thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Republicans Reject Subpoenas For John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney

“ I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president ’ s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world ’ s greatest deliberative body , ” the usually reserved Roberts said .
He asked them to “ avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.
” The White House legal team did not dispute Trump ’ s actions , when he called Ukraine and asked for a “ favor , ” which was to investigate Democrat Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ally desperately needed as it faced off with hostile Russia on its border .
But the lawyers insisted the president did nothing wrong .
“ Absolutely no case , ” Cipollone said .
The turnaround was a swift lesson as White House wishes run into the reality of the Senate .
The White House wanted a session kept to a shorter period to both expedite the trial and shift more of the proceedings into late night , according to a person familiar with the matter but unauthorized to discuss it in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of the House managers and the first woman to argue for the prosecution in a presidential impeachment trial , said the House wasn ’ t asking the Senate to do the job for them .
“ The House is asking the Senate to do its job , to have a trial , ” she said .
“ Have you ever heard of a trial without evidence ?
″

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate plunged into President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Tuesday with Republicans abruptly abandoning plans to cram opening arguments into two late-night sessions and Democrats arguing for more witnesses to expose Trump’s “trifecta” of offenses.
The day started with a setback for Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and the president’s legal team, exposing a crack in the GOP ranks and the growing political unease over the historic impeachment proceedings unfolding amid a watchful public in an election year. But it was ending with solid Republican rejection of Democratic demands for witnesses.
Advertisement
Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled open the session, with House prosecutors on one side, Trump’s team on the other, in the well of the Senate, as senators sat silently at their desks, under oath to do “impartial justice.” No cellphones or other electronics were allowed.
Opening day stretched deep into the night. Senators remained as the clock passed midnight, while Democrats pursued what may be their only chance to force senators to vote on hearing new testimony. Tempers flared as lawerly arguments gave way to more pointedly political ones.
After one particularly bitter exchange, Roberts intervened, taking the rare step of admonishing both the Democratic House managers and the White House counsel to “remember where they are.”
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” the usually reserved Roberts said. He asked them to “avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
Advertisement
By the same 53-47 party-line, Republicans turned away witnesses with front-row seats to Trump’s actions including acting John Bolton (left), the former national security adviser critical of the Ukraine policy, and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (right). Leah Millis / Reuters
Throughout the long night, Republicans turned back Democratic amendments to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department, Defense Department and budget office. By the same 53-47 party-line, they turned away witnesses with front-row seats to Trump’s actions including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton, the former national security adviser critical of the Ukraine policy.
As the hours mounted, McConnell offered Democrats a deal to stack the votes more quickly, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer countered that voting could resume Wednesday. No deal was reached.
“It’s not our job to make it easy for you,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the prosecution, told the Senate. “Our job is to make it hard to deprive the American people of a fair trial.”
Earlier, McConnell stunned senators and delayed the start of proceedings with his decision to back off some of his proposed rules. Republicans were said to be concerned over the political optics of “dark of night” sessions.
Advertisement
Instead, 24 hours of opening arguments for each side will be spread over three days, for a moment swelling Democrats’ momentum as they push to break the standoff over calling new witnesses.
As the visitors’ gallery filled with guests, actress-and-activist Alyssa Milano among them, and Trump’s most ardent House allies lining the back rows, the day quickly took on the cadence of a trial proceeding over whether the president’s actions toward Ukraine warranted removal from office.
“It’s time to start with this trial,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the president’s lead lawyer, voicing impatience as the proceedings opened in public after weeks of delay.
Cipollone scoffed that the House charges against Trump were “ridiculous,” insisting the president “has done absolutely nothing wrong.”
The White House legal team did not dispute Trump’s actions, when he called Ukraine and asked for a “favor,” which was to investigate Democrat Joe Biden as the U.S. was withholding military aid the ally desperately needed as it faced off with hostile Russia on its border. But the lawyers insisted the president did nothing wrong. “Absolutely no case,” Cipollone said.
Advertisement
Schiff, the California Democrat, opened for the prosecution saying America’s Founders added the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution with “precisely this type of conduct in mind — conduct that abuses the power of office for a personal benefit, that undermines our national security, and that invites foreign interference in the democratic process of an election.”
Said Schiff: “It is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment.″
The other lead lawyer on Trump’s team, Jay Sekulow, retorted, “I’ll give you a trifecta,” outlining complaints over the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry process.
The impeachment trial, unfolding in an election year, is testing whether Trump’s actions toward Ukraine warrant removal at the same time that voters are forming their own verdict on his White House.
All four senators who are presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors. “My focus is going to be on impeachment,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, told reporters.
The day began as a debate over rules, and it was only when the clerk started reading the dry language of the resolution that the hand-written changes became apparent.
Advertisement
McConnell made the adjustment after encountering resistance from Republicans during a closed-door lunch meeting. Senators worried about the public reaction to cramming the 24 hours of opening arguments from each side into just two days.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, along with a substantial number of other Republicans, wanted to make the changes, according to people familiar with the situation. Some senators argued that the two-day limit would have helped Democrats cast Republicans as squeezing testimony through in the dead of night.
Collins and Murkowski, who often ally to buck GOP leadership, sat side by side in the Senate through the day’s proceedings.
The turnaround was a swift lesson as White House wishes run into the reality of the Senate. The White House wanted a session kept to a shorter period to both expedite the trial and shift more of the proceedings into late night, according to a person familiar with the matter but unauthorized to discuss it in public.
“READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” the president tweeted from overseas, at a global leaders conference in Davos, Switzerland.
Advertisement
That’s the transcript of his phone call in which he asked new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for “a favor.” The Democrats cite that transcript as solid evidence against Trump, though he repeatedly describes it as “perfect.”
A whistleblower’s complaint led the House to impeach Trump last month on a charge of abuse of power for pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Biden and his son Hunter Biden as the White House was withholding military aid from Ukraine. Trump also was impeached on a second charge, of obstruction of Congress, in the House probe.
Schumer of New York said Republican senators “felt the heat” and it “shows that they can make other changes, and that we can get documents and witnesses.”
Schumer offered the first of several amendments to the rules — to issue a subpoena for to the White House for “all documents, communications and other records” relating to the Ukraine matter.
It was rejected on a party-line vote, as were the others.
Trump’s legal team, absent its TV-showcase attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr who were not in the chamber, argued that in seeking new evidence the House was bringing a half-baked case that would be thrown out in any other court of law.
Advertisement
But Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, one of the House managers and the first woman to argue for the prosecution in a presidential impeachment trial, said the House wasn’t asking the Senate to do the job for them. “The House is asking the Senate to do its job, to have a trial,” she said. “Have you ever heard of a trial without evidence?″
The White House had instructed officials not to testify in the House inquiry, and refused to turn over witnesses or documents, citing what is says is precedence in defiance of congressional subpoenas.
The ambassadors and national security officials who did appear before the House delivered often striking testimony, highlights that were displayed on television screens during the Senate proceeding.
At one point, Democrat Schiff displayed video of Trump himself suggesting there should be more witnesses testifying.
One by one, the House managers made the case, drawing on their own life experiences.
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., a former police chief, said she never saw anyone take “such extreme steps to hide evidence.″ Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, seemed to capture senators’ attention when he told them near he knew the hour was late, but it was morning in Ukraine where soldiers were waking up to fight Russia, depending on U.S. aid.
Advertisement
Legal scholars have long insisted the framers of the Constitution provided impeachment as a remedy for “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” a particularly broad definition that doesn’t mean simply specific criminal acts.
Democrats point in particular to a General Accountability Office report that found the White House violated federal law by stalling money to Ukraine that had been approved by Congress.
No president has ever been removed from office by the Senate. With its 53-47 Republican majority, the Senate is not expected to mount the two-thirds vote needed for conviction.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Caught Snoozing? Impeachment Sketch Artist Shows Sen. Jim Risch Zonked Out During Trial

