thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--New Trump Disability Rule Targets Non-English Speakers

Part of the claims process can involve evaluating whether someone could switch to a new line of work that would accommodate their disability .
The evaluation considers not just a person ’ s physical or mental impediments , but also their age , work history , education level , and the availability of suitable jobs .
The new rule , set for final publication in the coming months , eliminates the “ inability to communicate in English ” factor when evaluating a person ’ s education level .
The administration says that non-English speakers are generally more successful than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market , that they ’ re better educated than their lack of English implies , and that the criteria is used too much by people living in Puerto Rico .
For Republican policymakers , “ fraud ” is sometimes a colorful word for borderline cases they think should be judged more harshly .
With Trump ’ s appointees in charge , changes that for years have germinated within the Social Security Administration are potentially coming to fruition .
One is the English rule .
Another measure would alter the so-called medical-vocational guidelines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit awards .
The agency also wants to ramp up reviews of whether current claimants are still disabled .
Only 1 % of all disability awards went to residents of Puerto Rico in 2016 , but the territory accounted for almost one-third of benefits awarded partly on the basis of an inability to speak English ― a “ seemingly disproportionate ” amount , according to the Trump administration .
Most Puerto Ricans speak Spanish , so the administration says it shouldn ’ t matter if someone there can ’ t speak English .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t speak English ; it ’ s considered alongside physical or mental disabilities in claimants who are at least 45 years old .
Of the 2.5 million initial disability decisions in 2016 , English proficiency was a factor in only 0.29 % .
Critics of the Trump administration ’ s change say it would be wrong to kill the language criteria over a subset of such a small number of claims in a single year .
“ It would be arbitrary to change the rules for all applicants and beneficiaries because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , ” the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a formal comment on a draft of the proposed rule .
“ In most parts of the United States , the inability to communicate in English poses a significant barrier to work for the older , unskilled , impaired individuals who would be affected by this proposed rule.
” “ Social Security is required to consider education to determine if someone ’ s health conditions prevent work , but research shows the ability to communicate in English is no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to work since Social Security ’ s rules were issued more than 40 years ago , ” an agency spokesman said in an email .
The administration cited a 2015 Social Security inspector general report that found 244 instances of disability awards to Puerto Ricans that factored lack of English from 2011 to 2013 .
The Trump administration said there were 777 such cases in 2016 .
Democrats and disability experts call the discrepancy in the number of cases over the years another problem with the rule .
When a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posts a draft on the Federal Register website and invites comments from stakeholders , then responds to the comments when it finalizes the rule .
Since the disability changes have all been happening through regulation rather than legislation , the Register comments have been the main venue for debating the policy .
The lone supportive comment from an organization came from the Opportunity Solutions Project , a little-known conservative advocacy group that generally supports restrictions on social programs .
“ By itself , the inability to communicate in English is not a disability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered a relevant factor within the disability determination process , ” the group wrote .
The final version of the DHS public charge rule , which was published last summer , even acknowledged the data that the Social Security Administration cited supporting its contrary position .
But even though a lot of non-English speakers have jobs , DHS said , “ such lower paying jobs may not denote the same level of self-sufficiency as jobs that may be held by an individual who [ is ] able to effectively communicate in English and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skilled , higher paying job.
” Another possible problem with the English rule is that it might become obsolete .
The Social Security Administration is in the midst of a much broader effort to revamp its outdated occupational listings and the vocational grid it uses to evaluate whether someone with a disability can find other work .
The Center on Budget and other experts fear the new approach could seriously harm disabled people , as it would presumably sweep away English proficiency and a variety of other considerations that are not physical or @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Trump administration is finalizing a new rule barring Social Security disability examiners from considering someone’s inability to speak English as a factor in whether they should be eligible for benefits.
It’s one of several cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance that President Donald Trump is pursuing as part of an overall assault on “welfare.” The push circumvents Congress with a series of regulations targeting food, health and housing benefits.
Advertisement
The federal government pays disability benefits worth about $1,200 per month to people with extensive employment histories who can’t continue working due to the onset of a severe illness or injury.
Part of the claims process can involve evaluating whether someone could switch to a new line of work that would accommodate their disability. The evaluation considers not just a person’s physical or mental impediments, but also their age, work history, education level, and the availability of suitable jobs.
The new rule, set for final publication in the coming months, eliminates the “inability to communicate in English” factor when evaluating a person’s education level. The administration says that non-English speakers are generally more successful than they used to be in the U.S. labor market, that they’re better educated than their lack of English implies, and that the criteria is used too much by people living in Puerto Rico.
Most disability claims are denied. The number filed each year, as well as overall caseloads, have been declining since 2013. But Republicans still say too many undeserving people get benefits.
Advertisement
“There has been, unfortunately, a lot of fraud,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the top Republican on the House committee that oversees Social Security, told HuffPost.
For Republican policymakers, “fraud” is sometimes a colorful word for borderline cases they think should be judged more harshly. With Trump’s appointees in charge, changes that for years have germinated within the Social Security Administration are potentially coming to fruition. One is the English rule. Another measure would alter the so-called medical-vocational guidelines, which could have a major impact on benefit awards. The agency also wants to ramp up reviews of whether current claimants are still disabled.
“It’s important that the disability plan services those people that really are in need of it, and that are really in bad shape,” Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul told AARP last month.
President Donald Trump tosses rolls of paper towels to people at a hurricane relief distribution center in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Oct. 3, 2017. Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Only 1% of all disability awards went to residents of Puerto Rico in 2016, but the territory accounted for almost one-third of benefits awarded partly on the basis of an inability to speak English ― a “seemingly disproportionate” amount, according to the Trump administration. Most Puerto Ricans speak Spanish, so the administration says it shouldn’t matter if someone there can’t speak English.
Advertisement
But nobody wins benefits solely because they can’t speak English; it’s considered alongside physical or mental disabilities in claimants who are at least 45 years old. Of the 2.5 million initial disability decisions in 2016, English proficiency was a factor in only 0.29%. Critics of the Trump administration’s change say it would be wrong to kill the language criteria over a subset of such a small number of claims in a single year.
“It would be arbitrary to change the rules for all applicants and beneficiaries because of the experience of such a small group,” the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a formal comment on a draft of the proposed rule. “In most parts of the United States, the inability to communicate in English poses a significant barrier to work for the older, unskilled, impaired individuals who would be affected by this proposed rule.”
In a statement to HuffPost, the Social Security Administration called factoring English skills an “outdated and inequitable policy” that the agency has been working to undo for years.
“Social Security is required to consider education to determine if someone’s health conditions prevent work, but research shows the ability to communicate in English is no longer a good measure of educational attainment or the ability to work since Social Security’s rules were issued more than 40 years ago,” an agency spokesman said in an email.
The administration cited a 2015 Social Security inspector general report that found 244 instances of disability awards to Puerto Ricans that factored lack of English from 2011 to 2013. The Trump administration said there were 777 such cases in 2016. Democrats and disability experts call the discrepancy in the number of cases over the years another problem with the rule.
Advertisement
When a federal agency writes a new regulation, it posts a draft on the Federal Register website and invites comments from stakeholders, then responds to the comments when it finalizes the rule. Since the disability changes have all been happening through regulation rather than legislation, the Register comments have been the main venue for debating the policy.
Congressional Democrats argue the comments themselves show why the administration should not finalize the rule. “Commenters included 157 national or regional organizations who oppose the proposal, and only one in support,” Democrats wrote in a comment letter led by Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Rep. Richard Neal (Mass.).
The lone supportive comment from an organization came from the Opportunity Solutions Project, a little-known conservative advocacy group that generally supports restrictions on social programs. “By itself, the inability to communicate in English is not a disability and, consequently, should not be considered a relevant factor within the disability determination process,” the group wrote.
Agencies have no obligation to heed comments. A source with knowledge of the process said the final version of the English rule wouldn’t be substantially different from the draft version first published last year.
“Lower paying jobs may not denote the same level of self-sufficiency as jobs that may be held by an individual who [is] able to effectively communicate in English and who may be employed in a higher skilled, higher paying job.” - The Department of Homeland Security
Advertisement
One of the most frequent criticisms of the disability proposal is that it directly contradicts the administration’s position in another regulation: a Department of Homeland Security initiative that sits at the nexus of Trump’s efforts to stymie both welfare use and immigration.
In 2018, DHS updated its “public charge” rule disallowing legal immigrants who might wind up on welfare. One of the changes would allow the department to consider English proficiency, since “an inability to speak and understand English may adversely affect whether an alien can obtain employment.”
In other words, the Trump administration is saying in one regulation that lack of English proficiency presents a serious obstacle to gainful employment, and in another regulation that it doesn’t.
The final version of the DHS public charge rule, which was published last summer, even acknowledged the data that the Social Security Administration cited supporting its contrary position. But even though a lot of non-English speakers have jobs, DHS said, “such lower paying jobs may not denote the same level of self-sufficiency as jobs that may be held by an individual who [is] able to effectively communicate in English and who may be employed in a higher skilled, higher paying job.”
Another possible problem with the English rule is that it might become obsolete. The Social Security Administration is in the midst of a much broader effort to revamp its outdated occupational listings and the vocational grid it uses to evaluate whether someone with a disability can find other work. The Center on Budget and other experts fear the new approach could seriously harm disabled people, as it would presumably sweep away English proficiency and a variety of other considerations that are not physical or mental disabilities.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--India Doesn't Want Monkeys Attacking Trump During Taj Mahal Visit

