marks the start of a new chapter in the decadeslong fight to get women’s rights into the Constitution.
Advertisement
ERA advocates knew finally getting women into the Constitution would be a struggle, but the timing of the GOP’s Alabama lawsuit still was surprising.
“We didn’t anticipate any states being opposed to women’s equality,” said Wendy Murphy, the Boston-based professor and lawyer who represents Equal Means Equal and filed the Massachusetts suit. She said advocates didn’t expect to be in court so soon.
“It’s kind of disturbing that in 2020 that any state would spend resources trying to maintain women’s second-class citizenship in this country,” she said.
Some Democratic attorneys general also put out a strong statement on Tuesday, lambasting their Republican counterparts for being on the wrong side of history.
“This preemptive lawsuit is a blatant effort to thwart our democracy and block women from gaining Constitutional equality, which is already long overdue,” reads the statement, released by the executive committee of the Democratic Attorneys General Association. “We urge our colleagues from across the aisle to reconsider this wrongheaded waste of taxpayer dollars. It’s 2020, not 1920.”
Advertisement
Short But Contentious
The ERA is actually just one sentence: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
The only mention of women’s rights in the Constitution is in the 19th amendment, ratified a century ago, which gave women the right to vote. (Although voter suppression tactics in the Jim Crow South effectively barred Black women from voting for decades longer.)
By finally putting equality for women into the Constitution, the ERA would expand legal protections against sexual discrimination. And that’s just for starters. It takes decades to take a one-sentence amendment and iron out its meaning in the courts and legislature.
Still, that one sentence was apparently enough to trigger the three GOP attorneys general.
The attorneys general claim that while they are “committed to equality,” passing the ERA would be a bridge too far ― because it would lead to more abortion rights and pave the way for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, a common argument of equality opponents.
However, it’s not clear at all that the ERA would lead to those issues, which would have to be voted on or litigated.
Advertisement
The GOP argument really hinges on 1982. That year was the cutoff for ratification set by Congress back in the 1970s ― after that, ratification was presumed impossible. And by then, the ERA had fallen three states short of ratification.
In recent years, however, activists have revived the ERA, believing that the deadline issue can be overcome. They’ve fought to get three more states to ratify. Nevada did in 2017. Illinois in 2018. And Virginia in the coming weeks.
Jessica Lenahan, center, a domestic violence survivor, and Carol Jenkins, right, of the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force, attend a news conference at the House Triangle on the need to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on June 6, 2018. Tom Williams via Getty Images
Murphy and some ERA proponents argue that the deadline set by Congress for ratification is unconstitutional. They point out that the last time the Constitution was amended, more than 200 years lapsed from proposal to ratification.
Meanwhile, there’s legislation in the House, introduced in 2017, that would simply extend the deadline. That bill has little shot of getting through the current Senate, however.
Advertisement
Arguments about the deadline are just a strategy to skirt the real issue: a long-overdue guarantee of equality for women, said Mark Herring, the Democratic attorney general of Virginia.
Opponents women’s equality are always going to try and come up with arguments against the ERA, he said, waving off what he called Republican scaremongering over what the ERA would mean.
“The ERA should have been passed and ratified a long time ago and the fact that it’s 2020 and some states are trying to block equality from the Constitution is repugnant,“ he said, adding that litigation was not out of the question. “We will do everything we can to make sure it’s part of the Constitution.”
“The fact that it’s 2020 and some states are trying to block equality from the Constitution is repugnant.” - Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D)
Republican opposition to the ERA is going to be a pivotal issue for Democratic AG candidates in the coming elections in 2020, Sean Rankin, executive director of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, told HuffPost on Tuesday.
Advertisement
“I think in 2020 the fact that there are people that don’t believe [equality] should be enshrined in the Constitution is a little bit of a mind bender,” he said. “And I think from the campaign side this is something that we’ll be able to spend the next 10 months talking about.”
Getting People Talking
Advocates expect the fight to finally get this amendment over the finish line will be bruising, but they welcome getting an issue as critical as women’s rights back into the national conversation where it belongs.
“For so long, ERA advocates have been on the fringes,” said Kate Kelly, a lawyer and equal rights activist. Now they’ll finally have to be taken seriously.
Even if ERA proponents pull this off, getting the amendment into the Constitution is just a first step, Kelly said. It takes time ― if not decades or centuries ― for the meaning of amendments to become clear. If it becomes law, courts and legislators will be figuring out the ERA for years to come.
What’s Next
Right now the key issue is ― what happens when Virginia ratifies? Until Wednesday, the answer to that question was within the purview of the National Archives and Records Administration, the agency responsible for registering ratifications and the actual defendant in the lawsuits filed by the AGs and the activists.
Advertisement
The department, even under Trump, has registered the recent ERA ratifications from Nevada and Illinois. The difference now, of course, is that registering the 38th state’s ratification would mean the amendment gets into the Constitution. This time is for real.
In light of the litigation― with one side saying to greenlight the ERA and the other saying to block it ― the agency in a statement that it wouldn’t act until it got guidance from the Justice Department.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department gave its answer: No ERA.
“Because Congress lawfully conditioned the States’ ratification of the ERA upon a deadline, and because the deadline expired, the proposed amendment has necessarily failed,” the Office of Legal Counsel said in a 38-page opinion released in Wednesday afternoon.
Activists are not daunted. “This OLC opinion is not binding on Congress, the courts, or the states that have expressed their ongoing will to give women constitutional equality,” the ERA Coalition said in a statement to CNN.
“It is wholly unsurprising that the Trump Administration has found yet another way to oppose women’s equality,” Herring said in a statement Wednesday.
Advertisement
Murphy said she expects to see more litigation from activists filed in other states as this heats up.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Rachel Maddow Explains What's ‘Really Worrying’ About Mistake Iraq Military Letter

MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday explained what she believes is “ really worrying ” about a now-disavowed U.S. military letter that announced American troops would be withdrawing from Iraq .
Maddow , appearing on “ Late Night with Seth Meyers , ” said the letter that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said was “ a mistake ” could indicate “ the incompetence that we expect I think at the level of the White House even on national security matters might now be extended to things as serious as the defense secretary and the chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written the day after Iraq ’ s parliament voted to expel U.S. troops , was addressed to an Iraqi defense official amid an escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Iran .
