thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--GOP Senators Refuse To Defund Lawsuit Threatening Obamacare

The Senate on Thursday rejected a bill that would restrict the Trump administration from funding a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act that is scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court just days after the Nov. 3 election .
The 51-43 vote , which was forced in a rare parliamentary maneuver by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( N.Y. ) , is part of an effort by Democrats aiming to show that Republican claims about supporting protections for preexisting conditions ring hollow .
The measure needed 60 votes to advance .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantees of coverage for people with preexisting conditions .
Most recently , he ordered the Justice Department to support a lawsuit advanced by Republican governors seeking to strike down the law in its entirety ― including its coverage guarantees for patients with preexisting health conditions and health insurance for millions of Americans .
Despite this , Trump claimed in his August speech at the Republican National Convention that “ we will always and very strongly protect patients with preexisting conditions.
” Legal experts view the underpinnings of the lawsuit dubiously , but its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump has nominated conservative Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
Democrats argue Barrett , who has argued against Obamacare in the past , is part of a Republican plan to kill protections for people with preexisting conditions .
Republican senators facing reelection this fall have tried to reassure voters that they support those protections which , like Obamacare , are broadly popular , even though they ’ ve voted in the past to repeal the law .
Some have even tried to downplay the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The experts are saying it ’ s highly unlikely they ’ ll overturn the ACA , ” Sen. Steve Daines ( R-Mont . )
said in a debate earlier this week , But Daines , who is facing a strong challenge from Montana Gov .
Steve Bullock ( D ) , voted on Thursday against cutting off DOJ ’ s support for the anti-Obamacare lawsuit .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( Ky. ) moved to protect GOP senators from Schumer ’ s gambit on Wednesday by setting up a competing vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say would maintain coverage for preexisting conditions in case the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare .
That bill , however , would not provide coverage of essential benefits and other protections found under the ACA .
“ They all say , ‘ Oh , yeah , I ’ m for protecting preexisting conditions.
’ They ’ ll have a chance to show it ... .
let ’ s see what they do , ” Schumer told MSNBC before the vote on his bill , which he secured in a surprise move that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority leader .
“ These senators are worse off today no matter how they voted because they flip-flopped .
They were for the lawsuit and now three weeks before the election they try to say they ’ re for it , ” he said at a press conference .
The effort to jam Republicans with an embarrassing vote on health care ahead of the election is only the latest among Democratic hardball tactics in the fight over Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee .
Senate Democrats know they can ’ t stop Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain united behind her , but they ’ re doing what little they can procedurally to delay it as much as possible and punish GOP senators for advancing a nominee this close to the election .
Schumer has blocked Senate committees from meeting as scheduled and delayed passage of a short-term bill funding the government .
Democrats are also expected to keep the Senate in session next week in hopes of keeping vulnerable Republicans off the campaign trail .
McConnell , meanwhile , has responded by scheduling more votes on confirming judicial nominees @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Senate on Thursday rejected a bill that would restrict the Trump administration from funding a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act that is scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court just days after the Nov. 3 election.
The 51-43 vote, which was forced in a rare parliamentary maneuver by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), is part of an effort by Democrats aiming to show that Republican claims about supporting protections for preexisting conditions ring hollow. The measure needed 60 votes to advance.
Advertisement
Several vulnerable GOP senators joined Democrats in voting to advance the bill, including Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Martha McSally of Arizona.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to take away Obamacare’s guarantees of coverage for people with preexisting conditions. Most recently, he ordered the Justice Department to support a lawsuit advanced by Republican governors seeking to strike down the law in its entirety ― including its coverage guarantees for patients with preexisting health conditions and health insurance for millions of Americans.
Despite this, Trump claimed in his August speech at the Republican National Convention that “we will always and very strongly protect patients with preexisting conditions.”
Legal experts view the underpinnings of the lawsuit dubiously, but its outcome is a lot more uncertain now that Trump has nominated conservative Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Democrats argue Barrett, who has argued against Obamacare in the past, is part of a Republican plan to kill protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Advertisement
Republican senators facing reelection this fall have tried to reassure voters that they support those protections which, like Obamacare, are broadly popular, even though they’ve voted in the past to repeal the law. Some have even tried to downplay the threat to Obamacare in the courts.
“The experts are saying it’s highly unlikely they’ll overturn the ACA,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said in a debate earlier this week, But Daines, who is facing a strong challenge from Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), voted on Thursday against cutting off DOJ’s support for the anti-Obamacare lawsuit.
Two other Republicans facing reelection joined Daines in voting to maintain DOJ support for the lawsuit: David Perdue of Georgia and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) moved to protect GOP senators from Schumer’s gambit on Wednesday by setting up a competing vote on a bill offered by Tillis that they say would maintain coverage for preexisting conditions in case the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare. That bill, however, would not provide coverage of essential benefits and other protections found under the ACA.
Democrats opposed Tillis’ bill, dismissing it as a show vote designed by McConnell to protect Republicans facing reelection.
Advertisement
“They all say, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m for protecting preexisting conditions.’ They’ll have a chance to show it.... let’s see what they do,” Schumer told MSNBC before the vote on his bill, which he secured in a surprise move that is usually only employed by the Senate majority leader.
Schumer accused Republicans who crossed party lines to support advancing his bill on Thursday of doing so merely out political expediency.
“These senators are worse off today no matter how they voted because they flip-flopped. They were for the lawsuit and now three weeks before the election they try to say they’re for it,” he said at a press conference.
The effort to jam Republicans with an embarrassing vote on health care ahead of the election is only the latest among Democratic hardball tactics in the fight over Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Senate Democrats know they can’t stop Barrett’s confirmation as long as Republicans remain united behind her, but they’re doing what little they can procedurally to delay it as much as possible and punish GOP senators for advancing a nominee this close to the election.
Schumer has blocked Senate committees from meeting as scheduled and delayed passage of a short-term bill funding the government. Democrats are also expected to keep the Senate in session next week in hopes of keeping vulnerable Republicans off the campaign trail. McConnell, meanwhile, has responded by scheduling more votes on confirming judicial nominees.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Chris Wallace Blames Trump For Debate Chaos: He Bears 'Primary Responsibility'

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Thursday placed the blame largely on President Donald Trump for the breakdown of the first presidential debate this week .
Wallace , the moderator of Tuesday ’ s faceoff between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , told The New York Times Wednesday that the president ’ s behavior “ certainly didn ’ t help , ” but he did not apportion blame .
But Wallace dove deeper in an interview Thursday with his Fox News colleague , Bill Hemmer .
He said that initially , when Trump started engaging Biden , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a real debate here.
” But it soon became clear to him that this was something different .
“ The president was determined to try to butt in and throw Joe Biden off , ” he said , citing a Fox analysis that indicated Trump interrupted him and Biden a total of 145 times .
He added that Biden was partly culpable but that Trump “ bears the primary responsibility for what happened.
” Trump repeatedly lied , interrupted and talked over both Biden and Wallace throughout the 90-minute debacle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and called him a “ clown.
” Wallace also expressed deep frustration about the hundreds of hours of work preparing questions intended to provoke a serious , substantive exchange of views on key issues between the two candidates .
“ I feel like I had gotten together all of the ingredients , ” he said .
“ I had baked this beautiful , delicious cake , and then frankly , the president put his foot in it.
” He added : “ It was frustrating for me because I tried hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more frustrating and more importantly for the American people because they didn ’ t get the debate they wanted that they deserved.
” Asked if he would go back and rewatch the debate , Wallace said , “ Oh , God , no.
” The Commission on Presidential Debates vowed to make format changes for the remaining debates following Tuesday ’ s widely criticized event .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Thursday placed the blame largely on President Donald Trump for the breakdown of the first presidential debate this week.
Wallace, the moderator of Tuesday’s faceoff between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, told The New York Times Wednesday that the president’s behavior “certainly didn’t help,” but he did not apportion blame.
Advertisement
But Wallace dove deeper in an interview Thursday with his Fox News colleague, Bill Hemmer. He said that initially, when Trump started engaging Biden, he thought, “We’re going to have a real debate here.” But it soon became clear to him that this was something different.
“The president was determined to try to butt in and throw Joe Biden off,” he said, citing a Fox analysis that indicated Trump interrupted him and Biden a total of 145 times.
He added that Biden was partly culpable but that Trump “bears the primary responsibility for what happened.”
Trump repeatedly lied, interrupted and talked over both Biden and Wallace throughout the 90-minute debacle. Biden told him to “shut up” and called him a “clown.”
Advertisement
Wallace also expressed deep frustration about the hundreds of hours of work preparing questions intended to provoke a serious, substantive exchange of views on key issues between the two candidates.
“I feel like I had gotten together all of the ingredients,” he said. “I had baked this beautiful, delicious cake, and then frankly, the president put his foot in it.”
He added: “It was frustrating for me because I tried hard to prepare for a serious debate, much more frustrating and more importantly for the American people because they didn’t get the debate they wanted that they deserved.”
Asked if he would go back and rewatch the debate, Wallace said, “Oh, God, no.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates vowed to make format changes for the remaining debates following Tuesday’s widely criticized event.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Joe Biden Poised To Launch In-Person Canvassing In Key States

