thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Kansas To Expand Medicaid To 150,000 Under Bipartisan Deal

If the state legislature passes the measure , Kansas would join 37 other states and the District of Columbia in broadening eligibility for the health care program to anyone earning up to 133 % of the federal poverty level , which amounts to about $ 16,000 a year for a single person and $ 33,000 for a family of four .
Kansas had been one of 14 holdout states , as Kelly ’ s Republican predecessors Jeff Colyer and Sam Brownback opposed Medicaid expansion .
But since defeating then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the 2018 gubernatorial election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s majority-Republican legislature over the policy .
On Thursday , she jointly announced a deal with state Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning ( R ) to move ahead .
“ This process is far from over , as there are still several critical steps to be taken by the Kansas Legislature , ” Kelly said in a press release .
“ But today , Sen. Denning and I are proud to stand together to propose a bipartisan compromise that will expand Medicaid and lower health care costs for Kansas families.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide Medicaid expansion ; a Supreme Court ruling two years later made it optional for states .
Republican-led states mostly rejected the expansion at first , but states have gradually signed on to the program .
The Affordable Care Act guarantees that the federal government will cover 90 % of the costs associated with people who enroll in Medicaid under the expansion , while the states must finance the remainder .
Unlike recent bipartisan compromises on Medicaid in Virginia and other states , the Kelly-Denning plan is a straightforward expansion .
The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enrollees sign up for private health insurance plans via the Affordable Care Act ’ s exchanges , nor does it include work requirements .
Beneficiaries would , however , be required to pay at least $ 25 a month in premiums .
A new tax on hospitals would fund the expansion .
Kelly previously estimated the expansion would cover 150,000 Kansans .
The plan also includes a measure designed to reduce costs for private health insurance purchased by individuals and families through the federal HealthCare.gov exchange or directly from insurance companies .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of health care for Kansans across the board .
We want to give as many Kansans health care coverage as we can , in the Medicaid market and the non-Medicaid market , ” Denning said in a press release .
A “ reinsurance ” program would compensate insurers whose policyholders had extraordinarily high expenses , with the goal of stopping insurers from passing along those high costs to other consumers in the form of premium increases .
President Donald Trump ’ s administration has encouraged states to apply for federal approval of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 13 states , according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation .
Several other states are actively considering joining the Medicaid expansion .
Legislation to open up the program to more poor adults is advancing through the Wyoming legislature .
In addition , grassroots activists in Missouri and Oklahoma are working to put the question of expansion before voters in ballot initiatives this year .
A similar effort in Florida fell short .
Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act itself are still at risk , however .
Trump and congressional Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making significant additional cuts to Medicaid funding .
In addition , a Trump-backed lawsuit brought by GOP state officials threatens to eliminate the entire law .
Democratic state officials defending the Affordable Care Act have asked the Supreme Court to take up the case this year .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As many as 150,000 low-income Kansans stand to gain health coverage under a compromise plan to expand Medicaid that Gov. Laura Kelly (D) announced on Thursday.
If the state legislature passes the measure, Kansas would join 37 other states and the District of Columbia in broadening eligibility for the health care program to anyone earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level, which amounts to about $16,000 a year for a single person and $33,000 for a family of four.
Advertisement
Kansas had been one of 14 holdout states, as Kelly’s Republican predecessors Jeff Colyer and Sam Brownback opposed Medicaid expansion. But since defeating then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the 2018 gubernatorial election, Kelly has been negotiating with the state’s majority-Republican legislature over the policy. On Thursday, she jointly announced a deal with state Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning (R) to move ahead.
“This process is far from over, as there are still several critical steps to be taken by the Kansas Legislature,” Kelly said in a press release. “But today, Sen. Denning and I are proud to stand together to propose a bipartisan compromise that will expand Medicaid and lower health care costs for Kansas families.”
The 2010 Affordable Care Act called for a nationwide Medicaid expansion; a Supreme Court ruling two years later made it optional for states. Republican-led states mostly rejected the expansion at first, but states have gradually signed on to the program. The Affordable Care Act guarantees that the federal government will cover 90% of the costs associated with people who enroll in Medicaid under the expansion, while the states must finance the remainder.
Unlike recent bipartisan compromises on Medicaid in Virginia and other states, the Kelly-Denning plan is a straightforward expansion. The proposal would not, for example, make enrollees sign up for private health insurance plans via the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges, nor does it include work requirements. Beneficiaries would, however, be required to pay at least $25 a month in premiums. A new tax on hospitals would fund the expansion. Kelly previously estimated the expansion would cover 150,000 Kansans.
Advertisement
The plan also includes a measure designed to reduce costs for private health insurance purchased by individuals and families through the federal HealthCare.gov exchange or directly from insurance companies.
“My top priority is to lower the cost of health care for Kansans across the board. We want to give as many Kansans health care coverage as we can, in the Medicaid market and the non-Medicaid market,” Denning said in a press release.
A “reinsurance” program would compensate insurers whose policyholders had extraordinarily high expenses, with the goal of stopping insurers from passing along those high costs to other consumers in the form of premium increases. President Donald Trump’s administration has encouraged states to apply for federal approval of reinsurance plans and has already OKed them in 13 states, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Several other states are actively considering joining the Medicaid expansion. Legislation to open up the program to more poor adults is advancing through the Wyoming legislature. In addition, grassroots activists in Missouri and Oklahoma are working to put the question of expansion before voters in ballot initiatives this year. A similar effort in Florida fell short.
Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act itself are still at risk, however. Trump and congressional Republicans remain committed to repealing the law and making significant additional cuts to Medicaid funding. In addition, a Trump-backed lawsuit brought by GOP state officials threatens to eliminate the entire law. Democratic state officials defending the Affordable Care Act have asked the Supreme Court to take up the case this year.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Joe Biden Reluctantly Backed Abortion Amendment In Bankruptcy Bill Fights