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the letter was “ inconsistent ” with the U.S. position , but didn ’ t explain how the communication could have been drafted and sent .
“ It ’ s so freaking weird , I can ’ t even believe it , ” Maddow added , claiming it would be “ one thing ” for President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incorrect information .
But this , she pointed out , “ was the actual Pentagon , this was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday explained what she believes is “really worrying” about a now-disavowed U.S. military letter that announced American troops would be withdrawing from Iraq.
Maddow, appearing on “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” said the letter that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said was “a mistake” could indicate “the incompetence that we expect I think at the level of the White House even on national security matters might now be extended to things as serious as the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”
Advertisement
The letter, written the day after Iraq’s parliament voted to expel U.S. troops, was addressed to an Iraqi defense official amid an escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the letter was “inconsistent” with the U.S. position, but didn’t explain how the communication could have been drafted and sent.
“It’s so freaking weird, I can’t even believe it,” Maddow added, claiming it would be “one thing” for President Donald Trump to “blurt” out incorrect information. But this, she pointed out, “was the actual Pentagon, this was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Sean Hannity Calls For 'Full Force' Of U.S. Military To Strike Iran

Sean Hannity unsurprisingly urged the U.S. to escalate the conflict with Iran Tuesday , saying the military should answer Iran ’ s “ hostility ” with its “ full force.
” ( See the clip above . )
The Fox News host was responding to Iran ’ s missile attack on bases in Iraq housing American troops after a Donald Trump-ordered drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
There were no immediate reports of American casualties .
“ They actually think they can attack Americans and get away with it ?
I think they need to think again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Did they actually think that they can kill our brave men and women abroad in our embassy and get away with it ?
Do they think they can fund terrorism all around the globe and get away with that ?
Do they think they can commit economic terrorism and try and impact the free flow of the lifeblood of every economy in the world and get away with that ?
” Hannity , whose commentary often dovetails with Trump ’ s policies , then ratcheted up the rhetoric .
“ There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t get to do what they did tonight .
They have now been begging ― the president wanted to talk and wants peace ― and they are going to get hit hard .
Their hostility will now be met with the full force of the greatest , most advanced , most sophisticated military this world has ever seen.
” Hannity suggested the U.S. should bomb Iranian oil refineries .
Hear why right here :

“They actually think they can attack Americans and get away with it? I think they need to think again,” Hannity said on “Hannity.” “Did they actually think that they can kill our brave men and women abroad in our embassy and get away with it? Do they think they can fund terrorism all around the globe and get away with that? Do they think they can commit economic terrorism and try and impact the free flow of the lifeblood of every economy in the world and get away with that?”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Senate Democrats Signal They're Ready For Impeachment Trial To Start

WASHINGTON ― Senate Democrats are signaling they ’ re ready to begin President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) continues to withhold the articles of impeachment in her standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) over the rules governing the proceedings .
“ I think if we ’ re going to do it , we should do it .
I don ’ t think there ’ s much more to be gained [ by delaying the impeachment trial ] , but that ’ s just my view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told HuffPost on Wednesday .
In a letter to her colleagues on Tuesday , Pelosi said she wants to see how the Senate plans to run Trump ’ s trial before she transmits the articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The gambit is part of a Democratic effort to ensure that the GOP-led Senate runs a fair trial that includes witnesses like John Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser .
McConnell , however , made it clear he has the votes to move forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who demanded that he first commit to including witness testimony and documents in the proceedings .
The Kentucky Republican said a decision on including witness testimony will come after the trial begins .
“ Speaker Pelosi wanted ‘ leverage ’ to reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us .
I ’ ve made clear from the beginning that no such ‘ leverage ’ exists .
It ’ s nonexistent .
And yesterday we made it clear it will never exist , ” McConnell said in a floor speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two leaders seems to be coming to an end , however , and several Senate Democrats said they expected the proceedings to begin shortly .
Sen. Chirs Murphy ( D-Conn. ) said he believed Democrats ’ “ greatest leverage exists inside the trial ” on motions they will call on producing witnesses and documents .
Democrats will need at least four Republicans to vote with them if they are to subpoena witnesses and produce documents pertaining to Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine .
“ I think it is time for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think ― I don ’ t think her holding them puts any particular pressure on Mitch McConnell .
I think the key vote will come in the middle of the trial , ” he said in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday .
In a floor speech on Wednesday , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) vowed that Republican senators wouldn ’ t be able to avoid a decision on witness testimony regardless of their support for McConnell ’ s strategy to begin proceedings .
“ I want to make one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes — repeated votes — on the question of witnesses and documents at the trial .
The initial votes will not be the last votes on the matter .
Republicans can delay it , but they can not avoid it , ” Schumer said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Senate Democrats are signaling they’re ready to begin President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) continues to withhold the articles of impeachment in her standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over the rules governing the proceedings.
“I think if we’re going to do it, we should do it. I don’t think there’s much more to be gained [by delaying the impeachment trial], but that’s just my view,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told HuffPost on Wednesday.
Advertisement
In a letter to her colleagues on Tuesday, Pelosi said she wants to see how the Senate plans to run Trump’s trial before she transmits the articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The gambit is part of a Democratic effort to ensure that the GOP-led Senate runs a fair trial that includes witnesses like John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser.
McConnell, however, made it clear he has the votes to move forward with the trial without support from Democrats, who demanded that he first commit to including witness testimony and documents in the proceedings. The Kentucky Republican said a decision on including witness testimony will come after the trial begins.
“Speaker Pelosi wanted ‘leverage’ to reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us. I’ve made clear from the beginning that no such ‘leverage’ exists. It’s nonexistent. And yesterday we made it clear it will never exist,” McConnell said in a floor speech on Wednesday.
The weekslong standoff between the two leaders seems to be coming to an end, however, and several Senate Democrats said they expected the proceedings to begin shortly.
Advertisement
“My gut tells me we’ll be in an impeachment trial fairly soon,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said.
Sen. Chirs Murphy (D-Conn.) said he believed Democrats’ “greatest leverage exists inside the trial” on motions they will call on producing witnesses and documents. Democrats will need at least four Republicans to vote with them if they are to subpoena witnesses and produce documents pertaining to Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine,) who caucuses with Democrats, agreed.
“I think it is time for the speaker to send the articles over. I think ― I don’t think her holding them puts any particular pressure on Mitch McConnell. I think the key vote will come in the middle of the trial,” he said in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday.