When President Donald Trump visits India next week , officials will be going bananas trying to prevent him from being attacked by monkeys at the Taj Mahal .
The city of Agra , where the famous building is located , will be under security lockdown during Trump ’ s visit , India Today reported .
That means that no one will be allowed out of their homes when the president is traveling from the local airport to the Taj Mahal .
That ’ s fine and dandy for humans .
But try convincing the 500 to 700 monkeys living near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ macaques have a reputation for being very aggressive toward the 25,000 tourists who visit the Taj on a typical day .
Slingshots , police say , are the solution .
Officers assigned to Trump ’ s visit will be armed with the devices to chase off any monkeys that menace the president and first lady Melania Trump during their visit .
“ We found that monkeys get scared by just seeing us brandishing these slingshots , ” Brij Bhushan , head of the Taj Mahal security force , told Reuters last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in small groups , but they ’ re “ completely ineffective ” in warding off packs of maurading macaques , a law enforcement official told India Today .
In May 2018 , monkeys attacked two French tourists as they were taking selfies , according to the Independent .
Later that year , monkeys reportedly snatched a 12-day-old baby from its nearby home and killed it .
One Agra resident lamented that persistent efforts to control the monkey population have come to nothing .
“ The terror of the monkeys is so pervasive that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on the roof of their houses , which have almost been taken over by monkeys , ” the resident told India Today .
“ If such a large troop of monkeys attacks Donald Trump ’ s entourage , it will be a disaster .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
When President Donald Trump visits India next week, officials will be going bananas trying to prevent him from being attacked by monkeys at the Taj Mahal.
The city of Agra, where the famous building is located, will be under security lockdown during Trump’s visit, India Today reported. That means that no one will be allowed out of their homes when the president is traveling from the local airport to the Taj Mahal.
Advertisement
That’s fine and dandy for humans. But try convincing the 500 to 700 monkeys living near the nearly four-century-old mausoleum. The rhesus macaques have a reputation for being very aggressive toward the 25,000 tourists who visit the Taj on a typical day.
Slingshots, police say, are the solution. Officers assigned to Trump’s visit will be armed with the devices to chase off any monkeys that menace the president and first lady Melania Trump during their visit.
“We found that monkeys get scared by just seeing us brandishing these slingshots,” Brij Bhushan, head of the Taj Mahal security force, told Reuters last year.
The weapons work on monkeys individually or in small groups, but they’re “completely ineffective” in warding off packs of maurading macaques, a law enforcement official told India Today.
Advertisement
In May 2018, monkeys attacked two French tourists as they were taking selfies, according to the Independent. Later that year, monkeys reportedly snatched a 12-day-old baby from its nearby home and killed it.
One Agra resident lamented that persistent efforts to control the monkey population have come to nothing.
“The terror of the monkeys is so pervasive that women and children are scared of going up on the roof of their houses, which have almost been taken over by monkeys,” the resident told India Today. “If such a large troop of monkeys attacks Donald Trump’s entourage, it will be a disaster.”
Monkeys enjoy early morning sun after a cold night outside the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010. ASSOCIATED PRESS


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Bloomberg Says Women 'Get Paid Exactly The Same As Men' At His Company. They Don't.

At Wednesday night ’ s Democratic primary debate , as Michael Bloomberg took a bludgeoning for the mistreatment of women at the company that made him a billionaire , the former New York City mayor mounted this defense of himself : “ Let me tell you what I do at my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there , ” he said .
“ In my foundation , the person that runs it ’ s a woman , 70 % of the people there are women .
In my company , lots and lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid exactly the same as men .
And in my City Hall , the top person , my deputy mayor , was a woman , and 40 % of our commissioners were women.
” But Bloomberg ’ s assertion that men and women are paid equally at his company , the financial software giant Bloomberg LP , is false .
That ’ s according to the company ’ s own disclosures .
In the United Kingdom , where Bloomberg LP employs several thousand workers , women earn 21.9 % less than men in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women occupy only 1 in 5 of the top quarter of the highest-paying jobs ; the representation of women is largest in the bottom quarter of jobs .
Those figures come from a mandatory gender pay gap report that Bloomberg LP filed in the United Kingdom in April 2018 .
The reports , which are meant to spur change to reduce pay inequity , are not perfect .
Companies prepare their own data — reporters have caught some companies submitting impossible figures — and corporate leaders have argued that pay equity reports fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a gender gap .
Still , the report offers a rare window into the company ’ s otherwise opaque record on pay equity .
Bloomberg LP is not required to file an equivalent report in the United States .
Bloomberg ’ s assertion that men and women are paid equally at his company , the financial software giant Bloomberg LP , is false .
That ’ s according to the company ’ s own disclosures .
There is , however , data to suggest that women are vastly underrepresented in some parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 evaluation of one of Bloomberg ’ s U.S. worksites performed by the Department of Labor found that just 519 of 1,950 people employed there were women , or only about 27 % .
The two reports are only snapshots of Bloomberg ’ s vast business empire .
The largest share of Bloomberg LP ’ s 20,000-plus employees work in the United States , where corporations are not required to report gender pay gap data to any federal database .
And Bloomberg LP does not appear to voluntarily disclose pay equity data or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bloomberg LP did not respond to HuffPost ’ s questions about whether the Labor Department evaluation took place at one of its New York offices and if those numbers reflect its much larger workforce .
Bloomberg ’ s defense of his track record came as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
excoriated him for the numerous allegations of sexism and misogyny at Bloomberg LP , which he still owns .
In one stand-out example , the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company for a pattern of discrimination against women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became pregnant .
They were often subject to demotions , pay cuts and lost job opportunities , the EEOC claimed .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
At Wednesday night’s Democratic primary debate, as Michael Bloomberg took a bludgeoning for the mistreatment of women at the company that made him a billionaire, the former New York City mayor mounted this defense of himself:
“Let me tell you what I do at my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there,” he said. “In my foundation, the person that runs it’s a woman, 70% of the people there are women. In my company, lots and lots of women have big responsibilities. They get paid exactly the same as men. And in my City Hall, the top person, my deputy mayor, was a woman, and 40% of our commissioners were women.”
Advertisement
But Bloomberg’s assertion that men and women are paid equally at his company, the financial software giant Bloomberg LP, is false. That’s according to the company’s own disclosures.
In the United Kingdom, where Bloomberg LP employs several thousand workers, women earn 21.9% less than men in terms of their median hourly wage. Women occupy only 1 in 5 of the top quarter of the highest-paying jobs; the representation of women is largest in the bottom quarter of jobs.
And although an equal share of men and women earn bonuses, the median women’s bonus is one-third lower than the median men’s bonus.
Those figures come from a mandatory gender pay gap report that Bloomberg LP filed in the United Kingdom in April 2018. The reports, which are meant to spur change to reduce pay inequity, are not perfect. Companies prepare their own data — reporters have caught some companies submitting impossible figures — and corporate leaders have argued that pay equity reports fail to capture particular reasons why some workplaces have a gender gap.
Advertisement
Still, the report offers a rare window into the company’s otherwise opaque record on pay equity. Bloomberg LP is not required to file an equivalent report in the United States.
“Bloomberg’s assertion that men and women are paid equally at his company, the financial software giant Bloomberg LP, is false. That’s according to the company’s own disclosures.”
There is, however, data to suggest that women are vastly underrepresented in some parts of the company in the U.S. A 2019 evaluation of one of Bloomberg’s U.S. worksites performed by the Department of Labor found that just 519 of 1,950 people employed there were women, or only about 27%.
That evaluation, which the Labor Department performed as part of a compliance check on government contractors, appears to have taken place at Bloomberg’s Park Avenue office in Manhattan.
Notably, when he defended himself, Bloomberg avoided mentioning what percentage of workers at his company are women.
Advertisement
The two reports are only snapshots of Bloomberg’s vast business empire. The largest share of Bloomberg LP’s 20,000-plus employees work in the United States, where corporations are not required to report gender pay gap data to any federal database. And Bloomberg LP does not appear to voluntarily disclose pay equity data or the gender breakdown of its global workforce.
Bloomberg LP did not respond to HuffPost’s questions about whether the Labor Department evaluation took place at one of its New York offices and if those numbers reflect its much larger workforce.
The Bloomberg campaign did not immediately respond to similar questions about its U.K. pay equity disclosures.
Bloomberg’s defense of his track record came as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) excoriated him for the numerous allegations of sexism and misogyny at Bloomberg LP, which he still owns.
In one stand-out example, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company for a pattern of discrimination against women, especially those who got married or became pregnant. They were often subject to demotions, pay cuts and lost job opportunities, the EEOC claimed.
Advertisement
“I hope you heard what his defense was,” Warren said, responding to Bloomberg. “‘I’ve been nice to some women.’ That just doesn’t cut it.”
Roque Planas contributed reporting.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Bloomberg Shares Doctored Debate Video To Hide Dismal Performance