But if the intent was actually about people abusing the system , Schumer ’ s amendment fit .
Randall Terry ― the founder of Operation Rescue , a group that opposes abortion rights ― filed for bankruptcy in 1998 , saying , “ I will never let a cent of my money be seized to support the killing of the unborn.
” He didn ’ t want to pay court-ordered damages for his confrontational protests at abortion clinics .
The bill was a top lobbying priority for credit card companies , including MBNA , a Delaware-based corporation whose employees were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors over the course of his Senate career .
MBNA paid consulting fees to Biden ’ s son Hunter between 2001 and 2005 , while his father was at work on the legislation .
The company was acquired by Bank of America in 2006 and sold to Lloyds Bank in 2017 .
Warren ’ s plan does not mention Biden by name .
But it ’ s an unmistakable shot at the former vice president , drawing attention to his support for the law and his corporate-friendly record .
Biden has touted his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that willingness to work with Republicans has often resulted in deals that put him at odds with people in his own party .
Prior to her Senate career , Warren was an academic who specialized in bankruptcy law .
Her research concluded that the leading cause of individual bankruptcy was generally not raw overspending but personal tragedies ― such as the loss of a job , an unexpected medical bill , or divorce ― that disrupted family finances .
She believed the bankruptcy legislation would squeeze families who had already been hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for banks and credit card companies .
Hillary Clinton , after reading an op-ed by Warren in The New York Times , became concerned that the bill would make it harder for a woman to receive alimony and child support if her former husband filed for bankruptcy .
She met with Warren , who helped explain some of the problems , and then went back to the White House and convinced the president to veto the measure .
Both times , and in 1999 , Biden backed the inclusion of the Schumer amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups also supported .
But he wanted bankruptcy reform passed so badly that he was willing to go forward even if the amendment wasn ’ t included , and seemed disappointed that his Democratic colleagues were making it an issue .
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2001 , Biden said that while he supported the goal of the amendment ’ s supporters , he wanted to make sure “ we don ’ t put ourselves in the position of hyping this beyond what is real.
” He predicted the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them , even without the amendment .
Biden has never been the most enthusiastic ally on abortion issues .
He supports a woman ’ s right to choose , but has also sided with abortion rights opponents at times .
In June 2019 , Biden struggled to articulate his position on the Hyde Amendment , which bans federal funding for most abortions .
Schumer ’ s amendment did not make it into the final 2005 bill .
The language no longer specifically mentioned anti-abortion protesters , but simply debts incurred from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with , obstruction of , injury to , threat to , or violence against , any person.
” Still , most Republicans were skeptical of it because of its history .
“ This amendment is for the rule of law .
This amendment says you can not use violence against any group to achieve a political end and then , when you are sued civilly , use the bankruptcy courts for protection .
That has never been what the bankruptcy courts were intended to be .
It is neutral on terms of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate floor on March 8 , 2005 .
“ Yes , it might be extremists who are against abortion .
It also might be extremists on the left side , on the environmental side who burn buildings or houses or cars .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In 1999, the bankruptcy reform bill that then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) passionately supported suddenly hit a roadblock.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) was offering an amendment to ensure that violent anti-abortion protesters wouldn’t be able to declare bankruptcy to escape paying court-ordered fines.
Advertisement
The legislation was not just about abortion. Supporters wanted to tighten rules to make it harder for people to declare bankruptcy. The bill was a top priority for the credit card industry, which spent years pushing for it.
But if the intent was actually about people abusing the system, Schumer’s amendment fit. Randall Terry ― the founder of Operation Rescue, a group that opposes abortion rights ― filed for bankruptcy in 1998, saying, “I will never let a cent of my money be seized to support the killing of the unborn.” He didn’t want to pay court-ordered damages for his confrontational protests at abortion clinics.
“We must make it clear to those who would harm women and doctors that bankruptcy is no escape from accountability,” Schumer said at the time.
Biden wasn’t happy that the bankruptcy fight was suddenly about abortion. He said Schumer was introducing a “poison pill” that could kill the legislation.
Advertisement
The way “to make sure nothing happens (with legislation) is to say ‘abortion,’” Biden said, according to an April 14, 1999, article by The Associated Press.
In December 2000, he also said the argument that abortion clinics would not be protected without the Schumer amendment “simply was flat out not true.”
A bankruptcy reform bill ― without the abortion provision ― did pass in 2005, one of Biden’s key legislative accomplishments during his 36 years in the Senate. Every single Republican voted for it, as did 18 Democrats. (Twenty-five Democrats voted against it.)
Biden’s role in helping Republicans and the credit card industry pass this legislation has come under increased scrutiny during the 2020 presidential campaign. One of the foremost opponents of the bill, now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is running against him for the Democratic nomination.
The bill was a top lobbying priority for credit card companies, including MBNA, a Delaware-based corporation whose employees were among Biden’s most important campaign donors over the course of his Senate career. MBNA paid consulting fees to Biden’s son Hunter between 2001 and 2005, while his father was at work on the legislation. The company was acquired by Bank of America in 2006 and sold to Lloyds Bank in 2017.
Advertisement
Biden and his team have defended his efforts on the legislation, saying that he worked to provide protections for low-income families.
“Because it was a certainty that the Republican-controlled Congress and White House would turn the bankruptcy bill into law,” Biden spokesperson Andrew Bates told Vox in May, “then-Senator Biden fought for and won important concessions for middle class families in it, including protecting access to Chapter 7 forgiveness for working people, making child support and alimony the number one priority for debt payments — in front of big banks and credit card companies — and forcing credit card companies to warn borrowers about their interest rates.”
On Tuesday, Warren released a plan on the reforms she’d make to the law, including making it easier for people to file for bankruptcy, addressing racial and gender disparities in the bankruptcy system, and paring back rules that make it harder for people to recover afterward.
Warren’s plan does not mention Biden by name. But it’s an unmistakable shot at the former vice president, drawing attention to his support for the law and his corporate-friendly record. Biden has touted his ability to work across the aisle, but that willingness to work with Republicans has often resulted in deals that put him at odds with people in his own party.
“[The way] to make sure nothing happens [with legislation] is to say ‘abortion.’” - Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) in 1999
Advertisement
Prior to her Senate career, Warren was an academic who specialized in bankruptcy law. Her research concluded that the leading cause of individual bankruptcy was generally not raw overspending but personal tragedies ― such as the loss of a job, an unexpected medical bill, or divorce ― that disrupted family finances. She believed the bankruptcy legislation would squeeze families who had already been hit by hardship in order to generate revenue for banks and credit card companies.
Biden, by contrast, billed his legislation as an effort to stop spendthrifts from abusing the bankruptcy system.
To be clear, there were plenty of reasons many Democrats opposed the bankruptcy bill aside from the abortion issue. And President Bill Clinton vetoed it in 2000, spurred largely by opposition from first lady Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, after reading an op-ed by Warren in The New York Times, became concerned that the bill would make it harder for a woman to receive alimony and child support if her former husband filed for bankruptcy. She met with Warren, who helped explain some of the problems, and then went back to the White House and convinced the president to veto the measure.
The abortion issue arose again when the bankruptcy bill came up later, first unsuccessfully in 2001 and then when it passed in 2005.
Advertisement
Both times, and in 1999, Biden backed the inclusion of the Schumer amendment, which leading women’s rights groups also supported. But he wanted bankruptcy reform passed so badly that he was willing to go forward even if the amendment wasn’t included and seemed disappointed that his Democratic colleagues were making it an issue.
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2001, Biden said that while he supported the goal of the amendment’s supporters, he wanted to make sure “we don’t put ourselves in the position of hyping this beyond what is real.” He predicted the legal system would protect abortion clinics and side with them, even without the amendment.
A Biden Senate aide involved in passage of the bill said Biden was more involved in trying to get the Schumer language in the legislation. In April 2002, the Senate was involved in conference negotiations and Biden, Schumer and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went to the House to personally engage in negotiations over the clinics language with Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) to get it into the House bill. (It initially made it into the legislation, but ultimately didn’t get into the final version because a number of House conservatives objected.)
Biden has never been the most enthusiastic ally on abortion issues. He supports a woman’s right to choose but has also sided with abortion rights opponents at times. In June 2019, Biden struggled to articulate his position on the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for most abortions.
It’s something that abortion rights supporters want to see overturned. Biden said he supported the measure, then reversed course and said he didn’t.
Advertisement
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has made an issue out of former Vice President Joe Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill. Patrick Semansky/Associated Press
Schumer’s amendment did not make it into the final 2005 bill. The language no longer specifically mentioned anti-abortion protesters, but simply debts incurred from “harassment of, intimidation of, interference with, obstruction of, injury to, threat to, or violence against, any person.” Still, most Republicans were skeptical of it because of its history.
“This amendment is for the rule of law. This amendment says you cannot use violence against any group to achieve a political end and then, when you are sued civilly, use the bankruptcy courts for protection. That has never been what the bankruptcy courts were intended to be. It is neutral on terms of what issue,” Schumer said on the Senate floor on March 8, 2005. “Yes, it might be extremists who are against abortion. It also might be extremists on the left side, on the environmental side who burn buildings or houses or cars.”
At the time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believed not having the Schumer amendment in the legislation was “a big enough issue on our side” to “stop this bill,” according to Congressional Quarterly on March 12, 2005.
But in the end, Biden and 17 other Democrats sided with the entire GOP caucus to pass the bankruptcy bill in the Senate ― despite the absence of the Schumer amendment.
Advertisement
Warren supported the provision. Her presidential campaign said that she believed it should have been in the 2005 bill and that she would support a similar measure in the future.
In 2002, Warren wrote another New York Times op-ed saying that even with the abortion amendment, the legislation was unconscionable and would hurt women trying to collect alimony or child care payments from ex-husbands who declare bankruptcy. Voting for the amendment, but then voting for final passage of the legislation, wasn’t good enough.
“Do politicians like Mr. Biden who support the bankruptcy bill believe they can give credit-card companies the right to elbow out women and children so long as they rally behind an issue like abortion?” she wrote. “The message is unmistakable: On an economic issue that attracts millions of dollars of industry support, women have no real political importance.”
Hillary Clinton, after fighting earlier iterations of the bankruptcy bill, supported it in 2001 as a Democratic senator from New York. She said she was persuaded, in part, by Biden, and she was satisfied with the changes to protect women. By 2005, she opposed the bill again.
Interest rates went down after the bill passed, but bankruptcy filings also declined sharply. And subsequent research ― by Warren and other legal scholars (including Katie Porter, a onetime student of Warren’s who is now a congresswoman from California and supports Warren’s presidential bid) ― determined that the legislation was making it harder for families to weather the Great Recession.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Ignoring Criticism, Facebook Doubles Down On Political Ad Rules

