thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Warren Goes After Bloomberg Again, Offers Contract To Release Women From NDAs

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
continued to lambaste billionaire and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg on Thursday , saying she had written a simple contract he could sign that would release dozens of women who filed sex discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits against him and his company from their nondisclosure agreements .
“ I used to teach contract law , ” Warren said during a CNN town hall in Nevada on Thursday , a day after she excoriated Bloomberg over the NDAs during his first appearance at a Democratic debate .
“ And I thought I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a release and covenant not to sue , and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it ― I ’ ll text it ― sign it , and then the women , or men , will be free to speak and tell their own stories.
” Warren read the provision verbatim on-air and later released the document on Twitter , saying it would be “ simple and straightforward ” and merely require Bloomberg ’ s signature .
Mike Bloomberg can easily release the women who have accused him of sexual harassment—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiences—from their non-disclosure agreements .
Take a look at how simple and straightforward it would be : pic.twitter.com/XLncEnSXDF — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) February 21 , 2020 Warren was one of several candidates to point to allegations of misogyny and harassment at his company during Wednesday ’ s debate .
“ Mr .
Mayor , are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements ?
” Warren asked on stage .
“ So we can hear their side of the story ?
” Bloomberg attempted to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one had accused him of “ doing anything other than maybe they didn ’ t like a joke I told.
” He later said both parties had signed the agreements “ to keep it quiet for everybody ’ s interests ” but declined to say if he would release anyone who wished to speak about their claims publicly .
The former New York City mayor also said during the debate he had “ no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the Me Too movement has exposed.
” It ’ s unclear how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , and he wouldn ’ t say , but 64 women have sued Bloomberg and his company for sex discrimination and sexual harassment over the past two decades .
It can be difficult to get out of NDAs , and it would depend on which parties were involved in the agreements : If Bloomberg and Bloomberg LP were both signatories , each entity would have to agree to void the document , complicating matters .
Warren said once again on Thursday that if Bloomberg does not release women from their NDAs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his chances at the Democratic nomination .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) continued to lambaste billionaire and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg on Thursday, saying she had written a simple contract he could sign that would release dozens of women who filed sex discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits against him and his company from their nondisclosure agreements.
“I used to teach contract law,” Warren said during a CNN town hall in Nevada on Thursday, a day after she excoriated Bloomberg over the NDAs during his first appearance at a Democratic debate. “And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it ― I’ll text it ― sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories.”
Advertisement
"I used to teach contract law. And I thought I would make this easy."
Elizabeth Warren opened her #cnntownhall by reading aloud a document to release people from Michael Bloomberg's nondisclosure agreements pic.twitter.com/lDdeRRzbwJ — CNN (@CNN) February 21, 2020
Warren read the provision verbatim on-air and later released the document on Twitter, saying it would be “simple and straightforward” and merely require Bloomberg’s signature.
Mike Bloomberg can easily release the women who have accused him of sexual harassment—and who voluntarily want to speak about their experiences—from their non-disclosure agreements. Take a look at how simple and straightforward it would be: pic.twitter.com/XLncEnSXDF — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 21, 2020
Warren was one of several candidates to point to allegations of misogyny and harassment at his company during Wednesday’s debate.
Advertisement
“Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements?” Warren asked on stage. “So we can hear their side of the story?”
Bloomberg attempted to defend himself amid the attacks, saying no one had accused him of “doing anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told.” He later said both parties had signed the agreements “to keep it quiet for everybody’s interests” but declined to say if he would release anyone who wished to speak about their claims publicly.
The former New York City mayor also said during the debate he had “no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the Me Too movement has exposed.”
It’s unclear how many NDAs exist between former employees and Bloomberg, and he wouldn’t say, but 64 women have sued Bloomberg and his company for sex discrimination and sexual harassment over the past two decades. It can be difficult to get out of NDAs, and it would depend on which parties were involved in the agreements: If Bloomberg and Bloomberg LP were both signatories, each entity would have to agree to void the document, complicating matters.
Warren said once again on Thursday that if Bloomberg does not release women from their NDAs, the act would be “disqualifying” for his chances at the Democratic nomination.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Mexican National Accused Of Spying For Russia In Florida

Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes , who is a resident of Singapore , was prevented from boarding a plane from Miami International Airport to Mexico City on Sunday following a search of his and his wife ’ s cellphones by U.S. Customs and Border Protection , the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday .
The search uncovered a photo of a license plate that belonged to the government source , who had been providing information to the U.S. about the Russian Intelligence Service .
The photo had been deleted from Fuentes ’ wife ’ s phone , but not before it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WhatsApp , authorities said .
The 35-year-old allegedly confessed that he had instructed his wife , who is from Mexico , to take the photo after he was recruited by a Russian government official in 2019 .
He told U.S. authorities he was recruited after his second wife and two children were detained by Russian customs officials during a visit in March , according to a copy of the criminal complaint .
It ’ s not clear whether his two wives know about each other .
Fuentes said that after his wife and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia to see them and was approached there by an official he believed worked for the Russian government .
That individual , in a later meeting , showed him a hard-copy printout of his Gmail account from 2015 and said that he knew Fuentes had been looking for real estate in the Miami area .
Fuentes said he confirmed the authenticity of the printout and agreed that he had been looking for real estate , according to the complaint .
The two men met again in Russia in September and Fuentes said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condominium complex in Miami where the U.S. government source lived .
He was told not to rent it under his name or to let his family in Russia know about their meetings .
Fuentes agreed to this deal and in December provided $ 20,000 to an associate to rent property in the building in the associate ’ s name .
When Fuentes and the official met again in Russia in early February , the Russian official instructed him to go to the condominium complex and locate the U.S. government source ’ s vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then told to obtain the vehicle ’ s license plate number and note its physical location in the building ’ s parking lot .
He was told not to take a photo of the vehicle .
On Feb. 14 , one day after flying into the U.S. from Mexico City , authorities said Fuentes and his wife were seen tailgating another vehicle to gain access to the gated condo complex where the government source resides .
Once inside , he was confronted by a security guard who questioned his business at the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone he was visiting but the guard did not recognize the name and asked him and his wife to leave .
As this discussion was happening , Fuentes ’ wife snapped a photo of the license plate belonging to the U.S. government source ’ s parked vehicle .
Two days later , on Feb. 16 , Fuentes and his wife traveled to Miami International Airport with plans to fly to Mexico City .
He was arrested the following day .
At a court hearing on Tuesday , Fuentes said he had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of his jobs as a researcher at the National University of Singapore pays him $ 7,500 a month .
Another job with an Israeli company based in Germany pays him $ 5,000 a month , he said , according to the Miami Herald .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Mexican national arrested in Miami on Monday is accused of acting as a spy for Russia while digging up information on a confidential U.S. government source.
Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, who is a resident of Singapore, was prevented from boarding a plane from Miami International Airport to Mexico City on Sunday following a search of his and his wife’s cellphones by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday.
Advertisement
The search uncovered a photo of a license plate that belonged to the government source, who had been providing information to the U.S. about the Russian Intelligence Service. The photo had been deleted from Fuentes’ wife’s phone, but not before it was sent to Fuentes through the messaging app WhatsApp, authorities said.
Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, 35, is accused of helping dig up information on a confidential U.S. government source for the Russian government. LinkedIn
The 35-year-old allegedly confessed that he had instructed his wife, who is from Mexico, to take the photo after he was recruited by a Russian government official in 2019. He told U.S. authorities he was recruited after his second wife and two children were detained by Russian customs officials during a visit in March, according to a copy of the criminal complaint. It’s not clear whether his two wives know about each other.
Fuentes said that after his wife and children were detained, he traveled to Russia to see them and was approached there by an official he believed worked for the Russian government. That individual, in a later meeting, showed him a hard-copy printout of his Gmail account from 2015 and said that he knew Fuentes had been looking for real estate in the Miami area. Fuentes said he confirmed the authenticity of the printout and agreed that he had been looking for real estate, according to the complaint.
Advertisement
The Russian official acknowledged the situation his family was in and allegedly told Fuentes that “we can help each other.”
The two men met again in Russia in September and Fuentes said he was instructed to rent property at a condominium complex in Miami where the U.S. government source lived. He was told not to rent it under his name or to let his family in Russia know about their meetings.
Fuentes agreed to this deal and in December provided $20,000 to an associate to rent property in the building in the associate’s name. When Fuentes and the official met again in Russia in early February, the Russian official instructed him to go to the condominium complex and locate the U.S. government source’s vehicle using a description provided. He was then told to obtain the vehicle’s license plate number and note its physical location in the building’s parking lot. He was told not to take a photo of the vehicle.
On Feb. 14, one day after flying into the U.S. from Mexico City, authorities said Fuentes and his wife were seen tailgating another vehicle to gain access to the gated condo complex where the government source resides. Once inside, he was confronted by a security guard who questioned his business at the building.
Fuentes gave the guard a name of someone he was visiting but the guard did not recognize the name and asked him and his wife to leave. As this discussion was happening, Fuentes’ wife snapped a photo of the license plate belonging to the U.S. government source’s parked vehicle. Two days later, on Feb. 16, Fuentes and his wife traveled to Miami International Airport with plans to fly to Mexico City. He was arrested the following day.
Advertisement
Fuentes is charged with acting within the United States on behalf of a foreign government without notifying the attorney general, and conspiracy to do the same.
At a court hearing on Tuesday, Fuentes said he had a variety of jobs around the world. One of his jobs as a researcher at the National University of Singapore pays him $7,500 a month. Another job with an Israeli company based in Germany pays him $5,000 a month, he said, according to the Miami Herald.
A LinkedIn page for Fuentes lists him as having studied biology and biochemistry at universities in both Germany and Russia.
Fuentes was assigned a public defender after reportedly telling the judge that it would be difficult for him to acquire money to pay for his own defense attorney.
“None of my family knows I’m here,” he told the judge, according to the Herald.
A pretrial detention hearing has been set for Friday morning.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--New York Times Gets Blasted For Publishing Op-Ed From Taliban Deputy Leader