A Republican lawmaker was reportedly caught nodding off during Tuesday evening ’ s marathon impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump .
Sen. Jim Risch ( R-Idaho ) had his eyes closed and head slumped into the palm of his hand at about 5:30 p.m .
Independent cameras were not allowed in the Senate during the proceedings .
With the only cameras in the chamber controlled by Senate staffers , the scene was only captured on video or via still photograph .
But a New York Times sketch artist in the chamber preserved the moment for posterity : Sketch artist Art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catching a few winks.
” The Washington Post said Risch , who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , had “ clearly fallen asleep ” for about 15 minutes .
NBC News reported that he appeared to be “ jolted awake ” when Trump attorney Jay Sekulow took the stand and began speaking louder than the speaker before him .
However , a spokesperson for Risch told The Wall Street Journal that the senator was just listening closely , which he does “ with his eyes closed or cast down.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to keep awake seemed to have become a bipartisan effort : 9- As the night wore on , senators were restless .
Some walked to the back of the chamber and stretched .
Sen. Gillibrand took off her heels , sighed then wrapped herself in a red blanket at her desk .
Both her & McConnell started to doze off before jolting themselves back awake — Christal Hayes ( @ Journo_Christal ) January 22 , 2020 The Senate finally wrapped just before 2 a.m. , after nearly 13 hours .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Republican lawmaker was reportedly caught nodding during Tuesday evening’s marathon impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) had his eyes closed and head slumped into the palm of his hand at about 5:30 p.m.
Advertisement
Independent cameras were not allowed in the Senate during the proceedings. With the only cameras in the chamber controlled by Senate staffers, the scene was only captured on video or via still photograph. But a New York Times sketch artist in the chamber preserved the moment for posterity:
NYT has a sketch artist covering impeachment, catching moments like Sen. Risch sleeping https://t.co/kXf9Voi0Og pic.twitter.com/fH5fee7In4 — Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) January 22, 2020
Sketch artist Art Lien wrote that the senator was “catching a few winks.”
The Washington Post said Risch, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had “clearly fallen asleep” for about 15 minutes. NBC News reported that he appeared to be “jolted awake” when Trump attorney Jay Sekulow took the stand and began speaking louder than the speaker before him.
A spokesperson for Risch told The Wall Street Journal that the senator was just listening closely, which he does “with his eyes closed or cast down.”
Advertisement
By the end of the night, trying to keep awake seemed to have become a bipartisan effort:
9- As the night wore on, senators were restless. Some walked to the back of the chamber and stretched. Sen. Gillibrand took off her heels, sighed then wrapped herself in a red blanket at her desk. Both her &McConnell started to doze off before jolting themselves back awake — Christal Hayes (@Journo_Christal) January 22, 2020
The Senate finally wrapped just before 2 a.m., after nearly 13 hours.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--After Last-Minute Tweaks, Trump Impeachment Trial Format Will Be Similar To Clinton

Though there are some minor differences , the basic structure of Trump ’ s trial will be similar to Clinton ’ s in 1999 .
The Senate will hear arguments from lawyers on both sides before debating whether to seek witness testimony and documents .
Ultimately they will reach a final vote on the two charges against Trump .
Clinton ’ s Republican prosecutors already had evidence that was compiled by then-Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr .
House Democrats who are charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings in Ukraine have had to compile their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses who refused to testify .
If there are witnesses in Trump ’ s trial , their testimony will be new , unlike the witnesses deposed in Clinton ’ s trial .
The Senate adopted the rules for Clinton ’ s trial 100-0 after the two leaders at the time , Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott , R-Miss.
, and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle , D-S.D.
, came to an agreement .
There was no such agreement in Trump ’ s trial and few negotiations between the two parties , as partisanship has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have almost uniformly opposed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s resolution for the trial , saying there should be an agreement at the beginning to call in witnesses .
They argue that is necessary because many of the people they want to testify defied House subpoenas .
The original version of McConnell ’ s rules released on Monday said that the House couldn ’ t submit its evidence until the question of witnesses was resolved .
But after moderates like Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , voiced concerns , McConnell changed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be admitted after opening arguments .
In Clinton ’ s proceedings , the evidence was automatically admitted at the beginning of the trial .
The other tweak made by McConnell on Tuesday covers the timing of the trial , which had been one of the Democrats ’ biggest complaints .
The House prosecutors and White House defense now have 24 hours over three days to present their case – up from the original resolution , which allowed 24 hours of arguments over only two days .
Democrats complained that that would push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , ” and McConnell expanded the timeline after the GOP moderates voiced similar concerns .
After the senators ’ question period , Trump ’ s trial will follow Clinton ’ s format with debate over witnesses .
In the Trump trial , the House prosecutors and White House defense will have four hours of debate over the question of whether to subpoena witnesses or documents .
The Clinton resolution is similar , but it gave the two sides six hours of debate .
Both sets of rules also require witnesses to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton ’ s trial , the Senate eventually decided to depose three witnesses and allow video excerpts to be played on the Senate floor .
But the public had already heard from all three of those witnesses , as they had been interviewed by Starr ’ s team .
It ’ s unclear what will happen with witnesses in Trump ’ s trial .
Some Republican senators — including Collins , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — pushed McConnell to include a vote on witnesses and have signaled they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony .
And at least one high-profile witness , former National Security Adviser John Bolton , has said he would be open to testify in the Senate .
Bolton , who was present for many of the episodes detailed by the House as Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Democrats , refused to testify in the House .
McConnell ’ s resolution does not mention a motion to dismiss , but does not rule it out .
Trump has tweeted that he would like such a motion , but Senate Republicans have indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pass it and that they would prefer for the president to be acquitted , as he is expected to be .
Still , any senator could offer a motion to dismiss the two articles .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — After some last-minute tweaks on Tuesday, the proposed rules for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial now largely mirror the ones used for the trial of President Bill Clinton.
Though there are some minor differences, the basic structure of Trump’s trial will be similar to Clinton’s in 1999. The Senate will hear arguments from lawyers on both sides before debating whether to seek witness testimony and documents. Ultimately they will reach a final vote on the two charges against Trump.
Advertisement
Still, there could be some major differences with Clinton’s trial.
Clinton’s Republican prosecutors already had evidence that was compiled by then-Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. House Democrats who are charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings in Ukraine have had to compile their own evidence and are trying to prod witnesses who refused to testify. If there are witnesses in Trump’s trial, their testimony will be new, unlike the witnesses deposed in Clinton’s trial.
Senators continued voting on trial procedures until after 1 a.m. on Wednesday. Aaron Bernstein / Reuters
A look at the rules for Trump’s trial vs. the rules for Clinton’s trial:
FROM BIPARTISAN TO PARTISAN
The Senate adopted the rules for Clinton’s trial 100-0 after the two leaders at the time, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., came to an agreement. There was no such agreement in Trump’s trial and few negotiations between the two parties, as partisanship has hardened in the intervening years.
Democrats have almost uniformly opposed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s resolution for the trial, saying there should be an agreement at the beginning to call in witnesses. They argue that is necessary because many of the people they want to testify defied House subpoenas.
Advertisement
But as in Clinton’s trial, McConnell’s rules push off that question, dictating that the Senate won’t consider whether to call witnesses until after the House impeachment managers and the president’s lawyers make their opening arguments.
DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
The original version of McConnell’s rules released on Monday said that the House couldn’t submit its evidence until the question of witnesses was resolved. But after moderates like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voiced concerns, McConnell changed the resolution on Tuesday to ensure the evidence will be admitted after opening arguments. In Clinton’s proceedings, the evidence was automatically admitted at the beginning of the trial.
NUMBER OF HOURS, NUMBER OF DAYS
The other tweak made by McConnell on Tuesday covers the timing of the trial, which had been one of the Democrats’ biggest complaints. The House prosecutors and White House defense now have 24 hours over three days to present their case – up from the original resolution, which allowed 24 hours of arguments over only two days. Democrats complained that that would push the trial into “the dead of night,” and McConnell expanded the timeline after the GOP moderates voiced similar concerns.
The rules for Clinton’s trial give the two sides 24 hours each for arguments but don’t specify how many days. They each took three.
SENATORS’ QUESTIONS
The rules for senators’ questions are identical for the two trials: “Upon the conclusion of the president’s presentation, senators may question the parties for a period of time not to exceed 16 hours.”
Advertisement
Per underlying Senate rules, upon which both resolutions were based, the senators have to submit those questions in writing.
WITNESS TESTIMONY
After the senators’ question period, Trump’s trial will follow Clinton’s format with debate over witnesses. In the Trump trial, the House prosecutors and White House defense will have four hours of debate over the question of whether to subpoena witnesses or documents. The Clinton resolution is similar, but it gave the two sides six hours of debate. Both sets of rules also require witnesses to be deposed before they testify publicly.
In Clinton’s trial, the Senate eventually decided to depose three witnesses and allow video excerpts to be played on the Senate floor. But the public had already heard from all three of those witnesses, as they had been interviewed by Starr’s team.
It’s unclear what will happen with witnesses in Trump’s trial. Some Republican senators — including Collins, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — pushed McConnell to include a vote on witnesses and have signaled they will vote to hear at least some testimony.
And at least one high-profile witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, has said he would be open to testify in the Senate. Bolton, who was present for many of the episodes detailed by the House as Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Democrats, refused to testify in the House.
Advertisement
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Clinton rules resolution provided that there would be a vote on a motion to dismiss the charges, an apparent concession by Lott to Democrats.
McConnell’s resolution does not mention a motion to dismiss, but does not rule it out. Trump has tweeted that he would like such a motion, but Senate Republicans have indicated that they don’t have the votes to pass it and that they would prefer for the president to be acquitted, as he is expected to be. Still, any senator could offer a motion to dismiss the two articles.
FINAL VOTE


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-21--GOP Governor Candidate: Planned Parenthood Aims To ‘Destroy The Entire Black Race’

This idea has embedded itself within some Black communities across the country , but only a few major political candidates have made the argument as publicly as Forest .
While running in the 2016 GOP presidential primary , Ben Carson ― a former neurosurgeon who now serves as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development ― accused Planned Parenthood of putting the majority of the organization ’ s clinics in Black neighborhoods in order to “ control the population.
” Carson also called out Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger , who in the early 1900s was a vocal supporter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sanger , Carson said , “ was not particularly enamored with Black people.
” Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Sanger ’ s views on race , saying in 2016 that “ the way to move forward is to acknowledge Sanger ’ s wrongdoings , encourage open conversations , and continue to address racism and ableism wherever they exist ― outside or inside our organization.
” People who embrace the Black genocide notion frequently point out that Black women in the U.S. account for 28 % of reported abortions each year yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female population .
Filmmaker Yoruba Richen , who created the short documentary “ Anti-Abortion Crusaders : Inside The African-American Abortion Battle , ” noted to HuffPost in 2018 that reproductive rights advocates and anti-abortion activists interpret these figures differently .
“ The real question that reproductive rights people want to look at is why [ more Black women get abortions ] .
What is it that is causing those numbers ?
” she said .
“ And it ’ s everything from lack of sex education , health care access and many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use that statistic in many ways.
” Richen also warned of the effects of an anti-abortion movement within the Black community .
“ This is a movement that is being ignored at our peril , ” she said in the HuffPost interview .
“ It hasn ’ t gotten a lot of attention , but I think it actually is potent and effective and it seems to be making inroads within the mainstream abortion movement.
” Forest , 52 , seeks the Republican gubernatorial nomination in North Carolina ’ s March 3 primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuredly will take on Gov .
Roy Cooper , who is heavily favored to win the Democratic primary as he bids for a second term .

This idea has embedded itself within some Black communities across the country, but only a few major political candidates have made the argument as publicly as Forest.
While running in the 2016 GOP presidential primary, Ben Carson ― a former neurosurgeon who now serves as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development ― accused Planned Parenthood of putting the majority of the organization’s clinics in Black neighborhoods in order to “control the population.”
Carson also called out Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who in the early 1900s was a vocal supporter of eugenics ― the practice of selective breeding. Sanger, Carson said, “was not particularly enamored with Black people.”
Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Sanger’s views on race, saying in 2016 that “the way to move forward is to acknowledge Sanger’s wrongdoings, encourage open conversations, and continue to address racism and ableism wherever they exist ― outside or inside our organization.”
People who embrace the Black genocide notion frequently point out that Black women in the U.S. account for 28% of reported abortions each year yet make up only 13% of the female population.
Filmmaker Yoruba Richen, who created the short documentary “Anti-Abortion Crusaders: Inside The African-American Abortion Battle,” noted to HuffPost in 2018 that reproductive rights advocates and anti-abortion activists interpret these figures differently.
“The real question that reproductive rights people want to look at is why [more Black women get abortions]. What is it that is causing those numbers?” she said. “And it’s everything from lack of sex education, health care access and many, many other causes ... You can definitely use that statistic in many ways.”
Richen also warned of the effects of an anti-abortion movement within the Black community.
“This is a movement that is being ignored at our peril,” she said in the HuffPost interview. “It hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, but I think it actually is potent and effective and it seems to be making inroads within the mainstream abortion movement.”
Forest, 52, seeks the Republican gubernatorial nomination in North Carolina’s March 3 primary. The winner of that vote almost assuredly will take on Gov. Roy Cooper, who is heavily favored to win the Democratic primary as he bids for a second term.
This article has been updated to include comments from Planned Parenthood.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Trump Impeachment Lawyer Utters 'Biggest Lie Ever' Told On Senate Floor

Cipollone just said `` President Trump is a man of his word '' but I have to think , because @ @ @ @ @ the morning , I was actually dreaming that he said that and that a grown-ass @ @ @ @ @ just say that about a guy who just told his 16,000th lie as president

Cipollone just said "President Trump is a man of his word" but I have to think, because it's so early in the morning, I was actually dreaming that he said that and that a grown-ass man with self-respect did not just say that about a guy who just told his 16,000th lie as president


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-21--Polls Find Americans Divided On Trump's Impeachment Trial

Americans remain closely divided on whether the Senate should vote to remove President Donald Trump from office , according to a set of new surveys conducted in advance of the impeachment trial beginning this week .
Although the exact margins range from narrow support to narrow opposition , all indicate that opinions remain deeply polarized .
In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll , Americans say , by a margin of 47 % to 41 % , that they want their senators to vote in favor of convicting and removing Trump .
Forty-six percent say he should be removed from office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
The results on the latter question are well within the range of past HuffPost/YouGov surveys , suggesting that public opinion has remained largely stable since the start of the House impeachment hearings last fall .
( A separate poll taken earlier this month found greater opposition to ousting the president , but so far that doesn ’ t appear to have marked the start of a trend . )
Views are sharply partisan : 85 % of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would like their senators to vote for Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their senators should vote against this .
Americans give negative ratings to both parties for their handling of the inquiry , but the GOP fares moderately worse .
Forty-one percent of Americans approve of congressional Democrats ’ actions , with 46 % disapproving , while 35 % approve of congressional Republicans ’ actions , with 49 % disapproving .
The public also rates Trump ’ s handling of the inquiry negatively , with 37 % approving and 51 % disapproving .
Just 20 % of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump will be removed from office , with 69 % saying it ’ s not very or not at all likely , and the rest not sure .
CNN/SSRS : “ About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial ( 51 % ) , according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS , while 45 % say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal .
Nearly seven in 10 ( 69 % ) say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry .
...
Massive partisan gaps continue to dominate views on Trump and his impeachment trial.
” Monmouth University : “ A majority of Americans say that House managers should be able to introduce new evidence in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
Most also say that Trump and members of his administration should be asked to appear at the trial , but there is a deep partisan split on whether they should be compelled to do so .
... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 53 % ) approve of the House of Representatives decision to impeach Trump , while 46 % disapprove .
Support for the U.S. Senate actually removing Trump from office now that he has been impeached stands at 49 % who agree with this , while a similar 48 % say Trump should not be removed.
” Gallup : “ Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office , while 51 % want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the case for Clinton , the impeachment of Trump has not had a noticeably negative effect on his popular support.
” Quinnipiac : “ Voters are divided on whether the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office , as 48 percent say the Senate should not vote to remove him and 46 percent say they should .
Democrats think he should be removed 87 - 7 percent , independents are divided 48 - 44 percent , and Republicans think he should not be removed 94 - 5 percent.
” NPR/PBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about whether or not the Senate should remove Trump from office .
An equal share — 47 percent — either support the U.S. Senate removing Trump from office or oppose ousting him .
An additional 6 percent of respondents said they were unsure.
” Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey , using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups : HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and take part in YouGov ’ s nationally representative opinion polling .
More details on the polls ’ methodology are available here .
Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some but not all potential survey errors .
YouGov ’ s reports include a model-based margin of error , which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling .
If these assumptions are wrong , the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate .
Click here for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin of error .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Americans remain closely divided on whether the Senate should vote to remove President Donald Trump from office, according to a set of new surveys conducted in advance of the impeachment trial beginning this week. Although the exact margins range from narrow support to narrow opposition, all indicate that opinions remain deeply polarized.
In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, Americans say, by a margin of 47% to 41%, that they want their senators to vote in favor of convicting and removing Trump. Forty-six percent say he should be removed from office, and 43% say that he shouldn’t.
Advertisement
The results on the latter question are well within the range of past HuffPost/YouGov surveys, suggesting that public opinion has remained largely stable since the start of the House impeachment hearings last fall. (A separate poll taken earlier this month found greater opposition to ousting the president, but so far that doesn’t appear to have marked the start of a trend.)
Polls show opinions remain closely divided. Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
Views are sharply partisan: 85% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would like their senators to vote for Trump’s conviction and removal, while 89% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their senators should vote against this.
Americans give negative ratings to both parties for their handling of the inquiry, but the GOP fares moderately worse. Forty-one percent of Americans approve of congressional Democrats’ actions, with 46% disapproving, while 35% approve of congressional Republicans’ actions, with 49% disapproving. The public also rates Trump’s handling of the inquiry negatively, with 37% approving and 51% disapproving.
Advertisement
Just 20% of Americans think it’s even somewhat likely that Trump will be removed from office, with 69% saying it’s not very or not at all likely, and the rest not sure.
The latest HuffPost/YouGov survey is just one of several impeachment-related polls released in the past few days. About 47% of the public supports Trump’s removal, according to FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate of polls.
Here are the main takeaways from a few of those other recent surveys:
CNN/SSRS: “About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial (51%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while 45% say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal. Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry. ... Massive partisan gaps continue to dominate views on Trump and his impeachment trial.”
Monmouth University: “A majority of Americans say that House managers should be able to introduce new evidence in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Most also say that Trump and members of his administration should be asked to appear at the trial, but there is a deep partisan split on whether they should be compelled to do so. ... Just over half of the American public (53%) approve of the House of Representatives decision to impeach Trump, while 46% disapprove. Support for the U.S. Senate actually removing Trump from office now that he has been impeached stands at 49% who agree with this, while a similar 48% say Trump should not be removed.”
Gallup: “Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, while 51% want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump will remain as president. ... As was the case for Clinton, the impeachment of Trump has not had a noticeably negative effect on his popular support.”
Advertisement
Quinnipiac: “Voters are divided on whether the Senate should vote to remove President Trump from office, as 48 percent say the Senate should not vote to remove him and 46 percent say they should. Democrats think he should be removed 87 - 7 percent, independents are divided 48 - 44 percent, and Republicans think he should not be removed 94 - 5 percent.”
NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist: “Americans are split evenly about whether or not the Senate should remove Trump from office. An equal share — 47 percent — either support the U.S. Senate removing Trump from office or oppose ousting him. An additional 6 percent of respondents said they were unsure.”
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey, using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups:
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Jan. 15-17 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
Advertisement
HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Ex-Ethics Chief Gives Republicans A Much-Needed Lesson In Democracy

Q .
How come the other side doesn ’ t already have all the documents and testimony they want ?
@ @ @ @ @ in the president ’ s office wrote that he wouldn ’ t let them have @ @ @ @ @ Q .
Why don ’ t they get that guy down here and ask him @ @ @

Q. How come the other side doesn’t already have all the documents and testimony they want?
A. The top lawyer in the president’s office wrote that he wouldn’t let them have any documents or witnesses.
Q. Why don’t they get that guy down here and ask him some questions?


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--U.S. Deports Iranian Student With Valid Visa, Despite Judge’s Ruling

U.S. Customs and Border Protection deported an Iranian student planning to study at Northeastern University on Monday , despite a court order that he be allowed to remain in the country while his case was heard by a federal judge .
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said Tuesday that Shahab Dehghani , 24 , arrived at Boston ’ s Logan International Airport on Sunday night with a student visa .
He was planning to study economics at Northeastern , but was detained by customs officials and questioned for hours before CBP revoked his visa .
Dehghani ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand he be allowed into the country and his lawyers filed an emergency lawsuit asking the courts to stay his removal until a federal judge could hear his case .
The request was granted for 48 hours and a detention hearing was scheduled for Tuesday , but just minutes later Dehghani was on a flight back to Iran .
“ We awoke to the news that CBP had deported Shahab , putting him on an Air France flight despite the judge ’ s order , ” Carol Rose , the executive director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wish I could say we were surprised , but we ’ ve seen this kind of flagrant defiance of the law from immigration officials before.
” A government official familiar with the case told The New York Times customs officers had found evidence that Dehghani had immediate family members linked to a company subject to U.S. sanctions .
But Dehghani ’ s attorneys expressed doubt about the allegations , noting it took nearly a year for his student visa to be approved as part of a rigorous vetting process .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that obvious slipped by the Department of State for a year , ” Kerry Doyle , one of Dehghani ’ s attorneys , told the Times .
Doyle later said she felt “ the Iranian community has been unfortunately targeted.
” “ We ’ re hearing many reports , especially at the Boston port of entry , of Iranian students and other individuals being subjected to increased and severe interrogation at secondary inspections , ” she told reporters after a hearing Tuesday , MassLive reported .
A federal judge said Tuesday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moot ” because he was never admitted to the United States and is no longer in custody .
The ACLU lambasted what it said was the Trump administration ’ s “ recent targeting of Iranians and Iranian Americans ” after tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated following the president ’ s order to assassinate one of Iran ’ s senior military figures .
Iran retaliated by firing a barrage of missiles at air bases in Iraq that house American troops , although the conflict has eased in recent weeks .
Fears remain high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to be targeted for their heritage despite holding legal visas .
At least 10 Iranian students have been removed from the country since August and had their visas canceled .
The Guardian reported that some have been banned from traveling to the United States for years .
“ In America , nobody is above the law — including Customs and Border Protection officials , ” Rose said in a statement .
“ Given the Trump administration ’ s xenophobic policies and CBP ’ s troubling practice at Logan Airport of sending students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is shameful that the government defied a federal court order and deported Shahab without due process .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Monday deported an Iranian student planning to study at Northeastern University, despite a court order that he be allowed to remain in the country while his case was considered by a federal judge.
Shahab Dehghani, 24, arrived at Boston’s Logan International Airport on Sunday night with a student visa, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said Tuesday. He was planning to study economics at Northeastern, but was detained by customs officials and questioned for hours before CBP revoked his visa.
Advertisement
Dehghani’s friends gathered at the Boston airport to demand he be allowed into the country. His lawyers filed an emergency lawsuit asking the courts to postpone his removal until a federal judge could hear his case. The request was granted for 48 hours and a detention hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, but just minutes later Dehghani was on a flight back to Iran.
“We awoke to the news that CBP had deported Shahab, putting him on an Air France flight despite the judge’s order,” Carol Rose, executive director of ACLU Massachusetts, wrote Tuesday. “I wish I could say we were surprised, but we’ve seen this kind of flagrant defiance of the law from immigration officials before.”
Strong showing of support for Shahab outside the courthouse after the hearing.#dontdeportstudents pic.twitter.com/38ngnEPunY — ACLU Massachusetts (@ACLU_Mass) January 21, 2020
A government official familiar with the case told The New York Times customs officers had found evidence that Dehghani had immediate family members linked to a company subject to U.S. sanctions.
Advertisement
But Dehghani’s attorneys expressed doubt about the allegations, noting it took nearly a year for his student visa to be approved as part of a rigorous vetting process.
“I find it really hard to believe that something that obvious slipped by the Department of State for a year,” Kerry Doyle, one of Dehghani’s attorneys, told the Times. Doyle later said she felt “the Iranian community has been unfortunately targeted.”
“We’re hearing many reports, especially at the Boston port of entry, of Iranian students and other individuals being subjected to increased and severe interrogation at secondary inspections,” Doyle told reporters after a hearing Tuesday, MassLive reported.
A federal judge said Tuesday that Dehghani’s case is now “moot” because he was never admitted to the United States and is no longer in custody.
The ACLU lambasted what it said was the Trump administration’s “recent targeting of Iranians and Iranian Americans” after tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated following the president’s order to assassinate one of Iran’s senior military figures. Iran retaliated by firing a barrage of missiles at air bases in Iraq that house American troops, although the conflict has eased in recent weeks.
Advertisement
Fears remain high, however, that Iranian students are being targeted for their heritage despite holding legal visas. At least 10 Iranian students have been removed from the country since August and have had their visas canceled. The Guardian reported that some have been banned from traveling to the United States for years.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Fox News Legal Analyst: ‘Ample’ Evidence To Remove Donald Trump From Office

In a new op-ed , Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano debunked President Donald Trump ’ s “ hoax @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial and argued that there was “ ample ” evidence to remove the president @ @ @ @ @ is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms , ” the former New Jersey @ @ @ @ @ the trial in a column published on the conservative news network ’ s website Thursday @ @ @ @ @ events that led to Trump being put on trial in the GOP-controlled Senate over his @ @ @ @ @ denied wrongdoing and called his impeachment “ a hoax.
” It “ leaves us with @ @ @ @ @ arguments for Trump ’ s impeachment that he ought to take seriously , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ shied away from criticizing Trump and his administration in recent months .
“ What is @ @ @ @ @ president ?
” Napolitano asked .
“ A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes @ @ @ @ @ in Trump ’ s case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a new op-ed, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano debunked President Donald Trump’s “hoax” defense in his Senate impeachment trial and argued that there was “ample” evidence to remove the president from office.
“It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms,” the former New Jersey Superior Court judge wrote of the trial in a column published on the conservative news network’s website Thursday.
Advertisement
Napolitano broke down the events that led to Trump being put on trial in the GOP-controlled Senate over his Ukraine misconduct. Trump has denied wrongdoing and called his impeachment “a hoax.”
It “leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump’s impeachment that he ought to take seriously,” wrote Napolitano, who has not shied away from criticizing Trump and his administration in recent months.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Chris Hayes Issues Ultimatum To GOP Senators Napping, Going AWOL From Trump Trial

Sleepy and absent senators attracted the wrath of MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes on Wednesday night as the “ All In ” host chastised them for not focusing 100 % on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
“ These peoples ’ jobs is to do this , ” Hayes said during a panel discussion on reports that at least one GOP lawmaker had fallen asleep during proceedings and others had left the chamber for extended periods .
“ I mean , this is literally the job , ” Hayes continued .
“ If you find it too annoying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight hours and listen , you can resign tomorrow and go get another job .
Like , this is your job.
” In video published by Mediaite , Hayes earlier contrasted senators being paid to sit through the trial with citizens who have to be absent from their work when called to serve as jurors .
“ If the trial goes for a long time , often they don ’ t collect their paycheck from that and are given a meager amount of money relative to what some of those people might make @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sleepy and absent senators attracted the wrath of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday night as the “All In” host chastised them for not focusing 100% on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
“These peoples’ jobs is to do this,” Hayes said during a panel discussion on reports that at least one GOP lawmaker had fallen asleep during proceedings and others had left the chamber for extended periods.
Advertisement
“I mean, this is literally the job,” Hayes continued. “If you find it too annoying or frustrating or uncomfortable to sit for eight hours and listen, you can resign tomorrow and go get another job. Like, this is your job.”
In video published by Mediaite, Hayes earlier contrasted senators being paid to sit through the trial with citizens who have to be absent from their work when called to serve as jurors.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Conservative Columnist Nails ‘Inescapable Reality’ Donald Trump’s Lawyers Can't Avoid

Conservative columnist Max Boot delivered a scathing critique of the lawyers who are defending Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial over the president ’ s Ukraine misconduct in a new editorial for The Washington Post .
Boot , who quit the GOP soon after Trump ’ s election and has been a vocal critic of the president ever since , wrote in a column published Wednesday that Democrats in the trial have so far had “ not only the stronger arguments but also the stronger arguers.
” Trump ’ s lawyers have “ played a bad hand badly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ inescapable reality ” that they face .
Namely , “ that their client is guilty as sin.
” Boot fact-checked the Trump defenders ’ false claims during the trial , then said it “ should be no surprise that the lawyers representing a president who has made more than 16,241 false statements since taking office should resort to their own lies.
” “ The Trump team will win an acquittal in the Senate no matter how badly they argue but , on the present trajectory , they won ’ t win in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he concluded .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Conservative columnist Max Boot delivered a scathing critique of the lawyers who are defending Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial over the president’s Ukraine misconduct in a new editorial for The Washington Post.
Boot, who quit the GOP soon after Trump’s election and has been a vocal critic of the president ever since, wrote in a column published Wednesday that Democrats in the trial have so far had “not only the stronger arguments but also the stronger arguers.”
Advertisement
Trump’s lawyers have “played a bad hand badly,” he said, before explaining the “inescapable reality” that they face.
Namely, “that their client is guilty as sin.”
Boot fact-checked the Trump defenders’ false claims during the trial, then said it “should be no surprise that the lawyers representing a president who has made more than 16,241 false statements since taking office should resort to their own lies.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Democrats Demand White House Turn Over Ukraine Testimony From Pence Aide

Democrats on Wednesday demanded the White House declassify a document from one of Vice President Mike Pence ’ s aides who listened in on his call last year with the president of Ukraine , arguing that the public would be able to learn more about White House attempts to pressure the country for a political favor if the document is made public .
The party ’ s House impeachment managers argued Wednesday before the Senate that the document — supplemental material provided to the House by Jennifer Williams , a special adviser on Europe and Russia to Pence — should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president ’ s office was attempting to conceal it because it was embarrassing .
“ This supplemental testimony will allow the Senate to see further corroborative evidence as it considers articles of impeachment , ” a Democratic official working on the Senate trial said in a statement to reporters .
“ If declassified , it would provide the public further understanding of the events in question.
” Pence spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sept. 18 , and Williams testified that it was a “ very positive ” follow-up to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) said in December that Williams provided lawmakers additional classified evidence about the Pence phone call after that deposition .
Schiff called on Pence at the time to make public the document , saying there was “ no legitimate basis ” for the vice president to assert it was classified .
It ’ s unclear what is in the document , but Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif. ) , one of the party ’ s impeachment managers who has reviewed it , alluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call between Pence and the Ukrainian president .
“ Now I ’ ve read that testimony .
Now I ’ ll just say : A cover-up is not a proper reason to classify a document , ” Lofgren said during the Democrats ’ oral arguments on Wednesday .
“ We urge the senators to review it , and we ask again that the White House declassify it .
There is no basis to keep it classified , and again , in case the White House needs a reminder , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid embarrassment.
” Lofgren continued to note that Pence has said he has no objection to the White House releasing the full transcript of his call with Zelensky .
But despite that assertion , his office has refused multiple times to declassify Williams ’ s supplemental testimony about the call .
At the end of the Democrats ’ first day of oral arguments , Chief Justice John Robert said a “ single one-paged classified document identified by the House managers for filing with the secretary of the Senate ” would be made available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified setting .
Trump ’ s pressure campaign was the basis for two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month charging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The Senate is holding a trial on those articles to determine if he should be removed from office .
As part of the House investigation , lawmakers heard from a parade of current and former White House officials who described Trump ’ s demand that the Ukrainian leader announce an investigation into a political rival , Joe Biden , and his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of national security aides who listened in on Trump ’ s July 25 call with Zelensky in real time , and she told House lawmakers in closed-door testimony that she believed President Donald Trump ’ s pressure campaign was “ unusual and inappropriate.
” “ I found the specific references to be — to be more specific to the president in nature , to his personal political agenda , as opposed to a broader … foreign policy objective of the United States , ” Williams told House investigators , according to a @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democrats on Wednesday demanded the White House declassify a document from one of Vice President Mike Pence’s aides who listened in on his call last year with the president of Ukraine, arguing that the public would be able to learn more about White House attempts to pressure the country for a political favor if the document is made public.
The party’s House impeachment managers argued Wednesday before the Senate that the document — supplemental material provided to the House by Jennifer Williams, a special adviser on Europe and Russia to Pence — should not be classified and alluded that the vice president’s office was attempting to conceal it because it was embarrassing.
Advertisement
“This supplemental testimony will allow the Senate to see further corroborative evidence as it considers articles of impeachment,” a Democratic official working on the Senate trial said in a statement to reporters. “If declassified, it would provide the public further understanding of the events in question.”
Pence spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sept. 18, and Williams testified that it was a “very positive” follow-up to a meeting the pair had earlier that month. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in December that Williams provided lawmakers additional classified evidence about the Pence phone call after that deposition. Schiff called on Pence at the time to make public the document, saying there was “no legitimate basis” for the vice president to assert it was classified.
Despite repeated Congressional requests, Vice President Pence has refused to declassify his aide Jennifer Williams' additional testimony.
"I've read that testimony. And I'll just say: A cover up is not a proper reason to classify a document." -@RepZoeLofgren pic.twitter.com/bQ3hnDrJWy — House Intelligence Committee (@HouseIntel) January 23, 2020
It’s unclear what is in the document, but Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), one of the party’s impeachment managers who has reviewed it, alluded that its contents contained damaging information about the call between Pence and the Ukrainian president.
Advertisement
“Now I’ve read that testimony. Now I’ll just say: A cover-up is not a proper reason to classify a document,” Lofgren said during the Democrats’ oral arguments on Wednesday. “We urge the senators to review it, and we ask again that the White House declassify it. There is no basis to keep it classified, and again, in case the White House needs a reminder, it’s improper to keep something classified just to avoid embarrassment.”
Lofgren continued to note that Pence has said he has no objection to the White House releasing the full transcript of his call with Zelensky. But despite that assertion, his office has refused multiple times to declassify Williams’s supplemental testimony about the call.
At the end of the Democrats’ first day of oral arguments, Chief Justice John Robert said a “single one-paged classified document identified by the House managers for filing with the secretary of the Senate” would be made available to all senators to review in a classified setting.
But Democrats have continued to call for its public release.
Trump’s pressure campaign was the basis for two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month charging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate is holding a trial on those articles to determine if he should be removed from office.
As part of the House investigation, lawmakers heard from a parade of current and former White House officials who described Trump’s demand that the Ukrainian leader announce an investigation into a political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.
Advertisement
Williams was one of a handful of national security aides who listened in on Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky in real time, and she told House lawmakers in closed-door testimony that she believed President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign was “unusual and inappropriate.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Trump Poised To Roll Back Decades Of Clean Water Protections With New Rule

The Trump administration is on the cusp of finalizing a rule that ’ s expected to remove federal protections on millions of acres of wetlands and hundreds of thousands of the nation ’ s streams .
Environmental experts have warned of the far-reaching and likely devastating impacts of the rule , which could put the drinking water of millions of Americans at risk , imperil food safety and threaten countless natural habitats ― and the creatures that call them home .
“ This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen , ” Blan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Southern Environmental Law Center , told The New York Times this week of the impending rule , which the paper reported will be finalized Thursday .
The new rule , put together by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers , will serve as a replacement to President Barack Obama ’ s 2015 Waters of the United States regulation , also known as WOTUS or the Clean Water Rule .
Trump made it his mission early in his presidency to dismantle the Obama measure , which had sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be protected under the 1972 federal Clean Water Act .
Legal experts and environmentalists told the Times that Trump ’ s new rule doesn ’ t just toss out the protections introduced by his predecessor , but also eliminates protections to smaller headwaters that have been in place for decades .
More than half the country ’ s wetlands and millions of miles of streams are expected to lose federal protection under the new rule , Politico reported .
At the American Farm Bureau Federation ’ s annual convention on Sunday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overhaul was met with applause and cheers .
“ I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all : the last administration ’ s disastrous Waters of the United States rule , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s gone .
That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.
” The president , however , didn ’ t mention the potential risks of the rule ’ s rollback .
The drinking water of more than 100 million Americans could be threatened , as could the well-being of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangered ones .
Pollutants in waterways could also endanger food safety , experts say , as well as recreational industries like hunting and sport fishing .
The EPA ’ s Scientific Advisory Board , comprised of many Trump administration appointees , warned last month that the new rule is “ not fully consistent with established EPA recognized science , may not fully meet the key objectives of the [ Clean Water Act ] ... and is subject to a lack of clarity for implementation.
” The rule , the board added , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s waters ” and potentially introduces “ substantial new risks to human and environmental health.
” Trump ’ s new rule is not expected to go unchallenged .
Several state attorneys general , with the support of environmental groups , are likely to sue the Trump administration over the measure .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Trump administration on Thursday finalized a rule that removes federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands and hundreds of thousands of the nation’s streams.
Advertisement
The Obama rule extended federal safeguards to 2 million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, ultimately securing the drinking water of millions of Americans.
“Today, thanks to our new rule, our nation’s farmers, ranchers, developers, manufacturers and other landowners can finally refocus on providing the food, shelter and other commodities that Americans rely on every day, instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and consultants to determine whether waters on their own land fall under the control of the federal government,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a call with reporters Thursday.
Environmental experts have warned of the far-reaching and likely devastating impacts of the Trump rule, which could put the drinking water of millions of Americans at risk, imperil food safety and threaten countless natural habitats ― and the creatures that call them home.
The move is about protecting polluting industries instead of public health, said Blan Holman, a lawyer and water expert at the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Advertisement
“This rule is the culmination of an insider campaign to gut bipartisan protections that have safeguarded the nation’s water for decades, and will endanger the health and environment of families and communities across the entire country,” he said in a statement to HuffPost. “If allowed to stand, this bulldozing of clean water protections would be among this administration’s dirtiest, most dangerous deeds.”
Trump has excoriated the Obama water rule as a “disaster” and “one of the worst examples of federal regulation.” He signed an executive order within weeks of taking office to scrap the rule and ultimately repealed it in September.
But Trump and his team weren’t content with merely scrapping the Obama-era regulation. The president’s personal business stands to directly benefit from the overhaul, as it will ease restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer use at golf courses.
The new rule doesn’t just toss out the protections introduced by Trump’s predecessor, but eliminates protections to smaller headwaters that have been in place for decades, according to legal experts and environmentalists. More than half the country’s wetlands and millions of miles of streams are expected to lose federal protection under the new rule, Politico reported.
“Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act,” Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School, told The New York Times this week.
Advertisement
The final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, likely later this week.
A puddle blocks a path that leads into the Panther Island Mitigation Bank in June 2018, near Naples, Florida. Experts say the Trump administration’s move to redefine what constitutes a waterway under federal law is threatening efforts to save wetlands from destruction. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Industry groups, including big agribusiness, real estate developers and fossil fuel companies, have celebrated the long-awaited replacement of Obama’s rule. At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention on Sunday, Trump’s announcement of the overhaul was met with applause and cheers.
“I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule,” Trump said. “It’s gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.”
The president, however, didn’t mention the potential risks of the rule’s rollback. The drinking water of more than 100 million Americans could be threatened, as could the well-being of many animal and plant species, including endangered ones.
Advertisement
Pollutants in waterways could also endanger food safety, experts say, as well as recreational industries like hunting and sport fishing.
Even scientists appointed by the Trump administration have warned of the potential hazards.
The EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, comprised of many Trump administration appointees, warned last month that the new rule is “not fully consistent with established EPA recognized science, may not fully meet the key objectives of the [Clean Water Act] ... and is subject to a lack of clarity for implementation.”
The rule, the board added, “threatens to weaken protection of the nation’s waters” and potentially introduces “substantial new risks to human and environmental health.”
Trump’s new rule is not expected to go unchallenged. Several state attorneys general, with the support of environmental groups, are likely to sue the Trump administration over the measure.
“So much for the ‘crystal clear’ water President Trump promised,” Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator and new president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “This effort neglects established science and poses substantial new risks to people’s health and the environment. We will do all we can to fight this attack on clean water. We will not let it stand.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Trump’s Doral Resort Spikes Its Room Rates Ahead Of His RNC Visit