The social media platform will continue to allow lies and misinformation in ads posted by politicians , and will continue to provide “ microtargeting ” tools that only show certain ads to highly specific segments of the population .
Facebook executive Rob Leathern announced the decision in a blog post , where he couched the company ’ s inaction in an appeal to free speech and a lack of regulation .
“ In the absence of regulation , Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies , ” he wrote .
“ We have based ours on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear from those who wish to lead them , warts and all , and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.
” That laissez-faire approach has forced Facebook into some awkward corners .
When the Trump campaign ran an ad in October falsely accusing Democratic rival Joe Biden of corruption in Ukraine , Facebook refused to do anything .
CNN , meanwhile , rejected the “ demonstrably false ” message .
Facebook also looked the other way while an altered video depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as drunk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( For what it ’ s worth , the company is also failing to regulate nonpolitical ads that violate its policies .
Despite a stated ban on vaccine misinformation , for instance , Facebook continues to run anti-vaccination ads . )
The platform ’ s inaction contrasts sharply with advertising rivals Google and Twitter , each of which has placed limits on political messaging .
In November , Google restricted campaigns ’ ability to microtarget and said it would ban ads that make “ demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned political advertising entirely from the site in October , pointedly calling out Facebook ’ s claims of “ free speech ” and unwillingness to curb disinformation as he did so .
“ It ’ s not credible for us to say : ‘ We ’ re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info , buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad … well ... they can say whatever they want !
’ ” Dorsey wrote in one tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free expression , ” he concluded .
“ This is about paying for reach .
And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today ’ s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.
” Troubling as that is , if Facebook followed Twitter ’ s lead it might actually harm Democrats ’ ability to compete .
Tara McGowan , CEO of the progressive ad-technology nonprofit Acronym , argues Trump ’ s head start as an incumbent gives him a nearly insurmountable lead in terms of organic outreach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past five years using paid advertising to find and build a community of 26 million followers on Facebook — far outpacing the nearest Democrat ’ s organic following ( Sanders : 5.1 million ; Warren : 3.3 million ; Biden : 1.4 million ) and reach on the platform , ” McGowan explained .
“ If Facebook were to eliminate political advertising tomorrow , Trump would still be able to communicate with his supporters organically , while the Democratic nominee would be permanently resigned to a much smaller audience for the general @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Facing criticism over its political ad policies, Facebook pledged Thursday to leave them virtually untouched.
The social media platform will continue to allow lies and misinformation in ads posted by politicians, and will continue to provide “microtargeting” tools that only show certain ads to highly specific segments of the population.
Advertisement
Facebook executive Rob Leathern announced the decision in a blog post, where he couched the company’s inaction in an appeal to free speech and a lack of regulation.
“In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies,” he wrote. “We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”
Facebook also looked the other way while an altered video depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as drunk spread like wildfire on the platform. (For what it’s worth, the company is also failing to regulate nonpolitical ads that violate its policies. Despite a stated ban on vaccine misinformation, for instance, Facebook continues to run anti-vaccination ads.)
Advertisement
The platform’s inaction contrasts sharply with advertising rivals Google and Twitter, each of which has placed limits on political messaging.
In November, Google restricted campaigns’ ability to microtarget and said it would ban ads that make “demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or trust.”
And Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey banned political advertising entirely from the site in October, pointedly calling out Facebook’s claims of “free speech” and unwillingness to curb disinformation as he did so.
“It’s not credible for us to say: ‘We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad … well ... they can say whatever they want!’” Dorsey wrote in one tweet.
“This isn’t about free expression,” he concluded. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.”
Advertisement
Troubling as that is, if Facebook followed Twitter’s lead it might actually harm Democrats’ ability to compete. Tara McGowan, CEO of the progressive ad-technology nonprofit Acronym, argues Trump’s head start as an incumbent gives him a nearly insurmountable lead in terms of organic outreach.
“The Trump campaign has spent the past five years using paid advertising to find and build a community of 26 million followers on Facebook — far outpacing the nearest Democrat’s organic following (Sanders: 5.1 million; Warren: 3.3 million; Biden: 1.4 million) and reach on the platform,” McGowan explained.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Senators Propose New Protections For Breastfeeding Workers

Siu Chiu / Reuters A new bipartisan bill would give millions more women the right to a private space and break time to pump at work .
Sens .
Jeff Merkley ( D-Ore. ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) introduced a bill that would extend the right to pump breastmilk on the job to salaried workers who are excluded under current law .
If the proposal passed , employers would be required to provide a clean space and break time to nearly any worker who was pumping following the birth of a child .
In 2010 , Congress passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nursing mothers ” law as part of the Affordable Care Act , or Obamacare .
The law states that employers have to provide breastfeeding workers with a private , sanitary space that isn ’ t a bathroom , as well as “ reasonable ” time to pump breastmilk .
The measure was one of the few pieces of Obama ’ s signature health care reform that actually drew support from Democrats and Republicans alike .
A growing share of babies in the U.S. are breastfed , as doctors now encourage mothers to nurse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The nursing mothers law was meant to make it easier to breastfeed while holding down a job , but it came with a handful of built-in weaknesses .
One of the biggest drawbacks is that it applies primarily to hourly workers , excluding supervisors , professional employees and many others who work on salary .
If a worker is not eligible for overtime pay , they are generally not covered by the law .
The Center for WorkLife Law , a research group at the University of California ’ s Hastings College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women of child-bearing age are excluded from the federal protections in Obamacare ― many of them in female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching .
Women ’ s rights groups have been pressing Congress to amend the law , arguing that there ’ s no reason a someone shouldn ’ t be afforded breastfeeding protections just because they ’ re paid on salary or work a white-collar job .
“ Women who choose to breastfeed deserve the right to the time and space they need to do so , without risking their economic security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advocacy group A Better Balance , which has been pushing for the legislation , said in an email .
“ Studies show that breastfeeding has many health benefits for women and their babies , and that supporting nursing employees has many benefits for employers , leading to lower costs and improved morale and productivity — it ’ s win-win.
” Merkley and Murkowski , along with Maloney in the House , have introduced similar bills in the past aimed at expanding the law ’ s coverage to more women .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act , or PUMP Act ― goes a step further .
It would also entitle workers to damages in certain cases , ramping up potential penalties on employers who break the law .
The latter provision could help with what breastfeeding supporters see as another shortcoming of the statute : lax enforcement mechanisms .
In most cases , women are not entitled to financial compensation under the law , unless their employer failed to pay them , curtailed their hours or illegally fired them because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of not following the law were higher , more employers might choose to get in line .
As Liz Morris , the deputy director of the Center for WorkLife Law , told HuffPost last year , “ There may be no financial implications for the employer if they completely ignore the law .
In my opinion , it ’ s the biggest problem.
” An investigation published by HuffPost last year showed that hundreds of employers around the country have broken the pumping law since it went into effect in 2010 , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean space for pumping or both .
Among 376 investigations obtained from the Labor Department , employers ran afoul of the provisions in 255 of them , or 68 % .
In many cases , the physical and emotional tolls were severe .
Several women told investigators they developed breast infections because they had been unable to pump at work and milk backed up in their breasts .
Many women ultimately had to choose between breastfeeding or working because pumping on the job had become untenable .
Some workers were even fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law .
The breastfeeding protections passed in 2010 unanimously as an amendment to the Affordable Care Act .
But beefing up the law since then has proven more difficult politically .
The bills introduced previously in the House and Senate have not passed with Republicans at the reins .
A bill in the House sponsored by Maloney would now be likely to pass with Democrats holding the majority , but the same measure would not pass as easily in the Senate , which remains under GOP control .
When Merkley and Murkowski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 , Murkowski ― one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate ― turned out to be the only GOP co-sponsor .
The bill never made it out of committee .
Merkley said it would be much easier to pass the measure as part of a major health care bill , the way the original protections were tacked onto Obamacare .
Democrats haven ’ t had such an opportunity in years .
But given some of the movement on family-friendly labor legislation ― President Donald Trump and Republicans just agreed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a defense funding bill ― Merkley said he ’ s confident the legislation will pass when a window opens .
“ We ’ re basically doing no bills in the Senate , other than ones you can get unanimous consent on , ” he said .
“ We ’ re looking for an opportunity to attach it when we have an actual health care bill .
...
I would love to say we could get 100 % of senators on with this .
”

A new bipartisan bill would give millions more women the right to a private space and break time to pump at work. Siu Chiu / Reuters
Millions of workers who are carved out of breastfeeding protections would gain them under a bipartisan proposal made in the Senate on Thursday.
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a bill that would extend the right to pump breastmilk on the job to salaried workers who are excluded under current law. If the proposal passed, employers would be required to provide a clean space and break time to nearly any worker who was pumping following the birth of a child.
Advertisement
Merkley said it was a commonsense plan that would fill large gaps in a landmark bipartisan law he championed and passed with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) nearly a decade ago.
“Shouldn’t every woman have these protections for privacy and flexibility, to be able to pump?” Merkley told HuffPost. “I feel like we’ve made huge strides in making that the standard expectation in America, but let’s make clear it’s for every woman returning to the workforce.”
In 2010, Congress passed what’s known as the “nursing mothers” law as part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The law states that employers have to provide breastfeeding workers with a private, sanitary space that isn’t a bathroom, as well as “reasonable” time to pump breastmilk. The measure was one of the few pieces of Obama’s signature health care reform that actually drew support from Democrats and Republicans alike.
A growing share of babies in the U.S. are breastfed, as doctors now encourage mothers to nurse for a year or more if possible. The nursing mothers law was meant to make it easier to breastfeed while holding down a job, but it came with a handful of built-in weaknesses.
Advertisement
One of the biggest drawbacks is that it applies primarily to hourly workers, excluding supervisors, professional employees and many others who work on salary. If a worker is not eligible for overtime pay, they are generally not covered by the law.
The Center for WorkLife Law, a research group at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, estimates that 9 million women of child-bearing age are excluded from the federal protections in Obamacare ― many of them in female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching. Women’s rights groups have been pressing Congress to amend the law, arguing that there’s no reason a someone shouldn’t be afforded breastfeeding protections just because they’re paid on salary or work a white-collar job.
“Women who choose to breastfeed deserve the right to the time and space they need to do so, without risking their economic security,” Dina Bakst, co-founder of the advocacy group A Better Balance, which has been pushing for the legislation, said in an email. “Studies show that breastfeeding has many health benefits for women and their babies, and that supporting nursing employees has many benefits for employers, leading to lower costs and improved morale and productivity — it’s win-win.”
Merkley and Murkowski, along with Maloney in the House, have introduced similar bills in the past aimed at expanding the law’s coverage to more women. But the latest version of their legislation ― called the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or PUMP Act ― goes a step further. It would also entitle workers to damages in certain cases, ramping up potential penalties on employers who break the law.
“If a worker is not eligible for overtime pay, they are generally not covered by the law.”
Advertisement
The latter provision could help with what breastfeeding supporters see as another shortcoming of the statute: lax enforcement mechanisms. In most cases, women are not entitled to financial compensation under the law, unless their employer failed to pay them, curtailed their hours or illegally fired them because of their pumping.
If the cost of not following the law were higher, more employers might choose to get in line. As Liz Morris, the deputy director of the Center for WorkLife Law, told HuffPost last year, “There may be no financial implications for the employer if they completely ignore the law. In my opinion, it’s the biggest problem.”
An investigation published by HuffPost last year showed that hundreds of employers around the country have broken the pumping law since it went into effect in 2010, by failing to provide adequate break time, a clean space for pumping or both. Among 376 investigations obtained from the Labor Department, employers ran afoul of the provisions in 255 of them, or 68%.
In many cases, the physical and emotional tolls were severe. Several women told investigators they developed breast infections because they had been unable to pump at work and milk backed up in their breasts. Many women ultimately had to choose between breastfeeding or working because pumping on the job had become untenable. Some workers were even fired after trying to assert their rights under the law.
The breastfeeding protections passed in 2010 unanimously as an amendment to the Affordable Care Act. But beefing up the law since then has proven more difficult politically. The bills introduced previously in the House and Senate have not passed with Republicans at the reins. A bill in the House sponsored by Maloney would now be likely to pass with Democrats holding the majority, but the same measure would not pass as easily in the Senate, which remains under GOP control.
Advertisement
When Merkley and Murkowski introduced a previous version of the legislation in 2017, Murkowski ― one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate ― turned out to be the only GOP co-sponsor. The bill never made it out of committee.
Merkley said it would be much easier to pass the measure as part of a major health care bill, the way the original protections were tacked onto Obamacare. Democrats haven’t had such an opportunity in years. But given some of the movement on family-friendly labor legislation ― President Donald Trump and Republicans just agreed to give federal workers paid parental leave as part of a defense funding bill ― Merkley said he’s confident the legislation will pass when a window opens.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Judge Dismisses Trump's Request To Drop E. Jean Carroll's Defamation Suit