In a floor speech on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed that Republican senators wouldn’t be able to avoid a decision on witness testimony regardless of their support for McConnell’s strategy to begin proceedings.
“I want to make one thing very clear: There will be votes — repeated votes — on the question of witnesses and documents at the trial. The initial votes will not be the last votes on the matter. Republicans can delay it, but they cannot avoid it,” Schumer said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Democratic Presidential Candidates Go After Joe Biden’s Electability

Biden ’ s continued healthy lead in national polling , and his still-strong-but-not-dominant position in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire is directly linked to the perception , backed up by polling data showing Biden with a healthy lead over Trump , that he is best positioned and best equipped to defeat the incumbent .
Sanders , Buttigieg and close allies of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have all launched attacks on Biden since the new year that are focused on convincing Democratic primary voters both that they shouldn ’ t vote for Biden and that Midwestern swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The strategy is designed to give voters whose first concern is electability ― a majority of the Democratic primary electorate , according to public polling ― to vote with their liberal-leaning hearts instead of their Trump-focused heads .
There are major questions about the effectiveness of these attacks , most of which the Biden campaign dismissed as old news .
And so far , none of the campaigns have been willing to attack Biden with paid advertising ― which would dramatically increase the number of voters exposed to criticisms .
Warren and Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progressive Change Campaign Committee ― a group that has long functioned as Warren ’ s political enforcers ― questioned Biden ’ s electability after the Massachusetts senator unveiled a plan to roll back many of the provisions of a 2005 law making it harder to qualify for bankruptcy , arguing it would allow Trump to seize the “ outsider mantle.
” The Biden campaign , meanwhile , is confident they can rebut these attacks .
A long list of Democratic candidates ― California Sen. Kamala Harris , California Rep. Eric Swalwell and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few ― have dropped out of the race not long after lobbing an attack at Biden .
They ’ re prepared to respond with examples of Sanders and Warren praising the former vice president : On Wednesday morning , a Biden endorser tweeted out a clip of Sanders praising Biden for devoting “ his entire life to public service and to the well-being of working families and the middle class.
” And they ’ re doubling down on their electability argument .
On Sunday , after three members of Congress who won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave endorsed Biden , the campaign released a memo arguing Biden was in far better position than other Democratic candidates to drive down-ballot success and help Democrats win control of the Senate .
“ This election is defined by the urgent need to defeat Donald Trump and the toxic values he represents .
Poll after poll has shown that Vice President Biden would beat Donald Trump like a drum ― and Donald Trump proved he knows that when he became the only president in American history to attempt to extort a foreign country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fears the most , ” Biden spokesman Andrew Bates said .
Electability has defined the 2020 presidential race , and several candidates have attempted to redefine the conversation around it , arguing Biden won ’ t be able to generate turnout among Black voters or young people .
Those attempts have largely failed , and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have remained focused on Midwestern swing voters .
Sanders ’ attacks , in particular , are designed to question Biden ’ s appeal there .
When it comes to questions of electability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s long history of support for corporate-friendly international trade agreements , including NAFTA , permanent normalized trade relations with China and the now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership .
Many Democratic officials from the industrial Midwest and allied labor unions credited Trump ’ s fulminations about trade policy for helping him pick off just enough historically Democratic voters to put him over the top in Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
“ It seems a little desperate to me , ” said Waters , who has not formally endorsed in the Democratic presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States Senate for a long time … He has many decades of standing up for working families and trying to do the right thing.
” By contrast , Larry Cohen , a Sanders supporter and former head of the Communication Workers of America , which has also fought trade agreements that could jeopardize domestic jobs , insists that it is a relevant point of contrast .
Cohen recently returned from a tour with the pro-Sanders groups Our Revolution and Labor for Bernie promoting Sanders in Eastern Iowa ’ s manufacturing-heavy cities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is also home to many of the counties that flipped from Obama to Trump .
“ These cities from Dubuque to Burlington are devastated and people are wondering : Is there somebody who still believes in manufacturing jobs and standing up for the rights workers doing them ?
” Cohen said .
“ For a Democrat to have credibility they have to have the record .
Vice President Biden ― lots of great things about his career ― his record on trade and foreign policy is not among them .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic presidential candidates, led by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, are starting the new year by stepping up their criticisms of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ability to defeat Republican President Donald Trump, directly confronting the national front-runner’s greatest strength.
Biden’s continued healthy lead in national polling, and his still-strong-but-not-dominant position in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire is directly linked to the perception, backed up by polling data showing Biden with a healthy lead over Trump, that he is best positioned and best equipped to defeat the incumbent.
Advertisement
Sanders, Buttigieg and close allies of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have all launched attacks on Biden since the new year that are focused on convincing Democratic primary voters both that they shouldn’t vote for Biden and that Midwestern swing voters won’t want to. The strategy is designed to give voters whose first concern is electability ― a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, according to public polling ― to vote with their liberal-leaning hearts instead of their Trump-focused heads.
“Everyone thinks Biden is electable because everyone keeps saying how electable he is. I think it’s important to have the conversation,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic strategist who has been critical of the former vice president. “There’s been no vocal progressive bullhorn presenting a counter-message.”
There are major questions about the effectiveness of these attacks, most of which the Biden campaign dismissed as old news. And so far, none of the campaigns have been willing to attack Biden with paid advertising ― which would dramatically increase the number of voters exposed to criticisms.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speak toward the end of the sixth 2020 U.S. Democratic debate, Dec. 19, 2019. Mike Blake / Reuters
Advertisement
During an appearance on CNN Monday night, Sanders ticked off a number of potential attacks on Biden, noting his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, the war in Iraq and his past support for cutting Social Security.
“You think that’s going to play well in Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania?” Sanders asked host Anderson Cooper, ticking off three midwestern states won by Trump that are largely seen as crucial to the eventual Democratic nominee’s path to 270 electoral votes.
Warren and Buttigieg have not been as direct. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee ― a group that has long functioned as Warren’s political enforcers ― questioned Biden’s electability after the Massachusetts senator unveiled a plan to roll back many of the provisions of a 2005 law making it harder to qualify for bankruptcy, arguing it would allow Trump to seize the “outsider mantle.”