The White House would not reveal how much Trump ’ s Secret Service agents or other members of his “ advance ” team are paying for the days prior to his visit .
Trump is only scheduled to be at the property for a few hours , but at least two dozen staff typically need to get there a few days ahead of time to prepare for his arrival .
Robert Weissman , president of the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen , said the episode illustrates Trump ’ s continued use of his office to enrich himself .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial over abuse of power than to jet to your private golf resort on the public dime , secure lots of publicity for the club on the public dime , and then , possibly , rip off taxpayers by forcing them to pay extra for the staff whose costs at the resort are billed to ‘ we the people , ’ ” Weissman said .
If , in fact , two or three dozen government employees have spent several days there , that would have put tens of thousands of public dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the room rates and the higher-than-average cost for food at the on-site restaurants .
That is on top of the $ 500,000 or so that the RNC is likely to wind up paying for staff hotel rooms , meeting rooms and catering for its three-day gathering , as well as the $ 1,000 or more each of the 168 individual RNC members is paying out of pocket to attend .
RNC officials declined to reveal how much , exactly , the meeting is costing its donors .
However , records filed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already paid Doral $ 169,763 on Nov. 6 , likely as a deposit for the meeting .
The party previously spent $ 602,765 at Doral for its 2018 spring meeting , and $ 84,822 for a lunch fundraiser it held there in June 2019 .
Because Trump insists on playing golf at his own properties , American taxpayers have been the source for at least a few million dollars that have gone to the Trump Organization in the form of rooms , meals and other expenses for Secret Service agents and other government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his golf courses in Florida , New Jersey , Scotland and Ireland .
The exact amount is not known because the White House refuses to release those records .
For the latter half of December and the first days of January , Doral ’ s website advertised rates as low as $ 254 per night for nonrefundable rooms for the days of the RNC meeting , and a $ 299 rate that allowed cancellation until five days before the first night of the booking , according to HuffPost ’ s tracking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped to $ 459 a night on Jan. 13 , soon after the White House first began planning for a potential Trump trip to the meeting .
The next day it jumped to $ 539 a night , before falling to $ 499 per room on Jan. 15 , but with rooms only available for the final night of the RNC meeting , and the first two nights sold out .
Yet even that rate appears to be substantially more than what the market will bear .
On Monday , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that night at just $ 209 .
On Tuesday , the least expensive room available was $ 224 a night .
In 2017 , according to documents obtained by the group Property of the People under the Freedom of Information Act , Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach refused to lower its room charges below the legal maximum $ 546 a night for administration officials staying there , despite State Department requests to bring them into line with the government per diem of $ 182 .
The White House ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the State Department would not do so .
And in November , according to the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , Trump ’ s Washington , D.C. , hotel a few blocks from the White House raised its rates threefold ― to more than $ 1,300 a night for its cheapest rooms ― for nights coinciding with a fundraising retreat for Senate Republicans .
That hotel has similarly raised its cheapest rates to $ 1,600 for this November ’ s election night .
“ Not only is the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased political patronage of his business , the business raises rates when he does so he ’ ll profit even more , ” said CREW ’ s Jordan Libowitz .
“ What we ’ re seeing is a blending of Trump ’ s political career and his business , which is certainly not something you want to see from the president of the United States.
” It is also questionable whether Republicans and other supporters are getting their money ’ s worth at Doral when they have so many other South Florida options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boast that his resort is first-rate , but it has suffered financially since Trump became president while also suffering in contrast to other resorts in the area .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
DORAL, Fla. ― The president’s Miami golf resort that puts money into his pocket more than doubled its room rates just before the White House announced his Thursday visit ― possibly increasing taxpayer costs for staff who must travel there in advance.
Donald Trump’s plan to address the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting at Trump National Doral next to the Miami airport has been in the works since mid-January, about the same time that the resort raised the nightly rate for its least expensive rooms from $254 to $539.
Advertisement
That higher figure is just under the maximum per-night rate federal government rules permit for a hotel in South Florida, and is triple the normal “per diem” rate employees are supposed to follow.
The White House would not reveal how much Trump’s Secret Service agents or other members of his “advance” team are paying for the days prior to his visit. Trump is only scheduled to be at the property for a few hours, but at least two dozen staff typically need to get there a few days ahead of time to prepare for his arrival.
Doral officials refused to discuss how much they are charging for U.S. government employees staying there for Trump’s visit. The Trump Organization, the president’s family business that owns and operates the resort, also did not respond to queries from HuffPost.
A Secret Service spokesperson declined to give details about the visit: “For operational security reasons, the Secret Service does not discuss our protectees or our protective means and methods. This includes personnel numbers associated with a particular protective visit.”
Advertisement
Robert Weissman, president of the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen, said the episode illustrates Trump’s continued use of his office to enrich himself. “What better way to defend yourself in an impeachment trial over abuse of power than to jet to your private golf resort on the public dime, secure lots of publicity for the club on the public dime, and then, possibly, rip off taxpayers by forcing them to pay extra for the staff whose costs at the resort are billed to ‘we the people,’” Weissman said.
Room Rates Spiked With Trump’s Visit
If, in fact, two or three dozen government employees have spent several days there, that would have put tens of thousands of public dollars into Trump’s cash registers, between the room rates and the higher-than-average cost for food at the on-site restaurants. That is on top of the $500,000 or so that the RNC is likely to wind up paying for staff hotel rooms, meeting rooms and catering for its three-day gathering, as well as the $1,000 or more each of the 168 individual RNC members is paying out of pocket to attend.
RNC officials declined to reveal how much, exactly, the meeting is costing its donors. However, records filed with the Federal Election Commission show the RNC already paid Doral $169,763 on Nov. 6, likely as a deposit for the meeting. The party previously spent $602,765 at Doral for its 2018 spring meeting, and $84,822 for a lunch fundraiser it held there in June 2019.
The timing of that November payment means the RNC settled on holding its winter meeting at Doral just 18 days after Trump backed down from his plan to award a multimillion-dollar government contract to the resort to host the Group of Seven conference there this June.
Trump had claimed he would not make any money from the contract, but never made clear how that was possible. He is the sole beneficiary of the trust that owns Trump Organization, and Trump Organization owns his hotels and golf resorts, including Doral.
Advertisement
Because Trump insists on playing golf at his own properties, American taxpayers have been the source for at least a few million dollars that have gone to the Trump Organization in the form of rooms, meals and other expenses for Secret Service agents and other government employees who have stayed on-site with Trump at his golf courses in Florida, New Jersey, Scotland and Ireland. The exact amount is not known because the White House refuses to release those records.
Trump was not originally planning to attend this week’s RNC meeting. He started considering doing so early last week, which was when the hotel also raised its room rates for the nights of and just prior to his visit.
For the latter half of December and the first days of January, Doral’s website advertised rates as low as $254 per night for nonrefundable rooms for the days of the RNC meeting, and a $299 rate that allowed cancellation until five days before the first night of the booking, according to HuffPost’s tracking of the room rates.
Those numbers suddenly jumped to $459 a night on Jan. 13, soon after the White House first began planning for a potential Trump trip to the meeting. The next day it jumped to $539 a night, before falling to $499 per room on Jan. 15, but with rooms only available for the final night of the RNC meeting, and the first two nights sold out.
Rooms for RNC members, in contrast, were available in a block for $289 per night.
Yet even that rate appears to be substantially more than what the market will bear. On Monday, for example, the hotel website was showing rooms available for that night at just $209. On Tuesday, the least expensive room available was $224 a night.
Advertisement
Making Money Off The Presidency
The jump in room rates at Doral continues a pattern of Trump properties hiking rates to take advantage of campaign and election-related events hosted by Republicans.
In 2016, Trump nearly quintupled the rent he charged his campaign for space in Trump Tower after he secured the GOP nomination and had access to the RNC’s donors, from $35,458 a month to $169,758, even though the number of employees remained the same.
In 2017, according to documents obtained by the group Property of the People under the Freedom of Information Act, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach refused to lower its room charges below the legal maximum $546 a night for administration officials staying there, despite State Department requests to bring them into line with the government per diem of $182. The White House ultimately also approved a $1,005.60 bar tab after the State Department would not do so.
And in November, according to the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel a few blocks from the White House raised its rates threefold ― to more than $1,300 a night for its cheapest rooms ― for nights coinciding with a fundraising retreat for Senate Republicans. That hotel has similarly raised its cheapest rates to $1,600 for this November’s election night.
“Not only is the president personally profiting from his office by the increased political patronage of his business, the business raises rates when he does so he’ll profit even more,” said CREW’s Jordan Libowitz. “What we’re seeing is a blending of Trump’s political career and his business, which is certainly not something you want to see from the president of the United States.”
Advertisement
It is also questionable whether Republicans and other supporters are getting their money’s worth at Doral when they have so many other South Florida options to choose from. Trump likes to boast that his resort is first-rate, but it has suffered financially since Trump became president while also suffering in contrast to other resorts in the area.
While the city of Doral is in Miami-Dade County, it is removed from the attractions most people have in mind when they think of Miami. The golf resort boasts plenty of ornate chandeliers and baroque fountains — but lies directly beneath the flight path of Miami International Airport’s takeoffs and landings, and is miles from the closest beach.
During the RNC’s meeting there in 2018, the troubled property appeared to be skimping on maintenance costs. At least one of the guest buildings smelled of mildew, as did its guest rooms, while the restaurant on the lower floor in the main lodge had a mustiness tinged with the fraternity house odor of spilled alcohol.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Samantha Bee Comes Up With Savage New Way To Describe Donald Trump's Defense Team

Samantha Bee held nothing back as she picked apart President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial defense team on Wednesday ’ s episode of “ Full Frontal.
” Bee described some of Trump ’ s legal defense team ― which includes Ken Starr , Alan Dershowitz and Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) ― as “ a virtual dream team of rape culture.
” To make her case , Bee pointed to Starr ’ s resignation as president of Baylor University following a sexual assault scandal involving the school ’ s football program , Dershowitz ’ s dismissal of statutory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and allegations that Jordan ignored sexual abuse during his time as a wrestling coach at Ohio State University .
“ It is infuriating that these three men are allowed to show their faces in polite society , much less defend the captain of the rape culture all-star team , ” said Bee .
“ Look , the impeachment case isn ’ t about sexual assault , but for women and survivors it is horrifying to see these men congeal together to protect each other , ” she added .
Bee then predicted “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting their client off , paving the way for them to start their own speciality ” rapist-defending law firm .
“ The only law firm whose phone number is 911 , ” she said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Samantha Bee held nothing back as she picked apart President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial defense team on Wednesday’s episode of “Full Frontal.”
Bee described some of Trump’s legal defense team ― which includes Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) ― as “a virtual dream team of rape culture.”
Advertisement
To make her case, Bee pointed to Starr’s resignation as president of Baylor University following a sexual assault scandal involving the school’s football program, Dershowitz’s dismissal of statutory rape as an “outdated concept” and allegations that Jordan ignored sexual abuse during his time as a wrestling coach at Ohio State University.
“It is infuriating that these three men are allowed to show their faces in polite society, much less defend the captain of the rape culture all-star team,” said Bee.
“Look, the impeachment case isn’t about sexual assault, but for women and survivors it is horrifying to see these men congeal together to protect each other,” she added.
Bee then predicted “they’ll almost certainly succeed in getting their client off, paving the way for them to start their own speciality” rapist-defending law firm.
Advertisement
“The only law firm whose phone number is 911,” she said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Lindsey Graham Makes Compelling Case For Impeachment Witnesses In Old Footage

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) has repeatedly slammed the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump and insisted he doesn ’ t need to see evidence or hear from witnesses .
“ I don ’ t need any witnesses , ” Graham said last month , adding that he had already made up his mind on impeachment .
He also dismissed the process as a “ waste of everybody ’ s time.
” But that ’ s not what Graham said more than 20 years ago during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton .
In footage that resurfaced online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House impeachment managers ― made a strong and compelling case for all impeachment proceedings to have witnesses .
“ In every trial that there ’ s ever been in the Senate regarding impeachment , witnesses were called , ” Graham said in 1999 .
He observed that if witnesses were forbidden , it would leave all the work up to the House Judiciary Committee and/or independent counsel prior to reaching the Senate .
The “ big problem ” with that , he said , was that “ impeachment in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in the Senate , and without witnesses , the House won ’ t be able to present its case .
“ That would be bad for impeachment law , that would be against precedent and I hope that doesn ’ t happen here , ” he said at the time .
In the clip , Graham slammed a witness-free impeachment as “ three days of lawyers talking to each other.
” Then , he made a strong case for what a witness brings to the proceedings : “ When you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in it , who was in the middle of it , telling you about what they were doing and why , that ’ s a totally different case ― and it ’ s the difference between getting the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
” Graham also called on the Senate to vote their conscience regarding witnesses to ensure a meaningful trial .
“ The process is just as important as the result , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has repeatedly slammed the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump and insisted he doesn’t need to see evidence or hear from witnesses.
“I don’t need any witnesses,” Graham said last month, adding that he had already made up his mind on impeachment. He also dismissed the process as a “waste of everybody’s time.”
Advertisement
But that’s not what Graham said more than 20 years ago during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. In footage that resurfaced online this week, Graham ― then one of the House impeachment managers ― made a strong and compelling case for all impeachment proceedings to have witnesses.
“In every trial that there’s ever been in the Senate regarding impeachment, witnesses were called,” Graham said in 1999.
He observed that if witnesses were forbidden, it would leave all the work up to the House Judiciary Committee and/or independent counsel prior to reaching the Senate. The “big problem” with that, he said, was that “impeachment in the House is not the trial.” It takes place in the Senate, and without witnesses, the House won’t be able to present its case.
“That would be bad for impeachment law, that would be against precedent and I hope that doesn’t happen here,” he said at the time.
Advertisement
In the clip, Graham slammed a witness-free impeachment as “three days of lawyers talking to each other.” Then, he made a strong case for what a witness brings to the proceedings:
“When you have a witness who was there, who was engaged in it, who was in the middle of it, telling you about what they were doing and why, that’s a totally different case ― and it’s the difference between getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Graham also called on the Senate to vote their conscience regarding witnesses to ensure a meaningful trial.
“The process is just as important as the result,” he said.
Please continue to retweet to humiliate Lindsey Graham pic.twitter.com/mEv4d73Y6A — Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) January 19, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--‘President Pence’: Republican Group Urges Senate To Dump Trump In Damning New Ad