A judge for New York ’ s highest court has refused a request from President Donald Trump to throw out advice columnist E. Jean Carroll ’ s defamation suit against him .
In an explosive book excerpt published in June , Carroll said Trump had raped her after the two ran into each other at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s .
Trump not only denied the rape allegation but also denied knowing Carroll at all .
He said she was lying in order to sell more books and help his political rivals .
“ Each of these statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defamatory , ” read Carroll ’ s defamation suit , filed Nov. 4 .
Attorneys for Trump had argued in court documents filed last week that the suit should be tossed because New York law does not allow defamation cases over comments made out of state .
Since the “ alleged defamatory statements were made by President Trump not while he was in New York , but rather while he was in Washington D.C , ” Trump ’ s attorneys argued , the New York State Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said Trump ― who was raised in New York and spent his career there before announcing that he would become an official Florida resident in late October ― had failed to provide sufficient justification .
″ [ N ] otably , there is not even a tweet , much less an affidavit by defendant Trump in support of his motion , ” Ling-Cohan wrote .
Carroll says in her suit that Trump ’ s attacks “ smeared her integrity , honesty , and dignity , ” “ inflicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damaged her reputation ” and “ caused substantial professional harm.
” “ While I can no longer hold Donald Trump accountable for assaulting me more than 20 years ago , I can hold him accountable for lying about it and I fully intend to do so , ” she said in a statement in November .
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham echoed Trump in response to the suit , saying Carroll was trying to “ sell her trash book ” and accused her of being “ a fraud.
” The president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment to assault ― by more than 20 women .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A New York judge has refused a request from President Donald Trump to throw out advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit against him.
In an explosive book excerpt published in June, Carroll said Trump had raped her after the two ran into each other at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Trump not only denied the rape allegation but also denied knowing Carroll at all. He said she was lying in order to sell more books and help his political rivals.
Advertisement
“Each of these statements was false. Each of them was defamatory,” read Carroll’s defamation suit, filed Nov. 4.
Attorneys for Trump had argued in court documents filed last week that the suit should be tossed because New York law does not allow defamation cases over comments made out of state.
Since the “alleged defamatory statements were made by President Trump not while he was in New York, but rather while he was in Washington D.C,” Trump’s attorneys argued, the New York State Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over him.
In her response, state Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said Trump ― who was raised in New York and spent his career there before announcing that he would become an official Florida resident in late October ― had failed to provide sufficient justification.
Advertisement
″[N]otably, there is not even a tweet, much less an affidavit by defendant Trump in support of his motion,” Ling-Cohan wrote.
Carroll says in her suit that Trump’s attacks “smeared her integrity, honesty, and dignity,” “inflicted emotional pain and suffering,” “damaged her reputation” and “caused substantial professional harm.”
“While I can no longer hold Donald Trump accountable for assaulting me more than 20 years ago, I can hold him accountable for lying about it and I fully intend to do so,” she said in a statement in November.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham echoed Trump in response to the suit, saying Carroll was trying to “sell her trash book” and accused her of being “a fraud.”
The president has been accused of sexual misconduct ― from harassment to assault ― by more than 20 women.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Boeing Releases Damaging Messages Related To Grounded 737 Max Fleet

WASHINGTON — Boeing Co on Thursday released hundreds of internal messages that raise serious questions about its development of simulators and the 737 MAX that was grounded in March after two fatal crashes , prompting outrage from U.S. lawmakers .
In an April 2017 exchange of instant messages , two employees expressed complaints about the MAX following references to issues with the plane ’ s flight management computer .
“ This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys , ” one unnamed employee wrote .
In one message dated November 2015 , which appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing demands from regulators , a Boeing employee notes regulators were likely to want simulator training for a particular type of cockpit alert .
“ We are going to push back very hard on this and will likely need support at the highest levels when it comes time for the final negotiation , ” the employee writes .
The planemaker said some communications “ raise questions ” about Boeing ’ s interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) in connection with the simulator qualification process .
In releasing redacted versions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications , Boeing said it was committed to transparency with the regulator .
Unredacted versions of the messages were turned over to the FAA and Congress in December .
House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio , who has been investigating the MAX , said the messages “ paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go to in order to evade scrutiny from regulators , flight crews , and the flying public , even as its own employees were sounding alarms internally.
” He added : “ they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earliest days of the 737 MAX program to conceal critical information from regulators and the public.
” The FAA said after its review of the documents “ it determined that nothing in the submission pointed to any safety risks that were not already identified as part of the ongoing review of proposed modifications to the aircraft.
” The FAA added : “ the tone and content of some of the language contained in the documents is disappointing.
” Boeing said Thursday it is confident “ all of Boeing ’ s MAX simulators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of simulators since the messages were written .
The communications “ do not reflect the company we are and need to be , and they are completely unacceptable , ” it said .
The messages include some from a former Boeing senior technical pilot , Mark Forkner , Boeing officials said .
In October , Boeing disclosed other messages from Forkner that said he might have unintentionally misled regulators and raised questions about a key safety system in testing .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON — Boeing Co on Thursday released hundreds of internal messages that raise serious questions about its development of simulators and the 737 MAX that was grounded in March after two fatal crashes, prompting outrage from U.S. lawmakers.
In an April 2017 exchange of instant messages, two employees expressed complaints about the MAX following references to issues with the plane’s flight management computer. “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” one unnamed employee wrote.
Advertisement
In one message dated November 2015, which appears to shed light on lobbying methods used when facing demands from regulators, a Boeing employee notes regulators were likely to want simulator training for a particular type of cockpit alert.
“We are going to push back very hard on this and will likely need support at the highest levels when it comes time for the final negotiation,” the employee writes.
The planemaker said some communications “raise questions” about Boeing’s interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in connection with the simulator qualification process.
In releasing redacted versions of what it called “completely unacceptable” communications, Boeing said it was committed to transparency with the regulator.
Advertisement
Unredacted versions of the messages were turned over to the FAA and Congress in December.
House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio, who has been investigating the MAX, said the messages “paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go to in order to evade scrutiny from regulators, flight crews, and the flying public, even as its own employees were sounding alarms internally.”
He added: “they show a coordinated effort dating back to the earliest days of the 737 MAX program to conceal critical information from regulators and the public.”
The FAA said after its review of the documents “it determined that nothing in the submission pointed to any safety risks that were not already identified as part of the ongoing review of proposed modifications to the aircraft.”
It also said: “any potential safety deficiencies identified in the documents have been addressed.”
The FAA added: “the tone and content of some of the language contained in the documents is disappointing.”
Boeing said Thursday it is confident “all of Boeing’s MAX simulators are functioning effectively” after repeated testing of simulators since the messages were written.
Advertisement
The communications “do not reflect the company we are and need to be, and they are completely unacceptable,” it said.
The messages include some from a former Boeing senior technical pilot, Mark Forkner, Boeing officials said. In October, Boeing disclosed other messages from Forkner that said he might have unintentionally misled regulators and raised questions about a key safety system in testing.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Trump Claims Credit For Drop In Cancer Deaths. No Way, Says American Cancer Society.