“When thinking about electability, it would be complete malpractice to nominate someone who conspired in backrooms for years with credit card lobbyists and voted for every corporate bankruptcy bill, Wall Street deregulation, and trade deal that voters hate,” said Adam Green, the group’s co-founder.
Buttigieg, meanwhile, has criticized Biden over his support for the Iraq War and even questioned the former Vice President’s handling of his son Hunter’s work for Ukranian energy company Burisma ― an attack most Democrats have avoided.
Advertisement
Even entrepreneur Andrew Yang has gotten in on the action, hitting the self-styled “Middle-Class Joe,” for being out of touch with blue-collar workers. Yang, whose candidacy is premised on aiding workers made redundant by technology, seized on Biden’s suggestion that coal miners could “learn to program.”
“Someone who suggests that coal miners become coders is generally neither of those things,” Yang said.
The Biden campaign, meanwhile, is confident they can rebut these attacks. A long list of Democratic candidates ― California Sen. Kamala Harris, California Rep. Eric Swalwell and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to name a few ― have dropped out of the race not long after lobbing an attack at Biden. They’re prepared to respond with examples of Sanders and Warren praising the former vice president: On Wednesday morning, a Biden endorser tweeted out a clip of Sanders praising Biden for devoting “his entire life to public service and to the well-being of working families and the middle class.”
If you want to know why I’m supporting @JoeBiden , Sen. Sanders actually articulated it very well.
He has dedicated his life to fighting for the middle class and Obama/Biden administration did make significant progress for our country.
That’s what we need now more than ever. pic.twitter.com/Mbhr6CU9nr — Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta 🥁 (@malcolmkenyatta) January 8, 2020
And they’re doubling down on their electability argument. On Sunday, after three members of Congress who won Republican-held House seats during the 2018 Democratic wave endorsed Biden, the campaign released a memo arguing Biden was in far better position than other Democratic candidates to drive down-ballot success and help Democrats win control of the Senate.
Advertisement
“This election is defined by the urgent need to defeat Donald Trump and the toxic values he represents. Poll after poll has shown that Vice President Biden would beat Donald Trump like a drum ― and Donald Trump proved he knows that when he became the only president in American history to attempt to extort a foreign country into lying about the rival candidate he fears the most,” Biden spokesman Andrew Bates said.
And Sanders’ attacks come as the Democratic establishment is warning about the Vermont socialist’s ability to beat Trump. Biden allies, in particular, suggested they would welcome a debate with their major challenger on foreign policy issues.
“Bernie’s the only presidential candidate who talked up the Soviet Union and said breadlines were indicative of a healthy economy,” one Biden ally said. “If he really wants to go there, God bless him.”
Electability has defined the 2020 presidential race, and several candidates have attempted to redefine the conversation around it, arguing Biden won’t be able to generate turnout among Black voters or young people. Those attempts have largely failed, and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have remained focused on Midwestern swing voters. Sanders’ attacks, in particular, are designed to question Biden’s appeal there.
Veterans of Democratic politics are divided on whether the electability-focused attacks on Biden will have an impact, particularly given voters’ strong associations of the former vice president with former President Barack Obama, a sacrosanct figure in Democratic circles.
Advertisement
When it comes to questions of electability, perhaps no issue looms larger than Biden’s long history of support for corporate-friendly international trade agreements, including NAFTA, permanent normalized trade relations with China and the now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many Democratic officials from the industrial Midwest and allied labor unions credited Trump’s fulminations about trade policy for helping him pick off just enough historically Democratic voters to put him over the top in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
But Tim Waters, the former political director of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based United Steel Workers union, which was frequently at odds with Obama and Biden on trade policy, argued that Sanders’ and Warren’s attacks were liable to backfire.
“It seems a little desperate to me,” said Waters, who has not formally endorsed in the Democratic presidential primary. “Joe Biden was in the United States Senate for a long time … He has many decades of standing up for working families and trying to do the right thing.”
By contrast, Larry Cohen, a Sanders supporter and former head of the Communication Workers of America, which has also fought trade agreements that could jeopardize domestic jobs, insists that it is a relevant point of contrast. Cohen recently returned from a tour with the pro-Sanders groups Our Revolution and Labor for Bernie promoting Sanders in Eastern Iowa’s manufacturing-heavy cities and towns. The Eastern part of the state is also home to many of the counties that flipped from Obama to Trump.
“These cities from Dubuque to Burlington are devastated and people are wondering: Is there somebody who still believes in manufacturing jobs and standing up for the rights workers doing them?” Cohen said. “For a Democrat to have credibility they have to have the record. Vice President Biden ― lots of great things about his career ― his record on trade and foreign policy is not among them.”
Advertisement
Still, Biden’s greatest vulnerability may be on Social Security, which Sanders only mentioned in passing in his CNN interview on Monday night.
That may be a foretaste of future attacks. Following the interview, spokespeople for the Sanders campaign tweeted out video of Biden expounding on the need to reduce Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits in a mid-1990s speech on the Senate floor.
More recently, Biden served as the point person for the Obama White House during budget negotiations with Republicans in which Obama offered to cut Social Security in exchange for tax hikes elsewhere. And in an April 2018 speech at the Brookings Institution, Biden declared that Social Security and Medicare benefits would need “adjustments,” including, he implied, lower benefits for affluent retirees.
Joe Radinovich, a former Minnesota House candidate and congressional staffer who hails from Minnesota politically purple-hued Iron Range, believes that a Social Security-driven critique could resonate in his home region.
In a notable departure from Republican orthodoxy, Trump promised to protect Social Security as a candidate in 2016. And though he has since sought to restrict access to Social Security disability benefits, he might well try to blur his differences with Biden on the issue, predicted Radinovich, who endorsed Sanders in 2016, but is unaligned this time around.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Iranians, Iranian Americans Detained At U.S.-Canada Border Fear Crackdown On Civil Rights

When Heidi and her girlfriend — both Nexus cardholders who are qualified for expedited processing — crossed back into the U.S. that Saturday afternoon , they received an ominous orange slip that told them to exit their vehicle for additional screening .
U.S. officials took their passports and Heidi ’ s green card away and questioned them for hours .
Heidi , who is using a pseudonym in this story for fear of retaliation , was questioned about her place of birth , her current occupation , whether she had ever touched a gun , where she studied , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the United States and Iran , she told HuffPost .
