thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Romney: ‘Increasingly Likely’ More Republicans Will Support Calling Bolton As Witness

Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) said Monday that it ’ s “ increasingly likely ” there will be enough Republicans in the Senate to vote in favor of calling former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ I think it ’ s important for us to hear from John Bolton for us to be able to make an impartial judgment , ” Romney told reporters .
He also said he had spoken to other GOP senators about the subject , but declined to say whom .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times shared drafts from Bolton ’ s book outline stating Trump did in fact tie withholding Ukraine aid to the country ’ s announcement that it would investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
And Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) , another key moderate , reiterated Monday she was “ curious ” to hear what Bolton had to say .
But proponents for calling witnesses remain one vote shy of succeeding in an initial vote expected in the Senate trial later this week .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday that he ’ s always considered the witness vote to be “ an uphill fight ” because of pressure from Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) .
But he said they “ hope and pray ” that at least four Republicans will join Democrats in voting to call witnesses and receive more documents .
“ We know the pressure they ’ re under .
President Trump does not brook criticism , dissent kindly among Republicans , ” Schumer said at a press conference .
“ But we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , serious , historic and constitutional proceeding that the weight of doing what ’ s right , the weight of getting all of the facts , will weigh heavily on the shoulders of enough Republicans so we can get a fair trial.
” Other Republicans sought to dismiss the development and its potential impact on the length and scope of the trial by claiming it offered “ nothing new ” to the case ― even though Bolton is claiming he directly heard Trump admit to what he ’ s accused of by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s nothing new here .
It does seem to be an effort to sell books , ” Sen. John Barrasso ( R-Wyo . )
told reporters on Monday , suggesting Bolton ’ s credibility was also at issue .
Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-Mo . )
said he didn ’ t think Bolton ’ s book “ changes any fundamental information of the basic case.
” He reiterated that the notion of calling witnesses “ could be a monthslong effort that it ’ s hard to imagine would change the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I want to see the manuscript ... or have somebody tell us what ’ s in the manuscript , ” he said at a press conference , noting he believes he can ask the White House for it .
The prospect of subpoenaing witnesses like Bolton and Mick Mulvaney , the director of the Office of Management and Budget , may hinge on Republicans who have been tight-lipped so far about their support on an initial witness vote later this week .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible vote to include witnesses and other evidence , reiterated Monday he would make a decision on calling witnesses after opening arguments by Trump ’ s defense team and a period of questioning of both parties by all senators .
Still , it ’ s clear the Bolton bombshell set the party back on its heels after Saturday ’ s beginning of opening arguments by Trump ’ s lawyers , which left Republicans confident about wrapping up the trial by the end of this week .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said Monday that it’s “increasingly likely” there will be enough Republicans in the Senate to vote in favor of calling former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
“I think it’s important for us to hear from John Bolton for us to be able to make an impartial judgment,” Romney told reporters. He also said he had spoken to other GOP senators about the subject, but declined to say whom.
Advertisement
In a surprising development Sunday, The New York Times shared drafts from Bolton’s book outline stating Trump did in fact tie withholding Ukraine aid to the country’s announcement that it would investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Trump denied Bolton’s reported account later that day on Twitter, insisting he “never” told Bolton the Ukraine aid was tied to “investigations into Democrats.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued a statement shortly after Romney’s remarks saying she “always ... was likely to vote to call witnesses” in the impeachment trial.
“The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues,” she said.
Advertisement
And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another key moderate, reiterated Monday she was “curious” to hear what Bolton had to say. But proponents for calling witnesses remain one vote shy of succeeding in an initial vote expected in the Senate trial later this week.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Monday that he’s always considered the witness vote to be “an uphill fight” because of pressure from Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But he said they “hope and pray” that at least four Republicans will join Democrats in voting to call witnesses and receive more documents.
“We know the pressure they’re under. President Trump does not brook criticism, dissent kindly among Republicans,” Schumer said at a press conference. “But we’re hoping in this kind of solemn, serious, historic and constitutional proceeding that the weight of doing what’s right, the weight of getting all of the facts, will weigh heavily on the shoulders of enough Republicans so we can get a fair trial.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks as Sen. Ben Cardin (right) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (left) look on at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 27 in Washington, D.C. Mario Tama via Getty Images
Other Republicans sought to dismiss the development and its potential impact on the length and scope of the trial by claiming it offered “nothing new” to the case ― even though Bolton is claiming he directly heard Trump admit to what he’s accused of by the House impeachment managers.
Advertisement
“Truly, there’s nothing new here. It does seem to be an effort to sell books,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters on Monday, suggesting Bolton’s credibility was also at issue.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he didn’t think Bolton’s book “changes any fundamental information of the basic case.” He reiterated that the notion of calling witnesses “could be a monthslong effort that it’s hard to imagine would change the final outcome” of the Senate trial.
Asked about the Bolton book and whether it affected his desire to call witnesses, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said, “I still don’t see an impeachable offense committed.”
But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a top ally of Trump, suggested he wanted to see a manuscript of Bolton’s book before deciding on whether to call him as a witness.
“I want to see the manuscript ... or have somebody tell us what’s in the manuscript,” he said at a press conference, noting he believes he can ask the White House for it.
Advertisement
The prospect of subpoenaing witnesses like Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, may hinge on Republicans who have been tight-lipped so far about their support on an initial witness vote later this week. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), one of those senators who is being closely watched as a possible vote to include witnesses and other evidence, reiterated Monday he would make a decision on calling witnesses after opening arguments by Trump’s defense team and a period of questioning of both parties by all senators.
Still, it’s clear the Bolton bombshell set the party back on its heels after Saturday’s beginning of opening arguments by Trump’s lawyers, which left Republicans confident about wrapping up the trial by the end of this week.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Ken Starr Decries 'An Age Of Impeachment,' Democrats Find His Comments 'Surreal'

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment defense team turned over its presentation on Monday to former independent counsel Ken Starr , who in an ironic turn argued that Congress tries to impeach presidents too often .
“ Like war , impeachment is hell , ” Starr told senators during the second week of Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
The lawyer and former federal judge called the constitutional process for removing a president “ a war of words and of ideas ” that “ divides the country like nothing else.
” Starr would know .
As an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he conducted a yearslong investigation into President Bill Clinton that concluded in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern .
The House impeached Clinton that year ; the Senate acquitted him the following February .
“ The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently , ” Starr said Monday during his hourlong presentation .
“ Indeed , we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that after the acrimonious Clinton impeachment , Congress had wisely allowed the expiration of the law that established his independent counsel investigation .
But he lamented that the “ political culture ” is still overly fond of impeachment .
Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives ( President Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 as the House was on the cusp on impeaching him ) .
“ It was really incredibly surreal to see him talking about impeachment as something that should be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) said .
“ For a man who spent millions of dollars of taxpayers ’ money to come up with , ‘ Oh my God , the president has to be impeached because of sex ’ during the Clinton time , [ that ’ s ] probably not a person who should talk , ” Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vt. ) said .
One of the articles of impeachment against Trump says he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government ― Ukraine ― into helping his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Joe Biden , who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination ) .
The other article charges that Trump obstructed Congress in its investigation of his dealings with Ukraine officials .
Democrats have pointed out that in the past , some of Trump ’ s biggest defenders disputed the position that the Constitution requires statutory violations for a legitimate allegation of “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” against a president .
“ What is a high crime ?
I think it ’ s truth .
I think that ’ s what they meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be a crime .
It ’ s just when you start using your office and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you committed a high crime , ” then-Rep. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said in 1999 when he served as an impeachment manager in Clinton ’ s Senate trial .
Graham , elected to the Senate in 2002 , now is one of the most vocal critics of Trump ’ s impeachment , arguing it is invalid .
Alan Dershowitz , another member of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1998 that a high crime of misdemeanor “ certainly doesn ’ t have to be a crime ” to warrant impeachment .
The Harvard Law professor attempted to wave off his past comments last week , telling CNN his stance against Trump ’ s impeachment is “ far more correct now.
” With Republicans controlling the Senate , the prospect loomed that the chamber would quickly acquit Trump in a trial that featured no witnesses .
But in a bombshell development on Sunday , The New York Times revealed drafts from former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming book manuscript say that Trump tied releasing congressionally approved aid to Ukraine aid to the country ’ s announcement that it would investigate Biden and his son Hunter .
The report caught Senate Republicans by surprise and upped the pressure on allowing witnesses to be heard and other evidence to be presented in the trial .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) said Monday he believes it ’ s “ increasingly likely ” enough Republicans will now join Democrats to approve a motion to call Bolton to testify .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team turned over its presentation on Monday to former independent counsel Ken Starr, who, in an ironic turn, argued that Congress tries to impeach presidents too often.
“Like war, impeachment is hell,” Starr told senators during the second week of Trump’s impeachment trial. The lawyer and former federal judge called the constitutional process for removing a president “a war of words and of ideas” that “divides the country like nothing else.”
Advertisement
Starr would know. As an independent counsel appointed by the Justice Department, he conducted a yearslong investigation into President Bill Clinton that concluded in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern. The House impeached Clinton that year; the Senate acquitted him the following February.
“The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently,” Starr said Monday during his hourlong presentation. “Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment.”
Speaking in a somnambulant tone, Starr said that, after the acrimonious Clinton impeachment, Congress had wisely allowed the expiration of the law that established his independent counsel investigation. But he lamented that the “political culture” is still overly fond of impeachment.
Trump is only the third U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives (President Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 as the House was on the cusp of impeaching him).
Advertisement
Democrats were flabbergasted that Trump’s defense team put Starr at the lectern to decry the frequency of impeachment.
“I thought it was an absurd argument and quite rich coming from Ken Starr,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said.
“It was really incredibly surreal to see him talking about impeachment as something that should be done with solemnity and restraint,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said.
“For a man who spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to come up with, ‘Oh, my God, the president has to be impeached because of sex’ during the Clinton time, [that’s] probably not a person who should talk,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said.
One of the articles of impeachment against Trump says he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government ― Ukraine ― into helping his reelection campaign by investigating a political rival (Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination). The other article charges that Trump obstructed Congress in its investigation of his dealings with Ukrainian officials.
Advertisement
Starr argued that the House should allege the president broke specific laws to merit impeachment and removal ― a theory disputed by legal experts but embraced by Trump’s defense team.
Democrats have pointed out that in the past, some of Trump’s biggest defenders disputed the position that the Constitution requires statutory violations for a legitimate allegation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against a president.
“What is a high crime? I think it’s truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you committed a high crime,” then-Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in 1999 when he served as an impeachment manager in Clinton’s Senate trial. Graham, elected to the Senate in 2002, now is one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s impeachment, arguing it is invalid.
Alan Dershowitz, another member of Trump’s defense team, similarly said in 1998 that a high crime or misdemeanor “certainly doesn’t have to be a crime” to warrant impeachment. The Harvard law professor attempted to wave off his past comments last week, telling CNN his stance against Trump’s impeachment is “far more correct now.”
With Republicans controlling the Senate, the prospect loomed that the chamber would quickly acquit Trump in a trial that featured no witnesses. But in a bombshell development Sunday, The New York Times revealed drafts from former national security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book that say Trump tied releasing congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to the country’s announcement that it would investigate Biden and his son Hunter.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Meghan McCain Dismisses John Bolton Because His Book Title Is 'Stupid'

Meghan McCain is skeptical of John Bolton ’ s firsthand account that President Donald Trump tied aid approved for Ukraine to officials investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
Her reasoning ?
She doesn ’ t like the proposed title of the former national security adviser ’ s forthcoming book , “ In The Room Where It Happened.
” It ’ s a reference to a song from the Broadway musical “ Hamilton , ” but McCain wasn ’ t impressed .
“ I think the title of his book is stupid , ” McCain said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The View.
” She added ― twice ― that she thought “ Hamilton ” scribe Lin-Manuel Miranda should get royalties .
“ The View ” co-host also questioned why Bolton is now coming forward with firsthand information that supports the allegations at the center of the ongoing impeachment trial .
“ It seems very interesting that he ’ s monetizing this so quickly that the moment it leaks , the web page where you can buy his book goes up immediately , ” she said .
You can see the exchange below .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Meghan McCain is skeptical of John Bolton’s firsthand account that President Donald Trump tied aid approved for Ukraine to officials investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Her reasoning? She doesn’t like the proposed title of the former national security adviser’s forthcoming book, “In The Room Where It Happened.”
Advertisement
It’s a reference to a song from the Broadway musical “Hamilton,” but McCain wasn’t impressed.
“I think the title of his book is stupid,” McCain said during Monday’s broadcast of “The View.” She added ― twice ― that she thought “Hamilton” scribe Lin-Manuel Miranda should get royalties.
“The View” co-host also questioned why Bolton is now coming forward with firsthand information that supports the allegations at the center of the ongoing impeachment trial.
“It seems very interesting that he’s monetizing this so quickly that the moment it leaks, the web page where you can buy his book goes up immediately,” she said.
You can see the exchange below.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Emails Show Mike Pompeo's Office Agreed To Discuss Ukraine With NPR

Emails obtained by The Washington Post show that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s staff agreed he could be asked about Ukraine in an interview with NPR , despite him later denying this and calling NPR ’ s reporter a liar .
The emails cited by the Post show that Pompeo ’ s press aide , Katie Martin , agreed to allow the topic of Ukraine with reporter Mary Louise Kelly with the understanding that it would not be the focus of their conversation .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on a foul-mouthed tirade against an NPR reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and being unable to locate Ukraine on a map , according to a report that he has not denied .
Kelly said she would like to largely focus on Iran but that she planned to also ask about Ukraine and any other hot topics that may arise before they met .
Kelly , in an email to HuffPost on Monday , said she can confirm the accuracy of the Post ’ s report , stating reporter “ Paul Farhi accurately describes my email exchange with Katie Martin at State.
” In Kelly ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the secretary balked when faced with questions about Ukraine , specifically regarding former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
Pompeo repeated that he only agreed to come on her program to discuss Iran .
After the interview , Pompeo branded Kelly a liar in a statement released from his office that accused her of not only reneging on a promise to not discuss Ukraine but of reporting on a later conversation he had with her that he claimed was off the record .
Kelly , in addressing that later conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of Pompeo ’ s staff asked her not to audio record their conversation but that she was never asked to agree that his words would be off the record .
“ She did not say we were off the record , nor would I have agreed , ” Kelly has said .
According to Kelly , Pompeo yelled at her while using the “ F-word and many others ” because she questioned him about Ukraine .
She said Pompeo accused her of not knowing where Ukraine is located and challenged her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a map , which he ordered his staff to produce .
Kelly said she correctly identified Ukraine ’ s location when instructed .
Pompeo has claimed that Kelly , who has a master ’ s degree in European studies from Cambridge University , was not correct .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Emails obtained by The Washington Post show that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s staff agreed he could be asked about Ukraine in an interview with NPR, despite him later denying this and calling NPR’s reporter a liar.
The emails cited by the Post show that Pompeo’s press aide, Katie Martin, agreed to allow the topic of Ukraine with reporter Mary Louise Kelly with the understanding that it would not be the focus of their conversation.
Advertisement
This agreement followed some back-and-forth between the pair, as initially Martin wanted Ukraine entirely off the table.
“Is that something we can agree to?” Martin asked Kelly, who co-hosts NPR’s news program “All Things Considered.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on a foul-mouthed tirade against an NPR reporter whom he accused of being a liar and being unable to locate Ukraine on a map, according to a report that he has not denied. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Kelly said she would like to largely focus on Iran but that she planned to also ask about Ukraine and any other hot topics that may arise before they met.
Advertisement
“I never agree to take anything off the table,” she told Martin. The emails show Martin agreed with this arrangement.
Kelly, in an email to HuffPost on Monday, said she can confirm the accuracy of the Post’s report, stating reporter “Paul Farhi accurately describes my email exchange with Katie Martin at State.”
In Kelly’s later interview with Pompeo on Friday, the secretary balked when faced with questions about Ukraine, specifically regarding former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Pompeo repeated that he only agreed to come on her program to discuss Iran.
“I confirmed with your staff last night that I would talk about Iran and Ukraine,” Kelly told him.
After the interview, Pompeo branded Kelly a liar in a statement released from his office that accused her of not only reneging on a promise to not discuss Ukraine but of reporting on a later conversation he had with her that he claimed was off the record.
Kelly, in addressing that later conversation in her report, said that a member of Pompeo’s staff asked her not to audio record their conversation but that she was never asked to agree that his words would be off the record.
Advertisement
“She did not say we were off the record, nor would I have agreed,” Kelly has said.
According to Kelly, Pompeo yelled at her while using the “F-word and many others” because she questioned him about Ukraine.
She said Pompeo accused her of not knowing where Ukraine is located and challenged her to point out where the country is on a map, which he ordered his staff to produce. Kelly said she correctly identified Ukraine’s location when instructed. Pompeo has claimed that Kelly, who has a master’s degree in European studies from Cambridge University, was not correct.
“It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine,” Pompeo said in his statement, appearing to refer to his map challenge.
His statement did not deny that he yelled at Kelly or used obscenities.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Donald Trump's Spiritual Adviser Commands 'Satanic Pregnancies To Miscarry Right Now'

Critics continued to erupt Sunday following a video post of Donald Trump ’ s controversial spiritual adviser Paula White preaching for all “ Satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.
” “ In the name of Jesus , we command all Satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now , ” White , a Florida televangelist , said in a video of the Jan. 5 sermon posted Friday on Twitter by Right Wing Watch .
She declared that “ strange winds ... sent to hurt the church ... sent against our president , sent against myself ... we break it by the superior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uproar ensued , White insisted Sunday in a tweet she was speaking metaphorically , and praying for evil — or satanic — plans to be destroyed , not for actual miscarriages .
But for those who understand English , White ’ s apparent call for miscarriage was a startling kind of “ spell ” from someone who purports to be anti-abortion .
Since November , White has served as special adviser to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative .
Some noted on Twitter that evangelicals call all babies gifts from God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the abortion of a satanic pregnancy .
It was also unclear what constituted a satanic pregnancy .
Did parents have to be members of some satanic church — or just Democrats , some wondered .
White has characterized “ enemies ” of Trump as aligned with evil .
The Church of Satan , which regularly demands religious parity for followers ’ beliefs , tweeted to White that asking her “ imaginary friend ” to terminate someone else ’ s pregnancy against their will is “ pretty messed up.
” The White House did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump attended the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington the same day the White sermon video was posted .
The President 's spiritual advisor seems to be casting a spell for women to have miscarriages .
Is that what evangelicals do now ?
— Griz ( @ grizatlcp ) January 26 , 2020 No pregnancies are satanic .
Every child is a gift from God .
No one should ever pray for any woman to miscarry .
No one should ever pray for evil or harm to befall another person .
Jesus asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to curse them .
To love our neighbors as ourselves .
https : //t.co/EZq9BwLV0v — James Martin , SJ ( @ JamesMartinSJ ) January 26 , 2020 Someone please ask Paula to explain the following : to be pro life you assume the baby is an innocent soul .
Here , Paula is saying pregnancies are satanic and should die .
How does Paula know people aren ’ t aborting satanic pregnancies ?
She is a heretic .
A full blown heretic .
— CHOOSE HUMANITY 👑🌞🕊🌹 ( @ MB_LMMOG ) January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something out .
Christians are supposed to love unconditionally .
Jesus said to love all .
This shows me otherwise .
And the idea that a woman who would use her position for something like this would have the ear of a world leader for an instant disgusts me .
— Amy Smith ( @ fireheather ) January 26 , 2020 Paula White has said that anyone who opposes Trump is satanic .
So she 's essentially just wishing any pregnant woman who is not a Trump supporter miscarries .
How pro-life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emsawarrior ) January 26 , 2020 Southern Baptist theologian and ethicist Russell D. Moore said that `` Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian , of whatever tribe.
“ — Griffin ( @ Griffin9c ) January 26 , 2020 Every pregnancy is sacred apart from those that are `` satanic '' .
They can just go ahead and miscarry : a pretty vile thing to say in a world where women do miscarry .
This woman is a regular visitor to the White House , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welcome back to medieval times .
https : //t.co/efsCY9K1lN — Michael Marshall Smith ( @ ememess ) January 26 , 2020 I think that there is a more effective way to spread Jesus ' name than to suggest that he would have wanted certain women to miscarry their children .
Miscarriages hurt a lot and I do n't think that as mere mortals , any mortal should be wishing that for another mortal .
Good night❤ — Shinjini ( @ SpeakerShinjini ) January 26 , 2020 I know this is real but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as reality .
Are there seriously people who follow this craziness ?
Who think this woman is a decent , truthful person who knows God ?
Have they ever read the teachings of Jesus ?
Do they have any sense of goodness ?
— hypatia ( @ holdavision ) January 26 , 2020 The 1933 Headline in the New York Times : 400,000 Germans to be Sterilized .
1700 Hereditary Health Courts Will Start Judging Cases of Alleged Unfit Jan. 1 Cardinal is to Protest Questionnaire to Determine Idiocy asks about Form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Painter ( @ RWPUSA ) January 26 , 2020 I 'm very much trying to control my anger .
We the taxpayers provide for a criminal family working against the US .
We provide the salary for a press secretary that only tweets or goes on Trump Propaganda News network .
We provide the salary for this revolting excuse for an adviser .
— OceanGirl🌍🌎🌏🇺🇸🇦🇺🇬🇧🇮🇪 ( @ Salacia_sea ) January 26 , 2020 Seems as though Evangelical Christians are n't as pro-life as they purport to be .
May be an abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. , I need an abortion because this is a Satanic Baby '' — Rise of the Alien Queen ( @ rise_alien ) January 26 , 2020 Is n't she part of the crowd that says that all pregnancies are a gift from god even the ones from rape ?
God is going to be pissed off that she is getting the message to the rubes all confused and shit .
# TaxAllChurches if any woman has a miscarriage after this can they sue her ?
— UncleTummy ( @ UncleTummyTX ) January @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Critics continued to erupt Sunday following a video post of Donald Trump’s controversial spiritual adviser Paula White preaching for all “Satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.”
“In the name of Jesus, we command all Satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now,” White, a Florida televangelist, said in a video of the Jan. 5 sermon posted Friday on Twitter by Right Wing Watch. She declared that “strange winds ... sent to hurt the church ... sent against our president, sent against myself ... we break it by the superior blood of Jesus right now.”
Advertisement
After an uproar ensued, White insisted Sunday in a tweet she was speaking metaphorically, and praying for evil — or satanic — plans to be destroyed, not for actual miscarriages.
But for those who understand English, White’s apparent call for miscarriage was a startling kind of “spell” from someone who purports to be anti-abortion. Since November, White has served as special adviser to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.
Some noted on Twitter that evangelicals call all babies gifts from God. Others wondered whether White would support the abortion of a satanic pregnancy.
It was also unclear what constituted a satanic pregnancy. Did parents have to be members of some satanic church — or just Democrats, some wondered. White has characterized “enemies” of Trump as aligned with evil.
Advertisement
The Church of Satan, which regularly demands religious parity for followers’ beliefs, tweeted to White that asking her “imaginary friend” to terminate someone else’s pregnancy against their will is “pretty messed up.”
Asking your imaginary friend to terminate someone else’s pregnancy against their will is pretty messed up. https://t.co/iosaJniFgp — The Church Of Satan (@ChurchofSatan) January 26, 2020
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Trump attended the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington the same day the White sermon video was posted.
The President's spiritual advisor seems to be casting a spell for women to have miscarriages.
Is that what evangelicals do now? — Griz (@grizatlcp) January 26, 2020
Maybes it’s just me, but commanding someone to miscarry doesn’t seem very pro-life in my book... https://t.co/bvmgNgjfQI — Libertarian-In-Chief (@ToddHagopian) January 26, 2020
Advertisement
No pregnancies are satanic. Every child is a gift from God. No one should ever pray for any woman to miscarry. No one should ever pray for evil or harm to befall another person. Jesus asked us to pray for our persecutors, not to curse them. To love our neighbors as ourselves. https://t.co/EZq9BwLV0v — James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) January 26, 2020
Someone please ask Paula to explain the following: to be pro life you assume the baby is an innocent soul. Here, Paula is saying pregnancies are satanic and should die. How does Paula know people aren’t aborting satanic pregnancies? She is a heretic. A full blown heretic. — CHOOSE HUMANITY 👑🌞🕊🌹 (@MB_LMMOG) January 26, 2020
I want to point something out.
Christians are supposed to love unconditionally. Jesus said to love all.
This shows me otherwise.
And the idea that a woman who would use her position for something like this would have the ear of a world leader for an instant disgusts me. — Amy Smith (@fireheather) January 26, 2020
Paula White has said that anyone who opposes Trump is satanic. So she's essentially just wishing any pregnant woman who is not a Trump supporter miscarries. How pro-life of her.... — Em (@emsawarrior) January 26, 2020
Southern Baptist theologian and ethicist Russell D. Moore said that "Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.“ — Griffin (@Griffin9c) January 26, 2020
Advertisement
Every pregnancy is sacred apart from those that are "satanic". They can just go ahead and miscarry: a pretty vile thing to say in a world where women do miscarry.
This woman is a regular visitor to the White House, and advises Trump on "faith".
Welcome back to medieval times. https://t.co/efsCY9K1lN — Michael Marshall Smith (@ememess) January 26, 2020
I think that there is a more effective way to spread Jesus' name than to suggest that he would have wanted certain women to miscarry their children. Miscarriages hurt a lot and I don't think that as mere mortals, any mortal should be wishing that for another mortal. Good night❤ — Shinjini (@SpeakerShinjini) January 26, 2020
Is she casting a spell? — JohnRJohnson (@JohnRJohnson) January 26, 2020
Sounds like she is asking God to destroy herself and Drumpf and the GOP....😳😳😇 pic.twitter.com/Nfi0eeUJne — Edward Stull 🆘👊😎🇺🇸 (@stull_edward) January 26, 2020
I know this is real but I’m having a difficult time accepting it as reality.
Are there seriously people who follow this craziness? Who think this woman is a decent, truthful person who knows God?
Have they ever read the teachings of Jesus?
Do they have any sense of goodness? — hypatia (@holdavision) January 26, 2020
Advertisement
The 1933 Headline in the New York Times:
400,000 Germans to be Sterilized.
1700 Hereditary Health Courts Will Start Judging Cases of Alleged Unfit Jan. 1
Cardinal is to Protest
Questionnaire to Determine Idiocy asks about Form of State and Moral Views — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) January 26, 2020
I'm very much trying to control my anger. We the taxpayers provide for a criminal family working against the US. We provide the salary for a press secretary that only tweets or goes on Trump Propaganda News network. We provide the salary for this revolting excuse for an adviser. — OceanGirl🌍🌎🌏🇺🇸🇦🇺🇬🇧🇮🇪 (@Salacia_sea) January 26, 2020
Seems as though Evangelical Christians aren't as pro-life as they purport to be. May be an abortion loophole for the Christian Right?
"Dr., I need an abortion because this is a Satanic Baby" — Rise of the Alien Queen (@rise_alien) January 26, 2020
Isn't she part of the crowd that says that all pregnancies are a gift from god even the ones from rape? God is going to be pissed off that she is getting the message to the rubes all confused and shit. #TaxAllChurches if any woman has a miscarriage after this can they sue her? — UncleTummy (@UncleTummyTX) January 26, 2020
Satanic pregnancies are a thing? How did I not know this? — Kim Brill (@Kim_Brill) January 26, 2020
Advertisement
The Christianity of Jesus left people with more dignity and greater care; with healed wounds and fuller bellies, with calmed fears and quieted worries. It left a wake of generosity and compassion.
No, this isn't Christianity.
To hell with what this is.https://t.co/6TEMskvjS3 — John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) January 26, 2020
This is what true possession looks like. — Steve Blum (@blumspew) January 26, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Supreme Court Gives Go-Ahead To Trump 'Public Charge' Immigration Curb

ASSOCIATED PRESS President Donald Trump walks to a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , Monday , Jan. 27 , 2020 , in Washington .
( AP Photo/ Evan Vucci ) WASHINGTON , Jan 27 ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump ’ s hardline immigration policies , allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future .
The justices , on a 5-4 vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lift a lower court ’ s injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy , which has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a “ wealth test ” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants .
The court ’ s five conservative justices , including Chief Justice John Roberts , carried the day .
The court ’ s four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration ’ s request to put the injunction on hold .
The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Senate .
Lawsuits aiming to block the policy were filed against the administration by the states of New York , Connecticut and Vermont as well as by New York City and several nonprofit organizations .
In imposing an injunction blocking implementation of the rule , U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan on Oct. 11 called the policy “ repugnant to the American Dream ” and a “ policy of exclusion in search of a justification.
” The administration had asked the high court to let the rule go into effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump ’ s appeal of Daniels ’ injunction against the rule .
The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis , with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments to be held soon afterward .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.
The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration’s request to lift a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy, which has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a “wealth test” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.
Advertisement
The court’s five conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, carried the day. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration’s request to put the injunction on hold. The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer in Trump’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.
President Donald Trump walks to a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lawsuits aiming to block the policy were filed against the administration by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont as well as by New York City and several nonprofit organizations.
In imposing an injunction blocking implementation of the rule, U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan on Oct. 11 called the policy “repugnant to the American Dream” and a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.”
Advertisement
The administration had asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump’s appeal of Daniels’ injunction against the rule. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments to be held soon afterward.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--How GOP Lawyers Undercut Their Own Case Against Obamacare

It ’ s difficult to find respectable legal experts who think the case is persuasive , and it ’ s easy to find ones who think it is laugh-out-loud weak .
But in the federal courts , the lawsuit has already won support from three Republican-appointed judges , which is why it seems destined for the Supreme Court .
The question now is when that might happen .
In December , after the most recent ruling , Democratic attorneys defending the Affordable Care Act asked the justices to take the case right away .
Republicans bringing the lawsuit said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , the justices said they agreed .
Five years later , with Trump in charge , Congress passed legislation that reduced the penalty to zero .
But the legislation allowed the statutory language of the mandate to remain .
According to the GOP lawsuit , that transformed the mandate into a “ command ” to buy insurance that law-abiding people will feel compelled to obey .
Two individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that ’ s exactly what they are doing .
In 2018 , Judge Reed O ’ Connor , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit .
Last year , two Republican appointees on a three-judge panel at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the arguments about the mandate , but sent the case back to O ’ Connor with instructions to sift through the statute and decide whether at least some parts can remain .
The Supreme Court ’ s one-sentence declaration turning down that request makes it impossible to know why the justices made that decision or what they will do next .
They could still take the case in the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or wait until the lower courts are finished sorting through the case .
How Republicans Undermined Their Own Argument If there ’ s no major harm from the decision ... then plaintiffs don ’ t have standing to bring the suit in the first place .
Leah Litman , professor at the University of Michigan Law School Why Else The Case Makes No Sense With so many flaws , it ’ s difficult to imagine the case winning over five justices who have already rejected more legally plausible challenges to the Affordable Care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to imagine these arguments prevailing in the lower courts .
Somehow they have .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Trump administration lawyers trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act may have undermined a central argument of their case, thanks to an admission in their very own court papers.
The filings were part of a lawsuit, now called Texas v. U.S., that started with 20 Republican state officials and claims that a fatal constitutional flaw in Obamacare requires invalidating the entire program. President Donald Trump instructed the Justice Department to support the lawsuit, and if it succeeds, 20 million people could lose their health coverage.
Advertisement
It’s difficult to find respectable legal experts who think the case is persuasive, and it’s easy to find ones who think it is laugh-out-loud weak. But in the federal courts, the lawsuit has already won support from three Republican-appointed judges, which is why it seems destined for the Supreme Court.
The question now is when that might happen. In December, after the most recent ruling, Democratic attorneys defending the Affordable Care Act asked the justices to take the case right away. Republicans bringing the lawsuit said it was fine to wait and, last week, the justices said they agreed.
That likely pushes a hearing and ruling back until after the 2020 election, which is presumably why Republicans were hoping for the delay. Keeping the lawsuit in the news would probably hurt the Republicans politically, given strong public opposition to GOP repeal efforts.
But in the brief laying out the case for taking things slow, Trump’s Justice Department lawyers made a curious statement: They said the Affordable Care Act’s supposedly unconstitutional provision has no practical impact.
Advertisement
That raises the question of why courts should even hear the lawsuit, let alone end a program on which tens of millions depend for health care.
There doesn’t appear to be a good answer.
What The Republican Lawsuit Claims
When Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act back in 2010, it created an “individual mandate” that required people to pay a fine if they didn’t get health insurance.
The penalty had several purposes, chief among them to make sure healthy people signed up for coverage before getting sick. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the mandate as a legitimate use of congressional authority to levy taxes.
Five years later, with Trump in charge, Congress passed legislation that reduced the penalty to zero. But the legislation allowed the statutory language of the mandate to remain. According to the GOP lawsuit, that transformed the mandate into a “command” to buy insurance that law-abiding people will feel compelled to obey. Two individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that’s exactly what they are doing.
Congress has no authority to do that, the lawsuit says, making that provision unconstitutional. And because Congress originally envisioned the mandate as an essential part of the Affordable Care Act, the lawsuit argues, the entire program has to go.
Advertisement
“How can someone be injured by a provision without any concrete consequence?” - Katie Keith, Georgetown Law School
Such a ruling could wreak havoc. Protections for people with preexisting conditions would come off the books and roughly 20 million people who now get Medicaid or subsidized private insurance would lose it, according to projections from the Urban Institute, a nonprofit public policy research organization.
In 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a Republican appointee, ruled in favor of the lawsuit. Last year, two Republican appointees on a three-judge panel at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the arguments about the mandate, but sent the case back to O’Connor with instructions to sift through the statute and decide whether at least some parts can remain.
That prompted the appeal for an expedited hearing from the Democratic lawyers who are defending the law because Trump won’t. They represent 20 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court’s one-sentence declaration turning down that request makes it impossible to know why the justices made that decision or what they will do next. They could still take the case in the coming term, which begins in October, or wait until the lower courts are finished sorting through the case.
Advertisement
How Republicans Undermined Their Own Argument
In briefs urging the court to wait, Trump administration lawyers said there was no rush because the mandate “no longer subjects any individual to any concrete consequence.”
That is quite a concession.
If the mandate has no practical effect, then it’s difficult to comprehend how it can be a command to buy insurance ― in which case, there’s no constitutional problem for the courts to solve.
It doesn’t take a fancypants law degree to see that. But certain legal doctrines matter here and one of them is the concept of “standing,” which is the idea that a plaintiff must show injury in order to file a lawsuit.
“If there’s no major harm from the decision and it’s meaningless to invalidate the mandate, then plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring the suit in the first place,” Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, told HuffPost. “They’d only have standing if the mandate injures them.”
A lack of consequences from the penalty-less mandate would appear to undercut another GOP claim: that the courts cannot “sever” the mandate and let the rest of the law survive.