The New York Times is under fire for allowing a senior Taliban leader , Sirajuddin Haqqani , to write an unchallenged opinion piece that was published Thursday .
The title of the 1,000-word essay , which mused about peace negotiations with the U.S. , was straightforward : “ What We , the Taliban , Want.
” The Times identified Haqqani as the deputy leader of the Taliban .
The FBI describes him as someone believed to be a terrorist who planned attacks against the U.S. in Afghanistan and is wanted for questioning about an attack on a hotel in Kabul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and five others dead .
The FBI has labeled Haqqani a global terrorist and is offering up to $ 5 million for any information that leads to his arrest .
“ We did not choose our war with the foreign coalition led by the United States .
We were forced to defend ourselves , ” Haqqani wrote .
“ The withdrawal of foreign forces has been our first and foremost demand.
” Many people , including a senior Times staffer and the Afghan presidential palace , were shocked by the op-ed and criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a platform .
I am a little gobsmacked , that The New York Times has given oped space to Sirajuddin Haqqani , deputy chief of the Taliban .
I am sorry but this reflects to a major level of tone-deafness at the Times ... https : //t.co/ofVjXtpDqe — Kabir Taneja ( @ KabirTaneja ) February 20 , 2020 '' What the hell is happening in this world . ''
—Zarwan Ali , member of Pakistan Defence .
Sirajuddin Haqqani , deputy leader of the Taliban writes an OpEd that publishes in @ nytimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care .
$ 2 trillion dollars , 18yrs of war ... https : //t.co/BzE7mfqThB — Annie Jacobsen ( @ AnnieJacobsen ) February 20 , 2020 In the op-ed , Haqqani said the group would soon be signing a peace deal with the U.S. , though he noted that the Taliban was “ very far from fully trusting ” the U.S. U.S. representatives are currently negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar ; the agreement would be over a reduction in violence for seven days and could possibly lead to the U.S. withdrawing troops from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Afghans will soon celebrate this historic agreement , ” Haqqani wrote .
“ Once it is entirely fulfilled , Afghans will see the departure of all foreign troops.
” “ It is sad that the [ Times ] has given their platform to an individual who is on a designated terrorist list .
He and his network are behind ruthless attacks against Afghans and foreigners , ” the spokesman , Sediq Sediqqi , told Reuters .
A senior correspondent for The New York Times , Mujib Mashal , also challenged Haqqani ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader is not known for wanting peace , and is responsible for acts of war and many deaths .
The piece “ omits the most fundamental fact , ” Mashal tweeted .
“ That Siraj is no Taliban peace-maker as he paints himself , that he ’ s behind some of most ruthless attacks of this war with many civilian lives lost.
” The piece by Siraj Haqqani in @ nytopinion - which 's independent of our news operations & judgment - omits the most fundamental fact : that Siraj is no Taliban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he 's behind some of most ruthless attacks of this war with many civilian lives lost — Mujib Mashal ( @ MujMash ) February 20 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The New York Times is under fire for allowing a senior Taliban leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani, to write an unchallenged opinion piece that was published Thursday.
The title of the 1,000-word essay, which mused about peace negotiations with the U.S., was straightforward: “What We, the Taliban, Want.”
Advertisement
The Times identified Haqqani as the deputy leader of the Taliban. The FBI describes him as someone believed to be a terrorist who planned attacks against the U.S. in Afghanistan and is wanted for questioning about an attack on a hotel in Kabul in 2008, which left an American and five others dead.
The FBI has labeled Haqqani a global terrorist and is offering up to $5 million for any information that leads to his arrest.
The New York Times published an op-ed written by Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani. FBI
“We did not choose our war with the foreign coalition led by the United States. We were forced to defend ourselves,” Haqqani wrote. “The withdrawal of foreign forces has been our first and foremost demand.”
Advertisement
Many people, including a senior Times staffer and the Afghan presidential palace, were shocked by the op-ed and criticized the paper for giving the accused terrorist a platform.
I am a little gobsmacked, that The New York Times has given oped space to Sirajuddin Haqqani, deputy chief of the Taliban. I am sorry but this reflects to a major level of tone-deafness at the Times...https://t.co/ofVjXtpDqe — Kabir Taneja (@KabirTaneja) February 20, 2020
"What the hell is happening in this world."
—Zarwan Ali, member of Pakistan Defence.
Sirajuddin Haqqani, deputy leader of the Taliban writes an OpEd that publishes in @nytimes today and very few people notice or care.
$2 trillion dollars, 18yrs of war... https://t.co/BzE7mfqThB — Annie Jacobsen (@AnnieJacobsen) February 20, 2020
Oh boy I can’t wait to read the latest @nytimes opinion piece by...
*squints*
*rubs eyes*
*squints again*
t-the Taliban? pic.twitter.com/ykPIgBR0vL — Nick Vega (@atNickVega) February 20, 2020
The New York Times defended its decision to publish the op-ed by pointing to its team of reporters who have long reported on the war in Afghanistan for nearly two decades.
Advertisement
“We know firsthand how dangerous and destructive the Taliban is,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, the vice president of communications for the Times, told HuffPost in a statement, adding that the Times has had multiple journalists who have been kidnapped by the Taliban.
Ha continued:
But, our mission at Times Opinion is to tackle big ideas from a range of newsworthy viewpoints. We’ve actively solicited voices from all sides of the Afghanistan conflict, the government, the Taliban and from citizens. Sirajuddin Haqqani is the second in command of the Taliban at a time when its negotiators are hammering out an agreement with American officials in Doha that could result in American troops leaving Afghanistan. That makes his perspective relevant at this particular moment.
In the op-ed, Haqqani said the group would soon be signing a peace deal with the U.S., though he noted that the Taliban was “very far from fully trusting” the U.S.
U.S. representatives are currently negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar; the agreement would be over a reduction in violence for seven days and could possibly lead to the U.S. withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Reuters reported.
“My fellow Afghans will soon celebrate this historic agreement,” Haqqani wrote. “Once it is entirely fulfilled, Afghans will see the departure of all foreign troops.”
Advertisement
A spokesperson for the Afghan presidential palace described the Times’ decision to publish Haqqani’s piece as “sad.”
“It is sad that the [Times] has given their platform to an individual who is on a designated terrorist list. He and his network are behind ruthless attacks against Afghans and foreigners,” the spokesman, Sediq Sediqqi, told Reuters.
A senior correspondent for The New York Times, Mujib Mashal, also challenged Haqqani’s op-ed, saying that the Taliban leader is not known for wanting peace, and is responsible for acts of war and many deaths.
The piece “omits the most fundamental fact,” Mashal tweeted. “That Siraj is no Taliban peace-maker as he paints himself, that he’s behind some of most ruthless attacks of this war with many civilian lives lost.”
The piece by Siraj Haqqani in @nytopinion - which's independent of our news operations & judgment - omits the most fundamental fact: that Siraj is no Taliban peace-maker as he paints himself, that he's behind some of most ruthless attacks of this war with many civilian lives lost — Mujib Mashal (@MujMash) February 20, 2020
Advertisement
And to know what our @nytimes news reporting has on Siraj Haqqqani, and what the Haqqani Network is accused of over the years, just read our years and years of reporting. Some samples:https://t.co/CW0k9I7Il1https://t.co/DcTDVtro8zhttps://t.co/p1MURtNXNF https://t.co/jktbWgmHCG — Mujib Mashal (@MujMash) February 20, 2020
I know people have strong views on this. Sorry, I can't answer. But, as the bottom of the piece says, our Opinion editors appreciate hearing from, and are "committed to publishing a diversity of letters". So feel free to write to them: letters@nytimes.com. https://t.co/jktbWgmHCG — Mujib Mashal (@MujMash) February 20, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Watchdog Group Calls For Criminal Probe Into Rudy Giuliani's Ukraine Role

A watchdog group is calling for a criminal investigation into Rudy Giuliani ’ s alleged leverage of government funds to benefit the reelection of client Donald Trump .
Trump has admitted that he sent Giuliani , his personal lawyer , to Ukraine to pressure officials to investigate unfounded accusations against political rival Joe Biden .
During some of that time , Trump held up $ 390 million in military aid for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress .
Giuliani ’ s business associate Lev Parnas , who has been indicted for alleged campaign finance violations , has said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell Ukrainian officials that their nation would not receive any aid unless they announced an investigation into Biden .
“ Evidence suggests that Giuliani , who is President Trump ’ s personal attorney , manipulated federal funds — specifically aid to Ukraine — for partisan political purposes , which is prohibited ” by the Hatch Act , said a statement Thursday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
The organization filed a complaint Thursday with the Southern District of New York , which is reportedly already investigating Giuliani ’ s activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , among other things , the manipulation of federal funds and federal programs to advance a partisan agenda .
Trump was not the only person involved in the Ukraine scandal , and he 's not the only one that should face consequences for it .
Today , CREW sent SDNY a criminal complaint saying Rudy Giuliani ’ s actions in Ukraine were illegal and should be investigated.https : //t.co/zW4QQmW0Xd — Citizens for Ethics ( @ CREWcrew ) February 20 , 2020 “ Giuliani and his potential co-conspirators likely violated the Hatch Act by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations that would be politically beneficial to Giuliani ’ s client , President Trump , ” the CREW statement added .
CREW ’ s executive director , Noah Bookbinder , said that Giuliani ’ s work in Ukraine not only led to the president ’ s impeachment in the House but “ also violated our country ’ s criminal laws.
” Holding up the military aid was “ dangerous and anti-democratic , ” he said .
Officials from the Southern District could not @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A watchdog group is calling for a criminal investigation into Rudy Giuliani’s alleged leverage of government funds to benefit the reelection of client Donald Trump.
Trump has admitted that he sent Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to Ukraine to pressure officials to investigate unfounded accusations against political rival Joe Biden. During some of that time, Trump held up $390 million in military aid for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress.
Advertisement
Giuliani’s business associate Lev Parnas, who has been indicted for alleged campaign finance violations, has said that he followed Giuliani’s instructions to tell Ukrainian officials that their nation would not receive any aid unless they announced an investigation into Biden.
“Evidence suggests that Giuliani, who is President Trump’s personal attorney, manipulated federal funds — specifically aid to Ukraine — for partisan political purposes, which is prohibited” by the Hatch Act, said a statement Thursday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The organization filed a complaint Thursday with the Southern District of New York, which is reportedly already investigating Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine. The Hatch Act prohibits, among other things, the manipulation of federal funds and federal programs to advance a partisan agenda.
Trump was not the only person involved in the Ukraine scandal, and he's not the only one that should face consequences for it.
Today, CREW sent SDNY a criminal complaint saying Rudy Giuliani’s actions in Ukraine were illegal and should be investigated.https://t.co/zW4QQmW0Xd — Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) February 20, 2020
Advertisement
“Giuliani and his potential co-conspirators likely violated the Hatch Act by threatening to withhold congressionally authorized security assistance to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations that would be politically beneficial to Giuliani’s client, President Trump,” the CREW statement added.
CREW’s executive director, Noah Bookbinder, said that Giuliani’s work in Ukraine not only led to the president’s impeachment in the House but “also violated our country’s criminal laws.” Holding up the military aid was “dangerous and anti-democratic,” he said.
Officials from the Southern District could not immediately be reached for comment.


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

Stephen Colbert responded to the sentencing of President Donald Trump ’ s longtime ally Roger Stone with a quip about @ @ @ @ @ infamous tattoo .
The image of disgraced former President Richard Nixon is inked on the @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday was sentenced to 40 months after being convicted of witness tampering and lying @ @ @ @ @ Late Show ” host Colbert saw the prison time as a twofer .
“ Finally @ @ @ @ @ ” he tweeted , alongside a snap of Stone and his tattoo of Nixon , @ @ @ @ @ amid the Watergate scandal .

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


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren Lobs Another Hit Against Bloomberg's Stop-And-Frisk Apology

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
is on the warpath against presidential rival Michael Bloomberg and she ’ s not letting the fact that Wednesday ’ s Democratic debate is over hold her back .
The senator appeared on “ The View ” on Thursday and continued her criticisms of the billionaire former New York City mayor , breaking down why his November apology and Wednesday night explanation for his longtime support of the stop-and-frisk policing policy ― which was proven to overwhelmingly target Black and brown people ― were not enough .
“ I listened last night to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought it was just wholly wrong .
He talked about stop and frisk — how it was unintended that people were hurt — and completely glossed over that the program from the beginning was targeted on African Americans and Latino men , ” Warren told “ The View ” via video link from Nevada .
“ That ’ s what it was designed to do .
This wasn ’ t like an accidental , ‘ Oh my goodness , we ’ re so surprised , ’ ” she added .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all directions for the controversial policing tactic , as well as his track record of sexism and the fact that he is using his exorbitant wealth to buy influence in the election .
When blasted by Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) over his policing strategies , Bloomberg admitted that the practice got “ out of control.
” “ When I discovered that we were doing many , many , too many stop and frisks , we cut 95 % of it out , ” he said .
The use of the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2002 and 2013 during Bloomberg ’ s administration .
It peaked in 2011 , after which its use plummeted due to public outcry and a 2013 court ruling .
He continued to fiercely defend stop and frisk for many years to follow .
Warren pointed out Thursday that when protests broke out over the policy in New York City during his tenure as mayor , the calls to stop the tactic fell on deaf ears .
“ So to suddenly , years later , days before he announces that he wants to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he suddenly comes up with , ‘ Oh , I ’ m so sorry that I had a plan that inadvertently hurt people.
’ No , that is just simply not good enough , ” she said .
“ It reveals his character .
It reveals his understanding of race in America.
” “ It is clear that what Mayor Bloomberg has learned so far is that he can hire enough ads , have enough money , that he can insulate himself from any recognition of what his actions did to other human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he has not accounted for it , ” Warren concluded .
“ I ’ ll bet he ’ s reaching into his pocket right now and spending $ 100 million more on advertising to try to erase everyone ’ s memory of what happened last night .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is on the warpath against presidential rival Michael Bloomberg and she’s not letting the fact that Wednesday’s Democratic debate is over hold her back.
The senator appeared on “The View” on Thursday and continued her criticisms of the billionaire former New York City mayor, breaking down why his November apology and Wednesday night explanation for his longtime support of the stop-and-frisk policing policy ― which was proven to overwhelmingly target Black and brown people ― were not enough.
Advertisement
“I listened last night to his apology for stop and frisk and I thought it was just wholly wrong. He talked about stop and frisk — how it was unintended that people were hurt — and completely glossed over that the program from the beginning was targeted on African Americans and Latino men,” Warren told “The View” via video link from Nevada.
“That’s what it was designed to do. This wasn’t like an accidental, ‘Oh my goodness, we’re so surprised,’” she added.
Sen. @ewarren tells @TheView Mike Bloomberg's apology for his stop and frisk policy was "wholly wrong" and "simply not good enough": "It reveals his character. It reveals his understanding of race in America." https://t.co/15qOyjEdmS pic.twitter.com/Y4laJf2LRq — The View (@TheView) February 20, 2020
On the debate stage, Bloomberg sustained hits from all directions for the controversial policing tactic, as well as his track record of sexism and the fact that he is using his exorbitant wealth to buy influence in the election. When blasted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over his policing strategies, Bloomberg admitted that the practice got “out of control.”
Advertisement
“When I discovered that we were doing many, many, too many stop and frisks, we cut 95% of it out,” he said. The use of the policy grew by more than 700% between 2002 and 2013 during Bloomberg’s administration. It peaked in 2011, after which its use plummeted due to public outcry and a 2013 court ruling. He continued to fiercely defend stop and frisk for many years to follow.
Warren pointed out Thursday that when protests broke out over the policy in New York City during his tenure as mayor, the calls to stop the tactic fell on deaf ears.
“So to suddenly, years later, days before he announces that he wants to be president of the whole United States, he suddenly comes up with, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry that I had a plan that inadvertently hurt people.’ No, that is just simply not good enough,” she said. “It reveals his character. It reveals his understanding of race in America.”
The senator reminded viewers that Bloomberg’s wealth has allowed him to distract from his track record.
“It is clear that what Mayor Bloomberg has learned so far is that he can hire enough ads, have enough money, that he can insulate himself from any recognition of what his actions did to other human beings, and it was wrong, and he has not accounted for it,” Warren concluded.
Advertisement
“I’ll bet he’s reaching into his pocket right now and spending $100 million more on advertising to try to erase everyone’s memory of what happened last night.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren Backtracks On Super PAC Support

In a major reversal , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
on Thursday would not disavow support from Persist PAC , a super PAC formed this week to support her campaign , despite long insisting that she would reject money and support from such committees during her bid for the presidency .
When asked by a reporter whether she wanted Persist PAC to “ stand down , ” Warren said it wouldn ’ t be fair for her to reject its support while her opponents continue to benefit from the support of super PACs .
“ If all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PACs , count me in , I ’ ll lead the charge .
But that ’ s how it has to be , ” Warren said at a campaign event in Nevada .
“ It can ’ t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don ’ t. ” NEW : Here is video of Warren declining to disavow the new super PAC supporting her : “ If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs , count me in .
I 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it has to be .
It ca n't be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only 1 or 2 don ’ t. ” pic.twitter.com/byxQRjGMfs — Shane Goldmacher ( @ ShaneGoldmacher ) February 20 , 2020 A group of Warren supporters officially registered the Persist PAC with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday , The New York Times reported .
Shortly after , the committee purchased $ 800,000 worth of television ads to boost Warren ’ s campaign ahead of Nevada ’ s Democratic caucuses , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that her male opponents have campaigns with deep pockets , benefitting from the financial support of super PACs or their own wealth .
“ We reached the point a few weeks ago where all the men who were still in this race and on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires or could just rummage around in their sock drawers to find enough money to be able to fund a campaign , ” she said .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) took a jab at Warren for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mockingly praised himself for being the only candidate in the race that didn ’ t have “ millions of dollars ” from a super PAC .
Sanders does have the support of the National Nurses United union ’ s super PAC .
That committee has contributed nearly $ 70,000 to his campaign this year .
“ Our democracy shouldn ’ t be bought and paid for by the wealthy and powerful .
It belongs to all of us .
When we use our voices and our votes , we can make real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Warren wrote in a blog post on Medium in October .
Early in her campaign , Warren challenged her opponents to reject the support from PACs or to not self-fund their own presidential campaigns .
During the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month , Warren flagged herself and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) as the only candidates who did not accept support from wealthy PACs .
“ Everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Since day one of this campaign , she has made clear that she thinks all of the candidates should lock arms together and say we don ’ t want super PACs and billionaires to be deciding our Democratic nominee , ” the campaign said in a statement to the Times .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a major reversal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday would not disavow support from Persist PAC, a super PAC formed this week to support her campaign, despite long insisting that she would reject money and support from such committees during her bid for the presidency.
When asked by a reporter whether she wanted Persist PAC to “stand down,” Warren said it wouldn’t be fair for her to reject its support while her opponents continue to benefit from the support of super PACs.
Advertisement
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in, I’ll lead the charge. But that’s how it has to be,” Warren said at a campaign event in Nevada. “It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
As of Thursday afternoon, Warren’s campaign website explicitly stated the senator “would disavow any Super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary.”
The promise was listed alongside other vows to reject contributions from PACs and federal lobbyists.
NEW: Here is video of Warren declining to disavow the new super PAC supporting her:
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I'll lead the charge. But that's how it has to be. It can't be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only 1 or 2 don’t.” pic.twitter.com/byxQRjGMfs — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) February 20, 2020
A group of Warren supporters officially registered the Persist PAC with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, The New York Times reported. Shortly after, the committee purchased $800,000 worth of television ads to boost Warren’s campaign ahead of Nevada’s Democratic caucuses, according to the Times.
Advertisement
The Washington Post and CNN reported that Persist’s spending for TV and online ads has climbed to $1 million.
Warren told reporters on Thursday that her male opponents have campaigns with deep pockets, benefitting from the financial support of super PACs or their own wealth.
“We reached the point a few weeks ago where all the men who were still in this race and on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires or could just rummage around in their sock drawers to find enough money to be able to fund a campaign,” she said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took a jab at Warren for not speaking out against Persist on Thursday and mockingly praised himself for being the only candidate in the race that didn’t have “millions of dollars” from a super PAC.
“You can’t change a corrupt system by taking its money,” he tweeted.
He added, mocking Warren: “I am proud to be the only non-billionaire in this race without a super PAC spending millions of dollars to support me.”
Advertisement
Sanders does have the support of the National Nurses United union’s super PAC. That committee has contributed nearly $70,000 to his campaign this year.
You can't change a corrupt system by taking its money. I am proud to be the only non-billionaire in this race without a super PAC spending millions of dollars to support me. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 20, 2020
Another new super PAC, Kitchen Table Conversations Super PAC, launched Friday to support Klobuchar’s campaign, according to Open Secrets.
Since the start of her campaign, Warren criticized how Wall Street and wealthy corporations sway U.S. elections by funding campaigns.
“Our democracy shouldn’t be bought and paid for by the wealthy and powerful. It belongs to all of us. When we use our voices and our votes, we can make real change ― big, structural change,” Warren wrote in a blog post on Medium in October.
Advertisement
Early in her campaign, Warren challenged her opponents to reject the support from PACs or to not self-fund their own presidential campaigns.
During the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month, Warren flagged herself and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) as the only candidates who did not accept support from wealthy PACs.
“Everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending,” she said proudly.
On Wednesday, Warren’s campaign said the senator’s position on super PACs remained the same.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--How Super PACs Took Over The 2020 Democratic Primary

At the start of the race last spring , basically every candidate in the field swore they did not want help from super PACs , which can accept and spend unlimited sums as long as they don ’ t directly coordinate with a candidate .
The field , led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, argued super PACs were part of a corrupt campaign finance system that allowed the rich to exercise undue influence over politicians and policymaking , and that disavowing them would show voters they were serious about reform .
It marked a major break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where nonprofit groups and super PACs bankrolled by the wealthy dominated the airwaves .
“ We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to fund a campaign , ” Warren told reporters after a canvass kickoff here on Thursday morning , when she declined to ask a newly formed super PAC supporting her to stand down .
“ If all the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , count me in .
I ’ ll lead the charge .
But that ’ s how it has to be .
It can ’ t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don ’ t. ” Warren ’ s reversal is the most dramatic because her promise to reform the nation ’ s campaign finance system is at the core of her candidacy .
But it also marks the culmination of a field-wide flip-flop on outside groups spending big money .
A progressive veterans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; former Vice President Joe Biden reversed course and endorsed a super PAC in the fall ; and a constellation of progressive outside groups , including Our Revolution , which allows for unlimited anonymous donations , is backing Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) got a super PAC not long before one popped up to support Warren .
The slow-motion collapse of the field ’ s stance against super PAC has culminated just as the race is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In less than two weeks , the candidates will need to compete in 11 states on Super Tuesday , including California and Texas , two states with multiple expensive media markets .
But it has multiple causes , including the emergence of two free-spending billionaires and the lack of political penalties for candidates who embraced super PACs .
Progressive groups , led by End Citizens United , released multiple statements criticizing Inslee for embracing the group and issued an open letter calling on all the campaigns to disavow super PACs backing a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance advocates believed they had the upper hand politically , and most Democrats agreed .
Shortly before the race began , Robby Mook ― who managed Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign in 2016 ― told The New York Times that super PACs would be a “ liability as much as a strength ” for campaigns .
Of all the candidates , Warren was the most aggressive in swearing off super PACs .
From her very first campaign stop in Iowa in early January 2020 , she laid down a marker and called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PACs .
End Citizens United and other groups backed her up , and with the exception of Inslee , the candidates followed suit .
The first cracks started to appear in October , when Biden , who once said “ people can ’ t possibly trust you ” if you accept support from a big-money group , flip-flopped and blessed the creation of a super PAC backing him .
Not long after , a super PAC supporting Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) began airing ads .
One emerged to support Sen. Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she dropped out of the race in early December , the day before VoteVets , a veterans ’ group with an affiliated super PAC , announced its endorsement of Buttigieg .
In January , a coalition of progressive groups , including some that accept unlimited and anonymous donations , announced they were partnering to support Sanders .
Even entrepreneur Andrew Yang accepted a super PAC ’ s support .
None of the candidates faced real political penalties for accepting super PAC backing .
Sanders and Warren attacked Biden but did not mount a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of super PAC support for her and Klobuchar at the Feb. 7 debate in New Hampshire , her campaign message had generally moved elsewhere .
This lack of political pain , along with Bloomberg ’ s and Steyer ’ s billions in spending , left most of the candidates feeling they had no choice but to accept big money help to compete .
“ Demagoguing super PACs and suggesting essentially that support from them makes you nefarious was a misguided waste of time , especially in a primary where two billionaires were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes to win , ” said Ian Sams , a Democratic strategist who had worked for Harris ’ s campaign .
“ All Democrats want to get rid of dark money , but we have to win to reform campaign finance .
Everyone is realizing that in order to do that , we need a shit ton of money.
” End Citizens United claimed success for keeping super PACs away from the primary for as long as they did .
The group noted that outside groups backing Republicans had spent $ 193 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire primary in 2016 , compared with just $ 15 million by Democratic groups in 2020 .
The lack of outside groups also kept the campaign from becoming negative ― candidates are often reluctant to air attack ads with their own names attached .
“ We ’ re proud that a grassroots coalition of organizations and rank-and-file Democrats were able to hold back the big money for as long as we did , ” said Patrick Burgwinkle , a spokesman for the group .
“ We ’ re very disappointed that single-candidate super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic primary and believe they should shut down .
We ’ ve said from the beginning that the Democratic nominee should be chosen by the people , not big money .
“ The biggest challenge campaigns have faced in this primary is generating authentic grassroots support , and if that ’ s the question your campaign is facing , then a single-candidate super PAC is not the answer .
The reality is that Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination because he is running a grassroots campaign .
There isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the next that could spend as much as Michael Bloomberg is spending.
” “ We are proud of the campaigns both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are running , ” said Christina Reynolds , an EMILY ’ s List spokeswoman .
“ We know they would each be great presidents .
While we respect their views and agree on the need for campaign finance reform , we believe this election is too important , and we want to do what we can within the bounds of existing law to support them .
@

LOADING ERROR LOADING
LAS VEGAS ― The unified front the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates once held against super PACs has totally crumbled, with every major non-billionaire candidate remaining in the race accepting the help of an outside group that can collect donations of any size.
At the start of the race last spring, basically every candidate in the field swore they did not want help from super PACs, which can accept and spend unlimited sums as long as they don’t directly coordinate with a candidate. The field, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), argued super PACs were part of a corrupt campaign finance system that allowed the rich to exercise undue influence over politicians and policymaking, and that disavowing them would show voters they were serious about reform. It marked a major break from the crowded 2016 Republican primary, where nonprofit groups and super PACs bankrolled by the wealthy dominated the airwaves.
Advertisement
“We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to fund a campaign,” Warren told reporters after a canvass kickoff here on Thursday morning, when she declined to ask a newly formed super PAC supporting her to stand down. “If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge. But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
Warren’s reversal is the most dramatic because her promise to reform the nation’s campaign finance system is at the core of her candidacy. But it also marks the culmination of a field-wide flip-flop on outside groups spending big money. A progressive veterans’ group has already spent millions backing former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; former Vice President Joe Biden reversed course and endorsed a super PAC in the fall; and a constellation of progressive outside groups, including Our Revolution, which allows for unlimited anonymous donations, is backing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) got a super PAC not long before one popped up to support Warren.
The only candidates competing to challenge President Donald Trump not on that list are businessman Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, two billionaires who have combined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their own fortunes on running.
The slow-motion collapse of the field’s stance against super PAC has culminated just as the race is set to quickly get more expensive: In less than two weeks, the candidates will need to compete in 11 states on Super Tuesday, including California and Texas, two states with multiple expensive media markets. But it has multiple causes, including the emergence of two free-spending billionaires and the lack of political penalties for candidates who embraced super PACs.
Advertisement
“It was clear from the beginning that Democrats were going to need to use super PACs to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, and setting up an arbitrary ban on super PACs in the primary didn’t do anybody any good,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist. “The system sucks, but those are the rules.”
Leopold has a reason to dislike the ban. He worked for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who was the only candidate to embrace a super PAC at the beginning of the campaign. The group, called Act Now on Climate, raised and spent over $2 million on television ads and email gathering efforts to boost Inslee.
Progressive groups, led by End Citizens United, released multiple statements criticizing Inslee for embracing the group and issued an open letter calling on all the campaigns to disavow super PACs backing a single candidate. At the time, campaign finance advocates believed they had the upper hand politically, and most Democrats agreed. Shortly before the race began, Robby Mook ― who managed Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 ― told The New York Times that super PACs would be a “liability as much as a strength” for campaigns.
Of all the candidates, Warren was the most aggressive in swearing off super PACs. From her very first campaign stop in Iowa in early January 2020, she laid down a marker and called for all the candidates to swear off super PACs. End Citizens United and other groups backed her up, and with the exception of Inslee, the candidates followed suit.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) started her presidential campaign by declaring that no Democratic candidates should have a super PAC. David Ryder/Reuters
Advertisement
The first cracks started to appear in October, when Biden, who once said “people can’t possibly trust you” if you accept support from a big-money group, flip-flopped and blessed the creation of a super PAC backing him. Not long after, a super PAC supporting Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) began airing ads. One emerged to support Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) the same day she dropped out of the race in early December, the day before VoteVets, a veterans’ group with an affiliated super PAC, announced its endorsement of Buttigieg. In January, a coalition of progressive groups, including some that accept unlimited and anonymous donations, announced they were partnering to support Sanders. Even entrepreneur Andrew Yang accepted a super PAC’s support.
(Though candidates legally have no ability to stop a super PAC from forming or paying for supportive advertising, an outright disavowal typically makes it difficult tor an outside group to raise substantial sums.)
None of the candidates faced real political penalties for accepting super PAC backing. Sanders and Warren attacked Biden but did not mount a sustained assault. While Warren mentioned the lack of super PAC support for her and Klobuchar at the Feb. 7 debate in New Hampshire, her campaign message had generally moved elsewhere. This lack of political pain, along with Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s billions in spending, left most of the candidates feeling they had no choice but to accept big money help to compete.
And the campaigns’ collective decision to set aside the rules from the early months of the primaries has operatives who worked for candidates who ran out of cash seething.
“Demagoguing super PACs and suggesting essentially that support from them makes you nefarious was a misguided waste of time, especially in a primary where two billionaires were demonstrating an unfettered willingness to spend whatever it takes to win,” said Ian Sams, a Democratic strategist who had worked for Harris’s campaign. “All Democrats want to get rid of dark money, but we have to win to reform campaign finance. Everyone is realizing that in order to do that, we need a shit ton of money.”
Advertisement
End Citizens United claimed success for keeping super PACs away from the primary for as long as they did. The group noted that outside groups backing Republicans had spent $193 million by the day of the New Hampshire primary in 2016, compared with just $15 million by Democratic groups in 2020. The lack of outside groups also kept the campaign from becoming negative ― candidates are often reluctant to air attack ads with their own names attached.
“All Democrats want to get rid of dark money, but we have to win to reform campaign finance. Everyone is realizing that in order to do that, we need a shit ton of money.” - Ian Sams, Democratic strategist
“We’re proud that a grassroots coalition of organizations and rank-and-file Democrats were able to hold back the big money for as long as we did,” said Patrick Burgwinkle, a spokesman for the group. “We’re very disappointed that single-candidate super PACs have forced their way into this Democratic primary and believe they should shut down. We’ve said from the beginning that the Democratic nominee should be chosen by the people, not big money.
“The biggest challenge campaigns have faced in this primary is generating authentic grassroots support, and if that’s the question your campaign is facing, then a single-candidate super PAC is not the answer. The reality is that Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination because he is running a grassroots campaign. There isn’t a super PAC in this life or the next that could spend as much as Michael Bloomberg is spending.”
Both Warren’s and Klobuchar’s super PACs were seeded, in part, with money from EMILY’s List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. The group donated $250,000 to both Persist PAC, which backs Warren, and to Kitchen Table Issues PAC, which backs Klobuchar.
Advertisement
“We are proud of the campaigns both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are running,” said Christina Reynolds, an EMILY’s List spokeswoman. “We know they would each be great presidents. While we respect their views and agree on the need for campaign finance reform, we believe this election is too important, and we want to do what we can within the bounds of existing law to support them.”
Warren’s reversal was especially jarring. Her campaign had previously directly called on outside groups supporting her to shut down. Tiffany Mueller, the president of End Citizens United, called on Warren to reconsider and said accepting the PAC’s help “undermines [Warren’s] campaign.”
This is incredibly disappointing. I agreed with @ewarren when she said, "The Democratic primary should belong to grassroots supporters and grassroots donors, not the rich and powerful."
This decision undermines her campaign. I hope she reconsiders. https://t.co/0k5RKMW1z8 — Tiffany Muller (@Tiffany_Muller) February 20, 2020
Warren’s rivals pounced on her reversal. “You can’t change a corrupt system by taking its money,” Sanders tweeted. Operatives for Buttigieg, whom Warren had slammed for his in-person high-dollar fundraising, suggested the former Harvard law professor was a hypocrite. (Warren, like Sanders, is still declining to hold high-dollar fundraisers for her campaign.)
“This is the problem with issuing purity tests you yourself cannot pass. https://t.co/045j85GDqx — Lis Smith (@Lis_Smith) February 20, 2020
Advertisement
But the formation of Persist PAC is already creating benefits for her candidacy as she seeks to capitalize on a strong performance in Wednesday night’s debate: The group has booked more than $1 million worth of television ad time in Nevada and South Carolina, the next two states to vote.
As Warren tried to explain her sudden reversal on super PACs to an incredulous press corps on Thursday, she retreated to lines Democrats often deploy when Republicans question how they can support ending super PACs and dark money groups while simultaneously accepting aid from those groups to win elections. She wanted to change the system, Warren insisted, but wouldn’t unilaterally disarm in the middle of a competitive and crucial election.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Florida Lawmakers Pass Bill Requiring Parental Consent For Girls Under 18 To Have Abortion

