thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Few Americans Think The Senate Made The Right Decision In Barring Witnesses

As the Senate impeachment trial nears its end , a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds Americans saying , by an 8-point margin , that senators should have allowed witnesses first .
The survey , taken following the Senate ’ s vote on Friday to block witnesses from testifying , finds that the public remains closely divided on the question of President Donald Trump ’ s removal .
Some earlier polls had found much broader support for calling witnesses , with even many Republicans supportive of the idea .
In the wake of the Senate ’ s vote along almost entirely partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now similarly polarized : 77 % of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the Senate made the wrong decision , while just 13 % of Republicans and Republican-leaners say the same .
Both parties face negative ratings for their handling of the impeachment inquiry : Americans disapprove of Democrats ’ conduct by an 8-point margin , and of Republicans ’ actions by a 15-point margin .
Those who ’ ve followed at least some news about the trial say , 50 % to 40 % , that Democratic senators are playing politics rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth .
By a somewhat wider margin , 57 % to 28 % , they say Republican senators are mostly playing politics as well .
About a third of Americans who ’ ve followed news about the trial believe that it ’ s biased in favor of Trump , with 40 % saying that it ’ s biased against him , 14 % that it ’ s fair , and the rest that they ’ re unsure .
Americans remain roughly divided on whether Trump should be ousted .
In the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be removed from office , and 41 % that he should not be .
Two earlier polls , conducted Jan. 22-24 and Jan. 29-31 , found backing for Trump ’ s removal at 43 % and 46 % , respectively ― variation that ’ s within the range of previous HuffPost/YouGov polling .
In FiveThirtyEight ’ s aggregate , support for removing Trump stands at about 48 % .
In the most recent poll , Americans say , 46 % to 27 % , that they think Trump withheld military aid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Biden family .
Just 15 % believe that such an action would be appropriate , with 26 % saying that it ’ s inappropriate but not impeachable , 39 % that it ’ s impeachable , and the rest that they ’ re unsure .
The trial has received near-universal public attention : 91 % of Americans say that they ’ ve heard at least a little in the news about impeachment recently , and 82 % that they ’ ve seen stories about the trial specifically .
But the extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve consumed varies widely .
Just 38 % say they ’ ve watched part or all of the trial , with the rest either catching clips of the highlights , following stories that analyzed the proceedings , or in some cases not paying much attention at all .
Those who tuned in mostly share an interest in politics and have already-strong partisan convictions .
Sources for news vary widely .
About half of those who ’ ve heard news about impeachment said they ’ d gotten at least some of that news from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable TV network , 40 % online , 39 % from national broadcast TV , 34 % from social media and 31 % from talking with other people .
About a quarter reported getting some news from radio , 17 % from a print newspaper or magazine and 10 % from C-SPAN .
Of those who watched cable TV , 53 % say that CNN was one of their sources , 57 % that Fox News was , and 40 % that MSNBC was .
Most Democrats and Democratic-leaners in this group say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near-universal 91 % of Republicans and Republican-leaners watching cable tuned into Fox , although a minority followed other networks as well .
By contrast , back in 1973 , 70 % of Americans told Gallup they ’ d simply watched at least some of the proceedings live on television .
( Because of differences between the surveys ― including the fact that the HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted online ― the numbers aren ’ t precisely comparable . )
Of those who ’ ve followed at least some news about the trial , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something new about the case against Trump from the proceedings , while 58 % say they have not .
The group who found the trial enlightening is dominated by Trump ’ s opponents : two-thirds of those who say they learned something are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party .
Regardless of their feelings , few expect the president ’ s ouster .
Only 13 % of Americans believe it ’ s even somewhat likely that Trump will be removed , down from 20 % in late January .
Use the widget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the HuffPost/YouGov survey , using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As the Senate impeachment trial nears its end, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds Americans saying, by an 8-point margin, that senators should have allowed witnesses first. The survey, taken following the Senate’s vote on Friday to block witnesses from testifying, finds that the public remains closely divided on the question of President Donald Trump’s removal.
Americans say, 42% to 34%, that the Senate made the wrong decision when it voted not to allow any witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Advertisement
Some earlier polls had found much broader support for calling witnesses, with even many Republicans supportive of the idea. In the wake of the Senate’s vote along almost entirely partisan lines, however, public opinion is now similarly polarized: 77% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the Senate made the wrong decision, while just 13% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say the same.
Both parties face negative ratings for their handling of the impeachment inquiry: Americans disapprove of Democrats’ conduct by an 8-point margin, and of Republicans’ actions by a 15-point margin. Those who’ve followed at least some news about the trial say, 50% to 40%, that Democratic senators are playing politics rather than making a good-faith attempt to get to the truth. By a somewhat wider margin, 57% to 28%, they say Republican senators are mostly playing politics as well.
About a third of Americans who’ve followed news about the trial believe that it’s biased in favor of Trump, with 40% saying that it’s biased against him, 14% that it’s fair, and the rest that they’re unsure.
Americans remain roughly divided on whether Trump should be ousted. In the latest poll, 44% say that Trump should be removed from office, and 41% that he should not be. Two earlier polls, conducted Jan. 22-24 and Jan. 29-31, found backing for Trump’s removal at 43% and 46%, respectively ― variation that’s within the range of previous HuffPost/YouGov polling. In FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate, support for removing Trump stands at about 48%.
Advertisement
In the past months, public opinion has remained largely divided. Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
In the most recent poll, Americans say, 46% to 27%, that they think Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to spur an investigation into the Biden family. Just 15% believe that such an action would be appropriate, with 26% saying that it’s inappropriate but not impeachable, 39% that it’s impeachable, and the rest that they’re unsure.
The trial has received near-universal public attention: 91% of Americans say that they’ve heard at least a little in the news about impeachment recently, and 82% that they’ve seen stories about the trial specifically. But the extent and nature of the media they’ve consumed varies widely. Just 38% say they’ve watched part or all of the trial, with the rest either catching clips of the highlights, following stories that analyzed the proceedings, or in some cases not paying much attention at all. Those who tuned in mostly share an interest in politics and have already-strong partisan convictions.
Sources for news vary widely. About half of those who’ve heard news about impeachment said they’d gotten at least some of that news from local TV, 41% from a cable TV network, 40% online, 39% from national broadcast TV, 34% from social media and 31% from talking with other people. About a quarter reported getting some news from radio, 17% from a print newspaper or magazine and 10% from C-SPAN.
Of those who watched cable TV, 53% say that CNN was one of their sources, 57% that Fox News was, and 40% that MSNBC was. Most Democrats and Democratic-leaners in this group say they watched CNN and MSNBC; a near-universal 91% of Republicans and Republican-leaners watching cable tuned into Fox, although a minority followed other networks as well.
Advertisement
By contrast, back in 1973, 70% of Americans told Gallup they’d simply watched at least some of the proceedings live on television. (Because of differences between the surveys ― including the fact that the HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted online ― the numbers aren’t precisely comparable.)
Of those who’ve followed at least some news about the trial, about a third say they’ve learned something new about the case against Trump from the proceedings, while 58% say they have not. The group who found the trial enlightening is dominated by Trump’s opponents: two-thirds of those who say they learned something are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party.
Regardless of their feelings, few expect the president’s ouster. Only 13% of Americans believe it’s even somewhat likely that Trump will be removed, down from 20% in late January.
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey, using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups:
Advertisement
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted from Jan. 31 to Feb. 2 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.
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--2020-02-05--The Guy Who Developed The Iowa Caucuses App Feels Super Bad, You Guys

The guy whose company built the app that tanked the Iowa caucuses wants you to know he feels really , really bad about the whole ordeal .
Shadow Inc. CEO Gerard Niemira told Bloomberg Tuesday the company had scrutinized its caucus app , a purpose-built piece of software intended to speed up the reporting process , and found a bug that ended up having the opposite effect .
The bug wasn ’ t in the app itself ( though he conceded there ’ s room for improvement there ) , but in the code that relayed data tabulated by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone to the state party .
“ The app was sound and good , ” Niemira said .
“ All the data that was produced by calculations performed by the app was correct .
It did the job it was supposed to do , which is help precinct chairs in the field do the math correctly .
The problem was caused by a bug in the code that transmits results data into the state party ’ s data warehouse.
” Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price confirmed that diagnosis in a separate statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded and reported by caucus chairs was independently verified as “ valid and accurate ” thanks to backup paper documentation .
Precinct captain Carl Voss of Des Moines displays the Iowa Democratic Party caucus reporting app on his phone outside of the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines , Iowa , Tuesday , Feb. 4 , 2020 .
Shadow ’ s post-mortem found logging in to the app proved to be another issue .
While caucus chairs had successfully practiced using the app in the weeks leading up to the caucus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the night of proved insurmountable for some volunteers .
Niemira told Bloomberg users had to input two different unique identifying numbers and use two-factor authentication .
The steps were intended to secure the system against foreign interference , but unintentionally also disrupted its intended domestic use .
According to The Associated Press , all of Shadow ’ s top executives hail from the Clinton campaign ’ s 2016 digital operation .
That includes Niemira , who worked as director of product .
Ultimately , said Niemira , the blunder was theirs ― and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was anticipate-able .
Yes , we put in measures to test it .
Yes , it still failed .
And we own that .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The guy whose company built the app that tanked the Iowa caucuses wants you to know he feels really, really bad about the whole ordeal.
Shadow Inc. CEO Gerard Niemira told Bloomberg Tuesday the company had scrutinized its caucus app, a purpose-built piece of software intended to speed up the reporting process, and found a bug that ended up having the opposite effect.
Advertisement
The bug wasn’t in the app itself (though he conceded there’s room for improvement there), but in the code that relayed data tabulated by the app from a caucus chair’s phone to the state party.
“The app was sound and good,” Niemira said. “All the data that was produced by calculations performed by the app was correct. It did the job it was supposed to do, which is help precinct chairs in the field do the math correctly. The problem was caused by a bug in the code that transmits results data into the state party’s data warehouse.”
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price confirmed that diagnosis in a separate statement. Price also emphasized the underlying data recorded and reported by caucus chairs was independently verified as “valid and accurate” thanks to backup paper documentation.
Precinct captain Carl Voss of Des Moines displays the Iowa Democratic Party caucus reporting app on his phone outside of the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Shadow’s post-mortem found logging in to the app proved to be another issue. While caucus chairs had successfully practiced using the app in the weeks leading up to the caucus, security steps implemented for the official caucuses the night of proved insurmountable for some volunteers.
Niemira told Bloomberg users had to input two different unique identifying numbers and use two-factor authentication. The steps were intended to secure the system against foreign interference, but unintentionally also disrupted its intended domestic use.
According to The Associated Press, all of Shadow’s top executives hail from the Clinton campaign’s 2016 digital operation. That includes Niemira, who worked as director of product.
Ultimately, said Niemira, the blunder was theirs ― and theirs alone.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Over 100 Salvadorans Killed After Deportation From U.S.: Human Rights Watch

At least 138 Salvadorans have been killed after being deported from the U.S. in the last seven years , and more than 70 others have been violently assaulted , according to an alarming new report from Human Rights Watch .
In many of the incidents documented by the advocacy group since 2013 , the victims were killed for reasons that had initially led them to flee El Salvador .
The majority of the deaths were also found to have occurred less than a year after a person returned to their home country .
Some deaths occurred within days , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have knowingly put Salvadorans in harm ’ s way by sending them to face murder and attacks on their safety , ” said Alison Parker , managing director of the U.S .
Program at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report .
“ Salvadorans are facing murder , rape , and other violence after deportation in shockingly high numbers , while the U.S. government narrows Salvadorans ’ access to asylum and turns a blind eye to the deadly results of its callous policies.
” The report found that the victims were often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persecutors or people they legitimately feared would harm them in the future .
This included direct attacks by gang members as well as by police or other law enforcement officials who believed the victim was a former or current gang member , whether this was true or not .
In addition to the killings , Human Rights Watch found that some victims had been beaten , sexually assaulted , extorted or tortured .
Their assailants included gangs , former intimate partners and Salvadoran police or security personnel .
Much of the violence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy in Central America and prior U.S. deportation policies .
Human Rights Watch ’ s report was based on official records , media accounts and interviews with families .
The actual number of victims is thought to be much higher than reported , since sexual violence , torture or other harm is almost never reported by the press or to authorities , the group noted , particularly when it comes to violence against female deportees .
The report comes as the Trump administration continues to make it harder for Central American and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. even if they face serious safety risks back home .
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday , President Donald Trump inflamed fears by detailing a handful of incidents in which Americans were victimized by undocumented immigrants in the U.S .
He also decried so-called sanctuary cities that restrict cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and urged Congress to pass the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act , which , in broad terms , would allow “ victims of open borders ” to sue those jurisdictions .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of crimes undocumented immigrants have committed in the U.S. and has baselessly painted people attempting to flee natural disasters as “ very bad people.
” “ Instead of closing the door to the thousands of Salvadorans fleeing their homeland , the United States should provide them with full and fair asylum procedures and dignified treatment , ” she said .
“ Before deporting Salvadorans , U.S. authorities should take into account the extraordinary risks of harm they may face upon return .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
At least 138 Salvadorans have been killed after being deported from the U.S. in the last seven years, and more than 70 others have been violently assaulted, according to an alarming new report from Human Rights Watch.
In many of the incidents documented by the advocacy group since 2013, the victims were killed for reasons that had initially led them to flee El Salvador. The majority of the deaths were also found to have occurred less than a year after a person returned to their home country. Some deaths occurred within days, the report states.
Advertisement
The violence underscores the U.S.’s responsibility under international law for providing adequate humanitarian aid to refugees instead of narrowing their asylum eligibility, the advocacy organization said.
“U.S. authorities have knowingly put Salvadorans in harm’s way by sending them to face murder and attacks on their safety,” said Alison Parker, managing director of the U.S. Program at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report.
“Salvadorans are facing murder, rape, and other violence after deportation in shockingly high numbers, while the U.S. government narrows Salvadorans’ access to asylum and turns a blind eye to the deadly results of its callous policies.”
U.S. Border Patrol agents detain undocumented immigrants near a section of a privately built border wall near Mission, Texas, in December. John Moore via Getty Images
Advertisement
The report found that the victims were often killed at the hands of their original persecutors or people they legitimately feared would harm them in the future. This included direct attacks by gang members as well as by police or other law enforcement officials who believed the victim was a former or current gang member, whether this was true or not.
In addition to the killings, Human Rights Watch found that some victims had been beaten, sexually assaulted, extorted or tortured. Their assailants included gangs, former intimate partners and Salvadoran police or security personnel. Much of the violence in El Salvador is a legacy of U.S. foreign policy in Central America and prior U.S. deportation policies.
Human Rights Watch’s report was based on official records, media accounts and interviews with families. The actual number of victims is thought to be much higher than reported, since sexual violence, torture or other harm is almost never reported by the press or to authorities, the group noted, particularly when it comes to violence against female deportees.
U.S. Border Patrol agents interview immigrants, including a blind man from El Salvador, after taking them into custody in July in Los Ebanos, Texas. John Moore via Getty Images
The report comes as the Trump administration continues to make it harder for Central American and other refugees to obtain shelter in the U.S. even if they face serious safety risks back home.
Advertisement
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Donald Trump inflamed fears by detailing a handful of incidents in which Americans were victimized by undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
He also decried so-called sanctuary cities that restrict cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and urged Congress to pass the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, which, in broad terms, would allow “victims of open borders” to sue those jurisdictions.
Trump has previously cited false numbers that grossly inflate the number of crimes undocumented immigrants have committed in the U.S. and has baselessly painted people attempting to flee natural disasters as “very bad people.”
People forced to stand in small, enclosed spaces at a detention center in McAllen, Texas, during a visit by Vice President Mike Pence. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Refugees whose lives and safety are legitimately at risk just want a fair shot to make their case, Parker said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Team Trump's Red-Hat Filled Plane Gets The 'Hostage' Treatment On Twitter

Members of President Donald Trump ’ s Cabinet and his reelection team posed for a photo on a flight from Iowa to Washington while wearing red hats with “ Keep Iowa Great ” written on them .
And Twitter users tried to wrap their heads around some of the oddities in the image , from the less-than-thrilled expression on the face of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to the unusually gleeful one on Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross .
Several people , including Mulvaney and Trump ’ s eldest sons ― Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump ― moved from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to be in the photo .
Housing Secretary Ben Carson also moved from the front to be in the photo , but not to a seat .
Rather , he perched on an armrest and appeared mostly in the center aisle of the plane and in the middle of the image .
Twitter users tried to take some guesses as to what was going on in the awkward photo : The government officials in this photo have spent *a lot* of time at properties Trump owns and profits from .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visited : Wilbur Ross-17 Mick Mulvaney-13 Kevin McCarthy-13 Mark Meadows-10 Ben Carson-8 Jim Jordan-7 Matt Gaetz-7 David Bernhardt-4 pic.twitter.com/6Jk0CQVLUa — Citizens for Ethics ( @ CREWcrew ) February 4 , 2020 I fixed it so that Ben Carson looks just like every other Republican .
# IowaCaucas pic.twitter.com/FDjDKw6ngl — Paul Lidicul ( @ PaulLidicul ) February 4 , 2020 There is a lot happening in this picture , but also only one thing happening pic.twitter.com/Pn247J83LA — Shane Goldmacher ( @ ShaneGoldmacher ) February 4 , 2020 The last thing you see before you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mikey B .
🕺 ( @ MeMikeyB ) February 4 , 2020 Everyone ’ s smiling except Mulvaney .
Even Wilbur Ross looks happy .
Mick ’ s face tells you who in that sea of red hats has the worst job .
https : //t.co/zEA4jziQUp — Lawrence O'Donnell ( @ Lawrence ) February 4 , 2020 A few observations : 1 ) Why is Ben Carson the only one not seated ?
2 ) Mick Mulvaney looks like he 's filming a hostage video .
3 ) The diversity is really reflective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... for white people.
# NotMyPresident # ImpeachedForLife # AnyoneButTrump2020 https : //t.co/9qLwEasCg6 — Alan Ashby ( @ ashby112 ) February 4 , 2020 “ If we make BEN CARSON awkwardly stand squat in the aisle , it will make it less obvious that everyone on this bus is white.
” pic.twitter.com/GCPgZFNl8e — Kristina Wong ❄ ( @ mskristinawong ) February 4 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet and his reelection team posed for a photo on a flight from Iowa to Washington while wearing red hats with “Keep Iowa Great” written on them.
And Twitter users tried to wrap their heads around some of the oddities in the image, from the less-than-thrilled expression on the face of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to the unusually gleeful one on Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
Advertisement
Several people, including Mulvaney and Trump’s eldest sons ― Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump ― moved from seats in the front cabin to the back to be in the photo. Housing Secretary Ben Carson also moved from the front to be in the photo, but not to a seat. Rather, he perched on an armrest and appeared mostly in the center aisle of the plane and in the middle of the image.
Twitter users tried to take some guesses as to what was going on in the awkward photo:
When the Sunken Place doesn't even have a seat for you.😳 pic.twitter.com/03hyjox5H5 — W. Kamau Bell (@wkamaubell) February 4, 2020
This is definitely a Mick Mulvaney hostage video... https://t.co/CwuQ1QV9R3 pic.twitter.com/eY75fifBSW — Kevin Walling (@KevinPWalling) February 4, 2020
The government officials in this photo have spent *a lot* of time at properties Trump owns and profits from. Here’s how many times they’ve visited:
Wilbur Ross-17
Mick Mulvaney-13
Kevin McCarthy-13
Mark Meadows-10
Ben Carson-8
Jim Jordan-7
Matt Gaetz-7
David Bernhardt-4 pic.twitter.com/6Jk0CQVLUa — Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) February 4, 2020
Advertisement
Did they kidnap Mulvaney and hold him hostage? https://t.co/07PWkzSPWb — Witch, Hunting🦸🏻♀ (@JustAGirl515) February 4, 2020
wow an entire plane full of people who use the recliner https://t.co/w2gyVF2lPT — Rob Flaherty (@Rob_Flaherty) February 4, 2020
Weird I wonder why Ben Carson was awkwardly shoehorned into the center of this photo. pic.twitter.com/GKZnTBPzWR — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 4, 2020
* record scratch *
* freeze frame *
Yup, that's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation. pic.twitter.com/CsDHmQlJnE — Morten Øverbye (@morten) February 4, 2020
I fixed it so that Ben Carson looks just like every other Republican.
#IowaCaucas pic.twitter.com/FDjDKw6ngl — Paul Lidicul (@PaulLidicul) February 4, 2020
Advertisement
There is a lot happening in this picture, but also only one thing happening pic.twitter.com/Pn247J83LA — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) February 4, 2020
The last thing you see before you fall into the Sunken Place pic.twitter.com/p9ZSELOMTB — Mikey B. 🕺 (@MeMikeyB) February 4, 2020
Everyone’s smiling except Mulvaney. Even Wilbur Ross looks happy. Mick’s face tells you who in that sea of red hats has the worst job. https://t.co/zEA4jziQUp — Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) February 4, 2020
How did they get Wilbur Ross to fly commercial?! https://t.co/N8AjcOgfkX — thirst bandit (@pdxrivers) February 5, 2020
The GOP sure looks like a cult to me. pic.twitter.com/DaKBCfqpgF — Ryan Knight 🏳🌈 🗽 (@ProudResister) February 4, 2020
Advertisement
A few observations:
1) Why is Ben Carson the only one not seated?
2) Mick Mulvaney looks like he's filming a hostage video.
3) The diversity is really reflective of what truly makes this country great...for white people.#NotMyPresident #ImpeachedForLife #AnyoneButTrump2020 https://t.co/9qLwEasCg6 — Alan Ashby (@ashby112) February 4, 2020
“If we make BEN CARSON awkwardly stand squat in the aisle, it will make it less obvious that everyone on this bus is white.” pic.twitter.com/GCPgZFNl8e — Kristina Wong ❄ (@mskristinawong) February 4, 2020
[Record scratch] You’re probably wondering how I ended up on this plane with nowhere to sit and surrounded by white people. pic.twitter.com/bGt6fwu2uP — darren, a dog liker (@tai_nugget) February 4, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--A Broken System Acquitted Donald Trump

A Broken System Acquitted Donald Trump

The Trump administration engaged in unprecedented obstruction of Congress .
The brazen nature of that cover-up was made possible by the extreme polarization of our political system , which has rendered parts of our Constitution essentially unusable .
And the Republican Party has shown it will take full advantage of that dysfunction in order to protect its president and maintain power as its base of support shrinks .
The result is a presidency that quite literally can do no wrong .
The conservative movement has finally destroyed the myth , rooted in the Watergate era , that the system can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it has done so thanks to decades ’ worth of efforts to loosen the reins placed on the executive branch .
Gordon Sondland , U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a key participant in the scheme , testified that he told the Ukrainian foreign minister that the country would have to announce an investigation into the Bidens in order to obtain the withheld aid money .
He testified that he believed , and acted as though , there was a quid pro quo link between the military aid and White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Bidens .
In a dramatic speech , Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) said he believed Trump committed “ an appalling abuse of the public trust , ” and his oath to do impartial justice required him to vote to remove the president from office .
But throughout the trial , it was made clear that most other Republican senators had already decided to acquit Trump and did not want to bother to inform the public of the facts of the case .
“ There is no need for more evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution ’ s high bar for an impeachable offense , ” Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) said in a statement declaring he would vote against hearing from new witnesses , even though he believes Trump did everything he is accused of doing .
How Did They Get Away With It ?
James Madison similarly argued before the Virginia state constitutional ratifying convention that the president could be impeached for offenses not included in the criminal code .
Were the president to exclude most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment , Madison argued , “ a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor , ” and he could be impeached .
Similarly , Madison argued impeachment could be used “ if the president be connected , in any suspicious manner , with any person , and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him .
”

President Donald Trump was acquitted of impeachment charges on Wednesday. After Republican senators voted not to hear from a single witness ― the first time that’s happened in the impeachment trial of a U.S. president, of which there have now been three — it was clear to everyone that acquittal was guaranteed. But really it was guaranteed all along.
The Trump administration engaged in unprecedented obstruction of Congress. The brazen nature of that cover-up was made possible by the extreme polarization of our political system, which has rendered parts of our Constitution essentially unusable. And the Republican Party has shown it will take full advantage of that dysfunction in order to protect its president and maintain power as its base of support shrinks. The result is a presidency that quite literally can do no wrong. The conservative movement has finally destroyed the myth, rooted in the Watergate era, that the system can work to remove a corrupt president. And it has done so thanks to decades’ worth of efforts to loosen the reins placed on the executive branch.
Advertisement
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) walks to the Senate chamber before the start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump at the Capitol, Jan. 31, 2020. Steve Helber/ASSOCIATED PRESS
An Unprecedented Stonewall
In a stark break from the precedent of other presidential impeachments, Trump withheld all documents and forbade all witnesses from testifying ― which itself led to an article of impeachment on obstruction of Congress.
The Senate, for the first time in its history of holding impeachment trials for presidents, federal judges and Cabinet officials, did not call a single witness to testify, nor did it request or review any new documents.
The basic outline of Trump’s wrongdoing is as clear today as it will be in the history books. Trump withheld $391 million in congressionally approved aid from Ukraine, and a head-of-state White House visit, in order to get newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The president of the United States sought to coerce a foreign country to help him win reelection.
Advertisement
Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a key participant in the scheme, testified that he told the Ukrainian foreign minister that the country would have to announce an investigation into the Bidens in order to obtain the withheld aid money. He testified that he believed, and acted as though, there was a quid pro quo link between the military aid and White House visit and the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.
While Trump insists the call where he asked Zelensky to “do us a favor” and investigate the Bidens was “perfect,” his defense lawyers offered a gamut of conflicting defenses, from claiming no quid pro quo existed to arguing that there was a quid pro quo but it was not impeachable.
In a dramatic speech, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he believed Trump committed “an appalling abuse of the public trust,” and his oath to do impartial justice required him to vote to remove the president from office. But throughout the trial, it was made clear that most other Republican senators had already decided to acquit Trump and did not want to bother to inform the public of the facts of the case.
“Unless there’s a witness that’s going to change the outcome, I can’t imagine why we’d want to stretch this out for weeks and months,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.
“The authors of the impeachment clause of the Constitution did not anticipate senators who would act to protect their political party instead of their branch of government.”
Advertisement
“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in a statement declaring he would vote against hearing from new witnesses, even though he believes Trump did everything he is accused of doing.
“New witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement where he said Trump committed an impeachable offense, but still should not be removed from office.
More information could only mean more problems for the rest of the Republicans. And so they dismissed the facts of the case, refused to hear any new evidence and, ultimately, accepted a sweeping argument of executive immunity stating that the position of the presidency confers immunity to commit corrupt acts.
Firsthand witnesses to the president’s actions who’d refused to testify before the House’s impeachment inquiry were available. There were a lot of them, actually. The Senate could have brought in former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, State Department Councillor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl or acting budget chief Russ Vought. But they didn’t.
Nor did they vote to obtain documents related to the Ukraine scheme that were withheld from Congress by the Office of Management and Budget, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.
Advertisement
The Republicans who voted against hearing from firsthand witnesses to Trump’s actions, or seeing documents with relevant evidence, said they didn’t need to hear or see any more because the president’s acquittal was predetermined from the beginning.
“I’m not an impartial juror,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the trial began. And so he remained throughout.
How Did They Get Away With It?
Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for Trump, argued that the president can abuse the power of his office in order to get reelected because he is the president. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republicans were able to conduct a sham impeachment trial because the authors of the impeachment clause of the Constitution did not anticipate senators who would act to protect their political party instead of their branch of government.
The Constitution structures a balance of government branches to disperse power. It does not structure a balance of political parties. While early American politics had its factions and ideological partisans, it did not look at all like today’s hyper-polarized politics with two neatly cleaved parties.
Advertisement
The result is a political party arguing — not incorrectly — that simply nothing can be done if the president decides to abuse his power.
The president’s lawyers’ argument was that the president can only be impeached for breaking the law, and not for an abuse of power. Moreover, they said, the president can abuse his power if he wants, because he is the president.
These arguments range from the absurd to the dangerous. The first argument, that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense unless it includes some violation of the criminal code, does not bother to consider that the authors of the impeachment clause said the exact opposite.
The president may be impeached by committing “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men,” or “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in “Federalist No. 65.” These abuses of power, Hamilton wrote, “be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
James Madison similarly argued before the Virginia state constitutional ratifying convention that the president could be impeached for offenses not included in the criminal code. Were the president to exclude most states when ratifying a treaty or constitutional amendment, Madison argued, “a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor,” and he could be impeached. Similarly, Madison argued impeachment could be used “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him.”
Advertisement
“No previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct,” Justice Joseph Story wrote in his “Commentaries.”
Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor, took this debunked argument to its most absurd length. He argued that the president is allowed to abuse his power in pursuit of reelection, so long as he doesn’t violate a specific criminal statute, because the national interest is vested in his person because he occupies the office of the presidency.
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said in response to a question on Jan. 29.
And why is that? “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz’s argument reverses the constitutional structure of the presidency by vesting its power and authority not in the office itself, but in the individual who holds it.
Advertisement
It is an even more extreme version of Richard Nixon’s infamous quip to David Frost that “when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
The Visible Bridge
President Richard Nixon waves goodbye from the steps of his helicopter outside the White House after resigning from office for abusing his power. ASSOCIATED PRESS
There are some obvious parallels between Trump and Nixon, the only president to resign in disgrace. Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime political adviser, is a former Nixon aide with a tattoo of Nixon on his back. Both Trump and Nixon faced impeachment for corruptly abusing their office in pursuit of reelection.
But where the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s subsequent resignation in lieu of removal by impeachment have gone down in America’s national mythology as a moment where patriotism and the Constitution triumphed over venal partisanship, Trump’s impeachment trial represents the negation of that triumph.
Nixon’s removal from office occurred at an odd time in American history, during a period of low partisan polarization and in the middle of a recession. Still, Republicans would not have pushed Nixon to resign if not for the release of a White House tape revealing he personally suggested that the CIA pressure the FBI to shut down the investigation into the Watergate break-in.
Advertisement
Today’s politics are best characterized by both high polarization and asymmetric polarization. Both parties are sorting into ideological and geographically coherent blocs, but the Republican Party has moved farther to its ideological pole on the right as its share of voters shrinks. Ideological rigidity is increasingly necessary for Republican politicians as their base of support retreats into a smaller minority of the population. That retreat to minority status also necessitates rigid support for offices and governmental bodies that can be won and influenced with minority support ― like the presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
In a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, in November, Attorney General William Barr bemoaned the “steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority that accelerated after Watergate.”
“It is critical to our nation’s future that we restore and preserve in full vigor our founding principles,” Barr said. “Not the least of these is the framers’ vision of a strong, independent executive, chosen by the country as a whole.”
The system failed. The president can abuse his office in pursuit of reelection. No need to worry about what the authors of the Constitution said. At least until a Democrat is elected.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Ivanka Trump's Video Promoting Dad’s State Of The Union Is 'Nightmarish,' Twitter Says

There is something genuinely nightmarish about this .
As if you heard a noise in your bedroom in the dead @ @ @ @ @ to the closet door and opened it — AND THIS WAS INSIDE , TALKING AND @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/mtw8WR7olk

There is something genuinely nightmarish about this. As if you heard a noise in your bedroom in the dead of night and crept over to the closet door and opened it — AND THIS WAS INSIDE, TALKING AND TALKING AND TALKING. https://t.co/mtw8WR7olk


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Joe Biden Goes On The Attack After Disappointing Iowa Showing

After a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses , former Vice President Joe Biden hit the campaign trail in New Hampshire on the offensive , questioning the electability of Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and former South Bend , Indiana , mayor Pete Buttigieg , both of whom led Biden in the Iowa results .
Biden looks increasingly likely to end up in fourth place in Iowa , behind Sanders , Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, with zero delegates to his name — results Biden said were a “ gut punch ” at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Results in Iowa continue to trickle in , with only 71 % reporting as of Wednesday afternoon . )
The prospective loss in Iowa has sharpened Biden ’ s tone on the campaign trail .
He questioned rival Buttigieg ’ s credentials , and dared the former mayor to directly criticize the Obama administration .
“ Is he really saying the Obama-Biden administration was a failure ?
Pete , just say it out loud , ” Biden said at the rally .
“ I have great respect for Mayor Pete and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do believe it ’ s a risk — to just be straight up with you — for this party to nominate somebody who ’ s never held office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana .
I do believe it ’ s a risk.
” Buttigieg ’ s relatively short resume has been easy fodder for rival Democratic presidential campaigns to question his qualifications for office .
( Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota went after the former Indiana mayor on the debate stage over it . )
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criticism until now , largely shying away attacking his fellow Democratic presidential candidates .
That strategy might be changing .
Biden also went after Sanders at the New Hampshire rally , questioning whether Sanders ’ self-proclaimed belief in democratic socialism is a risk for the party .
“ If Senator Sanders is the nominee for the party , every Democrat in America , up and down the ballot — blue states , red states , purple states , easy districts , competitive ones — every Democrat will have to carry the label @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Biden said .
“ So what do you do about who is going to be at the top of the ticket ?
Donald Trump is desperate to pin the label ‘ socialist , socialist , socialist ’ on our party .
We can not let him do that.
” Sanders has long come under scrutiny for identifying as a democratic socialist — which he has more recently defined as a continuation of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt , New Deal kind of politics .
The label has certainly become a bogeyman on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of Union address Tuesday night , saying “ socialism destroys nations ” and censuring lawmakers who “ have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system ” — a not-so-veiled jab at “ Medicare for All , ” Sanders ’ most central policy proposal to move every American onto a single government-run health care system .
But the label hasn ’ t hurt Sanders with primary voters yet .
He is looking well-positioned to win the popular vote in Iowa , and has widened the lead in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaigns did not respond for comment .
Biden has long made his electability the centerpiece of his presidential campaign , focusing his campaign speeches more on Trump — and his belief that he is the best positioned to beat him — than any policy platform .
Coming in fourth in the first contest , however , isn ’ t the best look for a candidate making the pitch that they can win elections .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
After a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, former Vice President Joe Biden hit the campaign trail in New Hampshire on the offensive, questioning the electability of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, both of whom led Biden in the Iowa results.
With 96% of precincts reporting as of Thursday morning, Biden looks increasingly likely to end up in fourth place in Iowa, behind Sanders, Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), with substantially fewer delegates to his name — results Biden said were a “gut punch” at a Somersworth, New Hampshire, campaign rally.
Advertisement
The prospective loss in Iowa has sharpened Biden’s tone on the campaign trail. He questioned rival Buttigieg’s credentials, and dared the former mayor to directly criticize the Obama administration.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden clenches his fist as he speaks at a campaign event Feb. 5 in Somersworth, New Hampshire. ASSOCIATED PRESS
“Is he really saying the Obama-Biden administration was a failure? Pete, just say it out loud,” Biden said at the rally. “I have great respect for Mayor Pete and his service for this nation, but I do believe it’s a risk — to just be straight up with you — for this party to nominate somebody who’s never held office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana. I do believe it’s a risk.”
His campaign reiterated the sentiment on Twitter, responding to a common Buttigieg talking point about the “old failed Washington.”
Advertisement
Mayor Pete likes to call me part of the old failed Washington. Was it a failure when I helped pass Obamacare, the Paris Agreement, the Violence Against Women Act, or the assault weapons ban?
I have a stronger record of passing big, progressive legislation than anyone running. — Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) February 5, 2020
Buttigieg’s relatively short resume has been easy fodder for rival Democratic presidential campaigns to question his qualifications for office. (Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota went after the former Indiana mayor on the debate stage over it.) But Biden hasn’t notably engaged in the criticism until now, largely shying away attacking his fellow Democratic presidential candidates.
That strategy might be changing. Biden also went after Sanders at the New Hampshire rally, questioning whether Sanders’ self-proclaimed belief in democratic socialism is a risk for the party.
“If Senator Sanders is the nominee for the party, every Democrat in America, up and down the ballot — blue states, red states, purple states, easy districts, competitive ones — every Democrat will have to carry the label Senator Sanders has chosen for himself,” Biden said. “So what do you do about who is going to be at the top of the ticket? Donald Trump is desperate to pin the label ‘socialist, socialist, socialist’ on our party. We cannot let him do that.”
Sanders has long come under scrutiny for identifying as a democratic socialist — which he has more recently defined as a continuation of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, New Deal kind of politics. The label has certainly become a bogeyman on the right.
Advertisement
Trump repeatedly invoked socialism the State of Union address Tuesday night, saying “socialism destroys nations” and censuring lawmakers who “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system” — a not-so-veiled jab at “Medicare for All,” Sanders’ most central policy proposal to move every American onto a single government-run health care system.
But the label hasn’t hurt Sanders with primary voters yet. He is looking well-positioned to win the popular vote in Iowa, and has widened the lead in New Hampshire. Sanders’ and Buttigieg’s campaigns did not respond for comment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--House Democrats Poised To Pass Major Labor Reforms Boosting Unions

Joe Raedle via Getty Images The PRO Act would be the most aggressive overhaul of labor law in decades .
With Democrats holding the chamber ’ s majority , the legislation ― called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act , or PRO Act ― will likely pass but then face certain death in the GOP-controlled Senate .
Even so , the bill could send a strong pro-union message to progressives and create a blueprint for ambitious labor reform if Democrats can reclaim all the levers of power in Washington .
Unions have been pressing the House ’ s leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats took control of the chamber after the 2018 midterm elections ― a triumph fueled in part by labor ’ s electoral ground game .
Some moderate Democrats from districts friendly to President Donald Trump may heed the business community ’ s call to vote against the measure , but House leaders are confident the bill will pass , especially with three Republican co-sponsors .
The plan would significantly increase the penalties for employers who try to bust unions ; make it easier for workers to unionize after rounding up a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ right to work ” laws ; and expand workers ’ rights to strike and boycott , among other major reforms .
One of its top backers has been Rep. Bobby Scott ( D-Va. ) , chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor .
Such a bill would be the most significant labor legislation since Congress passed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that hamstrung unions and helped set the stage for a long decline in union membership .
While roughly one in three workers belonged to labor unions in the 1950′s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 10 , a historic low since the government started tracking such figures .
Union membership rates remain strong among government workers , but they are anemic in the private sector .
Unions have long complained that employers face little consequence for snuffing out organizing drives with tactics legal or otherwise .
Companies often hire “ union avoidance ” firms to dissuade workers from unionizing .
The penalty for firing a pro-union worker ― if such retaliation can be proven ― is simply to rehire the worker and offer backpay .
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in court when their rights are violated .
It would make it easier to establish that one employer is a ” joint employer″ alongside another , helping some workers unionize in larger groups .
And it would bar employers from holding what are known as ” captive audience″ meetings , in which workers are required to listen to an anti-union spiel from a boss or a consultant .
The legislation shares a lot in common with a new labor reform plan being passed around progressive circles called Clean Slate for Worker Power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Block and Benjamin Sachs .
While their plan goes much further than the PRO Act ― for instance , Clean Slate calls for worker representation on corporate boards ― Block and Sachs told HuffPost they see the Democratic legislation as an important first step in fixing a collective bargaining system that dates to the Great Depression and that unions say is broken .
“ Folks are thinking in a bigger , bolder , more progressive way , ” said Block , a former member of the National Labor Relations Board , the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It enables workers to see that their lives could really be different… rather than the smaller-bore fixes like we ’ ve tried in the past that didn ’ t work.
” The last major labor overhaul that Democrats were close to enacting into law was the Employee Free Choice Act , which sank during the 2009-10 congressional session despite the party controlling the House , Senate and White House .
That bill ― the failure of which still embitters some labor activists ― would have allowed workers to unionize through a “ card @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The PRO Act has a wider reach than that failed legislation , and so has stirred up lobbying against it by the business groups even though it ’ s unlikely to become law anytime soon .
Jeff Brabant , head of government relations at the National Federation of Independent Business , a lobby for small employers , said his group has “ a whole host of issues ” with the legislation .
For example , he pointed to the way the PRO Act would restore the right of workers to carry out “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for doing business with another involved in a labor dispute ― a powerful tactic outlawed under Taft-Hartley .
Brabant said such boycotts would hurt his group ’ s members that supply or contract with much larger companies .
Even though the bill would hit a wall in the Senate , Brabant said his group has been urging House members to vote it down , saying they will have to answer to constituents who own small businesses .
“ It ’ s a big deal in that it puts down a marker .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future and we go back to a situation where there ’ s a unified [ Democratic ] Congress , ” then it could become law , Brabant said .
“ There ’ s concern with the precedent of a voting record.
” That could turn out to be a persuasive argument for some moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning districts .
Close watchers of the bill expect anywhere from eight to a dozen Democratic defections on the vote , including some freshman lawmakers concerned about hanging onto their seats in more conservative areas .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive Democrats grew annoyed at how long it has taken for the bill to come to the floor for a vote , especially when the House gave Trump a victory lap by passing his new version of the North American Free Trade Agreement .

The PRO Act would be the most aggressive overhaul of labor law in decades. Joe Raedle via Getty Images
UPDATE: The House passed the PRO Act, 224-194, on Thursday night, mostly along party lines. Seven Democrats voted against it, and five Republicans voted for it.
PREVIOUSLY:
The House is set to vote Thursday on a sweeping plan to overhaul U.S. workplace law in a way that could grow union membership and rejuvenate an ailing labor movement.
Advertisement
With Democrats holding the chamber’s majority, the legislation ― called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act ― will likely pass but then face certain death in the GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, the bill could send a strong pro-union message to progressives and create a blueprint for ambitious labor reform if Democrats can reclaim all the levers of power in Washington.
Unions have been pressing the House’s leadership to move such a bill ever since Democrats took control of the chamber after the 2018 midterm elections ― a triumph fueled in part by labor’s electoral ground game. Some moderate Democrats from districts friendly to President Donald Trump may heed the business community’s call to vote against the measure, but House leaders are confident the bill will pass, especially with three Republican co-sponsors.
The plan would significantly increase the penalties for employers who try to bust unions; make it easier for workers to unionize after rounding up a majority of signatures in their workplace; weaken anti-union “right to work” laws; and expand workers’ rights to strike and boycott, among other major reforms. One of its top backers has been Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Such a bill would be the most significant labor legislation since Congress passed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that hamstrung unions and helped set the stage for a long decline in union membership. While roughly one in three workers belonged to labor unions in the 1950′s, that share has fallen to about one in 10, a historic low since the government started tracking such figures.
Advertisement
Union membership rates remain strong among government workers, but they are anemic in the private sector. Unions have long complained that employers face little consequence for snuffing out organizing drives with tactics legal or otherwise. Companies often hire “union avoidance” firms to dissuade workers from unionizing. The penalty for firing a pro-union worker ― if such retaliation can be proven ― is simply to rehire the worker and offer backpay.
The Democrats’ legislation would allow workers to sue in court when their rights are violated. It would make it easier to establish that one employer is a ”joint employer″ alongside another, helping some workers unionize in larger groups. And it would bar employers from holding what are known as ”captive audience″ meetings, in which workers are required to listen to an anti-union spiel from a boss or a consultant.
The legislation shares a lot in common with a new labor reform plan being passed around progressive circles called Clean Slate for Worker Power, spearheaded by Harvard University law professors Sharon Block and Benjamin Sachs. While their plan goes much further than the PRO Act ― for instance, Clean Slate calls for worker representation on corporate boards ― Block and Sachs told HuffPost they see the Democratic legislation as an important first step in fixing a collective bargaining system that dates to the Great Depression and that unions say is broken.
“Folks are thinking in a bigger, bolder, more progressive way,” said Block, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that referees labor disputes. “It enables workers to see that their lives could really be different… rather than the smaller-bore fixes like we’ve tried in the past that didn’t work.”
The last major labor overhaul that Democrats were close to enacting into law was the Employee Free Choice Act, which sank during the 2009-10 congressional session despite the party controlling the House, Senate and White House. That bill ― the failure of which still embitters some labor activists ― would have allowed workers to unionize through a “card check” process bypassing secret-ballot elections.
Advertisement
The measure stalled in the face of a threatened filibuster by Republican senators and a handful of their Democratic colleagues.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) has been spearheading the push to pass the PRO Act, which aims to revitalize unions. Zach Gibson via Getty Images
The PRO Act has a wider reach than that failed legislation, and so has stirred up lobbying against it by the business groups even though it’s unlikely to become law anytime soon. Jeff Brabant, head of government relations at the National Federation of Independent Business, a lobby for small employers, said his group has “a whole host of issues” with the legislation.
For example, he pointed to the way the PRO Act would restore the right of workers to carry out “secondary boycotts,” punishing one employer for doing business with another involved in a labor dispute ― a powerful tactic outlawed under Taft-Hartley. Brabant said such boycotts would hurt his group’s members that supply or contract with much larger companies.
Even though the bill would hit a wall in the Senate, Brabant said his group has been urging House members to vote it down, saying they will have to answer to constituents who own small businesses.
Advertisement
“It’s a big deal in that it puts down a marker. If there were certain election outcomes in the future and we go back to a situation where there’s a unified [Democratic] Congress,” then it could become law, Brabant said. “There’s concern with the precedent of a voting record.”
That could turn out to be a persuasive argument for some moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning districts. Close watchers of the bill expect anywhere from eight to a dozen Democratic defections on the vote, including some freshman lawmakers concerned about hanging onto their seats in more conservative areas.
Still, the loss of those votes would not be enough to sink the bill, especially with a trio of moderate Republican co-sponsors who are expected to vote in favor: Reps. Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Chris Smith (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.).
As The Intercept reported, some unions and progressive Democrats grew annoyed at how long it has taken for the bill to come to the floor for a vote, especially when the House gave Trump a victory lap by passing his new version of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The PRO Act would likely play well in pockets of the Midwest with strong union traditions, including areas that Trump peeled away from Democrats in 2016.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Senators Still Claim Trump Has Learned Lesson From Ukraine Scandal

WASHINGTON ― Some Republican senators voting to acquit President Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges Wednesday said they think Trump learned his lesson , even if the president hasn ’ t actually said so .
“ I would hope that the president would look at this whole proceeding and realize that it ’ s not appropriate to make a call to the president of another country and ask him to investigate your leading political opponent , ” Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) told HuffPost .
“ We all learn lessons as we go through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidents make mistakes .
Senators make mistakes .
And hopefully we learn from those things.
” The president , for his part , has maintained all along that he did nothing wrong and that his July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was actually “ perfect.
” On the call , he asked Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden , a request that led Democrats to launch their impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower filed a formal complaint .
Several Republican senators , including Alexander , Ernst and Collins , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Ukraine in order to pressure Zelensky into announcing the investigation .
They said while the president ’ s shakedown was inappropriate , it didn ’ t merit removal from office .
But after these Republicans went out on a limb to say the president would change , he started sawing off the branch .
“ It was a perfect call , ” Trump reportedly said at an off-the-record lunch with news anchors on Tuesday .
“ All I can express is my point of view , and he is free to express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the president ’ s comment .
Ernst said , “ if he feels that way , ” adding that she didn ’ t see “ much of anything ” in the record of the July phone call .
She previously said it was “ maybe not the perfect call.
” Sens .
James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) and John Boozman ( R-Ark . )
said that if the president still maintains that the call was perfect , then that answers the question of whether he ’ s learned a lesson .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart guy , ” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) told HuffPost .
“ I don ’ t think this was a pleasant experience for him , and if it were me I would try to learn from it .
I ’ m sure he will too .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Some Republican senators voting to acquit President Donald Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges Wednesday said they think Trump learned his lesson, even if the president hasn’t actually said so.
“I would hope that the president would look at this whole proceeding and realize that it’s not appropriate to make a call to the president of another country and ask him to investigate your leading political opponent,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told HuffPost.
Advertisement
“We all learn lessons as we go through life,” Alexander said. “Presidents make mistakes. Senators make mistakes. And hopefully we learn from those things.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) also said she thought the president had learned his lesson.
Wednesday night, though, after the Senate acquitted Trump, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) acknowledged that she may have been wrong on Tuesday when she said she believed the president had learned a lesson.
“I may not be correct on that,” Collins told Fox News. “It’s more aspirational on my part.”
The president has maintained all along that he did nothing wrong and that his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was actually “perfect.” On the call, he asked Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, a request that led Democrats to launch their House impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower filed a formal complaint.
Several Republican senators, including Alexander, Ernst and Collins, have acknowledged that the president withheld military assistance from Ukraine in order to pressure Zelensky into announcing the investigation. They said, however, that although the president’s shakedown was inappropriate, it didn’t merit removal from office.
Advertisement
But after these Republicans went out on a limb to say Trump would change, he started sawing off the branch. “It was a perfect call,” Trump reportedly said once again at an off-the-record lunch with news anchors on Tuesday.
“All I can express is my point of view, and he is free to express his,” Alexander said when asked about the president’s comment.
Ernst said, “if he feels that way,” adding that she didn’t see “much of anything” in the record of the July phone call. She previously said it was “maybe not the perfect call.”
Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.) said that if the president still maintains that the call was perfect, then that answers the question of whether he’s learned a lesson.
“I think he’s a pretty smart guy,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told HuffPost. “I don’t think this was a pleasant experience for him, and if it were me, I would try to learn from it. I’m sure he will, too.”
Advertisement
“But at some point, you don’t change people,” Cornyn said. “After they’re 70-something years old, it’s hard to do.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Parkland Dad Shouted At Trump 'What About Victims?' Before Getting Booted From SOTU

Gun control activist Fred Guttenberg , whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the Parkland , Florida , school shooting , was escorted out of the House chamber on Tuesday night for protesting President Donald Trump ’ s remarks about guns during his State of the Union address .
Guttenberg , who was invited to the event by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , shouted the protest as Trump spoke about the Second Amendment — which the president said was “ under siege all across our country.
” “ So long as I am president , I will always protect your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , ” Trump said .
That protestor is @ fred_guttenberg , who 's daughter Jaime Guttenberg was killed in the Parkland massacre .
Trump did not mention gun violence once during the # SOTU .
He wants to defend the right to bear arms ?
What about our right to not be shot ?
# IStandWithFred https : //t.co/JxLWphiZLK — March For Our Lives ( @ AMarch4OurLives ) February 5 , 2020 “ After listening to him blame ‘ illegals ’ for violence and then launch into the Second Amendment , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of me , ” Guttenberg told HuffPost .
According to NBC News correspondent Kasie Hunt , “ many Democrats on the floor turned toward the gallery ” where Guttenberg was sitting and “ applauded him as he was taken out of the chamber.
” Guttenberg ’ s daughter and 16 others were killed on Valentine ’ s Day in 2018 when a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School .
Since the massacre , Guttenberg has emerged as a vocal advocate for eradicating gun violence — and as a fierce critic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died in Parkland .
I ’ ll live with that every second of every day .
And he lied to me and all the other victims that day and he ’ s done it again since the other mass shootings , when he talks about doing the right thing for a brief second and then he says , ‘ but I spoke to the NRA , ’ and he walks away from it , ” Guttenberg said .
In February 2019 , Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-Fla. ) called for Guttenberg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence after he and fellow Parkland father Manuel Oliver interrupted the senator to speak out against gun violence .
White House counsel Don McGahn ( second from right ) watches as Fred Guttenberg ( left ) , the father of Jamie Guttenberg , attempts to shake hands with Brett Kavanaugh .
“ When I got back to my seat , I looked over to the table where he was sitting , and he winked , ” Guttenberg told HuffPost at the time .
“ And I thought that was maybe his way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s what I was hoping .
Until a minute later , three heavily armed D.C. cops took me out of the room .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Gun control activist Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, was escorted out of the House chamber on Tuesday night for protesting President Donald Trump’s remarks about guns during his State of the Union address.
“What about victims of gun violence like my daughter?” Guttenberg shouted at Trump, the activist told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Guttenberg, who was invited to the event by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shouted the protest as Trump spoke about the Second Amendment — which the president said was “under siege all across our country.”
“So long as I am president, I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Trump said.
That protestor is @fred_guttenberg, who's daughter Jaime Guttenberg was killed in the Parkland massacre.
Trump did not mention gun violence once during the #SOTU .
He wants to defend the right to bear arms? What about our right to not be shot?#IStandWithFred https://t.co/JxLWphiZLK — March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) February 5, 2020
That’s when Guttenberg had enough.
“After listening to him blame ‘illegals’ for violence and then launch into the Second Amendment, I just let my emotions get the best of me,” Guttenberg told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Videos circulating on social media show security leading Guttenberg out of the room.
According to NBC News correspondent Kasie Hunt, “many Democrats on the floor turned toward the gallery” where Guttenberg was sitting and “applauded him as he was taken out of the chamber.”
Guttenberg’s daughter and 16 others were killed on Valentine’s Day in 2018 when a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Since the massacre, Guttenberg has emerged as a vocal advocate for eradicating gun violence — and as a fierce critic of the president.
In an interview with CNN last year, Guttenberg accused Trump of lying repeatedly to gun violence victims.
“My daughter died in Parkland. I’ll live with that every second of every day. And he lied to me and all the other victims that day and he’s done it again since the other mass shootings, when he talks about doing the right thing for a brief second and then he says, ‘but I spoke to the NRA,’ and he walks away from it,” Guttenberg said.
Advertisement
In February 2019, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) called for Guttenberg’s removal from a congressional hearing on gun violence after he and fellow Parkland father Manuel Oliver interrupted the senator to speak out against gun violence.
In 2018, Guttenberg was snubbed by Brett Kavanaugh during the judge’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
“I’m the father of Jaime Guttenberg, who was murdered in Parkland,” Guttenberg said to Kavanaugh with a hand extended after a hearing session ended.
Instead, Kavanaugh turned his back on Guttenberg and walked away. The exchange was captured in photos and video. Guttenberg told HuffPost Kavanaugh later winked at him.
White House counsel Don McGahn (second from right) watches as Fred Guttenberg (left), the father of Jamie Guttenberg, attempts to shake hands with Brett Kavanaugh. Andrew Harnik/Associated Press
Advertisement
“When I got back to my seat, I looked over to the table where he was sitting, and he winked,” Guttenberg told HuffPost at the time. “And I thought that was maybe his way of saying ‘We’re good.’ That’s what I was hoping. Until a minute later, three heavily armed D.C. cops took me out of the room.”
David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting, expressed his solidarity with Guttenberg in a tweet Tuesday night.
“#ImWithFred,” he wrote.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--DHS Bans New Yorkers From Global Entry, Punishing State For Sanctuary Laws

The Department of Homeland Security banned New Yorkers from taking part in trusted traveler programs , including the popular Global Entry , on Wednesday , a retaliatory move the agency ’ s chief said came after state lawmakers enacted protections for undocumented immigrants .
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf said Wednesday on Fox News that , effective immediately , all New Yorkers would be barred from enrolling or re-enrolling in the programs , which are meant to expedite entry into the United States for low-risk travelers .
The programs , including Global Entry , NEXUS , SENTRI and FAST , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often touted at airports as a means to bypass long customs and border protection lines .
Wolf sent a letter to state officials explaining that the agency had taken the step after New York passed its so-called Green Light Law , which allows undocumented residents to obtain a driver ’ s license .
The measure also prohibits personal information held by the Department of Motor Vehicles to be used by DHS or its agencies , including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection .
“ Today we sent a letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , New York residents are no longer eligible to enroll in these trusted traveler programs , ” Wolf told Fox News host Tucker Carlson .
“ They can ’ t enroll or re-enroll in these trusted traveler programs that CBP offers because we no longer have access to make sure that they meet those program requirements .
We need to do our job.
” The Green Light Law , which went into effect in December , has already been incredibly popular .
Lines outside state DMV offices stretched for blocks on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply for driver ’ s licenses .
Advocates had long argued that expanding the benefit to all residents would increase public safety and access to public services for the estimated 940,000 undocumented immigrants in New York .
Wolf ’ s decision came just a day after President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union address , in which he attacked “ sanctuary cities ” that have passed laws meant to protect undocumented people and limited local cooperation with federal officials .
The issue is popular with the president ’ s base , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his campaign rallies .
“ The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans , not criminal aliens , ” Trump declared Tuesday , adding details about two violent crimes in an effort to bolster his case .
Wolf echoed that sentiment in his letter this week , saying the Green Light Law “ prevents DHS from accessing relevant information that only New York DMV maintains , including some aspects of an individual ’ s criminal history.
” “ Although DHS would prefer to continue our long-standing cooperative relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these critical homeland security initiatives , this Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV request DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS ’ s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised , ” Wolf wrote .
He said the changes , which also prohibit vehicle exports , would go into immediate effect .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Department of Homeland Security banned New Yorkers from taking part in trusted traveler programs, including the popular Global Entry, on Wednesday, a retaliatory move the agency’s chief said came after state lawmakers enacted protections for undocumented immigrants.
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf said Wednesday on Fox News that, effective immediately, all New Yorkers would be barred from enrolling or re-enrolling in the programs, which are meant to expedite entry into the United States for low-risk travelers. The programs, including Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST, have millions of members nationwide and are often touted at airports as a means to bypass long customs and border protection lines.
Advertisement
Wolf sent a letter to state officials explaining that the agency had taken the step after New York passed its so-called Green Light Law, which allows undocumented residents to obtain a driver’s license. The measure also prohibits personal information held by the Department of Motor Vehicles to be used by DHS or its agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
“Today we sent a letter to New York indicating because they took these measures, New York residents are no longer eligible to enroll in these trusted traveler programs,” Wolf told Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “They can’t enroll or re-enroll in these trusted traveler programs that CBP offers because we no longer have access to make sure that they meet those program requirements. We need to do our job.”
DHS directed HuffPost to Wolf’s remarks on Fox News but did not provide any additional comment.
The Green Light Law, which went into effect in December, has already been incredibly popular. Lines outside state DMV offices stretched for blocks on the first day that people were able to apply for driver’s licenses. Advocates had long argued that expanding the benefit to all residents would increase public safety and access to public services for the estimated 940,000 undocumented immigrants in New York.
Advertisement
Wolf’s decision came just a day after President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, in which he attacked “sanctuary cities” that have passed laws meant to protect undocumented people and limited local cooperation with federal officials. The issue is popular with the president’s base, and the anti-immigrant rhetoric is often featured in his campaign rallies.
“The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens,” Trump declared Tuesday, adding details about two violent crimes in an effort to bolster his case.
Wolf echoed that sentiment in his letter this week, saying the Green Light Law “prevents DHS from accessing relevant information that only New York DMV maintains, including some aspects of an individual’s criminal history.”
“Although DHS would prefer to continue our long-standing cooperative relationship with New York on a variety of these critical homeland security initiatives, this Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS’s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised,” Wolf wrote.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Pete Buttigieg Adviser's Tweet Sure Looks Like A Coordinating Message To Outside Groups