President Donald Trump appeared to claim credit Thursday for a dramatic drop in cancer deaths in the U.S. over the last 26 years .
The American Cancer Society isn ’ t backing him up .
Trump tweeted “ a lot of good news coming out of this Administration ” as he referred to his interpretation of statistics in a report by the American Cancer Society released Wednesday .
The rate of people dying of cancer dropped in 2017 , Trump ’ s first year in office , for the 26th year in a row , according to the report .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. declined by 29 % from 1991 to 2017 .
The largest-ever single-year drop in cancer deaths , 2.2 % — spurred significantly by a dramatic decline in lung cancer deaths — occurred from 2016 to 2017 , the report revealed .
American Cancer Society CEO Gary Reedy told CNN that the findings — even for 2017 , the sole year Trump was in office during the study period — are not connected to anything his administration did .
Reedy attributed the improved mortality trends to “ prevention ” ( such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detection and treatment advances from earlier years.
” Several key drugs to battle cancer were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 and 2015 .
The report also warned that in 2020 1.8 million new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed , and 600,000 people are expected to die of the disease .
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ( D-Fla. ) pointed out that death rates dropped before Trump took office .
“ Hopefully , they keep dropping ” because Congress has rejected Trump ’ s proposed funding cuts to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cancer rates dropped before you took office .
Hopefully they keep dropping because Congress rejected your cruel research budgets , which sought billions in CUTS to @ NIH and the National Cancer Institute .
This is good news despite you - not because of you https : //t.co/gxPvAYSPFe — Debbie Wasserman Schultz ( @ DWStweets ) January 9 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump appeared to claim credit Thursday for a dramatic drop in cancer deaths in the U.S. over the last 26 years. The American Cancer Society isn’t backing him up.
Trump tweeted “a lot of good news coming out of this Administration” as he referred to his interpretation of statistics in a report by the American Cancer Society released Wednesday. The rate of people dying of cancer dropped in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, for the 26th year in a row, according to the report.
Advertisement
The overall death rate from cancer in the U.S. declined by 29% from 1991 to 2017. The largest-ever single-year drop in cancer deaths, 2.2% — spurred significantly by a dramatic decline in lung cancer deaths — occurred from 2016 to 2017, the report revealed.
U.S. Cancer Death Rate Lowest In Recorded History! A lot of good news coming out of this Administration. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2020
American Cancer Society CEO Gary Reedy told CNN that the findings — even for 2017, the sole year Trump was in office during the study period — are not connected to anything his administration did. Reedy attributed the improved mortality trends to “prevention” (such as declining smoking rates), “early detection and treatment advances from earlier years.”
Several key drugs to battle cancer were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 and 2015.
Advertisement
The report also warned that in 2020 1.8 million new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed, and 600,000 people are expected to die of the disease.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) pointed out that death rates dropped before Trump took office. “Hopefully, they keep dropping” because Congress has rejected Trump’s proposed funding cuts to the NIH and the NCI, she tweeted.
Cancer rates dropped before you took office. Hopefully they keep dropping because Congress rejected your cruel research budgets, which sought billions in CUTS to @NIH and the National Cancer Institute. This is good news despite you - not because of you https://t.co/gxPvAYSPFe — Debbie Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) January 9, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Sen. Tammy Duckworth Issues Blistering Takedown Of GOP Talking Point On Iran

In 2004 , a rocket-propelled grenade knocked her Black Hawk helicopter from the Iraqi sky .
She lost both legs in the attack , becoming the first female double amputee from the Iraq War .
In light of her sacrifice , Sen. Duckworth was justifiably incensed when Rep. Doug Collins ( R-Ga. ) went on Fox News Wednesday and proclaimed , “ Democrats ... are in love with terrorists.
” Then , ignoring the fact that Donald Trump spent the presidential campaign summer of 2016 attacking the parents of an American soldier killed in Iraq , Collins added , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qassem ] Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.
” “ I left literal parts of my body in Iraq , where I was fighting terrorists , ” she tweeted at the Georgia Republican .
“ Donald Trump spent months attacking an ACTUAL Gold Star Family .
Rep. Doug Collins should be ashamed of himself for perpetuating this offensive lie.
” Trump repeatedly criticized and sought to demean the Khan family after Khizr Khan , with his wife Ghazala beside him , questioned what sacrifices Trump had made for his country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Convention in 2016 .
The couple ’ s son , Army Capt .
Humayun S.M .
Khan , was killed in Iraq in 2004 .
“ In America , even people who disagree with the President vehemently can still love this country , ” Duckworth continued .
“ I love my country just as much as anyone on the other side of the aisle — it ’ s why I volunteered to serve in uniform , unlike Donald Trump.
” “ No , I am not sad that this man is dead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone to meet his maker , ” Duckworth said .
“ But at the end of the day , because of the poor handling by the White House and the consequences of their actions ... American forces are now under greater danger of attack from Iran and other hostile forces in the Middle East.
” Asked about Collins ’ dragging Gold Star families into the debate over the killing of Soleimani , Duckworth told CNN host Brianna Keilar that it “ disgusted ” her .
“ I would never , ever use Gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or their families , as any pawn in any political game , ” the senator said .
She also blasted Trump on the floor of the Senate Wednesday for risking a “ reckless , unauthorized war.
” Duckworth said her 20-month-old toddler has better “ impulse control .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Before Tammy Duckworth became Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.), she was Capt. Duckworth of the Army National Guard.
In 2004, a rocket-propelled grenade knocked her Black Hawk helicopter from the Iraqi sky. She lost both legs in the attack, becoming the first female double amputee from the Iraq War.
Advertisement
In light of her sacrifice, Sen. Duckworth was justifiably incensed when Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) went on Fox News Wednesday and proclaimed, “Democrats ... are in love with terrorists.”
Then, ignoring the fact that Donald Trump spent the presidential campaign summer of 2016 attacking the parents of an American soldier killed in Iraq, Collins added, “[Democrats] mourn [Iranian commander Qassem] Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.”
Duckworth responded to Collins’ insults in a series of blistering tweets on Thursday.
I left literal parts of my body in Iraq, where I was fighting terrorists.
Donald Trump spent months attacking an ACTUAL Gold Star Family.@RepDougCollins should be ashamed of himself for perpetuating this offensive lie. https://t.co/cboW42lPSu — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) January 9, 2020
“I left literal parts of my body in Iraq, where I was fighting terrorists,” she tweeted at the Georgia Republican. “Donald Trump spent months attacking an ACTUAL Gold Star Family. Rep. Doug Collins should be ashamed of himself for perpetuating this offensive lie.”
Advertisement
Trump repeatedly criticized and sought to demean the Khan family after Khizr Khan, with his wife Ghazala beside him, questioned what sacrifices Trump had made for his country in a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. The couple’s son, Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004.
“In America, even people who disagree with the President vehemently can still love this country,” Duckworth continued. “I love my country just as much as anyone on the other side of the aisle — it’s why I volunteered to serve in uniform, unlike Donald Trump.”
Duckworth wasn’t finished. In an appearance on CNN, the senator addressed Collins’ baseless assertion that Democrats are mourning Soleimani.
“No, I am not sad that this man is dead. I am glad that he’s gone to meet his maker,” Duckworth said. “But at the end of the day, because of the poor handling by the White House and the consequences of their actions ... American forces are now under greater danger of attack from Iran and other hostile forces in the Middle East.”
Asked about Collins’ dragging Gold Star families into the debate over the killing of Soleimani, Duckworth told CNN host Brianna Keilar that it “disgusted” her. “I would never, ever use Gold Star families, military men and women, or their families, as any pawn in any political game,” the senator said.
Advertisement
She also blasted Trump on the floor of the Senate Wednesday for risking a “reckless, unauthorized war.” Duckworth said her 20-month-old toddler has better “impulse control.”
Collins apologized for his comments in a series of tweets on Friday.
“Let me be clear: I do not believe Democrats are in love with terrorists, and I apologize for what I said earlier this week,” he wrote.
“The comment I made on Wednesday evening was in response to a question about the War Powers Resolution being introduced in the House and House Democrats’ attempts to limit the president’s authority.”
The House passed the mostly symbolic war powers resolution Thursday night by a vote of 224-194, with three Republicans and one independent in support and eight Democrats against.
This story has been updated with Collins’ apology.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--House Votes To Limit Iran War