Advertisement
“If there’s no major harm from the decision ... then plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring the suit in the first place.” - Leah Litman, professor at the University of Michigan Law School
“If it’s no big deal for the rest of the ACA to exist without the mandate, which will happen for the rest of the litigation, then the ACA is workable without the mandate,” Litman said. “There goes their severability argument.”
Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University who has written extensively about the case for the journal Health Affairs, said she agrees on both counts.
“The Trump administration’s (latest) position undermines the plaintiffs’ arguments on both standing and constitutionality,” Keith wrote in an email to HuffPost.
“How can someone be injured by a provision without any concrete consequence?” she wrote. “And how can the mandate be read to compel someone to purchase insurance if the government is admitting that the provision has no consequences?”
Advertisement
Why Else The Case Makes No Sense
These are by no means the only problems with the lawsuit, as a chorus of legal experts, liberal and conservative alike, have been arguing from the get-go.
The weakest claim may be the contention that striking down the whole law is necessary because the courts must respect congressional intent and Congress in 2010 thought the whole law depended on the mandate to function. But in 2017, Congress was fully aware that the rest of the Affordable Care Act was remaining in place when it decided to zero out the penalty.
What Congress did in 2017 supersedes what it did in 2010, as a high-profile, ideologically diverse group of law professors wrote in a friend of the court brief. Two of them were conservative- or libertarian-leaning experts who played key roles in previous challenges to the health care law.
One of those professors, Jonathan Adler of Case Western University, has since pointed out yet another way recent GOP actions have undermined the new case. By passing various measures that have modified the Affordable Care Act, Adler noted on Twitter, “Congress has made clear its understanding that zeroing out the mandate did not negate the rest of the law.”
With so many flaws, it’s difficult to imagine the case winning over five justices who have already rejected more legally plausible challenges to the Affordable Care Act. Then again, it was difficult to imagine these arguments prevailing in the lower courts. Somehow they have.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Read Live Updates From Day 2 Of Trump Team's Arguments In Impeachment Trial

President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate continued on Monday with the second day of his defense team ’ s opening arguments .
The House in December passed two articles of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― stemming from his efforts to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating political rival Joe Biden .
Trump has denied any wrongdoing .
Democrats are urging the Senate to call new witnesses who have direct knowledge of Trump ’ s handling of congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine , including former national security adviser John Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mick Mulvaney .
Senate Republicans have been reluctant to do so .
But an explosive report in The New York Times on Sunday that Bolton believed Trump tied the aid to Ukraine announcing his requested investigations prompted some key GOP senators to say they may vote in favor of calling such witnesses .
Each side in the trial was allotted 24 hours over three days to make their opening arguments .
The Democrats concluded their presentation on Friday .
After Trump ’ s defense team wraps up its arguments , senators will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether to call new witnesses .
Read live coverage of Monday ’ s portion of the impeachment trial below :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate continued on Monday with the second day of his defense team’s opening arguments.
The House in December passed two articles of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― stemming from his efforts to get Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating political rival Joe Biden. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
Advertisement
Democrats are urging the Senate to call new witnesses who have direct knowledge of Trump’s handling of congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Senate Republicans have been reluctant to do so. But an explosive report in The New York Times on Sunday that Bolton believed Trump tied the aid to Ukraine announcing his requested investigations prompted some key GOP senators to say they may vote in favor of calling such witnesses.
Each side in the trial was allotted 24 hours over three days to make their opening arguments. The Democrats concluded their presentation on Friday. After Trump’s defense team wraps up its arguments, senators will have 16 hours to ask questions before voting on whether to call new witnesses.
Read live coverage of Monday’s portion of the impeachment trial below:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Joe Biden Led Budget Talks Where Social Security Cuts Were On The Table

Biden was “ a member of an administration whose theory of the case was that to get to where we essentially needed to go , we had to put everything on the table , ” recalled Jared Bernstein , who served as Biden ’ s top economic adviser and has not endorsed in the presidential primary .
Between those two attempts , there was the “ Gang of Six ” in the Senate , as well as the Biden group , which also had six members but no lasting nickname ( though it was referred to as “ The Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its internal deliberations have received little attention over the years , though it got some hype at the time because it included Biden and two high-ranking Republicans : Sen. Jon Kyl ( R-Ariz. ) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor ( R-Va. ) .
Before it imploded , the working group did not formally agree to any policy proposals , though several sources said one idea on the table was to cut spending on Social Security retirement benefits by changing the way benefits are adjusted for inflation each year by implementing a stingier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over time .
It ’ s a technical tool called the “ chained ” consumer price index that accounts for the way consumers react to rising prices by substituting for cheaper alternatives when possible .
It was an appealing idea for the various bipartisan deficit groups because it could simultaneously reduce spending on benefits and raise tax revenue , but because it ’ s so technical , it ’ s less obvious as a benefit cut or a tax hike .
The Biden group considered applying chained CPI to both Social Security benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since tax brackets are adjusted for inflation each year , if they go up more slowly , then more wages — which grow faster — wind up subject to the higher-percentage brackets .
Obama ’ s deficit commission and his Grand Bargain also considered the inflation measurement change ; he went on to include it in his fiscal 2014 budget .
Kyl said in an email that “ even though we seemed to come to some tentative agreements on various cost savings ( and even non-tax revenue raisers ) , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax increases , our talks broke down.
” He said Biden has “ plausible deniability ” on Social Security because the group had a pact that until it agreed on everything , it agreed on nothing .
Social Security activists loathe chained CPI for the same reasons that fiscal wonks apparently like it : The way it uses sophisticated language to disguise a benefit cut .
Indeed , during Obama ’ s first term , centrist budget hawks who supported the new formula claimed it was a technical change to make the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a benefit cut .
“ That was a particularly annoying one for them to circle around , which is why they chose it , because it took us so long to explain it , ” said Alex Lawson , a supporter of Sanders ’ presidential bid and executive director of the group Social Security Works , which fought the chained CPI .
He regards the Obama administration ’ s political calculus as particularly ham-handed .
Low growth in the official inflation index used by Social Security had deprived seniors of a COLA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration tried to make up for its absence by sending a flat $ 250 check to Social Security beneficiaries in 2009 as part of the stimulus package .
The 2011 talks in which Biden participated were unpopular enough within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that they became fodder for a political attack against at least one other Democrat who was involved .
Then-Rep. Donna Edwards ( D-Md . )
blasted then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
for his role in the talks during their battle for the Democratic nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
“ It ’ s easy to make those changes , and we had a tentative agreement to do that between the major political leaders of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and the administration , ” he said .
“ But there is a group within the Republican Party that is a very strong voice now that did ― wanted different changes , and so that deal fell through at the very end.
” “ As President , Joe Biden would expand Social Security benefits ― paid for with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement .
“ And as Senator Sanders himself said in 2015 : ‘ Joe Biden is a man who has devoted his entire life to public service and to the wellbeing of working families and the middle class .
’ ”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former vice president Joe Biden led a small team of lawmakers that considered a Social Security cut as part of a broader package of legislation designed to reduce the federal budget deficit.
The talks didn’t pan out, and represented just one of several attempts by Congress and the Obama administration to slow the growth of the national debt.
Advertisement
Biden’s participation exemplifies his desire to cut deals with Republicans and his political moderation, traits he’s highlighted on the presidential campaign trail.
Since President Donald Trump took office, “fiscal responsibility” has faded as a top concern, with Republicans larding the national debt with corporate tax cuts, and Democratic presidential candidates, including Biden, only pushing to make Social Security and Medicare more generous. (Progressives maintain that because Social Security and part of Medicare are self-funded, they cannot contribute to the debt.)
Biden was “a member of an administration whose theory of the case was that to get to where we essentially needed to go, we had to put everything on the table,” recalled Jared Bernstein, who served as Biden’s top economic adviser and has not endorsed in the presidential primary.
“I think that theory has been shown to be wrong,” Bernstein said. “And that since then, economists and policymakers have done a serious and critical rethink of fiscal policy.”
Advertisement
Larry Summers and Jason Furman, centrist former Obama economic advisers, wrote an op-ed in Jan. 2019 describing “how Washington should end its debt obsession.” Their analysis is part of a broader trend in recent years of economists associated with the Democratic establishment rethinking deficit hysteria amid a period of low inflation and interest rates.
Throughout the Obama years, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against including Social Security in any sort of legislative deal aimed at deficit reduction. In his White House bid, Sanders has highlighted his stalwart support of social programs over the years, while noting the contrast with Biden.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden, right, speaks alongside then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) during a debt reduction meeting in May 2011. SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
The Biden-led group, which met during the spring and early summer of 2011, has received less attention than other ad-hoc committees that sought deficit deals. President Obama formally appointed a commission in 2010 to cobble together deficit-reducing proposals; the commission never reached an agreement after Republicans opposed proposals for higher taxes.
And later in 2011, Obama himself sought a “Grand Bargain” to reduce the national debt with then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio). Their handshake agreement collapsed after House Republicans balked at higher taxes.