NEW YORK ( AP ) — After months of avoiding direct contact with voters because of the pandemic , Joe Biden ’ s campaign is about to launch in-person canvassing efforts across several battleground states .
The decision comes amid growing concern from Democratic officials on the ground in key states who fear that Biden has been giving a significant advantage to President Donald Trump and his Republican allies , who have been aggressively courting voters at their doorsteps for months .
The change also reflects a sense of rising urgency as polls tighten in key states just a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , which detailed the new effort to The Associated Press , insists that its existing phone and online voter-outreach operation is effective .
The new plans will build upon what ’ s already in place , not replace it .
“ Our voter contact operation is the most innovative and technologically advanced of any presidential campaign in history , and it has been thriving in this unprecedented environment , ” Biden campaign manager Jenn O ’ Malley Dillon said .
“ We ’ re now expanding on our strategy in a targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first and foremost and helps us mobilize voters who are harder to reach by phone now that we ’ re in the final stretch — and now that Americans are fully dialed-in and ready to make their voices heard.
” Biden this weekend will dispatch several hundred newly trained volunteers to engage voters across Nevada , Michigan , New Hampshire and Pennsylvania .
The effort , focusing on voters who are considered difficult to reach by phone , is expected to spread into several more battleground states and include many more volunteers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s just harder and harder to get people on the phone , ” said Patrick Sullivan , a Biden volunteer who lives in suburban Harrisburg , Pennsylvania .
“ So being able to go to someone ’ s door and talk to them makes a big difference.
” There is no doubt that voters are focused on the 2020 election , yet lingering questions remain about the commitment of Biden supporters in particular to actually vote .
To defeat Trump , Democrats will need strong turnout from every piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically don ’ t vote in large numbers , such as younger Americans and African Americans .
“ It is possible that without the face-to-face-engagement , you may have a few voters who fall off , ” said Mairi Luce , an attorney and a Biden volunteer who lives in Philadelphia .
“ But passions run high on both sides , and a lot of people are motivated to vote .
I don ’ t think there are a lot of undecided voters out there.
” Ahead of the voter outreach expansion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 109 supply centers across 17 battleground states to help distribute campaign literature , lawn signs and other materials for the canvassers .
Biden volunteers in Pennsylvania and Nevada began dropping campaign literature at voters ’ homes just last weekend , although they were instructed to avoid any direct conversations .
Those conversations will begin this weekend following a series of training sessions designed to ensure Biden ’ s team can engage with people at doorsteps as safely as possible .
All volunteers involved will be provided personal protective equipment , including masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The campaign also plans to send batches of text messages telling voters to expect a knock at their door before volunteers enter a neighborhood .
Biden ’ s team is particularly focused on ensuring his supporters have updated information about how and where to vote as early as possible .
Literature used in Pennsylvania in recent days , for example , encourages people to make a specific plan to vote — either by mail , in person early voting or in person on Election Day .
Even before Biden executes his new plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early voting prodding .
For example , registered Democrats have been issued far more mail and absentee ballots than Republicans in Florida , Iowa and Pennsylvania , according to data collected by The Associated Press .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW YORK (AP) — After months of avoiding direct contact with voters because of the pandemic, Joe Biden’s campaign is about to launch in-person canvassing efforts across several battleground states.
The decision comes amid growing concern from Democratic officials on the ground in key states who fear that Biden has been giving a significant advantage to President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, who have been aggressively courting voters at their doorsteps for months. The change also reflects a sense of rising urgency as polls tighten in key states just a month before Election Day.
Advertisement
Biden’s campaign, which detailed the new effort to The Associated Press, insists that its existing phone and online voter-outreach operation is effective. The new plans will build upon what’s already in place, not replace it.
“Our voter contact operation is the most innovative and technologically advanced of any presidential campaign in history, and it has been thriving in this unprecedented environment,” Biden campaign manager Jenn O’Malley Dillon said.
“We’re now expanding on our strategy in a targeted way that puts the safety of communities first and foremost and helps us mobilize voters who are harder to reach by phone now that we’re in the final stretch — and now that Americans are fully dialed-in and ready to make their voices heard.”
Biden this weekend will dispatch several hundred newly trained volunteers to engage voters across Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. The effort, focusing on voters who are considered difficult to reach by phone, is expected to spread into several more battleground states and include many more volunteers in the next few days and weeks.
Advertisement
Campaign officials and volunteers acknowledge their virtual-contact strategy had holes they’re hoping to fill with in-person conversations.
“It’s just harder and harder to get people on the phone,” said Patrick Sullivan, a Biden volunteer who lives in suburban Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “So being able to go to someone’s door and talk to them makes a big difference.”
There is no doubt that voters are focused on the 2020 election, yet lingering questions remain about the commitment of Biden supporters in particular to actually vote. To defeat Trump, Democrats will need strong turnout from every piece of his broad coalition, including groups that typically don’t vote in large numbers, such as younger Americans and African Americans.
And with the pandemic still raging, voters in 2020 face unprecedented challenges in getting to the polls.
“It is possible that without the face-to-face-engagement, you may have a few voters who fall off,” said Mairi Luce, an attorney and a Biden volunteer who lives in Philadelphia. “But passions run high on both sides, and a lot of people are motivated to vote. I don’t think there are a lot of undecided voters out there.”
Advertisement
Ahead of the voter outreach expansion, Biden’s campaign has already opened 109 supply centers across 17 battleground states to help distribute campaign literature, lawn signs and other materials for the canvassers.
Biden volunteers in Pennsylvania and Nevada began dropping campaign literature at voters’ homes just last weekend, although they were instructed to avoid any direct conversations. Those conversations will begin this weekend following a series of training sessions designed to ensure Biden’s team can engage with people at doorsteps as safely as possible.
All volunteers involved will be provided personal protective equipment, including masks, and will have their temperatures checked. The campaign also plans to send batches of text messages telling voters to expect a knock at their door before volunteers enter a neighborhood.
Biden’s team is particularly focused on ensuring his supporters have updated information about how and where to vote as early as possible. Literature used in Pennsylvania in recent days, for example, encourages people to make a specific plan to vote — either by mail, in person early voting or in person on Election Day.
Even before Biden executes his new plan, Democrats are leading Republicans in some early voting prodding. For example, registered Democrats have been issued far more mail and absentee ballots than Republicans in Florida, Iowa and Pennsylvania, according to data collected by The Associated Press.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Muslims Are Least Likely Faith Group To Back Trump, But That Support Is Rising, Poll Finds

Muslims are the least likely faith group in the U.S. to support President Donald Trump in the 2020 election , according to a new report by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding .
That ’ s not surprising , considering his pledges and actions that have targeted Muslims in the U.S. and abroad .
But another survey finding is more jarring : the proportion of Muslims who back Trump has gone up since 2016 .
Support for Trump ’ s reelection climbed 10 percentage points from 2016 to 2020 , up from 4 % to 14 % , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released Thursday .
That increase came mostly from white Muslims , 31 % of whom back the president .
Only 8 % of Black and Arab Muslims and 6 % of Asian Muslims said they supported Trump .
With the presidential election just weeks away , the report ― the fifth of its kind from the organization ― offers crucial insights into voting trends of Muslim Americans , a community that experts say does not operate as a voting bloc due to being the most racially diverse faith group in the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. population , at 3 million people , Muslim civic engagement has skyrocketed over the last few years and grabbed the attention of presidential candidates .
During the same debate , Trump refused to condemn white supremacists .
He ’ s also amplified anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail , attacked the first two Muslim congresswomen and , most notably , issued a travel ban that targets citizens from several Muslim-majority countries .
But he still has a small band of Muslim American supporters .
The study found that the small proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aligned with non-Muslim Trump supporters , prioritizing the economy as a top issue .
Both Muslim and non-Muslim Trump supporters opposed building coalitions with the Black Lives Matter movement .
( The respondents who described themselves as white Muslims were asked by the questioner to self-identify . )
Looking at racial breakdowns , 50 % of white Muslims approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president , on par with 48 % of white Americans in the general public .
Su ’ ad Abdul Khabeer , the senior editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that amplifies the voices of Black Muslims , noted that Muslims who align with Trump are often “ recipients of privilege and power ” and haven ’ t dealt with the aftermath of some of Trump ’ s racist or Islamophobic rhetoric .
Those Muslims who may not have been victims of explicit Islamophobia or racism are more able to compartmentalize different aspects of their identities , said Kameelah Mu ’ Min Rashad , the founder and president of the Muslim Wellness Foundation .
Though there is a perception that religious people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the political activity of white evangelicals ― the political beliefs of most Muslim Americans show that isn ’ t always the case .
“ The idea that people vote for Trump because they ’ re so religious is not actually true .
There are religious people on both sides , ” Mogahed said .
“ Social conservatism and religiosity did not appear to be as strong of a factor as we might expect.
” The numbers provided an interesting insight into the political leanings of Muslim Americans , who have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
According to research released in 2018 , more than 66 % of American Muslims identified with Democrats , compared with only 13 % who identified as Republicans .
However , both groups were critical of the way their own parties treated their communities .
The report also noted that , despite the increased civic participation , the number of Muslims registered to vote remains lower than for other faith groups .
A quarter of Muslims in America are not eligible to vote , mostly due to citizenship ― a number higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March , nearly a third of Muslims ( 28 % ) were still undecided on who they prefer as their next president .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Muslims are the least likely faith group in the U.S. to support President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, according to a new report by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. That’s not surprising, considering his pledges and actions that have targeted Muslims in the U.S. and abroad. But another survey finding is more jarring: the proportion of Muslims who back Trump has gone up since 2016.
Support for Trump’s reelection climbed 10 percentage points from 2016 to 2020, up from 4% to 14%, among Muslim Americans, according to the survey released Thursday. That increase came mostly from white Muslims, 31% of whom back the president. Only 8% of Black and Arab Muslims and 6% of Asian Muslims said they supported Trump.
Advertisement
That’s not to say Trump has many Muslim backers. The study found that Muslim Americans overwhelmingly prefer a Democrat for president: at 67% in 2016 and at 51% for the 2020 election.
With the presidential election just weeks away, the report ― the fifth of its kind from the organization ― offers crucial insights into voting trends of Muslim Americans, a community that experts say does not operate as a voting bloc due to being the most racially diverse faith group in the country. Despite making up only 1% of the U.S. population, at 3 million people, Muslim civic engagement has skyrocketed over the last few years and grabbed the attention of presidential candidates.
“The steady growth is really a testimony to the hard work that’s from so many in Muslim civil society who have focused on improving Muslim civic engagement,” said Dalia Mogahed, ISPU’s director of research.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden used the word “inshallah,” an Arabic term that translates to “God willing,” during the first presidential debate Tuesday, and Muslims and Arabic speakers took notice.
Advertisement
During the same debate, Trump refused to condemn white supremacists. He’s also amplified anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail, attacked the first two Muslim congresswomen and, most notably, issued a travel ban that targets citizens from several Muslim-majority countries.
But he still has a small band of Muslim American supporters. The study found that the small proportion of Muslims who support Trump was largely aligned with non-Muslim Trump supporters, prioritizing the economy as a top issue. Both Muslim and non-Muslim Trump supporters opposed building coalitions with the Black Lives Matter movement. (The respondents who described themselves as white Muslims were asked by the questioner to self-identify.)
Looking at racial breakdowns, 50% of white Muslims approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, on par with 48% of white Americans in the general public. Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
By contrast, most Muslim Americans are in favor of coalitions with organizations like the Black Lives Matter Movement. Nearly two-thirds of Muslims expressed support for such partnerships.
Su’ad Abdul Khabeer, the senior editor at Sapelo Square, an online publication that amplifies the voices of Black Muslims, noted that Muslims who align with Trump are often “recipients of privilege and power” and haven’t dealt with the aftermath of some of Trump’s racist or Islamophobic rhetoric.
Advertisement
Those Muslims who may not have been victims of explicit Islamophobia or racism are more able to compartmentalize different aspects of their identities, said Kameelah Mu’Min Rashad, the founder and president of the Muslim Wellness Foundation.
“Hearing [these numbers] makes me wonder what deeper conversations and spaces are needed for American Muslims to divest from whiteness to explore the impact of internalized white supremacy and internalized oppression,” Rashad added.
Though there is a perception that religious people are largely aligned with the Republican Party ― due to the political activity of white evangelicals ― the political beliefs of most Muslim Americans show that isn’t always the case.
“The idea that people vote for Trump because they’re so religious is not actually true. There are religious people on both sides,” Mogahed said. “Social conservatism and religiosity did not appear to be as strong of a factor as we might expect.”
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Advertisement
The numbers provided an interesting insight into the political leanings of Muslim Americans, who have become more politically engaged over the last few years. According to research released in 2018, more than 66% of American Muslims identified with Democrats, compared with only 13% who identified as Republicans. However, both groups were critical of the way their own parties treated their communities.
The report also noted that, despite the increased civic participation, the number of Muslims registered to vote remains lower than for other faith groups. A quarter of Muslims in America are not eligible to vote, mostly due to citizenship ― a number higher than other faith groups. As of March, nearly a third of Muslims (28%) were still undecided on who they prefer as their next president.
The ISPU, founded in 2002, is a research institution based in Washington, D.C., that conducts studies, gathers data and forms analyses on American Muslims. The most recent report surveyed self-identified Muslims, Jewish Americans and other populations in March and April 2020 through Social Science Research Solutions, a market and survey firm.
SSRS interviewed 801 Muslim respondents, 351 Jewish respondents and 1,015 adults in the general population, totaling 2,167 people surveyed by phone and on the web. The survey has a margin of error at a 95% confidence level of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points for Muslims and plus or minus 7.2 points for Jews.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Japanese Newspaper Reporting On Presidential Debate Manages To Translate 'S**tshow'

Foreign media were as horrified as American media at the chaos of Tuesday ’ s first presidential debate , and one paper in particular — Japan ’ s Asahi Shimbun — even took the time to translate “ shitshow.
” The Asahi Shimbun , widely regarded as one of Japan ’ s most respected broadsheet newspapers , ran a live blog highlighting notable moments in the debate .
As of Thursday , the blog was headlined “ The Worst Debate in History , ” and CNN ’ s comments were included to represent media opinion .
The paper translated “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shō ” — literally , “ a show that is like shit.
” Saori Ibuki , a reporter for BuzzFeed Japan who previously interned at the Japanese edition of HuffPost , shared this translation on Twitter , as well as a glimpse at how Japan ’ s national broadcaster , NHK , aired the chaotic debate for local audiences .
“ People in Japan who watched it on NHK ... had to watch three men shout over each other while three interpreters interpreted over each other simultaneously , ” she wrote in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times story from Friday headlined , ” ‘ I Feel Sorry for Americans ’ : A Baffled World Watches the U.S. ” People in Japan who watched it on NHK ( our public broadcaster ) had to watch three men shout over each other while three interpreters interpreted over each other simultaneously soooo yes but not really ?
🤔 pic.twitter.com/1gItayw55f https : //t.co/vWV8Top38J — 伊吹早織 Saori Ibuki ( @ ciaolivia ) September 30 , 2020 Some people asked how “ shitshow ” was translated into Japanese .
Asahi Shimbun , one of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Kuso mitai na shō ) : “ a show that is like shit ” .
https : //t.co/zvWh8RXQEJ — 伊吹早織 Saori Ibuki ( @ ciaolivia ) September 30 , 2020 Some argued that the overly literal “ shitshow ” translation failed to communicate the nature of the debate and offered more creative alternative translations , such as “ a festival of shit.
” Others pointed out that the interpreters on NHK were still using relatively formal Japanese and not quite communicating the tension that existed between Trump and Biden on stage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that is like shit , ” I think of the term “ shitshow ” more closely meaning “ a festival of shit ” or “ a spectacle of shit ” .
Is this just me ?
— emily bihl ( @ emilybihl ) September 30 , 2020 It 's interesting how , despite the aggressive attitude Biden and Trump have towards each other , the translators used polite language when interpreting them .
Like あなた and using です .
— Brianna ( @ AkaruiSakura ) September 30 , 2020 The Asahi Shimbun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Politico story that rounded up debate stories from various news outlets around the globe .
Germany ’ s public broadcaster Deutsche Welle deliberated over the word “ clusterfuck , ” another term used to describe the debate , and defined it as “ a complex and utterly disordered and mismanaged situation : a muddled mess , ” according to Politico .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Foreign media were as horrified as American media at the chaos of Tuesday’s first presidential debate, and one paper in particular — Japan’s Asahi Shimbun — even took the time to translate “shitshow.”
Advertisement
The Asahi Shimbun, widely regarded as one of Japan’s most respected broadsheet newspapers, ran a live blog highlighting notable moments in the debate. As of Thursday, the blog was headlined “The Worst Debate in History,” and CNN’s comments were included to represent media opinion. The paper translated “shitshow” as “kuso mitai na shō” — literally, “a show that is like shit.”
Saori Ibuki, a reporter for BuzzFeed Japan who previously interned at the Japanese edition of HuffPost, shared this translation on Twitter, as well as a glimpse at how Japan’s national broadcaster, NHK, aired the chaotic debate for local audiences.
“People in Japan who watched it on NHK ... had to watch three men shout over each other while three interpreters interpreted over each other simultaneously,” she wrote in response to another tweet of a New York Times story from Friday headlined, ”‘I Feel Sorry for Americans’: A Baffled World Watches the U.S.”
People in Japan who watched it on NHK (our public broadcaster) had to watch three men shout over each other while three interpreters interpreted over each other simultaneously soooo yes but not really?🤔 pic.twitter.com/1gItayw55f https://t.co/vWV8Top38J — 伊吹早織 Saori Ibuki (@ciaolivia) September 30, 2020
Advertisement
Some people asked how “shitshow” was translated into Japanese. Asahi Shimbun, one of our major national newspapers, translated as くそみたいなショー (Kuso mitai na shō): “a show that is like shit”. https://t.co/zvWh8RXQEJ — 伊吹早織 Saori Ibuki (@ciaolivia) September 30, 2020
A number of voices responded to Ibuki’s tweets, which went viral.
Some argued that the overly literal “shitshow” translation failed to communicate the nature of the debate and offered more creative alternative translations, such as “a festival of shit.”
Others pointed out that the interpreters on NHK were still using relatively formal Japanese and not quite communicating the tension that existed between Trump and Biden on stage.
While the debate was indeed “a show that is like shit,” I think of the term “shitshow” more closely meaning “a festival of shit” or “a spectacle of shit”. Is this just me? — emily bihl (@emilybihl) September 30, 2020
Too literal. Doesn't convey the full impact. — E. Z. Hoogenblatter - Anti-Racism, Anti-Racist (@xwordy) September 30, 2020
Advertisement
Agree, I think it misses mark. ‘Shitshow’ essentially means a ‘disaster’, ‘disastrous performance’ or ‘debacle’. It’s quite a strong negative; Asahi Shimbun is being too restrained. — 💧IronChefBubbleGum (@ICBubbleGum) October 1, 2020
It's interesting how, despite the aggressive attitude Biden and Trump have towards each other, the translators used polite language when interpreting them. Like あなた and using です. — Brianna (@AkaruiSakura) September 30, 2020
The Asahi Shimbun translation of “shitshow” was included in a Politico story that rounded up debate stories from various news outlets around the globe.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Trump Gaslights Twitter About How Americans Viewed Debate Performance

Trump took to Twitter Thursday to falsely proclaim himself the winner .
I won the debate big , based on compilation of polls etc .
Thank you !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 1 , 2020 In reality ( which , as a reminder , we still live in ― for now , anyway ) , Biden came out on top in numerous polls .
FiveThirtyEight.com said only 39.1 % of voters thought Trump won the debate .
Only 28 % said so in CNN ’ s survey .
Meanwhile , a CBS News/YouGov poll said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job , while Data for Progress reported only 39 % preferred the president ’ s performance .
Many Twitter users took the president to task for gaslighting .
Who won the debate ?
CBS/YouGov : Biden 48 , Trump 41 CNN post-debate poll : Biden 60 , Trump 28 CNBC post debate poll : Biden 53 , Trump 29 But by all means cite the non-scientific , easily manipulated online polls like Telemundo .
https : //t.co/zWHI67luTZ — Josh Jordan ( @ NumbersMuncher ) October 1 , 2020 Others wondered if the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tweet .
Have you informed your own team of this , let alone any of the pollsters ?
`` A source familiar with the President 's debate prep told CNN 's Dana Bash that they wanted him to be aggressive , but not act like Jason Voorhees from the 'Friday the 13th ' movies . ''
https : //t.co/fua1RHFEqW https : //t.co/dzKyhjQnMT — Andrew Bates ( @ AndrewBatesNC ) October 1 , 2020 One woman was pretty sure he was just pulling things out of his ass thin air .
You didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
We know you didn ’ t .
The World knows you didn ’ t .
Your compulsive narcissistic complex will finally make you kiss your own reflection in the Potomac .
And we all know how that ends .
https : //t.co/a4e0pcYSPz — frances Barber ( @ francesbarber13 ) October 1 , 2020 Based on the same compilation of polls , the weavers have finished the emperor 's new suit , and it is deceptively marvellous !
https : //t.co/sr0CAZ4ERs — Mitchell Kutney ( @ MKutney ) October 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorry that a nice little word like “ etc.
” had to be mixed up with a guy like Trump .
The word `` etc '' has never done so much work https : //t.co/5eAHHliz1u — Chase Mitchell ( @ ChaseMit ) October 1 , 2020 One person was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt with the help of alternative facts. in fairness to our # SoCalledPresident , if you compile the results of just three major polls ( CNN , with less than 40 % calling the # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 41 % ; DataProgress , at 39 % ) , it adds up to , like , 120 % in his favor - that 's pretty good , right ?
# math !
# facts !
https : //t.co/66NMTBUPgn — Daniel Paisner ( @ DanielPaisner ) October 1 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Trump took to Twitter Thursday to falsely proclaim himself the winner.
Really. See?
I won the debate big, based on compilation of polls etc. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2020
Advertisement
In reality (which, as a reminder, we still live in ― for now, anyway), Biden came out on top in numerous polls.
FiveThirtyEight.com said only 39.1% of voters thought Trump won the debate. Only 28% said so in CNN’s survey.
Meanwhile, a CBS News/YouGov poll said 41% thought Trump did a good job, while Data for Progress reported only 39% preferred the president’s performance.
Many Twitter users took the president to task for gaslighting.
Oh you're out of your goddamn mind https://t.co/o5MABDFnJP — rachel leishman (@RachelLeishman) October 1, 2020
Advertisement
Others brought receipts.
The only "polls" showing a Trump win were online and unscientific. https://t.co/bgHtjcZZxq — Nick Weig (@tbweig) October 1, 2020
Who won the debate?
CBS/YouGov: Biden 48, Trump 41
CNN post-debate poll: Biden 60, Trump 28
CNBC post debate poll: Biden 53, Trump 29
But by all means cite the non-scientific, easily manipulated online polls like Telemundo. https://t.co/zWHI67luTZ — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) October 1, 2020
Others wondered if the president actually conferred with his team before posting the tweet.
Have you informed your own team of this, let alone any of the pollsters?
"A source familiar with the President's debate prep told CNN's Dana Bash that they wanted him to be aggressive, but not act like Jason Voorhees from the 'Friday the 13th' movies." https://t.co/fua1RHFEqW https://t.co/dzKyhjQnMT — Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) October 1, 2020
Advertisement
One woman was pretty sure he was just pulling things out of his ass thin air.
You didn’t. You know you didn’t. We know you didn’t. The World knows you didn’t. Your compulsive narcissistic complex will finally make you kiss your own reflection in the Potomac . And we all know how that ends. https://t.co/a4e0pcYSPz — frances Barber (@francesbarber13) October 1, 2020
Based on the same compilation of polls, the weavers have finished the emperor's new suit, and it is deceptively marvellous! https://t.co/sr0CAZ4ERs — Mitchell Kutney (@MKutney) October 1, 2020
A surprising number of people felt sorry that a nice little word like “etc.” had to be mixed up with a guy like Trump.
The word "etc" has never done so much work https://t.co/5eAHHliz1u — Chase Mitchell (@ChaseMit) October 1, 2020
dying at the "etc."
this is a very low-effort lie lmao https://t.co/i1EX8WuPKq — George Zornick (@gzornick) October 1, 2020
Advertisement
One person was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt with the help of alternative facts.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Police Chief Cultivated Conservative Fan Base After Charging Democrat With Dubious Felonies

“ What the police did , or what influence my videos may have had on them , I don ’ t know , ” Anderson said .
Anderson said that he “ may have talked to ” McGee “ one time in passing ” when he was talking to officers who were at the scene of the destruction of the monuments , but not after the case opened .
( HuffPost , as part of a broad records request to the city of Portsmouth , sought emails that Greene or McGee may have exchanged with Anderson .
The city withheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not clear if any of the withheld emails were communications with Anderson . )
“ Really , if we ’ re being truthful , don ’ t all police have prejudice when they go into a case ― I mean doesn ’ t a cop walk into a crime scene and think ‘ Yeah , this guy did it ’ and then they go out and they investigate to figure out if they ’ re right , or they figure out if they ’ re not ?
” Anderson asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a world where police are 100 % neutral when they come into an investigation .
So to say that he had some prejudice because he believed a crime was committed , that doesn ’ t conflict an officer out from doing their job.
” “ I really don ’ t think anybody woke up on that morning thinking ‘ Hey , I ’ m going to go screw my life up.
’ I think that ’ s probably a true thing .
But what would not have happened , I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think that the crowd would have swelled up to the level that it did , and I don ’ t think the people would have been banging on the monument with sledgehammers and doing all that if Sen. Lucas wouldn ’ t have come out there and told people they weren ’ t going to get arrested , ” Anderson said .
“ I think that was the catalyst behind the rest of the day.
” Greene , of course , had plenty of personal motivations to target Lucas .
The powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ouster because , Lucas said , the chief failed to intervene and stop people from bringing sledgehammers to the Confederate monument which posed a public safety hazard and left a man seriously injured .
Lucas had also previously suggested that Greene was one of several Black officials who served as “ puppets for the people really in charge ” in Portsmouth .
“ The racist [ s ] always co-ops Black folk to do their bidding for them , ” Lucas told a local news station last year .
“ I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note : The city of Portsmouth also withheld a large number of emails that fell within the scope of HuffPost ’ s public records request .
Among the Greene emails withheld : 47 emails containing “ criminal investigative files , ” 64 emails containing “ advice of legal counsel to state , regional or local public bodies or the officers or employees of such public bodies , and any other information protected by the attorney-client privilege , ” and eight emails in possession of the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center .
Among the McGee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ file ” emails and eight emails in possession of the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center .