Mere days before Heidi and her girlfriend ’ s detention , Gen. Qassem Soleimani , a senior Iranian commander and one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East , had been killed in an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq at the direction of President Donald Trump , heightening tensions between the two nations and the wider Middle Eastern region .
A CBP official told HuffPost that the federal agency was currently “ operating with an enhanced posture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the “ current threat environment.
” The official also attributed the long wait times at Blaine — which CBP said averaged two hours and extended up to four hours — to increased volume and reduced staff .
Lawmakers and other political leaders have since condemned the reported detentions .
Former presidential candidate and Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee ( D ) tweeted that “ CBP ’ s denial of these reports are simply not credible.
” Rep. Pramila Jaypal ( D-Wash. ) also noted that the detentions were “ a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBP has denied .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, who is running for president , demanded that CBP clarify its policies and explain why those individuals were stopped at the border .
“ If we can ’ t count even on our local leadership to protect us as Americans , we are barrelling down a very dangerous path and our civil liberties really are threatened right now .
This is not a joke , ” said Mana Mostatabi , the communications director at the National Iranian American Council , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that advocates for Iranian Americans .
The Department of Homeland Security ’ s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has since opened an investigation into the treatment of Iranian Americans at U.S. ports of entry in response to a complaint from NIAC .
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is also exploring legal action to find whether the federal government sent any national directive to local authorities in Blaine .
In 1979 , former President Jimmy Carter ordered the deportation of undocumented Iranian students during the diplomatic standoff between the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System , which targeted foreign nationals from 25 countries in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq War .
More recently , Trump signed the 2017 executive order that prevents individuals from several Muslim-majority countries , including Iran , from entering the United States .
“ I do anticipate that this will get worse because of history , ” said Ayoub , who added that concerns now are very similar to those in the past , when Iranians , Muslims , Arabs and South Asians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices .
Ayoub ’ s organization has been receiving calls from members of the Shia Muslim community who are spending their winter breaks on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq and Iran and are concerned about the possibility of harassment and detention upon their return to the United States .
Crystal , a 24-year-old Iranian American medical student , was traveling back to the United States with her brother and her parents after a family vacation in Vancouver when she and her family were detained for more than 11 hours .
Like Heidi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passports and asked the same series of intrusive questions about their occupations , political views and travel .
“ What happened was real .
They can ’ t say I wasn ’ t there for 11 hours on the hard concrete floor .
That was real .
It happened , ” Crystal said on a call to reporters .
HuffPost is withholding her last name out of concern for retaliation from the U.S. government .
“ Even though I was born here , I ’ m a citizen here , I pay taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to school here , in the end , it didn ’ t mean anything to them .
They neglected my rights , ” said Crystal .
“ It doesn ’ t even matter if you ’ re a citizen or not , if you have associations with being Iranian , apparently that ’ s suspicious .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
It was a trip Heidi must have taken over a hundred times.
At least once a month for the last 10 years, Heidi, an Iranian with a U.S. green card, has driven through Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington, to visit her mother in Vancouver, Canada, before returning home.
When Heidi and her girlfriend — both Nexus cardholders who are qualified for expedited processing — crossed back into the U.S. that Saturday afternoon, they received an ominous orange slip that told them to exit their vehicle for additional screening. U.S. officials took their passports and Heidi’s green card away and questioned them for hours.
Advertisement
Heidi, who is using a pseudonym in this story for fear of retaliation, was questioned about her place of birth, her current occupation, whether she had ever touched a gun, where she studied, and her political views on the latest escalation between the United States and Iran, she told HuffPost.
Mere days before Heidi and her girlfriend’s detention, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a senior Iranian commander and one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East, had been killed in an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq at the direction of President Donald Trump, heightening tensions between the two nations and the wider Middle Eastern region.
Before the news broke, Heidi had no idea who Soleimani even was.
Heidi and her girlfriend were two of more than 100 people of Iranian descent who say they were held without explanation at the Blaine border crossing — in some cases for at least 11 hours.
Customs and Border Protection has since denied those accusations, telling HuffPost in an emailed statement that the “social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false.”
Advertisement
A CBP official told HuffPost that the federal agency was currently “operating with an enhanced posture at its ports of entry” due to the “current threat environment.” The official also attributed the long wait times at Blaine — which CBP said averaged two hours and extended up to four hours — to increased volume and reduced staff.
Lawmakers and other political leaders have since condemned the reported detentions. Former presidential candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) tweeted that “CBP’s denial of these reports are simply not credible.” Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-Wash.) also noted that the detentions were “a result of some sort of directive,” which CBP has denied. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is running for president, demanded that CBP clarify its policies and explain why those individuals were stopped at the border.
“What happened was real. They can’t say I wasn’t there for 11 hours on the hard concrete floor. That was real. It happened.” - Crystal, 24-year-old Iranian American
The reports from the U.S.-Canada border have raised red flags for civil rights advocates, who say the detentions set a dangerous precedent for the targeting of Iranians in the U.S., as well as other Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim minority communities.
The pattern is familiar. Each time the U.S. has entered into a military conflict in the region ― whether in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan ― those marginalized communities in the U.S. suffer the consequences, including a crackdown on their civil rights.
Advertisement
“If we can’t count even on our local leadership to protect us as Americans, we are barrelling down a very dangerous path and our civil liberties really are threatened right now. This is not a joke,” said Mana Mostatabi, the communications director at the National Iranian American Council, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for Iranian Americans.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has since opened an investigation into the treatment of Iranian Americans at U.S. ports of entry in response to a complaint from NIAC. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is also exploring legal action to find whether the federal government sent any national directive to local authorities in Blaine.
“We want to send a strong message to the Trump administration that behavior like this won’t be tolerated,” said Masih Fouladi, the executive director of CAIR Washington.
Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. airstrike on Baghdad International Airport last week. Wana News Agency / Reuters
Just days prior to the reports from the U.S.-Canada border, law enforcement across the U.S., including in Los Angeles, home to the world’s largest Iranian population outside of Iran, called on residents to report suspicious activity ― a message that critics said only promotes discriminatory profiling and surveillance of already vulnerable communities.
Advertisement
“What that does do is [scare] Iranian-Americans. It’s sowing fears and really opening up an already vulnerable community to additional abuse,” Mostatabi added.
Abed Ayoub, the legal and policy director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, warned of increased harassment and discriminatory policies by federal agencies, pointing to the precedent set by past U.S. administrations.
