thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Erin Brockovich Slams Joe Biden's EPA Transition Team Pick: 'Are You Kidding Me?'

Activist Erin Brockovich slammed President-elect Joe Biden in an op-ed for The Guardian on Thursday , criticizing him for tapping a former DuPont consultant to join his Environmental Protection Agency transition board .
Earlier this month , Biden appointed Michael McCabe to his agency review team at the EPA .
McCabe worked for Biden as communications and projects director between 1987 and 1995 , and later served as deputy administrator of the EPA during the Clinton administration .
He went on to work as a consultant on communication strategy for DuPont , a chemical company that has notably fought regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ C8 .
In her op-ed , Brockovich , 60 , explains how that chemical is “ used in everything from waterproof clothes , stain-resistant textiles and food packaging to non-stick pans ” and has “ been linked to lowered fertility , cancer and liver damage.
” She goes on to eviscerate Biden for McCabe ’ s appointment , and explains how his affiliation with DuPont makes him a poor candidate for the job .
“ It should go without saying that someone who advised DuPont on how to avoid regulations is not someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Brockovich writes .
This is not about my politics it ’ s about politics as usual .
We want , we need @ JoeBiden to be better because he can be .
https : //t.co/eztlOwBUsB @ guardian @ guardianeco @ GuardianUS — Erin Brockovich ( @ ErinBrockovich ) November 19 , 2020 She goes on to ask : “ Are we the people supposed to trust a former DuPont man in a transition team tasked with reviewing the Chemical Safety Board ?
” An environmental activist and consultant and former legal clerk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the team that won a $ 333 million settlement for a water contamination suit against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California in 1993 .
She became a household name following Julia Roberts ’ Oscar-winning portrayal of her in Steven Soderbergh ’ s 2000 film “ Erin Brockovich.
” “ Is this how the newly elected leadership wants to start what is supposed to be a healing and unifying administration ?
Are we already falling back on the old and antiquated , hide-and-seek , conceal , dodge and deny leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and be the change and the hope needed when it comes to the environment ?
” she wrote in Thursday ’ s op-ed .
“ I don ’ t see how picking someone from industry is moving us toward that goal.
” Brockovich concluded the essay by saying that “ we are in this mess because we continue to do the same old thing , ” and that Biden needs to “ do the right thing.
” After the op-ed was published , Brockovich added on Twitter : “ This new administration needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following perhaps the most abhorrent in our history doesn ’ t mean they get a free pass - they must know we are watching and we won ’ t be silent .
Ever .
”

Earlier this month, Biden appointed Michael McCabe to his agency review team at the EPA. McCabe worked for Biden as communications and projects director between 1987 and 1995, and later served as deputy administrator of the EPA during the Clinton administration. He went on to work as a consultant on communication strategy for DuPont, a chemical company that has notably fought regulation of perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8.
In her op-ed, Brockovich, 60, explains how that chemical is “used in everything from waterproof clothes, stain-resistant textiles and food packaging to non-stick pans” and has “been linked to lowered fertility, cancer and liver damage.” She goes on to eviscerate Biden for McCabe’s appointment, and explains how his affiliation with DuPont makes him a poor candidate for the job.
Advertisement
“It should go without saying that someone who advised DuPont on how to avoid regulations is not someone we want advising this new administration,” Brockovich writes.
This is not about my politics it’s about politics as usual. We want, we need @JoeBiden to be better because he can be. https://t.co/eztlOwBUsB @guardian @guardianeco @GuardianUS — Erin Brockovich (@ErinBrockovich) November 19, 2020
She goes on to ask: “Are we the people supposed to trust a former DuPont man in a transition team tasked with reviewing the Chemical Safety Board?”
An environmental activist and consultant and former legal clerk, Brockovich came to notoriety for being part of the team that won a $333 million settlement for a water contamination suit against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California in 1993. She became a household name following Julia Roberts’ Oscar-winning portrayal of her in Steven Soderbergh’s 2000 film “Erin Brockovich.”
Advertisement
“Is this how the newly elected leadership wants to start what is supposed to be a healing and unifying administration? Are we already falling back on the old and antiquated, hide-and-seek, conceal, dodge and deny leadership or are you going to come out and be the change and the hope needed when it comes to the environment?” she wrote in Thursday’s op-ed. “I don’t see how picking someone from industry is moving us toward that goal.”
Brockovich concluded the essay by saying that “we are in this mess because we continue to do the same old thing,” and that Biden needs to “do the right thing.”
After the op-ed was published, Brockovich added on Twitter: “This new administration needs to know that just because they are following perhaps the most abhorrent in our history doesn’t mean they get a free pass - they must know we are watching and we won’t be silent. Ever.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Trump Is Rushing Through His Biggest, Most Dangerous Arms Deal. Congress Could Stop It.

Their hope is that sending such a message in a bipartisan way , which would have to be the case for the bills to clear both the Democratic House and the GOP-held Senate , would pressure Trump to respect lawmakers ’ reservations about how the belligerent UAE might use the weapons ― or would at least motivate President-elect Joe Biden to halt the transfers once he takes office in January .
For a number of reasons , the activists face an uphill battle .
Senators will not reconvene until Nov. 30 and they are then only present and able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of days in December .
It ’ s unclear exactly when the lawmakers ’ statutory right to block the arms deals expires , but aides say that point should be on or around Dec. 10 .
In that same period , Congress will be considering possible additional coronavirus relief and hammering out a bargain to keep the government open ahead of a funding deadline of Dec. 11 .
Many members of Congress , among others , perceive the arms sales as a gift to the Arab nation for its agreement earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Al Otaiba is expected to play on Americans ’ anxieties about Tehran and their sense that his country is uniquely moderate and pro-Western among Muslim-majority nations to win support for the deal .
Another top complaint is that the sale could threaten the U.S. and ally Israel , which the Trump administration says it deserves credit for bolstering through the UAE accord and other steps .
Many more bellicose lawmakers ― the type that would rarely oppose a weapons sale to an American partner ― are worried that the UAE could permit China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely , to gain access to sensitive information .
That logic is especially compelling to strong supporters of Israel who might otherwise embrace the package as a way to guarantee continued ties between that country and the UAE .
“ China is increasingly active all across the region and would love to get a hold of the technology in our F-35 stealth fighters , ” Gottheimer continued .
“ That ’ s why the Administration better come to Congress with good answers about how they plan to ensure our most advanced military technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hands of our leading adversary .
After all , if Beijing can access and reproduce the technology for the stealthiest , most advanced fighter jet in the world , and sell it to whomever , then that ’ s a direct threat to our own national security and to Israel ’ s. ” “ Israel ’ s peace with the UAE is a historic and positive development , and the United States should take all reasonable steps to demonstrate the benefits for UAE in making peace with Israel .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including in the security sector , that have nothing to do with the F-35 , ” Bowman wrote in an email .
He argued that the Emiratis receiving that aircraft would require the U.S. to boost Israel ’ s own military power .
Such thinking could drive an unlikely partnership between traditional advocates for an assertive U.S. presence in the world , including some Republicans , and more liberal figures ― as well as some libertarians ― who want sweeping change to rein in American militarism .
It ’ s similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s close partner Saudi Arabia over its role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
Other opponents of the UAE .
sale , like Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , are highlighting the country ’ s disturbing track record on human rights .
“ Besides their very well-documented war crimes in Yemen , the U.A.E .
has also been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Libya , ” Omar said in a Thursday press release .
She has introduced similar resolutions of disapproval in the lower chamber to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unprecedented bipartisan level of concern over the devastation in Yemen , in particular , passing historic resolutions to try to end American support for the yearslong military campaign the UAE and the Saudis waged there .
The moment before a friendly administration takes office hardly seems the time to give in , said Erica Fein of the advocacy group Win Without War .
Should the president ’ s team fail to convince some in the GOP that they can preserve Israel ’ s edge and prevent poaching of U.S. secrets by Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , the Democratic aide predicted .
The Republicans to watch are Sens .
Todd Young ( Ind . )
, Jerry Moran ( Kansas ) , Lamar Alexander ( Tenn. ) , Susan Collins ( Maine ) , Lisa Murkowski ( Alaska ) and Lindsey Graham ( S.C. ) , most of whom just last summer voted against weapons sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia .
“ I don ’ t think that after pushing back against the Trump administration for four years , they ’ re going to suddenly decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against what is clearly a broadly supported policy that the Biden administration will take into office , ” Scott Paul of Oxfam America said .
“ At this point , it seems like a question of the different ways Congress can demonstrate to the incoming Biden administration that , one , this is a ball they ’ ve carried for a long time , and two , they want to partner ” with the new team in the White House to hold abusive regimes accountable .