House Votes To Limit Iran War

By a vote of 224 to 194 , with three Republicans and one independent in support and eight Democrats against , the House approved the war powers resolution forbidding the president from attacking Iran unless there ’ s an imminent threat or Congress declares war .
The measure is mostly symbolic , though Democrats have said they may follow it with additional votes to constrain Trump ’ s actions toward Iran .
Democrats moved forward with the resolution after they said the administration failed to justify the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in closed-door briefings on Wednesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote after Iran on Tuesday fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops .
The fate of the resolution is uncertain in the Senate , where it would need Republican votes to pass .
Two Republican senators , however , said on Wednesday that they might support curtailing the president ’ s war powers because the Trump administration has done such a bad job justifying the Soleimani assassination .
Even if the House measure , introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-Mich. ) , passed both chambers , it ’ s only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president for his signature and would likely have no actual effect on Trump ’ s ability ― or willingness ― to launch attacks on Iran .
A joint resolution , by contrast , would have the force of law once signed by the president .
But Democrats contend that a concurrent resolution is the correct means to constrain the president as laid out by the original War Powers Resolution of 1973 .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) defended her decision to move the measure as a concurrent resolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joint resolution anyway .
“ This is a statement of the Congress of the United States and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not , ” she said .
Pelosi had previously said the House might also vote on efforts to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq , or AUMF , which the administration used as the legal basis for killing Soleimani , as well as another measure prohibiting funds for fighting Iran .
The 1973 War Powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove forces from the battlefield if Congress directs it to via concurrent resolution .
But in 1983 the Supreme Court , in a case concerning a different law , ruled that Congress may not issue what amounts to a legislative veto of executive branch actions .
“ If we went another way and sent it to the president , he ’ ll veto , so what does that get you ?
” House Rules Committee chair Jim McGovern ( D-Mass . )
told HuffPost .
Last week , Sen. Tim Kaine ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure as a joint resolution , which would go to the president .
Kaine said Thursday that he preferred his approach , which has so far garnered the tentative support of two of the four Republicans he would need to secure its passage .
“ I think we would like to try to get one to the president ’ s desk , ” Kaine said , adding that it was more likely he could force a floor vote on his bill than on the House measure .
Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s resolution , argued that using a concurrent resolution to try to limit the president ’ s war powers renders the effort “ toothless ” and presents merely a symbolic rebuke .
The House ’ s strategy , he added , “ makes no sense because it has no chance of going anywhere.
” But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) pointed out that Trump previously vetoed a joint resolution aimed at withdrawing U.S. forces from Yemen , making the debate over legislative tactics mostly moot .
It would take 67 Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extremely high threshold to meet with most Republicans strongly backing the president .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― The House voted Thursday to order President Donald Trump to stop escalating hostilities with Iran, approving a resolution meant to limit the president’s war-making.
By a vote of 224 to 194, with three Republicans and one independent in support and eight Democrats against, the House approved the war powers resolution forbidding the president from attacking Iran unless there’s an imminent threat or Congress declares war.
Advertisement
The measure is mostly symbolic, though Democrats have said they may follow it with additional votes to constrain Trump’s actions toward Iran.
Democrats moved forward with the resolution after they said the administration failed to justify the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in closed-door briefings on Wednesday. They had earlier hesitated to schedule a vote after Iran on Tuesday fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops.
The fate of the resolution is uncertain in the Senate, where it would need Republican votes to pass. Two Republican senators, however, said on Wednesday that they might support curtailing the president’s war powers because the Trump administration has done such a bad job justifying the Soleimani assassination.
Even if the House measure, introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), passed both chambers, it’s only a concurrent resolution, which does not go to the president for his signature and would likely have no actual effect on Trump’s ability ― or willingness ― to launch attacks on Iran. A joint resolution, by contrast, would have the force of law once signed by the president.
Advertisement
But Democrats contend that a concurrent resolution is the correct means to constrain the president as laid out by the original War Powers Resolution of 1973. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended her decision to move the measure as a concurrent resolution, arguing that Trump would simply veto a joint resolution anyway.
“This is a statement of the Congress of the United States and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not,” she said.
Pelosi had previously said the House might also vote on efforts to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, or AUMF, which the administration used as the legal basis for killing Soleimani, as well as another measure prohibiting funds for fighting Iran.
“It’s kind of a rock and a hard place.” - Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the debate over congressional tactics
The 1973 War Powers Resolution states that a president is required to remove forces from the battlefield if Congress directs it to via concurrent resolution. But in 1983 the Supreme Court, in a case concerning a different law, ruled that Congress may not issue what amounts to a legislative veto of executive branch actions.
Advertisement
Still, House Democrats say it’s the best they can do.
“If we went another way and sent it to the president, he’ll veto, so what does that get you?” House Rules Committee chair Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told HuffPost.
Senators leading the effort to limit the president’s war-making powers are moving forward with a different strategy, however.
Last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a similar war powers measure as a joint resolution, which would go to the president. Kaine said Thursday that he preferred his approach, which has so far garnered the tentative support of two of the four Republicans he would need to secure its passage.
“I think we would like to try to get one to the president’s desk,” Kaine said, adding that it was more likely he could force a floor vote on his bill than on the House measure.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is leaning toward supporting Kaine’s resolution, argued that using a concurrent resolution to try to limit the president’s war powers renders the effort “toothless” and presents merely a symbolic rebuke. The House’s strategy, he added, “makes no sense because it has no chance of going anywhere.”
Advertisement
But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) pointed out that Trump previously vetoed a joint resolution aimed at withdrawing U.S. forces from Yemen, making the debate over legislative tactics mostly moot. It would take 67 Senate votes to override a presidential veto ― an extremely high threshold to meet with most Republicans strongly backing the president.
“It’s kind of a rock and a hard place,” she said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Mike Pence Claims Intelligence Behind Soleimani Hit Too Sensitive For Congress

The information supporting the Trump administration ’ s rationale for assassinating Iran ’ s top commander is simply too sensitive to share with Congress , Vice President Mike Pence flatly insisted in an NBC interview Thursday .
Gen. Qassem Soleimani had to be killed last week because he was orchestrating an “ imminent ” attack on Americans , the Trump administration has claimed .
But Pence said the information backing up that claim can ’ t be shared .
“ Some of the most compelling evidence that Qassem Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence that we have , ” Pence said on the “ Today ” show .
“ It could compromise those sources and methods.
” Pence was responding to a scathing attack by Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee on the Trump administration ’ s briefing to lawmakers about the attack .
Lee called the briefing so devoid of substance that it was “ insulting and demeaning.
” It was “ probably the worst briefing , at least on a military issue , I ’ ve seen in my nine years ” in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including highly sensitive information — is often shared with members of Congress , noted Sen. Tammy Duckworth ( D-Ill. ) .
It could have been presented to fewer senators on the appropriate committees , or with more identifying source information eliminated , she said on CNN .
“ They refused to do even that , ” Duckworth noted .
“ They could not address ” the issue of the imminence of an Iranian attack on a U.S. target , she said , adding , “ They showed nothing to us that we couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duckworth said the attitude was : “ You ’ re just going to have to go along with what we say .
That ’ s not how our system of checks and balances works.
” The Trump administration was supposed to demonstrate to Congress that such an attack was legal .
Without such intelligence , Congress can only take President Donald Trump at his word .
The Washington Post has documented that Trump has made false or misleading claims more than 15,000 times since the start of his term .
Pence insisted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence “ in real time ” know that Trump “ made the right decision.
” As for Trump , he appeared mystified by Lee ’ s criticism .
“ I get along great with Mike Lee .
I ’ ve never seen him like that , ” Trump told reporters at the White House Thursday .
Trump claimed “ numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women ” said the briefing for lawmakers on the attack was “ the greatest presentation they ’ ve ever had.
” That appears to contradict Pence , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported the attack was not provided .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The information supporting the Trump administration’s rationale for assassinating Iran’s top commander is simply too sensitive to share with Congress, Vice President Mike Pence flatly insisted in an NBC interview Thursday.
Gen. Qassem Soleimani had to be killed last week because he was orchestrating an “imminent” attack on Americans, the Trump administration has claimed.
Advertisement
But Pence said the information backing up that claim can’t be shared. “Some of the most compelling evidence that Qassem Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have,” Pence said on the “Today” show. “It could compromise those sources and methods.”
Pence was responding to a scathing attack by Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee on the Trump administration’s briefing to lawmakers about the attack. Lee called the briefing so devoid of substance that it was “insulting and demeaning.” It was “probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I’ve seen in my nine years” in the Senate, Lee said.
Classified information — including highly sensitive information — is often shared with members of Congress, noted Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). It could have been presented to fewer senators on the appropriate committees, or with more identifying source information eliminated, she said on CNN.
“They refused to do even that,” Duckworth noted. “They could not address” the issue of the imminence of an Iranian attack on a U.S. target, she said, adding, “They showed nothing to us that we couldn’t see in the media.”
Advertisement
Duckworth said the attitude was: “You’re just going to have to go along with what we say. That’s not how our system of checks and balances works.”
The Trump administration was supposed to demonstrate to Congress that such an attack was legal. Without such intelligence, Congress can only take President Donald Trump at his word. The Washington Post has documented that Trump has made false or misleading claims more than 15,000 times since the start of his term.
Pence insisted that those who were made aware of the intelligence “in real time” know that Trump “made the right decision.”
As for Trump, he appeared mystified by Lee’s criticism. “I get along great with Mike Lee. I’ve never seen him like that,” Trump told reporters at the White House Thursday.
Trump claimed “numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women” said the briefing for lawmakers on the attack was “the greatest presentation they’ve ever had.” That appears to contradict Pence, who revealed that the key intelligence he said supported the attack was not provided.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--George Conway's Anti-Trump Group Puts Evangelicals On Notice In Damning New Ad

