thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--We Asked Americans To Tell Us Which Issues Political Leaders Should Address

As the U.S. heads into another election year and Americans consider their options , we asked readers in a HuffPost Forum which issues they most want their elected officials to address in the next five years ― and received a slate of responses spanning everything from fighting climate change to enshrining abortion rights to forgiving student loans .
To get a more broadly reflective picture of what the American public wants to see from its leaders , we also ran a poll , using YouGov ’ s nationally representative panel .
We gave respondents a list of 15 issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ’ d most like to see their officials focus on .
As the responses showed , Americans have a wide-ranging and diverse set of concerns .
Health care , however , stood out as an especially common concern : 43 % of Americans picked it as one of their top issues in the HuffPost/YouGov survey .
That was followed by immigration ( 31 % ) , the economy ( 27 % ) , the environment ( 23 % ) , gun policies ( 21 % ) , the way things work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth inequality ( 17 % ) .
Priorities vary , to some extent , along demographic lines .
Women were 9 points likelier than men to cite abortion as a top concern .
Black and Hispanic Americans were , combined , 20 points likelier than white Americans to say gun policy should be a top issue .
People living in the nation ’ s West were 12 points likelier than those in the Northeast or South to express special concerns about the environment .
( You can check out some of the differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Many of the most notable divides , however came along partisan lines .
A majority of Republicans chose immigration as a top issue , with the economy and health care coming in second and third place , respectively .
Democrats , by contrast , were most likely to focus on health care , with the environment and gun policies rounding out their top three .
We also asked survey respondents to lay out their top issues in their own words .
Here are a few of their responses , in some cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Health insurance prices are ridiculous .
Poor people do not stand a chance .
They should focus on making sure that the poor , vets and seniors are getting their fair share .
Food stamps should continue because there is a need .
People with money can not see the needs , since they always have what they need.
” ― 74-year-old Georgia woman “ I ’ d like to see them finally realize that health insurance doesn ’ t necessarily equal health care .
All the insurance in the world won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have doctors or a hospital and you have to travel 50 miles to see one… .
Being a retired farmer , I ’ d like to see the end of the tariffs on agricultural trade .
American farmers are hardworking people and we feed the country and a lot of the world.
” ― 71-year-old Alabama woman Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some but not all potential survey errors .
YouGov ’ s reports include a model-based margin of error , which rests on a specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sample rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling .
If these assumptions are wrong , the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate .
Click here for a more detailed explanation of the model-based margin of error .

Human crowd forming a big speech bubble on blue background. Horizontal composition with copy space. Clipping path is included. Communication And Social Media Concept. MicroStockHub via Getty Images
As the U.S. heads into another election year and Americans consider their options, we asked readers in a HuffPost Forum which issues they most want their elected officials to address in the next five years ― and received a slate of responses spanning everything from fighting climate change to enshrining abortion rights to forgiving student loans.
“It’s time for transparency, honesty, and some hard truth telling,” wrote one reader, urging politicians to acknowledge the influence of special interest groups.
Advertisement
“Our system of government has almost broken into small bits,” worried another, who advocated a renewed focus on the nation’s diplomatic presence abroad.
To get a more broadly reflective picture of what the American public wants to see from its leaders, we also ran a poll, using YouGov’s nationally representative panel. We gave respondents a list of 15 issues, asking them to pick up to three that they’d most like to see their officials focus on.
As the responses showed, Americans have a wide-ranging and diverse set of concerns. Health care, however, stood out as an especially common concern: 43% of Americans picked it as one of their top issues in the HuffPost/YouGov survey. That was followed by immigration (31%), the economy (27%), the environment (23%), gun policies (21%), the way things work in Washington (18%) and wealth inequality (17%).
Priorities vary, to some extent, along demographic lines. Women were 9 points likelier than men to cite abortion as a top concern. Black and Hispanic Americans were, combined, 20 points likelier than white Americans to say gun policy should be a top issue. People living in the nation’s West were 12 points likelier than those in the Northeast or South to express special concerns about the environment. (You can check out some of the differences for yourself using these interactive crosstabs.)
Advertisement
Many of the most notable divides, however came along partisan lines. A majority of Republicans chose immigration as a top issue, with the economy and health care coming in second and third place, respectively. Democrats, by contrast, were most likely to focus on health care, with the environment and gun policies rounding out their top three.
In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, Americans say elected officials should focus on health care, immigration and the economy. Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
We also asked survey respondents to lay out their top issues in their own words. Here are a few of their responses, in some cases lightly edited for grammar or clarity:
“Health insurance prices are ridiculous. Poor people do not stand a chance. They should focus on making sure that the poor, vets and seniors are getting their fair share. Food stamps should continue because there is a need. People with money cannot see the needs, since they always have what they need.” ― 74-year-old Georgia woman
“Build the wall on the southern border. Close the loopholes in the immigration system.” ― 77-year-old California man
Advertisement
“I’d like to see them finally realize that health insurance doesn’t necessarily equal health care. All the insurance in the world won’t help you if your county doesn’t have doctors or a hospital and you have to travel 50 miles to see one…. Being a retired farmer, I’d like to see the end of the tariffs on agricultural trade. American farmers are hardworking people and we feed the country and a lot of the world.” ― 71-year-old Alabama woman
“I think climate change is the most important issue to focus on right now, because it doesn’t just affect a certain group of people but EVERYONE.” ― 19-year-old Texas woman
“Climate change and gun violence are the biggest threats to our country at the moment, aside from the president.” ― 36-year-old Massachusetts man
“Bringing America together again, rather than making the divide deeper - in all areas, including socio-economic, immigration status, race/religion, and party. We should all be working together.” ― 30-year-old Illinois man
“Finding a pathway for people to get off of government assistance and become productive members of our society that pay into the system, not just take.” ― 42-year-old California woman
Advertisement
“I would like to see Citizens United overturned and the sources of political contributions made transparent. In addition, I support a national health care plan, single payer, such as Medicare For All.” ― 68-year-old California woman
“Infrastructure modernization, frankly. Move the nation into the 21st Century via improvements in transportation, energy, and food production. Embrace technologies and policies designed to arrest climate change effects in doing so.” ― 54-year-old Washington man
“Focus on crafting universal basic income. That would lift millions out of poverty.” ― 26-year-old New York man
“Getting rid of abortion.” ― 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman
“Nothing, because I don’t plan on voting for any of these people, and I don’t trust them to do anything.” ― 40-year-old Florida woman
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Dec. 13-15 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
Advertisement
HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Ex-Castro Staffer And Top Iowa Democrat Endorses Bernie Sanders