Nassif of Amnesty International , who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities with at least 35 congressional offices over the last two weeks , described increasing skepticism in Congress over the Arab country ’ s handling of U.S. expertise , weaponry and support , particularly following reports of extremists obtaining arms through the Emiratis .

President Donald Trump wants to spend the final weeks of his presidency transferring America’s most advanced fighter jet, a set of powerful armed drones and thousands of bombs and missiles to a Middle Eastern dictatorship that is deeply implicated in multiple civil wars and aggressively represses its own population.
A growing group of lawmakers and activists is mobilizing to stop him.
Trump plans to wrap up a $23 billion weapons sale to the United Arab Emirates by the middle of December. It would put an exclamation point on a presidency that has focused more on arms deals than any since President Dwight Eisenhower first warned of the political power of the military-industrial complex.
Advertisement
Before that happens, critics of the deal want both houses of Congress to pass resolutions disapproving of the transfer.
Their hope is that sending such a message in a bipartisan way, which would have to be the case for the bills to clear both the Democratic House and the GOP-held Senate, would pressure Trump to respect lawmakers’ reservations about how the belligerent UAE might use the weapons ― or would at least motivate President-elect Joe Biden to halt the transfers once he takes office in January.
On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) joined Democratic foreign policy heavyweights Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) in sponsoring four resolutions of disapproval for the arms sales. Now those lawmakers and a coalition of influential activists from humanitarian, anti-war and human rights groups will spend the weeks ahead convincing Congress to support the legislation and pushing leadership in the two chambers to bring it to a vote, starting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
For a number of reasons, the activists face an uphill battle. Senators will not reconvene until Nov. 30 and they are then only present and able to consider motions like these resolutions for a handful of days in December. It’s unclear exactly when the lawmakers’ statutory right to block the arms deals expires, but aides say that point should be on or around Dec. 10. In that same period, Congress will be considering possible additional coronavirus relief and hammering out a bargain to keep the government open ahead of a funding deadline of Dec. 11.
Advertisement
The UAE also has a positive reputation in Washington, bolstered by its suave ambassador, Yousef Al Otaiba, and his large lobbying operation. Both representatives of the Emirates and Trump administration proponents of the deals are likely to emphasize how they align on two priorities that are broadly shared across Capitol Hill: supporting Israel and countering Iran.
Many members of Congress, among others, perceive the arms sales as a gift to the Arab nation for its agreement earlier this year to normalize relations with Israel. Al Otaiba is expected to play on Americans’ anxieties about Tehran and their sense that his country is uniquely moderate and pro-Western among Muslim-majority nations to win support for the deal.
Still, a dozen well-informed observers told HuffPost they are increasingly confident that a rare combination of progressives, hawks and more on Capitol Hill will send a big signal about changing U.S. foreign policy to prioritize human rights and give less credence to bellicose, often unreliable dictators abroad.
“I expect quite a fight in Congress… a short and fierce fight,” said Philippe Nassif of Amnesty International, one of the groups opposing the sale.
UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba, pictured in 2009, is expected to play on Americans’ anxieties about Tehran and his country's positive reputation in Washington to win support for the $23 billion weapons sale to the Emirates. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
The Case Against The Deal
The Trump administration calls the weapons sale an important affirmation of a key American partner, particularly as Iran lashes out against U.S. pressure.
Critics of the deal generally cite one or all of a set of problems with the agreement, deploying different arguments based on whether their audiences are liberal or conservative, wonkish or more focused on matters beyond global affairs.
One major concern is that the president appears committed to rushing through the deals without discussing them with lawmakers over months of negotiations, as is customary with a deal of this magnitude. The foreign policy ramifications are enormous: Trump’s own State Department has concluded the deal would seriously change the balance of power in the Middle East.
Trump sent his official notification of the package to Congress less than two months after the UAE recognized Israel in a flashy ceremony at the White House as part of a set of deals known as the Abraham Accords.
Since then, the Trump administration has had rocky briefings to justify the game-changing move with lawmakers and their staff, congressional aides told HuffPost. A session between senior officials from the State and Defense department and House members on Thursday failed to satisfy skeptics, one Democratic staffer said. The administration has yet to schedule a similar briefing with senators, HuffPost has learned.
The haste is especially aggravating to Capitol Hill because it comes one year after Trump overrode Congress to fast-track shipments of bombs to the UAE and Saudi Arabia in a process the State Department’s inspector general criticized. That frustration now unites important legislators across partisan and ideological divides.
Another top complaint is that the sale could threaten the U.S. and ally Israel, which the Trump administration says it deserves credit for bolstering through the UAE accord and other steps. Many more bellicose lawmakers ― the type that would rarely oppose a weapons sale to an American partner ― are worried that the UAE could permit China or Russia, with whom it collaborates closely, to gain access to sensitive information. That logic is especially compelling to strong supporters of Israel who might otherwise embrace the package as a way to guarantee continued ties between that country and the UAE.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) is a good example. In an emailed statement, he told HuffPost, “there’s a growing number of unanswered questions about the sale — not just the impact of the sale on Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge” ― an advantage that the U.S. is required to maintain by law ― “but also about the other elephant in the room, which is China.”
“The Administration better come to Congress with good answers about how they plan to ensure our most advanced military technology and hardware doesn’t end up in the hands of our leading adversary.” - Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
“China is increasingly active all across the region and would love to get a hold of the technology in our F-35 stealth fighters,” Gottheimer continued. “That’s why the Administration better come to Congress with good answers about how they plan to ensure our most advanced military technology and hardware doesn’t end up in the hands of our leading adversary. After all, if Beijing can access and reproduce the technology for the stealthiest, most advanced fighter jet in the world, and sell it to whomever, then that’s a direct threat to our own national security and to Israel’s.”
Advertisement
It’s unclear that giving the UAE the F-35 is appropriate, said Brad Bowman, a former Republican Senate staffer who is now senior director of the center on military and political power at the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.
“Israel’s peace with the UAE is a historic and positive development, and the United States should take all reasonable steps to demonstrate the benefits for UAE in making peace with Israel. There are a number of ways to do that, including in the security sector, that have nothing to do with the F-35,” Bowman wrote in an email. He argued that the Emiratis receiving that aircraft would require the U.S. to boost Israel’s own military power.
Such thinking could drive an unlikely partnership between traditional advocates for an assertive U.S. presence in the world, including some Republicans, and more liberal figures ― as well as some libertarians ― who want sweeping change to rein in American militarism. It’s similar to the front that united against the UAE’s close partner Saudi Arabia over its role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Other opponents of the UAE. sale, like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), are highlighting the country’s disturbing track record on human rights. “Besides their very well-documented war crimes in Yemen, the U.A.E. has also been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Libya,” Omar said in a Thursday press release. She has introduced similar resolutions of disapproval in the lower chamber to those in the Senate.
“They’re also reportedly paying for child soldiers from the same militia that committed the Darfur genocide [and] badly undercutting the transition to democracy in Sudan. Amidst a deadly pandemic, we should be investing in our own communities here at home, not selling weapons to help dictators commit human rights abuses,” Omar continued.
Advertisement
Even more centrist lawmakers are open to that argument because they know the UAE received a large number of bombs through Trump’s so-called “emergency” sales to them last year, a Democratic aide said. “They can’t possibly have exhausted their existing stocks.”
That prompts the question of what the Arab state plans to do with additional material, particularly given its ongoing support for brutal allied militias, including extreme groups, in Yemen and Libya.
Congress has demonstrated an unprecedented bipartisan level of concern over the devastation in Yemen, in particular, passing historic resolutions to try to end American support for the yearslong military campaign the UAE and the Saudis waged there. The moment before a friendly administration takes office hardly seems the time to give in, said Erica Fein of the advocacy group Win Without War.
“Our grassroots are fired up about that,” she added.
Getting To ‘No’
The next step to watch is how much support critics of the arms deal can build up from Republicans.
Many senators are likely holding off on taking a position until they receive the Trump administration’s briefing, which is expected to occur soon after Thanksgiving.
Should the president’s team fail to convince some in the GOP that they can preserve Israel’s edge and prevent poaching of U.S. secrets by Russia and China, they could lose important votes, the Democratic aide predicted. The Republicans to watch are Sens. Todd Young (Ind.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), most of whom just last summer voted against weapons sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Advertisement
While many in the party remain wary of crossing Trump, those members have already shown a willingness to do so, and campaigners say it’s unlikely their calculus has changed significantly.
“I don’t think that after pushing back against the Trump administration for four years, they’re going to suddenly decide to shift and stand with the party against what is clearly a broadly supported policy that the Biden administration will take into office,” Scott Paul of Oxfam America said. “At this point, it seems like a question of the different ways Congress can demonstrate to the incoming Biden administration that, one, this is a ball they’ve carried for a long time, and two, they want to partner” with the new team in the White House to hold abusive regimes accountable.
He anticipated that lawmakers will find some way to show both Trump and Biden that they are leery of pumping more arms into the region, either through the resolutions or other means like must-pass defense funding legislation at the end of the year.
It’s also possible they will largely target one part of the huge UAE deal — the bombs and missiles — and a win a vote on two of their resolutions rather than all four, another Democratic aide told HuffPost. “People who support the Abraham Accords see the [F-35 jets and drones] as part of it, whereas the munitions is more, like, they got a bunch of them recently.”
The broadly shared desire to advance some kind of check is undeniable.
Nassif of Amnesty International, who said he has discussed the UAE’s activities with at least 35 congressional offices over the last two weeks, described increasing skepticism in Congress over the Arab country’s handling of U.S. expertise, weaponry and support, particularly following reports of extremists obtaining arms through the Emiratis.
Advertisement
“The tone on Capitol Hill has changed on the UAE and I think people are wanting to hold them accountable,” Nassif said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Twitter Reminds Matt Gaetz Of 'Lock Her Up' After He Slams Calls For Jailing Trump

“ Lock her up ” began trending Thursday on Twitter after Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-Fla. ) tweeted that Democrats were obsessed with throwing President Donald Trump and his family in prison , seemingly forgetting that Trump had called for imprisoning his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton during his 2016 presidential campaign .
Gaetz — who raised eyebrows online last week by posting a series of inappropriate emojis in a reply to a photo tweeted by Tiffany Trump — highlighted a tweet by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. ( D-N.J. ) calling for the prosecution of Trump and outgoing members of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump , argued that the president had committed “ innumerable crimes ” and needed to be investigated by the Department of Justice .
This is now the Left ’ s goal - throw President Trump , his administration officials , his family and his supporters in prison .
This is where we are now .
Disgusting .
https : //t.co/ryYHTjoBdr — Matt Gaetz ( @ mattgaetz ) November 18 , 2020 Gaetz ’ s rant quickly drew replies from those who remembered Trump ’ s insistent refrain in 2016 that Clinton should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state under the Barack Obama administration .
“ Lock her up ” became a common chant at Trump ’ s rallies at the time , and endured even after Trump won the election and claimed that he had only played up his threat against Clinton for show .
During Trump ’ s reelection campaign in September , supporters of the president switched the chant into “ lock him up ” after Trump insisted that Obama had been “ caught spying on my campaign.
” The three words have also been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health advice has increasingly been at odds with Trump ’ s administration .
The crowd that made `` LOCK HER UP '' a thing needs to sit back , STFU , and watch while we actually LOCK HIM UP .
OK , Rick ?
https : //t.co/ybiEw3iNhP — BrooklynDad_Defiant !
( @ mmpadellan ) November 19 , 2020 I 'm so old , I remember chants of `` Lock her up !
Lock her up ! ''
from Trump 's campaign .
I remember Trump campaign rallies chanting to lock up Anthony Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or as Trump calls you : Rick .
https : //t.co/yGTeaXGKxw — Karl W. Lewis 🏴☠ ( @ TheKarlWLewis ) November 19 , 2020 Trump and his cult followers spent the past four years chanting “ Lock Her Up ” with no indictment or trial needed .
Now they ’ ve got their panties in a bunch at the idea that Trump and his family be held accountable by investigation and lawful prosecution.pic.twitter.com/0c1JBCt7Py https : //t.co/kU03lKwyN6 — Keith Boykin ( @ keithboykin ) November 19 , 2020 After more than 4 years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are butt hurt over the prospect of Trump and his Administration possibly having to answer for their actions .
Cry me a river .
— W. M. ( @ Minuteman04 ) November 19 , 2020 Notably , Chelsea Clinton tweeted on Sunday that even in 2020 , Trump supporters were still gathering outside her parents ’ house demanding that her mother be locked up .
The former first daughter wrote that she hoped they were wearing masks .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“Lock her up” began trending Thursday on Twitter after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) tweeted that Democrats were obsessed with throwing President Donald Trump and his family in prison, seemingly forgetting that Trump had called for imprisoning his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Gaetz — who raised eyebrows online last week by posting a series of inappropriate emojis in a reply to a photo tweeted by Tiffany Trump — highlighted a tweet by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) calling for the prosecution of Trump and outgoing members of his administration.
Advertisement
Pascrell, a vehement critic of Trump, argued that the president had committed “innumerable crimes” and needed to be investigated by the Department of Justice.
“This is where we are now,” Gaetz wrote. “Disgusting.”
This is now the Left’s goal - throw President Trump, his administration officials, his family and his supporters in prison.
This is where we are now. Disgusting. https://t.co/ryYHTjoBdr — Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) November 18, 2020
Gaetz’s rant quickly drew replies from those who remembered Trump’s insistent refrain in 2016 that Clinton should be imprisoned for her alleged misdoings as secretary of state under the Barack Obama administration.
“Lock her up” became a common chant at Trump’s rallies at the time, and endured even after Trump won the election and claimed that he had only played up his threat against Clinton for show.
Advertisement
During Trump’s reelection campaign in September, supporters of the president switched the chant into “lock him up” after Trump insisted that Obama had been “caught spying on my campaign.” The three words have also been used against Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose public health advice has increasingly been at odds with Trump’s administration.
The crowd that made "LOCK HER UP" a thing needs to sit back, STFU, and watch while we actually LOCK HIM UP.
OK, Rick? https://t.co/ybiEw3iNhP — BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) November 19, 2020
... Trump’s campaign motto was literally chanting “lock her up” you sanctimonious swine. https://t.co/i1bZdWkeBZ — Dave Simon (@hairyhilarity) November 19, 2020
I'm so old, I remember chants of "Lock her up! Lock her up!" from Trump's campaign. I remember Trump campaign rallies chanting to lock up Anthony Fauci. Fsck you, @mattgaetz, or as Trump calls you: Rick. https://t.co/yGTeaXGKxw — Karl W. Lewis 🏴☠ (@TheKarlWLewis) November 19, 2020
More fucking proof that irony is dead from the LOCK HER UP crowd. https://t.co/Zg4voJwvTm — Holly Figueroa O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) November 19, 2020
Advertisement
Trump and his cult followers spent the past four years chanting “Lock Her Up” with no indictment or trial needed.
Now they’ve got their panties in a bunch at the idea that Trump and his family be held accountable by investigation and lawful prosecution.pic.twitter.com/0c1JBCt7Py https://t.co/kU03lKwyN6 — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) November 19, 2020
After more than 4 years of "Lock her Up!", Republicans are butt hurt over the prospect of Trump and his Administration possibly having to answer for their actions. Cry me a river. — W. M. (@Minuteman04) November 19, 2020
Notably, Chelsea Clinton tweeted on Sunday that even in 2020, Trump supporters were still gathering outside her parents’ house demanding that her mother be locked up.
The former first daughter wrote that she hoped they were wearing masks.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Lara Trump May Run For Senator From North Carolina In 2022: N.Y. Times

Donald Trump ’ s daughter-in-law Lara Trump may be the next member of the family to run for office , according to The New York Times .
The paper reported that Eric Trump ’ s wife told associates that she is considering a run for the U.S. Senate to represent North Carolina in 2022 .
Republican Sen. Richard Burr currently occupies the seat but earlier announced that he will retire when his term ends in two years .
The race to fill the seat is expected to be competitive .
High-profile candidates such as current White House chief of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the job .
There are other issues as well .
Lara Trump ’ s only political experience is related to working on Donald Trump ’ s campaign .
In addition , she was born in Wilmington , North Carolina , but currently lives in Westchester , New York , with her husband and children .
Still , Trump surrogates Mercedes Schlapp and Kellyanne Conway both praised Lara Trump ’ s skills as a retail politician in comments to the Times .
The former “ Inside Edition ” producer was often tasked during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red meat to his base on various television news shows .
She accused Joe Biden of cognitive decline on CNN last month , leading Jake Tapper to abruptly cut her interview short .
Lara Trump did not comment to the Times in its story .
HuffPost reached out to Lara Trump for comment .
She did not immediately respond .
If Lara Trump does run , it will be a good test if any Trump other than Donald can win an election .
Her husband , Eric Trump , reportedly has no interest @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump may be the next member of the family to run for office, according to The New York Times.
The paper reported that Eric Trump’s wife told associates that she is considering a run for the U.S. Senate to represent North Carolina in 2022.
Advertisement
Republican Sen. Richard Burr currently occupies the seat but earlier announced that he will retire when his term ends in two years.
The race to fill the seat is expected to be competitive. High-profile candidates such as current White House chief of staff Mark Meadows are also reportedly considering running for the job.
There are other issues as well. Lara Trump’s only political experience is related to working on Donald Trump’s campaign. In addition, she was born in Wilmington, North Carolina, but currently lives in Westchester, New York, with her husband and children.
Still, Trump surrogates Mercedes Schlapp and Kellyanne Conway both praised Lara Trump’s skills as a retail politician in comments to the Times.
Advertisement
The former “Inside Edition” producer was often tasked during the president’s campaign with throwing red meat to his base on various television news shows.
She accused Joe Biden of cognitive decline on CNN last month, leading Jake Tapper to abruptly cut her interview short.
Lara Trump did not comment to the Times in its story.
HuffPost reached out to Lara Trump for comment. She did not immediately respond.
If Lara Trump does run, it will be a good test if any Trump other than Donald can win an election. Her husband, Eric Trump, reportedly has no interest in politics.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--White House Plans In-Person Holiday Parties As COVID-19 Cases Rise

The White House plans to host its annual Hanukkah reception next month , even as coronavirus cases are on the rise around the country .
The reception is scheduled for 3 p.m. on Dec. 9 , according to a copy of the invitation , which was shared with HuffPost by the recipient .
There were no instructions included about special coronavirus precautions .
The White House is also planning its Christmas party , looking at Dec. 10 as a potential date , according to a GOP source on the Hill .
The White House did not immediately return a request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement any safety measures .
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency first reported on the Hanukkah event .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out new guidelines Thursday , stating that “ postponing travel and staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others this year.
” Typically , hundreds of people ― from all over the country ― attend White House holiday receptions .
The White House has shown little interest in taking steps to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
President Donald Trump ’ s Rose Garden ceremony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court in September became a “ superspreader event.
” Many of the 150 guests did not wear masks or practice social distancing .
Shortly after , a number of people who attended became sick .
Even after Trump contracted the coronavirus , officials refused to require that staff wear masks at work .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The White House plans to host its annual Hanukkah reception next month, even as coronavirus cases are on the rise around the country.
The reception is scheduled for 3 p.m. on Dec. 9, according to a copy of the invitation, which was shared with HuffPost by the recipient. There were no instructions included about special coronavirus precautions.
Advertisement
The White House is also planning its Christmas party, looking at Dec. 10 as a potential date, according to a GOP source on the Hill.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on whether officials plan to implement any safety measures. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency first reported on the Hanukkah event.
A crowded scene from the White House's 2018 Hanukkah party. Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out new guidelines Thursday, stating that “postponing travel and staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others this year.”
Advertisement
Typically, hundreds of people ― from all over the country ― attend White House holiday receptions.
The White House has shown little interest in taking steps to slow the spread of the coronavirus. President Donald Trump’s Rose Garden ceremony to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in September became a “superspreader event.” Many of the 150 guests did not wear masks or practice social distancing. Shortly after, a number of people who attended became sick.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-20--Joe Biden Turns 78, Will Be Oldest U.S. President

As he wrestles with those issues , Biden will be attempting to accomplish another feat : demonstrate to Americans that age is but a number and he ’ s up to the job .
The age and health of both Biden and President Donald Trump ― less than four years Biden ’ s junior — loomed throughout a race that was decided by a younger and more diverse electorate and at a moment when the nation is facing no shortage of issues of consequence .
“ It ’ s crucial that he and his staff put himself in the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express what he wants with a crispness that ’ s not always been his strength , ” said Ross Baker , a political scientist at Rutgers University who has advised legislators from both parties .
“ He has got to build up credibility with the American people that he ’ s physically and mentally up to the job.
” Throughout the campaign , Trump , 74 , didn ’ t miss a chance to highlight Biden ’ s gaffes and argue that the Democrat lacked the mental acuity to lead the nation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried that he was sending the wrong message about his stamina by keeping a relatively light public schedule while Trump barnstormed battleground states .
Biden attributed his light schedule to being cautious during the coronavirus pandemic .
Some of Biden ’ s rivals in the Democratic primary also made a case on age ― while skipping Trump ’ s vitriol ― by raising the question of whether someone of Biden ’ s and Trump ’ s generation was the right person to lead a nation dealing with issues like climate change and racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory speech was poignant , and his empathy showed in a virtual discussion that he held earlier this week with frontline healthcare workers .
The president-elect ’ s experience ― a combination of age and nearly 50 years in politics ― conveys more clearly through the prism of governing than the chaos of campaigning , he said .
Biden ’ s relatively advanced age also puts a greater premium on the quality of his staff , Baker said .
His choice of Sen. Kamala Harris , nearly 20 years younger than him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age issue .
Biden has described himself as a transitional president but hasn ’ t ruled out running for a second term .
“ He ’ s well served in making it known from Day One that she ’ s ready to go , ” Baker said of Harris .
“ She ’ s got to be in the images coming out of the White House .
They also need to , in terms of their messaging , highlight her inclusion in whatever the important issue or debate is going on in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin O ’ Connor , in a medical report released by the campaign in December , described Biden as “ healthy , vigorous ... fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency , to include those as Chief Executive , Head of State and Commander in Chief.
” In 1988 , Biden suffered two life-threatening brain aneurysms , an experience that he wrote in his memoir shaped him into the “ kind of man I want to be.
” O ’ Connor also noted in his report that Biden has an irregular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any medication or other treatment .
He also had his gall bladder removed in 2003 .
A September article by a group of researchers in the Journal on Active Aging concluded that both Biden and Trump are “ super-agers ” and are likely to outlive their American contemporaries and maintain their health beyond the end of the next presidential term .
Reagan made sure the public saw him chopping wood and riding horses .
Trump , after being diagnosed with the coronavirus , quickly returned to a busy campaign schedule ― holding dozens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final weeks of the campaign .
Those events flouted coronavirus guidelines on social distancing , wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As he wrestles with those issues, Biden will be attempting to accomplish another feat: demonstrate to Americans that age is but a number and he’s up to the job.
Advertisement
Biden will be sworn in as the oldest president in the nation’s history, displacing Ronald Reagan, who left the White House in 1989 when he was 77 years and 349 days old.
The age and health of both Biden and President Donald Trump ― less than four years Biden’s junior — loomed throughout a race that was decided by a younger and more diverse electorate and at a moment when the nation is facing no shortage of issues of consequence.
Out of the gate, Biden will be keen to demonstrate he’s got the vigor to serve.
“It’s crucial that he and his staff put himself in the position early in his presidency where he can express what he wants with a crispness that’s not always been his strength,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University who has advised legislators from both parties. “He has got to build up credibility with the American people that he’s physically and mentally up to the job.”
Throughout the campaign, Trump, 74, didn’t miss a chance to highlight Biden’s gaffes and argue that the Democrat lacked the mental acuity to lead the nation. Both critics and some backers of Biden worried that he was sending the wrong message about his stamina by keeping a relatively light public schedule while Trump barnstormed battleground states. Biden attributed his light schedule to being cautious during the coronavirus pandemic.
Advertisement
Some of Biden’s rivals in the Democratic primary also made a case on age ― while skipping Trump’s vitriol ― by raising the question of whether someone of Biden’s and Trump’s generation was the right person to lead a nation dealing with issues like climate change and racial inequality.
Brian Ott, a Missouri State University communications professor who studies presidential rhetoric, said Biden was hardly impressive as a campaigner, but has proven far more effective with his public remarks since Election Day.
Ott said Biden’s victory speech was poignant, and his empathy showed in a virtual discussion that he held earlier this week with frontline healthcare workers. The president-elect’s experience ― a combination of age and nearly 50 years in politics ― conveys more clearly through the prism of governing than the chaos of campaigning, he said.
“The rhetoric of governing, unlike the rhetoric of campaigning, is collaborative rather than adversarial,” Ott said.
Biden’s relatively advanced age also puts a greater premium on the quality of his staff, Baker said. His choice of Sen. Kamala Harris, nearly 20 years younger than him, as his running mate effectively acknowledged his age issue. Biden has described himself as a transitional president but hasn’t ruled out running for a second term.
Advertisement
“He’s well served in making it known from Day One that she’s ready to go,” Baker said of Harris. “She’s got to be in the images coming out of the White House. They also need to, in terms of their messaging, highlight her inclusion in whatever the important issue or debate is going on in the White House.”
Biden, in a September interview with CNN, promised to be “totally transparent” about all facets of his health if elected but he hasn’t said how he’ll do that.
The campaign has made the case that Biden isn’t your average septuagenarian.
His physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, in a medical report released by the campaign in December, described Biden as “healthy, vigorous ... fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency, to include those as Chief Executive, Head of State and Commander in Chief.”
O’Connor reported that Biden works out five days a week. The president-elect told supporters that during the pandemic he has relied on home workouts involving a Peloton bike, treadmill and weights.
In 1988, Biden suffered two life-threatening brain aneurysms, an experience that he wrote in his memoir shaped him into the “kind of man I want to be.” O’Connor also noted in his report that Biden has an irregular heartbeat, but it has not required any medication or other treatment. He also had his gall bladder removed in 2003.
Advertisement
A September article by a group of researchers in the Journal on Active Aging concluded that both Biden and Trump are “super-agers” and are likely to outlive their American contemporaries and maintain their health beyond the end of the next presidential term.
Some of Biden’s White House predecessors left behind breadcrumbs about the dos and don’ts of demonstrating presidential vigor, said Edward Frantz, a presidential historian at the University of Indianapolis.
Reagan made sure the public saw him chopping wood and riding horses. Trump, after being diagnosed with the coronavirus, quickly returned to a busy campaign schedule ― holding dozens of crowded rallies in battleground states in the final weeks of the campaign. Those events flouted coronavirus guidelines on social distancing, wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings.
In 1841, William Harrison, 68, attempted to show off his vigor by delivering a lengthy inaugural address without a coat or hat. Weeks later, Harrison, then the oldest president elected in U.S. history, developed a cold that turned into pneumonia that would kill him just a month into his presidency. It’s disputed whether Harrison’s illness was related to his inaugural address.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Michigan Canvassers Try To Rescind Votes Certifying Biden Win After Trump Calls Them

Two Republican canvassers in Michigan ’ s largest county are attempting to rescind their votes certifying that Joe Biden won there after President Donald Trump personally called them , The Associated Press reported .
Monica Palmer and William Hartmann , who represent half of the four-member Wayne County canvassing board , initially refused to certify the election results on Tuesday ― an unprecedented move ― despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud .
They quickly backtracked , voting later that day to certify the results .
Trump reportedly reached out to Palmer and Hartmann later that night after the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two GOP canvassers say they want to rescind their votes .
The president ’ s decision to call them and the canvassers efforts to walk back their votes drew swift backlash from some election and law experts , who raised questions regarding the legality and ethics of it all .
Biden won nearly 70 % of the votes in Wayne County , a Democratic stronghold that includes Detroit .
But Trump and his allies have falsely declared victory in the state .
Trump has baselessly claimed there was widespread voter fraud in Detroit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FAR MORE VOTES THAN PEOPLE ” in the city .
( That ’ s false : More than 670,000 people live in Detroit .
The city said a little more than 250,000 ballots were cast there . )
Palmer and Hartmann have said they decided to vote in favor of certification after facing backlash and accusations of being racist over their initial opposition .
( The two canvassers are white .
Detroit ’ s population is 75 % Black . )
In two affidavits signed Wednesday , Palmer and Hartmann sought to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they believe the results “ should not be certified.
” The Trump campaign on Thursday withdrew a federal lawsuit it had filed to stop the certification of results in Wayne County .
In a statement , Trump campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani said the campaign did so because the certification process had stopped , citing the two affidavits .
“ There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote , ” Tracy Wimmer , a spokeswoman for Michigan ’ s top election official , Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson , told The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the county canvassers ’ “ job is done ” and that the board of state canvassers would meet Monday to certify the results .
Palmer denied in an interview with The Washington Post that Trump pressured her to rescind her vote , which she attempted to do hours after speaking with him .
“ He was checking in to make sure I was safe after hearing the threats and doxxing that had occurred , ” Palmer said , adding that his concern about her safety was “ really touching.
” Palmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to describe the phone call when asked if she discussed the presidential vote count with Trump .
Trump has refused to concede the election to Biden , despite virtually all major media networks projecting Biden the winner .
Several world leaders and some Republican lawmakers have congratulated Biden on his victory .
The Trump campaign has filed multiple lawsuits in several states alleging voter fraud and ballot-counting irregularities but has provided no evidence of widespread issues .
Multiple judges have thrown out some of the lawsuits , and top election officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, who represent half of the four-member Wayne County canvassing board, initially refused to certify the election results on Tuesday ― an unprecedented move ― despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud. They quickly backtracked, voting later that day to certify the results.
Advertisement
Trump reportedly reached out to Palmer and Hartmann later that night after the board certified the results. Now, the two GOP canvassers say they want to rescind their votes.
The president’s decision to call them and the canvassers efforts to walk back their votes drew swift backlash from some election and law experts, who raised questions regarding the legality and ethics of it all.
“This is an utterly brazen attack on our democracy,” tweeted Josh Douglas, an election law and voting rights professor at the University of Kentucky.
Deepak Gupta, a lawyer and Harvard Law School lecturer, called Trump’s actions “truly shocking.”
“A new low for American constitutional democracy, one that would have been unthinkable just five years ago,” Gupta tweeted.
Advertisement
Biden won nearly 70% of the votes in Wayne County, a Democratic stronghold that includes Detroit. But Trump and his allies have falsely declared victory in the state. Trump has baselessly claimed there was widespread voter fraud in Detroit, alleging Wednesday that there were “FAR MORE VOTES THAN PEOPLE” in the city. (That’s false: More than 670,000 people live in Detroit. The city said a little more than 250,000 ballots were cast there.)
Palmer and Hartmann have said they decided to vote in favor of certification after facing backlash and accusations of being racist over their initial opposition. (The two canvassers are white. Detroit’s population is 75% Black.)
In two affidavits signed Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann sought to “rescind” their votes, saying that they believe the results “should not be certified.”
The Trump campaign on Thursday withdrew a federal lawsuit it had filed to stop the certification of results in Wayne County. In a statement, Trump campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani said the campaign did so because the certification process had stopped, citing the two affidavits.
Michigan election officials balked at the canvassers’ efforts.
“There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote,” Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for Michigan’s top election official, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told The New York Times on Thursday.
Advertisement
Wimmer said that the county canvassers’ “job is done” and that the board of state canvassers would meet Monday to certify the results.
Palmer denied in an interview with The Washington Post that Trump pressured her to rescind her vote, which she attempted to do hours after speaking with him.
“He was checking in to make sure I was safe after hearing the threats and doxxing that had occurred,” Palmer said, adding that his concern about her safety was “really touching.”
Palmer told the Post it was “hard” to describe the phone call when asked if she discussed the presidential vote count with Trump.
Trump has refused to concede the election to Biden, despite virtually all major media networks projecting Biden the winner. Several world leaders and some Republican lawmakers have congratulated Biden on his victory.
Advertisement
The Trump campaign has filed multiple lawsuits in several states alleging voter fraud and ballot-counting irregularities but has provided no evidence of widespread issues. Multiple judges have thrown out some of the lawsuits, and top election officials have rejected the campaign’s claims.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Democratic Senators Split On Wiping Out Student Loan Debt

Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images It ’ s not known if President-elect Joe Biden views broad and unilateral elimination of student loan debt as legally feasible , politically smart or good policy .
Democratic senators are split on whether President-elect Joe Biden should move unilaterally to wipe out student debt upon taking office , a possible reflection of both how far progressives are from persuading the incoming administration to fully embrace their agenda and how uncertain the party is about what Biden will be able to accomplish .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both pushed for Biden to instruct the secretary of education to wipe out billions of dollars worth of student debt ― up to $ 50,000 per borrower ― on his first day in office , aiming to provide an immediate jolt to an economy still sputtering its way through the coronavirus pandemic .
Eleven other Senate Democrats have backed Schumer and Warren ’ s resolution .
It ’ s unknown if Biden , who has embraced a more limited vision of reducing student debt as part of a legislative proposal to fire up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally feasible , politically smart or good policy .
With control of the Senate still unsettled and with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) so far declining to acknowledge Biden ’ s victory , the feasibility of many of Biden ’ s boldest proposals remains up in the air .
( Republicans are set to have a majority in the upper chamber next year unless Democrats can sweep a pair of January runoff elections in Georgia . )
The intra-Democratic argument over eliminating student loan debt ― and more broadly about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to recur again and again during Biden ’ s administration , with progressives arguing that bolder action will improve the economy and spur enthusiasm for Democrats and moderates fretting about alienating persuadable centrist voters .
Eliminating student loan debt is not the only way progressives are pushing for Biden to stimulate the economy on his first day in office , with or without Congress ’ help .
In a Washington Post op-ed published last week , Warren also suggested that he move to lower prices for prescription drugs ; declare a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could free up money for green energy projects ; and raise the minimum wage to $ 15 for employees of federal contractors .
“ I think he should lead off with the mother of all executive orders to clear the decks for the work that needs to follow , ” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-R.I. ) .
“ The more he can clear with an early executive order , the quicker we can work together on other bipartisan or controversial issues.
” “ I think it ’ s preferable to do something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Casey said , echoing Biden ’ s own wish to work with congressional Republicans .
Then the senator quickly followed up by embracing progressives ’ overall goal : “ If he has the authority , sure .
That would be great for a lot of students.
” During a press conference Monday , Biden answered a question about student debt relief by reiterating the position he has held since March : He supports legislation to immediately forgive $ 10,000 worth of debt per person and to eliminate all undergraduate student debt for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year and who attended public or historically Black colleges and universities .
Roughly 45 million Americans have a combined $ 1.5 trillion worth of student debt , owing a median amount of $ 17,000 with a median payment of just over $ 200 a month .
The nation ’ s collective debt burden has grown in recent years , the result of both cuts in state support for public universities and spiraling administrative costs .
The crisis has exacerbated the racial wealth gap , with Black students often borrowing far more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a vested interest in keeping Joe Biden ’ s accomplishments low so that enthusiasm and popularity is low headed into the midterms , ” Green said .
“ But something bold ― like forgiving student debt during this coronavirus crisis ― could capture the imagination of voters and put Democrats firmly on the side of regular people , which is where the Biden administration wants to be.
” On the other hand , Lanae Erickson , a senior vice president at the moderate Democratic group Third Way , said the party should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the college-educated ― which she said could further alienate working-class voters drifting away from the party and do little to help the most vulnerable .
“ It ’ s clear the education gap is bigger than ever .
If Democrats want to win back non-college voters in the future , then spending all of your political capital on helping people with higher education isn ’ t a smart idea , ” Erickson said .
“ It will only reinforce the perception that Democrats only care about the elite.
” Progressives are skeptical that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a college degree , arguing that any plan to wipe out student debt would likely be paired with other actions to boost the broader economy .
Warren and Schumer ’ s resolution calls for the president to make sure the benefits don ’ t accrue to the “ wealthiest ” borrowers .
Most Democrats did not question whether Biden ’ s administration would have the ability to unilaterally act on student debt .
Warren and other supporters of the idea have long said the secretary of education has broad authority over loans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that authority to suspend interest and payments during the pandemic .

It’s not known if President-elect Joe Biden views broad and unilateral elimination of student loan debt as legally feasible, politically smart or good policy. Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Democratic senators are split on whether President-elect Joe Biden should move unilaterally to wipe out student debt upon taking office, a possible reflection of both how far progressives are from persuading the incoming administration to fully embrace their agenda and how uncertain the party is about what Biden will be able to accomplish.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both pushed for Biden to instruct the secretary of education to wipe out billions of dollars worth of student debt ― up to $50,000 per borrower ― on his first day in office, aiming to provide an immediate jolt to an economy still sputtering its way through the coronavirus pandemic. Eleven other Senate Democrats have backed Schumer and Warren’s resolution.
Advertisement
It’s unknown if Biden, who has embraced a more limited vision of reducing student debt as part of a legislative proposal to fire up the economy, views their plan as legally feasible, politically smart or good policy. With control of the Senate still unsettled and with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) so far declining to acknowledge Biden’s victory, the feasibility of many of Biden’s boldest proposals remains up in the air. (Republicans are set to have a majority in the upper chamber next year unless Democrats can sweep a pair of January runoff elections in Georgia.)
The intra-Democratic argument over eliminating student loan debt ― and more broadly about pursuing unilateral action on the economy ― is likely to recur again and again during Biden’s administration, with progressives arguing that bolder action will improve the economy and spur enthusiasm for Democrats and moderates fretting about alienating persuadable centrist voters.
Eliminating student loan debt is not the only way progressives are pushing for Biden to stimulate the economy on his first day in office, with or without Congress’ help. In a Washington Post op-ed published last week, Warren also suggested that he move to lower prices for prescription drugs; declare a national emergency on climate change, which could free up money for green energy projects; and raise the minimum wage to $15 for employees of federal contractors.
“I think he should lead off with the mother of all executive orders to clear the decks for the work that needs to follow,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “The more he can clear with an early executive order, the quicker we can work together on other bipartisan or controversial issues.”
Advertisement
Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, was far more skeptical and suggested that Biden should focus instead on renewing Trump-era suspensions of student loan payments that are set to expire in the new year.
“That would have enormous fiscal consequences,” King said of eliminating student debt. “I don’t think forgiveness altogether [makes sense].”
But it was Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a close ally of Biden’s, who may have best summed up the dilemma facing the incoming president.
“I think it’s preferable to do something that’s bipartisan but statutory,” Casey said, echoing Biden’s own wish to work with congressional Republicans. Then the senator quickly followed up by embracing progressives’ overall goal: “If he has the authority, sure. That would be great for a lot of students.”
During a press conference Monday, Biden answered a question about student debt relief by reiterating the position he has held since March: He supports legislation to immediately forgive $10,000 worth of debt per person and to eliminate all undergraduate student debt for people who make less than $125,000 a year and who attended public or historically Black colleges and universities.
Advertisement
“It’s holding people up,” Biden said of young adults dealing with debt. “They’re in real trouble. They’re having to make choices between paying their student loan and paying the rent, those kinds of decisions. It should be done immediately.”
Biden has also proposed making public colleges tuition-free for families with incomes of less than $125,000 a year, expanding Pell Grants for low-income students, fixing the federal government’s massively dysfunctional loan forgiveness program for those with public service jobs, and creating more generous income-based repayment plans for student loan borrowers.
Roughly 45 million Americans have a combined $1.5 trillion worth of student debt, owing a median amount of $17,000 with a median payment of just over $200 a month. The nation’s collective debt burden has grown in recent years, the result of both cuts in state support for public universities and spiraling administrative costs. The crisis has exacerbated the racial wealth gap, with Black students often borrowing far more than their white counterparts.
Progressive groups are eyeing Biden’s actions on student loans as an early test, suggesting action would amount to a “show of good faith,” in the words of Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green.
“Mitch McConnell has a vested interest in keeping Joe Biden’s accomplishments low so that enthusiasm and popularity is low headed into the midterms,” Green said. “But something bold ― like forgiving student debt during this coronavirus crisis ― could capture the imagination of voters and put Democrats firmly on the side of regular people, which is where the Biden administration wants to be.”
Advertisement
On the other hand, Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at the moderate Democratic group Third Way, said the party should be wary of focusing on aid for the college-educated ― which she said could further alienate working-class voters drifting away from the party and do little to help the most vulnerable.
“It’s clear the education gap is bigger than ever. If Democrats want to win back non-college voters in the future, then spending all of your political capital on helping people with higher education isn’t a smart idea,” Erickson said. “It will only reinforce the perception that Democrats only care about the elite.”
Public surveys have generally shown narrow majorities or pluralities of Americans in favor of wiping out student debt, with results often depending on a pollster’s specific wording.
Progressives are skeptical that there would be widespread backlash from voters without a college degree, arguing that any plan to wipe out student debt would likely be paired with other actions to boost the broader economy. Warren and Schumer’s resolution calls for the president to make sure the benefits don’t accrue to the “wealthiest” borrowers.
Most Democrats did not question whether Biden’s administration would have the ability to unilaterally act on student debt. Warren and other supporters of the idea have long said the secretary of education has broad authority over loans and noted the Trump administration relied on that authority to suspend interest and payments during the pandemic.
Advertisement
Republicans are far more skeptical that Biden could unilaterally wipe out student loan debt, a proposal they generally oppose.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, questioned “the legal argument” that a president has for forgiving student loan debt via executive order. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called student loans “a big problem in this country,” but expressed caution about doing something that could have “unintended consequences.”
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), another Banking Committee member, said he flatly opposed forgiving student loans.
“What about all the other categories of debt that would not just be forgiven? What about the fact that some kids that borrow money come from very affluent families? You’re going to forgive their loans too? That doesn’t make sense to me,” Toomey told HuffPost.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-11-19--Why 'Defund The Police' Attacks Were So Potent Against Democrats

John Nacion/Getty Images A protester in New York City wears a face mask calling to `` Defund Police . ''
@ @ @ @ @ the subject of fierce debate among Democrats .

A protester in New York City wears a face mask calling to "Defund Police." The activist cry is now the subject of fierce debate among Democrats. John Nacion/Getty Images
This time, Emily Skopov thought she had a good shot at winning a state legislative seat in Pennsylvania.
A former TV screenwriter in the North Hills just outside Pittsburgh, Skopov first ran in 2018 and had a surprisingly competitive showing against the Republican state House speaker. Now she had more experience as a campaigner, and she was going for an open seat. Democratic Party leaders eyed her as part of their plan to take over the state House this cycle.
Advertisement
Skopov ended up losing by eight percentage points ― a similar margin to her loss two years ago, even though she enjoyed a fundraising advantage over her Republican opponent, Rob Mercuri.
She has no doubt what doomed her campaign: her association with the “defund the police” slogan. “I don’t think the role that it played can be overstated,” she said. “It was unexpected that it was so huge.”
Like many other Democrats, Skopov clearly has been moved by the growing outcry against racist policing and police brutality, and she spoke in support of a group of local public school graduates who want the county school board to adopt “anti-racist” practices, such as a greater commitment to diverse hiring.
#BlackLivesMatter can't continue to be an afterthought in PA. Our legislators must prioritize racial equity & restorative justice in all sectors. Black women still only make .62 for every $1 a white man earns. It's past time for economic, enviro & social justice in PA #palegchat https://t.co/pPX2ZIMNRY — Emily Skopov (@EmilySkopovPA) August 12, 2020
Advertisement
But after consulting with a range of people in her district, including Black and Latino families, she found widespread opposition to efforts to reduce funding for their suburban police departments. And she said she believes it is up to every community to determine how they want to allocate their resources.
Skopov nonetheless endured relentless claims that she supported “defunding” the police. Mercuri seized on Skopov’s signature on the policy “pledge” by the national group Future Now, which outlines a series of broad progressive principles and had the support of more than 1,000 Democratic legislative candidates. The pledge itself only commits signers to ending “mass incarceration” and racial profiling, but Future Now’s library of model legislation includes a proposal to “improve public safety by reinvesting policing savings in community-based and prevention programs” that Republicans spun as “defund the police” by another name.
“We used ‘defund the police’ everywhere in everything we did,” said Mark Harris, a Pittsburgh-based GOP strategist who worked with Mercuri and other state legislative candidates across the country. “That sort of stuff is toxic in the suburbs.”
One of Mercuri’s attack ads against Skopov tied her supposed support for defunding the police to her work as a screenwriter, saying her “Hollywood politics” were “extreme.”
The attacks, which reached voters in multiple formats, succeeded in defining her in a negative light with the moderates she needed to win, according to Skopov. In phone calls and doorstep conversations with Republicans and independents, she was at pains to disabuse voters that she backed “defund the police,” she recalled.
Advertisement
“Most folks didn’t even ask the question, ‘Do you want to?’” she said. “It was already assumed.”
Future Now co-founder and executive director Daniel Squadron said in a statement that Democrats up and down the ballot “faced dishonest and often racist attacks on positions they did not hold.
“Lies tend to be as effective as they are credible, and for local candidates the lack of media focus and not being able to knock on doors made it harder to dispose of this trash in the garbage can where it belongs,” Squadron continued.
Emily Skopov, a Democrat who lost a bid for a state House seat in suburban Pittsburgh, said she believes that the "defund the police" slogan undermined her campaign, even though she didn't support it. Elect Emily 4 PA/Facebook
Democrats in competitive congressional races have been sounding similar notes, prompting a national discussion about the political costs and benefits of some progressive rhetoric. In a House Democratic caucus conference call two days after the Nov. 3 election, Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat and former CIA analyst who won a tight race, said “defund the police” was the top issue voters brought up with her. She blamed her progressive colleagues and activists for pushing it so heavily.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the left-wing New York Democrat who was the thinly veiled subject of this centrist sniping, and her ideological comrades have fought back, arguing that some party members are scapegoating a progressive wing that it needs to win elections in lieu of reckoning with their own strategic and philosophical failings.
Advertisement
The “defund the police” message opened down-ballot Democratic candidates up to attack from Republicans. But it wasn’t just a vulnerability because progressive lawmakers and organizations amplified it, as some more moderate Democrats have claimed. Multiple factors ― including right-wing distortions, a lack of other Democratic messaging and President-elect Joe Biden’s ability to circumvent the whole debate ― amplified its effectiveness.
“The Democratic establishment got to control their messaging and they shouldn’t blame progressives if they are frustrated with the results,” said Sean McElwee, whose firm Data for Progress conducts polling for left-wing candidates. “Biden’s theme of ‘restoring the soul of the nation,’ at the end of the day, while a very compelling message to defeat President Donald Trump, doesn’t give people a reason to vote for Senate and House Democrats.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who embraced the "defund the police" message, has pushed back against assertions that the slogan is to blame for the underperformance of Democrats in so many down-ballot races. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Among the great majority of its advocates, “defund the police” never meant completely taking away all funding from local law enforcement agencies, as Republicans liked to claim.
Shortly after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, in late May, opponents of racism and police brutality who took to the streets in protests upped their longstanding demands for change. A vocal group of Black Lives Matter activists included a call to “defund the police,” and a minority faction among them used it literally ― as a synonym for zeroing out police funding or abolishing the police altogether.
Advertisement
But most progressives who adopted the slogan meant it as police reform ― a call to shift funding away from law enforcement toward social services of the kind that would reduce violent encounters with police and address the underlying causes of crime. Much in the way that a government with a large military justifies that military’s existence by engaging in unnecessary wars, these activists argued that so, too, cities with overfunded police departments use armed officers in situations when other responses would work better.
Ocasio-Cortez said in June that a country with “defunded police” would look like “a suburb.” To her, likely the most prominent figure to get behind the activist chant, “defunding” means reducing police budgets ― and increasing social spending ― in diverse, mixed-income cities to their levels in whiter, more affluent communities.
Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement of the call reflected a broader mainstreaming of the phrase among Democratic progressives. Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) also endorsed the idea, as did Reps.-elect Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.) and Cori Bush (Mo.).
Officials in New York City and Austin, Texas, framed police budget cuts as a gesture of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, even as they relied on budgetary gimmicks to make changes look bigger than they were.
Advertisement
The Minneapolis City Council tried to go a step further, expressing its will to dismantle its police department and start over.
“What other movement would take a set of policies that an overwhelming number of Americans support and slap an unpopular label on it?” - Danny Barefoot, Democratic campaign consultant
To Maurice Mitchell, a veteran of the Black Lives Matter movement who is now national director of the Working Families Party, the rapid spread of the slogan was a sign of its success.
“The movement for Black lives was and is doing its job by articulating ‘defund the police,’” said Mitchell, whose Twitter avatar still displays a graphic that became common after Floyd’s death and has the phrases “#DefundthePolice #DefendBlackLife.” “It’s one of the reasons that we’re talking about it right now, because of how sharp a demand it is.”
Advertisement
But to Democrats concerned about how Republicans would distort the slogan to paint all of the party’s candidates as radical opponents of police officers as a whole ― one of the more trusted professions in the country ― the trend became a source of consternation. Those concerns grew as police accountability protests gave way to riots in a number of American cities over the summer.
Support for the Black Lives Matter movement in Wisconsin, a key swing state where a police shooting in the summer prompted rioting and retaliatory violence, dropped 13 percentage points ― to 48% ― from June to August.
“I’m not sure why, at any point, we allowed this conversation to be defunding the police and we didn’t just call it police reform,” said Mark Nevins, a Philadelphia-based Democratic strategist. “I’m not even sure I’m 100% clear on what defunding the police means.”
As of June, just 27% of Americans supported “defunding the police,” compared with 57% who opposed it, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll. At the same time, more moderate reforms ― such as banning chokeholds by law officers, creating a federal registry for complaints about police misconduct and developing a national use of force standard ― all had the support of large, bipartisan majorities of Americans.
“What other movement would take a set of policies that an overwhelming number of Americans support and slap an unpopular label on it?” asked Danny Barefoot, a Democratic consultant who worked on some Senate and state legislative races.
Advertisement
Sure enough, Republicans saw an opportunity. Painting Democrats as supporters of “defunding” the police became the focus of campaign literature, TV and digital ads, and live televised debates. That forced Democratic candidates to divert resources that might otherwise be used discussing COVID-19 relief, health care or education to be used disavowing themselves from the slogan and otherwise defending themselves.
Out of 31 broadcast TV ads that Trump and other allied campaign groups used to attack Biden and other Democrats for being soft on law and order, 11 spots ― that aired a total of 77,647 times ― explicitly mentioned “defund the police,” according to an analysis Kantar Media/CMAG conducted for HuffPost. And out of 216 Republican broadcast TV ads in congressional races blasting Democrats, 157 spots that aired 103,000 times used the phrase.
Overall, broadcast TV ads hitting Democrats for their records on policing made up 21% of the total number of Republican presidential campaign ads and 11% of GOP ads in congressional races.
Congressional Democrats and groups supporting them, by contrast, invested in 78 broadcast TV ads ― 4% of the total number of pro-Democratic TV ads in congressional races ― discussing the issues of race and policing that aired 60,000 times. Of that total, just 24 broadcast TV ads ― 1% of the total number of pro-Democratic TV ads in congressional races ― that aired 21,960 times rebutted charges that Democrats wanted to “defund the police,” according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
Advertisement
For Biden, who had a larger budget and a larger presence in the media, the charge was easier to dispense with. Although he never felt the need to address “defund the police” in broadcast TV ads, he used his public platform to make clear where he stood. He proposed a plan to reform policing while increasing law enforcement funding. And Biden’s pre-election remarks flatly condemning rioting in Philadelphia without reference to the police killing that precipitated the unrest was so redolent of 1990s centrist messaging by Democrats, including then-President Bill Clinton, that it angered progressive activists.
The comments ― and Biden’s consistent efforts to distance himself from more radical elements of the Black Lives Matter movement that gained new life after Floyd’s killing ― emerged from his awareness of polling that showed even the slightest suggestion of disrespect for law enforcement or approval of rioting were politically toxic, according to someone familiar with Biden’s thinking.
But down-ballot Democrats were more vulnerable than Biden to charges of sympathy for the “defund the police” slogan. Such a term “puts more Democrats in marginal districts on the defense,” Nevins said.
Whether they lost or prevailed in competitive races, these candidates were forced to rebut usually unfounded claims that they were sympathetic to defunding the police. Even when they successfully dispelled the idea, merely needing to do so was a drain on resources and oxygen that could have been used to amplify their positive messages.
Among Democrats who won tough races, Reps. Conor Lamb (Pa.), Matt Cartwright (Pa.), and Jared Golden (Maine) all cut TV ads formally refuting the suggestion that they want to “defund” the police. Cartwright and Golden enlisted law enforcement officials to help with the task, while Lamb, who accidentally posed with a protester holding a “defund the police” sign at a rally, leaned on his service as a Marine for credibility with voters.
Advertisement
And while Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) fell short in his Senate bid, some Democrats in the state said his investment in a TV ad highlighting his support for law enforcement helped him outperform Biden in the state by more than 6 points. The 30-second spot touted Bullock’s refusal to endorse the national party platform because it called for “reimagining the police” and promised Bullock would fight defunding efforts as a senator.
The spot, which aired 2,336 times, was the second-biggest ad buy addressing the “defund” slogan by any Democratic congressional candidate. (The biggest such ad buy was from Jon Ossoff, the Georgia Democrat headed to a runoff with Sen. David Perdue (R) in January in one of the two such races in the state that will determine control of the Senate.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and the GOP’s Senate campaign arm hit her Democratic opponent, Sara Gideon, in a TV ad for links to a “defund the police” billionaire. The basis for the ad was Gideon’s attendance at a fundraiser hosted by an environmental coalition that includes NextGen America. NextGen, funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, supports defunding the police.
Collins also falsely seized on Gideon’s vote as a state legislator in favor of consolidating two small towns’ police dispatching services as evidence that the Democrat “defunded” the police.
Advertisement
Gideon, who led in virtually every pre-election poll but also was beset by a number of challenges, ended up losing by eight points. Her campaign did not respond to requests for comment about the impact of the “defund the police” allegation on her race.
Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), shown here greeting a supporter of President Donald Trump while on the campaign trail last month, repeatedly touted his opposition to police funding cuts. He lost anyway. Brendan McDermid/Reuters
Broadly speaking, the Democrats successfully targeted by “defund the police” attacks can be divided into two categories: those whose errors gave greater oxygen to their Republican opponents, and those who worked hard to distance themselves from the slogan and still got pegged with it.
An example of the first category is Cameron Webb of Virginia, who lost his race for an open U.S. House seat.
Webb, a Black medical doctor running in a southside Virginia district drawn to favor Republicans, faced a barrage of ads using snippets of video that made him sound like an advocate for defunding. Democrats objected to the characterization, singling out one ad in particular for using racist innuendo, and Webb, whose father was a cop, insisted that he did not support reducing police funding.
Advertisement
He even aired an ad that sought to turn the tables on his opponent, Republican Bob Good, for cutting police funding while serving in county government. Webb still ended up losing by about 5 percentage points.
“The association of some candidates with protest movements probably did open up the possibility of people believing they were for defunding the policies and that was a problem for them,” said Diane Feldman, a Democratic strategist and former pollster. “It becomes more of a problem for candidates of color because people are willing to believe they are part of the far left.”
In other cases, though, there was little that candidates could do to distance themselves from the smear, as Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.) illustrates.
The first-term lawmaker was dogged by charges of association with “defund the police” proponents and lost his reelection bid in his conservative-leaning Staten Island district.
Advertisement
None of it ended up saving Rose, who was down by double digits when he conceded to Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis last week.
“They weren’t attacking us on our voting record,” said Jonas Edwards-Jenks, a spokesperson for Rose’s campaign, who noted that Rose’s vote for the Justice in Policing Act did not come up in Republican ads. “They were attacking us for something he opposed and it did have an impact here.”
But Edwards-Jenks is unsure even if the “defund the police” slogan had never surfaced, Rose would have been spared defeat in a district where the Black Lives Matter movement itself is unpopular and where many active and retired police officers reside.
“It would have been different,” he said. “Would it have made a difference? I don’t know.”
Pennsylvania state Rep. Summer Lee (D) is among those who rejects the idea that activists should tone down their rhetoric. Bastiaan Slabbers/Getty Images
In pushing back against assertions that “defund the police” should bear the blame for Democrats’ disappointing performance in so many of the non-presidential races, progressives say it’s not their job to please the party. They’ve been pressuring Democratic-run cities to deal with racism and police brutality for decades, with limited success, and no evidence has emerged that moderating their tone or demands has served their cause, these activists say.
Advertisement
“Black and brown people are daring to demand ― so vocally ― liberation, safety, protection and equity,” and they are under no obligation to slow or tone down that push to please moderate Democrats, progressive Pennsylvania state Rep. Summer Lee said.
She added, “It becomes very easy to shift the blame instead of doing the introspection about the things that lead up to this.”
Lee, who is Black and ousted a more moderate Democrat in a 2018 primary, has registered her public objection to Skopov’s suggestion that “defund the police” hurt her campaign.
“When you hear moderate Democrats pin their losses on ‘defund’ or the movement for Black lives … it shows how little they care about police violence actually and how little they care about Black death.” - Maurice Mitchell, Working Families Party
Mitchell of the Working Families Party was more explicit. “When you hear moderate Democrats pin their losses on ‘defund’ or the movement for Black lives … it shows how little they care about police violence actually and how little they care about Black death,” he said.
Advertisement
What’s more, Lee, Mitchell and others noted that Democrats were more than happy to capitalize on social movements to foster enthusiasm for their candidates. There’s even evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement helped Democratic candidates in quantifiable ways. The street protests after Floyd’s death corresponded with spikes in youth voter registration in Georgia and California, according to data collected by Target Smart, a Democratic data firm.
And it’s clear that other factors may have played as large of a role ― or larger ― in sinking Democratic fortunes. A dearth of door-to-door canvassing likely hurt numerous candidates; some candidates invested too little in digital advertising; and party leaders, led by Biden, could have stressed a clearer economic message.
Indeed, in a Nov. 10 memo aimed at countering centrist attacks, Justice Democrats, the Sunrise Movement, the think tank Data for Progress and the communications firm New Deal Strategies noted that the economy was the top concern of voters in exit polls.
Democrats “failed to fill the void with anything resembling a coherent economic message,” the memo said.
Still, the left ― as exemplified by Ocasio-Cortez and the Black Lives Matter movement ― punches above its weight in the national press. Sometimes it’s thanks to their social media prowess, but more often it’s involuntary, due to the inordinate attention showered on them by right-wing media outlets. As a result, comments by left-wing figures can shape the public’s perception of the Democratic Party as a whole, just as attention-grabbing Republicans color people’s impressions of GOP lawmakers who are not as strident as the media darlings.
Advertisement
Skopov said she understood that what activists want may not always align with the immediate interests of the Democratic Party. Expressing sympathy for their goals, she also said that if getting more people like her in power is what they want, she would ask them to take her opinion about the political impact of certain tactics under consideration.