thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Jared Kushner Says He's 'Read 25 Books' On The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Jared Kushner , who crafted President Donald Trump ’ s controversial Middle East peace plan , said he ’ s read 25 books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
The president ’ s senior White House adviser and son-in-law told Sky News Arabia Wednesday about the work he ’ s put in to develop the proposal for the region .
“ I ’ ve been studying this now for three years , ” Kushner said .
“ I ’ ve read 25 books on it , I ’ ve spoken to every leader in the region , I ’ ve spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this.
” Trump unveiled his Middle East peace plan on Tuesday , with Israel ’ s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side .
The plan calls for the creation of a State of Palestine with its capital in parts of east Jerusalem , while recognizing Israeli sovereignty over major settlements in the West Bank .
The announcement was criticized for lacking in Palestinian representation and favoring Israeli priorities , and was immediately rejected by Palestinian leaders .
Kushner , a 36-year-old former real estate developer , is married to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s taken point on the Trump administration ’ s efforts to resolve the conflict in the Middle East , despite having no prior experience in foreign policy .
His remarks on Wednesday drew sarcastic congratulations from Twitter users .
If only someone had thought of this before !
I mean , other people read 23 books , some people read 24 books .
I heard of one guy who read 26 book But only Jared Kushner had the vision to read *25 books .
* https : //t.co/WHWUnBj00V — Tabatha Southey ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve read 25 books about sailing around the world so I ’ m confodent you should hire me to build your boat .
— John Wing ( @ JohnWing5 ) January 29 , 2020 I 've read 25 books on the NBA .
I 'm available whenever the Chicago Bulls need a new point guard .
https : //t.co/9g1jvUdSSd — Renato Mariotti ( @ renato_mariotti ) January 29 , 2020 We 've found one of the 25 books on the conflict Jared Kushner had someone else read for him .
https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RobertMackey ) January 29 , 2020 It 's actually kind of sad Kushner even thinks this is impressive .
This might make someone knowledgeable on a hobby level , but for actually policy is extremely amateurish .
This does n't even get into the reality of which books may matter more than quantity .
https : //t.co/I2Cv9UY5PJ — Marxist Soccer ( @ MarxistSoccer ) January 30 , 2020 I 'll believe that Jared Kushner is growing into his role as a White House staffer when he no longer thinks reading 25 books is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/1dnIrUcFZP — Daniel W. Drezner ( @ dandrezner ) January 29 , 2020 let ’ s congratulate Jared Kushner on reading 25 books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and learning nothing from any of them — Chris Mohney ( @ chrismohney ) January 29 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jared Kushner, who crafted President Donald Trump’s controversial Middle East peace plan, said he’s read 25 books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The president’s senior White House adviser and son-in-law told Sky News Arabia Wednesday about the work he’s put in to develop the proposal for the region.
Advertisement
“I’ve been studying this now for three years,” Kushner said. “I’ve read 25 books on it, I’ve spoken to every leader in the region, I’ve spoken to everyone who’s been involved in this.”
Trump unveiled his Middle East peace plan on Tuesday, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side. The plan calls for the creation of a State of Palestine with its capital in parts of east Jerusalem, while recognizing Israeli sovereignty over major settlements in the West Bank. The announcement was criticized for lacking in Palestinian representation and favoring Israeli priorities, and was immediately rejected by Palestinian leaders.
Kushner, a 36-year-old former real estate developer, is married to Trump’s elder daughter, Ivanka. He’s taken point on the Trump administration’s efforts to resolve the conflict in the Middle East, despite having no prior experience in foreign policy.
His remarks on Wednesday drew sarcastic congratulations from Twitter users.
If only someone had thought of this before! I mean, other people read 23 books, some people read 24 books. I heard of one guy who read 26 book But only Jared Kushner had the vision to read *25 books.* https://t.co/WHWUnBj00V — Tabatha Southey (@TabathaSouthey) January 29, 2020
Advertisement
I’ve read 25 books about sailing around the world so I’m confodent you should hire me to build your boat. — John Wing (@JohnWing5) January 29, 2020
I've read 25 books on the NBA. I'm available whenever the Chicago Bulls need a new point guard. https://t.co/9g1jvUdSSd — Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 29, 2020
We've found one of the 25 books on the conflict Jared Kushner had someone else read for him. https://t.co/UuNuSeqYav — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) January 29, 2020
It's actually kind of sad Kushner even thinks this is impressive. This might make someone knowledgeable on a hobby level, but for actually policy is extremely amateurish. This doesn't even get into the reality of which books may matter more than quantity. https://t.co/I2Cv9UY5PJ — Marxist Soccer (@MarxistSoccer) January 30, 2020
I'll believe that Jared Kushner is growing into his role as a White House staffer when he no longer thinks reading 25 books is a big friggin' deal. https://t.co/1dnIrUcFZP — Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) January 29, 2020
Advertisement
Are people surprised that all of Kushner’s foreign policy experience from reading 25 books didn’t get a Middle East peace deal? — David Yankovich (@DavidYankovich) January 29, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Trump Defense Can't Offer Evidence He Cared About Corruption Before Biden 2020 Run

Collins and Murkowski , along with Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , offered the first questions of the day .
They asked Trump ’ s lawyers how the Senate should respond if it could be determined that Trump had more than one motive in withholding the military aid to Ukraine .
Philbin argued that House managers had to argue that there was no possible public interest in an investigation into the Bidens .
“ Once you ’ re into mixed-motive land , it ’ s clear that their case fails .
There can ’ t possibly be an impeachable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In response to another question from Romney about the specific date Trump ordered the hold on security assistance to Ukraine , and whether he gave a reason for doing so , Trump ’ s defense team again struggled to say .
“ I don ’ t think there is evidence in the record of a specific date , ” Philbin said , only pointing to testimony that U.S. officials were aware of the hold in early July .
But Romney , a Trump critic who has expressed an interest in hearing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that answer .
“ I ’ d like more information than they were apparently able to give , given the fact that that information was not in the record , ” he told HuffPost on Wednesday .

Collins and Murkowski, along with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), offered the first questions of the day. They asked Trump’s lawyers how the Senate should respond if it could be determined that Trump had more than one motive in withholding the military aid to Ukraine.
Philbin argued that House managers had to argue that there was no possible public interest in an investigation into the Bidens.
“Once you’re into mixed-motive land, it’s clear that their case fails. There can’t possibly be an impeachable offense at all,” Philbin said.
In response to another question from Romney about the specific date Trump ordered the hold on security assistance to Ukraine, and whether he gave a reason for doing so, Trump’s defense team again struggled to say.
“I don’t think there is evidence in the record of a specific date,” Philbin said, only pointing to testimony that U.S. officials were aware of the hold in early July.
But Romney, a Trump critic who has expressed an interest in hearing from witnesses, wasn’t satisfied with that answer.
“I’d like more information than they were apparently able to give, given the fact that that information was not in the record,” he told HuffPost on Wednesday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--White Supremacist Brandon Higgs Found Guilty In Hate Crime Shooting Of Black Man

Higgs , a 25-year-old former Navy cryptologist with ties to neo-Nazi groups , was convicted of assaulting two black men , Elvis Smith and Robert Peete , during a 2018 altercation in Reisterstown , a suburb of Baltimore .
Smith was shot in the leg .
Higgs shook his head in disbelief while being led out of the courtroom .
Members of his family broke into loud sobs and shouted “ I love you ” as court officers escorted him away .
The verdict marks an end to a long ordeal for the two victims , both of whom were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HuffPost exclusively interviewed Smith , 60 , and Peete , 49 , last year for a story examining hate in America .
On Dec. 20 , 2018 , Smith and Peete had been at work laying concrete on a driveway near Higgs ’ s house when a dog belonging to Higgs got loose and ran through the wet concrete .
The three men exchanged some angry words before Higgs returned to his house .
He reemerged from the house a short time later carrying a loaded gun and accosted the two men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution .
“ Nigger , this is my ’ hood , ” he allegedly said .
” Black motherfuckers , go back to Africa.
” He was accused of pushing Smith , who pushed him back .
Smith then hit Higgs with what ’ s called a come-along , a rake used to smooth concrete .
At some point , Higgs drew a gun and a tussle ensued , with Peete hopping into the melee to help Smith .
Magee said it pained him to say such “ awful ” words out loud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the jury to hear them .
Over and over again , Magee emphasized to jurors that Higgs , after the initial altercation with the dog , went home and remained there for 10 to 15 minutes .
“ Nothing else should ’ ve happened , but it did , and it did because of Mr. Higgs , ” Magee said .
“ Mr .
Higgs comes back locked and loaded to finish what he started , with a round in the chamber and a spare magazine.
” Near the conclusion of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was sitting in the courtroom , a wooden cane clutched in his right hand .
Most of Crawford ’ s closing argument emphasized that while Higgs may have made racist statements — at one point Crawford repeatedly called his own client “ stupid ” — there was not sufficient evidence to prove he had control of the gun when it fired .
The prosecution did not introduce evidence detailing Higgs ’ s deep connections to some of the white supremacist groups who helped organize the deadly 2017 “ Unite the Right ” @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
TOWSON, Md. — A jury found white supremacist Brandon Higgs guilty Wednesday of first-degree assault, attempted voluntary manslaughter, hate crimes, and related firearms charges.
Higgs, a 25-year-old former Navy cryptologist with ties to neo-Nazi groups, was convicted of assaulting two black men, Elvis Smith and Robert Peete, during a 2018 altercation in Reisterstown, a suburb of Baltimore. Smith was shot in the leg.
Advertisement
The jury deliberated for about three hours Wednesday evening before delivering their verdicts. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 23.
Higgs shook his head in disbelief while being led out of the courtroom. Members of his family broke into loud sobs and shouted “I love you” as court officers escorted him away.
The verdict marks an end to a long ordeal for the two victims, both of whom were left traumatized by their encounter with Higgs. HuffPost exclusively interviewed Smith, 60, and Peete, 49, last year for a story examining hate in America.
Advertisement
On Dec. 20, 2018, Smith and Peete had been at work laying concrete on a driveway near Higgs’s house when a dog belonging to Higgs got loose and ran through the wet concrete. The three men exchanged some angry words before Higgs returned to his house.
He reemerged from the house a short time later carrying a loaded gun and accosted the two men with racist remarks, according to the prosecution. “Nigger, this is my ’hood,” he allegedly said. ”Black motherfuckers, go back to Africa.”
He was accused of pushing Smith, who pushed him back. Smith then hit Higgs with what’s called a come-along, a rake used to smooth concrete. At some point, Higgs drew a gun and a tussle ensued, with Peete hopping into the melee to help Smith.
As they wrestled, Higgs’s gun fired once, sending a bullet tearing through Smith’s leg, shattering his tibia. Smith and Peete then beat, disarmed and restrained Higgs until police officers arrived.
Brandon Troy Higgs. Baltimore County Police Department
Advertisement
“We know what this case was about,” John Magee, a prosecutor for the state’s attorney’s office, told the 12 jurors Wednesday inside the Circuit Court of Baltimore County. “Hate.”
Magee repeated the slurs Higgs had allegedly hurled at Smith and Peete: “Nigger, this is my ’hood” and “Black motherfuckers, go back to Africa.”
Magee said it pained him to say such “awful” words out loud in court but that it was important for the jury to hear them.
Over and over again, Magee emphasized to jurors that Higgs, after the initial altercation with the dog, went home and remained there for 10 to 15 minutes.
“Nothing else should’ve happened, but it did, and it did because of Mr. Higgs,” Magee said. “Mr. Higgs comes back locked and loaded to finish what he started, with a round in the chamber and a spare magazine.”
Advertisement
“He’s looking for provocation. He’s looking to incite a violent response.”
Near the conclusion of his remarks, Magee pointed out Smith, who was sitting in the courtroom, a wooden cane clutched in his right hand.
“Now he’s permanently injured,” Magee told the jury. “He’ll never be the same. There’s a rod in his leg.”
“We know what this case was about: hate.” - John Magee, prosecutor for the state's attorney's office
Higgs’s defense attorney, James Crawford, used his closing argument to tell jurors that Smith shared some blame for what happened.
“Smith was not correct in doing what he did with the come-along,” Crawford argued. “It’s called escalation.”
Advertisement
Higgs, he argued, was acting in self-defense when he drew his gun.
Most of Crawford’s closing argument emphasized that while Higgs may have made racist statements — at one point Crawford repeatedly called his own client “stupid” — there was not sufficient evidence to prove he had control of the gun when it fired.
The prosecution did not introduce evidence detailing Higgs’s deep connections to some of the white supremacist groups who helped organize the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
White supremacist chat logs leaked to Unicorn Riot, a media collective, showed Higgs expressing a murderous hatred of black people. In one post, Higgs hailed Dylann Roof — the white supremacist who murdered nine Black worshipers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 — as “St. Roof.”
“Brb hookjng [sic] up my nigger mulcher to the truck,” he wrote in one chat group for people planning Unite the Right.
“I decided I’m going to create my own group called Baltimore Animal Control and buy those dog patrol poles with the snare at the end and wrangle niggers with it,” he wrote in another chat group.
Advertisement
“Also want to leave bear traps in Baltimore city with buckets of KFC chicken.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Ex-DOJ Official's Chilling Warning: Donald Trump Will Do ‘Far Far Worse’ If Acquitted

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal on Wednesday warned that President Donald Trump will be emboldened to do “ far far worse ” if he is acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial .
Neal Katyal , who served in the Justice Department role under former President Barack Obama , made the prediction on Twitter after Trump ’ s defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued during impeachment proceedings that “ if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ send his lawyer out to say such grossly unconstitutional things highlights the need for impeachment , ” Katyal tweeted in response .
“ If he believes he can do anything , so long as 1 of his motives is to win reelection , he won ’ t just do Ukraine leverage again , he ’ ll do far far worse.
” The fact a President would send his lawyer out to say such grossly unconstitutional things highlights the need for impeachment .
If he believes he can do anything , so long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection , he won ’ t just do Ukraine leverage again , he ’ ll do far far worse .
https : //t.co/CjEMjfv4do — Neal Katyal ( @ neal_katyal ) January 29 , 2020 In a second tweet , Katyal noted how Trump will always be able to “ assert his motives are pure/mixed ” and “ because he thinks he can boycott the proceedings+bar all witnesses and testimony , incl his own , it means there is no way to test that , or impeach/remove him.. ” If he is ever accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure/mixed .
And because he thinks he can boycott the proceedings+bar all witnesses and testimony , incl his own , it means there is no way to test that , or impeach/remove him .
It reads the impeachment clauses out of Constitution .
— Neal Katyal ( @ neal_katyal ) January 29 , 2020 Michael Gerson , a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush , made a similar argument last week .
“ The president never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his every urge.
” Trump is accused of withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country ’ s announcement of an investigation into his potential Democratic 2020 rival Joe Biden .
“ The fact that you don ’ t speaks volumes and far more than your protestations of innocence on , ahem , Twitter , ” he wrote .
So come and testify and explain why 18 witnesses , many from your own Administration , have testified in Congress and thrown the book at you .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controls the Senate .
If you are innocent you should have nothing to fear .
# SayItUnderOath https : //t.co/0CzfxX56zQ — Neal Katyal ( @ neal_katyal ) January 12 , 2020 If you really believed this , you ’ d be trying to clear your name—clamoring for a real trial , with witnesses+docs , and you would testify under oath that you did “ nothing wrong ” The fact that you don ’ t speaks volumes and far more than your protestations of innocence on , ahem , Twitter https : //t.co/S7lT750ZzC — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal on Wednesday warned that President Donald Trump will be emboldened to do “far far worse” if he is acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial.
Neal Katyal, who served in the Justice Department role under former President Barack Obama, made the prediction on Twitter after Trump’s defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued during impeachment proceedings that “if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Advertisement
“The fact a President would send his lawyer out to say such grossly unconstitutional things highlights the need for impeachment,” Katyal tweeted in response. “If he believes he can do anything, so long as 1 of his motives is to win reelection, he won’t just do Ukraine leverage again, he’ll do far far worse.”
The fact a President would send his lawyer out to say such grossly unconstitutional things highlights the need for impeachment. If he believes he can do anything, so long as 1 of his motives is to win reelection, he won’t just do Ukraine leverage again, he’ll do far far worse. https://t.co/CjEMjfv4do — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 29, 2020
In a second tweet, Katyal noted how Trump will always be able to “assert his motives are pure/mixed” and “because he thinks he can boycott the proceedings+bar all witnesses and testimony, incl his own, it means there is no way to test that, or impeach/remove him..”
“It reads the impeachment clauses out of Constitution,” he concluded.
If he is ever accused, he can assert his motives are pure/mixed. And because he thinks he can boycott the proceedings+bar all witnesses and testimony, incl his own, it means there is no way to test that, or impeach/remove him. It reads the impeachment clauses out of Constitution. — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 29, 2020
Advertisement
Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, made a similar argument last week. “The president never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation,” he said. “He sees it as permission to indulge his every urge.”
Trump is accused of withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country’s announcement of an investigation into his potential Democratic 2020 rival Joe Biden.
Katyal earlier this month dared Trump to testify in the Senate trial.
“The fact that you don’t speaks volumes and far more than your protestations of innocence on, ahem,Twitter,” he wrote.
So come and testify and explain why 18 witnesses, many from your own Administration, have testified in Congress and thrown the book at you. So far, the count is 18-0.
Your party controls the Senate. If you are innocent you should have nothing to fear. #SayItUnderOath https://t.co/0CzfxX56zQ — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 12, 2020
If you really believed this, you’d be trying to clear your name—clamoring for a real trial, with witnesses+docs, and you would testify under oath that you did “nothing wrong”
The fact that you don’t speaks volumes and far more than your protestations of innocence on,ahem,Twitter https://t.co/S7lT750ZzC — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 12, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Trump Lawyer Says Seeking Foreign Help In Elections Isn't Illegal If Information Is 'Credible'

Democrats were left “ stunned ” Wednesday after President Donald Trump ’ s defense team made the bold claim during the Q & A portion of the Senate impeachment trial that soliciting or accepting information from foreign governments about one ’ s political rivals is OK so long as the information is “ credible.
” The argument was put forth by White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin in response to a question posed by Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
about Trump ’ s apparent willingness to solicit dirt about his campaign rivals from countries such as Russia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that would violate the campaign finance laws , ” Philbin said .
“ If there is credible information ― credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office ― it ’ s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light.
” “ The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake , ” he added .
The President ’ s counsel didn ’ t answer my question or stand by the position in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign interference in an American election is illegal .
The President should agree .
https : //t.co/HwibfkTu0Y — Senator Chris Coons ( @ ChrisCoons ) January 30 , 2020 Reacting to Philbin ’ s remarks , Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif. ) , one of the House impeachment managers , said she was “ stunned to hear that now apparently it ’ s OK for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election.
” “ I have a hard time even believing they were making that argument , ” Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s defense team , according to CNN .
Sen. Debbie Stabenow ( D. , Mich. ) said people around her were dumbfounded , turning to their neighbors to confirm that they ’ d heard Mr. Philbin correctly .
“ They said , 'Did you hear that ?
Did I hear that right ?
’ '' https : //t.co/KDOw4Z8sUu via @ WSJ — Lindsay Wise ( @ lindsaywise ) January 30 , 2020 “ I believe that if I asked a foreign government to announce an investigation into my opponent where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a corrupt act on my part , ” Graham said .
Philbin ’ s remarks about foreign interference followed an earlier line of defense posited by Trump ’ s team that the president of the United States can , in effect , do whatever he wants to get himself reelected as long as he believes that his reelection is “ in the public interest.
” Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz : `` If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results in impeachment . ''
https : //t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla — ABC News ( @ ABC ) January 29 , 2020 House manager and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) excoriated Philbin and the rest of Trump ’ s team for considerably “ lowering ” the bar in their defense of the president .
“ We ’ ve witnessed over the course of the last few days and the long day today a remarkable lowering of the bar to the point now where everything ’ s OK as long as the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest , ” Schiff said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democrats were left “stunned” Wednesday after President Donald Trump’s defense team made the bold claim during the Q&A portion of the Senate impeachment trial that soliciting or accepting information from foreign governments about one’s political rivals is OK so long as the information is “credible.”
The argument was put forth by White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin in response to a question posed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) about Trump’s apparent willingness to solicit dirt about his campaign rivals from countries such as Russia and China.
Advertisement
“Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws,” Philbin said. “If there is credible information ― credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office ― it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light.”
“The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake,” he added.
The President’s counsel didn’t answer my question or stand by the position in his brief.
It should be easy: foreign interference in an American election is illegal. The President should agree. https://t.co/HwibfkTu0Y — Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) January 30, 2020
Reacting to Philbin’s remarks, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), one of the House impeachment managers, said she was “stunned to hear that now apparently it’s OK for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election.”
Advertisement
“That’s news to me,” Lofgren said.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he too was “stunned” by Philbin’s argument, The Washington Post reported.
“I have a hard time even believing they were making that argument,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said of Trump’s defense team, according to CNN.
“It’s so shocking,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) added.
Dem senators incensed that WH defense counsel says asking a foreign leader for "mere information" doesn't violate campaign finance law.
Some words used by @MartinHeinrich @ChrisMurphyCT @SenStabenow
Extraordinary
absolutely unconscionable
bonkers
immoral
wrong
stunning — Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) January 30, 2020
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) said people around her were dumbfounded, turning to their neighbors to confirm that they’d heard Mr. Philbin correctly. “They said, 'Did you hear that? Did I hear that right?’"https://t.co/KDOw4Z8sUu via @WSJ — Lindsay Wise (@lindsaywise) January 30, 2020
Senate Republicans had a different take on the matter.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Philbin was “absolutely correct” in his assertion, HuffPost’s Igor Bobic reported.
Advertisement
“I believe that if I asked a foreign government to announce an investigation into my opponent where there is no legitimacy, that would be a corrupt act on my part,” Graham said.
Lindsey Graham said Philbin was "absolutely correct” when he argued that asking a foreign leader for information on a political opponent wouldn’t violate campaign finance law. — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 30, 2020
Philbin’s remarks about foreign interference followed an earlier line of defense posited by Trump’s team that the president of the United States can, in effect, do whatever he wants to get himself reelected as long as he believes that his reelection is “in the public interest.”
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla — ABC News (@ABC) January 29, 2020
House manager and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) excoriated Philbin and the rest of Trump’s team for considerably “lowering” the bar in their defense of the president.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Trump Claims Victory For Essentially A Rebranded NAFTA

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump took another victory lap Wednesday on what he calls a “ tremendous ” trade deal but that is mainly , according to economists and trade experts , a rebranded NAFTA , the 26-year-old agreement that Trump has called a “ disaster ” and a “ catastrophe.
” “ Today , we ’ re finally ending the NAFTA nightmare and signing into law the brand-new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement , ” Trump said on the White House South Lawn to a cheering crowd of invited guests and Republican lawmakers .
“ This is a colossal victory for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factory workers and American workers in all 50 states.
” “ It ’ s an improvement at the margins but far from perfect and not nearly as different as Trump claims , ” said Jared Bernstein , who served as then-Vice President Joe Biden ’ s chief economic adviser .
“ In fact , there will almost surely be no notable differences in trade flows or balances.
” While many business and farm groups , as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico , strongly backed adoption of the USMCA , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would try to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement if the update were not approved .
Trade experts in all three countries doubted he had the legal ability to do that unilaterally , but said the chaos even an attempt would create would be damaging to the economies of all three countries .
The new agreement is largely built on the original deal , work on which began under President George H.W .
Bush and was completed under President Bill Clinton .
The USMCA maintains the free trade zone among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , with some changes .
NAFTA , for example , exempted cars from import tariffs if at least 62.5 % of their content was made in North America .
The USMCA increases that to 75 % and requires an average minimum wage of $ 16 an hour for the workers on about half of that content .
Trump claimed on Wednesday that the USMCA would bring automotive jobs back to the United States from Mexico , but it ’ s unclear why that would happen , given that the average automotive pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than $ 16 an hour .
Other substantive changes ― such as better protections for intellectual property ― were taken directly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement , which was negotiated under President Barack Obama .
That deal included the three NAFTA countries as well as nine others in South America and the western Pacific .
Trump abandoned it days after taking office , calling it “ a rape of our country.
” As for the changes to protect labor and increase environmental standards , for which Trump took credit on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the form of amendments added just prior to the House passing the deal in December .
Neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) nor any of the Democrats who worked on those changes was invited to Trump ’ s signing ceremony , but Pelosi spoke about the USMCA to her caucus on Wednesday morning .
“ What the president will be signing is quite different from what the president sent us , ” Pelosi said , according to a Democratic source .
“ Because of the work of the House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was proposed originally and what the president will be signing today .
I hope he understands what he is signing today.
” At his White House celebration , Trump repeated other false and misleading claims about the USMCA that he has used in official speeches , campaign rallies , offhand remarks and Twitter posts ever since an agreement was reached with Canada and Mexico 14 months ago .
He asserted , for instance , that the USMCA would boost the U.S. gross domestic product by 1.2 % .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump took another victory lap Wednesday on what he calls a “tremendous” trade deal but that is mainly, according to economists and trade experts, a rebranded NAFTA, the 26-year-old agreement that Trump has called a “disaster” and a “catastrophe.”
“Today, we’re finally ending the NAFTA nightmare and signing into law the brand-new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement,” Trump said on the White House South Lawn to a cheering crowd of invited guests and Republican lawmakers. “This is a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers and American workers in all 50 states.”
Advertisement
Experts on trade from both liberal and conservative perspectives disagreed.
“It’s an improvement at the margins but far from perfect and not nearly as different as Trump claims,” said Jared Bernstein, who served as then-Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser. “In fact, there will almost surely be no notable differences in trade flows or balances.”
While many business and farm groups, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, strongly backed adoption of the USMCA, much of that was out of fear that Trump would try to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement if the update were not approved. Trade experts in all three countries doubted he had the legal ability to do that unilaterally, but said the chaos even an attempt would create would be damaging to the economies of all three countries.
SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
The new agreement is largely built on the original deal, work on which began under President George H.W. Bush and was completed under President Bill Clinton. The USMCA maintains the free trade zone among North America’s three most populous countries, with some changes.
Advertisement
NAFTA, for example, exempted cars from import tariffs if at least 62.5% of their content was made in North America. The USMCA increases that to 75% and requires an average minimum wage of $16 an hour for the workers on about half of that content.
Trump claimed on Wednesday that the USMCA would bring automotive jobs back to the United States from Mexico, but it’s unclear why that would happen, given that the average automotive pay in the United States is still substantially higher than $16 an hour.
Other substantive changes ― such as better protections for intellectual property ― were taken directly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which was negotiated under President Barack Obama. That deal included the three NAFTA countries as well as nine others in South America and the western Pacific. Trump abandoned it days after taking office, calling it “a rape of our country.”
As for the changes to protect labor and increase environmental standards, for which Trump took credit on Wednesday, they were actually written by House Democrats in the form of amendments added just prior to the House passing the deal in December.
“We don’t know the impact of those yet,” Cato Institute trade economist Scott Lincicome said. “But, A, it wasn’t Trump’s doing and, B, probably won’t affect the overall NAFTA framework.”
Advertisement
Neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor any of the Democrats who worked on those changes was invited to Trump’s signing ceremony, but Pelosi spoke about the USMCA to her caucus on Wednesday morning.
“What the president will be signing is quite different from what the president sent us,” Pelosi said, according to a Democratic source. “Because of the work of the House Democrats … they made tremendous differences in what was proposed originally and what the president will be signing today. I hope he understands what he is signing today.”
At his White House celebration, Trump repeated other false and misleading claims about the USMCA that he has used in official speeches, campaign rallies, offhand remarks and Twitter posts ever since an agreement was reached with Canada and Mexico 14 months ago. He asserted, for instance, that the USMCA would boost the U.S. gross domestic product by 1.2%.
That figure is nearly four times higher than the 0.35% GDP increase forecast cited by the Republican National Committee just minutes earlier in a press release.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Coronavirus Continues To Spread; Number Of Cases Now Tops 7,700

BEIJING ( AP ) — The death toll rose to 170 in the new virus outbreak in China on Thursday as foreign evacuees from the worst-hit region begin returning home under close observation and world health officials expressed “ great concern ” that the disease is starting to spread between people outside of China .
Thursday ’ s figures cover the previous 24 hours and represent an increase of 38 deaths and 1,737 cases for a total of 7,711 .
Of the new deaths , 37 were in the epicenter of the outbreak in Hubei province and one in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes as the 195 Americans evacuated from Wuhan , the Hubei province city of 11 million where the outbreak originated , are undergoing three days of testing and monitoring at a Southern California military base to make sure they do not show signs of the virus .
Reports said nine of those aboard the flight showed signs of cough and fever .
Three of the 206 Japanese who returned on Wednesday tested positive for the new coronavirus , Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said during a parliamentary session .
Two of them showed no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea , residents of two cities where quarantine facilities are being prepared threw eggs and plastic water bottles at government officials to protest plans to isolate the 700 South Korean nationals the government plans to evacuate from China and isolate in their neighborhoods .
President Donald Trump has been relatively tight-lipped about the crisis .
Aides and confidants say Trump ’ s careful approach is part of a political strategy to avoid upsetting the stock market or angering China by calling too much attention to the virus or blaming Beijing for not managing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re very much involved with them , right now , on the virus that ’ s going around , ” Trump said of China before signing a trade deal at the White House on Wednesday .
He said he had discussed the situation with Chinese President Xi Jinping and added , “ We ’ re working very closely with China.
” It cited Ministry of Commerce data showing current reserves in Wuhan can ensure a secure supply of rice and cooking oil for more than 15 days , pork and eggs for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five days .
The government has offered no estimates as to when it can contain the outbreak , although some specialists have speculated that the spread of the disease will reach its peak in about two weeks .
The World Health Organization emergencies chief said the few cases of human-to-human spread of the virus outside China — in Japan , Germany , Canada and Vietnam — were of “ great concern ” and were part of the reason the U.N. health agency ’ s director-general was reconvening a committee of experts on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared a global emergency .
Dr. Michael Ryan spoke at a news conference in Geneva on Wednesday after returning from a trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior government leaders .
He said China was taking “ extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge ” posed by the outbreak .
To date , about 99 % of the cases are in China .
Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2 % , but said the figure was very preliminary .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it ’ s likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed .
In comparison , the SARS virus killed about 10 % of people who caught it .
The new virus is from the coronavirus family , which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS .
Scientists say there are many questions to be answered about the new virus , including just how easily it @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
BEIJING (AP) — The death toll rose to 170 in the new virus outbreak in China on Thursday as foreign evacuees from the worst-hit region begin returning home under close observation and world health officials expressed “great concern” that the disease is starting to spread between people outside of China.
Thursday’s figures cover the previous 24 hours and represent an increase of 38 deaths and 1,737 cases for a total of 7,711. Of the new deaths, 37 were in the epicenter of the outbreak in Hubei province and one in the southwestern province of Sichuan.
Advertisement
The news comes as the 195 Americans evacuated from Wuhan, the Hubei province city of 11 million where the outbreak originated, are undergoing three days of testing and monitoring at a Southern California military base to make sure they do not show signs of the virus.
A group of 210 Japanese evacuees from Wuhan landed Thursday at Tokyo’s Haneda airport on a second government-chartered flight, according to the foreign ministry.
France, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and other countries are also pulling out their citizens or making plans to do so. Anthony Kwan via Getty Images
Reports said nine of those aboard the flight showed signs of cough and fever. Three of the 206 Japanese who returned on Wednesday tested positive for the new coronavirus, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said during a parliamentary session. Two of them showed no symptoms of the disease.
Advertisement
Japan’s Health Ministry earlier confirmed the second suspected human transmission in a tour bus guide who had escorted a group of travelers from Wuhan. The bus driver was also infected. Neither had traveled to China.
France, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and other countries are also pulling out their citizens or making plans to do so.
In South Korea, residents of two cities where quarantine facilities are being prepared threw eggs and plastic water bottles at government officials to protest plans to isolate the 700 South Korean nationals the government plans to evacuate from China and isolate in their neighborhoods.
President Donald Trump has been relatively tight-lipped about the crisis. Aides and confidants say Trump’s careful approach is part of a political strategy to avoid upsetting the stock market or angering China by calling too much attention to the virus or blaming Beijing for not managing the situation better.
“We’re very much involved with them, right now, on the virus that’s going around,” Trump said of China before signing a trade deal at the White House on Wednesday. He said he had discussed the situation with Chinese President Xi Jinping and added, “We’re working very closely with China.”
Advertisement
There have been just five confirmed cases of the virus in the U.S.
Amid reports of shortages in food and daily necessities in hot-spot areas, the authorities are “stepping up efforts to ensure continuous supply and stable prices,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
It cited Ministry of Commerce data showing current reserves in Wuhan can ensure a secure supply of rice and cooking oil for more than 15 days, pork and eggs for more than 10 days and vegetables for about five days. The government has offered no estimates as to when it can contain the outbreak, although some specialists have speculated that the spread of the disease will reach its peak in about two weeks.
The World Health Organization emergencies chief said the few cases of human-to-human spread of the virus outside China — in Japan, Germany, Canada and Vietnam — were of “great concern” and were part of the reason the U.N. health agency’s director-general was reconvening a committee of experts on Thursday to assess whether the outbreak should be declared a global emergency.
The new virus has now infected more people in China than were sickened there during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak.
Dr. Michael Ryan spoke at a news conference in Geneva on Wednesday after returning from a trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior government leaders. He said China was taking “extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge” posed by the outbreak.
Advertisement
To date, about 99% of the cases are in China. Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2%, but said the figure was very preliminary. With fluctuating numbers of cases and deaths, scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it’s likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed.
In comparison, the SARS virus killed about 10% of people who caught it. The new virus is from the coronavirus family, which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS.
Scientists say there are many questions to be answered about the new virus, including just how easily it spreads and how severe it is.
In a report published Wednesday, Chinese researchers suggested that person-to-person spread among close contacts occurred as early as mid-December.
“Considerable efforts” will be needed to control the spread if this ratio holds up elsewhere, researchers wrote in the report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Advertisement
More than half of the cases in which symptoms began before Jan. 1 were tied to a seafood market, but only 8% of cases after that have been, researchers found. They reported the average incubation period was five days.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Bloomberg Ad Shows Him 'Endorsed' By Dogs After That Cringeworthy Snout Shake

Michael Bloomberg ’ s latest campaign video has him getting the “ endorsement ” of several dogs — even if he likes shaking them by the snout .
The former New York City mayor and 2020 presidential hopeful released a 30-second video on Wednesday in which a number of pooches “ express ” their “ approval ” of him , via some helpful voice-over actors .
In that video , Bloomberg can be seen greeting some folks during a campaign stop in Vermont .
He pets a dog , then shakes a couple of people ’ s hands , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment , as though it were also a person ’ s hand .
The dog , which wags its tail throughout the whole encounter , doesn ’ t seem distressed by it .
Bloomberg apparently greeted another dog the same way at a 2013 event in New York , according to a photo taken at the time .
Wednesday ’ s campaign video amassed more than 200,000 views within a few hours .
The former mayor himself tweeted it out with the hashtag # DogsFurMike , writing : “ Dog people get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the video , Bloomberg ’ s own dog Cody “ approves ” the message , and we see a photo of Bloomberg petting a dog ’ s head the normal , human way .
In 2011 , The New York Times reported that the then-mayor had a somewhat distant relationship with his girlfriend ’ s Labradors , Bonnie and Clyde , which he permitted to live with him but refused to care for .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign team did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ad @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michael Bloomberg’s latest campaign video has him getting the “endorsement” of several dogs — even if he likes shaking them by the snout.
The former New York City mayor and 2020 presidential hopeful released a 30-second video on Wednesday in which a number of pooches “express” their “approval” of him, via some helpful voice-over actors.
Advertisement
“Mike’s not afraid of the NRA,” one puppy “says.” “Not one bit.”
Earlier this week, a video of the billionaire awkwardly interacting with a dog went viral.
In that video, Bloomberg can be seen greeting some folks during a campaign stop in Vermont. He pets a dog, then shakes a couple of people’s hands, then grabs the dog’s face for a moment, as though it were also a person’s hand. The dog, which wags its tail throughout the whole encounter, doesn’t seem distressed by it.
I regret to inform you that Mike Bloomberg attempted to shake a dog’s mouth. pic.twitter.com/hKsagJ4xAf — Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) January 28, 2020
Bloomberg apparently greeted another dog the same way at a 2013 event in New York, according to a photo taken at the time.
Advertisement
Wednesday’s campaign video amassed more than 200,000 views within a few hours. The former mayor himself tweeted it out with the hashtag #DogsFurMike, writing: “Dog people get me. Dogs too.”
At the end of the video, Bloomberg’s own dog Cody “approves” the message, and we see a photo of Bloomberg petting a dog’s head the normal, human way. In 2011, The New York Times reported that the then-mayor had a somewhat distant relationship with his girlfriend’s Labradors, Bonnie and Clyde, which he permitted to live with him but refused to care for.
Bloomberg’s campaign team did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ad.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Ex-RNC Chair: I Know McConnell, And Trump’s Impeachment Trial Is ‘Pretty Much Over’

“ Having been in the room and know particularly how Mitch McConnell plays his game , he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ there where he goes , ‘ Oh , I don ’ t know if I @ @ @ @ @ votes yet.
’ Alright ?
Head fake .
McConnell knows every move he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ makes it and the people in the room knows that when he ’ s done @ @ @ @ @ ’ s over .
There ’ s no more ‘ OK , you get to @ @ @ @ @ game .
’ ”

Having been in the room and know particularly how Mitch McConnell plays his game, he doesn’t mind this little float out there where he goes, ‘Oh, I don’t know if I’ve got all the votes yet.’ Alright? Head fake. McConnell knows every move he’s going to make before he makes it and the people in the room know that when he’s done making those moves, it’s over. There’s no more ‘OK, you get to go out and play your game.’


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Fox Host Lou Dobbs Loses It With 'Turncoat' John Bolton

Lou Dobbs lashed out at John Bolton on Wednesday night , calling the former White House national security adviser a “ turncoat ” and “ a petty snarling Lilliputian.
” The Fox Business host ― a staunch supporter of Donald Trump , who he ’ s previously declared to be “ the greatest president in the history of our country ” ― tore into Bolton over his forthcoming book in which he reportedly confirms the Democrats ’ case for Trump ’ s impeachment over his Ukraine misconduct .
Dobbs doubted Bolton , a paid Fox contributor for 11 years until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear on his show , revealing he ’ d “ told the man to go to hell months and months ago , because of his disloyalty to this president.
” “ I think very little of the man that I once held in high regard because he has turned his back on his president and his obligations , ” Dobbs added in another segment shared by Mediaite , claiming Bolton had “ gone rogue.
” Dobbs ’ comments were the latest instance of Fox hosts turning on their former colleague as Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Fox personalities Tucker Carlson , Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have also piled onto Bolton in recent days .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Lou Dobbs lashed out at John Bolton on Wednesday night, calling the former White House national security adviser a “turncoat” and “a petty snarling Lilliputian.”
The Fox Business host ― a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, who he’s previously declared to be “the greatest president in the history of our country” ― tore into Bolton over his forthcoming book in which he reportedly confirms the Democrats’ case for Trump’s impeachment over his Ukraine misconduct.
Advertisement
Check out one segment here:
Dobbs doubted Bolton, a paid Fox contributor for 11 years until joining the Trump White House, would appear on his show, revealing he’d “told the man to go to hell months and months ago, because of his disloyalty to this president.”
“I think very little of the man that I once held in high regard because he has turned his back on his president and his obligations,” Dobbs added in another segment shared by Mediaite, claiming Bolton had “gone rogue.”
Dobbs’ comments were the latest instance of Fox hosts turning on their former colleague as Republican senators resist Democratic demands to allow him to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial. Fox personalities Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have also piled onto Bolton in recent days.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--E. Jean Carroll, Who Says Trump Raped Her, Seeks His DNA

NEW YORK ( AP ) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample , seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter .
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation .
Her lawyer , Roberta Kaplan , then had the black wool coat-style dress tested .
A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix , according to the lab report , which was obtained by The Associated Press .
Their names are redacted .
In a New York magazine piece in June and a book published the next month , Carroll said she and Trump met by chance , chatted and went to the lingerie department for Trump to pick out a gift for an unidentified woman .
She said joking banter about trying on a bodysuit ended in a dressing room , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wool dress , pulled down her tights and raped her as she tried to fight him off , eventually escaping .
Trump said in June that Carroll was “ totally lying ” and he had “ never met this person in my life.
” While a 1987 photo shows them and their then-spouses at a social event , Trump dismissed it as a moment when he was “ standing with my coat on in a line.
” “ She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements on the matter , adding that the book “ should be sold in the fiction section.
” “ Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am , but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character , ” Carroll said in a statement Thursday .
Trump ’ s lawyer has tried to get the case thrown out .
A Manhattan judge declined to do so earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t properly backed up his arguments that the case didn ’ t belong in a New York court .
Carroll said she didn ’ t do so for decades because she feared legal retribution from Trump and damage to her reputation , among other reasons .
But when the # MeToo movement spurred reader requests for advice about sexual assault , she said , she decided she had to disclose her own account .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”
Advertisement
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted.
E. Jean Carroll, a New York-based advice columnist, claims Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. Trump denies knowing Carroll. ASSOCIATED PRESS
While the notice is a demand, such demands often spur court fights requiring a judge to weigh in on whether they will be enforced.
Advertisement
The Associated Press sent a message to Trump’s attorney seeking comment.
Carroll accused Trump last summer of raping her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.
In a New York magazine piece in June and a book published the next month, Carroll said she and Trump met by chance, chatted and went to the lingerie department for Trump to pick out a gift for an unidentified woman. She said joking banter about trying on a bodysuit ended in a dressing room, where she said Trump reached under her black wool dress, pulled down her tights and raped her as she tried to fight him off, eventually escaping.
“The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening,” she wrote. She donned it for a photo accompanying the magazine piece.
Carroll's lawyers are seeking to determine whether President Trump's genetic material is on a dress that she says she wore during a sexual assault. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Trump said in June that Carroll was “totally lying” and he had “never met this person in my life.” While a 1987 photo shows them and their then-spouses at a social event, Trump dismissed it as a moment when he was “standing with my coat on in a line.”
Advertisement
“She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation,” he said in one of various statements on the matter, adding that the book “should be sold in the fiction section.”
Carroll sued Trump in November, saying he smeared her and hurt her career as a longtime Elle magazine advice columnist by calling her a liar. She is seeking unspecified damages and a retraction of Trump’s statements.
“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.
Her lawyer, Kaplan, said it was “standard operating procedure” in a sexual assault investigation to request a DNA sample from the accused.
“As a result, we’ve requested a simple saliva sample from Mr. Trump to test his DNA, and there really is no valid basis for him to object,” she said.
Advertisement
Trump’s lawyer has tried to get the case thrown out. A Manhattan judge declined to do so earlier this month, saying the attorney hadn’t properly backed up his arguments that the case didn’t belong in a New York court.
The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they come forward publicly.
Carroll said she didn’t do so for decades because she feared legal retribution from Trump and damage to her reputation, among other reasons. But when the #MeToo movement spurred reader requests for advice about sexual assault, she said, she decided she had to disclose her own account.
Trump, a Republican, isn’t the first president to face the prospect of a DNA test related to a woman’s dress.
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, underwent such a test during an independent counsel investigation into whether he had a sexual relationship with onetime White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then lied in denying it under oath.
Advertisement
After Clinton’s DNA was found on the dress, he acknowledged an “inappropriate intimate relationship” with Lewinsky.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Rand Paul's Attempt To Out Ukraine Whistleblower Blocked By John Roberts

Paul then stormed out of the chamber and held a press conference where he twice said the name of the alleged whistleblower ― whose identity has not been confirmed ― as well as another individual but insisted he was not outing anyone .
“ I think this is an important question , one that deserves to be asked , and makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower , ” Paul told reporters .
The whistleblower filed a complaint , which Congress publicly released in September , that alleged Trump used “ the power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election , ” and said White House officials worked to cover up Trump ’ s actions .
The veracity of the complaint does not rely on the identity of the whistleblower , since the complaint ’ s claims have since been corroborated by a range of firsthand accounts and evidence .
But the push to identify the whistleblower has continued anyway .
Trump has said he deserves to “ meet [ his ] accuser , some Republicans have suggested calling the whistleblower as a witness and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul ’ s question that Democrats weren ’ t answering the “ many questions and concerns about the alleged whistleblower and potential conflicts of interest.
” Even oblique references like Paul ’ s seek to reveal the identity of someone who followed a confidential process to share their concerns ― sending a message to other would-be whistleblowers that if they speak up , they risk harassment encouraged at the highest levels .
Paul could have tried to overrule Roberts by forcing a quick vote on the floor to allow his question about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against it so as to not lengthen the trial any further .
However , it ’ s likely that vote would have failed due to Republican opposition , handing the party an embarrassing start to the day .
Attorneys for the whistleblower , Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid , said in October they could “ neither confirm nor deny ” the whistleblower ’ s identity , arguing revealing it would be the “ pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.
” Bakaj and Zaid , as well as many Democrats , repeatedly stressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s identity anonymous .
HuffPost has not independently confirmed the identity of the whistleblower .
Since the complaint ’ s release , House impeachment investigators spoke with a growing list of witnesses involved in Trump ’ s attempted quid pro quo who have not only corroborated the whistleblower ’ s report , but provided further damning specifics about the incident .
Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the chair of the House Intelligence Committee , said in October he felt like lawmakers had confirmed enough details from the report with other witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order for him to testify may not be necessary .
The complaint focused on a July 25 phone call in which the U.S. president pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to work with Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to investigate unsubstantiated claims of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
Joe Biden is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and was leading in the polls for several months , making him one of Trump ’ s top political rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t back down on Thursday , however , posting his question to Twitter that included the name of the alleged whistleblower , but again insisting he wasn ’ t outing the whistleblower and didn ’ t have “ independent information ” on who they were .
The question asked how the two people he named “ may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
” Some of his fellow Republicans assisted him later , asking about the role a House Democratic staffer whom he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was not named ― had played in the impeachment investigation .
Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) asked the question on behalf of himself , Sens .
Josh Hawley ( R-Mo . )
, Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) , Kevin Cramer ( R-N.D. ) , Mike Braun ( R-Ind . )
, David Perdue ( R-Ga. ) , John Barrasso ( R-Wyo . )
, Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) James Risch ( R-Idaho ) , Dan Sullivan ( R-Alaska ) , Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) , Rick Scott ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
and Deb Fischer ( R-Neb. )
.
Roberts agreed to read that question .
“ I can tell you who the whistleblower should be : It should be everyone of us , ” Schiff said .
He said future whistleblowers would be less willing to stick their necks out if they thought their names would be dragged through the mud .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday attempted to ask a question during the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, but he was rebuffed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the presiding officer.
Paul’s question would have named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, but Roberts declined to read it to the chamber.
Advertisement
“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said after reading the question silently.
Paul then stormed out of the chamber and held a press conference where he twice said the name of the alleged whistleblower ― whose identity has not been confirmed ― as well as another individual but insisted he was not outing anyone.
“I think this is an important question, one that deserves to be asked, and makes no reference to anybody who may or may not be a whistleblower,” Paul told reporters.
The whistleblower filed a complaint, which Congress publicly released in September, that alleged Trump used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,” and said White House officials worked to cover up Trump’s actions.
Advertisement
The veracity of the complaint does not rely on the identity of the whistleblower, since the complaint’s claims have since been corroborated by a range of firsthand accounts and evidence.
But the push to identify the whistleblower has continued anyway. Trump has said he deserves to “meet [his] accuser, some Republicans have suggested calling the whistleblower as a witness and the White House tweeted around the time of Paul’s question that Democrats weren’t answering the “many questions and concerns about the alleged whistleblower and potential conflicts of interest.”
Even oblique references like Paul’s seek to reveal the identity of someone who followed a confidential process to share their concerns ― sending a message to other would-be whistleblowers that if they speak up, they risk harassment encouraged at the highest levels.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reads the "whistleblower" question blocked by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts during the impeachment trial proceedings of President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill Jan. 30. MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images
Paul could have tried to overrule Roberts by forcing a quick vote on the floor to allow his question about the whistleblower, but he said he decided against it so as to not lengthen the trial any further. However, it’s likely that vote would have failed due to Republican opposition, handing the party an embarrassing start to the day.
Advertisement
“Not in this environment, but later on,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters earlier Thursday when asked if he was supportive of the effort to name the whistleblower.
Attorneys for the whistleblower, Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, said in October they could “neither confirm nor deny” the whistleblower’s identity, arguing revealing it would be the “pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.” Bakaj and Zaid, as well as many Democrats, repeatedly stressed the importance of keeping the whistleblower’s identity anonymous. HuffPost has not independently confirmed the identity of the whistleblower.
Since the complaint’s release, House impeachment investigators spoke with a growing list of witnesses involved in Trump’s attempted quid pro quo who have not only corroborated the whistleblower’s report, but provided further damning specifics about the incident. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said in October he felt like lawmakers had confirmed enough details from the report with other witnesses that compromising the whistleblower’s safety in order for him to testify may not be necessary.
The complaint focused on a July 25 phone call in which the U.S. president pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to work with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to investigate unsubstantiated claims of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Joe Biden is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and was leading in the polls for several months, making him one of Trump’s top political rivals.
After the call, administration officials stored the conversation’s transcript in a separate electronic system meant for classified information, according to the complaint.
Advertisement
Paul made clear he wouldn’t back down on Thursday, however, posting his question to Twitter that included the name of the alleged whistleblower, but again insisting he wasn’t outing the whistleblower and didn’t have “independent information” on who they were. The question asked how the two people he named “may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Some of his fellow Republicans assisted him later, asking about the role a House Democratic staffer whom he said had contact with the alleged whistleblower ― who was not named ― had played in the impeachment investigation. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked the question on behalf of himself, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) James Risch (R-Idaho), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.). Roberts agreed to read that question.
Schiff called the approach “disgraceful” and said those who attempted to out the whistleblower were threatening the entire system.
“I can tell you who the whistleblower should be: It should be everyone of us,” Schiff said. He said future whistleblowers would be less willing to stick their necks out if they thought their names would be dragged through the mud.
Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for the president, said afterward that he had not said they should disclose the whistleblower’s name.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Read Live Updates From Day 2 Of Impeachment Trial's Question-And-Answer Phase

The Senate continues its question-and-answer portion of the impeachment trial on Thursday with Republicans and Democrats asking whatever they want of the House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump ’ s defense team .
Senators submit their written questions to presiding officer Chief Justice John Roberts , who then reads them aloud and requests an answer .
The responding group has five minutes to answer .
Senators may not direct questions to each other and are not allowed to respond to the answer they receive .
The House managers , led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate to vote in favor of calling new witnesses , including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Trump ’ s defense team , led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone , says Trump did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine and has pushed back on Democrats ’ demand for new witnesses .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has indicated to Republican senators that he has the votes to block a Democratic motion to call witnesses and is aiming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , reported The New York Times and ABC News .
Read live coverage of Thursday ’ s portion of the impeachment trial below :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Senate continues its question-and-answer portion of the impeachment trial on Thursday with Republicans and Democrats asking whatever they want of the House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s defense team.
Senators submit their written questions to presiding officer Chief Justice John Roberts, who then reads them aloud and requests an answer. The responding group has five minutes to answer. Senators may not direct questions to each other and are not allowed to respond to the answer they receive.
Advertisement
The House managers, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), are hoping to persuade the Senate to vote in favor of calling new witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Trump’s defense team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, says Trump did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine and has pushed back on Democrats’ demand for new witnesses.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated to Republican senators that he has the votes to block a Democratic motion to call witnesses and is aiming to bring an acquittal verdict as soon as Friday, reported The New York Times and ABC News.
Read live coverage of Thursday’s portion of the impeachment trial below:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--South Dakota House Approves Bill That Would Jail Doctors For Treating Transgender Youth

South Dakota became the first of more than a dozen states to take action on pending legislation that would restrict access to treatment for transgender youth .
The state ’ s Republican-dominated House on Wednesday voted 46-23 in favor of House Bill 1057 , which will make it a misdemeanor for physicians to provide puberty blockers or offer gender-confirming surgery to trans patients under 16 years old .
The bill , which could be sent to the state ’ s Senate for a committee hearing as early as next week , carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,000 .
It will also codify a narrow definition of sex as “ the biological state of being female or male , based on sex organs , chromosomes , and endogenous hormone profiles.
” Earlier this week , Deutsch sparked outrage when he described gender confirmation surgeries as “ crimes against humanity , ” likening such procedures to Nazi medical experiments conducted on Jews during World War II .
“ You know , I ’ m the son of a Holocaust survivor .
I ’ ve had family members killed in Auschwitz , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with Tony Perkins , the president of the anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council .
“ I ’ ve seen the pictures of the bizarre medical experiments .
I don ’ t want that to happen to our kids .
And that ’ s what ’ s going on right now.
” Deutsch doubled down on that sentiment in an interview published Monday , telling the Sioux Falls Argus Leader , “ I ’ ve been to a whole bunch of Holocaust museums all over the world ...
It ’ s just a simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me.
” Later that day , however , he backtracked somewhat , telling CNN and other outlets that the statement was “ regrettable.
” Since then , he ’ s described HB 1057 as a “ bill of compassion.
” Gov .
Kristi Noem , a Republican , has thus far declined to offer full support or disapproval of HB 1057 , saying last week that she had “ a few concerns ” about it .
“ When you take public policy and try to fill parenting gaps with more government , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent you ’ re setting , ” Noem told the Associated Press .
The bill has been staunchly opposed by state Democrats , who view it as vast government overreach , as well as LGBTQ rights advocates nationwide .
Among them is the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Chase Strangio , who said the organization plans to mount a legal challenge should HB 1057 be signed into law .
To trans youth in South Dakota and beyond : We know you know who you are .
You don ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the powerful adults who claim to know what is best for you and your bodies .
We will fight with you against these horrible bills .
# NoHB1057 — Chase Strangio ( @ chasestrangio ) January 30 , 2020 In a Wednesday email to HuffPost , Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David blasted Deutsch and other South Dakota lawmakers for “ spreading misinformation and using vicious , harmful rhetoric ” with regard to trans youth with the bill .
“ This bill actively contradicts evidence-based medical recommendations and restricts parents ’ ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has been shown to decrease suicide risk , ” she said .
“ Medical decisions should be made between doctors and their families — politicians have no role in this intensely personal process.
” Last week , Strangio spoke out against bills in more than a dozen states that would directly impact the transgender community .
Colorado , Florida , Missouri and Oklahoma are among those mulling legislation mirroring HB 1057 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
South Dakota became the first of more than a dozen states to take action on pending legislation that would restrict access to treatment for transgender youth.
The state’s Republican-dominated House on Wednesday voted 46-23 in favor of House Bill 1057, which will make it a misdemeanor for physicians to provide puberty blockers or offer gender-confirming surgery to trans patients under 16 years old.
Advertisement
The bill, which could be sent to the state’s Senate for a committee hearing as early as next week, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. It will also codify a narrow definition of sex as “the biological state of being female or male, based on sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous hormone profiles.”
Rep. Fred Deutsch (R), the bill’s primary sponsor, tweeted his approval late Wednesday.
After some of the heaviest lobbying I have seen in years, South Dakota‘s bill to protect gender confused children passes 46 to 23 pic.twitter.com/Q1K85KEuJ8 — Rep. Fred Deutsch (@FredDeutsch) January 30, 2020
Earlier this week, Deutsch sparked outrage when he described gender confirmation surgeries as “crimes against humanity,” likening such procedures to Nazi medical experiments conducted on Jews during World War II.
“You know, I’m the son of a Holocaust survivor. I’ve had family members killed in Auschwitz,” he said in a Jan. 22 interview with Tony Perkins, the president of the anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council. “I’ve seen the pictures of the bizarre medical experiments. I don’t want that to happen to our kids. And that’s what’s going on right now.”
Advertisement
Deutsch doubled down on that sentiment in an interview published Monday, telling the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, “I’ve been to a whole bunch of Holocaust museums all over the world ... It’s just a simple reflection that the pictures seem similar to me.”
Later that day, however, he backtracked somewhat, telling CNN and other outlets that the statement was “regrettable.” Since then, he’s described HB 1057 as a “bill of compassion.”
Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, has thus far declined to offer full support or disapproval of HB 1057, saying last week that she had “a few concerns” about it.
“When you take public policy and try to fill parenting gaps with more government, you have to be very careful about the precedent you’re setting,” Noem told the Associated Press.
The bill has been staunchly opposed by state Democrats, who view it as vast government overreach, as well as LGBTQ rights advocates nationwide.
Advertisement
Among them is the American Civil Liberties Union’s Chase Strangio, who said the organization plans to mount a legal challenge should HB 1057 be signed into law.
To trans youth in South Dakota and beyond: We know you know who you are. You don’t need to be protected from your own agency but from the powerful adults who claim to know what is best for you and your bodies. We will fight with you against these horrible bills. #NoHB1057 — Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) January 30, 2020
In a Wednesday email to HuffPost, Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David blasted Deutsch and other South Dakota lawmakers for “spreading misinformation and using vicious, harmful rhetoric” with regard to trans youth with the bill.
Dr. Alexis Chavez, who is The Trevor Project’s medical director, felt similarly, telling HuffPost that the bill “poses a grave threat to transgender and nonbinary youth.”
“This bill actively contradicts evidence-based medical recommendations and restricts parents’ ability to support their child with best-practice care, which has been shown to decrease suicide risk,” she said. “Medical decisions should be made between doctors and their families — politicians have no role in this intensely personal process.”
Advertisement
Last week, Strangio spoke out against bills in more than a dozen states that would directly impact the transgender community. Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Oklahoma are among those mulling legislation mirroring HB 1057.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Wilbur Ross Roundly Ripped For Predicting Coronavirus Will Be Good For U.S. Jobs

But the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of @ @ @ @ @ top of all the other things , you had SARS , you have the African @ @ @ @ @ there , now you have this .
It ’ s another risk factor that people @ @ @ @ @ .
So I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North @ @ @ @ @ , probably some to Mexico as well .

But the fact is it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain. On top of all the other things, you had SARS, you have the African swine (fever) virus there, now you have this. It’s another risk factor that people need to take into account. So I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America ― some to U.S., probably some to Mexico as well.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Republicans Defend Trump Argument That Accepting Foreign Help In Elections Is OK

The argument was put forth by White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin in response to a question posed by Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
about Trump ’ s apparent willingness to solicit dirt about his campaign rivals from countries such as Russia and China .
“ Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws , ” Philbin said on Wednesday “ If there is credible information ― credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office ― it ’ s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election opponents from a foreign government is a crime .
Trump is on trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House for pressuring Ukraine ’ s government to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid to the country until it did so .
As Democrats blasted the Trump defense argument about foreign election interference as “ shocking ” and “ extraordinary , ” warning it would set a dangerous precedent that could even lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be acceptable if the president had good reason to accept such information .
“ I think all he was addressing is whether there was a crime and what I understood him to say is , ‘ There was not , ’ ” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) told reporters on Thursday , referring to Philbin .
Asked if he was comfortable with the Trump argument about accepting foreign dirt in U.S. elections , Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) said it “ all depends.
” “ The president is the presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attorney general .
Are you saying that the American people shouldn ’ t know about or we shouldn ’ t pursue criminal wrongdoing just because it ’ s overseas ?
” he asked , suggesting that Trump would be justified in accepting information from foreign leaders that could help him in an election .
Sen. Richard Burr ( R-N.C. ) , the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , added that he had “ no problem ” with the argument offered by Trump ’ s lawyers .
He said that the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign ’ s involvement with the so-called Steele dossier .
The dossier , a collection of memos produced by former British spy Christopher Steele that included claims about Trump ’ s ties to Russia , was partially paid for by the Clinton campaign .
But the dossier wasn ’ t compiled by a foreign government , rather by a U.S.-based opposition research firm originally hired by another Republican presidential campaign in the 2016 political cycle , as well as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News last June that he would accept dirt on his 2020 opponent from a foreign power and might not tell the FBI that he had done so , Republicans pushed back by saying they would first call law enforcement authorities .
“ That ’ s not the right answer , ” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said at the time .
“ A foreign government comes to you as a public official and offers to help your campaign giving you anything of value , whether it be money or information on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Asked Wednesday about the matter , however , Graham said the argument offered by Trump ’ s lawyers is “ absolutely correct.
” “ I believe that if I asked a foreign government to announce an investigation into my opponent where there is no legitimacy , that would be a corrupt act on my part , ” Graham said .
Graham has maintained it is legitimate to look into Biden ’ s dealings with Urkaine for possible corruption .
Jim Baker , who served as general counsel to the Federal Bureau of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on Twitter with a different view :

The argument was put forth by White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin in response to a question posed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) about Trump’s apparent willingness to solicit dirt about his campaign rivals from countries such as Russia and China.
“Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws,” Philbin said on Wednesday“If there is credible information ― credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office ― it’s not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light.”
Soliciting dirt on election opponents from a foreign government is a crime.
Trump is on trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House for pressuring Ukraine’s government to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid to the country until it did so.
As Democrats blasted the Trump defense argument about foreign election interference as “shocking” and “extraordinary,” warning it would set a dangerous precedent that could even lead to a banana republic, Republicans maintained that it would be acceptable if the president had good reason to accept such information.
“I think all he was addressing is whether there was a crime and what I understood him to say is, ‘There was not,’” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on Thursday, referring to Philbin.
Asked if he was comfortable with the Trump argument about accepting foreign dirt in U.S. elections, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said it “all depends.”
“The president is the presidency, everybody reports to him, including the attorney general. Are you saying that the American people shouldn’t know about or we shouldn’t pursue criminal wrongdoing just because it’s overseas?” he asked, suggesting that Trump would be justified in accepting information from foreign leaders that could help him in an election.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, added that he had “no problem” with the argument offered by Trump’s lawyers. He said that the “precedent has already been set” by former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign’s involvement with the so-called Steele dossier. The dossier, a collection of memos produced by former British spy Christopher Steele that included claims about Trump’s ties to Russia, was partially paid for by the Clinton campaign.
But the dossier wasn’t compiled by a foreign government, rather by a U.S.-based opposition research firm originally hired by another Republican presidential campaign in the 2016 political cycle, as well as a conservative outlet.
When Trump told ABC News last June that he would accept dirt on his 2020 opponent from a foreign power and might not tell the FBI that he had done so, Republicans pushed back by saying they would first call law enforcement authorities.
“That’s not the right answer,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said at the time. “A foreign government comes to you as a public official and offers to help your campaign giving you anything of value, whether it be money or information on your opponent, the right answer is no.”
Asked Wednesday about the matter, however, Graham said the argument offered by Trump’s lawyers is “absolutely correct.”
“I believe that if I asked a foreign government to announce an investigation into my opponent where there is no legitimacy, that would be a corrupt act on my part,” Graham said. Graham has maintained it is legitimate to look into Biden’s dealings with Urkaine for possible corruption.
Jim Baker, who served as general counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under President Barack Obama, weighed in on Twitter with a different view:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-30--Democrats Reluctant To Impeach Other Trump Officials

WASHINGTON ― With the Senate preparing to acquit President Donald Trump , you might think Democrats would try to keep the focus on the Ukraine scandal by impeaching other administration officials involved in the scheme .
But even the most liberal House Democrats have reservations about that sort of strategy .
Jayapal said “ all attention ” should be trained on Trump ’ s impeachment trial ― instead of looking at other officials involved in the politically motivated effort to pressure Ukraine , like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr ― and she wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate has a choice to make : Are they going to let him get away with that , or are we going to call witnesses and are we actually going to have a fair trial ?
” Jayapal said .
“ This is about the impeachment of a president , ” she added .
“ And if the Senate refuses to have a fair trial in this situation , why would they have a fair trial in any other situation ?
” Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were going to “ impeach the motherfucker ” on the first day of Congress in 2019 , told HuffPost that the House Oversight and Reform Committee had already held a number of Trump administration officials in contempt and that Democrats needed to remain focused on the president .
“ I think we ’ re pretty clear that the person that is the one who created the crime that they covered up is really important to hold accountable before we proceed , ” Tlaib said .
Rep. Jared Huffman ( D-Calif. ) , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was in favor of “ tightening the screws of accountability ” in any way Democrats can .
But , he added , if the Senate fails to conduct a fair trial by not hearing witnesses in the president ’ s case , then “ the tool of impeachment is largely a dead letter until these Republicans pass into the pages of history.
” Huffman suggested he ’ s particularly interested in holding Barr to account .
The attorney general has used his role as the nation ’ s top law enforcement official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration against turning over documents to Congress related to its investigations .
Huffman just didn ’ t seem to see the utility in impeachment anymore .
“ We have a very serious responsibility to throw everything we got at him , especially Barr , ” the congressman said .
“ But there ’ s a lot of misconduct to address .
I just don ’ t know that the tool of impeachment is ― you know , if the Senate makes a mockery of all this , I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most sense going forward.
” If Democrats believe Trump abused the power of his office , it ’ s not difficult to argue that other members of his Cabinet who were involved in the Ukraine scheme also deserve to be impeached .
Impeaching other officials might also demonstrate to Republican senators that , even if they conduct one sham trial without witnesses and make an impeachment case disappear swiftly , they will continue to face questions related to Ukraine .
The matter won ’ t just go away .
But impeaching other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s action against Trump , while putting electorally vulnerable Democrats in a tough position and playing into a GOP argument that Democrats will impeach anyone .
The effort could easily backfire , while also chewing up important time needed for other investigations related to Trump , like those into his finances and potential emoluments violations .
Democrats , however , have touted their responsibility to impeach Trump .
And if other officials were involved in withholding aid to Ukraine to boost Trump ’ s reelection campaign and then covering it up , don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeach those officials too ?
The answer may come into better focus after the current case is completed .
Democrats , understandably , don ’ t want to distract from Trump ’ s trial .
But their reluctance seems deeper than just a timing issue , particularly if the most liberal Democrats in Congress are unsure about impeaching anyone else .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― With the Senate preparing to acquit President Donald Trump, you might think Democrats would try to keep the focus on the Ukraine scandal by impeaching other administration officials involved in the scheme. But even the most liberal House Democrats have reservations about that sort of strategy.
“We have one impeachment going on right now, and it’s for the president of the United States,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told HuffPost this week.
Advertisement
Jayapal said “all attention” should be trained on Trump’s impeachment trial ― instead of looking at other officials involved in the politically motivated effort to pressure Ukraine, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr ― and she wouldn’t stray from that message.
“It appears that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate has a choice to make: Are they going to let him get away with that, or are we going to call witnesses and are we actually going to have a fair trial?” Jayapal said.
“This is about the impeachment of a president,” she added. “And if the Senate refuses to have a fair trial in this situation, why would they have a fair trial in any other situation?”
That was a common sentiment among liberal Democrats. And Jayapal wasn’t alone in showing reluctance to go after other officials.
Advertisement
Rep. Pramila Jayapal said “all attention” should be trained on President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who famously said Democrats were going to “impeach the motherfucker” on the first day of Congress in 2019, told HuffPost that the House Oversight and Reform Committee had already held a number of Trump administration officials in contempt and that Democrats needed to remain focused on the president.
“I think we’re pretty clear that the person that is the one who created the crime that they covered up is really important to hold accountable before we proceed,” Tlaib said.
Another strong advocate of impeachment, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), said that Democrats should continue to exercise oversight but shouldn’t distract from Trump’s actions.
“The focus now is on the president, and it should remain there until it’s completed,” he said.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a longtime proponent of impeaching Trump, said he was in favor of “tightening the screws of accountability” in any way Democrats can. But, he added, if the Senate fails to conduct a fair trial by not hearing witnesses in the president’s case, then “the tool of impeachment is largely a dead letter until these Republicans pass into the pages of history.”
Advertisement
Huffman suggested he’s particularly interested in holding Barr to account. The attorney general has used his role as the nation’s top law enforcement official to vigorously defend Trump and to advise the administration against turning over documents to Congress related to its investigations. Huffman just didn’t seem to see the utility in impeachment anymore.
“We have a very serious responsibility to throw everything we got at him, especially Barr,” the congressman said. “But there’s a lot of misconduct to address. I just don’t know that the tool of impeachment is ― you know, if the Senate makes a mockery of all this, I don’t think that’s the tool that makes the most sense going forward.”
The case for impeaching other officials is a complicated one.
If Democrats believe Trump abused the power of his office, it’s not difficult to argue that other members of his Cabinet who were involved in the Ukraine scheme also deserve to be impeached. Impeaching other officials might also demonstrate to Republican senators that, even if they conduct one sham trial without witnesses and make an impeachment case disappear swiftly, they will continue to face questions related to Ukraine. The matter won’t just go away.
But impeaching other officials might also cheapen the House’s action against Trump, while putting electorally vulnerable Democrats in a tough position and playing into a GOP argument that Democrats will impeach anyone. The effort could easily backfire, while also chewing up important time needed for other investigations related to Trump, like those into his finances and potential emoluments violations.
Democrats, however, have touted their responsibility to impeach Trump. And if other officials were involved in withholding aid to Ukraine to boost Trump’s reelection campaign and then covering it up, don’t Democrats have a responsibility to impeach those officials too?
Advertisement
The answer may come into better focus after the current case is completed. Democrats, understandably, don’t want to distract from Trump’s trial. But their reluctance seems deeper than just a timing issue, particularly if the most liberal Democrats in Congress are unsure about impeaching anyone else.
Jayapal’s co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), told HuffPost that he hadn’t put “tremendous thought” into impeaching other officials. Like that of other Democrats, his trust in the impeachment process seemed to be shaken.
“First thought would be if you won’t take out the biggest criminal, are you going to go after other folks who violated the law?” Pocan said.
He suggested that Democrats need to weigh more impeachment against other oversight efforts, like obtaining Trump’s tax returns and continuing the Ukraine investigation, and said that Democrats need to keep the “gas pedal” on those inquiries.
“At some point, you got to prioritize the time you have,” Pocan said.