TALLAHASSEE , Fla. ( AP ) — Girls under the age of 18 will have to get a parent ’ s permission before having an abortion under a bill passed by the Florida Legislature on Thursday that Gov .
Ron DeSantis is expected to sign .
The House voted 75-43 largely along party lines for the legislation that expands a current law that requires a girl ’ s parents are notified before she can have an abortion .
DeSantis asked lawmakers to send him the bill during his State of the State speech that kicked off the legislative session last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about is a child , and here were are talking about a child who is carrying a child , ” said Republican Rep. Erin Grall , who sponsored the bill .
“ By including parents in this decision we empower the family .
It is the critical backbone of our civilized society.
” The bill has a provision that will allow a girl to ask a judge for a waiver from the law in cases of abuse , incest or when involving a parent could cause more harm than allowing the procedure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ negotiate the legal system when they are already scared and ashamed could drive them to illegal abortions .
“ We are codifying into law that someone else can force a girl to have a child she does not want to have , ” Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes said .
“ I worry that many girls will , when deprived access to a safe termination of pregnancy , take the risks of finding an unsafe , dangerous and untested method of terminating their pregnancies.
” Democrats also said some girls might risk being thrown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they tell their parents they ’ re pregnant .
But Grall said that just because there are some bad parents , it doesn ’ t mean the rights of others to be part of the decision should be taken away .
“ We hear the stories about the bad parent , the human trafficking , the intolerant parent , the abusive parent , the parent who will kill their child .
I refuse to accept that we should diminish the rights of all parents in the raising of their children because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Republicans argued that children need a parent ’ s permission to go on a school field trip and can ’ t go to an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian , so it makes no sense to make a life-altering decision on their own .
“ We require parental consent for a minor to get a driving learner ’ s permit because it is common sense .
It is not common sense to suggest that getting a learner ’ s permit is a less significant life decision than a child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ana Maria Rodriguez said .
” A parent guiding their children through major life decisions is a good thing.
” Florida will join 26 other states in requiring that at least one parent give written permission authorizing a doctor to terminate the pregnancy of a minor .
Doctors who perform abortions without the parental consent of a girl under 18 would face up to five years in prison for a third-degree felony .
In 1979 , the Florida Legislature enacted a similar parental consent law , but it was struck down a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which ruled that a woman ’ s right to privacy extended to pregnant minors .
Bill supporters say the constitutional issue has been addressed in the current bill by including the judicial waiver and with a provision that would allow abortions in cases of medical emergencies without parental notification .
Once DeSantis signs the bill , it will become law July 1 .
It is certain to be challenged in court , but the current makeup off the state Supreme Court is overwhelmingly conservative .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Girls under the age of 18 will have to get a parent’s permission before having an abortion under a bill passed by the Florida Legislature on Thursday that Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign.
The House voted 75-43 largely along party lines for the legislation that expands a current law that requires a girl’s parents are notified before she can have an abortion. DeSantis asked lawmakers to send him the bill during his State of the State speech that kicked off the legislative session last month.
Advertisement
“What we are talking about is a child, and here were are talking about a child who is carrying a child,” said Republican Rep. Erin Grall, who sponsored the bill. “By including parents in this decision we empower the family. It is the critical backbone of our civilized society.”
The debate over the measure lasted nearly four hours.
Opponents of the SB 404, known as the "parental consent" bill, gather for a press conference at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The bill has a provision that will allow a girl to ask a judge for a waiver from the law in cases of abuse, incest or when involving a parent could cause more harm than allowing the procedure. But opponents argued that asking minors to negotiate the legal system when they are already scared and ashamed could drive them to illegal abortions.
“We are codifying into law that someone else can force a girl to have a child she does not want to have,” Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes said. “I worry that many girls will, when deprived access to a safe termination of pregnancy, take the risks of finding an unsafe, dangerous and untested method of terminating their pregnancies.”
Advertisement
She said that might include searching the internet for “mystery concoctions” in an attempt to end the pregnancy.
Democrats also said some girls might risk being thrown out of their homes or beaten if they tell their parents they’re pregnant. But Grall said that just because there are some bad parents, it doesn’t mean the rights of others to be part of the decision should be taken away.
“We hear the stories about the bad parent, the human trafficking, the intolerant parent, the abusive parent, the parent who will kill their child. I refuse to accept that we should diminish the rights of all parents in the raising of their children because of the acts of a few,” Grall said.
Republicans argued that children need a parent’s permission to go on a school field trip and can’t go to an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian, so it makes no sense to make a life-altering decision on their own.
“We require parental consent for a minor to get a driving learner’s permit because it is common sense. It is not common sense to suggest that getting a learner’s permit is a less significant life decision than a child getting an abortion,” Republican Rep. Ana Maria Rodriguez said. ”A parent guiding their children through major life decisions is a good thing.”
Advertisement
Florida will join 26 other states in requiring that at least one parent give written permission authorizing a doctor to terminate the pregnancy of a minor. Doctors who perform abortions without the parental consent of a girl under 18 would face up to five years in prison for a third-degree felony.
In 1979, the Florida Legislature enacted a similar parental consent law, but it was struck down a decade later by the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled that a woman’s right to privacy extended to pregnant minors. Bill supporters say the constitutional issue has been addressed in the current bill by including the judicial waiver and with a provision that would allow abortions in cases of medical emergencies without parental notification.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--California Formally Apologizes To Japanese Americans For WWII Incarceration