Advertisement
Between those two attempts, there was the “Gang of Six” in the Senate, as well as the Biden group, which also had six members but no lasting nickname (though it was referred to as “The Biden Commission” at least once). Its internal deliberations have received little attention over the years, though it got some hype at the time because it included Biden and two high-ranking Republicans: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
“There was definitely a sense that Biden wasn’t planning to run for anything again so he could make deals that other Democrats wouldn’t,” said Michael Steel, who was a spokesman for then-Speaker Boehner.
The talks ultimately collapsed. The reasons for their failure, like virtually any partisan fight during the Obama era, are subject to debate. Democrats argue that Cantor balked at higher taxes. Some Republicans involved blame Obama and Boehner for initiating their own talks where larger sums were discussed, undermining Cantor’s leverage.
Before it imploded, the working group did not formally agree to any policy proposals, though several sources said one idea on the table was to cut spending on Social Security retirement benefits by changing the way benefits are adjusted for inflation each year by implementing a stingier inflation measure that would reduce benefit growth over time.
It’s a technical tool called the “chained” consumer price index that accounts for the way consumers react to rising prices by substituting for cheaper alternatives when possible. It was an appealing idea for the various bipartisan deficit groups because it could simultaneously reduce spending on benefits and raise tax revenue, but because it’s so technical, it’s less obvious as a benefit cut or a tax hike.
Advertisement
The Biden group considered applying chained CPI to both Social Security benefits and tax brackets, one source said. Since tax brackets are adjusted for inflation each year, if they go up more slowly, then more wages — which grow faster — wind up subject to the higher-percentage brackets. Obama’s deficit commission and his Grand Bargain also considered the inflation measurement change; he went on to include it in his fiscal 2014 budget.
“I never heard the vice president advocate for cuts.” - Phil Schiliro, former Obama aide
Kyl said in an email that “even though we seemed to come to some tentative agreements on various cost savings (and even non-tax revenue raisers), because of the administration’s insistence on big tax increases, our talks broke down.” He said Biden has “plausible deniability” on Social Security because the group had a pact that until it agreed on everything, it agreed on nothing.
Social Security activists loathe chained CPI for the same reasons that fiscal wonks apparently like it: The way it uses sophisticated language to disguise a benefit cut. Indeed, during Obama’s first term, centrist budget hawks who supported the new formula claimed it was a technical change to make the cost of living adjustment more accurate, rather than a benefit cut.
“That was a particularly annoying one for them to circle around, which is why they chose it, because it took us so long to explain it,” said Alex Lawson, a supporter of Sanders’ presidential bid and executive director of the group Social Security Works, which fought the chained CPI.
Advertisement
Lawson, like many other left-leaning Social Security activists, supports a change to the COLA of a different sort ― one that more heavily weighs the health care and energy costs seniors experience and thus likely grows at a faster rate.
He regards the Obama administration’s political calculus as particularly ham-handed. Low growth in the official inflation index used by Social Security had deprived seniors of a COLA in 2009 and 2010. The Obama administration tried to make up for its absence by sending a flat $250 check to Social Security beneficiaries in 2009 as part of the stimulus package.
Chained CPI was “always going to be touted as a Democratic idea because it was pushed by the Obama administration and Biden was the lead negotiator,” Lawson said.
The 2011 talks in which Biden participated were unpopular enough within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that they became fodder for a political attack against at least one other Democrat who was involved. Then-Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) blasted then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) for his role in the talks during their battle for the Democratic nomination for Maryland’s open Senate seat in 2016.
In a television ad, Edwards boasts that she said “‘no’ to Social Security cuts [Van Hollen] said he’d consider.” Van Hollen nonetheless clinched the nomination and cruised to victory in the general election. (Edwards declined a request to comment for this story.)
Advertisement
Then-President Barack Obama, center, persistently sought to find common fiscal ground with then-House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Larry Downing / Reuters
Whether or not the tradeoffs of a potential deal with “chained” CPI were worth the gains, Biden evidently endorsed the premise of the exercise: That the cost of so-called entitlement programs was out of control, and bipartisan compromise that included possible benefit cuts was part of the answer.
Speaking to an audience of Chinese government officials in August 2011, Biden expressed regret that recent efforts to tame “entitlements” had not succeeded. He specifically mentioned “changes” to Medicare and Medicaid, omitting Social Security.
“It’s easy to make those changes, and we had a tentative agreement to do that between the major political leaders of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and the administration,” he said. “But there is a group within the Republican Party that is a very strong voice now that did ― wanted different changes, and so that deal fell through at the very end.”
Bernstein and Phil Schiliro, a top aide to Obama at the time, both portrayed the search for a “Grand Bargain” as an Obama project in which Biden was enlisted.
Advertisement
“I never heard the vice president advocate for cuts,” Schiliro said.
Just as Obama’s public views on Social Security have changed ― he embraced expansion of benefits in June 2016 ― so have Biden’s, according to Bernstein, who is in contact with top Biden campaign aides.
“I don’t care if you’re Biden or Obama or any of the members of our administration, the budget that we would write today would be very different than the budget that we wrote then,” he said. “My best proof of this is to look at Biden’s own Social Security plan.”
Biden’s Social Security plan would indeed lift the cap on income taxable for Social Security purposes and use the new revenue to shore up the program’s solvency and increase benefits for vulnerable seniors, such as widows and those enrolled in the program for 20 years or more. His campaign has since clarified that he has ruled out benefit cuts as well.
Asked about Biden’s participation in the 2011 discussions, Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates referred back to the campaign’s plan.
“As President, Joe Biden would expand Social Security benefits ― paid for with new taxes on the wealthiest Americans,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement. “And as Senator Sanders himself said in 2015: ‘Joe Biden is a man who has devoted his entire life to public service and to the wellbeing of working families and the middle class.’”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Barred By The Muslim Ban, Targeted In The U.S.: Iranian Americans Feel Trapped

There are family members Mana Kharrazi has never met .
The 35-year-old Iranian American who currently resides in New York has six uncles and aunts on her mother ’ s side and five on her father ’ s side ― some of whom are still in Iran .
“ I ’ ve never been in the same room with my mom and all her siblings .
I know I might never be able to , ” Kharrazi said .
“ There ’ s a whole side of a family that I may never see or know.
” Kharrazi , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one of several lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump ’ s executive order banning travel to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries , including Iran , which was signed three years ago Monday .
On Tuesday , the 4th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond , Virginia , will hear arguments from three different lawsuits to decide whether or not to dismiss the case entirely out of the lower courts .
Executive Order 13769 , which has been revised several times and challenged repeatedly in federal courts , was upheld by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same year , the U.S. State Department rejected more than 37,000 visa applications because of the travel ban .
It wasn ’ t until September 2019 , nearly three years after the original travel ban went into effect , that Congress finally held its first hearing on the executive order .
The hearing at the time highlighted the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act ― also known as the No Ban Act ― a bill introduced by Rep. Judy Chu ( D-Calif. ) and Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
aiming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents from enacting similar bans .
Despite these calls to end the travel ban , the Trump administration has doubled down on it and is expected to announce an expansion sometime this week .
Trump did not disclose which countries might be added to the ban .
The consequences of that expansion would affect thousands of individuals on top of the thousands who are currently impacted , said Farhana Khera , the president , and director of Muslim Advocates , a Washington , D.C. , nonprofit that has been at the forefront challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights .
Iranian Americans like Kharrazi have found themselves ensnared in political purgatory .
On the one hand , family members from Iran are barred from entering the United States , and their relatives , Iranian Americans , can not travel back to their native country due to heightened political tensions .
Students have been turned away at airports and have lost opportunities to attend prestigious American universities .
Individuals have missed the birth of new family members .
Weddings and funerals have passed unattended .
After Trump ordered the killing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month , news broke that U.S. border agents held nearly 200 people of Iranian descent without explanation at the Washington state border with Canada .
Some people were held for more than 10 hours .
Nearly all of those held at the crossing were questioned about their place of birth and details of their family affairs .
They were forced to hand over personal information such as where they worked , home addresses and phone numbers .
Last week , an allegation surfaced that U.S border officers were instructed to target and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Border Protection has since disputed the claim that officers detained Iranian Americans at the Peace Arch border crossing based on heritage .
A CBP spokesperson told HuffPost in an earlier report that CBP officers performed additional screening on “ individuals who present a known risk or individuals about whom we need more information to make a determination of risk.
” “ We have to witness the increased state repression and turmoil in Iran affecting our family and the fact is we can ’ t even have them come here even if we wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then watching our own rights be curtailed here and all of the egregious violations that CBP is committing against our families and community members here .
It ’ s just terrible.
” On Tuesday ’ s hearing , the Justice Department will argue to have the case dismissed once and for all , while activists and lawyers hope to keep the challenges alive , to prove the ban is discriminatory and unconstitutional .
Kharrazi knows firsthand how damaging the policy is to her family and to those around her .
She hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that one day she can reunite with her family .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
There are family members Mana Kharrazi has never met. The 35-year-old Iranian American who currently resides in New York has six uncles and aunts on her mother’s side and five on her father’s side ― some of whom are still in Iran.
“I’ve never been in the same room with my mom and all her siblings. I know I might never be able to,” Kharrazi said. “There’s a whole side of a family that I may never see or know.”
Advertisement
Kharrazi, a community activist, is the lead plaintiff in one of several lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, which was signed three years ago Monday. On Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will hear arguments from three different lawsuits to decide whether or not to dismiss the case entirely out of the lower courts.
Executive Order 13769, which has been revised several times and challenged repeatedly in federal courts, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. That same year, the U.S. State Department rejected more than 37,000 visa applications because of the travel ban.
It wasn’t until September 2019, nearly three years after the original travel ban went into effect, that Congress finally held its first hearing on the executive order. The hearing at the time highlighted the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act ― also known as the No Ban Act ― a bill introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) aiming to end the current ban and restrict future presidents from enacting similar bans.
Advertisement
On Monday, Coons and Chu held a press conference reiterating the call to pass the No Ban Act alongside Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and individuals directly impacted by the ban, including Kharrazi.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Monday that the House Judiciary Committee will mark up and bring the No Ban Act to the floor for a vote in the coming weeks.
Despite these calls to end the travel ban, the Trump administration has doubled down on it and is expected to announce an expansion sometime this week. Trump did not disclose which countries might be added to the ban.
The consequences of that expansion would affect thousands of individuals on top of the thousands who are currently impacted, said Farhana Khera, the president, and director of Muslim Advocates, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that has been at the forefront challenging the ban and advocating for Muslim American civil rights.
“While the effect of the Muslim ban has receded from the headlines, this policy is alive and well and currently harming literally thousands of Americans as we speak,” Khan told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Iranian Americans like Kharrazi have found themselves ensnared in political purgatory. On the one hand, family members from Iran are barred from entering the United States, and their relatives, Iranian Americans, cannot travel back to their native country due to heightened political tensions. Students have been turned away at airports and have lost opportunities to attend prestigious American universities. Individuals have missed the birth of new family members. Weddings and funerals have passed unattended.
To complicate matters further, Iranians and Iranian Americans are concerned about an intensifying crackdown on their civil rights inside the country as well as at the border.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) listens during a joint hearing before House Judiciary Committee Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee and House Foreign Affairs Committee Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee September 24, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong via Getty Images
After Trump ordered the killing of top Iranian government official Qassem Soleimani earlier this month, news broke that U.S. border agents held nearly 200 people of Iranian descent without explanation at the Washington state border with Canada. Some people were held for more than 10 hours. Nearly all of those held at the crossing were questioned about their place of birth and details of their family affairs. They were forced to hand over personal information such as where they worked, home addresses and phone numbers.
Last week, an allegation surfaced that U.S border officers were instructed to target and interrogate Iranian-born travelers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has since disputed the claim that officers detained Iranian Americans at the Peace Arch border crossing based on heritage. A CBP spokesperson told HuffPost in an earlier report that CBP officers performed additional screening on “individuals who present a known risk or individuals about whom we need more information to make a determination of risk.”
Advertisement
Between the de facto Muslim ban on travelers to the U.S., the international escalation and a crackdown on civil rights, many Iranian Americans say they feel trapped in a political battlefield with no solutions in sight.
“We have to witness the increased state repression and turmoil in Iran affecting our family and the fact is we can’t even have them come here even if we wanted to,” said Kharrazi. “And then watching our own rights be curtailed here and all of the egregious violations that CBP is committing against our families and community members here. It’s just terrible.”
On Tuesday’s hearing, the Justice Department will argue to have the case dismissed once and for all, while activists and lawyers hope to keep the challenges alive, to prove the ban is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Kharrazi knows firsthand how damaging the policy is to her family and to those around her. She hopes the court will see it as well so that one day she can reunite with her family.
“Every day we’re watching our rights become more and more diminished and curtailed,” said Kharrazi. “We are grieving, we are devastated and we’re enraged.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--University Football Coach In Michigan Suspended After Hitler Comments

Grand Valley State University in Allendale , Michigan , suspended new football coach Morris Berger on Monday after he said in an interview with the school ’ s student-run paper that the way Adolf Hitler “ was able to lead was second-to-none ” and that “ you can ’ t deny he wasn ’ t a great leader.
” Berger was announced last week as the new offensive coordinator for the college ’ s Lakers football team .
In an interview published Thursday in the Grand Valley Lanthorn , Berger said if he could have dinner with any historical figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you could have dinner with three historical figures , living or dead , who would they be ?
” Lanthorn student reporter Kellen Voss asked .
“ This is probably not going to get a good review , but I ’ m going to say Adolf Hitler , ” Berger responded .
“ It was obviously very sad and he had bad motives , but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none .
How he rallied a group and a following , I want to know how he did that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can ’ t deny he wasn ’ t a great leader.
” The coach then went on to name former President John F. Kennedy and explorer Christopher Columbus as two other figures he ’ d dine with .
It ’ s worth noting Columbus ’ legacy included enslaving and killing countless Indigenous people in the Americas .
After a public outcry around Berger ’ s responses , Grand Valley State University suspended Berger .
The university said in a statement that Berger ’ s comments “ do not reflect [ its ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ thorough investigation.
” Berger , who is from Missouri , previously worked as a coach at Texas State for a season and before that was on staff for two years with Oklahoma State ’ s football team .
The school paper added a note on Sunday to its article saying that after initial publication , Berger ’ s last two responses ― on Hitler and Columbus ― were “ mistakenly removed ” from the piece .
The article was then “ reverted back to its original version , ” including the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom sections were removed Saturday by student reporter Voss following a request from a representative of the school ’ s athletic department .
Calling this “ a lapse in our editorial judgement as student journalists , ” the paper ’ s editor-in-chief Nick Moran said the sections were added back in the next day with an editor ’ s note .
The student reporter ’ s response to Berger was also part of the sections removed ― and included the reporter appearing to affirm Berger ’ s statements on Hitler ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The way [ Hitler ] was able to get people to rally around him was crazy.
” Asked about this exchange , the paper ’ s editor-in-chief said Voss was “ caught off guard ” and had answered “ as professionally as he could.
” Regarding the school ’ s athletic department apparently asking a student reporter to delete part of an article on their coach , the university said it was “ committed to the editorial independence ” of the student paper and was “ reviewing ” the events to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, suspended new football coach Morris Berger on Monday after he said in an interview with the school’s student-run paper that the way Adolf Hitler “was able to lead was second-to-none” and that “you can’t deny he wasn’t a great leader.”
Berger was announced last week as the new offensive coordinator for the college’s Lakers football team. In an interview published Thursday in the Grand Valley Lanthorn, Berger said if he could have dinner with any historical figures, one would be Hitler.
Advertisement
“If you could have dinner with three historical figures, living or dead, who would they be?” Lanthorn student reporter Kellen Voss asked.
“This is probably not going to get a good review, but I’m going to say Adolf Hitler,” Berger responded. “It was obviously very sad and he had bad motives, but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none. How he rallied a group and a following, I want to know how he did that. Bad intentions of course, but you can’t deny he wasn’t a great leader.”
The coach then went on to name former President John F. Kennedy and explorer Christopher Columbus as two other figures he’d dine with. It’s worth noting Columbus’ legacy included enslaving and killing countless Indigenous people in the Americas.
After a public outcry around Berger’s responses, Grand Valley State University suspended Berger. The university said in a statement that Berger’s comments “do not reflect [its] values” and it is conducting a “thorough investigation.”
Advertisement
Berger, who is from Missouri, previously worked as a coach at Texas State for a season and before that was on staff for two years with Oklahoma State’s football team.
BREAKING NEWS: Newly announced football offensive coordinator Morris Berger has been suspended, according to a Grand Valley State University Statement provided to the Lanthorn:https://t.co/Ljq8PtycAe — GV Lanthorn (@GVLanthorn) January 27, 2020
The school paper added a note on Sunday to its article saying that after initial publication, Berger’s last two responses ― on Hitler and Columbus ― were “mistakenly removed” from the piece. The article was then “reverted back to its original version,” including the full interview.
The Lanthorn told HuffPost that the bottom sections were removed Saturday by student reporter Voss following a request from a representative of the school’s athletic department. Calling this “a lapse in our editorial judgement as student journalists,” the paper’s editor-in-chief Nick Moran said the sections were added back in the next day with an editor’s note.
The student reporter’s response to Berger was also part of the sections removed ― and included the reporter appearing to affirm Berger’s statements on Hitler’s leadership, answering him by saying: “The way [Hitler] was able to get people to rally around him was crazy.”
Advertisement
Asked about this exchange, the paper’s editor-in-chief said Voss was “caught off guard” and had answered “as professionally as he could.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Trump Impeachment Team Embraces 'Irreverent' But 'Spot On' Rudy Giuliani

WASHINGTON ― Before Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , some of his defenders tried to distance the president from the actions taken by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani .
But Trump ’ s legal team , in its second day of defending Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday , embraced the man at the center of a campaign to pressure Ukrainian officials to announce an investigation into Joe Biden , one of Trump ’ s chief political adversaries .
Jane Raskin , a member of Trump ’ s defense team , offered an affirmative defense of the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying the Democratic House managers had turned him into a “ proxy villain ” in their case .
“ The House managers might not like his style .
You might not like his style .
But one might argue that he ’ s everything Clarence Darrow said a defense lawyer must be : ‘ outrageous , irreverent , blasphemous , a rogue , a renegade.
’ Fact is , in the end , after a two-year siege on the presidency , two inspector general reports and a $ 32 million special counsel investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , ” Raskin said , referring to Robert Mueller ’ s investigation and two Justice Department inspector general reports on actions taken by the FBI in its 2016 investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-candidate Trump ’ s campaign .
Rudy Giuliani , President Trump 's personal attorney , addresses the conservative Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on Dec. 19 in Palm Beach , Florida .
A member of Trump 's defense team referred to Giuliani on Monday as the Democrats ' `` colorful distraction . ''
Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas and Igor Fruman , ran a campaign to remove U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch because they thought she stood in the way of their efforts to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden , who had been on the board of a Ukrainian oil and natural gas company .
Some Trump supporters have allowed that Giuliani ’ s actions hurt Trump ’ s presidency .
Last week , senators on both sides of the aisle had a laugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser stating that hiring Giuliani was a way to “ impeach oneself.
” Giuliani did not immediately respond to HuffPost ’ s text seeking comment on Raskin ’ s remarks , but he tweeted that Raskin was “ doing a masterful job defending me in my role as defense counsel.
” Parnas , who has recently made public extensive evidence of his interactions with Trump , attended a dinner with Giuliani and Raskin celebrating the conclusion of the Mueller investigation last year .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Before Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, some of his defenders tried to distance the president from the actions taken by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. But Trump’s legal team, in its second day of defending Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday, embraced the man at the center of a campaign to pressure Ukrainian officials to announce an investigation into Joe Biden, one of Trump’s chief political adversaries.
Jane Raskin, a member of Trump’s defense team, offered an affirmative defense of the former New York City mayor on Monday, saying the Democratic House managers had turned him into a “proxy villain” in their case.
Advertisement
“Rudy Giuliani is the House managers’ colorful distraction,” Raskin said.
“The House managers might not like his style. You might not like his style. But one might argue that he’s everything Clarence Darrow said a defense lawyer must be: ‘outrageous, irreverent, blasphemous, a rogue, a renegade.’ Fact is, in the end, after a two-year siege on the presidency, two inspector general reports and a $32 million special counsel investigation, it turns out Rudy was spot on,” Raskin said, referring to Robert Mueller’s investigation and two Justice Department inspector general reports on actions taken by the FBI in its 2016 investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-candidate Trump’s campaign.
Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, addresses the conservative Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on Dec. 19 in Palm Beach, Florida. A member of Trump's defense team referred to Giuliani on Monday as the Democrats' "colorful distraction." Saul Martinez/Getty Images
Giuliani, working closely with now-indicted associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, ran a campaign to remove U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch because they thought she stood in the way of their efforts to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who had been on the board of a Ukrainian oil and natural gas company.
Some Trump supporters have allowed that Giuliani’s actions hurt Trump’s presidency. Last week, senators on both sides of the aisle had a laugh at a clip of a former Trump adviser stating that hiring Giuliani was a way to “impeach oneself.”
Advertisement
Giuliani did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s text seeking comment on Raskin’s remarks, but he tweeted that Raskin was “doing a masterful job defending me in my role as defense counsel.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-27--Bolton Reportedly Raised Alarm About Trump Granting Favors To China, Turkey Leaders

John Bolton , the former national security adviser , told Attorney General William Barr that he was worried President Donald Trump had grown too friendly with the strongman leaders of China and Turkey , according to accounts in an unpublished book Bolton wrote that was obtained by The New York Times .
In the manuscript , Bolton reportedly recalled the attorney general responding that he , too , was concerned about Trump ’ s affinity for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chinese President Xi Jinping .
Barr noted at the time that there were two Justice Department investigations into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote that Barr was worried Trump ’ s fondness for the autocrats would make it seem as if the president was influencing what should be independent probes .
The report Monday is the second bombshell revelation from the unpublished manuscript this week .
Bolton also reportedly wrote in the book draft that Trump said he wanted to continue to hold nearly $ 400 million in military aid to Ukraine until the country ’ s leader agreed to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter , the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , counters Trump ’ s impeachment defense that the aid was held up merely because of concerns about general corruption and that the demand for the Biden investigation was a separate matter , not a quid pro quo .
Trump has long heaped praise on both Erdogan and Xi , two leaders who have been accused of directing authoritarian regimes that crush dissent .
The president said in November he was a “ big fan ” of his Turkish counterpart , just weeks after Erdogan sent troops to invade parts of Syria against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2018 decision to end term limits in China .
The cozy relationships have led both leaders to ask Trump for political favors .
Xi personally appealed to Trump to lift sanctions on a Chinese telecommunications company , ZTE ( he did ) , and Erdogan asked him to be kinder to a state-owned Turkish bank that was ultimately indicted last year .
Trump has rejected the reported book account , writing on Twitter that he never told Bolton “ the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to care about the national security of this country , ” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Monday .
“ And to leave the White House and immediately go write a book , it ’ s really disappointing ... We don ’ t even know if what ’ s in the book is going to be true.
” .
@ PressSec on Bolton : `` Here 's a man who purports to care about the national security of this country .
And to leave the White House and immediately go write a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We do n't even know what 's in the book is going to be true . ''
— Ryan Struyk ( @ ryanstruyk ) January 28 , 2020 Bolton has denied leaking the draft with the Times .
The manuscript was submitted to the White House about a month ago for review .
Trump ’ s pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the basis for two articles of impeachment in the House : one for abuse of power and the other for obstruction of Congress .
The Senate is currently holding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be removed from office .
The revelations have been largely ignored by the president ’ s attorneys defending him at his Senate trial .
The lawyers have largely avoided referring to Bolton and continued to insist there was no link between the hold on the security aid and any investigation Trump wanted Ukraine to open .
“ We deal with transcript evidence .
We deal with publicly available information .
We do not deal with speculation , allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards , ” Jay Sekulow , one of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
John Bolton, the former national security adviser, told Attorney General William Barr that he was worried President Donald Trump had grown too friendly with the strongman leaders of China and Turkey, according to accounts in an unpublished book Bolton wrote that was obtained by The New York Times.
In the manuscript, Bolton reportedly recalled the attorney general responding that he, too, was concerned about Trump’s affinity for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Barr noted at the time that there were two Justice Department investigations into companies in the countries, and Bolton wrote that Barr was worried Trump’s fondness for the autocrats would make it seem as if the president was influencing what should be independent probes.
Advertisement
The report, if true, counters Trump’s impeachment defense that the aid was held up merely because of concerns about general corruption and that the demand for the Biden investigation was a separate matter, not a quid pro quo.
Trump has long heaped praise on both Erdogan and Xi, two leaders who have been accused of directing authoritarian regimes that crush dissent. The president said in November he was a “big fan” of his Turkish counterpart, just weeks after Erdogan sent troops to invade parts of Syria against U.S. wishes. Trump also cheered Xi’s 2018 decision to end term limits in China.
The cozy relationships have led both leaders to ask Trump for political favors. Xi personally appealed to Trump to lift sanctions on a Chinese telecommunications company, ZTE (he did), and Erdogan asked him to be kinder to a state-owned Turkish bank that was ultimately indicted last year.
Advertisement
Trump has rejected the reported book account, writing on Twitter that he never told Bolton “the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats.”
“Here’s a man who purports to care about the national security of this country,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Monday. “And to leave the White House and immediately go write a book, it’s really disappointing ... We don’t even know if what’s in the book is going to be true.”
.@PressSec on Bolton: "Here's a man who purports to care about the national security of this country. And to leave the White House and immediately go write a book, it's really disappointing... We don't even know what's in the book is going to be true." — Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) January 28, 2020
Bolton has denied leaking the draft with the Times. The manuscript was submitted to the White House about a month ago for review.
Trump’s pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the basis for two articles of impeachment in the House: one for abuse of power and the other for obstruction of Congress. The Senate is currently holding a trial to determine if the president should be removed from office.
Advertisement
The revelations have been largely ignored by the president’s attorneys defending him at his Senate trial. The lawyers have largely avoided referring to Bolton and continued to insist there was no link between the hold on the security aid and any investigation Trump wanted Ukraine to open.
“We deal with transcript evidence. We deal with publicly available information. We do not deal with speculation, allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards,” Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, said on Monday.