Mike Bloomberg flopped during Wednesday night ’ s Democratic debate , and now he ’ s accused of playing a shell game with a video clip of the event .
On Thursday morning , the billionaire businessman released a deceptively edited video that falsely suggested he rendered the other candidates speechless at one point .
The video begins at the moment when the former New York City mayor declared : “ I ’ m the only one here I think that ’ s ever started a business.
” During the actual exchange , his comment was greeted with about four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below falsely implied it was more like 20 .
It seems whoever edited Bloomberg ’ s video tweet took moments from other parts of the debate to make it look as if his declaration was so powerful candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and former Vice President Joe Biden had no response .
HuffPost reached out to the Bloomberg campaign for comment on the reason for releasing the doctored video , but no one has immediately responded .
However , others did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make artificial lemonade out of a lemon of a performance .
Here , I made the clip of what actually happened when Bloomberg asked who else had started a business .
It was not 20 seconds of dumbfounded silence .
pic.twitter.com/cpUAH5mkNJ — Dominic Holden ( @ dominicholden ) February 20 , 2020 Mike Bloomberg is doing exactly what Elizabeth said he would : using his money to distort our memory of what happened last night .
pic.twitter.com/z9v01SYGKz — Ella Dawson ( @ brosandprose ) February 20 , 2020 But at least one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay off for Bloomberg .
This will totally work because there 's absolutely no way for people to watch what actually happened in the debate .
And also this is totes believable .
— Ashley Nicole Black ( @ ashleyn1cole ) February 20 , 2020 At least one person noted that the former New York mayor seemed to be following in the footsteps of President Donald Trump who , last May , tweeted a video edited to make it seem like Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) was drunk .
Team Bloomberg edits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rivals ' silence to make them look like dummies .
Where have we seen this kind of trick before ?
From Team Trump , with Pelosi , earlier this month : https : //t.co/sbwBHo8Ck5 https : //t.co/uJtRFK6Jek — Drew Harwell ( @ drewharwell ) February 20 , 2020 Twitter said last year that it is crafting a new policy to limit the reach of “ deep fakes , ” or videos altered using artificial intelligence in misleading ways , and other manipulated media .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Mike Bloomberg flopped during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, and now he’s accused of playing a shell game with a video clip of the event.
On Thursday morning, the billionaire businessman released a deceptively edited video that falsely suggested he rendered the other candidates speechless at one point.
Advertisement
The video begins at the moment when the former New York City mayor declared: “I’m the only one here I think that’s ever started a business.”
During the actual exchange, his comment was greeted with about four seconds of silence, but the video below falsely implied it was more like 20.
It seems whoever edited Bloomberg’s video tweet took moments from other parts of the debate to make it look as if his declaration was so powerful candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden had no response.
Advertisement
HuffPost reached out to the Bloomberg campaign for comment on the reason for releasing the doctored video, but no one has immediately responded.
However, others did, shocked that the campaign would attempt to make artificial lemonade out of a lemon of a performance.
Here, I made the clip of what actually happened when Bloomberg asked who else had started a business. It was not 20 seconds of dumbfounded silence. pic.twitter.com/cpUAH5mkNJ — Dominic Holden (@dominicholden) February 20, 2020
Going with deep fakes now are we? — Pedro da Costa (@pdacosta) February 20, 2020
Mike Bloomberg is doing exactly what Elizabeth said he would: using his money to distort our memory of what happened last night. pic.twitter.com/z9v01SYGKz — Ella Dawson (@brosandprose) February 20, 2020
Advertisement
Stop doctoring clips. Matter of fact, just drop out and fund down-ballot Democrats if you actually want to help beat Trump and McConnell. — Adam Best (@adamcbest) February 20, 2020
But at least one person (sarcastically) suggested this video might pay off for Bloomberg.
This will totally work because there's absolutely no way for people to watch what actually happened in the debate. And also this is totes believable. — Ashley Nicole Black (@ashleyn1cole) February 20, 2020
The video remained on Bloomberg’s Twitter page as of Thursday afternoon.
At least one person noted that the former New York mayor seemed to be following in the footsteps of President Donald Trump who, last May, tweeted a video edited to make it seem like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was drunk.
Team Bloomberg edits last night's performance, drawing out his rivals' silence to make them look like dummies. Where have we seen this kind of trick before? From Team Trump, with Pelosi, earlier this month: https://t.co/sbwBHo8Ck5 https://t.co/uJtRFK6Jek — Drew Harwell (@drewharwell) February 20, 2020
Twitter said last year that it is crafting a new policy to limit the reach of “deep fakes,” or videos altered using artificial intelligence in misleading ways, and other manipulated media.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Kentucky Atheist Awarded $150,000 In Fight Over Vanity License Plates

If you ’ re looking for God , keep your eyes peeled for a white Jeep Grand Cherokee with custom Kentucky plates that read “ IM GOD.
” You may not find the Almighty behind the wheel , but you ’ re likely at least to encounter Ben Hart .
The self-identified atheist sued the state in 2016 after he was denied the vanity plate because it was “ vulgar or obscene.
” A U.S. District Court ruled in Hart ’ s favor last November .
Last week , the court also ordered the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to pay $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation costs to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation , the groups that backed the three-year suit .
Hart told Kentucky ’ s FOX19 he hopes his plates raise awareness that religious beliefs are open to individual interpretation .
As for the specific claim made on the plates , he has an answer for that , too : “ I can prove I ’ m God .
You can ’ t prove I ’ m not .
Now , how can I prove I ’ m God ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ God in the American Heritage Dictionary , and number five is a very handsome man , and my wife says I ’ m a very handsome man , and nobody argues with my wife.
” The court ruled in Hart ’ s favor as a matter of free speech , noting Kentucky has previously approved pro-religious plates like “ IM4GOD , ” “ ASKGOD , ” GR8GOD , ” and “ LUVGOD.
” As for the issue of vulgarity , the state also previously signed off on plates reading “ BOOGR ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument .
Hart had similar plates on his car when he lived in Ohio , where they were approved without issue .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
If you’re looking for God, keep your eyes peeled for a white Jeep Grand Cherokee with custom Kentucky plates that read “IM GOD.”
You may not find the Almighty behind the wheel, but you’re likely at least to encounter Ben Hart. The self-identified atheist sued the state in 2016 after he was denied the vanity plate because it was “vulgar or obscene.”
Advertisement
A U.S. District Court ruled in Hart’s favor last November. Last week, the court also ordered the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to pay $150,000 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the groups that backed the three-year suit.
Hart told Kentucky’s FOX19 he hopes his plates raise awareness that religious beliefs are open to individual interpretation. As for the specific claim made on the plates, he has an answer for that, too:
“I can prove I’m God. You can’t prove I’m not. Now, how can I prove I’m God? Well, there are six definitions for God in the American Heritage Dictionary, and number five is a very handsome man, and my wife says I’m a very handsome man, and nobody argues with my wife.”
The court ruled in Hart’s favor as a matter of free speech, noting Kentucky has previously approved pro-religious plates like “IM4GOD,” “ASKGOD,” GR8GOD,” and “LUVGOD.” As for the issue of vulgarity, the state also previously signed off on plates reading “BOOGR” and “FATA55,” effectively undercutting that argument.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Klobuchar And Buttigieg's Debate Spat Was An Insult To Mexico