A group of Republicans opposed to President Donald Trump is calling out one of his most reliable voting blocs : evangelical Christians .
The video by the Lincoln Project begins , appropriately , with a Biblical quote : “ Beware of false prophets , which come to you in sheep ’ s clothing , but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
” The video combines footage of some of Trump ’ s most outrageous and outright un-Christian comments with clips of evangelical leaders praising him .
“ If this is the best American Christians can do , then God help us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lincoln Project was launched last month by a group of Republicans , including attorney George Conway ― husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ― GOP strategists Rick Wilson , Steve Schmidt and John Weaver .
Just a note about the work from @ ProjectLincoln : We ’ re just getting started .
— Rick Wilson ( @ TheRickWilson ) January 9 , 2020 The Lincoln Project is one of several anti-Trump groups hitting the president from the right .
And Anthony Scaramucci , who served 10 days as Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned on the president , has vowed to work against his reelection .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A group of Republicans opposed to President Donald Trump is calling out one of his most reliable voting blocs: evangelical Christians.
The video by the Lincoln Project begins, appropriately, with a Biblical quote:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
The video combines footage of some of Trump’s most outrageous and outright un-Christian comments with clips of evangelical leaders praising him.
“If this is the best American Christians can do, then God help us all,” the spot concludes:
The Lincoln Project was launched last month by a group of Republicans, including attorney George Conway ― husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ― GOP strategists Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt and John Weaver.
After the clip debuted, Wilson tweeted:
Just a note about the work from @ProjectLincoln:
We’re just getting started. — Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 9, 2020
Advertisement
The Lincoln Project is one of several anti-Trump groups hitting the president from the right.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Ilhan Omar Talks About 'Trauma' Of War After GOP Lawmaker Dismissed Her PTSD

Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , who fled war in Somalia as a child , is speaking out about the trauma of war for civilians ― and challenging the notion that post-traumatic stress disorder is an issue that only soldiers face , after Rep. Jim Banks ( R-Ind . )
appeared to dismiss her mention of her own PTSD as “ offensive ” to military veterans .
“ The trauma of war is not only felt by the soldier on the battlefield .
It is felt by the child huddled under the bed as bombs go off outside her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived in a refugee camp in Kenya before moving to the United States at age 12 , tweeted Thursday .
“ I am that child and here in Congress I will always speak out against war.
” The trauma of war is not only felt by the soldier on the battlefield .
It is felt by the child huddled under the bed as bombs go off outside her window .
I am that child and here in Congress I will always speak out against war .
— Ilhan Omar ( @ IlhanMN ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several progressive lawmakers who spoke out Wednesday at a press conference against a potential war with Iran .
After saying she felt “ ill ” amid the tensions taking place , Omar said : “ Every time I hear of conversations around war , I find myself being stricken with PTSD .
And I find peace knowing that I serve with great advocates for peace and people who have shown courage against war.
” Banks , who served in the military in Afghanistan , later posted a clip of Omar ’ s speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ stricken with PTSD ” were “ a disgrace and offensive to our nation ’ s veterans who really do have PTSD.
” Omar directly responded to Banks ’ s tweet Wednesday , saying : “ I survived war as a child and deal with post-traumatic stress disorder — much like many who have served or lived through war.
” She also called it “ shameful ” that he would “ erase the PTSD of survivors.
” Asked to clarify whether Banks believes PTSD is reserved for soldiers , Banks ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say that ” and he ” believes civilians can suffer from PTSD.
” His team then lobbed new allegations , claiming that Omar was “ giggling ” during the press conference and “ making light of the threat to our American troops.
” They also accused her of “ employing PTSD to take a partisan swipe at the president.
” Omar , who is Black and one of the first Muslim congresswomen , has come under frequent attack from Trump and Republican colleagues and pundits since she entered office last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense on Twitter after Banks ’ s tweet , as well as after a similar one from Fox News host Laura Ingraham , who ridiculed Omar for saying talk of war was making her feel “ ill. ” Jason Kander , a former Missouri secretary of state and a veteran ― who has spoken of struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in the military in Afghanistan ― tweeted at Rep. Banks : “ It ’ s not up to us to decide who is and is not ‘ worthy ’ of PTSD.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent a few months in Afghanistan .
Rep. Omar grew up in war-torn Somalia before spending years in a Kenyan refugee camp on the Somali border .
It ’ s not up to us to decide who is and is not “ worthy ” of PTSD .
Trauma is trauma .
A uniform is not required .
https : //t.co/1IPpKviNrE — Jason Kander ( @ JasonKander ) January 9 , 2020 Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D-Mass . )
, who is part of the so-called “ Squad ” of progressive congresswomen that includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ You ’ d be wise to take a seat and take your cues from folks like Ilhan who actually know what they ’ re talking about.
” 8 yrs old .
That ’ s how old @ IlhanMN was when she fled for her life as her home was decimated by war I know you think war ’ s a for profit video game @ IngrahamAngle but you ’ d be wise to take a seat and take your cues from folks like Ilhan who actually know what they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AyannaPressley ) January 8 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who fled war in Somalia as a child, is speaking out about the trauma of war for civilians ― and challenging the notion that post-traumatic stress disorder is an issue that only soldiers face, after Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) appeared to dismiss her mention of her own PTSD as “offensive” to military veterans.
“The trauma of war is not only felt by the soldier on the battlefield. It is felt by the child huddled under the bed as bombs go off outside her window,” Omar, whose family lived in a refugee camp in Kenya before moving to the United States at age 12, tweeted Thursday. “I am that child and here in Congress I will always speak out against war.”
Advertisement
“War trauma never leaves you,” the congresswoman added.
The trauma of war is not only felt by the soldier on the battlefield. It is felt by the child huddled under the bed as bombs go off outside her window.
I am that child and here in Congress I will always speak out against war. — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 9, 2020
Omar’s tweets also came a day after Banks appeared to minimize Omar’s mention of her own PTSD.
Omar was among several progressive lawmakers who spoke out Wednesday at a press conference against a potential war with Iran. After saying she felt “ill” amid the tensions taking place, Omar said: “Every time I hear of conversations around war, I find myself being stricken with PTSD. And I find peace knowing that I serve with great advocates for peace and people who have shown courage against war.”
Banks, who served in the military in Afghanistan, later posted a clip of Omar’s speech on Twitter, saying her comments on being “stricken with PTSD” were “a disgrace and offensive to our nation’s veterans who really do have PTSD.”
Advertisement
Omar directly responded to Banks’s tweet Wednesday, saying: “I survived war as a child and deal with post-traumatic stress disorder — much like many who have served or lived through war.” She also called it “shameful” that he would “erase the PTSD of survivors.”
Banks later appeared to respond, confusingly accusing Omar of “chang[ing] the subject.”
Asked to clarify whether Banks believes PTSD is reserved for soldiers, Banks’s team told HuffPost he “didn’t say that” and he ”believes civilians can suffer from PTSD.” His team then lobbed new allegations, claiming that Omar was “giggling” during the press conference and “making light of the threat to our American troops.” They also accused her of “employing PTSD to take a partisan swipe at the president.”
Omar’s team had no comment in response to Banks’s statements.
PTSD is a mental health condition that can stem from any extreme, distressing event, including natural disasters, terrorist attacks, sexual assault and mass shootings.
Omar, who is Black and one of the first Muslim congresswomen, has come under frequent attack from Trump and Republican colleagues and pundits since she entered office last year.
Several people came to Omar’s defense on Twitter after Banks’s tweet, as well as after a similar one from Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who ridiculed Omar for saying talk of war was making her feel “ill.”
Advertisement
Jason Kander, a former Missouri secretary of state and a veteran ― who has spoken of struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in the military in Afghanistan ― tweeted at Rep. Banks: “It’s not up to us to decide who is and is not ‘worthy’ of PTSD.”
Rep. Banks, You and I spent a few months in Afghanistan.
Rep. Omar grew up in war-torn Somalia before spending years in a Kenyan refugee camp on the Somali border.
It’s not up to us to decide who is and is not “worthy” of PTSD.
Trauma is trauma. A uniform is not required. https://t.co/1IPpKviNrE — Jason Kander (@JasonKander) January 9, 2020
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who is part of the so-called “Squad” of progressive congresswomen that includes Omar, responded to Ingraham, saying: “You’d be wise to take a seat and take your cues from folks like Ilhan who actually know what they’re talking about.”
8 yrs old. That’s how old @IlhanMN was when she fled for her life as her home was decimated by war
I know you think war’s a for profit video game @IngrahamAngle but you’d be wise to take a seat and take your cues from folks like Ilhan who actually know what they’re talking about pic.twitter.com/9a0XfFPfwP — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) January 8, 2020
Common Defense, a grassroots group of veterans against Trump, called out Banks, saying: “Veterans like us know that people wearing uniforms aren’t the only ones impacted by war.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--At Trump's First Campaign Rally Of 2020, He Defends Killing Of Iranian Military Leader

