thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--California Gov. Gavin Newsom May Pardon LGBTQ Rights Leader Bayard Rustin

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( AP ) — The California Legislature ’ s LGBTQ and black caucuses on Tuesday asked Gov .
Gavin Newsom to posthumously pardon a civil rights leader who was jailed for having gay sex nearly 70 years ago .
Bayard Rustin was a confidant of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , along with being an organizer of the 1963 March on Washington .
He also helped plan other nonviolent boycotts and protests to end racial discrimination .
In 1953 , he was arrested on a charge of vagrancy when he was caught having sex with two men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a speech in Pasadena as part of a lecture tour on anti-colonial struggles in West Africa , Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Assemblywoman Shirley Weber wrote on behalf of the caucuses .
He served 50 days in Los Angeles County jail and had to register as a sex offender before returning to his home state of New York .
He died in 1987 .
“ He deserves to be remembered as one of the towering figures in the cause of justice and freedom , both as a black man and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ A pardon ... would ensure his legacy and his place in history is unsullied by this event.
” The Democratic governor said in a supportive statement that he will closely consider the request .
“ In California and across the country , sodomy laws were used as legal tools of oppression , ” Newsom said .
“ They were used to stigmatize and punish LGBTQ individuals and communities and warn others what harm could await them for living authentically.
” Rustin ’ s inner circle knew he was gay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embarrassed his religious and political associates , particularly after U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina read Rustin ’ s arrest file into the Congressional Record .
He was immediately removed from the Fellowship of Reconciliation , where he was secretary for student and general affairs .
At the time , racial segregation was in full effect and LGBTQ people were “ under a constant threat of violence and targeting , ” the lawmakers said .
President Dwight D. Eisenhower had just issued an executive order banning gay individuals from federal employment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013 as gay , lesbian , bisexual and transgender people were included in the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington .
San Diego City Commissioner Nicole Murray Ramirez said a pardon could also help a national letter-writing campaign he is leading to have a commemorative stamp made in Rustin ’ s honor .
Gay sex is no longer a crime , but Rustin ’ s arrest and status as a registered sex offender “ haunted him for the rest of his life , and it continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his death , the lawmakers wrote in asking Newsom for the pardon as “ a positive step toward reconciliation .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature’s LGBTQ and black caucuses on Tuesday asked Gov. Gavin Newsom to posthumously pardon a civil rights leader who was jailed for having gay sex nearly 70 years ago.
Bayard Rustin was a confidant of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., along with being an organizer of the 1963 March on Washington. He also helped plan other nonviolent boycotts and protests to end racial discrimination.
Advertisement
In 1953, he was arrested on a charge of vagrancy when he was caught having sex with two men in a parked car after he gave a speech in Pasadena as part of a lecture tour on anti-colonial struggles in West Africa, Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Assemblywoman Shirley Weber wrote on behalf of the caucuses.
He served 50 days in Los Angeles County jail and had to register as a sex offender before returning to his home state of New York. He died in 1987.
“He deserves to be remembered as one of the towering figures in the cause of justice and freedom, both as a black man and as a gay man,” Weber said. “A pardon ... would ensure his legacy and his place in history is unsullied by this event.”
The Democratic governor said in a supportive statement that he will closely consider the request.
“In California and across the country, sodomy laws were used as legal tools of oppression,” Newsom said. “They were used to stigmatize and punish LGBTQ individuals and communities and warn others what harm could await them for living authentically.”
Advertisement
The lawmakers said Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey supports a pardon, though her office did not immediately comment.
Rustin’s inner circle knew he was gay, the lawmakers said, but his arrest embarrassed his religious and political associates, particularly after U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina read Rustin’s arrest file into the Congressional Record.
He was immediately removed from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, where he was secretary for student and general affairs.
At the time, racial segregation was in full effect and LGBTQ people were “under a constant threat of violence and targeting,” the lawmakers said. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had just issued an executive order banning gay individuals from federal employment.
President Barack Obama honored Rustin posthumously with a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013 as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people were included in the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.
Advertisement
San Diego City Commissioner Nicole Murray Ramirez said a pardon could also help a national letter-writing campaign he is leading to have a commemorative stamp made in Rustin’s honor.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--It’s Not Just Washington State. Iranians Are Stopped At Borders All Over The Country.

U.S. border agents at the Derby Line crossing in Vermont ordered the women , who are all using pseudonyms for fear of retaliation , to exit the car and told them they were being “ randomly selected ” for secondary screening .
The women , all American citizens of Iranian descent , looked at each other with raised eyebrows .
They knew this was not random .
Earlier this month , soon after President Donald Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian government official and the nation vowed to retaliate , news broke that U.S. border agents held nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Washington state border with Canada .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputed the claim that officers detained Iranian Americans at the Peace Arch border crossing , but dozens of news reports described otherwise .
At a news conference on Jan. 6 , 2020 , in Seattle , Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) looks on as Negah Hekmati speaks about her hourslong delay returning to the U.S. from Canada with her family .
The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said more than 60 Iranians and Iranian Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arch Border Crossing in Blaine , Washington .
But the incident in Washington state was not the first of its kind — nor is it likely to be the last .
People of Iranian descent , including Americans , permanent U.S. residents and those traveling with valid visas , have long been harassed at U.S. border crossings , according to experts and the individuals themselves , who described strikingly similar experiences to HuffPost .
Ryan Costello , the policy director at the National Iranian American Council , told HuffPost he saw an increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border starting late last summer when students attempted to reenter the U.S. for the start of the 2019 fall semester .
His organization dealt with at least a couple dozen students who were subjected to harsh interrogation upon landing , subsequently had their visas rejected at the ports of entry and were forced to return to Iran .
Mahsa Khanbabai , an immigration attorney based in Boston , said she ’ s seen an uptick of cases of Iranian Americans having trouble at the border within the last six months as political tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American citizens of Iranian descent , in particular , are being asked intrusive questions about their personal background and their opinions on political events , Khanbabai said .
“ Having this broad brush apply to all Iranians and Iranian Americans is clearly wrong and doesn ’ t achieve more safety for us as a country , ” Khanbabai said .
“ The administration ’ s very open antagonism to immigrants and to people from the Middle East has given individual CBP officers this sense that they can do whatever they want like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vermont border crossing , Suri said agents asked her about her previous trips to Iran , the whereabouts of her children and why she held on to her Iranian passport as a U.S. citizen .
Fariba said agents took away her U.S. and Iranian passports and directed her to write out her full name , phone number , email addresses and other personal information for the officer .
Fariba had been traveling to Iran regularly for the past few years to care for her ill father until he passed away last March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiring about her dead father , even after she said multiple times that he was deceased .
Fariba suspects the officer was trying to catch her in a lie .
Suri and her friends are trying to push out the memory of what occurred at the border and instead relive the happier moments from the trip .
But it ’ s hard not to think about how they were singled out , particularly when they consider how quickly they accepted that the questions and demands were to be expected as Iranian Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. citizen who was born in Iran , had a similarly unsettling experience last week when he was returning to the U.S. with his family after a ski trip to Calgary .
He noticed a glaring “ X ” printed on his entry slip indicating he needed secondary screening , even though the frequent international traveler holds global entry authorization that typically lets him quickly reenter the U.S. at airports .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A few months ago in October, Suri, an Iranian American woman who lives in Massachusetts, and three of her friends went on a road trip to Quebec City, Canada, to celebrate her 57th birthday.
The group of women, who have been friends for decades, piled into Suri’s car for a couple of days of sightseeing. The celebrations went off without a hitch ― until it was time to come home.
Advertisement
U.S. border agents at the Derby Line crossing in Vermont ordered the women, who are all using pseudonyms for fear of retaliation, to exit the car and told them they were being “randomly selected” for secondary screening. The women, all American citizens of Iranian descent, looked at each other with raised eyebrows. They knew this was not random.
“When you’re held at the border, you don’t see a lot of other people with blue eyes and blond hair who were also stopped,” said Suri’s friend Fariba, a 52-year-old saleswoman who has been an American citizen for over 30 years. “It’s challenging to travel, and it’s only getting worse.”
Earlier this month, soon after President Donald Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian government official and the nation vowed to retaliate, news broke that U.S. border agents held nearly 200 people of Iranian descent without explanation at the Washington state border with Canada. U.S. Customs and Border Protection disputed the claim that officers detained Iranian Americans at the Peace Arch border crossing, but dozens of news reports described otherwise.
Some people were held for more than 10 hours. Nearly all of those held at the crossing were questioned about their place of birth, details of their family affairs, and were forced to hand over personal information such as where they worked, home addresses and phone numbers.
Advertisement
Activists and politicians demanded that CBP explain why those individuals, some of whom were U.S. citizens or permanent residents, were stopped, and the Department of Homeland Security announced it had opened an investigation.
At a news conference on Jan. 6, 2020, in Seattle, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) looks on as Negah Hekmati speaks about her hourslong delay returning to the U.S. from Canada with her family. The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said more than 60 Iranians and Iranian Americans were detained and questioned at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington. AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
A CBP spokesperson told HuffPost in a statement that the agency “has understood Iran and its proxies to be a very capable adversary for some time,” so it “leverages all available tools and information to ensure that individuals who seek entry into the United States are appropriately screened.”
The spokesperson added that CBP officers perform additional screening on “individuals who present a known risk or individuals about whom we need more information to make a determination of risk,” and that such referrals can be based on that “individual’s activities, associations and travel patterns,” resulting in “increased wait times and subsequent interviews.”
But the incident in Washington state was not the first of its kind — nor is it likely to be the last. People of Iranian descent, including Americans, permanent U.S. residents and those traveling with valid visas, have long been harassed at U.S. border crossings, according to experts and the individuals themselves, who described strikingly similar experiences to HuffPost.
Advertisement
Whether entering the U.S. by car like Suri or coming through airports, people of Iranianian heritage have consistently faced additional screening whenever they travel.
On Monday night, CBP officials at Logan International Airport in Massachusetts denied entry to a 24-year-old Iranian national and put him on a plane back to Iran despite a federal court order to delay his removal and his valid student visa to take courses at Northeastern University.
Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, told HuffPost he saw an increase of Iranianian students reporting trouble at the border starting late last summer when students attempted to reenter the U.S. for the start of the 2019 fall semester. His organization dealt with at least a couple dozen students who were subjected to harsh interrogation upon landing, subsequently had their visas rejected at the ports of entry and were forced to return to Iran.
“We have gotten a massive uptick of complaints throughout the entire Trump administration, but the last six months or so have been far worse,” Costello said.
“It was just so disappointing to be treated differently because of my place of birth. I didn’t choose to be born in Iran, but I chose to be in the U.S.” - Mike, 55-year-old Iranian American
Advertisement
Given Trump’s calls to ban Muslims from the U.S., a travel ban that restricts Iranian visitors, and hostility between the U.S. and Iran, experts and Iranian Americans fear these types of stops will become more common.
Mahsa Khanbabai, an immigration attorney based in Boston, said she’s seen an uptick of cases of Iranian Americans having trouble at the border within the last six months as political tensions escalate between the U.S. and Iran. American citizens of Iranian descent, in particular, are being asked intrusive questions about their personal background and their opinions on political events, Khanbabai said.
“Having this broad brush apply to all Iranians and Iranian Americans is clearly wrong and doesn’t achieve more safety for us as a country,” Khanbabai said. “The administration’s very open antagonism to immigrants and to people from the Middle East has given individual CBP officers this sense that they can do whatever they want like it’s the Wild West.”
Green card holders are increasingly having their electronic devices confiscated for long periods of time, Khanbabai said. Meanwhile, Iranian nationals, particularly students and religious scholars who hold valid visas to enter the U.S., are being subjected to removal and even five-year bans.
This type of discriminatory questioning of Iranian Americans and others has been a problem for more than a decade, said Hina Shamsi, the director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. But under Trump, people are on especially high alert.
Advertisement
“Our concerns are heightened now because the Trump administration makes a point of treating people as outsiders based on their religion, national origin, race or ethnicity,” Shamsi added.
Cassidy Taylor offers support to a deported Iranian student while protesting outside the federal courthouse in Boston on Jan. 21, 2019. The Iranian student was removed from the U.S. in defiance of a court order. Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
At the Vermont border crossing, Suri said agents asked her about her previous trips to Iran, the whereabouts of her children and why she held on to her Iranian passport as a U.S. citizen. Fariba said agents took away her U.S. and Iranian passports and directed her to write out her full name, phone number, email addresses and other personal information for the officer.
Fariba had been traveling to Iran regularly for the past few years to care for her ill father until he passed away last March. She said the border official kept inquiring about her dead father, even after she said multiple times that he was deceased. Fariba suspects the officer was trying to catch her in a lie.
“It was very bothersome, but I kept answering the same questions,” Fariba said. “There is really nothing you can say or do to stop this. They made me feel very uncomfortable.”
Advertisement
Suri and her friends are trying to push out the memory of what occurred at the border and instead relive the happier moments from the trip. But it’s hard not to think about how they were singled out, particularly when they consider how quickly they accepted that the questions and demands were to be expected as Iranian Americans.
“The painful part for us after reflecting on the way home was looking at how we have accepted this,” Suri said. “That this was a normal thing for us to be subjected to and treated this way. It’s sad.”
Mike, a Bay Area executive and U.S. citizen who was born in Iran, had a similarly unsettling experience last week when he was returning to the U.S. with his family after a ski trip to Calgary. He noticed a glaring “X” printed on his entry slip indicating he needed secondary screening, even though the frequent international traveler holds global entry authorization that typically lets him quickly reenter the U.S. at airports.
Mike, who is using a pseudonym in fear of backlash at work, was separated from his family and questioned about his last visit to Iran and whether he served in the country’s mandatory draft. The 55-year-old hasn’t set foot in Iran since he left the country when he was just 13 years old in 1978.
“It was just so disappointing to be treated differently because of my place of birth,” Mike said. “I didn’t choose to be born in Iran, but I chose to be in the U.S.”
Advertisement
This wasn’t the first time Mike was stopped and questioned about his Iranian heritage upon entering the U.S. He filed a complaint with Homeland Security about the treatment he received at the border in 2002. This time, he was a bit better prepared and was able to push back.
“I had all my answers ready. I was confident,” said Mike. “If I’m prepared, I can respond better. I have rehearsed a lot of these situations in my head already.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--California Governor Urges Trump Administration To Go Beyond Just Shelter For Homeless

In his letter to the Housing and Urban Development secretary , Newsom thanked Carson for his “ offer to provide resources to California ” to address homelessness ― and also pushed for these resources to go toward initiatives that “ go beyond temporary tent villages.
” The California governor warned that if federal aid provided only temporary shelters and did not include “ significant ” resources for building more affordable housing , “ we risk creating permanent homeless encampments on federal land.
” “ Emergency shelter solves sleep and we agree this is an urgent priority , ” wrote the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and services solve homelessness.
” Amid a nationwide affordable housing crisis , California has one of the highest rates of homelessness .
On any given day in January 2018 , more than 500,000 people were homeless in the U.S. ― and nearly a quarter of those lived in California .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Democratic officeholders in California over the high rates of homelessness .
At one point last year , he said that people living on the streets were ruining the “ prestige ” of Los Angeles and San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s head of federal homelessness policy at the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness said he was working on a new strategy to address homelessness but has yet to reveal details .
Advocates have long recommended a “ housing first ” approach to tackling the issue , and some expressed worry that Trump may push cities to round up homeless people .
Newsom ’ s letter advocated for additional housing vouchers from the federal government ― and pointed out the state had requested 50,000 more vouchers in letters to Trump last year .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required state agencies to identify state land that local governments could use free to provide shelter and build housing for unhoused residents ― and he suggested the Trump administration do the same with surplus federal land .
Homeless rates have worsened in California in recent years , with spikes in the number of homeless residents in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles specifically over the past two years .
Newsom ’ s letter thanked Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for leading efforts for “ urgent solutions ” to homelessness .
Carson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss homelessness .
HuffPost did not immediately get confirmation from HUD or Garcetti .
This week , Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf also met with Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) in Washington D.C. , where Schaaf attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors , and the two discussed homelessness and the need for additional federal resources to address it .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) sent a letter to federal housing chief Ben Carson urging the Trump administration to address homelessness by providing more funding for affordable housing.
In his letter to the Housing and Urban Development secretary, Newsom thanked Carson for his “offer to provide resources to California” to address homelessness ― and also pushed for these resources to go toward initiatives that “go beyond temporary tent villages.”
Advertisement
The California governor warned that if federal aid provided only temporary shelters and did not include “significant” resources for building more affordable housing, “we risk creating permanent homeless encampments on federal land.”
“Emergency shelter solves sleep and we agree this is an urgent priority,” wrote the California governor. “But only housing and services solve homelessness.”
HuffPost did not immediately get a response from HUD to its request for comment.
Amid a nationwide affordable housing crisis, California has one of the highest rates of homelessness. On any given day in January 2018, more than 500,000 people were homeless in the U.S. ― and nearly a quarter of those lived in California.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Democratic officeholders in California over the high rates of homelessness. At one point last year, he said that people living on the streets were ruining the “prestige” of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Advertisement
Late last year, Trump’s head of federal homelessness policy at the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness said he was working on a new strategy to address homelessness but has yet to reveal details. Advocates have long recommended a “housing first” approach to tackling the issue, and some expressed worry that Trump may push cities to round up homeless people.
Tents where homeless residents sleep line a sidewalk near downtown Los Angeles on Jan. 8. FREDERIC J. BROWN via Getty Images
Newsom’s letter advocated for additional housing vouchers from the federal government ― and pointed out the state had requested 50,000 more vouchers in letters to Trump last year. The governor also pointed to how California recently required state agencies to identify state land that local governments could use free to provide shelter and build housing for unhoused residents ― and he suggested the Trump administration do the same with surplus federal land.
Homeless rates have worsened in California in recent years, with spikes in the number of homeless residents in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles specifically over the past two years.
Newsom’s letter thanked Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for leading efforts for “urgent solutions” to homelessness. Carson is reportedly meeting with Garcetti this week to discuss homelessness. HuffPost did not immediately get confirmation from HUD or Garcetti.
Advertisement
This week, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf also met with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in Washington D.C., where Schaaf attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the two discussed homelessness and the need for additional federal resources to address it.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Trump Shrugs Off U.S. Soldiers' Injuries From Iran Attack: 'They Had Headaches'

President Donald Trump on Wednesday downplayed the injuries suffered by U.S. soldiers during Iran ’ s attack on a military base in Iraq earlier this month , suggesting he doesn ’ t consider traumatic brain injuries to be “ very serious.
” Trump has said several times that no Americans were hurt when Iran launched a missile attack against Ain al-Asad air base on Jan. 8 in retaliation for U.S. forces killing Iran military leader Qasem Soleimani .
But the Pentagon acknowledged last week that 11 U.S. soldiers required medical attention outside of Iraq as a result .
Eight suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Initially , you said repeatedly to Americans that after Iran retaliated for the Soleimani strike no Americans were injured , ” Jang said .
“ We now know at least 11 U.S. servicemen were airlifted from Iraq .
Can you explain the discrepancy ?
” “ No , I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things , ” Trump responded .
“ But I would say , and I can report , it is not very serious.
” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can occur from a blow to the head .
Concussions are not usually considered life-threatening , but their effects can be serious .
Asked Wednesday if he considers potential traumatic brain injuries to be “ serious , ” Trump suggested he did not and urged Jang to follow up with the Defense Department because he was only told about the injuries “ numerous days later.
” “ I don ’ t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I ’ ve seen , ” the president said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done with their roadside bombs to our troops .
I ’ ve seen people with no legs and no arms .
...
I can consider them to be really bad injuries .
No , I do not consider that to be bad injuries.
” Susan Connors , president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America , said in a statement that her group was “ disappointed ” by Trump ’ s remarks .
“ A brain injury changes the way you move , act , think , and feel ― it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at your core , ” Connors said .
“ What could be more serious than that ?
” She added : “ As the nation ’ s oldest and largest brain injury advocacy organization , BIAA is disappointed in the President ’ s characterization of TBI as ‘ just a headache ’ and especially in his implication that those who sustain TBIs in service for their country are not suffering serious injuries .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Wednesday downplayed the injuries suffered by U.S. soldiers during Iran’s attack on a military base in Iraq earlier this month, suggesting he doesn’t consider traumatic brain injuries to be “very serious.”
Trump has said several times that no Americans were hurt when Iran launched a missile attack against Ain al-Asad air base on Jan. 8 in retaliation for U.S. forces killing Iran military leader Qasem Soleimani. But the Pentagon acknowledged last week that 11 U.S. soldiers required medical attention outside of Iraq as a result. Eight suffered concussion-like symptoms and three sought behavior-health treatment.
Advertisement
CBS News reporter Weijia Jang asked Trump Wednesday about the injuries during a news conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“Initially, you said repeatedly to Americans that after Iran retaliated for the Soleimani strike no Americans were injured,” Jang said. “We now know at least 11 U.S. servicemen were airlifted from Iraq. Can you explain the discrepancy?”
“No, I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things,” Trump responded. “But I would say, and I can report, it is not very serious.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a concussion as a traumatic brain injury that can occur from a blow to the head. Concussions are not usually considered life-threatening, but their effects can be serious.
Advertisement
Asked Wednesday if he considers potential traumatic brain injuries to be “serious,” Trump suggested he did not and urged Jang to follow up with the Defense Department because he was only told about the injuries “numerous days later.”
“I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen,” the president said. “I’ve seen what Iran has done with their roadside bombs to our troops. I’ve seen people with no legs and no arms. ... I can consider them to be really bad injuries. No, I do not consider that to be bad injuries.”
Susan Connors, president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America, said in a statement that her group was “disappointed” by Trump’s remarks.
“A brain injury changes the way you move, act, think, and feel ― it has the potential to change who you are at your core,” Connors said. “What could be more serious than that?”
She added: “As the nation’s oldest and largest brain injury advocacy organization, BIAA is disappointed in the President’s characterization of TBI as ‘just a headache’ and especially in his implication that those who sustain TBIs in service for their country are not suffering serious injuries.”
Advertisement
Watch Trump’s full news conference below. His remarks about the soldiers’ injuries begin around the 53-minute mark.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Read Live Updates From Democrats' Opening Arguments In Senate Impeachment Trial

The second day of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial kicks off Wednesday with House members expected to begin @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s removal from office .
The Democrats ’ oral arguments will be @ @ @ @ @ Chair Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , whose team of prosecutors remains at odds with @ @ @ @ @ call witnesses and subpoena documents throughout the process .
Wednesday ’ s portion of the @ @ @ @ @ of debate over the issue .
Though the Senate ultimately passed a resolution setting the @ @ @ @ @ a final decision on that point of contention until next week at the earliest .
@ @ @ @ @ updates below .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The second day of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial kicks off Wednesday with House members expected to begin laying out their case for the president’s removal from office.
The Democrats’ oral arguments will be led by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose team of prosecutors remains at odds with Republicans over the right to call witnesses and subpoena documents throughout the process.
Advertisement
Wednesday’s portion of the trial follows nearly 13 hours of debate over the issue. Though the Senate ultimately passed a resolution setting the rules, it postponed making a final decision on that point of contention until next week at the earliest.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-22--Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton Over 'Russian Asset' Comments

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-Hawaii ) has sued Hillary Clinton over an interview last fall in which Clinton called Gabbard a “ Russian asset.
” Gabbard ’ s defamation lawsuit , filed in a New York federal court on Wednesday , claims the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee lied about Gabbard “ with obvious malicious intent ” to harm the congresswoman ’ s 2020 presidential campaign .
“ Clinton falsely stated that Tulsi ― an Army National Guard officer and United States Congresswoman who has spent her entire adult life serving this country ― is a ‘ Russian asset.
’ Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi ’ s presidential campaign , ” the complaint says .
Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-Hawaii ) is seen in Columbia , South Carolina , on Jan. 20 .
Clinton didn ’ t specifically identify Gabbard by name in the October interview with David Plouffe when she said that “ somebody who ’ s currently in the Democratic primary ” is “ the favorite of the Russians ” and is being groomed to become a “ third-party candidate.
” A Clinton spokesperson , when later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was referring to , appeared to confirm that was the case , telling a reporter : “ If the nesting doll fits.
” Gabbard ’ s lawyers had demanded that Clinton publicly retract her comments , but to no avail .
As a result , her lawsuit claims , she suffered more than $ 50 million in personal and professional damages .
Hillary Clinton , seen on Jan. 17 , is facing a defamation lawsuit from 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard .
“ Scientifically conducted opinion surveys have shown that Clinton ’ s false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as true by millions of Americans , including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states , ” her lawsuit states .
“ In short , Clinton got exactly what she wanted by lying about Tulsi — she harmed her political and personal rival ’ s reputation and ongoing Presidential campaign , and started a damaging whisper campaign based on baseless , but vicious , untruths .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has sued Hillary Clinton over an interview last fall in which Clinton called Gabbard a “Russian asset.”
Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court on Wednesday, claims the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee lied about Gabbard “with obvious malicious intent” to harm the congresswoman’s 2020 presidential campaign.
Advertisement
“Clinton falsely stated that Tulsi ― an Army National Guard officer and United States Congresswoman who has spent her entire adult life serving this country ― is a ‘Russian asset.’ Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s presidential campaign,” the complaint says.
Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is seen in Columbia, South Carolina, on Jan. 20. Sean Rayford via Getty Images
Clinton didn’t specifically identify Gabbard by name in the October interview with David Plouffe when she said that “somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary” is “the favorite of the Russians” and is being groomed to become a “third-party candidate.”
A Clinton spokesperson, when later asked if it was Gabbard whom Clinton was referring to, appeared to confirm that was the case, telling a reporter: “If the nesting doll fits.”
Advertisement
Gabbard’s lawyers had demanded that Clinton publicly retract her comments, but to no avail. As a result, her lawsuit claims, she suffered more than $50 million in personal and professional damages.
Hillary Clinton, seen on Jan. 17, is facing a defamation lawsuit from 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Erik Voake via Getty Images
“Scientifically conducted opinion surveys have shown that Clinton’s false, malicious statements about Tulsi were accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states,” her lawsuit states. “In short, Clinton got exactly what she wanted by lying about Tulsi — she harmed her political and personal rival’s reputation and ongoing Presidential campaign, and started a damaging whisper campaign based on baseless, but vicious, untruths.”
HuffPost was unable to immediately reach Clinton’s team for comment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Democrats Lay Out Legal Basis For Removing Trump From Office

WASHINGTON ― Democrats laid out their case before the Senate on Thursday as to why President Donald Trump should be removed from office for abusing his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for his own benefit .
Trump ’ s lawyers have argued that the president hasn ’ t been accused of a specific crime , so the allegations in articles of impeachment against him can ’ t be “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” meriting impeachment and removal from office .
But the managers played video footage of some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea in the past .
“ What is a high crime ?
I think it ’ s truth .
I think that ’ s what they meant by high crimes .
Doesn ’ t have to be a crime .
It ’ s just when you start using your office and you ’ re acting in a way that hurts people , you committed a high crime , ” Graham said in 1999 when he served as a congressman and an impeachment manager in the Senate trial of then-President Bill Clinton .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump abused his power in an attempt to pressure Ukraine to open investigations into his rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime .
“ Impeachment is not a punishment for crimes , ” Nadler said .
“ The Constitution is not a suicide pact .
It does not leave us stuck with presidents who abuse their power in unforeseen ways that threaten our security and democracy.
” Nadler , one of the impeachment managers , opened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , history and congressional intent behind the power to remove a sitting president from office .
He then argued that Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine ― in which he urged the Ukrainian government to investigate a political opponent ― fit the bill and merited Trump ’ s ouster .
Trump and his allies have claimed that as vice president in 2015 , Biden improperly sought the firing of a Ukranian prosecutor who might have looked into Burisma , the Ukrainian energy company that employed Biden ’ s son Hunter as a board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the House Intelligence Committee last year ― that the prosecutor ’ s investigation into Burisma had been dormant .
Garcia said , “ Vice President Biden called for the firing of this prosecutor at the direction of U.S. policy ” ― in other words , he hadn ’ t done it for himself .
Garcia also noted that Trump ’ s interest in Biden ’ s role didn ’ t develop until this year .
Following Garcia ’ s presentation on Thursday , Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments later this week because Democrats had gone there .
( They likely would have gone there anyway . )
Thursday ’ s arguments in the Senate follow evidentiary presentations by the House managers .
On Wednesday , the Democrats laid out an impressive chronological narrative of Trump ’ s dealings in Ukraine , which began in March of last year and involved several senior members of Trump ’ s administration , as well as outside proxies like Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
But Republicans said they weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as nothing new even though they ’ d voted on Monday to block any new witnesses or material from inclusion .
“ We shouldn ’ t even be in an impeachment trial .
There shouldn ’ t even have been an impeachment inquiry , ” Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) told reporters before the day ’ s arguments , maintaining that he believed Trump when he said he was only concerned by general corruption in Ukraine .
“ Would a witness change the result ?
” Blunt asked .
“ Not would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not know because we ’ d just like to know , and is it worth continuing to reward the bad performance in the House to stretch this out with no change in outcome ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Democrats laid out their case before the Senate on Thursday as to why President Donald Trump should be removed from office for abusing his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for his own benefit.
And they used the words of Trump’s own allies ― including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the senators who will decide Trump’s fate ― to make their point.
Advertisement
Thursday was the second day of House Democratic arguments before the Senate, and lawmakers serving as prosecutors focused on the first article of impeachment against Trump: abuse of power.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the president hasn’t been accused of a specific crime, so the allegations in articles of impeachment against him can’t be “high crimes and misdemeanors” meriting impeachment and removal from office. But the managers played video footage of some of the president’s biggest defenders contradicting that idea in the past.
“What is a high crime? I think it’s truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you committed a high crime,” Graham said in 1999 when he served as a congressman and an impeachment manager in the Senate trial of then-President Bill Clinton.
But when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) played the clip of Graham on Thursday, the South Carolina Republican was not present in the upper chamber. He had stepped out moments before.
Advertisement
Nadler also highlighted past statements by Attorney General William Barr and attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s own impeachment defense team, that are inconsistent with their current defense of Trump.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that even if Trump abused his power in an attempt to pressure Ukraine to open investigations into his rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime.
The argument is widely disputed, however. (Past impeachment articles have highlighted statutory crimes like obstruction of justice as well as non-statutory offenses such as abuse of power.)
“Impeachment is not a punishment for crimes,” Nadler said. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not leave us stuck with presidents who abuse their power in unforeseen ways that threaten our security and democracy.”
House impeachment manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) speaks during impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in the Senate on Jan. 21, 2020. Photo by Senate Television via Getty Images
Advertisement
Nadler, one of the impeachment managers, opened Thursday’s session by citing law, history and congressional intent behind the power to remove a sitting president from office. He then argued that Trump’s dealings with Ukraine ― in which he urged the Ukrainian government to investigate a political opponent ― fit the bill and merited Trump’s ouster.
“The president’s conduct is wrong. It is illegal. It is dangerous,” Nadler said Thursday. “It puts even President Nixon to shame.”
“The act of solicitation itself, just the ask, constitutes an abuse of power. No president has abused his power in this way,” Nadler added.
Impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) spent more than half an hour debunking Republican claims that Trump had legitimate reasons for wanting Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, who happens to be the president’s highest-polling electoral opponent.
Trump and his allies have claimed that as vice president in 2015, Biden improperly sought the firing of a Ukranian prosecutor who might have looked into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that employed Biden’s son Hunter as a board member.
Advertisement
Garcia repeated what several diplomats told the House Intelligence Committee last year ― that the prosecutor’s investigation into Burisma had been dormant. Garcia said, “Vice President Biden called for the firing of this prosecutor at the direction of U.S. policy” ― in other words, he hadn’t done it for himself. Garcia also noted that Trump’s interest in Biden’s role didn’t develop until this year.
“It wasn’t until Biden began beating him in the polls that he called for the investigation,” Garcia said.
Following Garcia’s presentation on Thursday, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said the president’s defense team would discuss Biden during their arguments later this week because Democrats had gone there. (They likely would have gone there anyway.)
“They’ve opened the door,” Sekulow told HuffPost. “They open the door, it’s now running.”
Thursday’s arguments in the Senate follow evidentiary presentations by the House managers. On Wednesday, the Democrats laid out an impressive chronological narrative of Trump’s dealings in Ukraine, which began in March of last year and involved several senior members of Trump’s administration, as well as outside proxies like Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
“Everyone was in the loop,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager.
Advertisement
“We shouldn’t even be in an impeachment trial. There shouldn’t even have been an impeachment inquiry,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters before the day’s arguments, maintaining that he believed Trump when he said he was only concerned by general corruption in Ukraine.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) cast doubt on the notion that including additional witnesses and evidence in the trial would matter much because many of his colleagues remain skeptical of the case, and the bar for Trump’s removal ― 67 senators ― is very high.
“Would a witness change the result?” Blunt asked. “Not would the witness ... tell us something we might not know because we’d just like to know, and is it worth continuing to reward the bad performance in the House to stretch this out with no change in outcome?”
Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, was also a major focus of the House impeachment managers’ presentation on Thursday as they sought to link the president directly to the pressure campaign on Ukraine’s government. His many cable news interviews, in which he discussed Ukraine, often appeared on a screen used by House prosecutors.
Impeachment manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) laid out a narrative of Giuliani’s efforts beginning around the time that Biden announced his presidential campaign in the spring of 2019. Lofgren said government officials came to learn that Giuliani was the “key to Ukraine,” as Trump directed government employees to work with his personal lawyer on matters of foreign policy.
Advertisement
In his closing statement, after 10 p.m. EST, Schiff asked senators why anyone would listen to Giuliani on Ukraine over the professional diplomats whose job it is to execute U.S. foreign policy.
“Because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally,” Schiff said.
Three years into Trump’s presidency, Schiff said, senators ought to know that Trump will always put his own interests first.
“You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” Schiff said. “You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Lindsey Graham Bizarrely Defends Trump: 'He Did Nothing Wrong In His Mind'

@ LindseyGrahamSC You just said to reporters that “ All I can tell you is from the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ did nothing wrong in his mind , ” So ?
Are you admitting that @ @ @ @ @ @ does not know the difference between right and wrong ?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday came up with a bizarre explanation for why President Donald Trump shouldn’t be removed from office: He didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.
“If thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it,” Graham told reporters.
Advertisement
A House investigation determined that Trump withheld authorized military aid to the country because leaders declined to investigate former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Graham claimed Trump believes Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but acknowledged it was Russia that had hacked the Democratic National Committee.
“All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,” Graham said.
You can see Graham’s bizarre defense of Trump in this video:
Many Twitter users weren’t impressed with the senator’s logic.
@LindseyGrahamSC
You just said to reporters that “All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,”
So? Are you admitting that @realDonaldTrump is mentally insane and does not know the difference between right and wrong? — James Peck (@JMPeck69) January 23, 2020
Advertisement
#LindseyGraham gave the craziest defense of Trump yet when he said:
“All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind.”
Bet the point of view from Jeffrey Dahmer was that he did nothing wrong either.#TrumpImpeachmentTrial — Fredon Moniteau (@FMoniteau) January 23, 2020
“All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,”
You know Princess, that’s not an actual defence. Charles Manson thought murder was doing “nothing wrong in his mind”. He died in prison. #OneVoice1 https://t.co/B2nlVeLpT3 — Jaq (@LadyJYYC) January 23, 2020
"Trump did nothing wrong in his mind?"
This can be said of every psychopath serial killer.https://t.co/y2AUNSVYIy — Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) January 23, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Jim Lehrer, PBS NewsHour Founder, Dead At 85

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images Moderator Jim Leher stands on stage before a presidential debate on October 3 , 2012 in Denver , Colorado .
Judy Woodruff , the show ’ s anchor and managing editor , revealed the news .
Lehrer , 85 , died “ peacefully in his sleep at home , ” she said in a statement on the PBS site .
“ I ’ m heartbroken at the loss of someone who was central to my professional life , a mentor to me and someone whose friendship I ’ ve cherished for decades , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to him as the standard for fair , probing and thoughtful journalism and I know countless others who feel the same way.
” Lehrer started the show in 1975 with co-founder Robert MacNeil after the pair teamed up to cover the unfolding Watergate scandal in 1973 .
The show underwent several name changes before becoming the “ PBS NewsHour ” in 2009 .
“ From co-creating the groundbreaking MacNeil/Lehrer Report to skillfully moderating many presidential debates , Jim exemplified excellence in journalism throughout his extraordinary career , ” PBS President Paula Kerger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in news and public affairs , he leaves behind an incredible legacy that serves as an inspiration to us all .
He will be missed.
” He is survived by his wife , three daughters and six grandchildren .
This is a developing story .
Please check back for updates .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jim Lehrer, the co-founder and longtime anchor of “PBS NewsHour,” died Thursday.
Judy Woodruff, the show’s anchor and managing editor, revealed the news. Lehrer, 85, died “peacefully in his sleep at home,” she said in a statement on the PBS site.
“I’m heartbroken at the loss of someone who was central to my professional life, a mentor to me and someone whose friendship I’ve cherished for decades,” she said. “I’ve looked up to him as the standard for fair, probing and thoughtful journalism and I know countless others who feel the same way.”
Advertisement
Moderator Jim Leher stands on stage before a presidential debate on October 3, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
Lehrer started the show in 1975 with co-founder Robert MacNeil after the pair teamed up to cover the unfolding Watergate scandal in 1973. The show underwent several name changes before becoming the “PBS NewsHour” in 2009.
“From co-creating the groundbreaking MacNeil/Lehrer Report to skillfully moderating many presidential debates, Jim exemplified excellence in journalism throughout his extraordinary career,” PBS President Paula Kerger said Thursday. “A true giant in news and public affairs, he leaves behind an incredible legacy that serves as an inspiration to us all. He will be missed.”
He is survived by his wife, three daughters and six grandchildren.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Read Live Updates From Day 2 Of Democrats' Opening Arguments In Impeachment Trial

Democrats ’ second day of opening arguments in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate is underway @ @ @ @ @ impeachment managers , led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , @ @ @ @ @ to continue arguments for Trump ’ s removal from office .
The House voted last @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― related to @ @ @ @ @ to publicly commit to investigating political rival Joe Biden .
Thursday ’ s portion of @ @ @ @ @ hours of opening arguments from the Democratic managers a day earlier .
Each side gets @ @ @ @ @ to make its case .
Afterward , senators will have 16 hours to ask questions @ @ @ @ @ call witnesses or introduce new evidence .
Follow along with live updates below .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democrats’ second day of opening arguments in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate is underway.
The seven-person team of impeachment managers, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), took the Senate floor Thursday to continue arguments for Trump’s removal from office.
Advertisement
The House voted last month to pass two articles of impeachment against Trump ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― related to his efforts to pressure Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating political rival Joe Biden.
Thursday’s portion of the Senate trial follows roughly nine hours of opening arguments from the Democratic managers on Wednesday. Each side gets 24 hours over three days to make its case. Afterward, senators will have 16 hours to ask questions before voting on whether to call witnesses or introduce new evidence.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--‘Crying Nazi’ Christopher Cantwell Arrested In Attempt To Extort Information About Rival Nazi

Federal authorities have arrested “ crying Nazi ” Christopher Cantwell for a violent and vulgar threat he allegedly made last year in an apparent attempt to extort information about a rival neo-Nazi , new court documents reveal .
According to a federal indictment unsealed on Thursday — first noticed by Seamus Hughes , an extremism researcher at George Washington University — Cantwell is accused of sending a threatening message to an unidentified man over the messaging app Telegram on June 16 , 2019 .
“ So if you don ’ t want me to come and f*ck your wife in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should make yourself scarce , ” Cantwell allegedly wrote in the message .
“ Give me Vic , it ’ s your only out.
” “ Vic ” and “ VM ” both likely refer to the pseudonymous podcast host “ Vic Mackey , ” a vile and yet-to-be-identified neo-Nazi with whom Cantwell has had a long-running feud .
Christopher Cantwell and other white nationalists participate in a torch-lit march on the grounds of the University of Virginia on Aug. 11 , 2017 , ahead of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host who gained infamy for his role in the deadly 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , is charged with two counts of extortionate interstate communications and threatening interstate communications .
According to The Keene Sentinel , federal law enforcement agents were spotted near Cantwell ’ s home in Keene , New Hampshire , early Thursday morning , although it ’ s not yet confirmed that ’ s where the arrest was made .
Cantwell gained national notoriety after being featured in a viral Vice News documentary about the violent August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rally resulted in a neo-Nazi named James Alex Fields Jr. driving his car into a crowd of counterprotesters , killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer .
Cantwell also participated in a tiki torch-lit march through Charlottesville the night before rally during which he chanted “ Jews will not replace us !
” and at one point assaulted counterprotesters .
He was later charged with multiple felonies over the assaults and took a plea deal that sentenced him to time served .
He was also banned from the state of Virginia for five years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online , Cantwell cried over the criminal charges he received for his actions in Charlottesville , earning him the nickname “ the crying Nazi.
” Over the last two years , Cantwell has continued to spout racist and anti-Semitic propaganda online and on a pair of radio shows he hosts .
“ Chris has engaged in violent harassment and threats against many people for many years , ” Emily Gorcenski , an activist who protested in Charlottesville and who says she has since fled the U.S. due to Cantwell ’ s threats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not shocking he was arrested for it.
” “ What ’ s shocking , ” Gorcenski continued , “ is that the indictment doesn ’ t appear to be connected to any of the people involved in his other legal matters who he repeatedly violently threatened.
” Cantwell is also a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit social justice group Integrity First for America for his role in orchestrating violence in Charlottesville .
“ From orchestrating the Charlottesville violence with the intent of instigating a race war and gassing Jews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― as well as journalists and others around the country ― this country is safer with Cantwell in custody .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Federal authorities have arrested “crying Nazi” Christopher Cantwell for a violent and vulgar threat he allegedly made last year in an apparent attempt to extort information about a rival neo-Nazi, new court documents reveal.
According to a federal indictment unsealed on Thursday — first noticed by Seamus Hughes, an extremism researcher at George Washington University — Cantwell is accused of sending a threatening message to an unidentified man over the messaging app Telegram on June 16, 2019.
Advertisement
“So if you don’t want me to come and f*ck your wife in front of your kids, then you should make yourself scarce,” Cantwell allegedly wrote in the message. “Give me Vic, it’s your only out.”
The message, the indictment alleges, was an attempt to extort “personal identifying information” about a “man known by the on-line pseudonym ‘VM.’”
“Vic” and “VM” both likely refer to the pseudonymous podcast host “Vic Mackey,” a vile and yet-to-be-identified neo-Nazi with whom Cantwell has had a long-running feud.
It’s unclear how the man Cantwell allegedly threatened might know Vic Mackey’s real identity.
Christopher Cantwell and other white nationalists participate in a torch-lit march on the grounds of the University of Virginia on Aug. 11, 2017, ahead of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Stephanie Keith / Reuters
Advertisement
Cantwell, a radio host who gained infamy for his role in the deadly 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is charged with two counts of extortionate interstate communications and threatening interstate communications.
According to The Keene Sentinel, federal law enforcement agents were spotted near Cantwell’s home in Keene, New Hampshire, early Thursday morning, although it’s not yet confirmed that’s where the arrest was made.
Cantwell gained national notoriety after being featured in a viral Vice News documentary about the violent August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. The rally resulted in a neo-Nazi named James Alex Fields Jr. driving his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.
Cantwell also participated in a tiki torch-lit march through Charlottesville the night before rally during which he chanted “Jews will not replace us!” and at one point assaulted counterprotesters. He was later charged with multiple felonies over the assaults and took a plea deal that sentenced him to time served. He was also banned from the state of Virginia for five years.
In a video he later posted online, Cantwell cried over the criminal charges he received for his actions in Charlottesville, earning him the nickname “the crying Nazi.”
Advertisement
Over the last two years, Cantwell has continued to spout racist and anti-Semitic propaganda online and on a pair of radio shows he hosts.
He has also repeatedly harassed and threatened leftist and anti-fascist activists.
Christopher Cantwell following his surrender to police on Aug. 24, 2017. Handout . / Reuters
“Chris has engaged in violent harassment and threats against many people for many years,” Emily Gorcenski, an activist who protested in Charlottesville and who says she has since fled the U.S. due to Cantwell’s threats, told HuffPost. “It’s not shocking he was arrested for it.”
“What’s shocking,” Gorcenski continued, “is that the indictment doesn’t appear to be connected to any of the people involved in his other legal matters who he repeatedly violently threatened.”
Gorcenski is one of two people who have sued Cantwell over his threats and harassment.
Cantwell is also a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit social justice group Integrity First for America for his role in orchestrating violence in Charlottesville.
Advertisement
“Today’s indictment describes only a tiny fraction of Cantwell’s horrifying track record of violence and bigotry,” Integrity First for America Executive Director Amy Spitalnick said in a statement Thursday.
“From orchestrating the Charlottesville violence with the intent of instigating a race war and gassing Jews, to vile threats against our lead counsel ― as well as journalists and others around the country ― this country is safer with Cantwell in custody.”
Cantwell is set to appear in court Thursday afternoon.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--Twitter Users Debate Whether Prince Charles Really Snubbed Mike Pence

Call it “ snub-gate ” ( actually , call it anything but that ) , but a new video shows Prince Charles walking straight past U.S. Vice President Mike Pence without shaking his hand .
The video above was captured at the start of a World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem memorial center in Jerusalem on Thursday .
It shows the British royal walking to his seat , shaking the hand of one person and then walking past Pence and barely making eye contact before warmly greeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
Many people on Twitter assumed Prince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making for a juicy international scandal .
However , Pence ’ s press secretary , Katie Waldman , insisted that was not the case and tweeted a photo prior to the event showing the pair in convivial conversation .
This is not true .
VP and Prince Charles spoke prior to entering the event floor and after his remarks as well .
https : //t.co/Qr79TN42Ax pic.twitter.com/LhsQVtHMRF — Katie Waldman ( @ VPPressSec ) January 23 , 2020 Prince Charles ’ press secretary Julian Payne also confirmed that the royal and Pence did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortly before the event.
” The Prince and Vice President Pence had a warm and friendly conversation shortly before the event began as His Press Secretary @ VPPressSec confirms https : //t.co/N6bJ6rCLag — Julian Payne ( @ julianpayne ) January 23 , 2020 Still , at least one Twitter user was convinced she knew a snub when she saw one .
She later noted that Pence had “ tapped chuck on the arm.
” Explain video ?
I do n't care for Charles I care for our @ VP Our VP even had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boney butt walked past him as well snubbing VP 's assistant .
— Grace Vasquez ( @ itsYourGrace ) January 23 , 2020 well taking another look ... it does appear charles shook with his left hand vp press sec left hand and then @ VP tapped chuck on the arm ... so ... had they already said hello ?
Maybe .
Still from a quick view of video looks like a snub .
— Grace Vasquez ( @ itsYourGrace ) January 23 , 2020 But others felt the video was more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration .
yea , that 's why pence has his hand out and charles walks right by while glaring at him — Ian ( @ ianjay_ ) January 23 , 2020 Their meeting prior to entering the event floor went so well that Charles refused to shake Pence 's hand !
— David Spivak ⚾ ( @ dsspivak ) January 23 , 2020 At least one person was offended enough to call for Charles ’ removal from the line of succession .
EVEN IF Prince Charles had spoken to @ VP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not shaking his hand or even acknowledging him in the line speaks volumes of what 's on Charles ' mind !
# QueenElizabeth must remove him from the order of succession and pass the crown to Prince William !
!
!
pic.twitter.com/YgijHvJIdy — The King Peter Fox ( @ PeterFo19881835 ) January 23 , 2020 But others took the Prince ’ s side .
Why would Prince Charles shake the hand of someone covering up for Trump 's denying of aid to Ukraine while they were in the middle of a hot war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was put directly at risk by Pence and Trump .
— Ken Winnick ( @ visualcognetics ) January 23 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Call it “snub-gate” (actually, call it anything but that), but a new video shows Prince Charles walking straight past U.S. Vice President Mike Pence without shaking his hand.
The video above was captured at the start of a World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem memorial center in Jerusalem on Thursday.
Advertisement
It shows the British royal walking to his seat, shaking the hand of one person and then walking past Pence and barely making eye contact before warmly greeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Many people on Twitter assumed Prince Charles was snubbing the U.S. vice president, making for a juicy international scandal.
However, Pence’s press secretary, Katie Waldman, insisted that was not the case and tweeted a photo prior to the event showing the pair in convivial conversation.
This is not true. VP and Prince Charles spoke prior to entering the event floor and after his remarks as well. https://t.co/Qr79TN42Ax pic.twitter.com/LhsQVtHMRF — Katie Waldman (@VPPressSec) January 23, 2020
Advertisement
Prince Charles’ press secretary Julian Payne also confirmed that the royal and Pence did have “a warm and friendly conversation shortly before the event.”
The Prince and Vice President Pence had a warm and friendly conversation shortly before the event began as His Press Secretary @VPPressSec confirms https://t.co/N6bJ6rCLag — Julian Payne (@julianpayne) January 23, 2020
Still, at least one Twitter user was convinced she knew a snub when she saw one. She later noted that Pence had “tapped chuck on the arm.”
Explain video? I don't care for Charles I care for our @VP Our VP even had his hand out for a shake and boney butt walked past him as well snubbing VP's assistant. — Grace Vasquez (@itsYourGrace) January 23, 2020
well taking another look... it does appear charles shook with his left hand vp press sec left hand and then @VP tapped chuck on the arm... so... had they already said hello? Maybe. Still from a quick view of video looks like a snub. — Grace Vasquez (@itsYourGrace) January 23, 2020
Advertisement
But others felt the video was more likely to be truthful than a member of the Trump administration.
yea, that's why pence has his hand out and charles walks right by while glaring at him — Ian (@ianjay_) January 23, 2020
Their meeting prior to entering the event floor went so well that Charles refused to shake Pence's hand! — David Spivak ⚾ (@dsspivak) January 23, 2020
Prince Charles met with Netanyahu also but gives him a hearty handshake! — Yoel Goldman (@yoelisaak) January 23, 2020
At least one person was offended enough to call for Charles’ removal from the line of succession.
EVEN IF Prince Charles had spoken to @VP prior to entering the event floor, not shaking his hand or even acknowledging him in the line speaks volumes of what's on Charles' mind!#QueenElizabeth must remove him from the order of succession and pass the crown to Prince William!!! pic.twitter.com/YgijHvJIdy — The King Peter Fox (@PeterFo19881835) January 23, 2020
But others took the Prince’s side.
Why would Prince Charles shake the hand of someone covering up for Trump's denying of aid to Ukraine while they were in the middle of a hot war with Russia? The future of Europe was put directly at risk by Pence and Trump. — Ken Winnick (@visualcognetics) January 23, 2020
Advertisement
Nah, Prince Charles knows the power of the media and public perception. He skipped him to send a message. — 🍑Progressive Un-Boomer🍑 (@NHRunningLady) January 23, 2020
Prince Charles showing us the proper way to greet a fascist like Mike Pence!🔥pic.twitter.com/sxoc8YShnr — Ryan Knight 🏳🌈 🗽 (@ProudResister) January 23, 2020
And one Twitter user saw the exchange as the harbinger of things to come.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-23--New Trump Rule Rolls Back Decades Of Clean Water Protections

The new rule , put together by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers , will serve as a replacement to President Barack Obama ’ s 2015 Waters of the United States regulation , better known as WOTUS or the Clean Water Rule .
President Donald Trump made it his mission early in his presidency to dismantle the Obama-era measure , which had sought to clarify which streams and wetlands should be protected under the 1972 federal Clean Water Act .
“ Today , thanks to our new rule , our nation ’ s farmers , ranchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can finally refocus on providing the food , shelter and other commodities that Americans rely on every day , instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and consultants to determine whether waters on their own land fall under the control of the federal government , ” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a call with reporters Thursday .
Environmental experts have warned of the far-reaching and likely devastating impacts of the Trump rule , which could put the drinking water of millions of Americans at risk , imperil food safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the creatures that call them home .
“ This rule is the culmination of an insider campaign to gut bipartisan protections that have safeguarded the nation ’ s water for decades , and will endanger the health and environment of families and communities across the entire country , ” he said in a statement to HuffPost .
“ If allowed to stand , this bulldozing of clean water protections would be among this administration ’ s dirtiest , most dangerous deeds.
” Trump has excoriated the Obama water rule as a “ disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples of federal regulation.
” He signed an executive order within weeks of taking office to scrap the rule and ultimately repealed it in September .
But Trump and his team weren ’ t content with merely scrapping the Obama-era regulation .
The president ’ s personal business stands to directly benefit from the overhaul , as it will ease restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer use at golf courses .
The new rule doesn ’ t just toss out the protections introduced by Trump ’ s predecessor , but eliminates protections to smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , according to legal experts and environmentalists .
More than half the country ’ s wetlands and millions of miles of streams are expected to lose federal protection under the new rule , Politico reported .
“ Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act , ” Patrick Parenteau , a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School , told The New York Times this week .
A puddle blocks a path that leads into the Panther Island Mitigation Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida .
Experts say the Trump administration ’ s move to redefine what constitutes a waterway under federal law is threatening efforts to save wetlands from destruction .
“ I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all : the last administration ’ s disastrous Waters of the United States rule , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s gone .
That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.
” The president , however , didn ’ t mention the potential risks of the rule ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100 million Americans could be threatened , as could the well-being of many animal and plant species , including endangered ones .
The EPA ’ s Scientific Advisory Board , comprised of many Trump administration appointees , warned last month that the new rule is “ not fully consistent with established EPA recognized science , may not fully meet the key objectives of the [ Clean Water Act ] ... and is subject to a lack of clarity for implementation.
” “ So much for the ‘ crystal clear ’ water President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former EPA administrator and new president of the Natural Resources Defense Council , said in a statement .
“ This effort neglects established science and poses substantial new risks to people ’ s health and the environment .
We will do all we can to fight this attack on clean water .
We will not let it stand .
”

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