In Wednesday night ’ s Democratic presidential debate , one of the only questions about immigration and foreign policy was reduced to a trivia point .
Vanessa Huac , a moderator from Telemundo , asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) about how she couldn ’ t name the president of Mexico in an interview last week .
Klobuchar chalked the snafu up to “ momentary forgetfulness ” that doesn ’ t reflect her knowledge of the country and clumsily gave “ greetings to President Lopez Obrador.
” But rival and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out that as someone on a committee that oversees border security , Klobuchar should know the answer .
The exchange quickly devolved into a mud-slinging contest where the two candidates argued about the merits of Senate vs. mayoral experience .
But lost in their insults was any real discussion about U.S.-Mexico relations , despite the many political , cultural and economic issues at stake .
“ This was a contest between the two of them , basically playing out for the cameras , ” said Michael Werz , a senior fellow at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that presidential candidates are so unfamiliar with the immediate neighbor of the United States is shocking and it is inexcusable.
” The ties between the U.S. and Mexico merit more than a “ Jeopardy !
” moment on the debate stage .
Thirty six million Mexican-Americans live in the U.S. , and the two cultures are deeply intertwined through family , business , culture and food .
Tens of thousands of U.S. residents cross the border every day for work , school or simply to shop .
Mexico is America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 1 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day .
Plus , the U.S.-Mexico border is a focal point of Donald Trump ’ s presidency , and he is constantly pressuring Mexican government to help act out his agenda .
Trump has made cracking down on illegal migrants and asylum-seekers a tentpole of his administration , and he ’ s leaned on Mexico ’ s government for help .
He ’ s described Mexicans as criminals and rapists , and threatened to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out ” drug cartels if the country didn ’ t slash its crime rates .
Over the summer , Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican imports if the country didn ’ t take steps to keep immigrants from crossing into the United States .
Obrador agreed .
The Mexican president sent National Guard troops in riot gear to the border , who in January stopped a caravan of 4,000 immigrants from crossing the border by using pepper spray on families that included small children .
They detained and sent hundreds of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guatemala .
Mexico is also cooperating with Trump ’ s “ Remain in Mexico ” policy , which has forced more than 57,000 asylum-seekers to wait in unsanitary camps at the border for their court dates in the U.S .
The program has resulted in violence , kidnappings and more family separations .
Moderators should have asked presidential candidates about how they would manage immigration between the two countries , said Andrew Selee , the president of the Migration Policy Institute .
Although Democrats are united on disavowing Trump ’ s policies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Mexico and help asylum-seekers without creating spikes in illegal immigration or sending troops to the southern border , he said .
Any U.S. president would have to deal with the fact that in 2019 Mexico had a record high number of homicides , and that criminal activity spills into the U.S. with drugs and gun trafficking .
Selee said the moderators could have asked a question about how candidates would tackle crime in the country , since Obrador has pushed back on Trump ’ s threats to intervene with U.S. troops .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement , which cracks down on labor practices in Mexico .
Werz said politicians need to see Mexico as an asset for economic and cultural growth , rather than a gateway country for labor , illegal immigration and crime .
The globalized country has more than 126 million people and has made big strides in areas such as aeronautics , technology and electronics .
He said the country is important enough to be addressed on the debate stage in a serious way , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the U.S.-Mexico relationship to be in 2028 ?
” rather than “ ‘ Jeopardy !
’ -like questions by the moderators .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, one of the only questions about immigration and foreign policy was reduced to a trivia point. Vanessa Huac, a moderator from Telemundo, asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) about how she couldn’t name the president of Mexico in an interview last week.
Klobuchar chalked the snafu up to “momentary forgetfulness” that doesn’t reflect her knowledge of the country and clumsily gave “greetings to President Lopez Obrador.” But rival and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dug in on the memory lapse, pointing out that as someone on a committee that oversees border security, Klobuchar should know the answer.
Advertisement
“Are you ― are you trying to say that I’m dumb?” snipped Klobuchar. “Or are you mocking me here, Pete?”
The exchange quickly devolved into a mud-slinging contest where the two candidates argued about the merits of Senate vs. mayoral experience. But lost in their insults was any real discussion about U.S.-Mexico relations, despite the many political, cultural and economic issues at stake.
“This was a contest between the two of them, basically playing out for the cameras,” said Michael Werz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “The fact that presidential candidates are so unfamiliar with the immediate neighbor of the United States is shocking and it is inexcusable.”
Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks as former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg listens at the ninth Democratic 2020 U.S. Presidential candidates debate at the Paris Theater in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., February 19, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Blake Mike Blake / Reuters
Advertisement
The ties between the U.S. and Mexico merit more than a “Jeopardy!” moment on the debate stage. Thirty six million Mexican-Americans live in the U.S., and the two cultures are deeply intertwined through family, business, culture and food. Tens of thousands of U.S. residents cross the border every day for work, school or simply to shop. Mexico is America’s third-largest trading partner, with more than $1 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day. Plus, the U.S.-Mexico border is a focal point of Donald Trump’s presidency, and he is constantly pressuring Mexican government to help act out his agenda.
“Mexico is omnipresent in the U.S.,” said Werz. “Virtually everybody in the United States is a stakeholder in the U.S.-Mexico relationship.”
Policies toward Mexico offer Democrats a clear place to differentiate themselves from Trump, who has turned Mexico into his invisible wall or, as analyst Carlos Bravo Regidor put it on a Mexican cable news show, the president’s piñata during his reelection campaign.
Trump has made cracking down on illegal migrants and asylum-seekers a tentpole of his administration, and he’s leaned on Mexico’s government for help. He’s described Mexicans as criminals and rapists, and threatened to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist groups and to “go in and clear out” drug cartels if the country didn’t slash its crime rates.
Over the summer, Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican imports if the country didn’t take steps to keep immigrants from crossing into the United States. Obrador agreed. The Mexican president sent National Guard troops in riot gear to the border, who in January stopped a caravan of 4,000 immigrants from crossing the border by using pepper spray on families that included small children. They detained and sent hundreds of people back to dangerous situations in Honduras and Guatemala.
Advertisement
Mexico is also cooperating with Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which has forced more than 57,000 asylum-seekers to wait in unsanitary camps at the border for their court dates in the U.S. The program has resulted in violence, kidnappings and more family separations.
Moderators should have asked presidential candidates about how they would manage immigration between the two countries, said Andrew Selee, the president of the Migration Policy Institute. Although Democrats are united on disavowing Trump’s policies, none have articulated how they would work with Mexico and help asylum-seekers without creating spikes in illegal immigration or sending troops to the southern border, he said.
“There isn’t really a vision on how to do it differently,” Selee said. “That would be a great debate.”
Any U.S. president would have to deal with the fact that in 2019 Mexico had a record high number of homicides, and that criminal activity spills into the U.S. with drugs and gun trafficking.
Selee said the moderators could have asked a question about how candidates would tackle crime in the country, since Obrador has pushed back on Trump’s threats to intervene with U.S. troops. Or, they could have asked about an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which cracks down on labor practices in Mexico.
Advertisement
The next person to sit in the White House needs to be prepared to take a cooperative approach with Mexico, foreign policy experts said.
Werz said politicians need to see Mexico as an asset for economic and cultural growth, rather than a gateway country for labor, illegal immigration and crime. The globalized country has more than 126 million people and has made big strides in areas such as aeronautics, technology and electronics.
He said the country is important enough to be addressed on the debate stage in a serious way, with questions such as “Where would you like the U.S.-Mexico relationship to be in 2028?” rather than “‘Jeopardy!’-like questions by the moderators.”
The fact that so many Mexicans live in America also means the two countries should be looking for ways to grow together.
“There are a lot of voters out there who have family and ancestral ties to Mexico,” said Selee. “They’d like to actually know what Democratic candidates think about their country’s heritage.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--The 2020 Democratic Debate In Nevada Was The Most Watched In History

The ninth Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential election was the most watched in history , host NBC announced Thursday .
The network ’ s debate ― which aired Wednesday from 6 to 8 p.m. local time from Las Vegas ― averaged more than 19.6 million television viewers , making it the most watched Democratic debate in history , according to NBC .
That number includes 5.3 million viewers in the 25-54 age range , which NBC said also made Wednesday ’ s event the top-rated Democratic debate ever in that key demographic .
“ NBC ’ s digital performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s major political live events since the 2016 election , ” the network said in a press release .
“ The debate live stream generated 13.5 million live video streams and nearly 22 million video views across all platforms , including NBCNews.com , MSNBC.com , NBC News NOW on OTT devices , Facebook , Twitter and YouTube .
The digital streams translate to an average audience of 417K viewers.
” NBC said the network got the numbers from Nielsen Fast National Data .
“ So I ’ d like to talk about who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians ’ ― and no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg , ” Warren said just minutes into the debate .
The night also brought out the long-simmering tension between Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , with the two politically moderate Midwestern candidates repeatedly jabbing each other over experience and intelligence levels .
The debate was moderated by Lester Holt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Dateline NBC ” ; Chuck Todd of NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” ; NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Hallie Jackson ; Noticias Telemundo senior correspondent Vanessa Hauc ; and Jon Ralston of The Nevada Independent .
The event came three days before the caucuses in Nevada , the third state to count delegates in the primary race after Iowa and New Hampshire .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The ninth Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential election was the most watched in history, host NBC announced Thursday.
The network’s debate ― which aired Wednesday from 6 to 8 p.m. local time from Las Vegas ― averaged more than 19.6 million television viewers, making it the most watched Democratic debate in history, according to NBC. That number includes 5.3 million viewers in the 25-54 age range, which NBC said also made Wednesday’s event the top-rated Democratic debate ever in that key demographic.
Advertisement
“NBC’s digital performance also exceeded any of the network’s major political live events since the 2016 election,” the network said in a press release. “The debate live stream generated 13.5 million live video streams and nearly 22 million video views across all platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, NBC News NOW on OTT devices, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. The digital streams translate to an average audience of 417K viewers.”
NBC said the network got the numbers from Nielsen Fast National Data.
“So I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians’ ― and no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg,” Warren said just minutes into the debate.
These are the highlights from Elizabeth Warren's 2020 candidate roast, a.k.a. the Nevada debate pic.twitter.com/aBRusK2f8k — NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 20, 2020
Advertisement
The night also brought out the long-simmering tension between Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, with the two politically moderate Midwestern candidates repeatedly jabbing each other over experience and intelligence levels.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Mike Bloomberg Spent $220 Million In January. That Is An Unimaginable Sum.

Michael Bloomberg spent $ 220 million on his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in January alone , according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday .
He has now spent $ 409 million of his own fortune on his campaign .
It is hard to explain how much money this is in a political campaign , as there is absolutely no precedent for it .
The billionaire has already exceeded the $ 295 million spent by Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign ― previously the most spent by a primary candidate ― by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that money from the launch of his campaign in February 2007 through June 2008 .
Bloomberg has spent more money in less than three months , and so far only Iowa and New Hampshire , where he wasn ’ t even competing , have voted .
The amount of money Bloomberg , the former Republican-turned-independent New York City mayor , spent in January is on par with the highest amounts spent by general election presidential campaigns in their final weeks .
In 2012 , the Obama reelection campaign committee , not including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 million in the final five weeks before and a couple weeks after Election Day .
Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign spent $ 181 million over the same period in 2016 .
The biggest expense in Bloomberg ’ s budget is advertising .
He spent $ 126 million on television advertising and $ 45 million on digital advertising in January alone .
The analytics firm Advertising Analytics reports that Bloomberg has spent more money on television advertising than any candidate ever .
Bloomberg was worth $ 65.2 billion as of Thursday , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million-plus he has spent so far accounts for just 0.6 % of his total net worth .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michael Bloomberg spent $220 million on his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in January alone, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday. He has now spent $409 million of his own fortune on his campaign.
It is hard to explain how much money this is in a political campaign, as there is absolutely no precedent for it.
Advertisement
The billionaire has already exceeded the $295 million spent by Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign ― previously the most spent by a primary candidate ― by over $100 million. Obama spent that money from the launch of his campaign in February 2007 through June 2008. Bloomberg has spent more money in less than three months, and so far only Iowa and New Hampshire, where he wasn’t even competing, have voted.
The amount of money Bloomberg, the former Republican-turned-independent New York City mayor, spent in January is on par with the highest amounts spent by general election presidential campaigns in their final weeks.
In 2012, the Obama reelection campaign committee, not including the Democratic National Committee, spent approximately $250 million in the final five weeks before and a couple weeks after Election Day. Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent $181 million over the same period in 2016.
The biggest expense in Bloomberg’s budget is advertising. He spent $126 million on television advertising and $45 million on digital advertising in January alone. The analytics firm Advertising Analytics reports that Bloomberg has spent more money on television advertising than any candidate ever.
Advertisement
.@MikeBloomberg is the highest spending presidential candidate of all time. According to our data, he has spent $338.7M on traditional media, surpassing @BarackObama's 2012 record of $338.3M. #Election2020 — Advertising Analytics (@Ad_Analytics) February 18, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Twitter Says New Rules Would Likely Mean Disclaimer For Mike Bloomberg's Debate Video