President Donald Trump , at his first campaign rally of the year Thursday , defended the assassination of an Iranian military leader last week , painting his decisions as commander in chief as a prime reason to reelect him .
“ By subsidizing Iran ’ s maligned conduct , the last administration was leading the world down the path of war , ” Trump told a crowd of thousands at the event in Toledo , Ohio .
“ We are restoring our world to the path of peace , peace through strength.
” The president appeared in Ohio , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign heats up .
He largely leaned into the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , one of the most powerful military leaders in the Middle East , in a drone strike in Iraq last week and called the man the “ world ’ s top terrorist.
” One week to the day after approving the killing of an Iranian official , Trump says , `` so we are using this great power , not to pursue conflicts , but to really preserve , and I mean that in the truest sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek friends not enemies . ''
pic.twitter.com/YWXk7gZjRX — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) January 10 , 2020 Tensions with Iran hit a boiling point in the days after the strike , and the Islamic Republic launched more than a dozen missiles this week in retaliation at several military bases in Iraq that housed U.S. troops .
Trump said no Americans were killed or injured in the missile attack , and Iran said after the barrage ended that it no longer sought any further “ escalation or war.
” “ But if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so at your own grave peril , ” he told the crowd in Toledo .
Despite Trump ’ s signals , the House passed a resolution Thursday , largely along party lines , that is meant to limit Trump ’ s war powers .
A similar measure is working its way through the Senate , but to carry the force of law , any specific resolution would have to pass both chambers and be signed by the president .
Trump would almost certainly veto the measure , and it ’ s unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ override the veto .
“ This is a statement of the Congress of the United States , and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not , ” Pelosi said .
“ The radical left Democrats have expressed outrage over the termination of this horrible terrorist , ” Trump said Thursday as the crowd jeered Pelosi ’ s and Schiff ’ s names .
“ And instead they should be outraged by Soleimani ’ s savage crimes.
” “ We had to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to call up Nancy , who is not operating with a full deck , ” the president said .
Trump has regularly visited Ohio since his election , and Thursday ’ s visit marked his 15th trip to the state , according to The New York Times .
He carried Ohio by 8 percentage points in 2016 , but Democrats have targeted the state as a potential toss-up in November .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump, at his first campaign rally of the year Thursday, defended the assassination of an Iranian military leader last week, painting his decisions as commander in chief as a prime reason to reelect him.
“By subsidizing Iran’s maligned conduct, the last administration was leading the world down the path of war,” Trump told a crowd of thousands at the event in Toledo, Ohio. “We are restoring our world to the path of peace, peace through strength.”
Advertisement
The president appeared in Ohio, a key battleground state, as the presidential campaign heats up. He largely leaned into the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, one of the most powerful military leaders in the Middle East, in a drone strike in Iraq last week and called the man the “world’s top terrorist.”
“He was a bad guy,” Trump said. “He was a bloodthirsty terror, and he’s no longer a terror. He’s dead.”
One week to the day after approving the killing of an Iranian official, Trump says, "so we are using this great power, not to pursue conflicts, but to really preserve, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word, preserve peace ... we seek friends not enemies." pic.twitter.com/YWXk7gZjRX — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
Tensions with Iran hit a boiling point in the days after the strike, and the Islamic Republic launched more than a dozen missiles this week in retaliation at several military bases in Iraq that housed U.S. troops. Trump said no Americans were killed or injured in the missile attack, and Iran said after the barrage ended that it no longer sought any further “escalation or war.”
Advertisement
Trump himself on Thursday appeared to support a de-escalation in tensions, saying the U.S. sought “friends, not enemies.”
“But if you dare to threaten our citizens, you do so at your own grave peril,” he told the crowd in Toledo.
Despite Trump’s signals, the House passed a resolution Thursday, largely along party lines, that is meant to limit Trump’s war powers. A similar measure is working its way through the Senate, but to carry the force of law, any specific resolution would have to pass both chambers and be signed by the president. Trump would almost certainly veto the measure, and it’s unlikely the Senate would have enough votes to override the veto.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended the vote on Thursday regardless of its outcome, casting it as a fierce rebuke of the president’s decision-making.
“This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not,” Pelosi said.
Advertisement
During the Ohio rally, Trump repeatedly slammed senior Democrats in Congress who criticized the decision to kill Soleimani, pointing to Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
Trump attacks Democrats for not supporting his killing of Soleimani and then, as his fans shout out abuse, transitions into bashing the media. Ugly scenes. pic.twitter.com/pblhOiHXBE — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
“The radical left Democrats have expressed outrage over the termination of this horrible terrorist,” Trump said Thursday as the crowd jeered Pelosi’s and Schiff’s names. “And instead they should be outraged by Soleimani’s savage crimes.”
Trump also mocked efforts by Congress to force him to discuss any future military action against Iran with lawmakers.
“We had to make a decision. We didn’t have time to call up Nancy, who is not operating with a full deck,” the president said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-09--Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

A Department of Justice inquiry into Hillary Clinton that began after conservatives demanded more investigations into the former Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly ending with no actual results .
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber in 2018 to look into concerns raised by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies that the FBI did not properly look into Clinton ’ s involvement in a uranium deal while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration .
Huber allegedly reviewed documents and spoke with federal law enforcement officials in Arkansas who were handling an investigation into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to Congress , Huber has effectively finished his assignment and found nothing worth pursuing , current and former officials told The Washington Post in a report published Thursday .
HuffPost has not been able to independently confirm that the inquiry has ended .
Canadian mining company Uranium One , which had major U.S. holdings , was sold in 2010 to a Russian firm while Clinton was secretary of state .
The sale required approval from nine U.S. agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could proceed .
Conservative media and critics of the 2016 Democratic nominee have falsely claimed that the sale was a quid pro quo for donations to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation .
The State Department did not have the power to unilaterally approve or reject the sale , and Clinton was not actually directly involved in the approval process .
The original FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal found no evidence of wrongdoing , but Sessions revived the inquiry in late 2017 after facing pressure from Trump .
Huber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to anger many Republicans who hoped the top prosecutor from Utah would validate their long-held conspiracy theories about Clinton .
Attorney General William Barr , a Trump nominee who succeeded Sessions , has previously supported the president ’ s call to investigate Clinton and has questioned the need for Robert Mueller ’ s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost ’ s request for comment .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Department of Justice inquiry into Hillary Clinton that began after conservatives demanded more investigations into the former Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly ending with no actual results.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber in 2018 to look into concerns raised by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies that the FBI did not properly look into Clinton’s involvement in a uranium deal while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.
Advertisement
Huber allegedly reviewed documents and spoke with federal law enforcement officials in Arkansas who were handling an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Though the inquiry has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to Congress, Huber has effectively finished his assignment and found nothing worth pursuing, current and former officials told The Washington Post in a report published Thursday. HuffPost has not been able to independently confirm that the inquiry has ended.
Canadian mining company Uranium One, which had major U.S. holdings, was sold in 2010 to a Russian firm while Clinton was secretary of state. The sale required approval from nine U.S. agencies, including the State Department, before it could proceed. Conservative media and critics of the 2016 Democratic nominee have falsely claimed that the sale was a quid pro quo for donations to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.
The State Department did not have the power to unilaterally approve or reject the sale, and Clinton was not actually directly involved in the approval process. The original FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal found no evidence of wrongdoing, but Sessions revived the inquiry in late 2017 after facing pressure from Trump.
Huber’s effective conclusion of his review is likely to anger many Republicans who hoped the top prosecutor from Utah would validate their long-held conspiracy theories about Clinton.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-10--Anderson Cooper Has A Theory About Stephanie Grisham Secretly Working Against Trump

Anderson Cooper on Thursday went after White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham for the second time this week as he put forward a tongue-in-cheek theory about her actually secretly working against President Donald Trump .
The host of CNN ’ s “ Anderson Cooper 360° ” began his regular “ The Ridiculist ” segment by mocking Grisham for never having given a formal White House press briefing .
The last one was conducted by her predecessor Sarah Huckabee Sanders in March 2019 , more than 300 days ago .
“ Grisham is making more than $ 150,000 a year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step into that small , dank little room with all that free press sitting around .
There ’ s no telling what they might ask , ” said Cooper , noting how Grisham has , however , been “ firing on all cylinders ” in appearances on the Trump-friendly Fox News .
Cooper then broke down how Grisham may possibly be subverting Trump with her statements on the widely watched conservative network , highlighting the times she ’ s said things “ which appear meant to defend the president but actually point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m starting to think she might be pretending to be unintentionally ironic and deeply hypocritical while in fact she ’ s trying to secretly and subtly subvert the president , ” he said , later adding : “ I see what you ’ re doing.
” “ You are like a deep-cover asset for the resistance inside the White House but don ’ t worry , your secret is safe with us , ” Cooper concluded .
“ President Trump never watches CNN .
So keep sending those messages on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much you ’ re pointing out his own hypocrisy .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Anderson Cooper on Thursday went after White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham for the second time this week as he put forward a tongue-in-cheek theory that she may actually be secretly working against President Donald Trump.
The host of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°” began his regular “The Ridiculist” segment by mocking Grisham for never once giving a formal White House press briefing. The last one was conducted by Grisham’s predecessor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in March, more than 300 days ago.
Advertisement
“Grisham is making more than $150,000 a year, she doesn’t have time to step into that small, dank little room with all that free press sitting around. There’s no telling what they might ask,” said Cooper, noting how Grisham has, however, been “firing on all cylinders” in appearances on the Trump-friendly Fox News.
Cooper then broke down how Grisham may possibly be subverting Trump with her statements on the widely watched conservative network, highlighting the times she’s said things “which appear meant to defend the president but actually point out the president’s own failings.”
“I’m starting to think she might be pretending to be unintentionally ironic and deeply hypocritical, while in fact she’s trying to secretly and subtly subvert the president,” he said. “I see what you’re doing.”
“You are like a deep-cover asset for the resistance inside the White House, but don’t worry, your secret is safe with us,” Cooper concluded. “President Trump never watches CNN. So keep sending those messages on Fox, he’ll never notice how much you’re pointing out his own hypocrisy.”
Advertisement
Check out the clip here: