thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--At Rocky Mountain MAGA Rally, Trump Is ‘Acquitted Forever’ And Ever, Amen

“ Like , politicians are above the law , and I feel like it ’ s on both sides , ” she said .
“ We ’ re just little people , so what we can do is vote and vote for the person that represents us best.
” Trump is that person for her , and for thousands of others who turned out for his rally here on Thursday .
The way Hester sees it , none of the nefarious stuff the president might be mixed up in these days — and it ’ s been a lot lately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his political foes .
“ I mean , Hillary Clinton ’ s way , way worse , and she ’ s actually like got Benghazi and everything else , ” Hester said , referring to the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee ’ s time as secretary of state .
“ Like she should have been locked up a long time ago.
” Many political observers and public officials have expressed alarm over these developments , arguing they represent an assault on the U.S. government ’ s system of checks and balances and offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this country .
But to Trump ’ s supporters and allies — including Sen. Cory Gardner ( R-Colo. ) , who appeared with the president on Thursday amid a tough reelection campaign , some members of fascist street gang Proud Boys , and QAnon conspiracy theorists — this is all just evidence of a biased media and corrupt Democrats .
One of the loudest cheers Thursday came when Vice President Mike Pence praised Trump for standing up to “ radical Democrats ” and their “ endless investigations ” in order to ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MAGAverse , that phrase — “ acquitted forever ” — has gained real currency over the last month .
It ’ s on T-shirts .
In memes and hashtags .
White House officials and Trump allies in Congress have used it repeatedly in interviews .
It originated as a direct rebuke to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) — who stated Trump would be “ impeached forever ” in the history books — but “ acquitted forever ” took on a different , more authoritarian meaning in Colorado Springs on Thursday : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything of which he ’ s been accused .
Trump ’ s supporters agreed that his latest actions have been largely acceptable .
Karla Kroeker , a 75-year-old entrepreneur from the nearby town of Monument , supported Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) in the 2016 Republican primary — “ a Christian like me , ” she explained — but is now a dedicated Trump supporter .
She arrived at the rally early to get a spot near the stage .
She wasn ’ t troubled by the recent ouster of Gordon Sondland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been U.S. ambassador to the European Union .
Or that of Iraq War veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , who was pushed out of the National Security Council .
Both were prominent witnesses in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
When it comes to how Trump dealt with the prosecution of Stone — a longtime adviser to the president who was convicted of lying to congressional investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — Kroeker said she just wished Trump would tweet less .
Earlier this month , the president responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nine-year sentence for Stone by tweeting : “ This is a horrible and very unfair situation.
” A short time later , Attorney General William Barr intervened and took the unprecedented step of recommending a lesser sentence for Stone .
Four prosecutors in the case resigned over Barr ’ s actions .
On Thursday , a judge sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison , but Trump has left open the possibility that he ’ ll pardon him .
The acting director of national intelligence had briefed lawmakers about intelligence proving Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election to help Trump win , according to the reports .
The president became enraged when he learned of this briefing , concerned that Democrats could weaponize this information against him .
Dominic Barraca , 19 , and his parents drove seven hours from New Mexico to come to the rally , only to find Broadmoor World Arena too crowded to get inside .
They wound up standing in the cold for hours to watch the rally on a big screen .
As they walked back toward their car , past MAGA vendors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ IMPEACH THIS ” T-shirts , Barraca said he didn ’ t know too much about the new Trump-Russia story , but that it sounded fishy to him .
Why would Russia want Trump to win when Trump has been so strong on Russia ?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — President Donald Trump might be doing some shady stuff in office, reasoned Heather Hester, a 36-year-old hair stylist standing outside the arena where the president was preparing to hold a rally. But what politician doesn’t?
“Everyone out there is so messed up,” observed Hester, who wore a cowboy hat emblazoned with the words “Trump 2020,” in between puffs of a Marlboro Red.
Advertisement
“Like, politicians are above the law, and I feel like it’s on both sides,” she said. “We’re just little people, so what we can do is vote and vote for the person that represents us best.”
Trump is that person for her, and for thousands of others who turned out for his rally here on Thursday. The way Hester sees it, none of the nefarious stuff the president might be mixed up in these days — and it’s been a lot lately — compares to the alleged crimes committed by his political foes.
“I mean, Hillary Clinton’s way, way worse, and she’s actually like got Benghazi and everything else,” Hester said, referring to the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee’s time as secretary of state. “Like she should have been locked up a long time ago.”
Heather Hester, 36, says all politicians believe they're "above the law." Christopher Mathias/HuffPost
Advertisement
Hester was among many at the campaign rally to show both an undying devotion to the president and a complete lack of concern over his increasingly authoritarian behavior.
Many political observers and public officials have expressed alarm over these developments, arguing they represent an assault on the U.S. government’s system of checks and balances and offer further evidence of a burgeoning epistemic crisis in this country.
But to Trump’s supporters and allies — including Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who appeared with the president on Thursday amid a tough reelection campaign, some members of fascist street gang Proud Boys, and QAnon conspiracy theorists — this is all just evidence of a biased media and corrupt Democrats. One of the loudest cheers Thursday came when Vice President Mike Pence praised Trump for standing up to “radical Democrats” and their “endless investigations” in order to ultimately be “acquitted forever.”
In the MAGAverse, that phrase — “acquitted forever” — has gained real currency over the last month. It’s on T-shirts. In memes and hashtags. White House officials and Trump allies in Congress have used it repeatedly in interviews.
Advertisement
It originated as a direct rebuke to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who stated Trump would be “impeached forever” in the history books — but “acquitted forever” took on a different, more authoritarian meaning in Colorado Springs on Thursday: that the president is already acquitted of anything of which he’s been accused.
President Donald Trump holds a campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on Thursday. Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
Trump’s supporters agreed that his latest actions have been largely acceptable. Karla Kroeker, a 75-year-old entrepreneur from the nearby town of Monument, supported Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the 2016 Republican primary — “a Christian like me,” she explained — but is now a dedicated Trump supporter. She arrived at the rally early to get a spot near the stage.
She wasn’t troubled by the recent ouster of Gordon Sondland, a big-time Trump donor who had been U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Or that of Iraq War veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was pushed out of the National Security Council. Both were prominent witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial.
“Trump has the right to have whomever he wants in his administration,” she said.
When it comes to how Trump dealt with the prosecution of Stone — a longtime adviser to the president who was convicted of lying to congressional investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — Kroeker said she just wished Trump would tweet less.
Advertisement
Earlier this month, the president responded to news that federal prosecutors were recommending a nine-year sentence for Stone by tweeting: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation.” A short time later, Attorney General William Barr intervened and took the unprecedented step of recommending a lesser sentence for Stone. Four prosecutors in the case resigned over Barr’s actions. On Thursday, a judge sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison, but Trump has left open the possibility that he’ll pardon him.
Trump supporters attend a campaign rally for the president in Colorado Springs. Jason Connolly/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Trump supporters also brushed off the other bombshell news of the day. Just hours before the rally, The New York Times and The Washington Post published reports recounting a new tale of Trump’s alleged meddling.
The acting director of national intelligence had briefed lawmakers about intelligence proving Russia is once again interfering in the U.S. election to help Trump win, according to the reports. The president became enraged when he learned of this briefing, concerned that Democrats could weaponize this information against him.
A short time later, Trump replaced the acting director of national intelligence with a loyal presidential ally.
Advertisement
Dominic Barraca, 19, and his parents drove seven hours from New Mexico to come to the rally, only to find Broadmoor World Arena too crowded to get inside. They wound up standing in the cold for hours to watch the rally on a big screen.
As they walked back toward their car, past MAGA vendors hawking “MY ASS GOT ACQUITTED” and “IMPEACH THIS” T-shirts, Barraca said he didn’t know too much about the new Trump-Russia story, but that it sounded fishy to him. Why would Russia want Trump to win when Trump has been so strong on Russia?
His father, Braulio Barraca, made a request as the family continued its walk.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Trump Costing Taxpayers And Putting Money In His Pocket With Stay At His Own Hotel

Previous presidents on extended trips away from the White House typically stayed in the city of each day ’ s final event , or traveled to the city of the following day ’ s first event .
Trump , instead , traveled back to Las Vegas each night from California , Arizona and Colorado to overnight at his Trump International Hotel ― requiring several extra hours ’ flying time on Air Force One , a plane that costs taxpayers about a quarter-million dollars per hour in the air .
“ At this point in his presidency , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Donald Trump is using his position and taxpayer dollars to make money for his businesses , ” said Jordan Libowitz with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
“ This is beyond a conflict of interest .
This is corruption , plain and simple.
” “ Largely , the schedule is set by the Secret Service .
We do what they want us to , ” he told reporters at Joint Base Andrews just before the plane ’ s departure .
“ I don ’ t set the schedule .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If the president had stayed in three different cities over three different nights that would mean three different advance teams traveling out ahead , three different USSS teams traveling ahead , it would mean impacting traffic with road closures in three different cities , taking rooms for security and communications at three different hotels , and various other necessities for presidential travel in three different cities , ” said a senior White House official on condition of anonymity .
“ The hotel the president is in is well known to USSS in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In short , doing it the way we ’ re doing it saved money for the government and Las Vegas is most central to all the stops .
Only a small contingent of required staff with specific roles stay at the hotel with the president .
The majority of staff stay at a different hotel .
All hotel stays are at the government rate.
” According to a report by the Government Accountability Office last year , the Air Force unit that operates the modified Boeing 747 normally used as the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round trips from Andrews to Palm Beach in early 2017 ― which works out to $ 273,063 for each hour of flight time .
Had Trump held the same events but done so in a geographically logical order ― starting in Beverly Hills and finishing in Colorado Springs , but overnighting each day in the city where he would begin the following morning ― Trump would have spent four fewer hours aboard Air Force One , thereby saving taxpayers about $ 1.1 million .
The anonymous White House official ’ s claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not tell the whole story .
A full motorcade ― including the presidential limousine , staff vans and various specialized trucks ― is needed in any city where Trump is traveling , regardless of whether it will be used to move him from an airport to an event site and back , or to an overnight hotel and then to the event site the next day .
Indeed , the repeated overnight trips to Las Vegas may have forced the Secret Service and other support personnel to keep a motorcade there for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move it to the site of an upcoming presidential trip .
This week is not the first time Trump used presidential trips to spend time at his own properties , even though it added considerable travel and security costs for taxpayers .
In 2018 , for example , he spent two days between official meetings in London and a Helsinki summit with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin at his own resort in Scotland , rather than waiting in London .
And last summer , he insisted on staying at his resort on the west @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his visit to Normandy , France , even though it required several additional hours on Air Force One .
Precisely how many taxpayer dollars wind up in Trump ’ s pocket from these stays can not be determined .
The White House , despite numerous queries from HuffPost over a period of months , refuses to disclose how many executive branch employees stay with Trump when he visits his own properties and how much it is costing taxpayers .
And how much of that revenue winds up as profit flowing to Trump also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign promise ― and decades of precedent ― by refusing to disclose his tax returns .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
LAS VEGAS ― President Donald Trump’s choice to stay at his own Las Vegas hotel each night during the western states swing that wraps up Friday likely cost taxpayers a million extra dollars as well as diverted thousands of them into his own cash registers.
Previous presidents on extended trips away from the White House typically stayed in the city of each day’s final event, or traveled to the city of the following day’s first event. Trump, instead, traveled back to Las Vegas each night from California, Arizona and Colorado to overnight at his Trump International Hotel ― requiring several extra hours’ flying time on Air Force One, a plane that costs taxpayers about a quarter-million dollars per hour in the air.
Advertisement
“At this point in his presidency, there’s no way to look at it other than Donald Trump is using his position and taxpayer dollars to make money for his businesses,” said Jordan Libowitz with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “This is beyond a conflict of interest. This is corruption, plain and simple.”
When Trump was asked about his decision to return to Las Vegas each night just before he left for California, he claimed he had nothing to do with it.
“Largely, the schedule is set by the Secret Service. We do what they want us to,” he told reporters at Joint Base Andrews just before the plane’s departure. “I don’t set the schedule. I have nothing to do with it.”
It’s unclear, however, what Trump meant. Previous presidents visited the same western states numerous times, for example, and never once stayed in a Trump property.
Advertisement
A Secret Service spokesperson told HuffPost: “The U.S. Secret Service works in conjunction with the administration on all presidential and First Family visits as our primary concern is the safety and security of those that we protect.”
Trump’s White House did not try to defend the accuracy of Trump’s claim, and instead argued that the decision to use Trump International Hotel Las Vegas as a base actually saved taxpayers’ money.
President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he arrives at McCarran International Airport on Feb. 18 in Las Vegas. ASSOCIATED PRESS
“If the president had stayed in three different cities over three different nights that would mean three different advance teams traveling out ahead, three different USSS teams traveling ahead, it would mean impacting traffic with road closures in three different cities, taking rooms for security and communications at three different hotels, and various other necessities for presidential travel in three different cities,” said a senior White House official on condition of anonymity. “The hotel the president is in is well known to USSS in terms of security and the footprint needed. In short, doing it the way we’re doing it saved money for the government and Las Vegas is most central to all the stops. Only a small contingent of required staff with specific roles stay at the hotel with the president. The majority of staff stay at a different hotel. All hotel stays are at the government rate.”
That analysis, though, ignores the single biggest driver of presidential costs: the use of Air Force One.
According to a report by the Government Accountability Office last year, the Air Force unit that operates the modified Boeing 747 normally used as the presidential aircraft spent $4.4 million for four round trips from Andrews to Palm Beach in early 2017 ― which works out to $273,063 for each hour of flight time.
Had Trump held the same events but done so in a geographically logical order ― starting in Beverly Hills and finishing in Colorado Springs, but overnighting each day in the city where he would begin the following morning ― Trump would have spent four fewer hours aboard Air Force One, thereby saving taxpayers about $1.1 million.
The anonymous White House official’s claim that more motorcades would have been required also does not tell the whole story. A full motorcade ― including the presidential limousine, staff vans and various specialized trucks ― is needed in any city where Trump is traveling, regardless of whether it will be used to move him from an airport to an event site and back, or to an overnight hotel and then to the event site the next day.
What’s more, advance teams scout out a city and motorcade routes are closed to traffic on any presidential visit, regardless of whether it is for a brief visit or an overnight stay.
Advertisement
Indeed, the repeated overnight trips to Las Vegas may have forced the Secret Service and other support personnel to keep a motorcade there for a full four days, rather than move it to the site of an upcoming presidential trip.
This week is not the first time Trump used presidential trips to spend time at his own properties, even though it added considerable travel and security costs for taxpayers. In 2018, for example, he spent two days between official meetings in London and a Helsinki summit with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin at his own resort in Scotland, rather than waiting in London. And last summer, he insisted on staying at his resort on the west coast of Ireland on the days surrounding his visit to Normandy, France, even though it required several additional hours on Air Force One.
Precisely how many taxpayer dollars wind up in Trump’s pocket from these stays cannot be determined. The White House, despite numerous queries from HuffPost over a period of months, refuses to disclose how many executive branch employees stay with Trump when he visits his own properties and how much it is costing taxpayers. And how much of that revenue winds up as profit flowing to Trump also is not known because Trump reneged on a campaign promise ― and decades of precedent ― by refusing to disclose his tax returns.
According to The Washington Post, Trump’s business charged Secret Service agents as much as $650 a night for rooms at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Florida, and $17,000 a month for a cottage at Trump’s golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Based on these and other invoices obtained by various groups using lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act, Trump has likely funneled at least several million dollars of taxpayer dollars into his own cash registers in his first three years in office.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--With No Evidence, Bloomberg Campaign Ties Bernie Sanders To Campaign Office Vandalism

Michael Bloomberg ’ s Democratic presidential campaign is trying to tie Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) to the vandalism of its office in Knoxville , Tennessee , despite no evidence that he or one of his supporters was involved .
“ This latest incident at our Knoxville campaign office is exactly what we ’ ve been warning about , ” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement .
“ We don ’ t know who is responsible for this vandalism , but we do know it echoes language from the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
” On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find profanity spray painted across the front doors , along with handmade posters on the windows reading “ Authoritarian , ” “ Classist ” and “ Oligarch.
” The campaign noted that in recent weeks , other offices have also been vandalized with similar messages , including in Toledo , Ohio ; Youngstown , Ohio ; Ann Arbor , Michigan ; and Flint , Michigan .
Even though the Bloomberg campaign admits it doesn ’ t yet know who is behind the damage , it ’ s trying to blame Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival presidential contender to condemn what ’ s going on and implying he will be responsible if someone “ gets hurt.
” “ Over the past week , we ’ ve seen similar attacks against Mike Bloomberg 2020 offices in multiple states .
Fortunately , no one has been injured .
But this needs to end before someone gets hurt , ” Sheekey said .
“ We call on Bernie Sanders to immediately condemn these attacks and for his campaign to end the Trump-like rhetoric that is clearly encouraging his supporters to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our politics , ” he added .
The Bloomberg campaign pointed to comments by Sanders and some of his aides , such as Sanders saying at a rally on Monday , “ We are a democracy , not an oligarchy .
You ’ re not going to buy this election.
” Sanders isn ’ t the only person , or even the only candidate , who has criticized Bloomberg along these lines .
But the senator has taken heat , including from other Democratic presidential candidates , for the vitriol that comes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidate debate in Las Vegas this week , Sanders suggested that perhaps foreign forces were at work .
“ All of us remember 2016 , and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up , ” he said .
“ I ’ m not saying that ’ s happening , but it would not shock me .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michael Bloomberg’s Democratic presidential campaign is trying to tie Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the vandalism of its office in Knoxville, Tennessee, despite no evidence that he or one of his supporters was involved.
“This latest incident at our Knoxville campaign office is exactly what we’ve been warning about,” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement. “We don’t know who is responsible for this vandalism, but we do know it echoes language from the Sanders campaign and its supporters.”
Advertisement
On Friday morning, a campaign volunteer arrived to find profanity spray painted across the front doors, along with handmade posters on the windows reading “Authoritarian,” “Classist” and “Oligarch.”
The campaign noted that in recent weeks, other offices have also been vandalized with similar messages, including in Toledo, Ohio; Youngstown, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Flint, Michigan.
Even though the Bloomberg campaign admits it doesn’t yet know who is behind the damage, it’s trying to blame Sanders and his supporters, even calling on the rival presidential contender to condemn what’s going on and implying he will be responsible if someone “gets hurt.”
Advertisement
“Over the past week, we’ve seen similar attacks against Mike Bloomberg 2020 offices in multiple states. Fortunately, no one has been injured. But this needs to end before someone gets hurt,” Sheekey said.
“We call on Bernie Sanders to immediately condemn these attacks and for his campaign to end the Trump-like rhetoric that is clearly encouraging his supporters to engage in behavior that has no place in our politics,” he added.
The Bloomberg campaign pointed to comments by Sanders and some of his aides, such as Sanders saying at a rally on Monday, “We are a democracy, not an oligarchy. You’re not going to buy this election.”
Sanders isn’t the only person, or even the only candidate, who has criticized Bloomberg along these lines.
But the senator has taken heat, including from other Democratic presidential candidates, for the vitriol that comes from some pockets of his supporters. At the candidate debate in Las Vegas this week, Sanders suggested that perhaps foreign forces were at work.
Advertisement
“All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up,” he said. “I’m not saying that’s happening, but it would not shock me.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Trump’s New Spy Chief Worked For A Foreign Politician The U.S. Accused of Corruption

President Donald Trump ’ s new acting intelligence director , Richard Grenell , used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department .
In 2016 , Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch , a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc , but did not disclose that he was being paid , according to records and interviews .
Grenell also did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , which generally requires people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foreign politicians .
It ’ s not clear whether the articles were directly part of Grenell ’ s paid consulting work for Plahotniuc .
Unpaid work could still require disclosures under FARA if it was directed by or primarily benefited a foreign politician , according to Matthew Sanderson , a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who advises people on complying with FARA .
FARA contains several exemptions , such as for lawyers and businesses , Sanderson said , but none appear to apply to Grenell ’ s op-eds about Plahotniuc .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Grenell should have registered here , ” Sanderson said after ProPublica described the circumstances to him .
“ This is exactly the type of circumstances I ’ d expect the Department of Justice to investigate further.
” Undisclosed work for a foreign politician would ordinarily pose a problem for anyone applying for a security clearance or a job in a U.S. intelligence agency because it could make the person susceptible to foreign influence or blackmail , according to the official policy from the office that Trump tapped Grenell to lead .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not have a clearance , ” said Kel McClanahan , a Washington-area lawyer specializing in security clearances .
“ If he were one of my clients and just a normal [ federal employee ] , he would almost assuredly not have a clearance.
” Grenell , who is also continuing in his current posts as ambassador to Germany and special envoy for negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia , has gained Trump ’ s favor with his unwavering loyalty and combative tweets .
( In one instance , he attacked ProPublica in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office had intervened in foreign aid decisions . )
He raised hackles in Berlin by injecting himself into the country ’ s domestic politics , a departure from usual diplomatic protocol .
In between his turns in government , Grenell had a public affairs consulting firm called Capitol Media Partners .
One of the firm ’ s clients , according to the financial disclosure that Grenell filed when he became an ambassador , was Arthur J. Finkelstein , the late Republican political consultant whose international clients included Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Hungary .
Grenell ’ s financial disclosure indicates that he received more than $ 5,000 from Finkelstein ’ s firm but does not specify how much .
According to a person familiar with the relationship , Grenell worked for Finkelstein as a media consultant for clients in Eastern Europe .
That person and another individual said the client in Moldova was Plahotniuc , the country ’ s richest man and then a top official in its ruling political party .
In August 2016 , Grenell published op-eds in the right-leaning Washington Examiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his enemies as serving Russian interests .
Plahotniuc and his allies at the time were fending off suspicions of their involvement in a $ 1 billion bank fraud in Moldova .
“ Blaming the ruling party and its leadership has its political benefits for Russia , ” Grenell wrote in the Examiner article .
“ Plahotniuc has been around Moldovan politics , business and civic life for decades and has turned out to be an easy target.
” This narrative aligned with Plahotniuc ’ s efforts to present himself as pro-Western in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosure records .
“ Certainly there was an effort by him to engage U.S. officials at the time , that despite all this corruption he was the guy most likely to keep Russia at bay and therefore you should accept him , ” said Jonathan Katz , who oversaw U.S. aid programs for Moldova at the time .
“ It didn ’ t match anything he was doing internally in the country , ” Katz said , because Plahotniuc didn ’ t advance U.S. interests such as promoting democratic institutions and the rule @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
President Donald Trump’s new acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department.
Advertisement
In 2016, Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch, a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc, but did not disclose that he was being paid, according to records and interviews. Grenell also did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which generally requires people to disclose work in the U.S. on behalf of foreign politicians.
FARA is the same law that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates were convicted of violating. (Manafort went to trial. Gates pleaded guilty.)
It’s not clear whether the articles were directly part of Grenell’s paid consulting work for Plahotniuc. Unpaid work could still require disclosures under FARA if it was directed by or primarily benefited a foreign politician, according to Matthew Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who advises people on complying with FARA. FARA contains several exemptions, such as for lawyers and businesses, Sanderson said, but none appear to apply to Grenell’s op-eds about Plahotniuc.
“There is real reason to believe that Mr. Grenell should have registered here,” Sanderson said after ProPublica described the circumstances to him. “This is exactly the type of circumstances I’d expect the Department of Justice to investigate further.”
Advertisement
Undisclosed work for a foreign politician would ordinarily pose a problem for anyone applying for a security clearance or a job in a U.S. intelligence agency because it could make the person susceptible to foreign influence or blackmail, according to the official policy from the office that Trump tapped Grenell to lead.
The policy specifies that among the “conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying” are:
“Failure to report or fully disclose, when required, association with a foreign person, group, government or country.”
“Substantial business, financial, or property interests in a foreign country … that could subject the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation or personal conflict of interest.”
“Acting to serve the interest of a foreign person, group, organization or government in any way that conflicts with U.S. national security interests.”
“That’s really easy, he should not have a clearance,” said Kel McClanahan, a Washington-area lawyer specializing in security clearances. “If he were one of my clients and just a normal [federal employee], he would almost assuredly not have a clearance.”
McClanahan said it’s unclear how Grenell could have already gotten a clearance as an ambassador. The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether the Trump administration has overruled career officials in granting security clearances to political appointees.
Advertisement
As Trump’s pick for acting director of national intelligence, Grenell will have access to the country’s most sensitive secrets. Grenell isn’t subject to Senate confirmation because Trump appointed him on a temporary basis.
The White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Grenell, who is also continuing in his current posts as ambassador to Germany and special envoy for negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, has gained Trump’s favor with his unwavering loyalty and combative tweets. (In one instance, he attacked ProPublica in response to reporting that Vice President Mike Pence’s office had intervened in foreign aid decisions.) He raised hackles in Berlin by injecting himself into the country’s domestic politics, a departure from usual diplomatic protocol.
Grenell does not have prior experience in intelligence. He was the U.S. spokesman at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration.
In between his turns in government, Grenell had a public affairs consulting firm called Capitol Media Partners. One of the firm’s clients, according to the financial disclosure that Grenell filed when he became an ambassador, was Arthur J. Finkelstein, the late Republican political consultant whose international clients included Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary. Grenell’s financial disclosure indicates that he received more than $5,000 from Finkelstein’s firm but does not specify how much.
Advertisement
According to a person familiar with the relationship, Grenell worked for Finkelstein as a media consultant for clients in Eastern Europe. That person and another individual said the client in Moldova was Plahotniuc, the country’s richest man and then a top official in its ruling political party.
In August 2016, Grenell published op-eds in the right-leaning Washington Examiner and Washington Times defending Plahotniuc and attacking his enemies as serving Russian interests. Plahotniuc and his allies at the time were fending off suspicions of their involvement in a $1 billion bank fraud in Moldova. “Blaming the ruling party and its leadership has its political benefits for Russia,” Grenell wrote in the Examiner article. “Plahotniuc has been around Moldovan politics, business and civic life for decades and has turned out to be an easy target.”
This narrative aligned with Plahotniuc’s efforts to present himself as pro-Western in Washington and European capitals, according to lobbying disclosure records. “Certainly there was an effort by him to engage U.S. officials at the time, that despite all this corruption he was the guy most likely to keep Russia at bay and therefore you should accept him,” said Jonathan Katz, who oversaw U.S. aid programs for Moldova at the time. “It didn’t match anything he was doing internally in the country,” Katz said, because Plahotniuc didn’t advance U.S. interests such as promoting democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Vladimir Plahotniuc's corrupt actions undermined the rule of law and severely compromised the independence of democratic institutions in #Moldova. Today, I publicly designate him. The U.S. stands with Moldova in its fight against corruption. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 13, 2020
Grenell was also quoted in an October 2016 article in the Houston Chronicle criticizing a resolution proposed by Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, that accused Plahotniuc and his allies of corruption. “He’s trying to attack the only pro-European group in Moldova,” Grenell told the Chronicle.
Advertisement
“The reality is he’s pro-himself and nothing more,” Valeriu Pașa, who leads a prominent civil society group in Moldova called WatchDog.MD, said of Plahotniuc. “He was playing both sides for 15 years at least.”
Plahotniuc lost power in 2019 and fled Moldova. His current whereabouts are unknown. Last month, the State Department endorsed the corruption allegations against him, banning him and his family from entering the U.S.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Donald Trump Torched Over ‘Gone With The Wind' Lament: ‘The Doggiest Dogwhistle'

President Donald Trump reminisced about the 1939 movie “ Gone With The Wind ” during his rally in Colorado Springs , Colorado , on Thursday and faced an immediate backlash on social media .
Trump asked to bring “ back ” the film — heavily criticized for its racist language , demeaning stereotypes of Black characters and its romanticization of slavery before the Civil War ― as he railed against the awarding of the Oscar for Best Picture to South Korean movie “ Parasite , ” directed by Bong Joon Ho .
“ I ’ m looking for like … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wind , ’ can we get ‘ Gone with the Wind ’ back , please ?
” asked Trump .
“ ‘ Sunset Boulevard.
’ So many great movies , ” he continued .
“ The winner from South Korea , I thought it was best foreign film .
Best foreign movie .
No … did this ever happen before ?
” Charlotte Clymer , of the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign , described Trump “ openly pining ” for the film starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh as “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boot , a conservative columnist for The Washington Post , noted how Trump “ talks far more harshly about South Korea than North Korea ” and said the president ’ s love for the “ pro-Confederate ” film was “ very telling.
” I ’ m sorry but this is SENDING me .
The racist audience cheered for “ what happened to Gone With the Wind ” but then was quiet for “ Sunset Blvd.
” Too gay for us !
!
!
!
!
!
https : //t.co/uVSF7eXN7h — Ira Madison III @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Trump literally just asked , `` Can we get like 'Gone With The Wind ' back please ? ''
That 's really saying the quiet part out loud is n't it .
— Hunter Walker ( @ hunterw ) February 21 , 2020 Trump openly pining for `` Gone with the Wind '' is the doggiest dogwhistle that ever dogwhistled .
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳🌈 ( @ cmclymer ) February 21 , 2020 Gon na put this out there , and I mean every word of it : `` Gone with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly four hours and is jam-packed with scenes of adults talking to each other in thick dialogue .
Even if it is Citizen Kane for racists , I 'll bet you anything Trump has never seen it .
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳🌈 ( @ cmclymer ) February 21 , 2020 MAGA rallies are not only a safe space for xenophobia , but his audience shows up hungry for that kind of red meat .
That 's why Trump reached and whined about a foreign movie winning Best Picture , and also why he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative -- Gone With the Wind .
— Adam Best ( @ adamcbest ) February 21 , 2020 Trump talks far more harshly about South Korea than North Korea .
And of course he loves pro-Confederate “ Gone With the Wind.
” Very telling .
https : //t.co/FPfrPkx7hg — Max Boot ( @ MaxBoot ) February 21 , 2020 Gone with the Wind is a romanticized white wash of slavery and the antebellum South and the author Margaret Mitchell had tremendous `` economic anxiety . ''
Of course Trump would prefer it over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classism and income inequality .
— Wajahat Ali ( @ WajahatAli ) February 21 , 2020 Ok ... “ Gone with The Wind ” ?
!
# Trump tells us who he is every single day .
https : //t.co/CQvjGMOh5h — Maya Wiley ( @ mayawiley ) February 21 , 2020 Racist xenophobic Trump knows exactly what he is doing asking to bring back “ Gone With The Wind ” which romanticized slavery & for decades was most popular account of The Civil War .
Like MAGA slogan , he always speaks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ChuckModi ( @ ChuckModi1 ) February 21 , 2020 The most revealing part is that Trump asked for ‘ Gone with the Wind ’ back .
Patriarchy , slavery , celebrating the Old South .
Yikes .
Trump really does signal to his voters ’ worst instincts https : //t.co/9xeKW70lcj — Robert E Kelly ( @ Robert_E_Kelly ) February 21 , 2020 Trump loves Gone With The Wind but he prefers to watch it backwards to see the slaves learn their place .
— John Fugelsang ( @ JohnFugelsang ) February 21 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wind ” and “ Sunset Boulevard ” should be honored again .
Because : America or something .
Who wants to tell him Vivian Leigh , Olivia de Havilland , Leslie Howard were foreign workers ; Billy Wilder an immigrant ?
— ALLISON ADATO ( @ editgirlnyc ) February 21 , 2020 Saw the clip of Trump talking about Parasite , Gone With The Wind , and Sunset Boulevard .
But I refuse to believe he 's seen any movie except Home Alone 2 , because he 's in that one .
— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 , 2020 Totally on brand for Trump to complain about the South Korean movie Parasite winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards over a 1939 film like Gone With The Wind .
One is about the struggles of the Asian working class .
The other is a Confederate sob story about a racist white lady .
— Eugene Gu , MD ( @ eugenegu ) February 21 , 2020 Apparently , the racist in chief thinks movies like Gone With the Wind , chock full of docile slaves , is what makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we do n't give a damn .
— BrooklynDad_Defiant !
( @ mmpadellan ) February 21 , 2020 A few years ago I went with a couple members of my family to see Gone With the Wind in this hellish suburban multiplex .
Every Boomer there walked out really quietly whispering basically , “ that was racist as shit ” .
Yeah , no kidding .
— Yeti or Not , Here I Come ( @ gitagovinda ) February 21 , 2020 Me : Classic movie lover sees `` Gone with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on tab to see why > pic.twitter.com/lfTbLNbKaX — Maureen Lee Lenker ( @ themaureenlee ) February 21 , 2020 Trump complains that South Korean films are winning Oscars and that we need more like `` Gone With The Wind , '' a movie that even in 1939 was recognized as being racist as hell https : //t.co/1pv7KOv8U2 pic.twitter.com/vagYfs1CUy — Timothy Burke ( @ bubbaprog ) February 21 , 2020 '' Was it good ?
I don ’ t know .
Let ’ s get ‘ Gone With the Wind . '
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's white identity politics .
It 's a signal of group identity & romanticism of an entertainment age before non-whites were socially prominent/influential.https : //t.co/pYcw2oSSt2 — Luke Thomas ( @ lthomasnews ) February 21 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump reminisced about the 1939 movie “Gone With The Wind” during his rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on Thursday and faced an immediate backlash on social media.
Trump asked to bring “back” the film — heavily criticized for its racist language, demeaning stereotypes of Black characters and its romanticization of slavery before the Civil War ― as he railed against the awarding of the Oscar for Best Picture to South Korean movie “Parasite,” directed by Bong Joon Ho.
Advertisement
“I’m looking for like … let’s get ‘Gone with the Wind,’ can we get ‘Gone with the Wind’ back, please?” asked Trump. “‘Sunset Boulevard.’ So many great movies,” he continued. “The winner from South Korea, I thought it was best foreign film. Best foreign movie. No … did this ever happen before?”
Charlotte Clymer, of the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, described Trump “openly pining” for the film starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh as “the doggiest dogwhistle that ever dogwhistled.”
Max Boot, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, noted how Trump “talks far more harshly about South Korea than North Korea” and said the president’s love for the “pro-Confederate” film was “very telling.”
I’m sorry but this is SENDING me. The racist audience cheered for “what happened to Gone With the Wind” but then was quiet for “Sunset Blvd.” Too gay for us!!!!!! https://t.co/uVSF7eXN7h — Ira Madison III (@ira) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
Trump literally just asked, "Can we get like 'Gone With The Wind' back please?" That's really saying the quiet part out loud isn't it. — Hunter Walker (@hunterw) February 21, 2020
Trump openly pining for "Gone with the Wind" is the doggiest dogwhistle that ever dogwhistled. — Charlotte Clymer 🏳🌈 (@cmclymer) February 21, 2020
Gonna put this out there, and I mean every word of it: "Gone with the Wind" has a run time of nearly four hours and is jam-packed with scenes of adults talking to each other in thick dialogue. Even if it is Citizen Kane for racists, I'll bet you anything Trump has never seen it. — Charlotte Clymer 🏳🌈 (@cmclymer) February 21, 2020
MAGA rallies are not only a safe space for xenophobia, but his audience shows up hungry for that kind of red meat. That's why Trump reached and whined about a foreign movie winning Best Picture, and also why he picked a very telling choice as an alternative -- Gone With the Wind. — Adam Best (@adamcbest) February 21, 2020
Trump talks far more harshly about South Korea than North Korea. And of course he loves pro-Confederate “Gone With the Wind.” Very telling. https://t.co/FPfrPkx7hg — Max Boot (@MaxBoot) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
Gone with the Wind is a romanticized white wash of slavery and the antebellum South and the author Margaret Mitchell had tremendous "economic anxiety." Of course Trump would prefer it over PARASITE, a brilliant movie commenting on classism and income inequality. — Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) February 21, 2020
Ok... “Gone with The Wind”?! #Trump tells us who he is every single day. https://t.co/CQvjGMOh5h — Maya Wiley (@mayawiley) February 21, 2020
Racist xenophobic Trump knows exactly what he is doing asking to bring back “Gone With The Wind” which romanticized slavery & for decades was most popular account of The Civil War. Like MAGA slogan, he always speaks to his audiences inner white supremacy pic.twitter.com/3t4douGqmu — ChuckModi (@ChuckModi1) February 21, 2020
The most revealing part is that Trump asked for ‘Gone with the Wind’ back. Patriarchy, slavery, celebrating the Old South. Yikes. Trump really does signal to his voters’ worst instincts https://t.co/9xeKW70lcj — Robert E Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) February 21, 2020
Trump loves Gone With The Wind but he prefers to watch it backwards to see the slaves learn their place. — John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
He thinks “Gone with The Wind” and “Sunset Boulevard” should be honored again. Because: America or something.
Who wants to tell him Vivian Leigh, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard were foreign workers; Billy Wilder an immigrant? — ALLISON ADATO (@editgirlnyc) February 21, 2020
Saw the clip of Trump talking about Parasite, Gone With The Wind, and Sunset Boulevard. But I refuse to believe he's seen any movie except Home Alone 2, because he's in that one. — Sean Thomason (@TheThomason) February 21, 2020
Totally on brand for Trump to complain about the South Korean movie Parasite winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards over a 1939 film like Gone With The Wind. One is about the struggles of the Asian working class. The other is a Confederate sob story about a racist white lady. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) February 21, 2020
Apparently, the racist in chief thinks movies like Gone With the Wind, chock full of docile slaves, is what makes America great.
Frankly, @realDonaldTrump, we don't give a damn. — BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) February 21, 2020
A few years ago I went with a couple members of my family to see Gone With the Wind in this hellish suburban multiplex. Every Boomer there walked out really quietly whispering basically, “that was racist as shit”.
Yeah, no kidding. — Yeti or Not, Here I Come (@gitagovinda) February 21, 2020
Advertisement
Me: Classic movie lover sees "Gone with the Wind" is trending. pic.twitter.com/lfTbLNbKaX — Maureen Lee Lenker (@themaureenlee) February 21, 2020
Trump complains that South Korean films are winning Oscars and that we need more like "Gone With The Wind," a movie that even in 1939 was recognized as being racist as hell https://t.co/1pv7KOv8U2 pic.twitter.com/vagYfs1CUy — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) February 21, 2020
"Was it good? I don’t know. Let’s get ‘Gone With the Wind.'”
This is not a comment on Parasite. It's white identity politics. It's a signal of group identity & romanticism of an entertainment age before non-whites were socially prominent/influential.https://t.co/pYcw2oSSt2 — Luke Thomas (@lthomasnews) February 21, 2020
When I saw Gone With The Wind was trending I assumed another part of Trump's wall had fallen. pic.twitter.com/o3XOfwOyiX — CK (@charley_ck14) February 21, 2020
It's bringing up Gone With the Wind that raises this from simple xenophobic ignorance to real dada racism. https://t.co/xRSYEFMlam — Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) February 21, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Elizabeth Warren Keeps Punching, Seeking To Supercharge Campaign

Warren ’ s strategy , based on the approach she took at a campaign event in Las Vegas , on a teleconference with voters in South Carolina and during a media blitz that involved appearances on “ The View , ” MSNBC and a CNN town hall , is simple : continue to relentlessly and ruthlessly attack Bloomberg , the former New York mayor .
The approach , so far , has netted her more than $ 5 million in 24 hours to help boost a campaign that has high overhead and was left with little money after the Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive amount of media attention for a campaign whose supporters were recently worried about the “ erasure ” of her candidacy .
“ Last night was a lot of fun and I ’ ll tell you why , ” said a clearly energized Warren , battling a cold that has made her voice hoarse in recent days .
She then proceeded to focus most of her 10-minute remarks on Bloomberg , hammering his expansion of the police stop-and-frisk policy when he was mayor .
“ I wrote up a release and covenant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former Harvard law professor who taught contract law .
“ And all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it .
I ’ ll text it .
Sign it .
And then the women or men will be free to speak and tell their own stories.
” Even as she focused this week on winning the Nevada caucuses , Warren on Thursday dialed into a tele-town hall with supporters in South Carolina , the last of the early nominating states .
After a brief introduction from Tameika Isaac Devine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator on the call because of her commitment to fighting for communities of color , Warren continued to hammer away at billionaires “ like Mike Bloomberg ” and their influence in politics .
But all of her Bloomberg bashing , regardless of how much it delights her supporters ― and it clearly does ― can ’ t solve her problem of finding a way to surpass Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the polls .
Sanders , who is favored to win in Nevada , has consolidated many of the young and left-leaning voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It has to be a ranked-choice voting principle , where the Democratic Party can look as a whole and say , ‘ Who ’ s our best bet to win ?
Who can we all unify around ?
’ ” Green said in an appearance on the web streaming show “ The Hill ’ s Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti.
” “ I don ’ t see how you can defend the proposition that ― if at the end of the day , it is true that only 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want one person as the nominee , they should be the nominee.
” Warren also has begun to slowly lob more criticisms in Sanders ’ direction .
During a gaggle with reporters , she suggested the 78-year-old Sanders needed to release more medical records following his heart attack last fall .
And during an appearance on MSNBC ’ s “ The Last Word , ” she pointedly questioned Sanders ’ effectiveness .
The fundraising boost was needed .
Federal Election Commission records filed Thursday night show Warren , who raised just $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , was down to just $ 2.3 million on hand at the end of January ― a paltry amount for a candidate with an organizing-heavy approach that requires more than 1,000 staffers nationwide .
( By comparison , Sanders had $ 16.8 million on hand at the end of January . )
The one clear hiccup of the day for Warren , who built much of her campaign around the need to reform a corrupt campaign finance system , were her attempts to explain why she reversed course and decided to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs , count me in , I ’ ll lead the charge .
But that ’ s how it has to be , ” Warren told reporters after the canvas kickoff .
“ It can ’ t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don ’ t .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
LAS VEGAS ― If this week was a do-or-die moment for her presidential campaign, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) got the best possible outcome at Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate. She pummeled billionaire Michael Bloomberg and won rave reviews from the media and her competitors alike.
Now comes the hard part: proving she can fight her way to the top at the ballot box.
Warren’s strategy, based on the approach she took at a campaign event in Las Vegas, on a teleconference with voters in South Carolina and during a media blitz that involved appearances on “The View,” MSNBC and a CNN town hall, is simple: continue to relentlessly and ruthlessly attack Bloomberg, the former New York mayor.
Advertisement
The approach, so far, has netted her more than $5 million in 24 hours to help boost a campaign that has high overhead and was left with little money after the Iowa caucuses. It’s also provided a massive amount of media attention for a campaign whose supporters were recently worried about the “erasure” of her candidacy.
But it has not yet given Warren a clear path to winning the Democratic nomination.
Warren started her day with a canvass kickoff at a campaign office in a strip mall in North Las Vegas, where a high-energy group of volunteers repeatedly started chants of “It’s time for a woman in the White House,” and “Persist.”
“Last night was a lot of fun and I’ll tell you why,” said a clearly energized Warren, battling a cold that has made her voice hoarse in recent days. She then proceeded to focus most of her 10-minute remarks on Bloomberg, hammering his expansion of the police stop-and-frisk policy when he was mayor.
And she opened the CNN town hall by brandishing a contract she had written for Bloomberg to sign that would release the women who sued his company for sexual harassment from nondisclosure agreements.
Advertisement
“I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue,” said Warren, a former Harvard law professor who taught contract law. “And all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it. I’ll text it. Sign it. And then the women or men will be free to speak and tell their own stories.”
Mike Bloomberg can easily release the women who have accused him of sexual harassment—and who voluntarily want to speak about their experiences—from their non-disclosure agreements. Take a look at how simple and straightforward it would be: pic.twitter.com/XLncEnSXDF — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 21, 2020
Warren also went after Bloomberg in a fundraising email, noting he supported Warren’s 2012 Senate opponent, GOP Sen. Scott Brown.
“Despite starting 17 points down — and despite Mike Bloomberg trying to keep the Senate seat for Scott Brown — Elizabeth built a grassroots movement and beat him by 7.5 points,” her campaign wrote to supporters.
Even as she focused this week on winning the Nevada caucuses, Warren on Thursday dialed into a tele-town hall with supporters in South Carolina, the last of the early nominating states. After a brief introduction from Tameika Isaac Devine, a Columbia council member who endorsed the senator on the call because of her commitment to fighting for communities of color, Warren continued to hammer away at billionaires “like Mike Bloomberg” and their influence in politics.
