thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Geraldo Rivera Wants To Soothe Trump's Feelings By Naming Vaccine After Him

Geraldo Rivera definitely has his priorities ― and apparently the big one is soothing Donald Trump ’ s hurt feelings .
Americans are dealing with Trump possibly forcing the country into a constitutional crisis , but Rivera seems more concerned with helping the president out of the funk that appears to have started after it became obvious that he wasn ’ t releected .
So earlier this week , Rivera floated a trial balloon on Twitter suggesting Americans honor Trump by referring to the first COVID-19 vaccine that makes it to market as “ the Trump.
” If you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want everyone to work together to make the next administration a success , why not start with this suggestion : call the first vaccine to market , the Trump .
# TrumpVaccine https : //t.co/Omqvcj9xwA — Geraldo Rivera ( @ GeraldoRivera ) November 17 , 2020 Rivera thinks naming the vaccine after Trump would heal a divided nation whose division was exacerbated by the president .
Trump would probably go along with it : He ’ s already taking credit for the rapid development of multiple vaccines while ignoring the deaths or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rivera tried to pitch the idea to “ Fox & Friends ” on Friday morning .
“ It would be a nice gesture to him , and years from now it would become kind of a generic name .
Have you got your Trump yet ?
I got my Trump ; I ’ m fine .
I wish we could honor him in that way.
” To soften the blow of defeat Fox 's Geraldo proposes naming the vaccine after Trump .
`` It would be a nice gesture to him and years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a generic name .
Have you got your trump yet , I got my trump , I 'm fine .
I wished we could honor him in that way . ''
pic.twitter.com/fM8qwFhxF6 — Josh Marshall ( @ joshtpm ) November 20 , 2020 But many Twitter users shot down the idea of naming the vaccine after the president .
Some were against it for reasons of hypocrisy , since the Pfizer vaccine was developed in part by Muslim immigrants .
If Trump had had his way , the Muslim immigrants who developed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 .
— Melissa Hillman ( @ bittergertrude ) November 17 , 2020 Others thought Trump was more of a virus than a cure .
More fitting to name the virus after him .
“ More than a quarter of a million Americans died of the Trump-19 virus before we were able to get rid of him ” — I hope this tweet finds you well ( @ Stefaniya ) November 20 , 2020 .
@ GeraldoRivera says we should name vaccine `` The Trump '' to make him feel better about leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So he knows that Trump is enough of a baby that this would make him feel better .
I was led to believe that facts do n't care about your feelings .
# Snowflake — Cenk Uygur ( @ cenkuygur ) November 20 , 2020 Some people sensed branding issues should Rivera ’ s suggestion actually be adopted .
Geraldo Rivera suggests naming a COVID-19 vaccine `` The Trump . ''
Which is weird because the vaccine is something people actually WANT inside them .
With consent .
pic.twitter.com/ZXZEmSPjmF — Jarrett Bellini ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One guy had a solution that he thought would please everyone : Naming it the “ Trump Virus Vaccine.
” I think Geraldo Rivera is right , in America we have to name the vaccine after Trump .
It will be the Trump-Virus Vaccine .
We could n't have gotten here without him .
He made it happen .
( @ geraldortivera blocked me , the courageous man . )
https : //t.co/3PMSclmXlI # TrumpVirus — John Pavlovitz ( @ johnpavlovitz ) November 20 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Geraldo Rivera definitely has his priorities ― and apparently the big one is soothing Donald Trump’s hurt feelings.
Advertisement
Americans are dealing with Trump possibly forcing the country into a constitutional crisis, but Rivera seems more concerned with helping the president out of the funk that appears to have started after it became obvious that he wasn’t releected.
So earlier this week, Rivera floated a trial balloon on Twitter suggesting Americans honor Trump by referring to the first COVID-19 vaccine that makes it to market as “the Trump.”
If you are really interested in conciliation, and sincerely want everyone to work together to make the next administration a success, why not start with this suggestion: call the first vaccine to market, the Trump. #TrumpVaccine https://t.co/Omqvcj9xwA — Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) November 17, 2020
Rivera thinks naming the vaccine after Trump would heal a divided nation whose division was exacerbated by the president.
Advertisement
Trump would probably go along with it: He’s already taking credit for the rapid development of multiple vaccines while ignoring the deaths or more than 250,000 Americans from the pandemic.
Rivera tried to pitch the idea to “Fox & Friends” on Friday morning.
“It would be a nice gesture to him, and years from now it would become kind of a generic name. Have you got your Trump yet? I got my Trump; I’m fine. I wish we could honor him in that way.”
To soften the blow of defeat Fox's Geraldo proposes naming the vaccine after Trump. "It would be a nice gesture to him and years from now it would become kind of a generic name. Have you got your trump yet, I got my trump, I'm fine. I wished we could honor him in that way." pic.twitter.com/fM8qwFhxF6 — Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 20, 2020
But many Twitter users shot down the idea of naming the vaccine after the president.
Good luck with that mustachioed man. — Black Francis (@MrBlackFrancis) November 17, 2020
Some were against it for reasons of hypocrisy, since the Pfizer vaccine was developed in part by Muslim immigrants.
Advertisement
If Trump had had his way, the Muslim immigrants who developed the Pfizer vaccine would have been deported in 2017. — Melissa Hillman (@bittergertrude) November 17, 2020
Others thought Trump was more of a virus than a cure.
More fitting to name the virus after him. “More than a quarter of a million Americans died of the Trump-19 virus before we were able to get rid of him” — I hope this tweet finds you well (@Stefaniya) November 20, 2020
.@GeraldoRivera says we should name vaccine "The Trump" to make him feel better about leaving office. They're close friends. So he knows that Trump is enough of a baby that this would make him feel better. I was led to believe that facts don't care about your feelings. #Snowflake — Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) November 20, 2020
Some people sensed branding issues should Rivera’s suggestion actually be adopted.
but you, uh, want people to take it right — Jodi Beggs (@jodiecongirl) November 20, 2020
Geraldo Rivera suggests naming a COVID-19 vaccine "The Trump." Which is weird because the vaccine is something people actually WANT inside them. With consent. pic.twitter.com/ZXZEmSPjmF — Jarrett Bellini (@JarrettBellini) November 20, 2020
Advertisement
One guy had a solution that he thought would please everyone: Naming it the “Trump Virus Vaccine.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--New Study Shows When You're The Most Infectious With COVID-19

People with COVID-19 are most likely to be highly infectious in the first five days after they develop symptoms , a new study confirms , highlighting the need for abrupt isolation .
The research , published in the Lancet journal , also suggests asymptomatic individuals may clear the virus faster from their body , and might be infectious for a shorter amount of time .
The researchers compared their findings on COVID-19 to two other strains of coronavirus , to better understand why COVID-19 has spread so rapidly .
They found that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper respiratory tract early in the disease course , between the onset of symptoms and day five .
This is significant , because virus in the upper respiratory tract is thought to be the main source of transmission .
In comparison , the viral load for two other strains of coronavirus ( SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV ) peak later ― at 10-14 days and 7-10 days respectively ― providing more time to recognize symptoms and quarantine .
“ Our findings are in line with contact tracing studies which suggest the majority of viral transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the first five days after symptom onset , indicating the importance of self-isolation immediately after symptoms start , ” lead study author Muge Cevik said .
“ We also need to raise public awareness about the range of symptoms linked with the disease , including mild symptoms that may occur earlier on in the course of the infection than those that are more prominent like cough or fever.
” Although viral loads appear to be largely similar between those people with and without symptoms , the research did indicate that asymptomatic individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies faster .
“ Several studies have found that individuals with asymptomatic infection may clear the virus faster , suggesting that those without symptoms may be as infectious as those with symptoms at the beginning of infection , but may be infectious for a shorter period , ” Cevik said .
However , more research on the shedding of infectious virus in asymptomatic people would be needed before any policy change on quarantine duration could be considered , he added .
The authors also noted that many of the study participants were people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so they may have received treatments that impacted the course of their infection .
“ Therefore , our findings may not apply to people with milder infection , although these results suggest those with milder cases may clear the virus faster from their body , ” said Antonia Ho , a clinical senior lecturer and consultant in infectious diseases at the Glasgow Centre for Virus Research .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
People with COVID-19 are most likely to be highly infectious in the first five days after they develop symptoms, a new study confirms, highlighting the need for abrupt isolation.
The research, published in the Lancet journal, also suggests asymptomatic individuals may clear the virus faster from their body, and might be infectious for a shorter amount of time.
Advertisement
In the first systematic review of its kind, researchers analyzed data from 98 previous studies on coronavirus infection transmissions.
They looked at three key factors in the studies:
Viral load (the amount of the virus detected in the body through the different stages of infection)
Viral RNA shedding (the length of time someone sheds viral genetic material)
Isolation of live virus (where the live virus is isolated and tested to see if it can successfully replicate in the laboratory).
The researchers compared their findings on COVID-19 to two other strains of coronavirus, to better understand why COVID-19 has spread so rapidly.
They found that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) peaks in the upper respiratory tract early in the disease course, between the onset of symptoms and day five.