The apology comes almost 78 years to the day after Roosevelt signed Executive Order No .
9066 on Feb. 19 , 1942 , authorizing the relocation of 120,000 people living primarily on the West Coast ― many of whom were American citizens ― over fears they would help Japan in the war .
Per a resolution passed Thursday , the assembly “ apologizes to all Americans of Japanese ancestry for its past actions in support of the unjust exclusion , removal , and incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II , and for its failure to support and defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japanese Americans during this period.
” The resolution , HR-77 , was introduced by state Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi ( D ) , who told the Japanese American Citizens League that he wanted to “ lead by example ” with a bigger gesture than previous years ’ efforts , which simply marked a day of remembrance .
Muratsuchi argued that this year ’ s resolution was all the more important in light of the Trump administration ’ s extreme efforts to limit immigration .
During World War II , entire Japanese American families were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one of 10 camps where barebones structures were ringed by barbed wire and armed guards .
Some people died in the dusty , isolated camps due to inadequate medical care , while several others were killed by guards .
The resolution details a number of civil rights abuses in the years surrounding the war , including in the cases of Fred Korematsu , Min Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi ― three Japanese Americans who were punished for breaking the rules of exclusion .
The men appealed to the Supreme Court , which upheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the resolution states , evidence that officials from the Department of War and the Department of Justice “ altered , destroyed , and withheld information that testified to the loyalty ” of Japanese Americans emerged around four decades later .
( The convictions of the Korematsu plaintiffs were then overturned , and two years ago the Supreme Court described its 1944 decision as “ gravely wrong.
” ) Overall , the resolution states that the incarceration camps inflicted “ a great human cost of abandoned homes , businesses , farms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family life , and public humiliation ” on those made to live and work there .
The federal government has made several other efforts to atone for this blemish on American history .
President Gerald Ford issued a formal apology of his own in 1976 , saying the camps were a “ setback to fundamental American principles.
” Four years later , Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians , which concluded that the camps were not a “ military necessity ” but rather driven by “ racial prejudice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political leadership.
” In 1988 , Congress approved reparation payments of $ 20,000 for each living survivor , which came with a signed apology from President Ronald Reagan on behalf of the country and the American people .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The California state Assembly has formally apologized for backing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order forcing thousands of Japanese Americans in prison camps during World War II.
The apology comes almost 78 years to the day after Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 9066 on Feb. 19, 1942, authorizing the relocation of 120,000 people living primarily on the West Coast ― many of whom were American citizens ― over fears they would help Japan in the war.
Advertisement
Per a resolution passed Thursday, the assembly “apologizes to all Americans of Japanese ancestry for its past actions in support of the unjust exclusion, removal, and incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, and for its failure to support and defend the civil rights and civil liberties of Japanese Americans during this period.”
The resolution, HR-77, was introduced by state Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D), who told the Japanese American Citizens League that he wanted to “lead by example” with a bigger gesture than previous years’ efforts, which simply marked a day of remembrance.
Muratsuchi argued that this year’s resolution was all the more important in light of the Trump administration’s extreme efforts to limit immigration.
During World War II, entire Japanese American families were forced to abandon their homes to live in one of 10 camps where barebones structures were ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. Some people died in the dusty, isolated camps due to inadequate medical care, while several others were killed by guards.
Advertisement
Proud to report that #HR77, which calls for a direct apology by the #CAleg for its past actions contributing to the Incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, passed the Assembly. — Asm. Al Muratsuchi (@AsmMuratsuchi) February 20, 2020
The resolution details a number of civil rights abuses in the years surrounding the war, including in the cases of Fred Korematsu, Min Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi ― three Japanese Americans who were punished for breaking the rules of exclusion. The men appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld their convictions in Korematsu v. United States. As the resolution states, evidence that officials from the Department of War and the Department of Justice “altered, destroyed, and withheld information that testified to the loyalty” of Japanese Americans emerged around four decades later. (The convictions of the Korematsu plaintiffs were then overturned, and two years ago the Supreme Court described its 1944 decision as “gravely wrong.”)
Overall, the resolution states that the incarceration camps inflicted “a great human cost of abandoned homes, businesses, farms, careers, professional advancements, disruption to family life, and public humiliation” on those made to live and work there.
The federal government has made several other efforts to atone for this blemish on American history.
President Gerald Ford issued a formal apology of his own in 1976, saying the camps were a “setback to fundamental American principles.”
Four years later, Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which concluded that the camps were not a “military necessity” but rather driven by “racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Bloomberg In 2011: New York City Has ‘Virtually No Racial Problems’

Billionaire and then New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed in 2011 that the city had “ virtually no discrimination ” and “ virtually no racial problems.
” That year , police stops of Black and Latinx people reached their peak under the stop-and-frisk policy he supported .
“ I can ’ t tell you that everybody ’ s friendly with everybody else .
But you see virtually no discrimination based on ethnicity , ” Bloomberg said in November 2011 at the annual conference of Club de Madrid , a nonprofit group of former heads of state .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , ” Bloomberg , who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination , added in a video of the speech posted on YouTube in 2012 .
Bloomberg , who served three terms as mayor from 2002 to 2013 , was a vocal backer of stop-and-frisk , which allowed police officers to stop , question and search people whom the officers deemed suspicious .
Police disproportionately targeted Black and Latinx people with this power .
In 2011 , stops by New York City police hit their highest number , with nearly 700,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those stopped were either Black ( 53 % ) or Latinx ( 34 % ) , per data from the New York Civil Liberties Union .
Just a month before the mayor ’ s November 2011 remarks , The New York Times reported on a protest in Harlem led by professor and activist Cornel West against the police department ’ s stop-and-frisk policy .
There was also a march by more than 400 protesters over the Brooklyn Bridge , including then city councilman Jumaane Williams .
After years of defending stop-and-frisk , Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earlier this month , he claimed that he ’ d “ inherited ” stop-and-frisk — though police stops increased sevenfold in his time as mayor .
Bloomberg ’ s 2020 Democratic presidential rivals went after him fiercely in Wednesday ’ s debate , with Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
calling stop-and-frisk a “ racist ” policy and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) saying it targeted people of color “ in an outrageous way.
” When he stated there was “ virtually no discrimination ” in New York in 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other evidence to the contrary , a ruling by a federal judge just a month before in a lawsuit alleging discrimination by the New York Fire Department against Black and Hispanic applicants .
In his ruling , the judge said he had “ little hope ” that Bloomberg “ has any intention of stepping up to the task of ending discrimination ” within the fire department .
In his decision , the judge also wrote : “ Instead of facing hard facts and asking hard questions about the city ’ s abysmal track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Bloomberg administration dug in and fought back.
” “ [ U ] nlike other diverse cities , New York lives as a mixture , rather than as a mosaic , ” the mayor said .
“ In other cities , you ’ ll have neighborhoods where a particular ethnic or economic group would live .
In New York City , there ’ s very little of that .
Every block will have multiple ethnicities … economic levels.
” In fact , among the 50 U.S. metro areas with the largest Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ segregated metro area for Black and white residents , according to a March 2011 study by a Brown University researcher analyzing 2010 census data .
New York state also had the most segregated public schools in the nation at the time and New York City schools were among the most segregated in the state , per a 2014 report from the University of California at Los Angeles , which looked at data through the 2010-2011 school year .
New York City ’ s public schools are still among the most segregated in the @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Billionaire and then New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed in 2011 that the city had “virtually no discrimination” and “virtually no racial problems.” That year, police stops of Black and Latinx people reached their peak under the stop-and-frisk policy he supported.
“I can’t tell you that everybody’s friendly with everybody else. But you see virtually no discrimination based on ethnicity,” Bloomberg said in November 2011 at the annual conference of Club de Madrid, a nonprofit group of former heads of state.
Advertisement
“You have virtually no racial problems or tensions here,” Bloomberg, who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, added in a video of the speech posted on YouTube in 2012.
Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor from 2002 to 2013, was a vocal backer of stop-and-frisk, which allowed police officers to stop, question and search people whom the officers deemed suspicious. Police disproportionately targeted Black and Latinx people with this power.
In 2011, stops by New York City police hit their highest number, with nearly 700,000 people stopped ― and 87% of those stopped were either Black (53%) or Latinx (34%), per data from the New York Civil Liberties Union.
Bloomberg’s team did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Just a month before the mayor’s November 2011 remarks, The New York Times reported on a protest in Harlem led by professor and activist Cornel West against the police department’s stop-and-frisk policy. There was also a march by more than 400 protesters over the Brooklyn Bridge, including then city councilman Jumaane Williams.
Advertisement
After years of defending stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg apologized late last year for the policy. Earlier this month, he claimed that he’d “inherited” stop-and-frisk — though police stops increased sevenfold in his time as mayor.
Sen. Bernie Sanders gestures at former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as Sen. Elizabeth Warren listens during the Democratic presidential primary debate in Las Vegas on Feb. 19, 2020. Mario Tama via Getty Images
When he stated there was “virtually no discrimination” in New York in 2011, Bloomberg had apparently forgotten, among other evidence to the contrary, a ruling by a federal judge just a month before in a lawsuit alleging discrimination by the New York Fire Department against Black and Hispanic applicants. In his ruling, the judge said he had “little hope” that Bloomberg “has any intention of stepping up to the task of ending discrimination” within the fire department.
In his decision, the judge also wrote: “Instead of facing hard facts and asking hard questions about the city’s abysmal track record of hiring black and Hispanic firefighters, the Bloomberg administration dug in and fought back.”
Advertisement
In his 2011 speech, Bloomberg also touted the diversity of New York residents.
“[U]nlike other diverse cities, New York lives as a mixture, rather than as a mosaic,” the mayor said. “In other cities, you’ll have neighborhoods where a particular ethnic or economic group would live. In New York City, there’s very little of that. Every block will have multiple ethnicities … economic levels.”
In fact, among the 50 U.S. metro areas with the largest Black populations, New York was the third-most segregated metro area for Black and white residents, according to a March 2011 study by a Brown University researcher analyzing 2010 census data.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--'All You Fascists Bound To Lose': Ex-Ethics Boss Walter Shaub Inspires Twitter Fans With Woody Guthr