Advertisement
“We’re up against billionaires and people who spend all their time sucking up to billionaires. I’m not doing that,” she declared.
But all of her Bloomberg bashing, regardless of how much it delights her supporters ― and it clearly does ― can’t solve her problem of finding a way to surpass Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the polls. Sanders, who is favored to win in Nevada, has consolidated many of the young and left-leaning voters he and Warren had previously battled over.
One of Warren’s biggest supporters, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green, suggested on Thursday that her best path to victory may be through a brokered convention.
“It has to be a ranked-choice voting principle, where the Democratic Party can look as a whole and say, ‘Who’s our best bet to win? Who can we all unify around?’” Green said in an appearance on the web streaming show “The Hill’s Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti.” “I don’t see how you can defend the proposition that ― if at the end of the day, it is true that only 25%, 27% of Democratic voters want one person as the nominee, they should be the nominee.”
Warren also has begun to slowly lob more criticisms in Sanders’ direction. During a gaggle with reporters, she suggested the 78-year-old Sanders needed to release more medical records following his heart attack last fall. And during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” she pointedly questioned Sanders’ effectiveness.
Advertisement
“I get real stuff done,” she said. “I don’t want to be president just to yell at people. I want to be president to change things.”
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren holds a "Canvass Kickoff" event at her campaign field office in North Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. February 20, 2020. David Ryder / Reuters
The Warren campaign said it had raised $5 million since the start of the debate, and $17 million in February, the highest of the year.
The fundraising boost was needed. Federal Election Commission records filed Thursday night show Warren, who raised just $1 for every $2 she spent last month, was down to just $2.3 million on hand at the end of January ― a paltry amount for a candidate with an organizing-heavy approach that requires more than 1,000 staffers nationwide. (By comparison, Sanders had $16.8 million on hand at the end of January.)
The Warren campaign is also set to receive a significant boost from a super PAC formed to support her candidacy, whose backing Warren tacitly accepted Thursday. The group, Persist PAC, has already reserved more than $1 million worth of television airtime in Nevada and South Carolina.
Advertisement
“I’m not ready to go away,” Warren said at the field office, referencing a recent Bloomberg suggestion that other candidates drop out so he could challenge Sanders one-on-one.
The one clear hiccup of the day for Warren, who built much of her campaign around the need to reform a corrupt campaign finance system, were her attempts to explain why she reversed course and decided to accept a super PAC’s help.
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in, I’ll lead the charge. But that’s how it has to be,” Warren told reporters after the canvas kickoff. “It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
At a panel discussion about issues facing Black women at the Eclipse Theater, none of the voters who spoke to HuffPost said they were more likely to vote for Warren as a result of her debate performance.
“I liked what Elizabeth Warren had to say. I loved how she came at” Bloomberg, said Rayshawn Williams, a pharmaceutical salesperson.
Advertisement
But Williams plans to caucus for former Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday, because she regards him as the most electable. (Williams said her policy views are closer to Sanders’ and Warren’s.)
Some people said that Bloomberg’s debate performance had soured them. “I was rooting for Bloomberg, however, Bloomberg obviously can’t debate,” said the Rev. Patrick Winfield, who watched highlights of the debate after it aired.
Winfield, who was getting a drink at the theater bar, not attending the discussion, had hoped that Bloomberg could neutralize Trump’s boasts about the growing economy. After seeing clips of Bloomberg’s performance though, Winfield concluded, “Short of his money, it’d probably be very hard for him to be elected or considered to be electable.”
Still others said they were simply sick of the Democratic candidates sniping back and forth.
Rather than come away impressed or better informed, Brian Harris, a media consultant who said his first three choices are Sanders, Warren and Steyer, was disappointed in the whole spectacle.
“I felt like I was at a low-budget Jerry Springer show,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Why A Major Nevada Union Is Supporting Bernie Sanders

CCEA has some of the qualities that would seem to fit with Sanders ’ proposals .
As one of the only union locals in the country not affiliated with a state or international labor union , its independence rivals that of the curmudgeonly senator from Vermont .
It severed ties with the state affiliate of the National Education Association in April 2018 in a dispute over how its dues were being used ― CCEA President John Vellardita likened the state group to an “ ATM machine ” ― and has been in a low-level war with the powerful international union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trades unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , which has endorsed Joe Biden and released a video on Wednesday of its members blasting Medicare for All , administer multi-employer health insurance plans known as Taft-Hartley plans .
The plans offer unique benefits for union members who may not work at the same job site or hotel for a prolonged period of time , but can stay continuously insured as long as they remain union members .
In a so-called right-to-work state like Nevada , the plans are also a convenient way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not required to pay dues to the union , to do so .
It ’ s undoubtedly part of the reason why the Culinary estimates that its 60,000 dues-paying members make up about 95 % of the workers it represents .
( CCEA , by contrast , has a membership rate of 65 % ― just over 10,000 people . )
Which Nevada Union Will Have The Biggest Impact ?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
LAS VEGAS ― As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) closed the books on his narrow win in New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, criticism from Nevada’s Culinary Workers Union ― the most powerful labor organization in the state ― marred his victory party.
Union leaders worried that Sanders’ signature policy proposal, Medicare for All, would replace a health plan they fought decades to build in favor of an untested alternative ― and were doing their best to share the concerns with the union’s 60,000 members.
Advertisement
Over the following days, the policy disagreement escalated into a public dispute as the union reported verbal abuse and doxxing of its leadership by people who described themselves as Sanders supporters. Sanders’ rivals, along with the national media, which often treat unions as an afterthought, were suddenly knee-deep in the minutiae of multi-employer health care plans.
But what got lost in the legitimate discussion of the potential impact of Sanders’ feud with the Culinary is that Nevada’s sizable labor movement is as divided over Sanders’ candidacy as it is about Medicare for All.
And unlike the Culinary, which has chosen not to endorse in the primary, at least one union that is less antagonistic to Medicare for All has jumped into the race. The Clark County Education Association, or CCEA, which represents over 18,000 educators, announced in mid-January that it was endorsing Sanders.
“We have more labor endorsements than anybody in this campaign,” said Sanders campaign senior adviser Chuck Rocha, referring to the more than two dozen local and international labor unions that have gotten behind Sanders’ bid. “Those are the organizations we’re working really hard to get.”
Advertisement
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a union-sponsored candidate forum in Las Vegas in August. Although Sanders is a labor ally, Nevada unions are divided on his preesidential bid. Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Health Care Experiences Shape Nevada Union Politics
CCEA has some of the qualities that would seem to fit with Sanders’ proposals. As one of the only union locals in the country not affiliated with a state or international labor union, its independence rivals that of the curmudgeonly senator from Vermont. It severed ties with the state affiliate of the National Education Association in April 2018 in a dispute over how its dues were being used ― CCEA President John Vellardita likened the state group to an “ATM machine” ― and has been in a low-level war with the powerful international union ever since.
The key draw for CCEA’s membership was union members’ “trust” in Sanders as a champion of working people, according to Vellardita. And in terms of specific policies, Sanders’ commitment to raising teacher pay to at least $60,000 was also a big selling point, according to Kenny Belknap, a CCEA executive board member and ardent Sanders supporter.
But crucially, the union is not averse to Medicare for All, because it recognizes that there are limits to what it can achieve through its own negotiating.
“Doc costs, hospital costs, pharmacy costs ― we can try to control or contain or get something out of the employer, but in the end, we’re part of a market,” Vellardita told HuffPost. “What you have today, you may not have tomorrow.”
Advertisement
Vellardita’s logic exemplifies a broader divide within organized labor between unions like his that see their existing health care benefits as precarious and would prefer to free up negotiating power for other priorities, and unions like the Culinary that have more generous health care coverage and treasure gains they have achieved over decades of fighting.
“What you have today, you may not have tomorrow.” - John Vellardita, president, Clark County Education Association
The Culinary and building trades unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which has endorsed Joe Biden and released a video on Wednesday of its members blasting Medicare for All, administer multi-employer health insurance plans known as Taft-Hartley plans. The plans offer unique benefits for union members who may not work at the same job site or hotel for a prolonged period of time, but can stay continuously insured as long as they remain union members.
In a so-called right-to-work state like Nevada, the plans are also a convenient way for unions to encourage workers, who are not required to pay dues to the union, to do so. It’s undoubtedly part of the reason why the Culinary estimates that its 60,000 dues-paying members make up about 95% of the workers it represents. (CCEA, by contrast, has a membership rate of 65% ― just over 10,000 people.)
The insurance plans also can be a source of revenue for unions and occasionally, jobs for friends or relatives of union leaders. For example, a report in The American Prospect noted that Bobbette Bond, who is married to D. Taylor, the head of the Culinary’s parent union Unite Here, holds a senior staff position on the Culinary Health Fund.
Advertisement
In a bid to assuage their concerns, Sanders has promised unions that the health care they would receive under Medicare for All would be at least as generous as their current plans, which typically feature modest out-of-pocket costs for some forms of care.
He even updated his Medicare for All legislation in August to include a provision allowing unions to go back to the bargaining table to ensure that any savings their employers achieve due to Medicare for All would be returned to unions in the form of pay increases or other concessions.