Advertisement
This is significant, because virus in the upper respiratory tract is thought to be the main source of transmission. In comparison, the viral load for two other strains of coronavirus (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) peak later ― at 10-14 days and 7-10 days respectively ― providing more time to recognize symptoms and quarantine.
“Our findings are in line with contact tracing studies which suggest the majority of viral transmission events occur very early, and especially within the first five days after symptom onset, indicating the importance of self-isolation immediately after symptoms start,” lead study author Muge Cevik said.
“We also need to raise public awareness about the range of symptoms linked with the disease, including mild symptoms that may occur earlier on in the course of the infection than those that are more prominent like cough or fever.”
The World Health Organization lists the following possible symptoms of COVID-19:
Most common symptoms:
Fever
Dry cough
Tiredness
Serious symptoms:
Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
Chest pain or pressure
Loss of speech or movement
Advertisement
Although viral loads appear to be largely similar between those people with and without symptoms, the research did indicate that asymptomatic individuals might clear the viral material from their bodies faster.
“Several studies have found that individuals with asymptomatic infection may clear the virus faster, suggesting that those without symptoms may be as infectious as those with symptoms at the beginning of infection, but may be infectious for a shorter period,” Cevik said.
However, more research on the shedding of infectious virus in asymptomatic people would be needed before any policy change on quarantine duration could be considered, he added.
The authors also noted that many of the study participants were people who’d been hospitalized with COVID, so they may have received treatments that impacted the course of their infection.
“Therefore, our findings may not apply to people with milder infection, although these results suggest those with milder cases may clear the virus faster from their body,” said Antonia Ho, a clinical senior lecturer and consultant in infectious diseases at the Glasgow Centre for Virus Research.
Advertisement
“Further studies on viral shedding in this context are needed.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Mnuchin Denies Trying To Hinder Incoming Biden Administration

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin denied that he is attempting to limit the choices President-elect Joe Biden will have to promote an economic recovery by ending several emergency loan programs being run by the Federal Reserve .
Mnuchin said his decision was based on the fact that the programs were not being heavily utilized .
He said Friday that Congress could make better use of the money by re-allocating it in another direction to support grants to small businesses and extended unemployment assistance .
“ We ’ re not trying to hinder anything , ” Mnuchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t need this money to buy corporate bonds .
We need this money to go help small businesses that are still closed.
” However , critics saw politics at play in Mnuchin ’ s decision , saying the action would deprive the incoming administration of critical support the Fed might need to prop up the economy as coronavirus infections spike nationwide .
“ There can be no doubt , the Trump administration and their congressional toadies are actively trying to tank the U.S economy , ” Sen. Sherrod Brown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday .
“ For months , they have refused to take the steps necessary to support workers , small businesses and restaurants .
As the result , the only tool at our disposal has been these facilities.
” Mnuchin on Thursday had written Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announcing his decision not to extend some of the Fed ’ s emergency loan programs , which had been operating with support from the Treasury Department .
The decision will end the Fed ’ s corporate credit , municipal lending , and Main Street Lending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision drew a rare rebuke from the Fed , which said in a brief statement Thursday that the central bank “ would prefer that the full suite of emergency facilities established during the coronavirus pandemic continue to serve their important role as a backstop for our still-strained and vulnerable economy.
” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also criticized the move .
“ A surprise termination of the Federal Reserve ’ s emergency liquidity program , including the Main Street Lending Program , prematurely and unnecessarily ties the hands of the incoming administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for businesses at a time when they need them most , ” said Neil Bradley , the chamber ’ s executive vice president , in a prepared statement .
“ While the backstop measure have been little used so far , the deteriorating health and economic backdrop could shine a bright light on the Fed ’ s diminished recession-fighting arsenal and prompt an adverse market reaction , ” said Gregory Daco , chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics .
He said this would allow Congress to re-appropriate $ 455 billion to other coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlocked for months on approval of another round of coronavirus support measures .
“ When the right time comes , and I don ’ t think that time is yet , or very soon , we ’ ll put those tools away , ” he said in an online discussion with a San Francisco business group .
The future of the Main Street and Municipal Lending programs has taken on greater importance with President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory .
Many progressive economists have argued that a Democratic-led Treasury could support the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans to small and mid-sized businesses and cash-strapped cities under these programs .
That would provide at least one avenue for the Biden administration to provide stimulus without going through Congress .
Neither program has lived up to its potential so far , with the Municipal Lending program making just one loan , while the Main Street program has made loans totaling around $ 4 billion , to about 400 companies .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin denied that he is attempting to limit the choices President-elect Joe Biden will have to promote an economic recovery by ending several emergency loan programs being run by the Federal Reserve.
Mnuchin said his decision was based on the fact that the programs were not being heavily utilized. He said Friday that Congress could make better use of the money by re-allocating it in another direction to support grants to small businesses and extended unemployment assistance.
Advertisement
“We’re not trying to hinder anything,” Mnuchin said in a CNBC interview. “We don’t need this money to buy corporate bonds. We need this money to go help small businesses that are still closed.”
However, critics saw politics at play in Mnuchin’s decision, saying the action would deprive the incoming administration of critical support the Fed might need to prop up the economy as coronavirus infections spike nationwide.
“There can be no doubt, the Trump administration and their congressional toadies are actively trying to tank the U.S economy,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said in a prepared statement Friday. “For months, they have refused to take the steps necessary to support workers, small businesses and restaurants. As the result, the only tool at our disposal has been these facilities.”
Mnuchin on Thursday had written Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announcing his decision not to extend some of the Fed’s emergency loan programs, which had been operating with support from the Treasury Department. The decision will end the Fed’s corporate credit, municipal lending, and Main Street Lending programs as of Dec. 31.
Advertisement
The decision drew a rare rebuke from the Fed, which said in a brief statement Thursday that the central bank “would prefer that the full suite of emergency facilities established during the coronavirus pandemic continue to serve their important role as a backstop for our still-strained and vulnerable economy.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also criticized the move. “A surprise termination of the Federal Reserve’s emergency liquidity program, including the Main Street Lending Program, prematurely and unnecessarily ties the hands of the incoming administration and closes the door on important liquidity options for businesses at a time when they need them most,” said Neil Bradley, the chamber’s executive vice president, in a prepared statement.
Private economists argued that Mnuchin’s decision to end five of the emergency loan facilities represents an economic risk.
“While the backstop measure have been little used so far, the deteriorating health and economic backdrop could shine a bright light on the Fed’s diminished recession-fighting arsenal and prompt an adverse market reaction,” said Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
Under law, the loan facilities required the support of the Treasury Department, which serves as a backstop for the initial losses the programs might incur.
Advertisement
In his letter to Powell, Mnuchin said that he is requesting that the Fed return to Treasury the unused funds appropriated by Congress.
He said this would allow Congress to re-appropriate $455 billion to other coronavirus programs. Republicans and Democrats have been deadlocked for months on approval of another round of coronavirus support measures.
In public remarks Tuesday, Powell made clear that he hoped that the loan programs would remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
“When the right time comes, and I don’t think that time is yet, or very soon, we’ll put those tools away,” he said in an online discussion with a San Francisco business group.
The future of the Main Street and Municipal Lending programs has taken on greater importance with President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. Many progressive economists have argued that a Democratic-led Treasury could support the Fed taking on more risk and making more loans to small and mid-sized businesses and cash-strapped cities under these programs. That would provide at least one avenue for the Biden administration to provide stimulus without going through Congress.
Advertisement
Neither program has lived up to its potential so far, with the Municipal Lending program making just one loan, while the Main Street program has made loans totaling around $4 billion, to about 400 companies.
Republicans including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo of Idaho and Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania supported Mnuchin’s move.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Anthony Scaramucci Breaks Down Trump's Three-Tiered Endgame

Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci shared Thursday what he believes is Donald Trump ’ s three-pronged strategy in the last days of his presidency .
“ The president ’ s got three pieces to his endgame right now , ” Scaramucci , often known as “ The Mooch , ” told CNN ’ s Don Lemon .
“ Raise money ― they ’ ve got to continue to pay down debt and they need money for their forward operations .
...
Number two : He wants to see if he can flex and exert power in the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he has any political legs after Jan. 20.
” “ And then , ” Scaramucci concluded , “ the third reason is he ’ s paralyzed with fear because he ’ s got a whole host of investigations coming and he ’ s got a ton of debt that he ’ s got outstanding.
” Scaramucci speculated that Trump might not be able to use the money he has made during his time in office to pay off this debt , which was estimated by The New York Times in September at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Internal Revenue Service audit could cost the president more than $ 100 million , and Scaramucci said that possible legal issues were a “ variable that [ Trump ] can not control.
” The former communications director also dismissed Trump ’ s lawsuits and allegations of voter fraud in various states , claiming they had “ no real standing , ” and said that Republicans who were humoring the president and not urging him to concede his loss to President-elect Joe Biden needed to “ wake up.
” “ He ’ s only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Scaramucci said .
“ Because the way demagogues are , they got ta have people like [ Sen. ] Lindsey Graham [ R-S.C. ] around that will do anything and kowtow to them .
...
I ’ ve been on the plane with him where he has sycophants around him , and he gives a big smirk like , ‘ Can you believe that this guy is doing this , can you believe that this guy is my lap dog ?
’ He actually has disdain for these people.
” Coincidentally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those expressed by actor Edward Norton , who in a viral Twitter thread Friday compared the president to a poker player who was making a wild series of bluffs in order to guarantee a safe exit .
Scaramucci has frequently condemned Trump since departing the Oval Office in 2017 , and was called a “ loser ” by the president in August .
More recently , following Trump ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis in October , Scaramucci compared Trump to a “ bully at the middle school lunch table ” who had strong-armed members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted them to do despite threats to their personal health .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci shared Thursday what he believes is Donald Trump’s three-pronged strategy in the last days of his presidency.
“The president’s got three pieces to his endgame right now,” Scaramucci, often known as “The Mooch,” told CNN’s Don Lemon. “Raise money ― they’ve got to continue to pay down debt and they need money for their forward operations. ... Number two: He wants to see if he can flex and exert power in the Republican Party. … He wants to see if he has any political legs after Jan. 20.”
Advertisement
“And then,” Scaramucci concluded, “the third reason is he’s paralyzed with fear because he’s got a whole host of investigations coming and he’s got a ton of debt that he’s got outstanding.”
Scaramucci speculated that Trump might not be able to use the money he has made during his time in office to pay off this debt, which was estimated by The New York Times in September at around $421 million. An ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit could cost the president more than $100 million, and Scaramucci said that possible legal issues were a “variable that [Trump] cannot control.”
The former communications director also dismissed Trump’s lawsuits and allegations of voter fraud in various states, claiming they had “no real standing,” and said that Republicans who were humoring the president and not urging him to concede his loss to President-elect Joe Biden needed to “wake up.”
“He’s only as powerful as his willing accomplices,” Scaramucci said. “Because the way demagogues are, they gotta have people like [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] around that will do anything and kowtow to them. ... I’ve been on the plane with him where he has sycophants around him, and he gives a big smirk like, ‘Can you believe that this guy is doing this, can you believe that this guy is my lap dog?’ He actually has disdain for these people.”
Advertisement
Coincidentally, Scaramucci’s projections are similar to those expressed by actor Edward Norton, who in a viral Twitter thread Friday compared the president to a poker player who was making a wild series of bluffs in order to guarantee a safe exit.
Scaramucci has frequently condemned Trump since departing the Oval Office in 2017, and was called a “loser” by the president in August. More recently, following Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis in October, Scaramucci compared Trump to a “bully at the middle school lunch table” who had strong-armed members of his administration into doing what he wanted them to do despite threats to their personal health.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--More GOP Senators Have COVID Than Have Acknowledged That Joe Biden Won

Here ’ s a guessing game that perfectly suits the sad state of affairs in the U.S. Senate : How long until the number of Republicans who accept Joe Biden as the president-elect surpasses the number of them who have tested positive for the coronavirus ?
Rick Scott of Florida announced Friday that he has tested positive for COVID-19 , making him the seventh GOP senator infected by the deadly disease .
The others are Chuck Grassley ( Iowa ) , Mike Lee ( Utah ) , Bill Cassidy ( La . )
, Rand Paul ( Ky. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson ( Wis. ) .
Paul was the first to test positive , back in March ; Grassley and Scott revealed their infections this week .
Meanwhile , it ’ s been nearly two weeks since Biden won enough states to become the president-elect but the vast majority of GOP senators are refusing to publicly acknowledge it .
As of Friday , HuffPost counts just five Senate Republicans who have said Biden won or referred to him as the president-elect : Mitt Romney ( Utah ) , Lisa Murkowski ( Alaska ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sasse ( Neb . )
and Marco Rubio ( Fla. ) .
That leaves the remaining 48 GOP senators complicit in President Donald Trump ’ s efforts to undermine people ’ s faith in democratic institutions to try to make it look like he won .
Some of these senators are echoing his lies about voter fraud .
Some are backing his baseless lawsuits and efforts to review ballots despite no evidence of widespread fraud or vote margins so thin that a recount would be warranted .
None of them publicly objected as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House on Friday ― in plain view ― for a meeting aimed at subverting the democratic process that handed the state to Biden in the election .
Some are trying to have it both ways : appease Trump ’ s ego but also acknowledge how reckless the current situation is .
It doesn ’ t work , though .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) said in a Friday statement that the Trump administration should help Biden ’ s team transition into power ― but only if Biden wins the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot .
Alexander ’ s statement only vaguely touches on the outrageous situation of Trump ’ s top appointee at the General Services Administration refusing to sign off on paperwork that triggers a transfer of power , which is preventing Biden ’ s team from getting up to speed on all sorts of matters , most obviously responding to the pandemic that is again spiking throughout the nation .
“ If there is any chance whatsoever that Joe Biden will be the next president , and it looks like he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should provide the Biden team with all transition materials , resources , and meetings necessary to ensure a smooth transition so that both sides are ready on day one , ” Alexander said .
“ That especially should be true , for example , on vaccine distribution.
” He sounds reasonable enough in his plea for a peaceful transfer of power , saying it is “ the most enduring symbol of our democracy.
” But like so many of his GOP colleagues , he can ’ t seem to acknowledge that Biden won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just wide enough to suggest the election results may be invalid , with zero evidence .
Trump ’ s campaign has filed so many election-related lawsuits in state and federal courts that it ’ s hard to keep up .
But it ’ s easy to keep track of how many cases Trump has lost : nearly all of them .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Here’s a guessing game that perfectly suits the sad state of affairs in the U.S. Senate: How long until the number of Republicans who accept Joe Biden as the president-elect surpasses the number of them who have tested positive for the coronavirus?
At the moment, the virus is winning.
Rick Scott of Florida announced Friday that he has tested positive for COVID-19, making him the seventh GOP senator infected by the deadly disease. The others are Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Lee (Utah), Bill Cassidy (La.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). Paul was the first to test positive, back in March; Grassley and Scott revealed their infections this week.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, it’s been nearly two weeks since Biden won enough states to become the president-elect but the vast majority of GOP senators are refusing to publicly acknowledge it.
As of Friday, HuffPost counts just five Senate Republicans who have said Biden won or referred to him as the president-elect: Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).
That leaves the remaining 48 GOP senators complicit in President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine people’s faith in democratic institutions to try to make it look like he won.
Some of these senators are echoing his lies about voter fraud. Some are backing his baseless lawsuits and efforts to review ballots despite no evidence of widespread fraud or vote margins so thin that a recount would be warranted. None of them publicly objected as Trump summoned two Michigan Republican leaders to the White House on Friday ― in plain view ― for a meeting aimed at subverting the democratic process that handed the state to Biden in the election.
Advertisement
Some are trying to have it both ways: appease Trump’s ego but also acknowledge how reckless the current situation is. It doesn’t work, though.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in a Friday statement that the Trump administration should help Biden’s team transition into power ― but only if Biden wins the election, which he already has, by a lot.
Alexander’s statement only vaguely touches on the outrageous situation of Trump’s top appointee at the General Services Administration refusing to sign off on paperwork that triggers a transfer of power, which is preventing Biden’s team from getting up to speed on all sorts of matters, most obviously responding to the pandemic that is again spiking throughout the nation.
“If there is any chance whatsoever that Joe Biden will be the next president, and it looks like he has a very good chance, the Trump administration should provide the Biden team with all transition materials, resources, and meetings necessary to ensure a smooth transition so that both sides are ready on day one,” Alexander said. “That especially should be true, for example, on vaccine distribution.”
He sounds reasonable enough in his plea for a peaceful transfer of power, saying it is “the most enduring symbol of our democracy.” But like so many of his GOP colleagues, he can’t seem to acknowledge that Biden won the election and leaves the door open just wide enough to suggest the election results may be invalid, with zero evidence.
Advertisement
“Recounting votes and resolving disputes after a close election is not unprecedented and should reassure Americans that election results are valid,” Alexander said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--CNN's Kaitlan Collins Burns Kayleigh McEnany For Calling Her An 'Activist'

The White House correspondent even called out the White House press secretary on it to her face and on Twitter on Friday .
McEnany gave her first news briefing since Oct. 1 , but only answered five questions before ending the news conference , according to RawStory .
When Collins tried to get McEnany to answer one more , the White House official smarmily replied , “ I don ’ t call on activists.
” Collins snapped back : “ I am not an activist and you haven ’ t taken questions since Oct. 1 and you just took about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s not doing your job , your taxpayer-funded job.
” You can see the exchange at the 6:13 mark of the video below : But Collins wasn ’ t through .
She took to Twitter to continue her critique of McEnany ’ s unwillingness to do the most basic part of her job : Answer the questions of reporters .
Appearing in her professional capacity , @ PressSec takes only a handful of questions in her first briefing since Oct. 1 .
Asked why can ’ t call on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long and there are not many of us due to social distancing — she called me “ an activist.
” — Kaitlan Collins ( @ kaitlancollins ) November 20 , 2020 And , yes , a little shade was thrown .
It ’ s understandable why someone who hasn ’ t done their job — taking questions from reporters — in weeks would confuse someone else doing theirs with activism .
— Kaitlan Collins ( @ kaitlancollins ) November 20 , 2020 McEnany hasn ’ t responded to Collins ’ callout , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of support .
That podium belongs to the people , not to Kayleigh McEnany .
She gets paid taxpayer money to stand in front of an American flag and speak on behalf of our government .
It 's no surprise by now , but her comments toward @ kaitlancollins are shameful and just plain wrong .
https : //t.co/ouD0T18yzW — Rep. Jim McGovern ( @ RepMcGovern ) November 20 , 2020 The only activist in that room was @ PressSec who represents both the campaign and the WH while getting paid by our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brian J. Karem ( @ BrianKarem ) November 20 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins has no time for Kayleigh McEnany’s passive-aggressive B.S.
The White House correspondent even called out the White House press secretary on it to her face and on Twitter on Friday.
McEnany gave her first news briefing since Oct. 1, but only answered five questions before ending the news conference, according to RawStory.
Advertisement
When Collins tried to get McEnany to answer one more, the White House official smarmily replied, “I don’t call on activists.”
Collins snapped back: “I am not an activist and you haven’t taken questions since Oct. 1 and you just took about five, Kayleigh.”
She added: “That’s not doing your job, your taxpayer-funded job.”
You can see the exchange at the 6:13 mark of the video below:
But Collins wasn’t through. She took to Twitter to continue her critique of McEnany’s unwillingness to do the most basic part of her job: Answer the questions of reporters.
Advertisement
Appearing in her professional capacity, @PressSec takes only a handful of questions in her first briefing since Oct. 1. Asked why can’t call on all reporters — given it’s been so long and there are not many of us due to social distancing — she called me “an activist.” — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) November 20, 2020
And, yes, a little shade was thrown.
It’s understandable why someone who hasn’t done their job — taking questions from reporters — in weeks would confuse someone else doing theirs with activism. — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) November 20, 2020
McEnany hasn’t responded to Collins’ callout, but the CNN journalist did get lots of support.
That podium belongs to the people, not to Kayleigh McEnany. She gets paid taxpayer money to stand in front of an American flag and speak on behalf of our government.
It's no surprise by now, but her comments toward @kaitlancollins are shameful and just plain wrong. https://t.co/ouD0T18yzW — Rep. Jim McGovern (@RepMcGovern) November 20, 2020
The only activist in that room was @PressSec who represents both the campaign and the WH while getting paid by our tax dollars. https://t.co/n3GX05Vatm — Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) November 20, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--In Pro-Trump Media, The Election Never Ended

The election map this week on One America News shows President Donald Trump with 232 electoral votes to Biden ’ s 227 , with the states of Georgia , Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Arizona and Nevada all still up for grabs .
Friday ’ s front page of The Epoch Times is the same : a United States dotted with gray “ undecided ” states , indicating that Trump has not yet lost .
An array of far-right and conspiratorial media outlets are still promoting the fantasy that Trump will have a second term ― spinning debunked falsehoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign ’ s ramshackle legal attempts to invalidate votes as a pretext to claim that Biden ’ s win was either illegitimate or simply never happened .
Like the president himself , they ’ re not willing to accept that Biden won the national popular vote by around 6 million votes and is slated to receive 306 Electoral College votes , putting him well over the 270 needed for the presidency .
This isn ’ t a surprise .
Pro-Trump media has spent years creating an alternate universe surrounding the president , consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a corrupt media and Democratic Party while ignoring his administration ’ s rampant ineptitude and authoritarian leanings .
As Trump ’ s time in office approaches its end , these outlets are still clinging to that narrative as they drift further away from reality .
“ This is Newsmax , where we have not called the election .
Why would we ?
We do not know who has won !
” Greg Kelly , a host on the far-right cable network , said on Tuesday .
“ This whole idea of a president-elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly ’ s monologue could have appeared on any number of pro-Trump television and radio shows over the past two weeks .
Again and again , hosts have claimed that “ mainstream media ” is engaged in a mass deception by accurately reporting that Biden has won the election .
In order to maintain the delusion , these networks have told their viewers to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics that appeal to their feelings over facts .
“ Americans understand what ’ s real and what isn ’ t , ” OAN host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks after the election .
“ Donald Trump ’ s popularity is very real .
The fact that he won the election is very real .
Don ’ t cave to accepting a version of reality you know isn ’ t right .
Americans will stay the course and enjoy Donald Trump ’ s second term.
” Pro-Trump media ’ s conspiracy theories and willingness to undermine the democratic process is part of the symbiotic relationship that these networks and media activists have with the president .
As Trump continues to attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote a “ hoax , ” he has also repeatedly shared misinformation from outlets such as OAN and Breitbart to support his effort to steal the election .
Although Trump and far-right media ’ s conspiracy theories around the election are baseless and have been widely debunked , they reflect a wider disbelief among Republicans that Trump lost the election .
Around 52 % of Republicans believe that Trump “ rightfully won ” the vote , according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-November , suggesting that pro-Trump outlets are appealing to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully accept the election results .
Trump campaign officials have done all they can to push that narrative , holding bizarre press conferences and making dangerous efforts to sow distrust in democracy .
Far-right networks have acted as one of their primary vehicles to promote these groundless claims and provided a safe space where such allegations won ’ t be challenged or face the slightest scrutiny .
“ I ’ m just , like , shocked and appalled by the fact that people just want to rush it in , have him take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually won , ” Kimberly Guilfoyle , a senior Trump campaign adviser , said on OAN .
“ I tell Americans : Be patient and the truth will reveal itself.
” Peddling the alternate reality where Trump still has a chance has been a boon for some far-right outlets .
Channels such as Newsmax have experienced a surge in viewers following the election , as die-hard Trump supporters have chanted “ Fox News sucks ” while protesting the network ’ s early but ultimately accurate call that Biden would win Arizona .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hosted guests making baseless claims of voter fraud , the decision desk ’ s acknowledgement that Biden had in fact won the election has set it apart from other right-wing outlets that are eager to sell viewers on the deception that Trump won the vote .
As more states begin to certify election results and Trump ’ s legal efforts fall apart , far-right outlets may eventually need to give up on the notion that the election isn ’ t over or at least alter their myths around it .
But for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Trump media ’ s unblinking conviction that the president will serve a second term , only expressions of unquestioning loyalty .
“ There are a lot of Republicans in the swamp who would just like to turn the page , there are obviously the Democrats and the media establishment .
Is this a lonely fight ever ?
” Kelly asked Guilfoyle on Tuesday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
It’s been nearly two weeks since every major news outlet called the presidential race for Democratic nominee Joe Biden. But for pro-Trump media, the election never ended.
The election map this week on One America News shows President Donald Trump with 232 electoral votes to Biden’s 227, with the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada all still up for grabs. Friday’s front page of The Epoch Times is the same: a United States dotted with gray “undecided” states, indicating that Trump has not yet lost.
Advertisement
An array of far-right and conspiratorial media outlets are still promoting the fantasy that Trump will have a second term ― spinning debunked falsehoods about voter fraud and praising the Trump campaign’s ramshackle legal attempts to invalidate votes as a pretext to claim that Biden’s win was either illegitimate or simply never happened. Like the president himself, they’re not willing to accept that Biden won the national popular vote by around 6 million votes and is slated to receive 306 Electoral College votes, putting him well over the 270 needed for the presidency.
The election is over. But these outlets are helping Trump spin the narrative that it isn’t.
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani poses with OAN correspondent Chanel Rion and his communications director Christianné Allen at the White House in July. Giuliani has been feverishly pushing conspiracy theories in an attempt to overturn Joe Biden's victory, and OAN has worked in lockstep with that effort. Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
This isn’t a surprise. Pro-Trump media has spent years creating an alternate universe surrounding the president, consistently framing him as virtuously at war against a corrupt media and Democratic Party while ignoring his administration’s rampant ineptitude and authoritarian leanings. As Trump’s time in office approaches its end, these outlets are still clinging to that narrative as they drift further away from reality.
“This is Newsmax, where we have not called the election. Why would we? We do not know who has won!” Greg Kelly, a host on the far-right cable network, said on Tuesday. “This whole idea of a president-elect? It is a media fabrication.”
Advertisement
Kelly’s monologue could have appeared on any number of pro-Trump television and radio shows over the past two weeks. Again and again, hosts have claimed that “mainstream media” is engaged in a mass deception by accurately reporting that Biden has won the election. In order to maintain the delusion, these networks have told their viewers to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics that appeal to their feelings over facts.
“Americans understand what’s real and what isn’t,” OAN host Christina Bobb said on Tuesday, two weeks after the election. “Donald Trump’s popularity is very real. The fact that he won the election is very real. Don’t cave to accepting a version of reality you know isn’t right. Americans will stay the course and enjoy Donald Trump’s second term.”
Pro-Trump media’s conspiracy theories and willingness to undermine the democratic process is part of the symbiotic relationship that these networks and media activists have with the president. As Trump continues to attempt to overturn the election result and call the vote a “hoax,” he has also repeatedly shared misinformation from outlets such as OAN and Breitbart to support his effort to steal the election.
Trump campaign adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is also the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., has appeared on OAN and Newsmax to insist that President Donald Trump actually won the election. Donald Kravitz via Getty Images
Although Trump and far-right media’s conspiracy theories around the election are baseless and have been widely debunked, they reflect a wider disbelief among Republicans that Trump lost the election. Around 52% of Republicans believe that Trump “rightfully won” the vote, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-November, suggesting that pro-Trump outlets are appealing to a very real grievance among conservatives unwilling to fully accept the election results.
Advertisement
Trump campaign officials have done all they can to push that narrative, holding bizarre press conferences and making dangerous efforts to sow distrust in democracy. Far-right networks have acted as one of their primary vehicles to promote these groundless claims and provided a safe space where such allegations won’t be challenged or face the slightest scrutiny.
“I’m just, like, shocked and appalled by the fact that people just want to rush it in, have him take the presidency, not caring if he actually won,” Kimberly Guilfoyle, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said on OAN. “I tell Americans: Be patient and the truth will reveal itself.”
Peddling the alternate reality where Trump still has a chance has been a boon for some far-right outlets. Channels such as Newsmax have experienced a surge in viewers following the election, as die-hard Trump supporters have chanted “Fox News sucks” while protesting the network’s early but ultimately accurate call that Biden would win Arizona. Although Fox News has promoted pro-Trump conspiracy theories and hosted guests making baseless claims of voter fraud, the decision desk’s acknowledgement that Biden had in fact won the election has set it apart from other right-wing outlets that are eager to sell viewers on the deception that Trump won the vote.
As more states begin to certify election results and Trump’s legal efforts fall apart, far-right outlets may eventually need to give up on the notion that the election isn’t over or at least alter their myths around it. But for now, there are no cracks in pro-Trump media’s unblinking conviction that the president will serve a second term, only expressions of unquestioning loyalty.
“There are a lot of Republicans in the swamp who would just like to turn the page, there are obviously the Democrats and the media establishment. Is this a lonely fight ever?” Kelly asked Guilfoyle on Tuesday.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Democratic Senators Wary Of Prosecuting Trump After He Leaves Office

Democratic senators are leery of prosecuting Donald Trump and members of his administration after he leaves office next year , saying the decision whether to probe a former president ought to be left to independent Department of Justice prosecutors under President Joe Biden .
The idea ― a hot topic during the Democratic presidential primaries ― gained fresh momentum this week after Rep. Bill Pascrell ( D-N.J. ) demanded the president and his aides be prosecuted after they leave office for “ innumerable crimes ” during the last four years , including profiting off the presidency , separating immigrant families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 election .
Pascrell , a vocal Trump critic who has led the House effort to obtain Trump ’ s tax returns , said the failure to hold Trump accountable would embolden “ criminality by our national leaders ” and continue pushing “ America down the path of lawlessness and authoritarianism.
” Progressives applauded Pascrell and urged other lawmakers to join him , arguing that giving someone like Trump a pass would greenlight lawbreaking by future would-be authoritarians .
Trump is reportedly considering running again for president in 2024 , but even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Republican Party won ’ t end after he exits the White House in January .
Right now , Trump is protected from indictment under federal laws because of longstanding Department of Justice policy ― the same policy that prevented special counsel Robert Mueller from recommending the president be charged following his investigation into Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign .
That immunity ends when Trump becomes a private citizen , however , potentially exposing him to criminal liability .
Prosecutors in New York , for example , are grinding away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business dealings before and during his time in office , including whether he misled tax authorities and broke campaign finance laws .
He ’ s also facing lawsuits from two women alleging he sexually assaulted them decades ago .
It ’ s not clear whether those investigations will ultimately lead to any charges .
There also remain numerous allegations of corruption aimed at Trump and his family that have received little scrutiny from law enforcers .
After promising to step away from his businesses when elected president , Trump instead used both his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington as places to freely meet with political donors and favor-seekers and repeatedly used government resources to promote his golf courses , hotels , and resorts .
Biden , meanwhile , is said to be reluctant about pushing further investigations of Trump , hoping to turn the page on a turbulent period in American history by advancing his own legislative agenda and defeating the coronavirus .
Biden “ has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told NBC News .
“ I think there has to be some accountability , but I ’ m not sure what form or method it should take , ” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut .
During her presidential run , Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeatedly called for investigations of Trump and his administration , even promising to set up a special task force within the Justice Department to investigate Trump-era corruption .
But even Warren declined to answer directly when asked if charges should be brought against the Trump administration .
Democrats said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department is paramount after the corrosive influence of Attorney General Bill Barr , who has bent the department to Trump ’ s political interests without consequences .
Barr repeatedly intervened in criminal cases involving Trump allies to their benefit , personally ordered a violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators outside the White House , and sought to disrupt an investigation into a Turkish bank after pressure on Trump from Turkey ’ s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan .
Allowing the DOJ to decide independently whether to prosecute Trump would give legitimacy to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s choice for the next attorney general will likely determine which direction his administration goes .
His possible picks include centrist lawmakers and career prosecutors , including Alabama Sen. Doug Jones , former acting Attorney General Sally Yates , and Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez .
Some progressives contend that not holding Trump and his followers accountable would be as big of a mistake as President Barack Obama ’ s failure to prosecute Wall Street executives for causing the collapse of the economy in 2007 .
But prosecuting a former president ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pose serious risks to Biden ’ s presidency by diverting attention from his agenda .
The list is long , and without Democratic control of the Senate , Biden will need ample Republican goodwill to get any of it done .
“ The idea that prosecuting Trump ’ s crimes would consume tremendous amounts of media and public attention , detracting from other issues , is correct , ” said Adam Jentleson , a Democratic strategist who was a top aide to former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid .
“ The idea that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As with any crime , it would show that criminals are held accountable .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic senators are leery of prosecuting Donald Trump and members of his administration after he leaves office next year, saying the decision whether to probe a former president ought to be left to independent Department of Justice prosecutors under President Joe Biden.
The idea ― a hot topic during the Democratic presidential primaries ― gained fresh momentum this week after Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) demanded the president and his aides be prosecuted after they leave office for “innumerable crimes” during the last four years, including profiting off the presidency, separating immigrant families, and most recently undermining the Nov. 3 election.
Advertisement
Pascrell, a vocal Trump critic who has led the House effort to obtain Trump’s tax returns, said the failure to hold Trump accountable would embolden “criminality by our national leaders” and continue pushing “America down the path of lawlessness and authoritarianism.”
Progressives applauded Pascrell and urged other lawmakers to join him, arguing that giving someone like Trump a pass would greenlight lawbreaking by future would-be authoritarians. Trump is reportedly considering running again for president in 2024, but even if he doesn’t, his influence on the Republican Party won’t end after he exits the White House in January.
Right now, Trump is protected from indictment under federal laws because of longstanding Department of Justice policy ― the same policy that prevented special counsel Robert Mueller from recommending the president be charged following his investigation into Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign. That immunity ends when Trump becomes a private citizen, however, potentially exposing him to criminal liability.
Prosecutors in New York, for example, are grinding away at an investigation into Trump’s business dealings before and during his time in office, including whether he misled tax authorities and broke campaign finance laws. He’s also facing lawsuits from two women alleging he sexually assaulted them decades ago. It’s not clear whether those investigations will ultimately lead to any charges.
Advertisement
There also remain numerous allegations of corruption aimed at Trump and his family that have received little scrutiny from law enforcers. After promising to step away from his businesses when elected president, Trump instead used both his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and his hotel in Washington as places to freely meet with political donors and favor-seekers and repeatedly used government resources to promote his golf courses, hotels, and resorts.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive to their Christmas Eve party at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, December 24, 2019. Leah Millis / Reuters
Biden, meanwhile, is said to be reluctant about pushing further investigations of Trump, hoping to turn the page on a turbulent period in American history by advancing his own legislative agenda and defeating the coronavirus. Biden “has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump,” people close to him told NBC News.
Democratic senators who voted to convict the president over his impeachment misconduct involving Ukraine also seemed hesitant about launching fresh investigations.
“I think they have many priorities,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois told HuffPost of the Biden administration. “Those should not be the first.”
Advertisement
“I think there has to be some accountability, but I’m not sure what form or method it should take,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
During her presidential run, Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeatedly called for investigations of Trump and his administration, even promising to set up a special task force within the Justice Department to investigate Trump-era corruption. But even Warren declined to answer directly when asked if charges should be brought against the Trump administration.
“I think no one should be above the law,” Warren told HuffPost.
Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said she personally believes Trump should face charges after he leaves office.
“But I’m not about to call the next [attorney general] and tell them what he or she should do,” Hirono quickly added.
Democrats said they believe that restoring prosecutorial independence at the Justice Department is paramount after the corrosive influence of Attorney General Bill Barr, who has bent the department to Trump’s political interests without consequences. Barr repeatedly intervened in criminal cases involving Trump allies to their benefit, personally ordered a violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators outside the White House, and sought to disrupt an investigation into a Turkish bank after pressure on Trump from Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Advertisement
Allowing the DOJ to decide independently whether to prosecute Trump would give legitimacy to the effort, which is why Biden’s choice for the next attorney general will likely determine which direction his administration goes. His possible picks include centrist lawmakers and career prosecutors, including Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez.
Some progressives contend that not holding Trump and his followers accountable would be as big of a mistake as President Barack Obama’s failure to prosecute Wall Street executives for causing the collapse of the economy in 2007.
But prosecuting a former president ― itself an unprecedented scenario ― could also pose serious risks to Biden’s presidency by diverting attention from his agenda. The list is long, and without Democratic control of the Senate, Biden will need ample Republican goodwill to get any of it done.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Trump Swiftly Blows Up His 1 Decent Conservation Action

The Trump administration wasted no time proving what was clear from the get-go : that its support of a major public lands bill was nothing more than pre-election greenwashing for President Donald Trump and two Senate allies .
In August , Trump signed the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act into law , falsely portraying himself as a conservationist on par with President Theodore Roosevelt .
The measure , widely considered the most significant conservation legislation in a generation , allocates $ 9.5 billion to fix crumbling national park infrastructure and permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LWCF uses offshore fossil fuel revenues to establish and protect parks , wildlife refuges , forests and wildlife habitat .
But Trump and his team are longtime foes of the LWCF .
The administration tried repeatedly to gut the program ’ s funding .
And days after the 2020 presidential election , which Trump handily lost , Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order that kneecaps LWCF and undermines the new law that Bernhardt previously argued would not have passed without Trump ’ s “ strong and bold action.
” The order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local jurisdictions the power to veto federal land acquisitions made through LWCF .
“ A written expression of support by both the affected Governor and local county or county government-equivalent ( e.g .
parish , borough ) is required for the acquisition of land , water , or an interest in land or water under the Federal LWCF program , ” it reads .
The move is a parting gift to the anti-federal land movement that has enjoyed extraordinary access to top administration officials but that never convinced the administration to embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the requirement in Bernhardt ’ s order mirrors an amendment that Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) introduced when the Great American Outdoors Act was being debated in Congress , as E & E News highlighted .
Lee strongly opposes federal control of public lands in the West .
“ Our long-term goal must be the transfer of federal lands to the states , ” Lee wrote in a 2018 tweet .
William Perry Pendley , the highest-ranking official at Interior ’ s Bureau of Land Management , shares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold.
” “ I urge you to immediately rescind this anti-public land order , ” Sen. Jon Tester ( D-Mont . )
, a longtime champion of LWCF , wrote in a letter last week to Bernhardt .
“ This undercuts what a landowner can do with their own private property , and creates unnecessary , additional levels of bureaucracy that will hamstring future land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
” For those paying attention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like little more than a political favor for two Republican senators facing tough bids for reelection in states where protecting public lands is a key issue among voters .
Along with showering praise upon himself , Trump credited Sens .
Cory Gardner ( R-Colo. ) and Steve Daines ( R-Mont . )
, who both previously voted in favor of slashing LWCF funding and supported Trump ’ s anti-conservation agenda at nearly every turn .
“ This landmark legislation would not have been possible without the incredible leadership and hard work of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two fine people ― Cory Gardner and Steve Daines , ” Trump said at a signing ceremony for the Great American Outdoors Act .
As soon as the 2020 election was over , Trump ’ s team took aim at one of its only conservation achievements .
First , the departments of Interior and Agriculture missed statutory deadlines for submitting lists of projects to receive LWCF funding .
Then came Bernhardt ’ s order undermining the program altogether .
The Great American Outdoors Act is no doubt a major victory for America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has been plagued by funding shortfalls all of its 50-year history .
The administration ’ s claimed support for it , on the other hand , was “ a ruse ” and a “ bald-faced lie , ” Aaron Weiss , deputy director of Colorado-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities , told HuffPost .
He expects Bernhardt was always planning to undercut the law , whether or not Trump won a second term .
“ Once the election was done , it was open season on land protection , ” Weiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ going to throw as much sand into the gears as he can on his way out .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Trump administration wasted no time proving what was clear from the get-go: that its support of a major public lands bill was nothing more than pre-election greenwashing for President Donald Trump and two Senate allies.
In August, Trump signed the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act into law, falsely portraying himself as a conservationist on par with President Theodore Roosevelt. The measure, widely considered the most significant conservation legislation in a generation, allocates $9.5 billion to fix crumbling national park infrastructure and permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million per year. The decades-old LWCF uses offshore fossil fuel revenues to establish and protect parks, wildlife refuges, forests and wildlife habitat.
Advertisement
But Trump and his team are longtime foes of the LWCF. The administration tried repeatedly to gut the program’s funding. And days after the 2020 presidential election, which Trump handily lost, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order that kneecaps LWCF and undermines the new law that Bernhardt previously argued would not have passed without Trump’s “strong and bold action.”
The order, dated Nov. 9, gives state governors and local jurisdictions the power to veto federal land acquisitions made through LWCF. “A written expression of support by both the affected Governor and local county or county government-equivalent (e.g. parish, borough) is required for the acquisition of land, water, or an interest in land or water under the Federal LWCF program,” it reads.
“Once the election was done, it was open season on land protection.” - Aaron Weiss, deputy director, Center for Western Priorities
The move is a parting gift to the anti-federal land movement that has enjoyed extraordinary access to top administration officials but that never convinced the administration to embrace wholesale transfer or sale of public lands. In fact, the requirement in Bernhardt’s order mirrors an amendment that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced when the Great American Outdoors Act was being debated in Congress, as E&E News highlighted.
Advertisement
Lee strongly opposes federal control of public lands in the West. “Our long-term goal must be the transfer of federal lands to the states,” Lee wrote in a 2018 tweet. William Perry Pendley, the highest-ranking official at Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, shares those extreme views, once writing that the “founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold.”
Democratic lawmakers, environmentalists and outdoor sporting groups have slammed Trump’s Interior chief for trying to circumvent Congress and restrict how LWCF funds are allocated.
“I urge you to immediately rescind this anti-public land order,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), a longtime champion of LWCF, wrote in a letter last week to Bernhardt. “This undercuts what a landowner can do with their own private property, and creates unnecessary, additional levels of bureaucracy that will hamstring future land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.”
In a release announcing Bernhardt’s order, the Interior Department said the action “honors Interior’s commitment to be a good neighbor by giving states and communities a voice in federal land acquisition.”
President Donald Trump signs the the Great American Outdoors Act at the White House on Aug. 4. The public lands law aims to fix crumbling national park infrastructure and permanently fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images
Advertisement
For those paying attention, Trump’s about-face on LWCF felt like little more than a political favor for two Republican senators facing tough bids for reelection in states where protecting public lands is a key issue among voters. Along with showering praise upon himself, Trump credited Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who both previously voted in favor of slashing LWCF funding and supported Trump’s anti-conservation agenda at nearly every turn.
“This landmark legislation would not have been possible without the incredible leadership and hard work of two outstanding senators, in particular, and two fine people ― Cory Gardner and Steve Daines,” Trump said at a signing ceremony for the Great American Outdoors Act.
On the campaign trail, Daines and Gardner touted their work on the Great American Outdoors Act. Daines ultimately defeated his challenger. Gardner did not.
As soon as the 2020 election was over, Trump’s team took aim at one of its only conservation achievements. First, the departments of Interior and Agriculture missed statutory deadlines for submitting lists of projects to receive LWCF funding. Then came Bernhardt’s order undermining the program altogether.
The Great American Outdoors Act is no doubt a major victory for America’s public lands and for LWCF, which has been plagued by funding shortfalls all of its 50-year history. The administration’s claimed support for it, on the other hand, was “a ruse” and a “bald-faced lie,” Aaron Weiss, deputy director of Colorado-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities, told HuffPost. He expects Bernhardt was always planning to undercut the law, whether or not Trump won a second term.
Advertisement
“Once the election was done, it was open season on land protection,” Weiss said by email, adding that Bernhardt is “going to throw as much sand into the gears as he can on his way out.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Wisconsin’s Rising Democratic Star Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes Is Scared

AP Photo/Morry Gash Lt. Gov .
Mandela Barnes says Democrats have a lot of work to do after winning Wisconsin by such a close margin in 2020 .
From 2016 to last week , I think we got about just over 300,000 [ more ] votes .
Donald Trump got over 200,000 more votes .
I think about me spending basically the last four years almost mocking Donald Trump that he got 5,000 , 6,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney .
Like , everybody heard me say it apparently .
And they showed up .
And so looking at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump gets 10 million more votes than he got in 2016 .
It ’ s like , you know , a lot of people sat on the fence because they thought he may be racist .
And then he started doing a whole bunch of racist stuff in office , and all of a sudden he got 10 million more votes .
And that ’ s a scary thing for me .
It ’ s a scary thing for a lot of people and a scary thing for democracy as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we assumed would be the downfall of him , he just got stronger .
Be bold on the bread-and-butter issues .
Katie Porter [ the Democratic congresswoman from California ] flipped a seat in 2018 .
And she came back 2020 without a problem because people knew who she was and people knew that she was going to fight for them , even if they disagreed with her on certain policy stances .
Because if the choice comes down to a Republican incumbent or a Democrat that is going to possibly share some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican incumbents share , then they ’ re going to vote for who they ’ re comfortable with .
They ’ re going to vote for ― and especially rural parts of the state ― they ’ re going for the person who goes to their church , they ’ re going to vote for the person they tend to agree with more on social issues .