'All You Fascists Bound To Lose': Ex-Ethics Boss Walter Shaub Inspires Twitter Fans With Woody Guthrie Song

Walter Shaub , the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics , rages against the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law on a daily basis .
But he also knows when people @ @ @ @ @ and find something nourishing for the soul .
On Thursday , Shaub asked his followers @ @ @ @ @ protect America and what keeps them from getting discouraged .
“ Democracy can be saved @ @ @ @ @ “ And you will do it.
” He also has his own ideas for those @ @ @ @ @ some suggestions for folks feeling overwhelmed by the assault on democracy .
First , take @ @ @ @ @ defense of democracy .
Make a very small donation , even just a dollar , @ @ @ @ @ to volunteer for one hour , go learn how to register voters .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ waltshaub ) February 20 , 2020 One tip included enjoying an old tune by @ @ @ @ @ out here and in the video above :

Walter Shaub, the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, rages against the Trump administration’s assault on ethics and the rule of law on a daily basis. But he also knows when people need to take a break and find something nourishing for the soul.
Advertisement
On Thursday, Shaub asked his followers what they were doing to protect America and what keeps them from getting discouraged.
“Democracy can be saved,” he tweeted. “And you will do it.”
He also has his own ideas for those feeling overwhelmed:
I have some suggestions for folks feeling overwhelmed by the assault on democracy.
First, take action. Any action in defense of democracy. Make a very small donation, even just a dollar, to something; sign up to volunteer for one hour, go learn how to register voters . . .
/1 — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 20, 2020
One tip included enjoying an old tune by Woody Guthrie. Check it out here and in the video above:
G'night. Fight for democracy again tomorrow.https://t.co/FjhRAvZLxG — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 21, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Ex-Goldman Sachs CEO: 'I Might Find It Harder To Vote For Bernie Than For Trump'

Former Goldman Sachs CEO and billionaire Lloyd Blankfein suggested he might vote for President Donald Trump over Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) if the latter became the Democratic presidential nominee .
“ I think I might find it harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump , ” he told the Financial Times in an interview published Friday .
“ There ’ s a long time between now and then .
The Democrats would be working very hard to find someone who is as divisive as Trump .
But with Bernie , they would have succeeded.
” He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a second Trump term after his Senate acquittal , calling them “ shrill.
” “ Look , I am a Democrat , but they said those things in a shrill way to raise the stakes on the outcome , ” Blankfein said .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s unreasonable or cynical for a legislator to have said that what Trump did was wrong and showed bad character , but it was not at a level where we ’ re going to overturn an election nine months before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed concerns about Sanders and fellow presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, whose progressive policies , such as a wealth tax on the ultra-rich , would negatively affect them .
Billionaires Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are also in the running for the nomination , and have tried to portray themselves as alternatives to Warren and Sanders .
“ I don ’ t like that at all , ” Blankfein said in the interview , in reference to being described as a billionaire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by categorization .
I think it ’ s un-American .
I find that destructive and intemperate .
I find that just as subversive of the American character as someone like Trump who denigrates groups of people who he has never met .
At least Trump cares about the economy.
” Blankfein , who has long had beef with Sanders , tried to launch a Twitter feud with the Vermont senator in July .
Sanders had touted Blankfein and other corporate executives as his “ anti-endorsements.
” Actually , my concern has to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem getting bailed out by working Americans , while you 've been picking on them by advocating for cutting Medicare , Medicaid and Social Security .
https : //t.co/m7KN9ul7EP — Bernie Sanders ( @ BernieSanders ) July 12 , 2019

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Goldman Sachs CEO and billionaire Lloyd Blankfein suggested he might vote for President Donald Trump over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) if the latter became the Democratic presidential nominee.
“I think I might find it harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump,” he told the Financial Times in an interview published Friday. “There’s a long time between now and then. The Democrats would be working very hard to find someone who is as divisive as Trump. But with Bernie, they would have succeeded.”
Advertisement
He also criticized Democrats issuing warnings about the consequences of a second Trump term after his Senate acquittal, calling them “shrill.”
“Look, I am a Democrat, but they said those things in a shrill way to raise the stakes on the outcome,” Blankfein said. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable or cynical for a legislator to have said that what Trump did was wrong and showed bad character, but it was not at a level where we’re going to overturn an election nine months before the next one.”
Billionaires Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are also in the running for the nomination, and have tried to portray themselves as alternatives to Warren and Sanders.
Advertisement
“I don’t like that at all,” Blankfein said in the interview, in reference to being described as a billionaire. “I don’t like assassination by categorization. I think it’s un-American. I find that destructive and intemperate. I find that just as subversive of the American character as someone like Trump who denigrates groups of people who he has never met. At least Trump cares about the economy.”
Blankfein, who has long had beef with Sanders, tried to launch a Twitter feud with the Vermont senator in July. Sanders had touted Blankfein and other corporate executives as his “anti-endorsements.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Trump Gives Defense Department Power To Abolish Bargaining For Civilian Unions

President Donald Trump has officially granted the Department of Defense the legal authority to abolish the collective bargaining rights of its civilian labor unions representing some 750,000 workers .
Gutting the unions would provide “ maximum flexibility , ” Trump wrote in a memo published Thursday in the Federal Register , which was first reported by Government Executive .
Trump signed the memo three weeks ago , invoking “ national security ” to justify granting the Defense Department an exemption from the law giving all federal workers the right to unionize .
“ When new missions emerge or existing ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maximum flexibility to respond to threats to carry out its mission of protecting the American people , ” Trump wrote in the memo .
“ Where collective bargaining is incompatible with these organizations ’ missions , the Department of Defense should not be forced to sacrifice its national security mission.
” The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act contains a provision that allows a president to exclude agencies from engaging in collective bargaining with workers via written order in some circumstances , including “ an emergency situation.
” Trump ’ s assault on unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supporting voters that he is a champion of the working class .
A 2017 White House memo encouraged “ eliminating employee unions ” as part of a wide-ranging effort to weaken organized labor .
Trump ’ s budget for fiscal 2021 would require federal workers to pay more for a cut in retirement benefits .
“ Denying ... Defense Department workers the collective bargaining rights guaranteed to them by law since 1962 would be a travesty — and doing it under the guise of ‘ national security ’ would be a disgrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American Federation of Government Employees , said at a legislative conference earlier this month , according to The Washington Post .
“ This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers ’ rights to form and join a union — and we will not stop doing everything we can to prevent that from happening .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump has officially granted the Department of Defense the legal authority to abolish the collective bargaining rights of its civilian labor unions representing some 750,000 workers.
Gutting the unions would provide “maximum flexibility,” Trump wrote in a memo published Thursday in the Federal Register, which was first reported by Government Executive.
Advertisement
Trump signed the memo three weeks ago, invoking “national security” to justify granting the Defense Department an exemption from the law giving all federal workers the right to unionize.
“When new missions emerge or existing ones evolve, the Department of Defense requires maximum flexibility to respond to threats to carry out its mission of protecting the American people,” Trump wrote in the memo. “Where collective bargaining is incompatible with these organizations’ missions, the Department of Defense should not be forced to sacrifice its national security mission.”
The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act contains a provision that allows a president to exclude agencies from engaging in collective bargaining with workers via written order in some circumstances, including “an emergency situation.”
Trump’s assault on unions contradicts his frequent claims to his base of supporting voters that he is a champion of the working class. A 2017 White House memo encouraged “eliminating employee unions” as part of a wide-ranging effort to weaken organized labor. Trump’s budget for fiscal 2021 would require federal workers to pay more for a cut in retirement benefits.
Advertisement
It’s not yet clear what Defense Secretary Mark Esper will do.
Labor leaders, workers and politicians have railed against the declaration.