Culinary union members demonstrate outside The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas in June 2013. The famously militant union is wary of jeopardizing its hard-fought gains. Ethan Miller/Getty Images
But Geoconda Argüello-Kline, the secretary-treasurer of the Culinary, doesn’t buy it. Speaking to reporters after an event at the Culinary union hall on Tuesday featuring Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Argüello-Kline cited the union’s successful 6 1/2-year strike at the Frontier hotel ― one of the longest work stoppages in the country’s history ― to show how hard it has been to win the union’s existing benefits.
Referring to the prospect of the mammoth casinos on the Las Vegas strip bargaining to offset the loss of a health care plan, Argüello-Kline said flatly, “They’re not going to give it to us.”
Advertisement
The CCEA’s Vellardita told HuffPost that he, too, appreciates the health care plan that his union has fought to win, and takes solace in his belief that Sanders will not succeed “overnight” in abolishing private health insurance.
“This requires a multi-year plan,” Vellardita said. (Indeed, even Sanders imagines a four-year transition, though it is likely to take much longer with congressional resistance.)
But others noted that CCEA has been unable to win protections at the bargaining table that are as strong as Medicare for All. Over the years, educators have lamented that the union’s insurance plan, underfunded by the school district, left them with unexpected coverage restrictions and high out-of-pocket costs.
“Their health insurance is a disaster,” said Clark County Commissioner Tick Segerblom, one of the state’s few elected officials to endorse Sanders. “That’s a classic case of where Medicare for All will be a huge benefit.”
Geoconda Argüello-Kline, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Workers Union, announced on Feb. 13 that the union would not be endorsing in the presidential primary. Alex Wong/Getty Images
Advertisement
A ‘Class Struggle’ Ideology?
In the course of Sanders’ dispute with the Culinary, other unions revealed they also had a less antagonistic view toward Medicare for All. The heads of Service Employees International Union Local 1107, which represents health care industry workers and civil servants, and the Western States Regional Joint Board, of which the local is a part, issued a statement implicitly condemning the Culinary for framing Medicare for All as an attack on workers’ rights.
“The debate over whether working Americans need Medicare for All or union-negotiated health benefits is a false choice,” SEIU 1107 executive director Vergara-Mactal and the regional board’s Maria Rivera said in a joint statement. “While some working people have good healthcare plans through their jobs, many do not. Access to quality healthcare shouldn’t be based on luck, it should be a right.”
Brian Shepherd, SEIU 1107’s chief of staff, clarified that the union does not have a position on whether Medicare for All is superior to other paths to universal health care coverage. The union simply does not appreciate politicians using their supposed support for unions as a moral shield for their opposition to Medicare for All, he said.
“It really does divide working people when unions are cited as the reason certain candidates don’t support Medicare for All ― or health care for all,” Shepherd said.
Beyond the divergent circumstances that shape the various union perspectives on Medicare for All, and implicitly on Sanders, there are genuine ideological differences that separate more cautious unions like those frightened by Medicare for All from more radical ones that embrace it.
Advertisement
“The vast majority of unions have as one of their goals building up wages, benefits for all working people, but there are some unions that are more attuned to overall class struggle,” said Nathan Ring, a labor attorney based in Las Vegas who represents unions.
Nevadans wait on line to caucus on Tuesday, the last of four early caucus days. Bernie Sanders' performance in the caucuses is a test of competing unions' clout in the state. Mario Tama/Getty Images
Which Nevada Union Will Have The Biggest Impact?
Vellardita insisted that the Culinary’s refusal to endorse in the primary is a downward inflection point in its much-vaunted influence in Nevada politics.
The Culinary “earned a reputation that I’m not sure is up to snuff in today’s election cycle,” he said. “They clearly knew they couldn’t pick a winner.”
But the Culinary is still advising its members that Sanders, and to a lesser extent Warren, are proposing a health care policy that would jeopardize their union benefits. And CCEA does not have anything close to the Culinary’s voter mobilization operation.
Advertisement
Vellardita could not refer HuffPost to voter education materials that it has sent to its membership akin to the candidate scorecard distributed by the Culinary. CCEA estimates that some 100 members, including Belknap, canvass regularly for Sanders. The union does not have educator-specific field organizing tactics. Instead, the canvassers participate as ordinary volunteers getting their canvassing material from the Sanders campaign.
“The Culinary really has a history of delivering.” - Tick Segerblom, Clark County commission
“They just don’t have anything near the influence that Culinary has,” said Segerblom, who estimated that Culinary members typically constitute between 10% and 20% of caucusgoers. “The Culinary really has a history of delivering.”
For its part, SEIU 1107 is incapable of joining CCEA in endorsing Sanders, even if it wanted. The international union of which SEIU 1107 is a part has forbidden its local affiliates from endorsing presidential candidates, absent an endorsement from the international. (Speaking in a personal capacity, Shepherd, the local union’s chief of staff, advertised his decision to caucus for Sanders on Twitter.)
An outstanding question as the caucuses approach on Saturday is the degree to which the Culinary’s skepticism of Medicare for All will meaningfully eat into the support for Sanders, in particular.
Advertisement
At the Culinary union hall event on Tuesday where Klobuchar and Warren spoke, Diana Thomas, a Flamingo employee, said she plans to caucus for Biden.
“I identify with a person who’s for my insurance,” she said.
On the other side of the union hall, where Nevadans were waiting in long lines to caucus early, another union member, Emilio Ruiz, was leaning toward Sanders.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--GOP State Lawmakers Offer Offensive Excuses For Skipping Sexual Harassment Training

In a raucous legislative session Thursday , GOP lawmakers in New Hampshire raised a variety of offensive reasons for refusing to attend sexual harassment training , including one joking she ’ d “ be extremely flattered ” if someone harassed her and another recommending training on “ what happens to a fetus ” during an abortion .
The Democratic-led state House voted to publicly reprimand seven GOP representatives for repeatedly ducking training sessions , more than a year after lawmakers mandated the anti-harassment and discrimination training in a bipartisan vote in response to the Me Too movement .
The representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition , with several claiming it was unconstitutional , or complaining the rebuke was “ Washington , D.C. , politics.
” “ I was raised to be very respectful of one another , and I was raised especially to be respectful to women , ” Rep. Charlie Burns ( R ) said , calling the mandatory training “ very offensive and very insulting.
” “ And there is not a single person in this room , this building , this complex that can ever honestly say that I have sexually harassed them or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Burns went on to suggest that if Republicans win control of the state House , they can mandate their own training , such as one on abortion .
“ I am really , looking forward to having everyone take sensitivity training to the issues that I consider important , ” he said , including “ that question of abortion and what happens to a fetus during that abortion.
” “ I don ’ t need to be told by an all-knowing , all-powerful state exactly how I have to behave in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McKinney ( R ) said she accepted the reprimand , but will continue to resist training .
“ I ’ m 80 years old .
I ’ m not about to sexually harass anybody , except my seatmate , ” she said .
She added : “ If anyone wanted to sexually harass me , I would be extremely flattered , but I ’ d advise him to get glasses.
” Lawmakers had been offered at least eight opportunities to attend a training session , House Speaker Steve Shurtleff ( D ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they attended something similar at their workplace .
“ Having a fellow female representative get up there and make a joke makes a mockery of women and any victim in this state , ” Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight ( D ) said .
“ It ’ s basically laughing at their fight.
” “ Republicans ’ refusal to attend a mandatory sexual harassment training — along with their obscene excuses — perpetuate a toxic culture where sexual harassment is condoned and where those who come forward are ignored and attacked , ” Holly Shulman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party , said in a statement .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a raucous legislative session Thursday, GOP lawmakers in New Hampshire raised a variety of offensive reasons for refusing to attend sexual harassment training, including one joking she’d “be extremely flattered” if someone harassed her and another recommending training on “what happens to a fetus” during an abortion.
The Democratic-led state House voted to publicly reprimand seven GOP representatives for repeatedly ducking training sessions, more than a year after lawmakers mandated the anti-harassment and discrimination training in a bipartisan vote in response to the Me Too movement.
Advertisement
The representatives who were reprimanded took turns explaining their opposition, with several claiming it was unconstitutional, or complaining the rebuke was “Washington, D.C., politics.”
“I was raised to be very respectful of one another, and I was raised especially to be respectful to women,” Rep. Charlie Burns (R) said, calling the mandatory training “very offensive and very insulting.” “And there is not a single person in this room, this building, this complex that can ever honestly say that I have sexually harassed them or in fact harassed them in any way.”
Burns went on to suggest that if Republicans win control of the state House, they can mandate their own training, such as one on abortion.
“I am really, looking forward to having everyone take sensitivity training to the issues that I consider important,” he said, including “that question of abortion and what happens to a fetus during that abortion.”
Advertisement
“I don’t need to be told by an all-knowing, all-powerful state exactly how I have to behave in public,” Burns added.
Rep. Betsy McKinney (R) said she accepted the reprimand, but will continue to resist training. “I’m 80 years old. I’m not about to sexually harass anybody, except my seatmate,” she said.
Her joke was met with cheers and hollers from some lawmakers.
She added: “If anyone wanted to sexually harass me, I would be extremely flattered, but I’d advise him to get glasses.”
Lawmakers had been offered at least eight opportunities to attend a training session, House Speaker Steve Shurtleff (D) said. They could forgo the training if they attended something similar at their workplace.
Democrats criticized the GOP scofflaws for making light of sexual harassment.
“Having a fellow female representative get up there and make a joke makes a mockery of women and any victim in this state,” Rep. Nicole Klein-Knight (D) said. “It’s basically laughing at their fight.”
Advertisement
“Republicans’ refusal to attend a mandatory sexual harassment training — along with their obscene excuses — perpetuate a toxic culture where sexual harassment is condoned and where those who come forward are ignored and attacked,” Holly Shulman, a spokesperson for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said in a statement.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Michael Bloomberg Is Drowning Out The Small-Donor Boom

Mike Blake / Reuters Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks at the ninth Democratic presidential debate at the Paris Theater in Las Vegas , Nevada on Feb. 19 .
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , a multibillionaire media and financial mogul , has given his presidential campaign $ 463 million since it launched in November , roughly $ 180 million more than every small dollar donor in the United States has given to the other 28 candidates who have sought the Democratic presidential nomination this cycle .
Bloomberg has used this money , the totals of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports filed Thursday , to essentially drown out the preferences of the millions of Americans who have donated to other candidates .
He has spent his money in ways both extravagant — free sushi for his staff and catered spreads for his supporters — and practical , by airing hundreds of millions of dollars ’ worth of television and digital ads .
This ad blitz boosted his poll numbers even as he declined to compete in the traditionally crucial early states of Iowa and New Hampshire , and even as elements of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It made him a top-tier contender for the nomination , though a wretched performance at Wednesday night ’ s debate in Las Vegas may end his hopes of a primary victory .
But Bloomberg ’ s relative success highlights a danger for progressives who are hoping to upend traditional campaign finance practices , and an awkward reality for Democrats who have celebrated the boom in small-donor giving since the election of President Donald Trump : Under the existing campaign finance rules unleashed by the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United decision , small-dollar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Traditionally , any donor who gives under $ 200 to a campaign is considered a small donor . )
Since Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s unprecedented success with small-dollar donors in 2016 , progressives have hoped that a revolution in campaign finance practices could lead to a bolder , more left-leaning Democratic Party .
Small-dollar donors could replace traditional giving from wealthy donors , freeing Democrats to pursue bolder policies that make the traditional donor class uncomfortable , such as “ Medicare for All ” and a wealth surtax .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many donations it receives from public school teachers and Walmart employees , while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has said ditching high-dollar fundraising has allowed her to embrace more liberal policy plans .
“ I ’ m not running a campaign that ’ s shaped by a bunch of consultants with plans that are designed not to offend big donors , ” Warren has said as part of her stump speech .
“ I passed that stop sign a long time ago.
” “ There is a reason why these people are putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , ” Sanders said of wealthy donors during a debate with then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
“ And in my view , it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.
” Sanders and Warren have led the rest of the Democratic field in fundraising despite shunning traditional high-dollar fundraising tactics and bringing in most of their money online in chunks of $ 30 or less .
But while collecting enough small donations to match the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been relatively easy , neither candidate has come close to matching Bloomberg ’ s level of fundraising .
It ’ s easy to brush off these concerns — after all , Sanders is the front-runner for the nomination at the moment despite being massively outspent by Bloomberg .
But presidential races , which are intensely covered by the media , are unique .
In down-ballot contests , paid advertising is far more influential ― just look at how Bloomberg-funded ads helped Democrats pick up additional House seats in 2018 .
And a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes it clear just how much big donors are lapping small donors in those races .
In 2018 , small-dollar giving did spike more than 50 % compared to the previous midterm election in 2014 .
But the largest gifts ― those from donors who gave $ 100,000 or more to political committees ― spiked even more .
“ There are fewer than 3,500 of these $ 100,000 donors — who are each giving well over the median American household ’ s annual income , ” Ian Vandewalker , senior counsel for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in the report .
“ They gave more money than at least 7 million donors of $ 200 or less.
” In 2010 , the first midterm election year held after the Citizens United decision , donors giving more than $ 1 million made up about 1 % of all federal election giving .
In 2014 , that number jumped to 10 % , according to the Brennan Center .
By 2018 , it was more than 20 % .
There are ways to change this : Basically every major Democratic candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
Former Vice President Joe Biden has backed public campaign financing since the 1970s .
Warren has proposed matching small-dollar donations with public funds , and both she and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg have promised to make pushing a massive democracy reform package their first act as president .

Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks at the ninth Democratic presidential debate at the Paris Theater in Las Vegas, Nevada on Feb. 19. Mike Blake / Reuters
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a multibillionaire media and financial mogul, has given his presidential campaign $463 million since it launched in November, roughly $180 million more than every small dollar donor in the United States has given to the other 28 candidates who have sought the Democratic presidential nomination this cycle.
Bloomberg has used this money, the totals of which were revealed in Federal Election Commission reports filed Thursday, to essentially drown out the preferences of the millions of Americans who have donated to other candidates. He has spent his money in ways both extravagant — free sushi for his staff and catered spreads for his supporters — and practical, by airing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of television and digital ads. This ad blitz boosted his poll numbers even as he declined to compete in the traditionally crucial early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and even as elements of his record would typically repel Democratic voters. It made him a top-tier contender for the nomination, though a wretched performance at Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas may end his hopes of a primary victory.
Advertisement
But Bloomberg’s relative success highlights a danger for progressives who are hoping to upend traditional campaign finance practices, and an awkward reality for Democrats who have celebrated the boom in small-donor giving since the election of President Donald Trump: Under the existing campaign finance rules unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, small-dollar donors simply can’t match billionaires. (Traditionally, any donor who gives under $200 to a campaign is considered a small donor.)
Since Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s unprecedented success with small-dollar donors in 2016, progressives have hoped that a revolution in campaign finance practices could lead to a bolder, more left-leaning Democratic Party. Small-dollar donors could replace traditional giving from wealthy donors, freeing Democrats to pursue bolder policies that make the traditional donor class uncomfortable, such as “Medicare for All” and a wealth surtax. Sanders’s campaign often boasts about how many donations it receives from public school teachers and Walmart employees, while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has said ditching high-dollar fundraising has allowed her to embrace more liberal policy plans.
“I’m not running a campaign that’s shaped by a bunch of consultants with plans that are designed not to offend big donors,” Warren has said as part of her stump speech. “I passed that stop sign a long time ago.”
Advertisement
“There is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system,” Sanders said of wealthy donors during a debate with then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in 2016. “And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.”
Sanders and Warren have led the rest of the Democratic field in fundraising despite shunning traditional high-dollar fundraising tactics and bringing in most of their money online in chunks of $30 or less. But while collecting enough small donations to match the federal maximum donation of $2,800 has been relatively easy, neither candidate has come close to matching Bloomberg’s level of fundraising.
It’s easy to brush off these concerns — after all, Sanders is the front-runner for the nomination at the moment despite being massively outspent by Bloomberg. But presidential races, which are intensely covered by the media, are unique. In down-ballot contests, paid advertising is far more influential ― just look at how Bloomberg-funded ads helped Democrats pick up additional House seats in 2018.
And a recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice makes it clear just how much big donors are lapping small donors in those races. In 2018, small-dollar giving did spike more than 50% compared to the previous midterm election in 2014. But the largest gifts ― those from donors who gave $100,000 or more to political committees ― spiked even more.
“There are fewer than 3,500 of these $100,000 donors — who are each giving well over the median American household’s annual income,” Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, wrote in the report. “They gave more money than at least 7 million donors of $200 or less.”
Advertisement
In 2010, the first midterm election year held after the Citizens United decision, donors giving more than $1 million made up about 1% of all federal election giving. In 2014, that number jumped to 10%, according to the Brennan Center. By 2018, it was more than 20%.
The Brennan Center report reaches a stark and depressing conclusion: “Small donors — even in the millions — can’t compete with the influence bought by unlimited giving from wealthy interests.”
There are ways to change this: Basically every major Democratic candidate backs significant reforms to the campaign finance system. Former Vice President Joe Biden has backed public campaign financing since the 1970s. Warren has proposed matching small-dollar donations with public funds, and both she and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have promised to make pushing a massive democracy reform package their first act as president.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Stephen Colbert Reveals The Added Bonus Of Roger Stone’s Prison Sentence

Stephen Colbert responded to the sentencing of President Donald Trump ’ s longtime ally Roger Stone with a quip about @ @ @ @ @ infamous tattoo .
The image of disgraced former President Richard Nixon is inked on the @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday was sentenced to 40 months for witness tampering and lying to Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ host Colbert saw the prison time as a twofer .
“ Finally !
Nixon behind @ @ @ @ @ , alongside a snap of Stone and his tattoo of Nixon , who resigned in @ @ @ @ @ scandal .

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