A deceptively altered video tweeted Thursday by presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg would “ likely ” be labeled as manipulated media under new Twitter rules that take effect next month , according to a company spokesperson .
The video — which has already amassed nearly 2 million views and uses clips from Wednesday night ’ s debate among Democratic White House hopefuls — has been edited to change the other candidates ’ responses to a question from Bloomberg .
“ I ’ m the only one here that , I think , that ’ s ever started a business , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the video , his remark is followed by 20 seconds of footage pulled out of context , showing Sens .
Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Amy Klobuchar , former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg each reacting in silence , as crickets chirp in the background .
That ’ s not what happened .
In reality , Bloomberg paused for a moment after asking his question , then proceeded to talk about his record as the former mayor of New York .
Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will add context labels to tweets containing “ synthetic or manipulated media , ” or remove such tweets if it determines that they “ are likely to cause harm , ” based on the following criteria : Had Bloomberg tweeted his video after the policy had gone into effect , Twitter would have likely attached a label to it , a spokesperson told HuffPost .
The spokesperson ’ s willingness to so characterize Bloomberg ’ s clip contrasts with the company ’ s response to a similarly altered video from President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feb. 6 , Trump tweeted a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) that was edited to make it appear as if she was ripping up Trump ’ s State of the Union speech as he was delivering , including at moments when he honored a veteran of World War II ’ s famed group of Black miliary pilots , known as the Tuskegee Airman , and other Americans .
In fact , Pelosi ripped up her copy of the address just after Trump finished it .
At the time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be labeled or removed under its forthcoming policy .
“ I can ’ t get into hypotheticals , ” spokeswoman Katie Rosborough told CNBC .
The Bloomberg campaign , asked for comment on its video , said in a statement , “ It ’ s tongue in cheek .
There were obviously no crickets on the debate stage.
” Bloomberg ’ s performance in the debate in Las Vegas ― his debut at the forums ― was widely panned , as he struggled to respond effectively to harsh criticisms of his record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economic inequality and other issues .

Brett Carlsen via Getty Images
A deceptively altered video tweeted Thursday by presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg would “likely” be labeled as manipulated media under new Twitter rules that take effect next month, according to a company spokesperson.
The video — which has already amassed nearly 2 million views and uses clips from Wednesday night’s debate among Democratic White House hopefuls — has been edited to change the other candidates’ responses to a question from Bloomberg.
Advertisement
“I’m the only one here that, I think, that’s ever started a business, is that fair?” Bloomberg asks. In the video, his remark is followed by 20 seconds of footage pulled out of context, showing Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg each reacting in silence, as crickets chirp in the background.
That’s not what happened. In reality, Bloomberg paused for a moment after asking his question, then proceeded to talk about his record as the former mayor of New York.
Twitter recently announced that starting March 5, it will add context labels to tweets containing “synthetic or manipulated media,” or remove such tweets if it determines that they “are likely to cause harm,” based on the following criteria:
Advertisement
Had Bloomberg tweeted his video after the policy had gone into effect, Twitter would have likely attached a label to it, a spokesperson told HuffPost.
The spokesperson’s willingness to so characterize Bloomberg’s clip contrasts with the company’s response to a similarly altered video from President Donald Trump just two weeks ago.
On Feb. 6, Trump tweeted a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that was edited to make it appear as if she was ripping up Trump’s State of the Union speech as he was delivering, including at moments when he honored a veteran of World War II’s famed group of Black miliary pilots, known as the Tuskegee Airman, and other Americans. In fact, Pelosi ripped up her copy of the address just after Trump finished it.
At the time, Twitter declined to specify if the video would be labeled or removed under its forthcoming policy. “I can’t get into hypotheticals,” spokeswoman Katie Rosborough told CNBC.
Advertisement
The Bloomberg campaign, asked for comment on its video, said in a statement, “It’s tongue in cheek. There were obviously no crickets on the debate stage.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--'Media Malpractice:' Las Vegas Mass Shooting Largely Ignored During Democratic Debate

But the issue of gun safety went noticeably unaddressed by the moderators as the debate , held in the strip ’ s Paris Theater , unfolded less than four miles from the site of the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival massacre .
Some 58 people were killed and more than 400 others injured when a gunman opened fire on the country music festival from across the street in a hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino .
Police never determined the shooter ’ s motive .
Robert Gaafar , a survivor of the Route 91 shooting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg , who made his debut on the Democratic debate stage on Wednesday and founded the nonprofit Everytown For Gun Safety in 2013 .
“ To be honest , I was very disappointed , ” Gaafar told HuffPost on Thursday about the lack of gun safety questions .
The debate marked his first return to Las Vegas since the shooting , and he expected gun violence to be a central part of the night .
“ I was there with several other survivors of gun violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added .
“ It was the first gut reaction once it was over .
Before even talking about how the candidates did , it was like , ‘ I can ’ t believe there wasn ’ t a question about gun violence.
’ ” Gaafar said it ’ s possible the moderators ― NBC News ’ Lester Holt , Chuck Todd and Hallie Jackson , Noticias Telemundo ’ s Vanessa Hauc and The Nevada Independent ’ s Jon Ralston ― meant to include a question about guns but ran out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking jabs at one another .
Biden and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg were the only two candidates to discuss gun violence during the debate , despite the absence of pointed questions on the topic .
“ I ’ m running because so many people are being left behind , ” Biden said in his closing statement .
“ I know what it ’ s like to be knocked down , but I know you have to get back up .
We have to provide some safety and security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re right here in Nevada , the site of the most significant mass murder in American history , ” he continued .
“ Guns .
Our kids are getting sent to school having to hide under their desks ...
It ’ s immoral.
” But the few fleeting moments in which gun safety was raised were too little , too late for some viewers .
And though all of the Democratic candidates are leagues above President Donald Trump when it comes to tackling gun violence , the issue should have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shannon Watts , founder of Moms Demand Action .
“ Viewers deserve to hear how every candidate on the stage would address this crisis from daily gun homicides and gun suicides that kill over 100 Americans every day to mass tragedies like what happened in Las Vegas less than three years ago , ” Watts told HuffPost .
“ To not talk about that crisis is unacceptable.
” Watts said she imagines it was “ very hurtful ” to survivors of the Las Vegas massacre to have the issue all but ignored during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question that should be asked at every single debate , ” she said .
“ This is a crisis of monumental proportions .
And , you know , 100 Americans were killed yesterday .
They will be killed today .
And they will be killed tomorrow .
To not address this crisis is media malpractice.
” “ It just seems unbelievable that you ’ re in the city of the deadliest mass shooting in American history that happened in this president ’ s term , and it was not even brought up by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s just disappointing to see this not be treated like the life and death issue that it is .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Moderators for the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday failed to ask a single question about gun violence, despite the event’s proximity to the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
The debate, hosted by NBC News, MSNBC and The Nevada Independent, ran two hours and covered a spate of topics, including climate change, health care, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) now-infamous Mexico flub.
Advertisement
But the issue of gun safety went noticeably unaddressed by the moderators as the debate, held in the strip’s Paris Theater, unfolded less than four miles from the site of the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival massacre.
Some 58 people were killed and more than 400 others injured when a gunman opened fire on the country music festival from across the street in a hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino. Police never determined the shooter’s motive.
Robert Gaafar, a survivor of the Route 91 shooting, sat in the audience as a guest of former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who made his debut on the Democratic debate stage on Wednesday and founded the nonprofit Everytown For Gun Safety in 2013.
“To be honest, I was very disappointed,” Gaafar told HuffPost on Thursday about the lack of gun safety questions. The debate marked his first return to Las Vegas since the shooting, and he expected gun violence to be a central part of the night.
Advertisement
“I was there with several other survivors of gun violence and ... they were all very disappointed,” he added. “It was the first gut reaction once it was over. Before even talking about how the candidates did, it was like, ‘I can’t believe there wasn’t a question about gun violence.’”
Vegas shooting survivor Robert Gaafar speaks during a news conference with (L-R) Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and fellow survivors Maisie Devine and Jason Sherman outside the U.S. Capitol Nov. 1, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Gaafar said it’s possible the moderators ― NBC News’ Lester Holt, Chuck Todd and Hallie Jackson, Noticias Telemundo’s Vanessa Hauc and The Nevada Independent’s Jon Ralston ― meant to include a question about guns but ran out of time with all of the candidates taking jabs at one another.
NBC News ― the parent company of MSNBC ― Noticias Telemundo and Ralston did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment.
Karl Catarata, who survived the 2014 Walmart shooting in Las Vegas, also expressed dismay over the moderators’ glaring omission. Catarata, a staffer for Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), also watched the debate live as a guest of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Advertisement
“As a gun violence survivor, I would’ve loved to hear more from our next nominee in their plans to honor lives lost from gun violence,” Catarata wrote.
As a Nevadan, tonight’s debate was 💯. Thank you to the @TheNVIndy for working w/ national press. Nonetheless, as a gun violence survivor, I would’ve loved to hear more from our next nominee in their plans to honor lives lost from gun violence.
Thank you @AMarch4OurLives. ✊🏽 https://t.co/2TlwiYOarQ — Karl Catarata (@KarlCatarata) February 20, 2020
Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg were the only two candidates to discuss gun violence during the debate, despite the absence of pointed questions on the topic.
“I’m running because so many people are being left behind,” Biden said in his closing statement. “I know what it’s like to be knocked down, but I know you have to get back up. We have to provide some safety and security for the American people.”
“We’re right here in Nevada, the site of the most significant mass murder in American history,” he continued. “Guns. Our kids are getting sent to school having to hide under their desks ... It’s immoral.”
Advertisement
But the few fleeting moments in which gun safety was raised were too little, too late for some viewers. And though all of the Democratic candidates are leagues above President Donald Trump when it comes to tackling gun violence, the issue should have been a focal point of the debate, said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action.
“Viewers deserve to hear how every candidate on the stage would address this crisis from daily gun homicides and gun suicides that kill over 100 Americans every day to mass tragedies like what happened in Las Vegas less than three years ago,” Watts told HuffPost. “To not talk about that crisis is unacceptable.”
Watts said she imagines it was “very hurtful” to survivors of the Las Vegas massacre to have the issue all but ignored during the debate.
“This is a question that should be asked at every single debate,” she said. “This is a crisis of monumental proportions. And, you know, 100 Americans were killed yesterday. They will be killed today. And they will be killed tomorrow. To not address this crisis is media malpractice.”
Andrew Patrick, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, echoed Watts’ frustration.
“It just seems unbelievable that you’re in the city of the deadliest mass shooting in American history that happened in this president’s term, and it was not even brought up by the moderators,” Patrick said. “It’s just disappointing to see this not be treated like the life and death issue that it is.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Trump Sidelined Acting Spy Chief After Russian Meddling Briefing: Reports

President Donald Trump sidelined Joseph Maguire , the outgoing acting director of national intelligence , after learning a member of Maguire ’ s team had briefed House lawmakers that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections to get Trump re-elected , according to multiple reports .
The briefing angered the president so much that he berated Maguire , leaving him “ despondent , ” a source told The Washington Post .
Shelby Pierson , the intelligence official in charge of election security , briefed the full House Intelligence Committee last Thursday , although it ’ s unclear what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angry that Rep. Adam Schiff ( Calif. ) — a powerful Democrat and a key force behind the impeachment inquiry against him — was present and could use the information against him , although the panel ’ s Republican members were also there .
The New York Times noted the president ’ s allies challenged Pierson ’ s conclusions , arguing that Trump had been hard on Russia .
The president said Wednesday that Maguire would leave his post this week ( as acting director , Maguire would have been legally required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have been nominated for the permanent position ) .
Trump then named Richard Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany , as the acting director of national intelligence , calling him a “ highly respected ” diplomat .
Grenell is an outspoken Trump loyalist and often turns to Twitter , the president ’ s favorite medium , to show his support .
He has little intelligence experience , and some Republicans were reportedly pushing for a candidate with a national security background .
Grenell is expected to stay in his position in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity in the DNI role , according to reports .
It ’ s unclear if he will be nominated to fill the position permanently , as Trump had made it relatively standard to fill positions that require Senate confirmation with acting employees .
Trump has long rejected U.S. intelligence conclusions that Russia played an outsized role in his election victory in 2016 and is now working to aid his campaign for a second term .
American intelligence agencies have been ringing similar alarm bells for years .
Christopher Wray , the FBI director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin was engaging in “ information warfare ” to weaken Americans ’ confidence in democracy , although he said he hadn ’ t seen any attacks to target election infrastructure .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump sidelined Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, after learning a member of Maguire’s team had briefed House lawmakers that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections to get Trump re-elected, according to multiple reports.
The briefing angered the president so much that he berated Maguire, leaving him “despondent,” a source told The Washington Post. Shelby Pierson, the intelligence official in charge of election security, briefed the full House Intelligence Committee last Thursday, although it’s unclear what information she shared.
Advertisement
Trump was particularly angry that Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) — a powerful Democrat and a key force behind the impeachment inquiry against him — was present and could use the information against him, although the panel’s Republican members were also there.
The New York Times noted the president’s allies challenged Pierson’s conclusions, arguing that Trump had been hard on Russia.
The president said Wednesday that Maguire would leave his post this week (as acting director, Maguire would have been legally required to depart before March 12 anyway, but could have been nominated for the permanent position).
Trump then named Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, as the acting director of national intelligence, calling him a “highly respected” diplomat. Grenell is an outspoken Trump loyalist and often turns to Twitter, the president’s favorite medium, to show his support. He has little intelligence experience, and some Republicans were reportedly pushing for a candidate with a national security background.
Advertisement
Grenell is expected to stay in his position in Germany while he serves in an acting capacity in the DNI role, according to reports. It’s unclear if he will be nominated to fill the position permanently, as Trump had made it relatively standard to fill positions that require Senate confirmation with acting employees.
Grenell said Thursday on Twitter that Trump would announce a permanent nominee “(not me)” sometime soon.
Trump has long rejected U.S. intelligence conclusions that Russia played an outsized role in his election victory in 2016 and is now working to aid his campaign for a second term. American intelligence agencies have been ringing similar alarm bells for years.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Trump Gets Served A Brutal Fact-Check On Fox News After Griping About Bad Coverage

President Donald Trump blasted Fox News on Thursday for giving airtime to a pundit who criticized his debate performances in 2016 , and network host Neil Cavuto served Trump an unpleasant truth in return .
In her analysis of billionaire Michael Bloomberg ’ s poor performance at Wednesday night ’ s Democratic debate , A .
B. Stoddard of RealClearPolitics told Cavuto on his show that even Trump ’ s “ disastrous ” and “ cringeworthy ” 2016 debate performances did not hold him back from the presidency .
In a tweet soon afterward , Trump attacked Stoddard for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero talent ” and called on somebody at Fox News to explain that “ I won every one of my debates.
” “ Check the polls taken immediately after the debates , ” he urged in the tweet .
Could somebody at @ foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B .
Stoddard ( zero talent ! )
and @ TeamCavuto , that I won every one of my debates , from beginning to end .
Check the polls taken immediately after the debates .
The debates got me elected .
Must be Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 20 , 2020 He also suggested that the unfavorable coverage on his favorite network was orchestrated by former Republican House speaker and current Fox Corporation board member Paul Ryan , who has spoken out against Trump since leaving politics .
At the end of his program , Cavuto read aloud the president ’ s claim that he won the debates and delivered a blunt fact-check : “ He did not.
” “ When you look at polls that came out from Fox , NBC , CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host of others , the initial read was that he had failed to do well in those debates .
He ultimately won , but he did not do well in those debates , ” Cavuto said .
Trump later ranted about the segment during his rally in Colorado Springs , Colorado , blasting those who criticized his 2016 debate performance as “ fake news ” and claiming that the polls indicated “ Trump kicked ass.
” In the past , Trump has been known to cite polls from illegitimate online surveys or right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those from established pollsters that use representative samples .
In an effort to debunk the Fox News segment he 's now spent more than 20 minutes whining about , Trump is now reading random polls from the 2016 election .
Completely bonkers .
pic.twitter.com/E8HZdndkQg — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) February 21 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump blasted Fox News on Thursday for giving airtime to a pundit who criticized his debate performances in 2016, and network host Neil Cavuto served Trump an unpleasant truth in return.
In her analysis of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s poor performance at Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, A. B. Stoddard of RealClearPolitics told Cavuto on his show that even Trump’s “disastrous” and “cringeworthy” 2016 debate performances did not hold him back from the presidency.
Advertisement
In a tweet soon afterward, Trump attacked Stoddard for being a “Trump hater” with “zero talent” and called on somebody at Fox News to explain that “I won every one of my debates.”
“Check the polls taken immediately after the debates,” he urged in the tweet.
Could somebody at @foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B. Stoddard (zero talent!) and @TeamCavuto, that I won every one of my debates, from beginning to end. Check the polls taken immediately after the debates. The debates got me elected. Must be Fox Board Member Paul Ryan! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2020
He also suggested that the unfavorable coverage on his favorite network was orchestrated by former Republican House speaker and current Fox Corporation board member Paul Ryan, who has spoken out against Trump since leaving politics.
At the end of his program, Cavuto read aloud the president’s claim that he won the debates and delivered a blunt fact-check: “He did not.”
Advertisement
“When you look at polls that came out from Fox, NBC, CNN, Politico, YouGov, and a host of others, the initial read was that he had failed to do well in those debates. He ultimately won, but he did not do well in those debates,” Cavuto said.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Trump later ranted about the segment during his rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, blasting those who criticized his 2016 debate performance as “fake news” and claiming that the polls indicated “Trump kicked ass.”
In the past, Trump has been known to cite polls from illegitimate online surveys or right-wing sites such as Breitbart, instead of those from established pollsters that use representative samples.
Watch Trump’s tirade at the rally below.
In an effort to debunk the Fox News segment he's now spent more than 20 minutes whining about, Trump is now reading random polls from the 2016 election. Completely bonkers. pic.twitter.com/E8HZdndkQg — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 21, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Trump Complains South Korea’s ‘Parasite’ Won Best Picture Oscar: ‘Was It Good?’