A Republican group has launched a new ad campaign urging the Senate to remove President Donald Trump at the conclusion of the impeachment trial , elevating Vice President Mike Pence into the Oval Office .
“ Mike Pence is a bland , boring , completely typical , ordinary conservative Republican from Indiana , ” the President Pence website created by the anti-Trump conservative group Defending Democracy Together states .
“ And if the Senate does its duty , they ’ ll make him the next president of the United States.
” Defending Democracy Together said removing Trump won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s supporters have claimed .
“ It won ’ t put Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi in the White House .
Instead it will give us President Mike Pence , ” spokesperson Tim Miller said in a statement .
“ And while Pence isn ’ t the president of anyone ’ s dreams , he isn ’ t Donald Trump either .
So there ’ s that.
” While the campaign argues for Trump ’ s removal , it ’ s not exactly a celebration of Pence so much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a MAGA-style cap worn by conservative pundit Bill Kristol on the website declares : “ Mike ’ s Alright Given Alternative.
” Kristol is a founder of the group , which is parent of Republicans for the Rule of Law , another anti-Trump GOP organization that has launched a series of ads supporting impeachment .
Kristol ’ s group is among several challenges Trump is facing from the right .
Another , the Lincoln Project , is led by a group of prominent conservatives including attorney George Conway , husband of Kellyanne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House as a counselor to the president .
That organization just launched its own impeachment-related ad , calling on Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) to “ do your job ” and vote for witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial .
“ Madame Senator , this time a finger-wag will not cut it , ” a voiceover in the spot says .
“ You ’ re a senator , so act like it.
” And at least one other prominent Republican is vowing to work against him .
Former White House communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will launch an anti-Trump PAC .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Republican group has launched a new ad campaign urging the Senate to remove President Donald Trump at the conclusion of the impeachment trial, elevating Vice President Mike Pence into the Oval Office.
“Mike Pence is a bland, boring, completely typical, ordinary conservative Republican from Indiana,” the President Pence website created by the anti-Trump conservative group Defending Democracy Together states. “And if the Senate does its duty, they’ll make him the next president of the United States.”
Advertisement
There’s also a commercial set to run on Fox News as the impeachment vote nears:
Defending Democracy Together said removing Trump won’t undo the 2016 presidential election, as the president’s supporters have claimed.
“It won’t put Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi in the White House. Instead it will give us President Mike Pence,” spokesperson Tim Miller said in a statement. “And while Pence isn’t the president of anyone’s dreams, he isn’t Donald Trump either. So there’s that.”
While the campaign argues for Trump’s removal, it’s not exactly a celebration of Pence so much as accepting him over Trump.
Advertisement
Or, as a MAGA-style cap worn by conservative pundit Bill Kristol on the website declares: “Mike’s Alright Given Alternative.”
Kristol is a founder of the group, which is parent of Republicans for the Rule of Law, another anti-Trump GOP organization that has launched a series of ads supporting impeachment.
Kristol’s group is among several challenges Trump is facing from the right.
Another, the Lincoln Project, is led by a group of prominent conservatives including attorney George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, who serves in the White House as a counselor to the president.
That organization just launched its own impeachment-related ad, calling on Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to “do your job” and vote for witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial.
“Madame Senator, this time a finger-wag will not cut it,” a voiceover in the spot says. “You’re a senator, so act like it.”
Advertisement
Trump is also facing at least two long-shot 2020 GOP primary challengers.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Trump Says We Should Protect The Inventor Of The Wheel

Ancient Mesopotamians might have been interested to know that someday a world leader would offer them protection for their genius invention .
During a CNBC interview in Davos , Switzerland , on Wednesday , U.S. President Donald Trump said that we must “ protect our genius , ” citing Elon Musk , Thomas Edison , and the inventor of the wheel as examples .
Trump , who is in Davos for the World Economic Forum this week , was praising Tesla CEO Musk for both his car and SpaceX businesses following some problems in recent years .
“ I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one of our great geniuses , and we have to protect our genius , ” Trump said of Musk .
“ You know , we have to protect Thomas Edison , and we have to protect all of these people that came up with , originally , the lightbulb , and the wheel and all of these things.
” The wheel made its first appearance in Mesopotamia — an ancient region that corresponds mostly to present-day Iraq — around 3,500 B.C .
Trump seems to believe the wheel was invented in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect all of these people that came up with , originally , the light bulb and the wheel and all of these things . ''
pic.twitter.com/re6CyRi6HY — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) January 22 , 2020 “ You go back a year , and they were talking about the end of the company , ” Trump said in a nod to Tesla ’ s legal battles .
“ And now all of a sudden they ’ re talking about these great things.
” “ He ’ s also doing the rockets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good at rockets , too , by the way , ” he said .
“ I never saw where the engines come down with no wings , no anything , and they ’ re landing.
” In one minute today Trump managed to : - Say Elon Musk “ does very good at rockets ” - Imply Thomas Edinson is alive - Say the wheel was invented in America Such a massive embarrassment to our country .
pic.twitter.com/Qc4I7tlviX — Joshua Potash ( @ JoshuaPotash ) January 22 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Ancient Mesopotamians might have been interested to know that someday a world leader would offer them protection for their genius invention.
During a CNBC interview in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that we must “protect our genius,” citing Elon Musk, Thomas Edison, and the inventor of the wheel as examples.
Advertisement
Trump, who is in Davos for the World Economic Forum this week, was praising Tesla CEO Musk for both his car and SpaceX businesses following some problems in recent years.
“I was worried about him, because he’s one of our great geniuses, and we have to protect our genius,” Trump said of Musk. “You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison, and we have to protect all of these people that came up with, originally, the lightbulb, and the wheel and all of these things.”
The wheel made its first appearance in Mesopotamia — an ancient region that corresponds mostly to present-day Iraq — around 3,500 B.C.
Trump seems to believe the wheel was invented in the United States: "We have to protect all of these people that came up with, originally, the light bulb and the wheel and all of these things." pic.twitter.com/re6CyRi6HY — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 22, 2020
Advertisement
“You go back a year, and they were talking about the end of the company,” Trump said in a nod to Tesla’s legal battles. “And now all of a sudden they’re talking about these great things.”
The president also applauded Musk’s expertise in aerospace.
“He’s also doing the rockets, he likes rockets, and he does good at rockets, too, by the way,” he said. “I never saw where the engines come down with no wings, no anything, and they’re landing.”
Here’s what Twitter users thought of all this:
In one minute today Trump managed to:
- Say Elon Musk “does very good at rockets”
- Imply Thomas Edinson is alive
- Say the wheel was invented in America
Such a massive embarrassment to our country.
pic.twitter.com/Qc4I7tlviX — Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) January 22, 2020
Second grade book report on Elon Musk and rockets: https://t.co/sSCXVqbWsz — Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) January 22, 2020
In this clip, President Trump appears to believe that an American invented the wheel. pic.twitter.com/Bz68fHczAD — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 22, 2020
Advertisement
This organically damaged buffoon thinks the wheel was invented by an American. pic.twitter.com/CM97pOggzQ — Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) January 22, 2020
Hey Republicans, the guy you're shredding the Constitution for thinks an American invented the wheel. https://t.co/AJQFbNv2f3 — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) January 22, 2020
The wheel.
This fuckopotamus thinks an American invented the wheel. https://t.co/rdWGzy294V — The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) January 22, 2020
We have to protect the american who invented the wheel guys https://t.co/5Jqfij2wOf — music man (@Ghaspermusic) January 22, 2020