Derek Eadon , a former deputy campaign manager for Julián Castro and ex-chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party , announced his support for Bernie Sanders ’ s presidential bid Friday , handing the Vermont senator one of his most prominent endorsements from an Iowa Democrat .
Eadon , a 36-year-old veteran of Barack Obama ’ s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns , does not fit the typical profile of a Sanders endorser .
But a multiyear bout with trigeminal neuralgia , a rare nerve disease that causes acute facial pain , has ruined his finances and reshaped his politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost his family an estimated $ 40,000 in out-of-pocket costs and brought them to the brink of bankruptcy , said Sanders ’ s record won him over .
Eadon is now an outspoken proponent for “ Medicare for All ” and an admirer of Sanders ’ s consistent support for the plan .
“ Something that Bernie has that other candidates don ’ t is he has that background and that consistency , ” Eadon said .
“ He is not just saying ‘ Medicare for All ’ or ‘ no corporate money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
He ’ s been there all along.
” “ It really pisses me off when people say , ‘ We can ’ t do Medicare for All.
’ We ’ re seeing constant handouts for corporations , we ’ re seeing endless wars , nepotism and corruption all over the place , ” he added .
“ It ’ s naive to think that we can ’ t expand one of the most popular and one of the most successful government programs that we ’ ve ever seen be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I-Vt. ) speaks at a campaign event in West Des Moines , Iowa , on Dec. 30 .
Derek Eadon , a former deputy campaign manager for Julián Castro , who has dropped out of the presidential race , has endorsed him .
Eadon emphasized his respect for Castro and expressed his hope that the former housing secretary runs for president again .
But Eadon , who worked for the Obama campaign successor group Organizing for America during the Affordable Care Act fight , also now sees the theory behind nominating someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naive.
” For a few years after that , the disease did not interfere with his professional responsibilities .
He ran for chair of the Iowa Democratic Party in January 2017 , winning an upset victory against a former Iowa state Senate majority leader .
In March 2017 , at a party event in Davenport , he experienced an episode of severe nerve pain in his face that marked the beginning of a spiral into a debilitating illness .
He resigned from the top post at the end of June 2017 to undergo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to relieve some of his pain after about a year , allowing him to resume work .
Toward the end of 2018 , he took a job with the progressive group Run for Something .
He struck up a dialogue with Castro and accepted a position as his deputy campaign manager in January 2019 .
For a while after the relief of the pain that had plagued him , Eadon experienced numbness in parts of his face .
It led to injuries like him accidentally biting through his tongue , but it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had another episode of acute pain , this time in his eye .
He returned to Iowa to seek treatment , resigning his post on the Castro campaign in July .
The ordeal has been nightmarish for Eadon , his schoolteacher wife , and their young daughter and son .
Republican cuts to public-sector unions ’ bargaining power have left his wife with far stingier health care , according to Eadon .
Without help from family members helping to pay his medical bills , they would have lost their house in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become a valued surrogate for the campaign .
He caucused for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and said he thought his friend , Iowa Democratic strategist Pete D ’ Alessandro , was “ crazy ” for working for Sanders then .
But he has come to appreciate the staying power of Sanders ’ s coalition in a crowded presidential field .
He said that Sanders is the most electable of all the candidates .
“ It ’ s not only that he ’ s bringing in working-class folks .
He ’ s also continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eadon said .
“ We can ’ t just keep doing the same policy ideas and the same candidates just getting a small amount of swing voters .
We have to broaden what we ’ re doing .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Derek Eadon, a former deputy campaign manager for Julián Castro and ex-chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, announced his support for Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid Friday, handing the Vermont senator one of his most prominent endorsements from an Iowa Democrat.
Eadon, a 36-year-old veteran of Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, does not fit the typical profile of a Sanders endorser. But a multiyear bout with trigeminal neuralgia, a rare nerve disease that causes acute facial pain, has ruined his finances and reshaped his politics.
Advertisement
The political consultant, whose condition has cost his family an estimated $40,000 in out-of-pocket costs and brought them to the brink of bankruptcy, said Sanders’s record won him over. Eadon is now an outspoken proponent for “Medicare for All” and an admirer of Sanders’s consistent support for the plan.
“Something that Bernie has that other candidates don’t is he has that background and that consistency,” Eadon said. “He is not just saying ‘Medicare for All’ or ‘no corporate money’ while he’s running for president. He’s been there all along.”
“It really pisses me off when people say, ‘We can’t do Medicare for All.’ We’re seeing constant handouts for corporations, we’re seeing endless wars, nepotism and corruption all over the place,” he added. “It’s naive to think that we can’t expand one of the most popular and one of the most successful government programs that we’ve ever seen be able to provide health care.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a campaign event in West Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 30. Derek Eadon, a former deputy campaign manager for Julián Castro, who has dropped out of the presidential race, has endorsed him. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Advertisement
Eadon emphasized his respect for Castro and expressed his hope that the former housing secretary runs for president again. But Eadon, who worked for the Obama campaign successor group Organizing for America during the Affordable Care Act fight, also now sees the theory behind nominating someone moderate to attract Republican support as “naive.”
“It’s more important to have somebody in the White House where they’re a constant advocate, they’re very aggressive, they’re fierce on these issues,” Eadon said.
Eadon began experiencing severe pain in his face in 2013. In 2015, it was diagnosed as trigeminal neuralgia.
For a few years after that, the disease did not interfere with his professional responsibilities. He ran for chair of the Iowa Democratic Party in January 2017, winning an upset victory against a former Iowa state Senate majority leader.
In March 2017, at a party event in Davenport, he experienced an episode of severe nerve pain in his face that marked the beginning of a spiral into a debilitating illness. He resigned from the top post at the end of June 2017 to undergo radiation treatment.
Advertisement
The radiation therapy began to relieve some of his pain after about a year, allowing him to resume work. Toward the end of 2018, he took a job with the progressive group Run for Something. He struck up a dialogue with Castro and accepted a position as his deputy campaign manager in January 2019.
For a while after the relief of the pain that had plagued him, Eadon experienced numbness in parts of his face. It led to injuries like him accidentally biting through his tongue, but it was manageable.
Then, last June, he had another episode of acute pain, this time in his eye. He returned to Iowa to seek treatment, resigning his post on the Castro campaign in July.
The ordeal has been nightmarish for Eadon, his schoolteacher wife, and their young daughter and son. Republican cuts to public-sector unions’ bargaining power have left his wife with far stingier health care, according to Eadon. Without help from family members helping to pay his medical bills, they would have lost their house in West Des Moines.
Eadon is feeling healthy again and wants to get to work helping Sanders before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3.
Advertisement
Eadon is likely to become a valued surrogate for the campaign. He caucused for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and said he thought his friend, Iowa Democratic strategist Pete D’Alessandro, was “crazy” for working for Sanders then.
But he has come to appreciate the staying power of Sanders’s coalition in a crowded presidential field. He said that Sanders is the most electable of all the candidates.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Indefinite Shutdown Of Kashmir's Internet Is Illegal: India's Top Court

NEW DELHI/SRINAGAR , Jan 10 ( Reuters ) - India ’ s Supreme Court said on Friday that an indefinite shutdown of the internet in Kashmir was illegal , rebuking the government for the communications lockdown imposed after it withdrew the Muslim majority region ’ s autonomy in August .
Last month , authorities imposed an internet clampdown in parts of the capital and in areas of the eastern state of Assam and Uttar Pradesh in the north as protests raged against a new citizenship law that Muslims see as discriminatory .
The shutdown in Kashmir , which has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the longest such outage in any democracy , according to digital rights group Access Now .
The government has argued that the blackout in Kashmir was needed to maintain order in a Himalayan region where security forces have been fighting a long-running separatist insurgency encouraged by neighboring Pakistan .
The Supreme Court ’ s decision , which also asks authorities to make public all orders on internet shutdowns , should enable more scrutiny of suspensions , internet freedom activists said .
“ This sheds light on the rationale behind internet shutdowns which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or proportionate or not , ” said Nikhil Pahwa , digital rights activist and editor of MediaNama , a Delhi-based publication .
“ So if the state is forced to be transparent , they will be more accountable.
” In Kashmir , the blackout has severely disrupted the lives of millions and has had an impact on everything from college admissions to businesses filing tax returns .
For Yasin Tuman , who runs a travel agency in Kashmir ’ s main city Srinagar , the loss of internet access has hit his business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government says it was necessary to block the internet to stop agitators orchestrating mass , potentially violent , protests against its decision to revoke Kashmir ’ s special status .
It also ordered a massive deployment of security forces , and after some protests in the initial days anti-government demonstrations have died down .
Gouhar Geelani , a journalist and writer from Kashmir , said Modi ’ s Hindu nationalist party had used the internet clampdown “ to control the Kashmir narrative by placing restrictions on mainstream media and social media platforms.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ users and the nation ’ s security as the internet has emerged as a “ potent tool to cause unimaginable disruption to the democratic polity , “ India ’ s technology ministry has previously said .
India is the biggest market for social media such as Facebook and its WhatsApp messenger , and with 450 million smartphone users it is second only to China .
On Friday , the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries welcomed the Supreme Court ’ s ruling saying although delayed , the order could pave way for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as 180 billion rupees .
( $ 1 = 71.0900 Indian rupees )

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW DELHI/SRINAGAR, Jan 10 (Reuters) - India’s Supreme Court said on Friday that an indefinite shutdown of the internet in Kashmir was illegal, rebuking the government for the communications lockdown imposed after it withdrew the Muslim majority region’s autonomy in August.
Indefinite suspension of the internet violated India’s telecoms rules, the court said, ordering authorities to review all curbs in Kashmir in a week.
Advertisement
“Freedom of Internet access is a fundamental right,” Supreme Court justice N. V. Ramana said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist government has frequently used internet shutdowns as a tool to quell dissent in troubled parts of the country.
Last month, authorities imposed an internet clampdown in parts of the capital and in areas of the eastern state of Assam and Uttar Pradesh in the north as protests raged against a new citizenship law that Muslims see as discriminatory.
The shutdown in Kashmir, which has been on for more than 150 days, is the longest such outage in any democracy, according to digital rights group Access Now.
Kashmiri journalists display laptops and placards during a protest demanding restoration of internet service, in Srinagar, November 12, 2019. Danish Ismail / Reuters
Advertisement
The government has argued that the blackout in Kashmir was needed to maintain order in a Himalayan region where security forces have been fighting a long-running separatist insurgency encouraged by neighboring Pakistan.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which also asks authorities to make public all orders on internet shutdowns, should enable more scrutiny of suspensions, internet freedom activists said.
“This sheds light on the rationale behind internet shutdowns which then can be challenged as being constitutional or proportionate or not,” said Nikhil Pahwa, digital rights activist and editor of MediaNama, a Delhi-based publication.
“So if the state is forced to be transparent, they will be more accountable.”
In 2019, India’s documented internet blackouts lasted for more than 4,000 hours, costing Asia’s third-biggest economy $1.3billion, according to a report by website Top10VPN.
India’s home ministry and department of telecommunications did not respond to requests for comment.
Journalists use the internet as they work inside a government-run media center in Srinagar on January 10, 2020. Danish Ismail / Reuters
Advertisement
DISRUPTING LIFE
In Kashmir, the blackout has severely disrupted the lives of millions and has had an impact on everything from college admissions to businesses filing tax returns.
For Yasin Tuman, who runs a travel agency in Kashmir’s main city Srinagar, the loss of internet access has hit his business hard, as tourists stay away.
“I’ve suffered losses of 7 million rupees (nearly $100,000)in the past five months,” he told Reuters.
The government says it was necessary to block the internet to stop agitators orchestrating mass, potentially violent, protests against its decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status.
It also ordered a massive deployment of security forces, and after some protests in the initial days anti-government demonstrations have died down.
Advertisement
Gouhar Geelani, a journalist and writer from Kashmir, said Modi’s Hindu nationalist party had used the internet clampdown “to control the Kashmir narrative by placing restrictions on mainstream media and social media platforms.”
Stricter regulations are necessary to safeguard users and the nation’s security as the internet has emerged as a “potent tool to cause unimaginable disruption to the democratic polity,“India’s technology ministry has previously said.
India is the biggest market for social media such as Facebook and its WhatsApp messenger, and with 450 million smartphone users it is second only to China.
As of now, an uneasy calm prevails in Kashmir. The internet was restored in hospitals last week and some mobile phone connections are working.
On Friday, the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling saying although delayed, the order could pave way for them to claim compensation for losses of as much as 180 billion rupees. ($1 = 71.0900 Indian rupees)
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Want A Wealth Tax On Super Rich