President Donald Trump complained during a rambling rally in Colorado Springs about the South Korean blockbuster “ Parasite ” winning the Academy Award for Best Picture earlier this month , saying he wished an English-language movie akin to “ Gone with the Wind ” had won instead .
“ How bad were the Academy Awards this year ?
” Trump asked the crowd on Thursday .
“ ‘ And the winner is a movie from South Korea.
’ What the hell was that all about ?
” “ We ’ ve got enough problems with South Korea with trade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , they give them the best movie of the year ?
Was it good ?
I don ’ t know.
” The president went on to say that when the Best Picture award went to “ Parasite ” — a history-making decision in which it became the first non-English-language movie to nab the honor — he thought it was merely for “ best foreign film.
” ( “ Parasite ” did win the award for International Feature Film as well . )
“ I ’ m looking for like … let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wind , ’ can we get ‘ Gone with the Wind ’ back , please ?
” Trump rambled , naming the 1939 epic that romanticizes slavery .
“ Sunset Boulevard .
So many great movies .
The winner from South Korea , I thought it was best foreign film .
Best foreign movie .
No… did this ever happen before ?
” Director Bong Joon Ho ’ s film shattered expectations , nabbing four Oscars and bringing praise to South Korea ’ s long-overlooked film industry .
Bong has been hailed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.S. distributor of the film , responded to Trump ’ s comments with a terse statement of its own on Thursday .
Trump spent his time in Colorado touting his accomplishments in office , lambasting the recently concluded impeachment inquiry and reflecting on why he hasn ’ t earned more praise .
He said he was disappointed not to have been made Time ’ s “ Person of the Year ” ( the honor went to Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg ) , and said he and his supporters deserved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world revolves around all of us , we should be chosen ; there ’ s nothing wrong with it , ” Trump told his supporters .
“ I mean , we ’ ve won it , but we should win it every single year .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump complained during a rambling rally in Colorado Springs about the South Korean blockbuster “Parasite” winning the Academy Award for Best Picture earlier this month, saying he wished an English-language movie akin to “Gone with the Wind” had won instead.
“How bad were the Academy Awards this year?” Trump asked the crowd on Thursday. “‘And the winner is a movie from South Korea.’ What the hell was that all about?”
Advertisement
“We’ve got enough problems with South Korea with trade,” he continued. “On top of it, they give them the best movie of the year? Was it good? I don’t know.”
Trump goes off on the Oscars for giving Best Picture to Parasite because it's a South Korean movie pic.twitter.com/GUGKdExTbw — Claudia Koerner (@ClaudiaKoerner) February 21, 2020
The president went on to say that when the Best Picture award went to “Parasite” — a history-making decision in which it became the first non-English-language movie to nab the honor — he thought it was merely for “best foreign film.” (“Parasite” did win the award for International Feature Film as well.)
“I’m looking for like … let’s get ‘Gone with the Wind,’ can we get ‘Gone with the Wind’ back, please?” Trump rambled, naming the 1939 epic that romanticizes slavery. “Sunset Boulevard. So many great movies. The winner from South Korea, I thought it was best foreign film. Best foreign movie. No… did this ever happen before?”
Advertisement
It hadn’t.
Director Bong Joon Ho’s film shattered expectations, nabbing four Oscars and bringing praise to South Korea’s long-overlooked film industry. Bong has been hailed as a hometown hero in Seoul.
Neon, the U.S. distributor of the film, responded to Trump’s comments with a terse statement of its own on Thursday.
“Understandable,” Neon wrote on Twitter, “he can’t read.”
Trump spent his time in Colorado touting his accomplishments in office, lambasting the recently concluded impeachment inquiry and reflecting on why he hasn’t earned more praise. He said he was disappointed not to have been made Time’s “Person of the Year” (the honor went to Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg), and said he and his supporters deserved the honor in perpetuity.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-20--Mick Mulvaney Says U.S. Is 'Desperate' For Immigrants For Economic Growth: Report

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney surprisingly announced to an audience in England that the U.S. is “ desperate ” for immigrants to fuel the nation ’ s economic growth , The Washington Post reported .
“ We are desperate — desperate — for more people , ” Mulvaney told an audience of several hundred Wednesday at the Oxford Union , according to a recording obtained by the Post .
“ We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we ’ ve had in our nation over the last four years .
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must enter the country in a “ legal fashion.
” The Trump administration has been working to slash both legal and illegal immigration .
Immigrant visas — for people following a legal process to enter the U.S. — have been cut more than 25 % since 2016 , according to State Department figures .
Mulvaney , however , insisted that , despite Trump ’ s “ anti-immigrant ” reputation , he actually wants more foreign workers .
Trump promised to resounding applause last year at the annual farm convention in New Orleans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for immigrant farmworkers to come into the country .
“ You need these people , ” he said .
Though Trump repeatedly characterizes immigrants as a drain on the U.S.economy , that ’ s not supported by data analyzed by several organizations .
Foreign-born workers contribute roughly $ 2 trillion to the economy annually , according to a 2017 study in the journal The National Academies of Science .
In the same speech , Mulvaney criticized Republicans for letting Trump ratchet up the federal debt .
“ My party is very interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , ” he said , the Post reported .
“ The worst thing in the whole world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president .
Then Donald Trump became president , and we ’ re a lot less interested as a party , ” Mulvaney complained .
The last time Mulvaney contradicted the White House line was when he indicated in October that there was a quid pro quo when Trump withheld military funds to Ukraine as he pressed the nation to launch an investigation into unfounded accusations against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We do that all the time with foreign policy , ” Mulvaney told reporters .
“ There ’ s going to be political influence in foreign policy .
Get over it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney surprisingly announced to an audience in England that the U.S. is “desperate” for immigrants to fuel the nation’s economic growth, The Washington Post reported.
“We are desperate — desperate — for more people,” Mulvaney told an audience of several hundred Wednesday at the Oxford Union, according to a recording obtained by the Post.
Advertisement
“We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” He emphasized that they must enter the country in a “legal fashion.”
The Trump administration has been working to slash both legal and illegal immigration. Immigrant visas — for people following a legal process to enter the U.S. — have been cut more than 25% since 2016, according to State Department figures.
Mulvaney, however, insisted that, despite Trump’s “anti-immigrant” reputation, he actually wants more foreign workers.
Advertisement
Farms, in particular, have faced struggles finding American workers to fill manual labor jobs amid the crackdown on immigrants.
Trump promised to resounding applause last year at the annual farm convention in New Orleans that he would “make it easier” for immigrant farmworkers to come into the country. “You need these people,” he said.
Though Trump repeatedly characterizes immigrants as a drain on the U.S.economy, that’s not supported by data analyzed by several organizations. Foreign-born workers contribute roughly $2 trillion to the economy annually, according to a 2017 study in the journal The National Academies of Science.
In the same speech, Mulvaney criticized Republicans for letting Trump ratchet up the federal debt.
“My party is very interested in deficits when there is a Democrat in the White House,” he said, the Post reported. “The worst thing in the whole world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president. Then Donald Trump became president, and we’re a lot less interested as a party,” Mulvaney complained.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Washington Post Editorial Shreds Trump's 'Manifestly Unqualified' Pick For Intel Chief

The Washington Post editorial board condemned Richard Grenell ’ s appointment as acting director of national intelligence , which President Donald Trump announced Thursday .
The newspaper ’ s scathing editorial ― titled “ Trump puts an unqualified loyalist in charge of national intelligence ” ― said Grenell , currently the U.S. ambassador to Germany , was “ manifestly unqualified for the job.
” “ He has no experience in intelligence or in managing large organizations ― like the 17 agencies that will now report to him , ” the editorial board wrote , suggesting Grenell had only “ won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar way : by loudly praising him and his agenda on Fox News programs and social media.
” Grenell has a history of launching sexist attacks via social media .
He will become the first openly gay Cabinet member .
The editorial said his previous “ sycophantic pandering to Mr. Trump suggests he will show no such independence ” and doubted he will “ stand up against interference by Russia or other hostile powers ” unless told to do so by the president .
His appointment also drew scorn from other public figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up all US Intelligence agencies is like naming Captain Kangaroo , Colonel Sanders and General Mills as our country ’ s military leaders .
Do ANY Republicans care about our nation ’ s security ?
https : //t.co/v323Aag9PN — Glenn Kirschner ( @ glennkirschner2 ) February 20 , 2020 Another slap in the face to my former intel colleagues .
Grenell is a partisan bombthrower whose only skill is defending Trump .
Trump ’ s decision not to nominate a permanent DNI underscores that he has no use for intel and no regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Ned Price ( @ nedprice ) February 19 , 2020 It appears the President has selected an individual *without any intelligence experience* to serve as the leader of the nation ’ s intelligence community in an acting capacity ... https : //t.co/Yvq5UVSPpA — Mark Warner ( @ MarkWarner ) February 20 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Washington Post editorial board condemned Richard Grenell’s appointment as acting director of national intelligence, which President Donald Trump announced Thursday.
The newspaper’s scathing editorial ― titled “Trump puts an unqualified loyalist in charge of national intelligence” ― said Grenell, currently the U.S. ambassador to Germany, was “manifestly unqualified for the job.”
Advertisement
“He has no experience in intelligence or in managing large organizations ― like the 17 agencies that will now report to him,” the editorial board wrote, suggesting Grenell had only “won the president’s favor in a familiar way: by loudly praising him and his agenda on Fox News programs and social media.”
Trump has put an unqualified loyalist in charge of national intelligence, writes the Editorial Board https://t.co/nZ9NPMINL3 — Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) February 21, 2020
Grenell has a history of launching sexist attacks via social media. He will become the first openly gay Cabinet member.
The editorial said his previous “sycophantic pandering to Mr. Trump suggests he will show no such independence” and doubted he will “stand up against interference by Russia or other hostile powers” unless told to do so by the president.
Advertisement
His appointment also drew scorn from other public figures online:
Naming Richard Grenell to head up all US Intelligence agencies is like naming Captain Kangaroo, Colonel Sanders and General Mills as our country’s military leaders. Do ANY Republicans care about our nation’s security? https://t.co/v323Aag9PN — Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) February 20, 2020
Another slap in the face to my former intel colleagues. Grenell is a partisan bombthrower whose only skill is defending Trump. Trump’s decision not to nominate a permanent DNI underscores that he has no use for intel and no regard for national security. https://t.co/JDk83yBq3j — Ned Price (@nedprice) February 19, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--Devin Nunes Mentioned Nude Trump Pics Again And People Have Questions