A Pete Buttigieg adviser tweeted Wednesday the importance of getting the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor ’ s record in the military out to the people of Nevada , and the message looked an awful lot like he was trying to get around federal anti-coordination rules that prevent campaigns from sharing strategy and messaging with outside groups .
Michael Halle , who is a strategist for Buttigieg ’ s Democratic presidential campaign , tweeted publicly that it was “ critical ” Buttigieg ’ s military experience is seen in Nevada “ on the air through the caucus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear , this tweet does not break the law .
Though campaign finance rules prohibit coordination between campaigns and outside groups , there ’ s an exception : “ if the information material to the creation , production , or distribution of the communication was obtained from a publicly available source , ” the Federal Election Commission states .
In other words , it ’ s perfectly legal to put an idea out in the open , like on Twitter , and hope the group you want to act on it runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been doing this for years .
Halle and the Buttigieg campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the intentions of the tweet .
But Halle ’ s message goes to show just how blurry some of campaign finance rules can be .
Competing presidential campaigns have already reacted to the message .
Roger Lau , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign manager , asked whether Halle meant to send the tweet over a private message to an outside group ( that would be illegal ) .
Was this meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean to tweet out this instruction to your super PAC ?
( Fun fact about how some campaigns exploit our broken campaign finance laws : if it was a DM it would be illegal . )
https : //t.co/yetULmZRjw — Roger Lau ( @ RogerLau ) February 5 , 2020 “ It ’ s a slap in the face of campaign finance law to so brazenly and unethically direct a Super PAC how to spend on his behalf — all while leaving New Hampshire to do big-money New York fundraisers , ” Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Change Campaign Committee , which is associated with the Warren campaign , said in a statement .
“ Donald Trump would call him part of the corrupt swamp if he were ever the nominee.
” This practice isn ’ t new .
Democratic and Republican party committees have set up Twitter accounts in the past to release polling data and share information about advertising buys .
In 2016 , The Washington Post reported how Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s Republican presidential campaign would put out messages online that would then be picked up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been acknowledged by even those on the FEC .
In 2014 , Ann Ravel , then a FEC commissioner , admitted that technology made the rules “ murky.
” But one group — VoteVets.org , a political action committee dedicated to veterans — has already spent $ 610,441 as an independent expenditure .
Ironically , Buttigieg ’ s campaign sent out an email to supporters hitting the Bernie Sanders campaign for embracing support from outside groups after a coalition of progressive groups formed an independent expenditure in support of the Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign ’ s financial strategy repeatedly on the national stage after Warren attacked him at a debate for fundraising with millionaires in Napa Valley “ wine caves.
” He argued that big money in politics isn ’ t necessarily corrupting .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Pete Buttigieg adviser tweeted Wednesday the importance of getting the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor’s record in the military out to the people of Nevada, and the message looked an awful lot like he was trying to get around federal anti-coordination rules that prevent campaigns from sharing strategy and messaging with outside groups.
Michael Halle, who is a strategist for Buttigieg’s Democratic presidential campaign, tweeted publicly that it was “critical” Buttigieg’s military experience is seen in Nevada “on the air through the caucus,” which is Feb. 22.
Advertisement
Pete’s military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it’s critical they see this on the air through the caucus. — Michael Halle (@mhalle) February 5, 2020
To be clear, this tweet does not break the law. Though campaign finance rules prohibit coordination between campaigns and outside groups, there’s an exception: “if the information material to the creation, production, or distribution of the communication was obtained from a publicly available source,” the Federal Election Commission states.
In other words, it’s perfectly legal to put an idea out in the open, like on Twitter, and hope the group you want to act on it runs with the idea. Democrats and Republicans have been doing this for years. Halle and the Buttigieg campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the intentions of the tweet.
But Halle’s message goes to show just how blurry some of campaign finance rules can be.
Competing presidential campaigns have already reacted to the message. Roger Lau, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign manager, asked whether Halle meant to send the tweet over a private message to an outside group (that would be illegal).
Advertisement
Was this meant to be a DM or did you mean to tweet out this instruction to your super PAC?
(Fun fact about how some campaigns exploit our broken campaign finance laws: if it was a DM it would be illegal.) https://t.co/yetULmZRjw — Roger Lau (@RogerLau) February 5, 2020
“It’s a slap in the face of campaign finance law to so brazenly and unethically direct a Super PAC how to spend on his behalf — all while leaving New Hampshire to do big-money New York fundraisers,” Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is associated with the Warren campaign, said in a statement. “Donald Trump would call him part of the corrupt swamp if he were ever the nominee.”
Businessman Andrew Yang’s campaign manager simply responded with “Yikes.”
Yikes — Zach Graumann🧢 (@Zach_Graumann) February 5, 2020
This practice isn’t new. Democratic and Republican party committees have set up Twitter accounts in the past to release polling data and share information about advertising buys. In 2016, The Washington Post reported how Sen. Marco Rubio’s Republican presidential campaign would put out messages online that would then be picked up by his super PAC.
And it’s been acknowledged by even those on the FEC. In 2014, Ann Ravel, then a FEC commissioner, admitted that technology made the rules “murky.”
Advertisement
Buttgieg’s campaign dissolved his super PAC, Hitting Home PAC, in May, as he joined his Democratic rivals in eschewing dark money in politics.
But one group — VoteVets.org, a political action committee dedicated to veterans — has already spent $610,441 as an independent expenditure. Ironically, Buttigieg’s campaign sent out an email to supporters hitting the Bernie Sanders campaign for embracing support from outside groups after a coalition of progressive groups formed an independent expenditure in support of the Vermont senator.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-05--Ex-Obama Photographer Throws Big Shade At Trump's SOTU Handshake Snub

Former White House photographer Pete Souza urged the nation ’ s leaders to show a little civility on Wednesday , after President Donald Trump snubbed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s handshake at his State of the Union address a day earlier .
“ How hard is this ?
” Souza wrote on Instagram , alongside an image of then-President Barack Obama shaking hands with then-Speaker John Boehner ahead of the 2011 State of the Union address .
Pelosi and Trump exchanged slights at Tuesday ’ s speech .
After the president ignored her extended hand , Pelosi responded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , the president of the United States.
” A speaker generally introduces a president about to address Congress by saying , “ I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting the president of the United States , ” as Boehner did for each Obama address from 2011 to 2015 , and as his successor , Paul Ryan , did for the final three addresses of the Obama presidency .
The courtesy was extended even though Obama was a Democrat and Boehner and Ryan were both Republicans .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi was seen tearing her copy of his speech in half .
Souza , a vocal critic of the current administration , often contrasts moments of the Trump presidency with images he took during Obama ’ s time in office .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former White House photographer Pete Souza urged the nation’s leaders to show a little civility on Wednesday, after President Donald Trump snubbed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handshake at his State of the Union address a day earlier.
“How hard is this?” Souza wrote on Instagram, alongside an image of then-President Barack Obama shaking hands with then-Speaker John Boehner ahead of the 2011 State of the Union address.
Advertisement
Pelosi and Trump exchanged slights at Tuesday’s speech. After the president ignored her extended hand, Pelosi responded with a clipped introduction: “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.”
A speaker generally introduces a president about to address Congress by saying, “I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting the president of the United States,” as Boehner did for each Obama address from 2011 to 2015, and as his successor, Paul Ryan, did for the final three addresses of the Obama presidency. The courtesy was extended even though Obama was a Democrat and Boehner and Ryan were both Republicans.
At the conclusion of Trump’s speech, Pelosi was seen tearing her copy of his speech in half.
Souza, a vocal critic of the current administration, often contrasts moments of the Trump presidency with images he took during Obama’s time in office.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--'Nauseating!': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blasts Trump's Medal For 'Virulent Racist' Limbaugh

Limbaugh has a long history of making racist and xenophobic comments , but Trump hailed him as “ a special man , beloved by millions ” as he bestowed the highest civilian award issued by the president .
The honor came one day after Limbaugh said he had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer .
“ Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist , ” she said in a video on Instagram .
Trump ’ s decision to give the award at the State of the Union ― rather than at a dedicated ceremony as was typically done ― “ cheapens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
Ocasio-Cortez also mocked Limbaugh ’ s seeming surprise , given that there had been media reports throughout the day that it would happen .
“ He had to pretend that this was some kind of Oprah moment , ” she said .
Ocasio-Cortez argued that there were others in the audience who were far more deserving of the honor , yet Trump chose Limbaugh as “ red meat to his base.
” “ Trump knows what he ’ s doing , ” she said .
“ He wants to assert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same level as Rosa Parks and it ’ s truly nauseating and this is one of the many reasons why I did not go .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Limbaugh has a long history of making racist and xenophobic comments, but Trump hailed him as “a special man, beloved by millions” as he bestowed the highest civilian award issued by the president. The honor came one day after Limbaugh said he had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.
Advertisement
Ocasio-Cortez called the medal “an extraordinarily sacred award” and noted that previous recipients have included civil rights icon Rosa Parks.
“Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist,” she said in a video on Instagram.
Trump’s decision to give the award at the State of the Union ― rather than at a dedicated ceremony as was typically done ― “cheapens the value” of the honor, she said.
Ocasio-Cortez also mocked Limbaugh’s seeming surprise, given that there had been media reports throughout the day that it would happen.
“He had to pretend that this was some kind of Oprah moment,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez argued that there were others in the audience who were far more deserving of the honor, yet Trump chose Limbaugh as “red meat to his base.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-06--Fox News Legal Analyst: Donald Trump Still 'Clearly Guilty Of A High Crime'

The former New Jersey Superior Court judge noted in his latest column on the conservative news network ’ s website how “ law students are taught early on that a trial is not a grudge match or an ordeal ; it is a search for the truth.
” But that search , he continued , “ requires witnesses , and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses , the truth-telling mission of Trump ’ s trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.
” GOP senators voted last week to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security adviser John Bolton , from testifying in Trump ’ s trial .
It all but ensured the president ’ s acquittal , which subsequently occurred Wednesday .
Napolitano , who has not shied away from breaking ranks with his pro-Trump colleagues at Fox to criticize the president , said “ Trump will luxuriate in his victory ” but accused him of trashing the oath he took to preserve , protect and defend the Constitution .
“ How ?
By manipulating Senate Republicans to bar firsthand evidence and keep it from senatorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate collaborators have insulated him and future presidents from the moral and constitutional truism that no president is above the law , ” he concluded .
“ Somewhere , Richard Nixon is smiling .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The former New Jersey Superior Court judge noted in his latest column on the conservative news network’s website how “law students are taught early on that a trial is not a grudge match or an ordeal; it is a search for the truth.”
Advertisement
But that search, he continued, “requires witnesses, and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses, the truth-telling mission of Trump’s trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.”
GOP senators voted last week to block witnesses, including former White House national security adviser John Bolton, from testifying in Trump’s trial. That all but ensured the president’s acquittal in Wednesday’s vote.
Napolitano, who has not shied away from breaking ranks with his pro-Trump colleagues at Fox to criticize the president, said “Trump will luxuriate in his victory.” But the pundit accused the president of trashing the oath he took to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
“How? By manipulating Senate Republicans to bar firsthand evidence and keep it from senatorial and public scrutiny, Trump and his Senate collaborators have insulated him and future presidents from the moral and constitutional truism that no president is above the law,” he concluded. “Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling.”