Portsmouth Police Chief Angela Greene, left, and Virginia Sen. Louise Lucas. Portsmouth Police/Getty Images
A suspended police chief in Virginia, who made the extraordinary decision to charge a state senator with felonies on the theory that her rhetoric inspired vandalism on a Confederate monument, has cultivated an active right-wing fan base over email and social media, a HuffPost investigation has found. This cadre of followers has cheered the charges against the senator, a Democrat who wants to increase scrutiny on law enforcement and had called for the police chief’s resignation.
Portsmouth Police Chief Angela Greene announced at an unusual press conference in August that her department had attempted to sideline the city’s elected prosecutor and gone straight to a magistrate judge to obtain felony warrants against Sen. Louise Lucas (D), local civil rights leaders and city public defenders for conspiring to cause “injury to” Portsmouth’s Confederate monument. A total of 19 defendants were charged.
Advertisement
Lucas, who had no role in the city government or authority over police officers, said that officers couldn’t arrest protesters who painted over the city’s monument to the Confederacy. Several hours later, some demonstrators beheaded four statues of Confederate soldiers and pulled one down, injuring a protester. Lucas has said she was there for about a half-hour and left around 2:45 p.m., while the monument didn’t come down until late into the evening.
Sergeant Kevin T. McGee of Portsmouth’s property crimes unit filed the charges, and stood behind Greene at a press conference where she announced them. He theorized that Lucas’ rhetoric on the afternoon of June 10 was part of a conspiracy to destroy the monuments, in violation of a 70-year-old state law that originally referred to the Civil War as the “War Between the States.” Greene previously praised McGee after he launched a political attack on Lucas and criticized the city’s public defenders, several of whom he’d later charge with felonies.
Greene, according to emails obtained by HuffPost through a public records request, took time to respond to those who were very excited to see felony charges against Lucas.
“I would love nothing more than to stay in Portsmouth and continue to serve my citizens and police officers!” Greene wrote to a supporter who had written that “there are lots of people out here who are 100% behind what you’re doing with the charges against Sen. Lucas.”
Advertisement
When another citizen wrote that Lucas had “blood on her hands,” Greene responded thanking the writer for her “words of encouragement and support.”
“The public support warms my heart,” Greene wrote in one email.
The idea to file felony charges against Sen. Lucas under Virginia’s monument statute, as well as the idea to file charges against Vice Mayor Lisa Lucas-Burke, Sen. Lucas’ daughter, were popularized online by Tim Anderson, a conservative attorney from Virginia Beach with a considerable social media following.
And since her suspension, Greene has further aligned herself with Anderson and the movement he’s built online.
Anderson, whose law firm has more than 100,000 followers on Facebook, is a gun shop owner and lawyer whose practice focuses on restoring Second Amendment rights for citizens with felony convictions and bankruptcy. Just after the monument incident, Anderson started a petition to recall Lucas.
After Anderson suggested in a Facebook post and in a television interview that Lucas committed crimes by inciting a riot, Lucas sued him for $20 million.
Advertisement
Anderson said he doesn’t represent Greene, and he says doesn’t know what her politics are. At the time Lucas called on Greene to be fired after the Confederate monument’s destruction, Anderson said, he didn’t even know who Chief Greene was, only that he supported her for enforcing the law.
They’ve since grown closer. Greene has appeared, via video call, at rallies Anderson has helped organize in her support, and is benefiting from a GoFundMe that Anderson has promoted.
At a rally in Greene’s support over the weekend, and with Greene’s children in attendance, Anderson said that Portsmouth officials “have no authority to tell the chief of police to stand down,” and said Greene had no conflict and was just enforcing the law.
“The chief of police is the quarterback of the city,” Anderson said. “This is law and order. Either we have law and order, or we don’t.”
Anderson told HuffPost in an interview he’s not sure exactly what role his Facebook videos had on the investigation against Lucas.
Advertisement
“What the police did, or what influence my videos may have had on them, I don’t know,” Anderson said. Anderson said that he “may have talked to” McGee “one time in passing” when he was talking to officers who were at the scene of the destruction of the monuments, but not after the case opened. (HuffPost, as part of a broad records request to the city of Portsmouth, sought emails that Greene or McGee may have exchanged with Anderson. The city withheld a large number of documents, but it’s not clear if any of the withheld emails were communications with Anderson.)
A City Government In Chaos
When HuffPost suggested that charging a politician for her rhetoric raised major First Amendment concerns, Anderson said Lucas’ suit (which he said has already cost him $40,000 in legal fees) also raised First Amendment issues.
“Did I cause her $20 million in damages to her political career because I alleged that she committed a crime? Give me a break, it’s just insane,” Anderson said. “If you could plug that in in some capacity and then misquote me on everything else, I’ll be good,” he joked. “A citizen shouldn’t be getting sued by a senator for trying to recall her.”
The decision to charge Lucas and the other civil rights leaders has thrown the entire city government into chaos. Greene was later suspended by Portsmouth’s city manager, Lydia Pettis Patton, who said Greene informed her that she had a conflict of interest in the case. Days later, Pettis Patton retired ahead of a meeting of the majority white city council, which appears to support Greene, in which they were likely to vote to oust the city manager. White members of the council also voted to fire the Black city attorney.
Lucas is the highest-ranking Black female politician in the state of Virginia. Greene is also a Black woman, and replaced former Portsmouth Police Chief Tonya Chapman, who was the first Black female police chief in Virginia history and said she encountered a racist culture in the city police department.
Advertisement
Portsmouth is a majority Black city, but its police force is mostly white. In Portsmouth, as in many other police departments around the country, that racial gap has been a recipe for disaster. McGee, sources told HuffPost, was one of Chapman’s most prominent detractors, but has aligned himself closely with Greene, who has gained the support of white cops.
Greene once suggested she was concerned about McGee’s letter, telling Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Morales, the city’s elected prosecutor, that she would “definitely have a conversation with” McGee over inaccurate statements in the letter, and even claiming she’d refer the letter to the department’s internal affairs unit. But in reality, she’d already praised McGee for the letter attacking Lucas, telling him his words had “touched my heart,” that a “mere thank you is not enough,” and referring to him as “family.”
Greene remains suspended, with her fate in the hands of the city’s interim manager. The city has a strong city manager system that limits the direct power of the city council. One citizen even obtained misdemeanor charges against Lucas’ daughter Lucas-Burke after she publicly called for Greene’s firing (a charge that also raises glaring First Amendment issues).
Anderson said he isn’t troubled by the notion that police officers were biased against those they charged.
“Really, if we’re being truthful, don’t all police have prejudice when they go into a case ― I mean doesn’t a cop walk into a crime scene and think ‘Yeah, this guy did it’ and then they go out and they investigate to figure out if they’re right, or they figure out if they’re not?” Anderson asked. “We don’t live in a world where police are 100% neutral when they come into an investigation. So to say that he had some prejudice because he believed a crime was committed, that doesn’t conflict an officer out from doing their job.”
Advertisement
HuffPost asked Anderson, a supporter of President Donald Trump, whether he had any reservations about a law enforcement bureaucrat with clearly expressed political biases pursuing criminal charges against his political enemy.
“If it was a situation that did not occur in broad daylight, recorded on body camera video, and it’s very clear what everyone said and did, sure, I think you could probably walk down that a little bit,” Anderson said. “Did people commit crimes under Virginia law? And I think the answer to that is absolutely yes.”
Anderson conceded that the people who helped destroy the monument probably weren’t aware there was a specific statute on the books that protected monuments with harsher penalties.
“I really don’t think anybody woke up on that morning thinking ‘Hey, I’m going to go screw my life up.’ I think that’s probably a true thing. But what would not have happened, I don’t think, is I don’t think that the crowd would have swelled up to the level that it did, and I don’t think the people would have been banging on the monument with sledgehammers and doing all that if Sen. Lucas wouldn’t have come out there and told people they weren’t going to get arrested,” Anderson said. “I think that was the catalyst behind the rest of the day.”
“It’s not the police’s fault that this happened, it’s the senator’s fault for rallying everybody up,” Anderson said.
Advertisement
Anderson, at the rally and in his interview with HuffPost, bristled at the suggestion that the attacks on Lucas were because of her race. “It’s racist this, it’s racist that, everything is racist when you get in trouble,” Anderson said at the rally.
When asked why he trusted Chief Greene but not her highly decorated predecessor ― who did think there were major racial issues in Portsmouth’s police force ― Anderson said you have to look at Chapman’s motives.
“I think Chapman gets fired, and then she starts yelling racism,” Anderson said. “If there was some systemic, like, ‘good ol’ white boy’ network in the city of Portsmouth, I don’t think Angela would’ve thrived in the 18 months that she was chief of police.”
An extensive investigation by The Virginian-Pilot this month unveiled “an entrenched racist culture that hurts female and minority officers and the predominantly Black community alike.” HuffPost heard similar stories about a racist culture inside the Portsmouth Police Department, and Virginia Del. Don Scott (D), who is representing Lucas, said the city’s residents are “being controlled by a hostile force.”
But Anderson said that the officers he’s spoken to “seem to adore” Greene and talked about how morale hasn’t been better. When asked if he spoke to any Black officers, he demurred.
Advertisement
“There’s not that many Black officers in the city of Portsmouth,” Anderson said. “There’s not that many officers in the city of Portsmouth,” he added, noting that lower pay made the positions less attractive than other law enforcement agencies in the region.
A Largely White, Disgruntled Police Force
Greene, of course, had plenty of personal motivations to target Lucas. The powerful politician had indeed called for Greene’s ouster because, Lucas said, the chief failed to intervene and stop people from bringing sledgehammers to the Confederate monument which posed a public safety hazard and left a man seriously injured. Lucas had also previously suggested that Greene was one of several Black officials who served as “puppets for the people really in charge” in Portsmouth. “The racist[s] always co-ops Black folk to do their bidding for them,” Lucas told a local news station last year. “I do not have use for spineless people.”
But there’s something else that might’ve been on her mind when she allowed her officers to bypass Portsmouth’s elected prosecutor and make their unusual cases against their ideological opponents: appeasing a disgruntled, largely white workforce that worked to help take down her predecessor.
Greene’s bodycam video from hours before the monument’s destruction captures her discussion with Sen. Lucas and Vice Mayor Lucas-Burke as well as protesters spray-painting the city’s monument to the Confederacy. It also captures ― moments after Greene’s discussion with Sen. Lucas that the Portsmouth Police Department would later claim amounted to a felony criminal conspiracy ― Greene having a casual chat with a white cop on Portsmouth’s police force.
Nearly a decade ago, former Portsmouth Officer Steve Rankin killed an unarmed cook who was a native of Kazakhstan. On Rankin’s Facebook page, he made posts glorifying violence, and even posted an image of a lynching with the caption “Love is ... Doing whatever is necessary.”
Advertisement
Law enforcement supporters in Portsmouth rallied to the officer’s defense. “I support Steve Rankin,” Mike Siniscalchi told the Virginian-Pilot at the time. “The men and women of this Police Department do an excellent job with maintaining quality of life here in this city, and Steve Rankin is one of those individuals.”
A few years later, Rankin killed another unarmed man. This time it was a Black teen, 18-year-old William Chapman II. Commonwealth’s Attorney Morales put Rankin on trial, and he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to two and a half years.
Now, in 2020, Portsmouth Police Officer Mike Siniscalchi was talking to Chief Greene. He was upset.
“I just want you to know something. Yesterday, I was this close to going ahead to writing up a resignation letter,” Siniscalchi told Greene, as protesters spray-painted the monument in the background. “I’ve been going through a lot ... just this country burning, ideology.”
But God sent him an angel, Siniscalchi told Greene. He was sticking around, for now. Still, he had lots of concerns he wanted to talk to the chief about, and he thought a lot of officers felt the same way. Like Sergeant McGee, Siniscalchi was upset with his ideological opponents. Something needed to change.
As they talked, Greene realized her body camera was still running. She tried, and failed, to turn it off herself. Siniscalchi showed her just what she should do.
Advertisement
Additional reporting by Roque Planas.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Mary Trump Has Terrifying Explanation For Trump’s White Supremacist Comments

Donald Trump ’ s niece , Mary Trump , said the president was sending a chilling message to white supremacist groups when he told them to “ stand back and stand by ” during Tuesday night ’ s debate .
“ It wasn ’ t a shoutout , ” she said on “ The Dean Obeidallah Show ” on Wednesday .
“ It was an order ― and we need to see it in those terms and we should be terrified by that.
” Mary Trump said the president doesn ’ t care that these groups are violent or that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only cares that they support him , ” she said .
“ And that ’ s the only criteria that matters.
” Mary Trump , a clinical psychologist who published a tell-all book dishing on the president this summer , also named two other reasons he won ’ t denounce these groups .
“ First of all , he ’ s a white supremacist .
So he would have to denounce himself , which will never happen , ” she said .
“ Secondly , denouncing white supremacy doesn ’ t get him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the only people he ’ s talking to anymore .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Donald Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, said the president was sending a chilling message to white supremacist groups when he told them to “stand back and stand by” during Tuesday night’s debate.
“It wasn’t a shoutout,” she said on “The Dean Obeidallah Show” on Wednesday. “It was an order ― and we need to see it in those terms and we should be terrified by that.”
Advertisement
Mary Trump said the president doesn’t care that these groups are violent or that their members are racists.
“He only cares that they support him,” she said. “And that’s the only criteria that matters.”
Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist who published a tell-all book dishing on the president this summer, also named two other reasons he won’t denounce these groups.
“First of all, he’s a white supremacist. So he would have to denounce himself, which will never happen,” she said. “Secondly, denouncing white supremacy doesn’t get him anywhere with his base, and that’s the only people he’s talking to anymore.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--After Bitter Debate, Trump, Biden Will Roast Each Other For Charity

After a week in which they brawled in a debate and flayed each other on the campaign trail , President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden were making appearances Thursday night at an annual event meant to promote collegiality and good humor .
It probably helps that they will be speaking remotely .
The two rivals are the entertainment at the 75th Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner , which went virtual because of the coronavirus pandemic .
Trump ’ s appearance at the dinner four years ago along with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton produced some laughs , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump described Clinton as corrupt , he crossed the line for many of those in attendance and was booed loudly .
Fast forward four years , and now Trump and Biden have the challenge of poking fun at themselves and each other after a debate night in which Biden called the president a “ clown ” and “ the worst president America has ever had ” while Trump questioned Biden ’ s intelligence and attacked his son Hunter .
The dinner raises millions of dollars for Catholic charities and has traditionally shown that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get along , or pretend to , for one night .
The event has become a tradition for presidential candidates since Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy appeared together in 1960 .
In 1996 , the Archdiocese of New York decided not to invite then-President Bill Clinton and his Republican challenger , Bob Dole , reportedly because of Clinton ’ s veto of a late-term abortion ban .
This year ’ s dinner comes as Biden and Trump make fierce plays for Catholic voters , a large swath of the electorate that spans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant slice of swing voters in battleground states .
The former vice president talks often of his Irish Catholic roots .
He regularly attends Mass , including when he travels , and he talks often of the role that his faith has played in his life , saying that it “ gave me purpose ” and “ hope ” after the deaths of his first wife and young daughter in a car accident in 1972 and the death of his son Beau Biden in 2015 .
Nonetheless , the Smith dinner could present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtual form .
The host , Cardinal Timothy Dolan , archbishop of New York , represents the outspoken social conservative base of U.S. Catholicism .
Dolan spoke during the Republican National Convention and for years , including when he led the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , was a frequent cable news presence touting the church ’ s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion .
Biden emphasizes other aspects of faith .
In one campaign ad , Biden is shown talking about Pope Francis , who has urged Catholics not to focus so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to abortion and same-sex marriage at the expense of social justice .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — And now they joke?
After a week in which they brawled in a debate and flayed each other on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden were making appearances Thursday night at an annual event meant to promote collegiality and good humor.
It probably helps that they will be speaking remotely. The two rivals are the entertainment at the 75th Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, which went virtual because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Advertisement
Trump’s appearance at the dinner four years ago along with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton produced some laughs, but several cringe-worthy moments, too. When Trump described Clinton as corrupt, he crossed the line for many of those in attendance and was booed loudly.
Fast forward four years, and now Trump and Biden have the challenge of poking fun at themselves and each other after a debate night in which Biden called the president a “clown” and “the worst president America has ever had” while Trump questioned Biden’s intelligence and attacked his son Hunter.
The dinner raises millions of dollars for Catholic charities and has traditionally shown that those vying to lead the nation can get along, or pretend to, for one night.
The event has become a tradition for presidential candidates since Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy appeared together in 1960. In 1996, the Archdiocese of New York decided not to invite then-President Bill Clinton and his Republican challenger, Bob Dole, reportedly because of Clinton’s veto of a late-term abortion ban.
Advertisement
This year’s dinner comes as Biden and Trump make fierce plays for Catholic voters, a large swath of the electorate that spans the U.S. political spectrum, including a significant slice of swing voters in battleground states.
The former vice president talks often of his Irish Catholic roots. He regularly attends Mass, including when he travels, and he talks often of the role that his faith has played in his life, saying that it “gave me purpose” and “hope” after the deaths of his first wife and young daughter in a car accident in 1972 and the death of his son Beau Biden in 2015.
Nonetheless, the Smith dinner could present some tensions for Biden, even in virtual form. The host, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, represents the outspoken social conservative base of U.S. Catholicism. Dolan spoke during the Republican National Convention and for years, including when he led the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was a frequent cable news presence touting the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.
Biden emphasizes other aspects of faith. In one campaign ad, Biden is shown talking about Pope Francis, who has urged Catholics not to focus so vociferously on the church’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage at the expense of social justice.
Meanwhile, Trump has won favor with many Catholics for his anti-abortion policies and support for “school choice.”
Advertisement
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Fed Up With Politics, She Left The U.S. 20 Years Ago. Has Anything Changed?