Rep. Devin Nunes ( R-Calif. ) has once again mentioned hypothetical nude pictures of President Donald Trump and Twitter users are wondering just why the lawmaker ― a close Trump ally ― is so obsessed .
Nunes has repeatedly referred to the pics and did so again on Thursday night during an interview on Fox News : Nunes , who is currently suing a parody cow account on Twitter , is likely referring to a phone call made to Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) by Russian pranksters , one of whom was posing as a member of the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin possessed compromising materials on Trump , including nude pictures .
Putin , the pranksters claimed , had promised Trump to keep that material secret in exchange for dropping U.S. sanctions on Russia .
Schiff offered to bring in the FBI to review the evidence .
But Nunes has consistently honed in on the naked pictures incident , repeatedly bringing it up in recent months and again on Thursday .
People on Twitter are wondering why : Please someone make a supercut of all the time Devin has brought up naked pictures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up ordering dinner .
“ I ’ ll have the Bloomin ’ Onion and naked pictures of Trump.
” https : //t.co/cbt7BUrVZR — Schooley ( @ Rschooley ) February 21 , 2020 There are 16-year-old boys who aren ’ t half as persistent for nudes from girls as Nunes is for them from Trump .
https : //t.co/eHx1W2mVHZ — Brian Tyler Cohen ( @ briantylercohen ) February 21 , 2020 He 's so obsessed .
He just blurts it out , every time .
— Elizabeth Spiers ( @ espiers ) February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only person I have ever heard mention this .
No one else has ever talked about this .
He really wants nude pictures of Trump .
— I WILL BE THE HERO ( @ YeahJeetsYeah ) February 21 , 2020 That dude is a Psychologist 's dream with his constant talk of nude pictures of Trump .
That phrase was even hard to WRITE .
— 💥Arbiter of Cool💥✌🏻👊🏻 ( @ ArbiterofCool ) February 21 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has once again mentioned hypothetical nude pictures of President Donald Trump and Twitter users are wondering just why the lawmaker ― a close Trump ally ― is so obsessed.
Nunes has repeatedly referred to the pics and did so again on Thursday night during an interview on Fox News:
Advertisement
Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to downplay today’s Russia news by talking about naked pictures of Trump pic.twitter.com/HctJ8h5UAH — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) February 21, 2020
Nunes, who is currently suing a parody cow account on Twitter, is likely referring to a phone call made to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) by Russian pranksters, one of whom was posing as a member of the Ukrainian parliament. The pranksters claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin possessed compromising materials on Trump, including nude pictures.
Putin, the pranksters claimed, had promised Trump to keep that material secret in exchange for dropping U.S. sanctions on Russia.
Schiff offered to bring in the FBI to review the evidence.
But Nunes has consistently homed in on the naked pictures incident, repeatedly bringing it up in recent months and again on Thursday. People on Twitter are wondering why:
Advertisement
Please someone make a supercut of all the time Devin has brought up naked pictures of Trump. I picture him bringing it up ordering dinner. “I’ll have the Bloomin’ Onion and naked pictures of Trump.” https://t.co/cbt7BUrVZR — Schooley (@Rschooley) February 21, 2020
Nunes and the whole naked pictures thing is totally weird. — Heather Cox Richardson (TDPR) (@HC_Richardson) February 21, 2020
There are 16-year-old boys who aren’t half as persistent for nudes from girls as Nunes is for them from Trump. https://t.co/eHx1W2mVHZ — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 21, 2020
He's so obsessed. He just blurts it out, every time. — Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) February 21, 2020
Devin Nunes is the only person I have ever heard mention this.
No one else has ever talked about this.
He really wants nude pictures of Trump. — I WILL BE THE HERO (@YeahJeetsYeah) February 21, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-21--'Disappointed': Fox Personalities Defend Neil Cavuto Against Trump Attacks

Fox News personalities jumped to Neil Cavuto ’ s defense on Thursday after President Donald Trump launched a tirade against the veteran anchor for unfavorable coverage of his performance in the 2016 presidential debates .
At a rally in Colorado Springs , Trump trashed Cavuto as well as former Fox News anchor and vocal Trump critic Shepard Smith , claiming that the network “ doesn ’ t treat us like they used to.
” “ All of their high-rated shows are the ones that like Trump .
All of their loser shows are the ones that don ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
He had the lowest ratings and now Neil Cavuto took his place , ” Trump said .
Cavuto is the “ utmost journalist and always fair , ” Regan said .
“ I can tell you that about Neil .
He is a fair person , a fair guy and a good man .
So I ’ m disappointed that the president said those things because Neil Cavuto is one guy who just doesn ’ t deserve it.
” “ [ Trump ] spent the past 30 or so minutes trashing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for no reason in particular , ” Fowler said .
“ This speaks to the problem with this presidency .
He can run on the good economy and I will give him points for that , but to sit on this air and trash a good journalist , it speaks to the problem that we have .
We can ’ t tell our children to do unto others when you have a president attacking a good man for no reason in particular aside from the fact that he criticized a particular policy position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader of the free world , ” Fowler added .
“ For him to sit here and attack a journalist , multiple journalists for reporting facts on his presidency is not only problematic , it ’ s un-presidential.
” Henry did not criticize Trump , but said he wanted to stand up for Cavuto as well , whom he described as an “ outstanding man and outstanding journalist.
” Trump ’ s diatribe against Cavuto was prompted by an earlier exchange on Fox News .
A.B .
Stoddard of RealClearPolitics , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cavuto , ” characterized the president ’ s performance in the 2016 presidential debates as “ disastrous ” and “ cringeworthy.
” Could somebody at @ foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B .
Stoddard ( zero talent ! )
and @ TeamCavuto , that I won every one of my debates , from beginning to end .
Check the polls taken immediately after the debates .
The debates got me elected .
Must be Fox Board Member Paul Ryan !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 20 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the majority of mainstream pollsters said that Trump did not perform well in the debates .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News personalities jumped to Neil Cavuto’s defense on Thursday after President Donald Trump launched a tirade against the veteran anchor for unfavorable coverage of his performance in the 2016 presidential debates.
At a rally in Colorado Springs, Trump trashed Cavuto as well as former Fox News anchor and vocal Trump critic Shepard Smith, claiming that the network “doesn’t treat us like they used to.”
Advertisement
“All of their high-rated shows are the ones that like Trump. All of their loser shows are the ones that don’t like Trump. How is Shepard Smith doing? He had the lowest ratings and now Neil Cavuto took his place,” Trump said.
Trump seems to sincerely believe there's a media conspiracy (including Fox News) to not show the crowds at his rallies. Delusional. pic.twitter.com/9Fef3acjNv — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 21, 2020
Fox Business host Trish Regan, Fox News anchor Ed Henry and network contributor Richard Fowler criticized the president for his remarks.
Cavuto is the “utmost journalist and always fair,” Regan said. “I can tell you that about Neil. He is a fair person, a fair guy and a good man. So I’m disappointed that the president said those things because Neil Cavuto is one guy who just doesn’t deserve it.”
Advertisement
Fowler and Henry also went to bat for their colleague.
“[Trump] spent the past 30 or so minutes trashing one of our colleagues, Neil Cavuto, for no reason in particular,” Fowler said. “This speaks to the problem with this presidency. He can run on the good economy and I will give him points for that, but to sit on this air and trash a good journalist, it speaks to the problem that we have. We can’t tell our children to do unto others when you have a president attacking a good man for no reason in particular aside from the fact that he criticized a particular policy position of his.”
“He’s the leader of the free world,” Fowler added. “For him to sit here and attack a journalist, multiple journalists for reporting facts on his presidency is not only problematic, it’s un-presidential.”
Henry did not criticize Trump, but said he wanted to stand up for Cavuto as well, whom he described as an “outstanding man and outstanding journalist.”
Trump’s diatribe against Cavuto was prompted by an earlier exchange on Fox News. A.B. Stoddard of RealClearPolitics, a guest on “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” characterized the president’s performance in the 2016 presidential debates as “disastrous” and “cringeworthy.”
Advertisement
Having heard the comments, Trump tweeted:
Could somebody at @foxnews please explain to Trump hater A.B. Stoddard (zero talent!) and @TeamCavuto, that I won every one of my debates, from beginning to end. Check the polls taken immediately after the debates. The debates got me elected. Must be Fox Board Member Paul Ryan! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2020