In 1979, former President Jimmy Carter ordered the deportation of undocumented Iranian students during the diplomatic standoff between the United States and Iran at the time. President George W. Bush created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which targeted foreign nationals from 25 countries in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq War. More recently, Trump signed the 2017 executive order that prevents individuals from several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, from entering the United States.
“I do anticipate that this will get worse because of history,” said Ayoub, who added that concerns now are very similar to those in the past, when Iranians, Muslims, Arabs and South Asians were also targeted by discriminatory policies and practices. Ayoub’s organization has been receiving calls from members of the Shia Muslim community who are spending their winter breaks on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq and Iran and are concerned about the possibility of harassment and detention upon their return to the United States.
“When you begin to explicitly target based on national origin and profile based on religion, it is bad precedent and will lead to more harsh programs put in place,” Ayoub told HuffPost. “Nothing about profiling and nothing about these practices makes our country safer.”
Advertisement
“I do anticipate that this will get worse because of history.” - Abed Ayoub, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Crystal, a 24-year-old Iranian American medical student, was traveling back to the United States with her brother and her parents after a family vacation in Vancouver when she and her family were detained for more than 11 hours. Like Heidi, the family was forced to hand over passports and asked the same series of intrusive questions about their occupations, political views and travel.
“What happened was real. They can’t say I wasn’t there for 11 hours on the hard concrete floor. That was real. It happened,” Crystal said on a call to reporters. HuffPost is withholding her last name out of concern for retaliation from the U.S. government.
While detained, Crystal’s father pleaded for the release of his children, who are American-born citizens, but an official refused. Crystal also missed a connecting flight while sitting in a room with at least 60 other Iranians.
“I feel betrayed because honestly, I’ve always considered myself an American. In fact, I consider myself more American than Iranian. But I never felt less American than I did [that day],” Crystal said.
Advertisement
“Even though I was born here, I’m a citizen here, I pay taxes here, I work here, I go to school here, in the end, it didn’t mean anything to them. They neglected my rights,” said Crystal. “It doesn’t even matter if you’re a citizen or not, if you have associations with being Iranian, apparently that’s suspicious.”
It wasn’t until 1:30 a.m. that Crystal and her family were permitted to reenter the United States, without any formal explanation for their detention.
Meanwhile, Heidi and her girlfriend were not released until 4:45 a.m. on Sunday morning. When she received notice that she was free to leave, she could not stop crying ― overwhelmed with exhaustion, relief and anger. She immediately called her mother back in Vancouver and explained what had occurred.
“I wish you guys had given birth to us any other place other than Iran,” she told her.
In the aftermath of it all, Heidi could not help but reflect on a Persian proverb: “When there is a fire, wet and dry wood all burn together.” She’s worried about what will come next.
“We left Iran because we couldn’t be free and speak our mind. But now I am afraid to give you my name because of the consequence,” said Heidi. “After this, anything can be expected [from this administration]. Once they take away the rights of one group, the rest of us are not going to be safe.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--Laura Ingraham Smears Media As ‘Iran’s American Propagandists’

Laura Ingraham on Tuesday used Iran ’ s missile strike on U.S. forces to launch an incendiary attack one of her longtime targets : the American media .
( See the clip above . )
The headline for the Fox News host ’ s segment was “ Iran ’ s American Propagandists , ” accompanied by logos of CNN , MSNBC and major broadcast networks .
Ingraham accused them of “ portraying Donald Trump as a tyrant ” while cutting Iran slack .
Tensions between Iran and the United States are dangerously high .
The Trump administration violated the nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week assassinated one of the country ’ s most powerful officials , Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
On Tuesday , Iran retaliated by launching missiles at two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq , saying it does “ not seek escalation of war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
” Ingraham said she believes that U.S. coverage of the conflict has been sympathetic to the Iranians because the mainstream media consider an enemy of Trump to be a friend of theirs .
“ If they ’ re loathe to give President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why are they so willing to afford Iran that luxury ?
” she asked after showing clips of Trump ranting about “ fake news.
” Ingraham began her remarks with generic anti-media broadsides .
She said reporters pose “ as the gatekeepers of democracy , ” but Trump “ exposes them as left-wing pundits masquerading as reporters.
” “ You know what ’ s really increased hostility toward journalists , ” she continued , “ is that Americans are sick and tired of only getting their news from people who hate the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own biases .
”

Laura Ingraham on Tuesday used Iran’s missile strike on U.S. forces to launch an incendiary attack one of her longtime targets: the American media. (See the clip above.)
The headline for the Fox News host’s segment was “Iran’s American Propagandists,” accompanied by logos of CNN, MSNBC and major broadcast networks. Ingraham accused them of “portraying Donald Trump as a tyrant” while cutting Iran slack.
Advertisement
Tensions between Iran and the United States are dangerously high. The Trump administration violated the nuclear deal with Iran in 2018, and last week assassinated one of the country’s most powerful officials, Gen. Qassem Soleimani. On Tuesday, Iran retaliated by launching missiles at two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, saying it does “not seek escalation of war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Ingraham said she believes that U.S. coverage of the conflict has been sympathetic to the Iranians because the mainstream media consider an enemy of Trump to be a friend of theirs.
“If they’re loathe to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt, why are they so willing to afford Iran that luxury?” she asked after showing clips of Trump ranting about “fake news.”
Ingraham began her remarks with generic anti-media broadsides. She said reporters pose “as the gatekeepers of democracy,” but Trump “exposes them as left-wing pundits masquerading as reporters.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-08--War With Iran Is Nothing To Worry About, Men Who Launched Iraq War Promise

Over the past week , the American people have been glued to cable news broadcasts with blaring red chyrons warning of imminent military conflict in the Middle East .
Trump administration officials have offered varying rationales for military action , none of them particularly credible .
The human cost of this war , if it happens , could be devastating — which has put the international community and millions of Americans on edge .
But people like Paul Wolfowitz and Ari Fleischer , wielding their large media megaphones , have assured the nation that everything will be fine — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country we might attack will “ celebrate ” our efforts .
It ’ s not 2003 , but it sure feels like it .
In a sane and just society , the architects of the nearly 17-year-old war in Iraq — which is still ongoing and has left an estimated half-million people dead — would face war crimes charges and those who cheered them on would be thoroughly discredited .
Instead , they are the “ experts ” praising President Donald Trump ’ s decision to assassinate top Iranian military commander Gen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the way forward with Iran .