It shouldn ’ t be taboo to say that you think everybody has health insurance and , you know , we ’ ll figure out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would say that “ Medicare for All ” is the way to go .
Maybe that is true .
And if there is an alternative , let ’ s hear it , but a lot of people want to shut down the conversation immediately .
A lot of people want to run from an issue like that and leave the conversation there .
If you ’ re going to run from it , then run to something .
Run to something that is going to give people better than what they are getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of that does matter .
Other than that , I feel like in 2008 , I feel like the party knew who we were .
I don ’ t think there was this identity crisis .
I think there was this idea that as a nation , that we could move forward from the disaster of the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency .
And there was a way that we could do it together .
People were inspired , and you can ’ t take that part away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of it .
There ’ s the financing of elections , but there ’ s also that deep , personal connection that exists and that can not be understated .

Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes says Democrats have a lot of work to do after winning Wisconsin by such a close margin in 2020. AP Photo/Morry Gash
Joe Biden won Wisconsin. That is a big deal. Donald Trump won it in 2016, and it was high on the list of states Democrats knew they needed to fight for in 2020.
But Democratic Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes thinks his party should be careful not to get too excited about the win.
Advertisement
“So, obviously, [I’m] very happy that we won. You know, we did a lot of work to make that happen,” Barnes told HuffPost in an interview. “The only thing is, I was thinking that margin was going to be a little bit wider, to be completely honest.”
President-elect Biden won Wisconsin by a little more than 20,000 votes — a smaller margin than Trump won the state by in 2016. The Wisconsin Elections Commission approved the Trump campaign’s request to recount the votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties — the two biggest Democratic strongholds in the state — as Trump continues to deny his decisive loss, now more than two weeks after Election Day. It’s extremely unlikely the recount will reverse Biden’s win in the state.
Barnes is a 33-year-old rising star in the state party. As Wisconsin’s first Black lieutenant governor, he’s frequently mentioned as a potential challenger against Sen. Ron Johnson (R) in 2022, a race that could make or break Democrats’ hopes of gaining full control of government. And he’s critical of Democrats’ performance this cycle.
Democrats should have fought for even bolder ideas like “Medicare for All,” showed up more in rural areas, and built more trust among communities of color, Barnes said.
Advertisement
Voter turnout in Milwaukee was stagnant in 2020 compared to 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin in large part due to low voter turnout in cities. More concerning for Democrats, turnout in predominantly Black neighborhoods actually decreased this cycle, according to early unofficial results. Biden made up ground in the suburbs. Meanwhile, Trump consolidated the vote in rural districts. Republicans maintained control of the state Legislature, despite Democrats picking up two suburban Assembly seats.
Voters masked against the coronavirus line up to vote at Riverside High School in Milwaukee. AP Photo/Morry Gash
Barnes pointed to Trump receiving 10 million more votes than he received in 2016 as a warning sign for Democrats.
“A lot of people sat on the fence because they thought he may be racist. And then he started doing a whole bunch of racist stuff in office, and all of a sudden he got 10 million more votes. And that’s a scary thing for me,” Barnes said. “It’s a scary thing for a lot of people and a scary thing for democracy as well. Every policy that was a failure and we assumed would be the downfall of him, he just got stronger.”
Here is HuffPost’s conversation with Barnes.
I saw you tweeting on election night and saying that there was a lot more work to be done. And to start this off, I wanted to get a sense of what that work is?
Advertisement
Yeah, so obviously [I’m] very happy that we won. You know, we did a lot of work to make that happen. The only thing is, I was thinking that margin was going to be a little bit wider, to be completely honest.
From 2016 to last week, I think we got about just over 300,000 [more] votes. Donald Trump got over 200,000 more votes. I think about me spending basically the last four years almost mocking Donald Trump that he got 5,000, 6,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney. Like, everybody heard me say it apparently. And they showed up. And so looking at the vote share, across the country, Donald Trump gets 10 million more votes than he got in 2016. It’s like, you know, a lot of people sat on the fence because they thought he may be racist. And then he started doing a whole bunch of racist stuff in office, and all of a sudden he got 10 million more votes. And that’s a scary thing for me. It’s a scary thing for a lot of people and a scary thing for democracy as well. Every policy that was a failure and we assumed would be the downfall of him, he just got stronger.
I don’t want to confuse people, because taking on and defeating an incumbent president is a very difficult task, and so the fact that we got it done is still remarkable. But what it says in terms of how many votes he was able to get, that is something that troubles me.
“A lot of people sat on the fence because they thought he may be racist. And then he started doing a whole bunch of racist stuff in office, and all of a sudden he got 10 million more votes. And that’s a scary thing for me. It’s a scary thing for a lot of people and a scary thing for democracy as well.” - Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D)
Advertisement
In 2012, Barack Obama didn’t get the number of votes he got in 2008. And we have to really look at ourselves as a party and think about our outreach, not just in communities of color but also in rural areas. We have to show up, and not just provide an alternative to the Republicans, just showing up basically saying the same things and hoping they’ll vote for us.
There was a lot more outreach and investment in Milwaukee and particularly in Black and Latino communities in Milwaukee this cycle than in 2016. How do you explain that turnout was either stagnant or down in those communities this time still?
So a couple of things. One is voter suppression. Another thing, there was a very targeted effort by Republicans and the Republican Party to suppress votes rhetorically ... to convince Black people to not vote for Democrats — and not necessarily to vote for them, but to get them to stay home.
I got some really wild literature. There was real effort to just keep people from showing up to vote and convince them it wasn’t worth showing up for Democrats. And part of that too is the [Democratic Party] having not built the most solid reputation over — and this is not just the last few years — this is over time. The party has worked to rebuild and repair relationships in Black communities over the last couple of years. We’re talking about decades of growing apathy.
There seemed to be a completely rehauled campaign style to do outreach and advertising this cycle.
If all those efforts weren’t made, we wouldn’t have the outcome that we did have.
Well, so tell me why. Why do you think the Republican vote consolidated so much in rural areas?
I’ll say that [Republicans] play a lot of blame games. They say that big cities and the people that live in the cities that are taking everything that should be yours. That’s their message. That is a feeling even some Democrats have in rural areas, because you haven’t had a coherent response to that.
Advertisement
I think our message has to be very clear. This is happening to all of us. Doesn’t matter where you live. As Democrats typically preach the message of unity anyway. And I think that is an area for us to double down and hammer home that message, especially when it comes to issues of inequality. It’s the same forces that keep families down in the city of Milwaukee are the same forces that have people struggling [in rural areas].
Supporters wait for President Donald Trump to speak at an Oct. 30 campaign rally at the Austin Straubel Airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin. AP Photo/Morry Gash
I did also then want to ask about down-ballot. With all of the fundraising from the Wisconsin Democratic Party, with all of that infrastructure in place, having Democrats in the governor’s office, how are Democrats supposed to make inroads down the ballot?
That’s a good question and it’s a tough one. Because gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression. Just because these maps are poorly drawn doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put any effort into the districts, because we still have to make sure that the candidates that are running have a chance to communicate their messages effectively. And we have to make sure that they have the resources to run an effective campaign to get the message across in areas when we need to get that across.
Even when you look at the districts this year compared to two years ago, or four years ago, there’s a lot of movement. We won two seats in the suburbs of Milwaukee this year in the State Assembly, and they were completely out of reach four years ago. They were in striking distance two years ago, but this go-around we took them. And I think there are even more that we potentially could have had, but there was that Trump turnout.
Advertisement
What messaging isn’t happening? I understand what you’re saying that these districts aren’t unreachable, the tide is slowly changing, but you have these huge elections where the stakes are really high — the census is this year. So what wasn’t happening?
We still got a lot of data that’s coming in that we need to look at. And I won’t say that it necessarily wasn’t happening.
I think we can be bolder in our messaging — across the country too. A lot of these incumbents that came up short wanted to moderate their stances, and I’m not saying you’ve got to be out there with a bullhorn or, even quasi-socialist — stick to the things that matter.
“Folks who don’t want to deal with issues of racial injustice, they want to separate themselves from what they feel is a radical movement on the left. ... If you are moving in the direction that your Republican opponent is already in, who’s going to take you seriously?” - Mandela Barnes
Be bold on the bread-and-butter issues. Katie Porter [the Democratic congresswoman from California] flipped a seat in 2018. And she came back 2020 without a problem because people knew who she was and people knew that she was going to fight for them, even if they disagreed with her on certain policy stances. Because if the choice comes down to a Republican incumbent or a Democrat that is going to possibly share some of the positions or policy stances that Republican incumbents share, then they’re going to vote for who they’re comfortable with. They’re going to vote for ― and especially rural parts of the state ― they’re going for the person who goes to their church, they’re going to vote for the person they tend to agree with more on social issues.
Advertisement
What is being bold on bread-and-butter issues like health care, and what is not?
It shouldn’t be taboo to say that you think everybody has health insurance and, you know, we’ll figure out the path to get there. Some people would say that “Medicare for All” is the way to go. Maybe that is true. And if there is an alternative, let’s hear it, but a lot of people want to shut down the conversation immediately. A lot of people want to run from an issue like that and leave the conversation there. If you’re going to run from it, then run to something. Run to something that is going to give people better than what they are getting now. All of these things.
And even on environmental issues. Like, I get it, why people may run from issues like a Green New Deal, because it would need to be different in every part of the country. Every state does not have the same opportunities to implement those sorts of reforms. But the fact is that the environment is in crisis and we are in a jobs crisis that is going to be made much worse in the coming year if we don’t do something about it.
Folks who don’t want to deal with issues of racial injustice, they want to separate themselves from what they feel is a radical movement on the left, that’s fine if you want to separate yourself from it, but what are you moving towards? Like, if you feel like, well, I’m getting beat up about this, I gotta move away from this issue. Well, if you are moving in the direction that your Republican opponent is already in, who’s going to take you seriously?
You seem to be referring to the current fight happening among Democrats nationally in the House, where some members have said, don’t say “defund the police,” don’t run a Green New Deal, don’t say Medicare for All.
That is a frustrating fight, because for all the talk about stepping away from these issues I’ve talked about, well, what do you want to talk about? What should be talked about? What should be communicated to your voters? What should be communicated to your constituents if you are an incumbent? That’s why I have a problem. We can disagree on issues, but I think that we should absolutely have a debate.
Advertisement
OK, so you are talking about that fight. What do you think about the issues people ran on in this election cycle? Is running on a public option bold enough to get people’s attention?
Yeah, I guess I kind of drifted into that fight.
I think a public option is obviously far better than where we are now. And there are people who feel like the public option, could be enough — and it could be enough for some people. I think that was the biggest mistake in 2009, and Joe Lieberman [then an independent senator from Connecticut] gets the blame for that.
But people obviously want more. People want to fight for more. I think that people would want to fight for “Medicare for All,” or as close to a universal health care system as possible, and if you ended up with a public option, I don’t feel like people would see that as the end of the world knowing that that takes us much farther than where we are now. A public option is a gateway drug, to use a failed analogy of a gateway drug. But, in many ways a public option is the step.
“People want to fight for more. I think that people would want to fight for ‘Medicare for All,’ or as close to a universal health care system as possible.” - Mandela Barnes
So you’ve come out of this election thinking the margins were tighter because Democrats didn’t go big enough?
Advertisement
Yes. Because the stances we took this election as a party were stronger than the stances we took four years ago and our vote share increased by 12 million. I think that if we keep moving forward, we stand a chance to grow even larger. Now is definitely not the time to turn back. And I feel like if we get into these fights and we end up going to a place where less bold is the path, then I think we kiss those votes goodbye. Look, people are hurting right now.
You know, this is one of the most difficult times in American history. And the Republican Party isn’t shy about what they want to do. They’re not shy about missing the reality of the climate crisis. They’re not shy about completely ignoring the issue of racial injustice. And what did that do? It got them 10 million new votes.
This election proves that people are locked in. People are locked in for Trump. And we thought that we could peel them away. The growth that he had, that proves the point that they’re there. They’re engaged.
Then how does that square with you saying that you can go into these rural districts and make inroads down the ballot?
I don’t feel that way. Rural communities, just like urban communities just want someone who will stand up and someone who will be there for them and recognize the biggest challenges that they are facing.
Advertisement
So do you see them locked in or not locked in? That’s what I’m trying to clarify.
I think that, I think there’s room for us to grow. Like there’s still people who show up to vote. There are a lot of people locked in. Not everybody is solidly locked in, but the new growth that they have, some of that could have been ours. But I do think that there are still opportunities for us to increase our vote share. And in every part of a part of the state, every part of America. It is completely possible for us to get back to an Obama margin. I 100% believe that.
Joe Biden supporters in Milwaukee react to the announcement on Nov. 7 that Biden defeated Trump in the presidential election. AP Photo/Morry Gash
Democrats raised around $35 million more than Republicans in Wisconsin. Do you think the party should think differently about how it spends money?
There’s always things you can do differently, right.
I want to hear those things.
I would say that if we did not spend the money, if we didn’t raise the money, there’s a very real chance we wouldn’t have won by that narrow margin.
So what is the path to returning to Obama margins then, specifically?
Oof.
Other than having Obama on the ticket.
Yeah, no, no, no. I’m just refreshing the lungs. That’s all.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton being uniquely unpopular had a big impact. Biden being popular had a big impact. All of that stuff matters, but other than that―
Advertisement
All of that does matter. Other than that, I feel like in 2008, I feel like the party knew who we were. I don’t think there was this identity crisis. I think there was this idea that as a nation, that we could move forward from the disaster of the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. And there was a way that we could do it together. People were inspired, and you can’t take that part away from politics. There’s the policy part of it. There’s the financing of elections, but there’s also that deep, personal connection that exists and that cannot be understated.
And Democrats don’t have that anymore?
I won’t say we don’t have that any more. People do like Joe a whole lot. He won the primary handily after raising very little money and with no real infrastructure.
We can’t expect another Barack Obama to show up. That’s a once-in-a-generation, if not a lifetime, sort of candidate. But I will say that we still have to make those personal connections.
What do you mean by like Democrats knew who they were in 2008 compared to now?
I wasn’t as mature in politics in 2008. But I don’t get that sense that there was a whole lot of what seemed to be irreconcilable differences. I won’t say we’re fractured, but we’re definitely factioned.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Giuliani's Rant About Suspicious Voting Was Based On A Massive Error

That obliterated Giuliani ’ s claims Thursday of discrepancies in district populations and suspiciously large voter turnouts .
The figures mangled overvote percentages by comparing the number of expected district votes in one state to the populations of completely unrelated districts in another state .
“ In Michigan and Wisconsin , we have overvotes in numerous precincts of 150 % , 200 % and 300 % , ” Giuliani gloated in one of his imagined “ gotcha ” moments .
The man in charge of Trump ’ s assault on election results also argued that there were more votes than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he confused the states .
The erroneous numbers used by Giuliani and others on the legal team challenging presidential election results were based on an affidavit submitted — and already thrown out by one court — by self-proclaimed election fraud expert and failed Texas congressional candidate , Russ Ramsland , the Powerline blog first reported Thursday .
“ There are over 3,000 precincts [ in Michigan ] where the presidential vote cast compared to the estimated voters … is 99 % all the way up to 350 % , ” Ramsland complained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network .
“ Where did all those votes come from ?
” Clearly , they came from Minnesota .
In one section of his affidavit , Ramsland listed as highly suspicious 100 % voter turnouts he calculated in 25 districts in Detroit ’ s Wayne County , which went for Democrat Joe Biden .
But all of the districts listed were actually in Minnesota .
Powerline suspects Ramsland may have confused the postal abbreviation for Minnesota ( MN ) with Michigan ( MI ) .
CNN ’ s Jake Tapper quipped that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M ” states .
It “ certainly speaks to a lack of due diligence , ” The Washington Post noted .
Even the numbers Ramsland referred to from Minnesota weren ’ t supported by official figures , and the affidavit was riddled with other errors , according to the Post .
The erroneous numbers were submitted as part of a Trump campaign lawsuit in Georgia , which was rejected Thursday because it “ lacked merit.
” Giuliani , the former mayor of New York City , scolded the news media Thursday for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of the Trump campaign lawsuits , claiming they present evidence of fraud .
“ It ’ s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there ’ s no evidence , ” Giuliani said .

That obliterated Giuliani’s claims Thursday of discrepancies in district populations and suspiciously large voter turnouts. The figures mangled overvote percentages by comparing the number of expected district votes in one state to the populations of completely unrelated districts in another state.
Advertisement
“In Michigan and Wisconsin, we have overvotes in numerous precincts of 150%, 200% and 300%,” Giuliani gloated in one of his imagined “gotcha” moments.
The man in charge of Trump’s assault on election results also argued that there were more votes than voters in some districts — again, because he confused the states.
The erroneous numbers used by Giuliani and others on the legal team challenging presidential election results were based on an affidavit submitted — and already thrown out by one court — by self-proclaimed election fraud expert and failed Texas congressional candidate, Russ Ramsland, the Powerline blog first reported Thursday.
“There are over 3,000 precincts [in Michigan] where the presidential vote cast compared to the estimated voters … is 99% all the way up to 350%,” Ramsland complained Tuesday to Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network. “Where did all those votes come from?”
Advertisement
Clearly, they came from Minnesota. In one section of his affidavit, Ramsland listed as highly suspicious 100% voter turnouts he calculated in 25 districts in Detroit’s Wayne County, which went for Democrat Joe Biden. But all of the districts listed were actually in Minnesota.
Powerline suspects Ramsland may have confused the postal abbreviation for Minnesota (MN) with Michigan (MI). CNN’s Jake Tapper quipped that the legal team was confused over two “M” states. It “certainly speaks to a lack of due diligence,” The Washington Post noted.
Even the numbers Ramsland referred to from Minnesota weren’t supported by official figures, and the affidavit was riddled with other errors, according to the Post.
Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, scolded the news media Thursday for not carefully reading and reporting on affidavits submitted as part of the Trump campaign lawsuits, claiming they present evidence of fraud.
Advertisement
“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence,” Giuliani said.