Courtesy Jennifer Berdahl The fight over who won Florida -- and thus presidency -- in the 2000 presidential election and its ultimate resolution along partisan lines by the Supreme Court spurred Jennifer Berdahl ( above ) and her family to relocate to Canada , where they established dual citizenship .
I lost faith in the court .
I remember eighth-grade civics class , learning about the three branches of the government : You vote for your congressional representative , if you don ’ t like what they ’ re doing you can vote them out .
You vote for your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like what they ’ re doing , you can vote them out .
I guess you can call me a naive white girl who was like , it works , it ’ s fair .
Up until that point .
To some degree .
I knew there was voter suppression .
I had volunteered in Illinois in graduate school at the polls .
My role was to observe .
The neighborhood was mostly white .
A white person would show up and say their name , maybe show one piece of ID .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ d go vote .
A Black person would show up and they were asked for multiple pieces of ID .
They were asked what their profession was .
They were basically subjected to an inquisition .
I ’ m really glad I did .
I remember when I was little and you ’ d read things about people in other countries somewhere far away .
And it would be like those people are crazy , what are they doing ?
Now the U.S. seems that way .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How could it possibly be doing these things .
The U.S. used to hold a lot of esteem in the world and it just doesn ’ t anymore .
It ’ s almost like people feel pity for the U.S. People are worried for the U.S.
It ’ s like this sad dying experiment that everyone is seeing as a tragedy .
That makes me really sad .
There ’ s a lot .
One of the first things you notice is universal health care .
That completely changes the game .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everyone in a country where it ’ s seen as a human right to get health care .
There ’ s no question that you will get it .
It ’ s a collective effort in making that happen .
It ’ s not an individual problem that you have a heart attack that you have to then pay for .
Even a homeless person has health care .
That changes the whole sort of feeling of humanity and togetherness and compassion .
There ’ s kindness in the culture .
Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much stronger commitment to public education .
All the universities are public .
That also changes things .
Instead of having this extreme hierarchy of universities , Ivy League or bust , they ’ re all good .
Maybe none is as good as the very top 10 in the U.S. , but none of them are really bad either .
There ’ s excellence in all of them .
And they ’ re affordable .
The students that I ’ ve had [ in Canada ] are every bit as good as @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The fight over who won Florida -- and thus presidency -- in the 2000 presidential election and its ultimate resolution along partisan lines by the Supreme Court spurred Jennifer Berdahl (above) and her family to relocate to Canada, where they established dual citizenship. Courtesy Jennifer Berdahl
Twenty years ago, Jennifer Berdahl was on the tenure track at the University of California-Berkeley when she lost faith in the democratic process in the United States.
Back then, the presidential election was too close to call. Florida’s vote was in question. Talk of hanging chads was inescapable. George W. Bush had a slight edge, Al Gore wanted a recount. The case Bush v. Gore made its way to the Supreme Court. And, along strictly partisan lines, the court’s five Republican-appointees stopped the recount and handed the election to Bush.
Advertisement
“That was the point at which I felt that the government was fundamentally broken,” recalls Berdahl, whose work focuses on the intersection of gender and power. She and her husband, also an academic, snagged positions at the University of Toronto and moved with their young daughter on July 4, 2001.
Now, teams of lawyers for President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden are gearing up for another bruising fight. Trump has already said he believes the election will wind up at the court, and has fast-tracked a nomination to further cement a conservative majority. The scenario could end up “a wilder sequel to Bush v. Gore,” Paul Blumenthal wrote in HuffPost.
Berdahl, now 53-years-old with dual citizenship and teaching at the University of British Columbia, will be watching from home in Vancouver. HuffPost called her to check in on her decision to leave the country.
One of the indelible images of the haggling over the Florida vote count concerned "hanging chads" on some of the ballots. Here, an election official in Broward County examines with a magnifying glass one of the disputed ballots. Alan Diaz/AP
Advertisement
What was it that disturbed you back in 2000?
The Supreme Court basically prevented democracy from being carried out. It effectively chose our president for us.
I lost faith in the court. I remember eighth-grade civics class, learning about the three branches of the government: You vote for your congressional representative, if you don’t like what they’re doing you can vote them out. You vote for your president, if you don’t like what they’re doing, you can vote them out.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political. It’s supposed to interpret the laws. Of course people get appointed to the court and lean one way or the other. The idea was they were interpreting the laws in good faith, according to the Constitution.
When they stopped Florida’s recount and effectively said your votes don’t matter, there’s no recourse. We can’t replace [the justices]. We can’t vote them out. They are lifetime appointments. They are acting as a political body and they are intervening in political processes.
That was the point at which I felt that the government was fundamentally broken.
At the time I didn’t appreciate how racialized that was. I just knew votes weren’t counted. Turns out, a disproportionate amount of the votes that were not counted were votes by Black people. That is the history of our country, trying to disenfranchise Black voters.
Advertisement
Maybe it opened your eyes to what Black Americans have long dealt with.
I guess you can call me a naive white girl who was like, it works, it’s fair. Up until that point. To some degree. I knew there was voter suppression. I had volunteered in Illinois in graduate school at the polls. My role was to observe. The neighborhood was mostly white. A white person would show up and say their name, maybe show one piece of ID. They’d be given a ballot and they’d go vote. A Black person would show up and they were asked for multiple pieces of ID. They were asked what their profession was. They were basically subjected to an inquisition.
So I knew already there were attempts to suppress certain people’s votes. But usually they ended up voting. I reported it to the party. I just didn’t think you could throw out thousands of ballots like the Supreme Court did.
Was Bush the president you wanted?
He wasn’t. I would’ve accepted him as president if the recount had shown that he had won by a democratic process.
Have you been watching U.S. politics since you left?
I try to minimize it because it’s just so depressing and predictable at this point. Tuesday night’s debate was really depressing. It confirmed our choice. [Google searches for “how to apply for Canadian citizenship” also peaked that night.]
Did you watch the Trump election in 2016?
Oh yeah, we had the bowls of popcorn ready. We were with our daughters, our young teenage daughters, ready to watch the first woman get elected president. We just thought it was a no-brainer. She had the majority vote.
Advertisement
So, right now people are afraid of Bush v. Gore happening again.
I think that’s a very realistic fear.
Seems like you did the right thing.
I’m really glad I did. I remember when I was little and you’d read things about people in other countries somewhere far away. And it would be like those people are crazy, what are they doing? Now the U.S. seems that way. It’s like what is the U.S. doing? How could it possibly be doing these things.
The U.S. used to hold a lot of esteem in the world and it just doesn’t anymore. It’s almost like people feel pity for the U.S. People are worried for the U.S. It’s like this sad dying experiment that everyone is seeing as a tragedy. That makes me really sad.
What would you say to someone now who’s looking at the election and thinking they should follow in your footsteps?
I feel torn. On the one hand, I totally get it. And sure, people are welcome. Come to Canada. It might be best for your family. That’s what I concluded.
But I don’t think ultimately it’s going to solve the problem. The kind of challenges we’re facing like climate change, these are global, collective problems that we’re going to have to fight somehow in unison. If everybody progressive evacuates the U.S. I don’t know what that would look like.
Advertisement
I don’t think that’s really the answer. I do think we need to try to fight if we can. Definitely vote. I’m still voting.
Berdahl, here with one her children, expresses no regret over her family's move. "The U.S. used to hold a lot of esteem in the world and it just doesn’t anymore," she says. Courtesy Jennifer Berdahl
Do you regret leaving the U.S.?
No. I am so glad that I’ve had the cross-cultural experience. That my children and my spouse and I have both citizenships and options. There’s lots of talk in my broader family that is American about leaving.
With COVID-19, you guys did better up there than we’re doing.
In Canada, there’s just a lot more trust and faith in government. I don’t think we’ve gotten to the point where the U.S. has gotten where we just don’t trust the government. Everything is political in the U.S.
In Canada there’s still faith in science and scientists. The health minister, who is empowered in each province, is leading the response and calling the shots. They are medical experts.
Advertisement
It would be like putting Dr. Anthony Fauci in charge of the U.S. response completely. And empowering him.
Are there things you gained by leaving the U.S.?
There’s a lot. One of the first things you notice is universal health care. That completely changes the game. The worth of human life has been elevated for everyone in a country where it’s seen as a human right to get health care. There’s no question that you will get it. It’s a collective effort in making that happen. It’s not an individual problem that you have a heart attack that you have to then pay for. Even a homeless person has health care. That changes the whole sort of feeling of humanity and togetherness and compassion. There’s kindness in the culture.
Another one, of course relatedly, is guns. You don’t worry about sending your kids to school and thinking they’ll be shot up.
Education is really different. There is a much stronger commitment to public education. All the universities are public. That also changes things. Instead of having this extreme hierarchy of universities, Ivy League or bust, they’re all good. Maybe none is as good as the very top 10 in the U.S., but none of them are really bad either. There’s excellence in all of them. And they’re affordable. The students that I’ve had [in Canada] are every bit as good as the students I had at Berkeley.
That’s so much more egalitarian.
Yeah. It’s much more egalitarian.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Most Of Tuesday's 73 Million Debate Watchers Tuned In For The Entire Thing

An estimated 73.1 million people watched the first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden on TV on Tuesday , and the overwhelming majority watched until the end , according to Nielsen .
That number doesn ’ t include people who streamed the debate online or people who listened to the debate on the radio .
Viewership was down significantly from the first debate in 2016 , when 84 million people tuned in to watch the first encounter between Trump and Hillary Clinton .
Media coverage of the debate and online responses from viewers show broad dissatisfaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting , primarily due to Trump ’ s constant interruptions and lies , his refusal to denounce white supremacists , and moderator Chris Wallace ’ s inability to corral the unwieldy discussion .
In response , the commission in charge of coordinating presidential debates announced on Wednesday that it is considering allowing moderators in upcoming debates to cut a participant ’ s microphone if they continually interrupt their opponent , as Trump did .
But despite the widespread distaste for the way the debate was conducted , Nielsen found that viewership remained consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewers continued watching to the end — or , at least , that those who changed the channel were replaced by newcomers .
Tuesday ’ s debate was the first of four total debates being held before the Nov. 3 election .
Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris will debate Vice President Mike Pence in Salt Lake City on Oct. 7 .
Trump and Biden will meet again in Miami on Oct. 15 and , finally , on Oct. 22 in Nashville , Tennessee .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
An estimated 73.1 million people watched the first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden on TV on Tuesday, and the overwhelming majority watched until the end, according to Nielsen.
That number doesn’t include people who streamed the debate online or people who listened to the debate on the radio.
Advertisement
Viewership was down significantly from the first debate in 2016, when 84 million people tuned in to watch the first encounter between Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Media coverage of the debate and online responses from viewers show broad dissatisfaction with Trump and Biden’s first meeting, primarily due to Trump’s constant interruptions and lies, his refusal to denounce white supremacists, and moderator Chris Wallace’s inability to corral the unwieldy discussion.
In response, the commission in charge of coordinating presidential debates announced on Wednesday that it is considering allowing moderators in upcoming debates to cut a participant’s microphone if they continually interrupt their opponent, as Trump did.
But despite the widespread distaste for the way the debate was conducted, Nielsen found that viewership remained consistent throughout the night, meaning virtually all viewers continued watching to the end — or, at least, that those who changed the channel were replaced by newcomers.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Mike Pompeo Denied Audience With Pope Francis

The Vatican denied U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s request for an audience with Pope Francis this week , saying the pope would not see Pompeo in the midst of the American presidential campaign .
“ Yes , he asked , ” Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin told The Associated Press as Pompeo is in Europe for a weeklong visit .
“ But the pope had already said clearly that political figures are not received in election periods .
That is the reason.
” Pompeo will still meet with Parolin and other top Vatican officials during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuff was seen by some as the latest example of a political rift between the United States and the Vatican .
During a religious freedom conference this week , Pompeo issued a strong denouncement of a deal the Catholic Church signed two years ago with China related to the appointment of bishops , which it is considering extending .
President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against China , as has Pompeo , in the leadup to the U.S. election in November .
The secretary of state has also taken unusual efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious freedom .
“ Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China , ” Pompeo said at the event Wednesday .
He later added that Beijing ’ s Communist Party was working “ day and night to snuff out the lamp of freedom , especially religious freedom , on a horrifying scale.
” Pompeo rejected claims that he was using his visit to the Vatican to drum up support for Trump ahead of the election , telling The New York Times the assertion was “ just crazy.
” “ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China the entire time I ’ ve been part of this administration , ” he told the newspaper .
Reuters notes that Parolin and Foreign Minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher said they were “ surprised ” at Pompeo ’ s public statements , saying he had violated “ one of the rules of diplomacy.
” “ Normally when you ’ re preparing these visits between high-level officials , you negotiate the agenda for what you are going to talk about privately , confidentially , ” Gallagher told the publication .
Pompeo wrote an article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chastising the Vatican for signing the deal and saying Catholics were under assault in China .
The AP notes the statements irked the Catholic Church and that the Vatican saw the effort as an attempt to win political points back in the U.S .
The @ StateDept has been a strong voice for religious freedom in China and around the world and has taken steps to hold those who abuse the faithful responsible .
We will continue to do so and stand with China 's Catholics and religious believers .
We call on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Pompeo ( @ SecPompeo ) September 19 , 2020 “ Two years ago , the Holy See reached an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party , hoping to help China ’ s Catholics , ” Pompeo wrote on Twitter .
“ Yet the CCP ’ s abuse of the faithful has only gotten worse .
The Vatican endangers its moral authority , should it renew the deal.
” The Vatican has defended the deal with China .
Parolin told Reuters that while it ’ s not perfect , it “ is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American politics.
” “ This is a matter between churches and should not be used for this type of ends , ” Parolin said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Vatican denied U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s request for an audience with Pope Francis this week, saying the pope would not see Pompeo in the midst of the American presidential campaign.
“Yes, he asked,” Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin told The Associated Press as Pompeo is in Europe for a weeklong visit. “But the pope had already said clearly that political figures are not received in election periods. That is the reason.”
Advertisement
Pompeo will still meet with Parolin and other top Vatican officials during the visit, but the pope’s rebuff was seen by some as the latest example of a political rift between the United States and the Vatican. During a religious freedom conference this week, Pompeo issued a strong denouncement of a deal the Catholic Church signed two years ago with China related to the appointment of bishops, which it is considering extending.
President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against China, as has Pompeo, in the leadup to the U.S. election in November. The secretary of state has also taken unusual efforts to use his political authority to promote religious freedom.
“Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China,” Pompeo said at the event Wednesday. He later added that Beijing’s Communist Party was working “day and night to snuff out the lamp of freedom, especially religious freedom, on a horrifying scale.”
Pompeo rejected claims that he was using his visit to the Vatican to drum up support for Trump ahead of the election, telling The New York Times the assertion was “just crazy.”
Advertisement
“We’ve been working on human rights in China the entire time I’ve been part of this administration,” he told the newspaper.
Reuters notes that Parolin and Foreign Minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher said they were “surprised” at Pompeo’s public statements, saying he had violated “one of the rules of diplomacy.”
“Normally when you’re preparing these visits between high-level officials, you negotiate the agenda for what you are going to talk about privately, confidentially,” Gallagher told the publication.
Pompeo wrote an article about the issue earlier this month, chastising the Vatican for signing the deal and saying Catholics were under assault in China. The AP notes the statements irked the Catholic Church and that the Vatican saw the effort as an attempt to win political points back in the U.S.
The @StateDept has been a strong voice for religious freedom in China and around the world and has taken steps to hold those who abuse the faithful responsible. We will continue to do so and stand with China's Catholics and religious believers. We call on the Vatican to join us. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 19, 2020
Advertisement
“Two years ago, the Holy See reached an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party, hoping to help China’s Catholics,” Pompeo wrote on Twitter. “Yet the CCP’s abuse of the faithful has only gotten worse. The Vatican endangers its moral authority, should it renew the deal.”
The Vatican has defended the deal with China. Parolin told Reuters that while it’s not perfect, it “is a matter that has nothing to do with American politics.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Justin Trudeau And Other Canadian Leaders Do What Trump Didn't: Condemn White Supremacy

Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders from the United States ’ northern neighbor did not hesitate to condemn white supremacy following Donald Trump ’ s performance during Tuesday ’ s debate , where the president danced around disavowing supremacists and even told far right group the Proud Boys to “ stand back and stand by.
” “ The Prime Minister has condemned and will continue to condemn right-wing extremism , white supremacy and racism in all its forms , ” a statement from Trudeau ’ s office sent to CTV News on Wednesday read .
“ In Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremism that not only divides our communities , but threatens the safety of Canadians.
” Other representatives of Canada ’ s political parties — including Conservative leader Erin O ’ Toole , Interim Green Party leader Jo-Ann Roberts , NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet — made similar statements , arguing that Trump was only feeding division and racism in the United States .
Roberts notably pointed out that the Proud Boys had roots in Canada , and on Twitter wrote that the country was “ far from immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who worked for Trudeau from 2015 to 2019 , also tweeted that the group had “ Canadian roots and many Canadian branches.
” I unequivocally condemn white supremacy & hate groups like the Proud Boys .
We must remember that this is not just a US problem .
This org has roots in Canada , & we are far from immune to hate .
We must urgently examine & combat the rise of violent hate groups w/in our borders .
— Jo-Ann Roberts , Green Party Interim Leader 🌱 ( @ JoAnnRobertsHFX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boys , classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center , was founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes , who is British-Canadian .
McInnes , who left Vice in 2008 and now resides in the U.S. , built the Proud Boys under the concept that white men and Western culture are under siege from a variety of fronts — including Islam , feminism and immigration — and has espoused hate speech that has resulted in bans from most major social media platforms .
Brad Galloway , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement and now the coordinator for Ontario Tech University ’ s Centre on Hate , Bias and Extremism , told The Toronto Star that there were hundreds of Proud Boy members across Canada who were likely to take Trump ’ s words as a “ call to action , ” and predicted a “ spillover effect ” within Canada .
According to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network , Canadian Proud Boy members have most recently appeared in anti-mask protests in Manitoba .
Trump attempted to tweak his debate remarks on Wednesday , telling reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proud Boys actually were .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders from the United States’ northern neighbor did not hesitate to condemn white supremacy following Donald Trump’s performance during Tuesday’s debate, where the president danced around disavowing supremacists and even told far right group the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”
“The Prime Minister has condemned and will continue to condemn right-wing extremism, white supremacy and racism in all its forms,” a statement from Trudeau’s office sent to CTV News on Wednesday read. “In Canada, we’re not immune to extremism that not only divides our communities, but threatens the safety of Canadians.”
Advertisement
Other representatives of Canada’s political parties — including Conservative leader Erin O’Toole, Interim Green Party leader Jo-Ann Roberts, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet — made similar statements, arguing that Trump was only feeding division and racism in the United States.
Roberts notably pointed out that the Proud Boys had roots in Canada, and on Twitter wrote that the country was “far from immune to hate.” Political consultant Gerald Butts, who worked for Trudeau from 2015 to 2019, also tweeted that the group had “Canadian roots and many Canadian branches.”
I unequivocally condemn white supremacy & hate groups like the Proud Boys.
We must remember that this is not just a US problem. This org has roots in Canada, & we are far from immune to hate.
We must urgently examine & combat the rise of violent hate groups w/in our borders. — Jo-Ann Roberts, Green Party Interim Leader 🌱 (@JoAnnRobertsHFX) September 30, 2020
Canadian roots and many Canadian branches. https://t.co/DmG0UNpiTU — Gerald Butts 🇨🇦 😷🖐🧼🤚 (@gmbutts) September 30, 2020
Advertisement
The Proud Boys, classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, was founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, who is British-Canadian. McInnes, who left Vice in 2008 and now resides in the U.S., built the Proud Boys under the concept that white men and Western culture are under siege from a variety of fronts — including Islam, feminism and immigration — and has espoused hate speech that has resulted in bans from most major social media platforms.
Brad Galloway, a former member of Toronto’s skinhead movement and now the coordinator for Ontario Tech University’s Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism, told The Toronto Star that there were hundreds of Proud Boy members across Canada who were likely to take Trump’s words as a “call to action,” and predicted a “spillover effect” within Canada. According to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, Canadian Proud Boy members have most recently appeared in anti-mask protests in Manitoba.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-01--Colorado Gov. Pardons More Than 2,700 People With Marijuana Convictions

Colorado Gov .
Jared Polis ( D ) signed an executive order Thursday granting full pardons to those who have been convicted of possession of an ounce or less of marijuana .
“ All individuals previously convicted in the State of Colorado of a petty offense , misdemeanor , or felony for possession of one ( 1 ) ounce or less of marijuana under the following provisions are hereby granted a full and unconditional pardon for that conviction , ” the order reads .
The pardon will take immediate affect for more than 2,700 people who have been convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
The pardoned convictions date as far back as 50 years ago , and as recent as late 2012 , when voters approved Amendment 64 , which legalized the possession and consumption of weed in the state .
“ It ’ s ridiculous how being written up for smoking a joint in the 1970 ’ s has followed some Coloradans throughout their lives and gotten in the way of their success , ” Polis said in a statement .
“ Too many Coloradans have been followed their entire lives by a conviction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime , and these convictions have impacted their job status , housing and countless other areas of their lives , ” he added .
Ricardo Baca , The Denver Post ’ s former marijuana editor who now runs cannabis marketing firm Grasslands , told HuffPost in a statement that Colorado is lucky to “ now have a Governor who understands that the responsibilities of legalizing cannabis go far beyond regulating the cultivation , manufacture and retail of marijuana.
” “ It is the responsibility of every legal economy to also put an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruined untold lives , and granting pardons to citizens with low-level drug offenses should be a mandatory element of all legalization efforts moving forward , ” Bacca added .
Polis signed a bipartisan bill in June which authorized him to grant pardons to those convicted of possession of up to two ounces of marijuana .
However , Thursday ’ s executive order only applies to those convicted of possessing an ounce or less .

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed an executive order Thursday granting full pardons to those who have been convicted of possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.
“All individuals previously convicted in the State of Colorado of a petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony for possession of one (1) ounce or less of marijuana under the following provisions are hereby granted a full and unconditional pardon for that conviction,” the order reads.
The pardon will take immediate affect for more than 2,700 people who have been convicted of the low-level crime, The Denver Post reported. The pardoned convictions date as far back as 50 years ago, and as recent as late 2012, when voters approved Amendment 64, which legalized the possession and consumption of weed in the state.
Advertisement
“It’s ridiculous how being written up for smoking a joint in the 1970’s has followed some Coloradans throughout their lives and gotten in the way of their success,” Polis said in a statement.
“Too many Coloradans have been followed their entire lives by a conviction for something that is no longer a crime, and these convictions have impacted their job status, housing and countless other areas of their lives,” he added.
Ricardo Baca, The Denver Post’s former marijuana editor who now runs cannabis marketing firm Grasslands, told HuffPost in a statement that Colorado is lucky to “now have a Governor who understands that the responsibilities of legalizing cannabis go far beyond regulating the cultivation, manufacture and retail of marijuana.”
“It is the responsibility of every legal economy to also put an end to the Drug War-era nonsense that has ruined untold lives, and granting pardons to citizens with low-level drug offenses should be a mandatory element of all legalization efforts moving forward,” Bacca added.
Advertisement