Iraqis “ are going to welcome us as liberators , ” Wolfowitz predicted ahead of the invasion .
“ The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants — and they have many — governing them is just nonsense , ” he said at the time .
2020 : Wolfowitz told Fox News that “ a lot of people were saying we were being too mild ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think in hindsight we did it about right .
And I think this was the time to do something rapid and bold , ” he said of the Soleimani assassination .
If Iran responds violently , that action might turn out to be part of a plan that Soleimani had cooked up before he was killed , Wolfowitz said in an effort to obscure U.S. responsibility for escalating violence .
“ It ’ s not like they ’ re necessarily responding to us , ” he said .
2020 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheer the death of Soleimani like they did after the U.S. military killed Osama bin Laden , Fleischer said on Fox News .
It is “ entirely possible ” that the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official could serve as a “ catalyst ” inside Iran , where people would “ celebrate this killing of Soleimani and put pressure on the Iranian government to stop its terrorism , to stop supporting all the various terrorist movements it has around the world , ” he said .
2003 : Yoo , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ’ s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003 , is best known for drafting the legal justification for torturing people suspected of having ties to terrorist groups .
He also wrote a memo two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks stating that Bush could use military force against groups and individuals even if it was “ difficult to establish … that [ they ] have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States.
” 2020 : People who criticize the legality of Trump killing the top military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not currently at war with “ have the law wrong , ” Yoo wrote in National Review .
According to Yoo , the strike was legal because of a vaguely drafted war authorization passed by Congress in 2001 to go after the Sept. 11 plotters and another in 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein .
Even if those authorizations had been repealed , the Constitution allows the president to use force to prevent a future attack , Yoo continued , apparently leaning on the “ razor thin ” evidence suggesting Soleimani was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then-Democratic Sen. Lieberman was one of the lawmakers who voted to authorize the Iraq War and who steadfastly defended his position long after it became clear that the invasion was a mistake .
“ I think the world is a lot better off , notwithstanding all the problems in Iraq , ” Lieberman told MSNBC in 2015 after the Islamic State took control of parts of that country .
“ I think the world is better off and the region is better off and the people of Iraq are better off.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go over to that part of the world , I ’ m afraid , and burst that bubble , ” Friedman told Rose .
“ We needed to go over there basically and take out a very big stick , right in the heart of that world , and burst that bubble .
And there was only one way to do it .
... What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house , from Basra to Baghdad , and basically saying , ‘ Which part of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Well , suck on this .
’ ”

Left to right: Tom Friedman, Stephen Hadley, Marc Thiessen, Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and Paul Wolfowitz. Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: Getty
Over the past week, the American people have been glued to cable news broadcasts with blaring red chyrons warning of imminent military conflict in the Middle East. Trump administration officials have offered varying rationales for military action, none of them particularly credible. The human cost of this war, if it happens, could be devastating — which has put the international community and millions of Americans on edge. But people like Paul Wolfowitz and Ari Fleischer, wielding their large media megaphones, have assured the nation that everything will be fine — that it’s even possible people in the country we might attack will “celebrate” our efforts.
It’s not 2003, but it sure feels like it. In a sane and just society, the architects of the nearly 17-year-old war in Iraq — which is still ongoing and has left an estimated half-million people dead — would face war crimes charges and those who cheered them on would be thoroughly discredited. Instead, they are the “experts” praising President Donald Trump’s decision to assassinate top Iranian military commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani and offering the public insight on the way forward with Iran.
Advertisement
Here is an incomplete list of people who were horribly wrong about Iraq but are convinced they are right about Iran:
Bush Administration Officials
Paul Wolfowitz
2003: As deputy secretary of defense, Wolfowitz was one of the architects of the Iraq War. “If Rumsfeld is the face, mouth and strong right arm of the war in Iraq, Wolfowitz — the intellectual godfather of the war — is its heart and soul,” CNN reporter Mark Thompson wrote in December 2003, referring to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Iraqis “are going to welcome us as liberators,” Wolfowitz predicted ahead of the invasion. “The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants — and they have many — governing them is just nonsense,” he said at the time.
2020: Wolfowitz told Fox News that “a lot of people were saying we were being too mild” by not using military force against Iran sooner. “I think in hindsight we did it about right. And I think this was the time to do something rapid and bold,” he said of the Soleimani assassination. If Iran responds violently, that action might turn out to be part of a plan that Soleimani had cooked up before he was killed, Wolfowitz said in an effort to obscure U.S. responsibility for escalating violence. “It’s not like they’re necessarily responding to us,” he said.
Advertisement
The key priority, according to Wolfowitz, should be keeping U.S. troops in Iraq — even though members of Iraq’s parliament and the outgoing prime minister have called on American forces to leave. “It would be an enormous victory for Iran if they were able to see us leave,” Wolfowitz said.
Karl Rove
2003: As President George W. Bush’s senior adviser, Rove helped scare the public into supporting a preemptive war against Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. He advised the Republican Party to politicize the war and try to convince people that Republicans were better than Democrats at protecting America, Newsweek reported.
2020: Rove blasted Democrats for not being enthusiastic enough about military conflict with Iran.
“They’ve gotta turn this into a complete political tribal moment and respond negatively and make the entire Democratic Party look weak,” Rove said on Fox News. “The Democrats are like San Francisco Democrats all over again in the mid-1980s. ‘Oh, we’re weak, we’re wringing our hands. Oh, terrible, woe is me, the president is taking actions that could put us at risk.’”
Ari Fleischer
2003: As Bush’s press secretary, Fleischer played a key role in selling the Iraq War. Now out of government, he commemorates the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks each year with long Twitter threads detailing what it was like behind the scenes the day the Twin Towers fell.
2020: He hopes Americans will come together and cheer the death of Soleimani like they did after the U.S. military killed Osama bin Laden, Fleischer said on Fox News. It is “entirely possible” that the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official could serve as a “catalyst” inside Iran, where people would “celebrate this killing of Soleimani and put pressure on the Iranian government to stop its terrorism, to stop supporting all the various terrorist movements it has around the world,” he said.
Advertisement
Marc Thiessen
2003: Thiessen was the chief speechwriter for Rumsfeld, who knew the Bush administration’s case for war wasn’t backed by intelligence but plowed ahead with invasion nonetheless. Thiessen went on to write a book defending the CIA’s torture program as necessary to save American lives ― a claim that contradicts the spy agency’s own internal memos, which document how torture failed to provide useful intelligence.