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll , 64 % strongly or somewhat agreed that “ the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs ” - the essence of a wealth tax .
Results were similar across gender , race and household income .
While support among Democrats was stronger , at 77 % , a majority of Republicans , 53 % , also agreed with the idea .
A wealth tax is levied on an individual ’ s net worth , such as stocks , bonds and real estate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar in concept to property taxes .
It is separate from an income tax , which applies to wages , interest and dividends , among other sources .
“ Rich people have a right to blow their money on Lamborghinis and world-wide cruises or whatever , ” said EsinZimmerman , 53 , a lifelong Republican from Madison , Minnesota , who wants higher taxes for the wealthy .
“ But that money could be used in other ways that help people.
” Zimmerman said she would especially be in favor of a wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs for U.S. military veterans , or help single parents with young children .
“ It could put the border wall up , ” she said .
But the concerns have been climbing since the crisis years of 2007 to 2009 , from 55 % to more than 60 % as of 2016 The Reuters/Ipsos results suggested even stronger support for an annual levy on total wealth , not just income.Warren and Sanders have touted the idea as a way to help pay for major social programs like Medicare for All and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wealth owned by the very richest Americans , known as the “ 1 percent.
” That notion , central to a winner-take-all brand of capitalism , got mixed reviews .
While 56 % of Republicans agreed the very rich should keep what they have regardless of the impact on inequality , 35 % of Republicans disagreed with the statement , as did 71 % of Democrats .
Kathy Herron , 56 , a Republican who lives in Santa Rosa , California , said her support for Trump - a self-proclaimed billionaire - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration .
In her view , the president would do well to support higher taxes on rich Americans .
In recent years in particular , mainstream economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund and theFederal Reserve have taken seriously the possibility that high levels of wealth and income inequality may be not just politically corrosive , but bad for economic growth .
Economic and market trends have likely reinforced doubts about who gets ahead , and how fast .
Since the start in 2009 of a now-decade-long recovery , the top 1 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has grown from 27.8 % to 32.2 % , driven by a record-setting boom in the stock market , according to Fed data .
Trump has cited the rise in equity markets as a selling point in his campaign , which is centered on taking credit for historically low unemployment , and a tariff-heavy trade policy that he says will restore manufacturing jobs .
But that has not changed the country ’ s wealth picture .
While the share of wealth held by the bottom 50 % of Americans has increased since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longterm the trend is down , with their share at less than half what it was in 1989.The shares of wealth held by the middle and upper middle classes- or all other Americans save for the richest 1 percent ― have all fallen since the crisis .

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Jan 10 (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with PresidentDonald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.
But it may have broad public support, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that found nearly two-thirds of respondents agree that the very rich should pay more.
Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%,also agreed with the idea.
Advertisement
A wealth tax is levied on an individual’s net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources.
Asked in the poll if “the very rich should be allowed tokeep the money they have, even if that means increasinginequality,” 54% of respondents disagreed.
“Rich people have a right to blow their money on Lamborghinis and world-wide cruises or whatever,” said EsinZimmerman, 53, a lifelong Republican from Madison, Minnesota, who wants higher taxes for the wealthy. “But that money could be used in other ways that help people.”
Zimmerman said she would especially be in favor of a wealth tax that would help pay for government programs for U.S. military veterans, or help single parents with young children. “It could put the border wall up,” she said.
Advertisement
The results may reflect how the economic changes of the pastroughly 20 years, from globalization to the financial crisis,have shaped attitudes about economic policy.
According to polling by Gallup, concerns about the rich paying too little actually declined through the 1990s and early 2000s, a relative boom period for the United States.
But the concerns have been climbing since the crisis years of 2007 to 2009, from 55% to more than 60% as of 2016 The Reuters/Ipsos results suggested even stronger support for an annual levy on total wealth, not just income.Warren and Sanders have touted the idea as a way to help pay for major social programs like Medicare for All and to reverse a stark rise in the share of wealth owned by the very richest Americans, known as the “1 percent.”
The poll also points to changing attitudes toward basic ideas such as “keeping what you earn.”
That notion, central to a winner-take-all brand of capitalism, got mixed reviews. While 56% of Republicans agreed the very rich should keep what they have regardless of the impact on inequality, 35% of Republicans disagreed with the statement, as did 71% of Democrats.
Republican survey respondents interviewed by Reuters saidthey did not see their support for a wealth tax conflicting withtheir party ideals or their support for Trump.
Advertisement
Kathy Herron, 56, a Republican who lives in Santa Rosa,California, said her support for Trump - a self-proclaimed billionaire - stems from his hardline policies on illegal immigration. In her view, the president would do well to support higher taxes on rich Americans.
“We’re taxed from one end to the other, and it just seems the rich don’t pay their share,” shesaid.
In recent years in particular, mainstream economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund and theFederal Reserve have taken seriously the possibility that high levels of wealth and income inequality may be not just politically corrosive, but bad for economic growth.
At the most recent Fed policy meeting, staff members presented research on how families’ differing access to credit might make a recession worse — the sort of exercise that shows unequal starting points among households can influence national outcomes.
Economic and market trends have likely reinforced doubts about who gets ahead, and how fast. Since the start in 2009 of a now-decade-long recovery, the top 1 percent’s share of national net worth has grown from 27.8% to 32.2%, driven by a record-setting boom in the stock market, according to Fed data.
Trump has cited the rise in equity markets as a selling point in his campaign, which is centered on taking credit for historically low unemployment, and a tariff-heavy trade policy that he says will restore manufacturing jobs.
Advertisement
But that has not changed the country’s wealth picture. While the share of wealth held by the bottom 50% of Americans has increased since the crisis, to 1.5% percent, longterm the trend is down, with their share at less than half what it was in 1989.The shares of wealth held by the middle and upper middle classes- or all other Americans save for the richest 1 percent ― have all fallen since the crisis.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Trump Ups Iran Accusations As Questions Mount About Justification

Just hours earlier , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said the U.S. didn ’ t know when or where attacks might occur .
Trump and other officials insisted anew that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani had posed an imminent threat to the U.S. , but they rebuffed repeated attempts to explain what they meant by “ imminent.
” Those Iranian missiles , which caused no casualties , were prompted by the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week in Baghdad .
That U.S. assault set off a chain of events that may have included the downing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian missile , and calls by the Iraqi government to expel U.S. troops from their country .
At the White House , Trump issued an executive order adding additional U.S. sanctions to the already long list his administration had imposed in an effort to force Iran to accept a new agreement that would curb its nuclear program and to halt support for militant groups throughout the Middle East .
“ I don ’ t know exactly which minute , ” Pompeo said .
“ We don ’ t know exactly which day it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was very clear .
Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad , large-scale attack against American interests and those attacks were imminent.
” Both Pompeo and Trump had said U.S. embassies were threatened .
The secretary of state broadened it to include “ American facilities , ” including military bases throughout the region .
“ This was going to happen , and American lives were at risk , ” he said .
He spoke amid revelations by U.S. officials that the American military had tried , but failed , to kill another senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani was killed .
The targeting of Abdul Reza Shahlai was apparently part of an effort to cripple the leadership of Iran ’ s Quds Force , which the U.S. has designated a terror organization along with the larger Islamic Revolutionary Guard Force .
The new sanctions were in immediate response to Iran ’ s firing of a barrage of missiles at American bases in neighboring Iraq this week after the killing of Soleimani .
No one was injured .
The larger U.S. goal is to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement signed under President Barack Obama that traded curbs on the program for the easing of sanctions .
Since then , the administration has added additional economic measures that have created hardship in Iran and brought its oil revenue to historic lows but have failed to bring the Iranian government to the negotiating table .
Those measures , which would freeze any assets the officials have in U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit financial transactions with them , are largely symbolic since such senior figures are unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hostility between the two nations .
The executive order grants the administration power to place anyone involved , even indirectly , in the construction , manufacturing , textile or mining sector on a global financial blacklist .
It also targets 17 of the largest steel and iron manufacturers — one of the few growth spots in the hobbled Iranian economy — along with three foreign companies , including two based in China , under secondary sanctions .
Adnan Mazarei , a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was forced to cut fuel subsidies earlier this year , triggering nationwide protests , but they also will make it harder for government to negotiate with the U.S. Mnuchin insisted the sanctions are working and have deprived Iran of tens of billions of dollars .
“ They would be using that for terrorist activities throughout the region and to enable them to do more bad things , ” he said .
“ And there ’ s no question , by cutting off the economics to the region , we are having an @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Confronted by persistent questions about his military action in the Middle East, President Donald Trump and his top officials offered a string of fresh explanations Friday, with Trump now contending Iranian militants had planned major attacks on four U.S. embassies.
Just hours earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said the U.S. didn’t know when or where attacks might occur. Trump and other officials insisted anew that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani had posed an imminent threat to the U.S., but they rebuffed repeated attempts to explain what they meant by “imminent.”
Advertisement
Trump, meanwhile, announced additional sanctions against Iran, which he had promised after a barrage of missiles fired by the Islamic State against American bases in Iraq earlier this week.
Those Iranian missiles, which caused no casualties, were prompted by the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week in Baghdad. That U.S. assault set off a chain of events that may have included the downing of a Ukrainian jetliner, possibly by an Iranian missile, and calls by the Iraqi government to expel U.S. troops from their country.
At the White House, Trump issued an executive order adding additional U.S. sanctions to the already long list his administration had imposed in an effort to force Iran to accept a new agreement that would curb its nuclear program and to halt support for militant groups throughout the Middle East.
Trump declared the U.S. was holding Iran responsible for attacks against the United States as well as a threat to U.S. service members, diplomats and civilians — an apparent reference to the justification for killing Soleimani.
Advertisement
“The United States will continue to counter the Iranian regime’s destructive and destabilizing behavior,” he said.
But Trump and others faced continuing questions over their claims of an “imminent” threat. Members of Congress said Pompeo and other officials did not provide sufficient detail or justification in briefings this week.
Define what you mean by imminent, Pompeo was asked Friday at a White House news conference.
“I don’t know exactly which minute,” Pompeo said. “We don’t know exactly which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear. Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests and those attacks were imminent.”
Both Pompeo and Trump had said U.S. embassies were threatened. The secretary of state broadened it to include “American facilities,” including military bases throughout the region. “This was going to happen, and American lives were at risk,” he said.
Trump gave a more worrisome number but still no specifics in a later comment.
“I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies,” he told Fox News in an interview taped Friday.
Advertisement
He spoke amid revelations by U.S. officials that the American military had tried, but failed, to kill another senior Iranian commander on the same day that Soleimani was killed. The targeting of Abdul Reza Shahlai was apparently part of an effort to cripple the leadership of Iran’s Quds Force, which the U.S. has designated a terror organization along with the larger Islamic Revolutionary Guard Force.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the killing of Soleimani “provocative and disproportionate,” and other members said they were unconvinced after a closed-door briefing on the intelligence.
“President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat. “He had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack.”
The new sanctions were in immediate response to Iran’s firing of a barrage of missiles at American bases in neighboring Iraq this week after the killing of Soleimani. No one was injured. The larger U.S. goal is to force Iran to negotiate a new agreement on limiting its nuclear program.
In 2018, Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement signed under President Barack Obama that traded curbs on the program for the easing of sanctions. Since then, the administration has added additional economic measures that have created hardship in Iran and brought its oil revenue to historic lows but have failed to bring the Iranian government to the negotiating table.
Advertisement
The sanctions added Friday include measures aimed at eight senior Iranian officials involved in what Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin called “destabilizing” activities throughout the Middle East as well as Tuesday’s missile barrage.
Those measures, which would freeze any assets the officials have in U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit financial transactions with them, are largely symbolic since such senior figures are unlikely to have assets under American control after decades of hostility between the two nations.
But other measures announced Friday could have a significant effect on strategically important sectors of the Iranian economy, said Ben Davis, chief research officer at research and data analytics firm Kharon.
The executive order grants the administration power to place anyone involved, even indirectly, in the construction, manufacturing, textile or mining sector on a global financial blacklist. It also targets 17 of the largest steel and iron manufacturers — one of the few growth spots in the hobbled Iranian economy — along with three foreign companies, including two based in China, under secondary sanctions.
“It sends a signal to other foreign firms that continue to do business with Iranian steel producers that this is off limits,” said Davis, a former Treasury Department official.
Advertisement
Adnan Mazarei, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the sanctions will hurt an Iranian economy that was forced to cut fuel subsidies earlier this year, triggering nationwide protests, but they also will make it harder for government to negotiate with the U.S.
“This will be seen as another sign that the U.S. government cannot be taken at its word when it says it wants to negotiate,” Mazarei said.
Mnuchin insisted the sanctions are working and have deprived Iran of tens of billions of dollars. “They would be using that for terrorist activities throughout the region and to enable them to do more bad things,” he said. “And there’s no question, by cutting off the economics to the region, we are having an impact.”
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Trump Official Spreads False Information While Defending Soleimani Assassination

While defending the decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani without congressional approval , White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley claimed that the Obama administration killed two al Qaeda leaders and a brutal Libyan dictator without a greenlight from Congress .
“ Soleimani was , in fact , planning ‘ imminent attacks , ' '' he tweeted Friday .
“ While Democrats and the media quibble over its definition , quick point : When Obama killed bin Laden , al-Awlaki and Gaddafi , without congressional approval , there were no ‘ imminent attacks ’ and Democrats did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , planning `` imminent attacks . ''
While Democrats and the media quibble over its definition , quick point : When Obama killed bin Laden , al-Awlaki and Gaddafi , without Congressional approval , there were NO `` imminent attacks '' and Democrats did not ask or care .
— Hogan Gidley ( @ hogangidley45 ) January 10 , 2020 The U.S. military wasn ’ t responsible for killing Muammar Gaddafi , a Libyan dictator who was ousted after four decades in power .
Opposition fighters in Misrata were the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2011 , according to a report by Human Rights Watch .
His capture and the moments leading to his death were filmed and circulated widely online .
Osama bin Laden , the leader of the terrorist group al Qaeda , and Anwar al-Awlaki , an al Qaeda operative born in the U.S. , were legally sanctioned .
Congress voted to authorize a war against al Qaeda with the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) in 2001 after bin Laden claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarify his tweet later Friday by blaming former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for taking “ credit for the killing of these terrorists repeatedly , including Gaddafi.
” ... Hey `` fact checkers , '' do n't be ridiculous .
What I was clearly saying is that Obama and Hillary took credit for the killing of these terrorists repeatedly , including Gaddafi .
Hillary even said : `` We came .
We saw .
He died. ''
... — Hogan Gidley ( @ hogangidley45 ) January 10 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t delete ) showed her advisers urged her to own it .
Obama ’ s authorization of a bombing campaign and his Administration ’ s assistance in the overthrow of the Libyan government led to Gaddafi ’ s death ... everyone knows this .
We all saw how he died… — Hogan Gidley ( @ hogangidley45 ) January 10 , 2020 …The real point here is that many Democrats NEVER said a word about “ war powers ” when Obama was President – even when he carried out hundreds of drone attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gidley ( @ hogangidley45 ) January 10 , 2020 This isn ’ t the first time in the past 10 days that a Trump official botched the facts when defending the administration ’ s decision to take military action against Iran by killing Soleimani without prior approval from Congress .
Vice President Mike Pence incorrectly linked Soleimani to the 9/11 attacks last Friday , claiming without proof that the Iranian official was responsible for helping “ 10 of the 12 terrorists ” enter the U.S .
In fact , there were 19 terrorists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the 9/11 Commission ’ s report found that possibly eight hijackers passed through Iran to get to Afghanistan , there is no proof that Soleimani aided them through the country .
Soleimani isn ’ t mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission ’ s report , which found no evidence that “ Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.
” Mr. Vice President , First , there were 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks : 15 Saudis , 2 Emiratis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second , there are lots of bad things Soleimani did , this is not one of them .
https : //t.co/7D8jnQ9LPI — Ali H. Soufan ( @ Ali_H_Soufan ) January 3 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
While defending the decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani without congressional approval, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley claimed that the Obama administration killed two al Qaeda leaders and a brutal Libyan dictator without a greenlight from Congress.
But Gidley was wrong.
“Soleimani was, in fact, planning ‘imminent attacks,'" he tweeted Friday. “While Democrats and the media quibble over its definition, quick point: When Obama killed bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Gaddafi, without congressional approval, there were no ‘imminent attacks’ and Democrats did not ask or care.”
Advertisement
Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks." While Democrats and the media quibble over its definition, quick point: When Obama killed bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Gaddafi, without Congressional approval, there were NO "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or care. — Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
The U.S. military wasn’t responsible for killing Muammar Gaddafi, a Libyan dictator who was ousted after four decades in power. Opposition fighters in Misrata were the ones who captured, tortured and murdered Gaddafi in 2011, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. His capture and the moments leading to his death were filmed and circulated widely online.
Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group al Qaeda, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda operative born in the U.S., were legally sanctioned. Congress voted to authorize a war against al Qaeda with the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001 after bin Laden claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Gidley attempted to clarify his tweet later Friday by blaming former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for taking “credit for the killing of these terrorists repeatedly, including Gaddafi.”
Advertisement
...Hey "fact checkers," don't be ridiculous. What I was clearly saying is that Obama and Hillary took credit for the killing of these terrorists repeatedly, including Gaddafi. Hillary even said: "We came. We saw. He died."... — Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
…Emails (the ones Hillary didn’t delete) showed her advisers urged her to own it. Obama’s authorization of a bombing campaign and his Administration’s assistance in the overthrow of the Libyan government led to Gaddafi’s death...everyone knows this. We all saw how he died… — Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
…The real point here is that many Democrats NEVER said a word about “war powers” when Obama was President – even when he carried out hundreds of drone attacks – including on American citizens… — Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
This isn’t the first time in the past 10 days that a Trump official botched the facts when defending the administration’s decision to take military action against Iran by killing Soleimani without prior approval from Congress.
Vice President Mike Pence incorrectly linked Soleimani to the 9/11 attacks last Friday, claiming without proof that the Iranian official was responsible for helping “10 of the 12 terrorists” enter the U.S.
Advertisement
In fact, there were 19 terrorists responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attacks. While the 9/11 Commission’s report found that possibly eight hijackers passed through Iran to get to Afghanistan, there is no proof that Soleimani aided them through the country.
Soleimani isn’t mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission’s report, which found no evidence that “Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.”
HuffPost has reached out to Gidley for comment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-11--Fox News' Sean Hannity Issues Phone Number Threat To Republicans In Impeachment Rant

You need to understand here that their sole Constitutional role is they get to impeach .
They have decided in @ @ @ @ @ rage to abuse that power and bring up what is a non-case .
And just @ @ @ @ @ re just obsessed and Nancy Pelosi needed to appease the radicalism rising within her base @ @ @ @ @ your role is in the US senate .
Your role is also very very clear @ @ @ @ @ the trial .
That ’ s it .
That ’ s what your job is @ @ @ @ @ job , at all , to redo their corrupt investigation .

You need to understand here that their sole constitutional role is they get to impeach. They have decided in their insanity and psychosis and rage to abuse that power and bring up what is a noncase. And just politicize this because they’re just obsessed and Nancy Pelosi needed to appease the radicalism rising within her base. That is not what your role is in the U.S. Senate. Your role is also very, very clear: You are to run the trial. That’s it. That’s what your job is. It is not your job, at all, to redo their corrupt investigation.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-11--Fox News Host Explains Why Donald Trump Has Himself To Blame For Skepticism Over Iran

Fox News ’ Chris Wallace on Friday explained why President Donald Trump and his administration have themselves to blame for the skepticism that ’ s engulfed their reasons for the recent escalation in military tensions with Iran .
Wallace told fellow Fox anchor Bret Baier that people “ understandably ” wanted to know what the “ imminent ” threat was that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially said prompted last Friday ’ s U.S. assassination of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Trump has since stated in an interview with Fox ’ s Laura Ingraham that Soleimani was planning an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that has also been met with much suspicion .
If the White House “ had been a little more forthcoming right from the start , they might not have allowed this skepticism to build , ” said Wallace , the host of “ Fox News Sunday , ” who is one of the few journalists on the widely watched conservative network who is willing to challenge the president on air .
“ And look , to a certain degree , I think the president has himself to blame , because who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just trusting on face of the intelligence agencies than Donald Trump over the last three years ?
” he continued .
“ So , you know , why shouldn ’ t we be skeptical too ?
” Wallace suggested , however , that the now-paused hostilities with Iran had “ absolutely ” been a “ political win ” for Trump if “ it ’ s as far as it goes.
” “ But we don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen tomorrow , ” he said .
“ And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s directly or through a proxy and you begin to see tensions ratchet up , then some people are going to say , ‘ are we really safer or not ?
’ But for now , and we hope for a long time , so far so good.
” WATCH : Chris joined @ BretBaier on set during # foxnewsreporting to discuss the next steps in the impeachment process , the new sanctions on Iran and the upcoming show .
pic.twitter.com/XYJ8vTb2Mi — FoxNewsSunday ( @ FoxNewsSunday ) January 10 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Friday explained why President Donald Trump and his administration have themselves to blame for the skepticism that’s engulfed their reasons for the recent escalation with Iran.
Wallace told fellow Fox anchor Bret Baier that people “understandably” wanted to know what the “imminent” threat was that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially said prompted last Friday’s U.S. assassination of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Advertisement
Trump has since stated in an interview with Fox’s Laura Ingraham that Soleimani was planning an attack on four U.S. embassies, a claim that has also been met with much suspicion.
If the White House “had been a little more forthcoming right from the start, they might not have allowed this skepticism to build,” said Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” who is one of the few journalists on the widely watched conservative network who is willing to challenge the president on air.
“And look, to a certain degree, I think the president has himself to blame, because who has been more critical and less sort of just trusting on face of the intelligence agencies than Donald Trump over the last three years?” he continued. “So, you know, why shouldn’t we be skeptical, too?”
Wallace suggested, however, that the now-paused hostilities with Iran had “absolutely” been a “political win” for Trump if “it’s as far as it goes.”
Advertisement
“But we don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said. “And if they strike again, whether it’s directly or through a proxy and you begin to see tensions ratchet up, then some people are going to say, ‘Are we really safer or not?’ But for now, and we hope for a long time, so far so good.”
Check out the clip here:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--New Poll Shows It’s Anybody’s Race In Iowa

The four leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are locked in a tight race with less than a month to go before the all-important Iowa caucuses , with a majority of voters still saying their minds are not definitely made up , according to a new survey conducted by the state ’ s definitive pollster .
The poll found that Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) has the support of 20 % of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers , compared to 17 % for Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, 16 % for former South Bend , Indiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % for former Vice President Joe Biden .
A close race in Iowa , the first state to vote , could set the tone for a contentious and potentially costly battle for the Democratic nomination to challenge President Donald Trump .
A victory for Sanders , Warren or Buttigieg could provide them with the momentum necessary to directly challenge Biden for the nomination .
But a strong performance by the former vice president could lock down his substantial lead in national polling .
No other candidate in the race breaks the crucial 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Democratic National Convention .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) has the support of 6 % of voters , and entrepreneur Andrew Yang has the backing of 5 % of the electorate .
The results mean Yang is unlikely to qualify for the next Democratic debate , which is set to be held on Tuesday in Iowa .
The poll shows plenty of potential for movement in the race ’ s final four weeks .
Just 40 % of voters said their minds are definitely made up on which candidate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be persuaded to back another candidate and 13 % haven ’ t settled on a first choice yet .
( At the same point before the 2016 caucus , nearly 60 % of voters had made up their minds . )
The last iteration of this poll was conducted in mid-November .
Since then , Sanders has improved his position , jumping from 15 % to 20 % .
Buttigieg has fallen after leading the field with 24 % of the vote .
Neither Warren nor Biden saw significant movement .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which voters are required to switch who they are backing if their preferred candidate doesn ’ t break 15 % at their caucus site — means paying attention to voters ’ second choices is important : A full third of the electorate says Warren is either their first or second choice , with Sanders and Buttigieg close behind at 32 % and 31 % , respectively .
Twenty-seven percent said Biden is either their first or second choice .
The poll also shows voters are continuing to value a candidate ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other quality : 58 % said a candidate having a “ superior chance of winning in November ” was “ extremely important , ” a trait only topped by a candidate ’ s “ ability to unite the country , ” which 69 % of voters said was extremely important .
When asked whether it was more important that the winner of the caucus be able to defeat Trump or for the winner to share their stances on the issues , 55 % said beating Trump was more important , while 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agree with them on the issues .
That ’ s a significant change since November , when 63 % said beating Trump was more important and 32 % said it was important for a candidate to agree with them on the issues .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The four leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are locked in a tight race with less than a month to go before the all-important Iowa caucuses, with a majority of voters still saying their minds are not definitely made up, according to a new survey conducted by the state’s definitive pollster.
The poll found that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has the support of 20% of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, compared to 17% for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), 16% for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and 15% for former Vice President Joe Biden.
Advertisement
A close race in Iowa, the first state to vote, could set the tone for a contentious and potentially costly battle for the Democratic nomination to challenge President Donald Trump. A victory for Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg could provide them with the momentum necessary to directly challenge Biden for the nomination. But a strong performance by the former vice president could lock down his substantial lead in national polling.
No other candidate in the race breaks the crucial 15% viability threshold necessary to win delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has the support of 6% of voters, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang has the backing of 5% of the electorate. The results mean Yang is unlikely to qualify for the next Democratic debate, which is set to be held on Tuesday in Iowa.
Legendary Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer conducted the survey, which was sponsored by CNN and The Des Moines Register.
The poll shows plenty of potential for movement in the race’s final four weeks. Just 40% of voters said their minds are definitely made up on which candidate to support, while 45% said they could be persuaded to back another candidate and 13% haven’t settled on a first choice yet. (At the same point before the 2016 caucus, nearly 60% of voters had made up their minds.)
Advertisement
The last iteration of this poll was conducted in mid-November. Since then, Sanders has improved his position, jumping from 15% to 20%. Buttigieg has fallen after leading the field with 24% of the vote. Neither Warren nor Biden saw significant movement.
The peculiarities of the caucus system — in which voters are required to switch who they are backing if their preferred candidate doesn’t break 15% at their caucus site — means paying attention to voters’ second choices is important: A full third of the electorate says Warren is either their first or second choice, with Sanders and Buttigieg close behind at 32% and 31%, respectively. Twenty-seven percent said Biden is either their first or second choice.
The poll also shows voters are continuing to value a candidate’s ability to defeat Trump more than almost every other quality: 58% said a candidate having a “superior chance of winning in November” was “extremely important,” a trait only topped by a candidate’s “ability to unite the country,” which 69% of voters said was extremely important.
When asked whether it was more important that the winner of the caucus be able to defeat Trump or for the winner to share their stances on the issues, 55% said beating Trump was more important, while 40% said it was important for a candidate to agree with them on the issues. That’s a significant change since November, when 63% said beating Trump was more important and 32% said it was important for a candidate to agree with them on the issues.
The poll of 701 likely Democratic caucus-goers, conducted between Jan. 2 and Jan. 8, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--White House's Plan To Dramatically Extend Controversial Travel Ban Triggers Outcry

Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups are blasting reported White House plans to dramatically extend the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations to several more countries .
The Trump administration ’ s current ban on travel to the U.S. from seven nations could be dramatically extended to as many as seven additional countries , according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed .
One of the documents was a draft presidential proclamation instituting an expanded ban and other restrictions , according to BuzzFeed .
Muslim lawmakers Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) and Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) sharply criticized the plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No Ban Act , which was introduced last year .
The measure would limit President Donald Trump ’ s ability to restrict entry to the U.S. , require specific reasons for any restrictions and prohibit religious discrimination .
Rep. Judy Chu ( D-Calif. ) , who introduced the No Ban Act with Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
, denounced the current ban as based on “ prejudice and xenophobia.
” Coons called its proposed extension “ wrong and un-American.
” He added : “ We will not tolerate discrimination based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is built on prejudice and xenophobia .
What it is lacking is actual evidence .
And that 's how we stop it .
My # NoBanAct with Senator @ ChrisCoons requires any President to demonstrate an ACTUAL threat before implementing any kind of broad ban like this .
# NoBanActNow !
https : //t.co/CVoOhOIKUD — Judy Chu ( @ RepJudyChu ) January 10 , 2020 This policy is wrong , it is un-American , and I will fight it .
We must pass the # NoBanAct immediately to bring relief to families that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that , in the United States , we will not tolerate discrimination based on religion or nationality .
— Senator Chris Coons ( @ ChrisCoons ) January 10 , 2020 Thousands of families have already been torn apart because of President Trump ’ s discriminatory # MuslimBan that does not make us safer .
Now , thousands more spouses , parents , grandparents , children , siblings , & friends could be separated by the expansion of this senseless ban .
https : //t.co/IclrU9TjIW — Senator Chris Coons ( @ ChrisCoons ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. is banned from the predominantly Muslim nations of Iran , Libya , Somalia , Syria and Yemen .
Travel is also prohibited from Venezuela and North Korea .
New countries affected by the ban could include Iraq , Sudan and Chad , which were included in the Trump administration ’ s initial ban in 2017 but then dropped , The Associated Press reported .
It ’ s still uncertain what the final list will look like because the countries named in the plans now being circulated have been blacked out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finalized , according to the AP .
BuzzFeed said the countries were not named in the documents it obtained , but the descriptions of the countries gave some hints to their identities .
One country is described as an “ important strategic partner in the global fight against terrorism ” that is failing in “ identity management ” travel issues , BuzzFeed reported .
Another country does not “ work with the United States on border and immigration security issues.
” This is very disturbing .
Our team is monitoring it closely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ # MuslimBan is gone for good .
Sign up for breaking updates : https : //t.co/HWQzffBvyE s/o @ Haleazizhttps : //t.co/Ox4Eb3TbXN — Muslim Advocates ( @ MuslimAdvocates ) January 10 , 2020 The expanded ban would reportedly be timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump ’ s first controversial ban .
A version of that ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018 .
In a 5-4 vote , the court ’ s conservatives ruled that the president ’ s power to secure U.S. borders , delegated by Congress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflammatory statements about Muslims .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups are blasting reported White House plans to dramatically extend the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations to several more countries.
The Trump administration’s current ban on travel to the U.S. from seven nations could be dramatically extended to as many as seven additional countries, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed. One of the documents was a draft presidential proclamation instituting an expanded ban and other restrictions, according to BuzzFeed.
Advertisement
“An election must be coming up,” Georgetown law professor and onetime acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal cynically tweeted after the news broke.
An election must be coming up. https://t.co/pbo3BjtkmC — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 10, 2020
Muslim lawmakers Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) sharply criticized the plan and called for passage of the federal No Ban Act, which was introduced last year. The measure would limit President Donald Trump’s ability to restrict entry to the U.S., require specific reasons for any restrictions and prohibit religious discrimination.
No more waiting. Too many Muslims have been intentionally targeted, discriminated against, separated from their families and denied opportunities solely based on their faith. Straight up racism!
Pass #NoBanAct #RepealtheBan @MuslimAdvocates https://t.co/M47QECbGmD — Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) January 10, 2020
Advertisement
Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), who introduced the No Ban Act with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), denounced the current ban as based on “prejudice and xenophobia.” Coons called its proposed extension “wrong and un-American.” He added: “We will not tolerate discrimination based on religion or nationality.”
The Muslim Ban is built on prejudice and xenophobia. What it is lacking is actual evidence. And that's how we stop it. My #NoBanAct with Senator @ChrisCoons requires any President to demonstrate an ACTUAL threat before implementing any kind of broad ban like this. #NoBanActNow! https://t.co/CVoOhOIKUD — Judy Chu (@RepJudyChu) January 10, 2020
This policy is wrong, it is un-American, and I will fight it. We must pass the #NoBanAct immediately to bring relief to families that have already been separated and make it clear that, in the United States, we will not tolerate discrimination based on religion or nationality. — Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) January 10, 2020
Thousands of families have already been torn apart because of President Trump’s discriminatory #MuslimBan that does not make us safer. Now, thousands more spouses, parents, grandparents, children, siblings, & friends could be separated by the expansion of this senseless ban. https://t.co/IclrU9TjIW — Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) January 10, 2020
Currently, travel to the U.S. is banned from the predominantly Muslim nations of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Travel is also prohibited from Venezuela and North Korea.
Advertisement
New countries affected by the ban could include Iraq, Sudan and Chad, which were included in the Trump administration’s initial ban in 2017 but then dropped, The Associated Press reported.
It’s still uncertain what the final list will look like because the countries named in the plans now being circulated have been blacked out and the plan has not yet been finalized, according to the AP.
BuzzFeed said the countries were not named in the documents it obtained, but the descriptions of the countries gave some hints to their identities. One country is described as an “important strategic partner in the global fight against terrorism” that is failing in “identity management” travel issues, BuzzFeed reported. Another country does not “work with the United States on border and immigration security issues.”
This is very disturbing. Our team is monitoring it closely.
We WILL NOT rest until Trump's #MuslimBan is gone for good.
Sign up for breaking updates: https://t.co/HWQzffBvyE
s/o @Haleazizhttps://t.co/Ox4Eb3TbXN — Muslim Advocates (@MuslimAdvocates) January 10, 2020
The expanded ban would reportedly be timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trump’s first controversial ban. A version of that ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. In a 5-4 vote, the court’s conservatives ruled that the president’s power to secure U.S. borders, delegated by Congress, was not undermined by Trump’s inflammatory statements about Muslims.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Child Abuser's Wife Sues Mormon Church For Reporting Him To Police

An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , widely known as the Mormon church , for alerting police that her husband had confessed to child abuse .
Kristine Johnson is seeking $ 9.54 million for emotional distress and loss of her husband ’ s income , among other damages , claiming that the church violated the couple ’ s trust and the “ priest-penitent privilege , ” the Statesman Journal reported .
Kristine Johnson learned of her husband ’ s abuse of an underage girl in 2016 , according to the Oregonian .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a local church panel in Marion County , which the lawsuit claims is the response required by church doctrine .
Brandt told the Oregonian that the church tells members to confess sins “ to get back in good favor with the church.
” Afterward , the church offers counseling and lays out other requirements to address the sins .
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ’ local congregations , known as wards , are led by unpaid lay members who take on the role of clergy .
Each ward has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― who oversee members ’ spiritual and social needs .
Timothy Johnson confessed and repented for the abuse in front of a church panel in 2016 .
One of the bishop ’ s counselors , a pharmacist , reportedly reported the abuse to authorities , per The Oregonian .
Many states have laws designating people in certain professions as mandatory reporters , which means they required to make a report to authorities if they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect .
In Oregon , pharmacists are required to report suspected abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found out about the abuse on the job .
Clergy are also mandatory reporters in Oregon , but there are exceptions .
Clergy are not required to report child abuse if they learn about it through a “ privileged ” conversation that church doctrine requires clergy members to keep confidential .
“ ( Clergy ) knew or should have known that violating the doctrine of confidentiality under the circumstances alleged in this complaint would most certainly injure ( his wife and children ) financially , ” Brandt told the Journal .
In Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Latter-day Saints is based , lawmakers have proposed a bill that would remove the “ priest-penitent ” privilege in abuse cases and institute penalties for clergy who fail to report .
A similar bill in California was dropped last year after strong opposition from Catholic groups .
The Catholic Church in particular has been resistant to efforts to break the seal of the confessional in cases of sexual abuse .
Last year , the Vatican defended Catholic teaching that priests can ’ t reveal what they have learned in the confession booth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , said his church teaches leaders and members to fulfill their legal obligations regarding reporting abuse to authorities .
“ In some circumstances , those obligations may be governed by their professional duty and in others by their role as clergy , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon church, for alerting police that her husband had confessed to child abuse.
Kristine Johnson is seeking $9.54 million for emotional distress and loss of her husband’s income, among other damages, claiming that the church violated the couple’s trust and the “priest-penitent privilege,” the Statesman Journal reported.
Advertisement
Her husband, Timothy Johnson, is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for sexual abuse of a minor.
“It’s been devastating on the family,” Johnson’s attorney Bill Brandt told the Journal. “They lost a husband and a father.” Brandt did not return a request for comment from HuffPost.
Church spokesman Eric Hawkins told the Oregonian that “protecting victims and ensuring proper reporting” is a top priority for the church.
Kristine Johnson learned of her husband’s abuse of an underage girl in 2016, according to the Oregonian. The couple decided to address the matter through a local church panel in Marion County, which the lawsuit claims is the response required by church doctrine.
Advertisement
Brandt told the Oregonian that the church tells members to confess sins “to get back in good favor with the church.” Afterward, the church offers counseling and lays out other requirements to address the sins.
The whole process was supposed to remain confidential, Brandt told The Washington Post, similar to the practice of confession in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Portland Oregon Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is pictured. hapabapa via Getty Images
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ local congregations, known as wards, are led by unpaid lay members who take on the role of clergy. Each ward has a bishop and two counselors ― always men ― who oversee members’ spiritual and social needs.
Timothy Johnson confessed and repented for the abuse in front of a church panel in 2016. One of the bishop’s counselors, a pharmacist, reportedly reported the abuse to authorities, per The Oregonian.
Advertisement
Many states have laws designating people in certain professions as mandatory reporters, which means they required to make a report to authorities if they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect.
In Oregon, pharmacists are required to report suspected abuse of a child regardless of whether they found out about the abuse on the job.
Clergy are also mandatory reporters in Oregon, but there are exceptions. Clergy are not required to report child abuse if they learn about it through a “privileged” conversation that church doctrine requires clergy members to keep confidential.
The Johnsons’ religious leaders failed to tell Timothy Johnson that if he confessed abuse, it would be reported to law enforcement, the lawsuit claims.
Timothy Johnson was arrested in 2017 and pleaded guilty the following year to four counts of second-degree sexual abuse, The Oregonian reported.
Advertisement
The husband, a sculptor, was the family’s primary breadwinner. Kristine Johnson claims that church leaders’ actions deprived the family of her husband’s income, as well as his “companionship, society, love, affection.”
“(Clergy) knew or should have known that violating the doctrine of confidentiality under the circumstances alleged in this complaint would most certainly injure (his wife and children) financially,” Brandt told the Journal.
The lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court last Friday lists Johnson and four of her children as plaintiffs.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jim Urquhart / Reuters
In Utah, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based, lawmakers have proposed a bill that would remove the “priest-penitent” privilege in abuse cases and institute penalties for clergy who fail to report. A similar bill in California was dropped last year after strong opposition from Catholic groups.
Advertisement
The Catholic Church in particular has been resistant to efforts to break the seal of the confessional in cases of sexual abuse. Last year, the Vatican defended Catholic teaching that priests can’t reveal what they have learned in the confession booth.
Hawkins, the spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said his church teaches leaders and members to fulfill their legal obligations regarding reporting abuse to authorities.
“In some circumstances, those obligations may be governed by their professional duty and in others by their role as clergy,” he said.
Some experts say that if Kristine Johnson’s lawsuit is successful, it could have a chilling effect on churches’ willingness to report suspected abuse.
David Clohessy, former national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told The Oregonian that he thinks Kristine Johnson “should be grateful to the church officials, rather than bitter.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Former White House Officials Call For Return Of Regular Press Briefings

Thirteen former aides to past presidential administrations ― including seven White House press secretaries ― penned an open letter for CNN on Friday calling out the lack of press briefings by President Donald Trump ’ s administration .
The letter comes as media watchdogs noted that 300 days have passed since the public was offered an official White House press briefing from the official White House press secretary ― the post now filled by Stephanie Grisham .
Along with the press secretaries who served under Presidents George W. Bush , Bill Clinton and Barack Obama , the letter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the State Department and the Pentagon .
“ All of us have experienced the challenges of a regular press briefing whether at the White House , the State Department or the Pentagon , ” the letter opens .
“ We all had days where the last place we wanted to be was behind one of those podiums .
But day after day , we persisted.
” “ The public has a right to know what its government is doing , and the government has a duty to explain what it is doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s administration to carry on the tradition of regular briefings despite the president ’ s fraught relationship with the media .
The message comes a week after Trump escalated tensions with Iran by having U.S. forces kill Iranian Commander Qassem Soleimani , prompting Iran to respond with missile strikes that targeted two U.S. bases in Iraq .
No casualties have been reported from those strikes .
“ In times of military conflict and international crisis , these briefings take on even more importance , ” the letter emphasized .
“ Americans want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth .
On social media , wild rumors can fly , and our adversaries can manipulate disinformation to their advantage .
This is now well documented.
” Shortly after the letter surfaced , White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley falsely claimed on Twitter that the Obama administration killed two al Qaeda leaders and a brutal Libyan dictator without a green light from Congress .
The White House Correspondents Association has also voiced their frustration with White House ’ s lack of transparency .
After discovering through a Saudi press release that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense minister earlier this week , the group said it was fed up .
“ A meeting with a foreign leader in the Oval Office should , at the very least , be on the public schedule with a read-out of the meeting released after it is over , ” Jonathan Karl , the association ’ s president , said in a statement Tuesday .
“ It is disturbing to see the government of Saudi Arabia have more transparency than the White House about a meeting with the President in the Oval @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Thirteen former aides to past presidential administrations ― including seven White House press secretaries ― penned an open letter for CNN on Friday calling out the lack of press briefings by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The letter comes as media watchdogs noted that 300 days have passed since the public was offered an official White House press briefing from the official White House press secretary ― the post now filled by Stephanie Grisham.
Advertisement
Along with the press secretaries who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the letter’s other signees handled communications and public affairs for the State Department and the Pentagon.
“All of us have experienced the challenges of a regular press briefing whether at the White House, the State Department or the Pentagon,” the letter opens. “We all had days where the last place we wanted to be was behind one of those podiums. But day after day, we persisted.”
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham needs to start delivering regular briefings to reporters, a letter from several ex-government officials said. Alex Wong via Getty Images
“The public has a right to know what its government is doing, and the government has a duty to explain what it is doing,” they wrote, urging Trump’s administration to carry on the tradition of regular briefings despite the president’s fraught relationship with the media.
Advertisement
The message comes a week after Trump escalated tensions with Iran by having U.S. forces kill Iranian Commander Qassem Soleimani, prompting Iran to respond with missile strikes that targeted two U.S. bases in Iraq. No casualties have been reported from those strikes.
“In times of military conflict and international crisis, these briefings take on even more importance,” the letter emphasized. “Americans want to know the latest developments and seek the truth. On social media, wild rumors can fly, and our adversaries can manipulate disinformation to their advantage. This is now well documented.”
Shortly after the letter surfaced, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley falsely claimed on Twitter that the Obama administration killed two al Qaeda leaders and a brutal Libyan dictator without a green light from Congress.
The White House Correspondents Association has also voiced their frustration with White House’s lack of transparency. After discovering through a Saudi press release that Trump had met with the county’s defense minister earlier this week, the group said it was fed up.
“A meeting with a foreign leader in the Oval Office should, at the very least, be on the public schedule with a read-out of the meeting released after it is over,” Jonathan Karl, the association’s president, said in a statement Tuesday.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Skeptics Blast Trump's New Claim That Soleimani Targeted 4 U.S. Embassies

Lawmakers and journalists expressed skepticism Friday about President Donald Trump ’ s claim on Fox News that assassinated Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was planning an attack on four U.S. embassies .
The previous day , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said , also on Fox News , that the U.S. didn ’ t have information about specific targets , only that attacks were imminent .
“ We don ’ t know when , we don ’ t know where , ” he said .
Then the president told Fox News host Laura Ingraham : “ I can reveal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been four embassies.
” But two unnamed senior officials , including one in the Defense Department , told The Washington Post that they were aware only of vague intelligence about a plot — not fully formed — against the embassy in Baghdad .
Neither mentioned any threats against other embassies .
In addition , the Baghdad embassy was never given a warning “ commensurate ” with the kind of threat described by Trump , a source told the Post , which would have been standard procedure .
Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four embassies was revealed to Congress and essentially accused the president of making up the planned attacks .
“ Let ’ s be clear — if there was evidence of imminent attacks on four embassies , the Administration would have said so at our Wednesday briefing , ” he tweeted .
“ They didn ’ t .
So either Fox News gets higher level briefings than Congress ... or ... wait for it ... there was no such imminent threat.
” Murphy said he has issued a request with the director of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revelations and an explanation of why they weren ’ t mentioned in Wednesday ’ s closed-door briefing .
Let 's be clear - if there was evidence of imminent attacks on four embassies , the Administration would have said so at our Wednesday briefing .
They did n't .
So either Fox News gets higher level briefings than Congress ... or ... wait for it ... there was no such imminent threat .
— Chris Murphy ( @ ChrisMurphyCT ) January 10 , 2020 I have placed a request with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the new intelligence surrounding the imminent attacks on U.S. embassies that the President referred to today , but somehow didn ’ t come up in the full Senate briefing on Wednesday .
— Chris Murphy ( @ ChrisMurphyCT ) January 10 , 2020 Key question senators are asking today : If Trump can tell Fox News that Iranian attacks were planned on four US embassies without compromising sources and methods , why could n't Pompeo , Esper et al mention them in classified briefing for lawmakers in a SCIF ?
— Josh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 So Donald Trump just told @ IngrahamAngle that four embassies were being imminently targeted by Soleimani — not three or five , but four .
Isn ’ t it horrible that we have NO REASON AT ALL to believe the American president about this ?
None at all .
— Laurence Tribe ( @ tribelaw ) January 10 , 2020 4 embassies targeted : how is that a threat stream that *wasn ’ t* appropriate to brief to the US senate ?
If true , the WH would ’ ve briefed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and given high-fives to everyone in the USG .
A massive PR win for the White House .
— Aki Peritz ( @ AkiPeritz ) January 10 , 2020 If Quds force was truly planning attacks on 4 US embassies , Iran was essentially preparing for war with the United States .
If not , Trump is fabricating peril to US diplomats in effort to prop up rationale for Soleimani strike .
https : //t.co/3uq3m1uqqV — Greg Miller ( @ gregpmiller ) January 11 , 2020 Pres .
Trump now says Soleimani was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ’ s Ashley Parker points out , `` You really do n't know what to believe out of this administration ...
There 's not a lot of reliable narrators . ''
https : //t.co/cL0eLTPwcU — MSNBC ( @ MSNBC ) January 11 , 2020 Iran is launching missiles at U.S. bases .
American troops are being asked to leave Iraq .
The fight against ISIS is on hold .
And Iran has restarted their nuclear program .
The president must now know his policy has failed .
It ’ s time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //t.co/2kCLf4GMYT — Chris Murphy ( @ ChrisMurphyCT ) January 11 , 2020

Lawmakers and journalists expressed skepticism Friday about President Donald Trump’s claim on Fox News that assassinated Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was planning an attack on four U.S. embassies.
The previous day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, also on Fox News, that the U.S. didn’t have information about specific targets, only that attacks were imminent. “We don’t know when, we don’t know where,” he said.
Advertisement
Trump told reporters Thursday that Soleimani was planning to “blow up” a single embassy — in Baghdad.
Then the president told Fox News host Laura Ingraham: “I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies.”
But two unnamed senior officials, including one in the Defense Department, told The Washington Post that they were aware only of vague intelligence about a plot — not fully formed — against the embassy in Baghdad. Neither mentioned any threats against other embassies.
In addition, the Baghdad embassy was never given a warning “commensurate” with the kind of threat described by Trump, a source told the Post, which would have been standard procedure.
Advertisement
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) noted that nothing about planned attacks on four embassies was revealed to Congress and essentially accused the president of making up the planned attacks.
“Let’s be clear — if there was evidence of imminent attacks on four embassies, the Administration would have said so at our Wednesday briefing,” he tweeted. “They didn’t. So either Fox News gets higher level briefings than Congress ... or ... wait for it... there was no such imminent threat.”
Murphy said he has issued a request with the director of national intelligence for a new briefing concerning Trump’s revelations and an explanation of why they weren’t mentioned in Wednesday’s closed-door briefing.
Let's be clear - if there was evidence of imminent attacks on four embassies, the Administration would have said so at our Wednesday briefing. They didn't.
So either Fox News gets higher level briefings than Congress...
or...wait for it...
there was no such imminent threat. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 10, 2020
I have placed a request with the Director of National Intelligence for a briefing on the new intelligence surrounding the imminent attacks on U.S. embassies that the President referred to today, but somehow didn’t come up in the full Senate briefing on Wednesday. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 10, 2020
Advertisement
Key question senators are asking today: If Trump can tell Fox News that Iranian attacks were planned on four US embassies without compromising sources and methods, why couldn't Pompeo, Esper et al mention them in classified briefing for lawmakers in a SCIF? — Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) January 10, 2020
So Donald Trump just told @IngrahamAngle that four embassies were being imminently targeted by Soleimani — not three or five, but four. Isn’t it horrible that we have NO REASON AT ALL to believe the American president about this? None at all. — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) January 10, 2020
4 embassies targeted: how is that a threat stream that *wasn’t* appropriate to brief to the US senate?
If true, the WH would’ve briefed everyone, given a full-court press briefing and given high-fives to everyone in the USG. A massive PR win for the White House. — Aki Peritz (@AkiPeritz) January 10, 2020
If Quds force was truly planning attacks on 4 US embassies, Iran was essentially preparing for war with the United States.
If not, Trump is fabricating peril to US diplomats in effort to prop up rationale for Soleimani strike. https://t.co/3uq3m1uqqV — Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) January 11, 2020
Pres. Trump now says Soleimani was targeting four embassies. But The Washington Post’s Ashley Parker points out, "You really don't know what to believe out of this administration... There's not a lot of reliable narrators." https://t.co/cL0eLTPwcU — MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 11, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-11--Twitter Users Torch Donald Trump, Republicans With Savage Film Name Tweaks

# FilmsForRepublicans trended on Twitter overnight Friday as users reimagined names of movies to take aim at President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ .

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


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-11--'Art Of The Deal' Co-Author Spells Out How Impeachment 'Humiliation' Is Hitting Trump

“ Art Of The Deal ” co-author Tony Schwartz on Friday broke down the damaging effect he believes impeachment is having on his former collaborator , President Donald Trump .
Schwartz , appearing on MSNBC ’ s “ The Beat with Ari Melber , ” claimed the “ humiliation ” of being impeached over the Ukraine scandal would be “ incredibly preoccupying ” to Trump and likely dominate his “ consciousness for the vast majority of every waking day.
” “ You think back to ( former President Bill ) Clinton and the way he sort of carved out governing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Schwartz .
“ Nothing could be more different than Trump ’ s way of dealing with this.
” Schwartz later clarified that Trump does compartmentalize but “ only in the sense that he can ’ t think about anything else but this.
” “ It ’ s all about his own self-esteem , ” he added in a video shared by Mediaite .
Schwartz has become a fierce critic of his former associate , last month describing Trump as “ a horrendous human being who seeks only to become a dictator .
@

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“The Art of the Deal” co-author Tony Schwartz on Friday broke down the damaging effect he believes impeachment is having on his former collaborator, Donald Trump.
Schwartz, appearing on MSNBC’s “The Beat With Ari Melber,” claimed the “humiliation” of being impeached over the Ukraine scandal would be “incredibly preoccupying” to Trump and likely dominate his “consciousness for the vast majority of every waking day.”
Advertisement
Trump has “zero” ability to compartmentalize, he noted.
“You think back to [former President Bill] Clinton and the way he sort of carved out governing while he was being impeached,” said Schwartz. “Nothing could be more different than Trump’s way of dealing with this.”
Schwartz later clarified that Trump does compartmentalize but “only in the sense that he can’t think about anything else but this.”
“It’s all about his own self-esteem,” he added in a video shared by Mediaite.