2020: Now a columnist for The Washington Post, Thiessen argued that Trump had demonstrated “enormous restraint” but ultimately had to enforce a red line and kill Soleimani so that Iran would know Trump wasn’t weak. Thiessen contended that the assassination was “defensive, preemptive, and lawful,” an assertion based on the Trump administration’s claim that intelligence suggested Soleimani was plotting an imminent attack on U.S. targets. That intelligence was “razor thin,” U.S. officials told New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.
Stephen Hadley
2003: As Bush’s deputy national security adviser, Hadley failed to remove references to a false intelligence report about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions from Bush’s State of the Union speech, despite receiving two memos and a phone call from then-CIA Director George Tenet objecting to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Africa to build nuclear weapons. Hadley was promoted to national security adviser in 2005.
2020: Killing Soleimani “was a bold move with potentially far-reaching consequences. It unquestionably heightens the risk of war; it could also open the door to diplomacy,” Hadley wrote in The Washington Post. The Post did not mention that Hadley is a director at Raytheon, the defense contractor that built a targeting system used in the type of drone that killed Soleimani, as writer Adam Johnson noted on Twitter.
John Yoo
2003: Yoo, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003, is best known for drafting the legal justification for torturing people suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. He also wrote a memo two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks stating that Bush could use military force against groups and individuals even if it was “difficult to establish … that [they] have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States.”
Advertisement
2020: People who criticize the legality of Trump killing the top military commander of a country that the U.S. is not currently at war with “have the law wrong,” Yoo wrote in National Review. According to Yoo, the strike was legal because of a vaguely drafted war authorization passed by Congress in 2001 to go after the Sept. 11 plotters and another in 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein. Even if those authorizations had been repealed, the Constitution allows the president to use force to prevent a future attack, Yoo continued, apparently leaning on the “razor thin” evidence suggesting Soleimani was planning an imminent attack.
War Cheerleaders
Ken Pollack
2003: Pollack, a former CIA analyst who worked at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, helped convince liberals to support the war. In September 2002 he published a book called “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” It was “surely the most influential book of this season” and “provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush,” then-New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in a piece titled “The I-Can’t-Believe-I’m-a-Hawk Club.”
In 2007, Matthew Yglesias, then a blogger for The Atlantic, wrote of the by-then-bitter feeling of having read Pollack’s book and become “convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn’t actually have).”
2020: Pollack told New York Times reporters that assassinating Soleimani means that “Iraqi politicians will be less fearful of Iran and more willing to listen to the Americans.” The Iranians in Iraq, Pollack said, will be unsure of what to do next without their leader.
Pollack’s predictions didn’t hold up for long. Two days after the Times published its story, Iraq’s parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the country. The resolution was backed by Shiite lawmakers while several Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers boycotted the parliamentary meeting. Two days after the vote, Iran launched missiles at bases in Iraq that house U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the Soleimani strike.
Advertisement
Joe Lieberman
2003: Then-Democratic Sen. Lieberman was one of the lawmakers who voted to authorize the Iraq War and who steadfastly defended his position long after it became clear that the invasion was a mistake. “I think the world is a lot better off, notwithstanding all the problems in Iraq,” Lieberman told MSNBC in 2015 after the Islamic State took control of parts of that country. “I think the world is better off and the region is better off and the people of Iraq are better off.”
2020: Assassinating Soleimani was “bold and unconventional,” Lieberman wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing Democrats for not sufficiently praising the move. Killing Soleimani won’t lead to more war, Lieberman argued. On the contrary, he wrote, it will show Iranian leaders (and also North Korea’s Kim Jong Un) “our willingness to kill” and give them “much to fear.”
Barry McCaffrey
2003: McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general and drug czar in the Clinton administration, was part of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that parroted Bush administration talking points and encouraged the public to support regime change. Days before the invasion, NBC’s Tom Brokaw asked him if he had any concerns about going to war. “Well, I don’t think I have any real serious ones,” McCaffrey said.
2020: “The days ahead are going to be perilous because our only good response at this point is an overwhelming dominance of U.S. air and naval power that can be employed against the Iranian homeland,” McCaffrey said on MSNBC after the Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. bases in Iraq. “When that goes, we’re really into high-intensity warfare with the Iranians.”
Tom Friedman
2003: The Iraq War was “unquestionably worth doing,” Friedman, a New York Times columnist, told talk show host Charlie Rose in a May 2003 interview. According to Friedman, there was a “terrorism bubble” in the 1990s that led to the Sept. 11 attacks. Saddam Hussein was not involved in those attacks, but that appears to have been irrelevant to Friedman.
Advertisement
“What we needed to do was to go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble,” Friedman told Rose. “We needed to go over there basically and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it. ... What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, ‘Which part of this sentence don’t you understand? ... Well, suck on this.’”
2020: “One day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran” for killing Soleimani, Friedman predicted in a New York Times column. He went on to admit that he had no idea what would happen next in the Middle East, but what he did know was that Mother Nature would punish the region with climate change for “celebrating self-promoting military frauds.”
Bret Stephens
2003: As editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, Stephens named Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz the newspaper’s 2003 “Man of the [Jewish] Year” for authoring the “doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin U.S. action against other rogue states.” In 2008, Stephens declared victory in Iraq and bragged about winning a $100 bet with political scientist Francis Fukuyama over whether Iraq would be a “mess” five years after the invasion.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--‘Ignorant A**hole’: GOP Rep. Doug Collins Slammed For Saying Democrats Love Terrorists

Doug Collins says Democrats are `` in love with terrorists , ” and that “ we see that they mourn @ @ @ @ @ our Gold-Star families.
” Despicable , Doug .
Where do y ’ all even come @ @ @ @ @ They aren ’ t even good lies .
They ’ re stupid .
pic.twitter.com/YlCeUsoxB5

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) is under fire after claiming that Democrats “are in love with terrorists” for failing to support President Donald Trump ’s military escalation with Iran .
Speaking to Fox Business host Lou Dobbs on Wednesday night, Collins also said Democrats were mourning for Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated last week in a U.S. drone strike, more than they mourn for Gold Star families. Those are the families of U.S. service members killed in the line of duty.