thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--House Votes Wednesday To Send Impeachment Articles To Senate

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was meeting privately Tuesday at the Capitol with House Democrats about next steps , ending her blockade almost a month after they voted to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Senate Republicans are signaling they would reject the idea of simply voting to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Trump as he has suggested .
They are considering whether to allow a vote on such a motion to dismiss and another to subpoena testimony from new witnesses .
“ I think our members , generally are not interested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides need to be heard , ” Sen. Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, who is part of the GOP leadership , said Monday .
With the impeachment trial starting in a matter of days , senators are still debating the rules of the proceedings .
GOP senators are conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismiss the charges against the president or to call additional witnesses for testimony .
Romney said he wants to hear from John Bolton , the former national security adviser at the White House , who others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy toward Ukraine being run led by Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
Democrats have been pushing Republicans , who have the majority in the Senate , to consider new testimony , arguing that fresh information has emerged during Pelosi ’ s monthlong delay in transmitting the charges .
McConnell drafting an organizing resolution that will outline the steps ahead .
Approving it will be among the first votes senators take after they are sworn as jurors by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court of Impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are all but certain to acquit Trump .
McConnell is hesitant to call new witnesses who would prolong the trial .
He prefers to model Trump ’ s trial partly on the process used for then-President Bill Clinton ’ s trial in 1999 .
Senators says if witnesses are allowed , some Republicans may also try to subpoena Biden and his son , Hunter Biden , who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine while his father was vice president .
It takes just 51 votes during the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just four GOP senators could form a majority with Democrats to insist on new testimony .
It also would take only 51 senators to vote to dismiss the charges against Trump .
Most Republicans appear willing to go along with McConnell ’ s plan to start the trial first then consider witnesses later , rather than upfront , as Democrats want .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is preparing to vote Wednesday to send the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate to start the historic trial, several people told The Associated Press.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi was meeting privately Tuesday at the Capitol with House Democrats about next steps, ending her blockade almost a month after they voted to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Advertisement
Pelosi suggested the House vote on Wednesday to transmit the charges and name the House managers for the case, according to one Democratic aide unauthorized to discuss the closed-door meeting.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., arrives to meet with the Democratic Caucus at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The action will launch the rare Senate proceeding, only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, a dramatic endeavor coming amid the backdrop of a politically divided nation and the start of an election year.
The trial would begin in a matter of days. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is meeting behind closed doors later Tuesday with GOP senators as they negotiate the terms of the trial.
Advertisement
Senate Republicans are signaling they would reject the idea of simply voting to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Trump as he has suggested. They are considering whether to allow a vote on such a motion to dismiss and another to subpoena testimony from new witnesses.
“I think our members, generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard,” Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is part of the GOP leadership, said Monday.
President Donald Trump with first lady Melania Trump waves as they arrive back to the White House early Tuesday following a trip to watch the College Football Playoff national championship game in New Orleans. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House last month on charges of abuse of power over pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and obstruction of Congress in the probe.
With the impeachment trial starting in a matter of days, senators are still debating the rules of the proceedings. GOP senators are conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismiss the charges against the president or to call additional witnesses for testimony.
Advertisement
Trump suggested over the weekend he might prefer simply dismissing the charges rather than giving legitimacy to charges from the House, which he considers a “hoax.”
It was an extraordinary suggestion, but one being proposed by Trump allies with support from some GOP senators, including McConnell.
But it is clear McConnell does not have the votes needed from his GOP majority to do that.
Key Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, said they, too, would oppose a motion to dismiss the charges.
Collins is leading an effort among some Republicans, including Romney and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to ensure the ground rules include plans to eventually consider voting to call witnesses.
“My position is that there should be a vote on whether or not witnesses should be called,” Collins said.
Advertisement
Romney said he wants to hear from John Bolton, the former national security adviser at the White House, who others have said raised alarms about the alternative foreign policy toward Ukraine being run led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
“I’ve said I’d like to hear from John Bolton,” Romney told reporters Monday. “I expect that barring some kind of surprise, I’ll be voting in favor of hearing from witnesses after those opening arguments.”
Democrats have been pushing Republicans, who have the majority in the Senate, to consider new testimony, arguing that fresh information has emerged during Pelosi’s monthlong delay in transmitting the charges.
McConnell drafting an organizing resolution that will outline the steps ahead. Approving it will be among the first votes senators take after they are sworn as jurors by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court of Impeachment.
Republicans control the chamber, 53-47, and are all but certain to acquit Trump. McConnell is hesitant to call new witnesses who would prolong the trial. He prefers to model Trump’s trial partly on the process used for then-President Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999.
Advertisement
Senators says if witnesses are allowed, some Republicans may also try to subpoena Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine while his father was vice president.
Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani has been pursing theories about the Bidens, but other Republicans are cool to embrace his work. The claims against the Bidens are unfounded.
It takes just 51 votes during the impeachment trial to approve rules or call witnesses. Just four GOP senators could form a majority with Democrats to insist on new testimony. It also would take only 51 senators to vote to dismiss the charges against Trump.
Most Republicans appear willing to go along with McConnell’s plan to start the trial first then consider witnesses later, rather than upfront, as Democrats want.
Collins is pushing to have at least the promise of witness votes included in the organizing resolution. She and the others appear to be gathering support.
Advertisement
“I’ve been working to make sure that we will have a process that we can take a vote on whether or not we need additional information, and yes, that would include witnesses,” Murkowski told reporters.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the House vote might come Wednesday. “Could be,” he said.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Black Lives Matter Activists Tail Pete Buttigieg Around The Country

Andrew Harnik/ASSOCIATED PRESS Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg ( center ) greets members of the audience during a campaign stop at Iowa State University on Jan. 13 , 2020 , in Ames , Iowa .
In Des Moines on Sunday , in the middle of his campaign speech , activists shouted for an ambulance ( there was apparently no medical emergency ) to get the former ’ s mayor ’ s attention and press him about his record on housing and homelessness as mayor of South Bend .
“ I think your facts are a little wrong , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you about it , but I ’ d like for us to talk about it respectfully , ” Buttigieg , still onstage , told one protester who accused him of systematically demolishing hundreds of Black- and brown-owned homes in the city he oversaw .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign has struggled to gain traction with Black voters nationally .
His recent bump in the polls has been isolated to largely white states like Iowa and New Hampshire .
A Washington Post/Ipsos poll in early January showed Buttigieg with only 2 % support among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden polled at 48 % and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) had 20 % support .
The activists following Buttigieg around are part of the South Bend chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement , which reignited its work in the summer of 2019 after a white South Bend police officer shot and killed Eric Logan , a 54-year-old Black resident .
The group has been holding regular press conferences for several weeks .
Emmanuel Cannady , a BLM activist and graduate student at Notre Dame University who was passing out flyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially supported Buttigieg ’ s presidential run in the spring of 2019 .
But he has been frustrated to see the candidate ’ s record in South Bend go unscrutinized , especially after Logan ’ s death .
“ The big word I wish came out of Mayor Pete , that has not come out of Mayor Pete yet , was ‘ accountability , ’ ” Cannady said .
“ Accountability for the police department when Eric Logan was shot and killed this summer by Officer Ryan O ’ Neill.
” The Logan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harsh spotlight on the then-mayor ’ s record .
Black residents of South Bend openly accused Buttigieg of caring more about winning Black votes in South Carolina than addressing racial injustice at home .
The city implemented a body camera policy in 2018 , and Buttigieg reinforced rules around the public safety measure after the shooting .
While Buttigieg ’ s campaign vigorously disputes the claims being made , they ’ ve maintained a cordial relationship with the BLM activists on the campaign trail .
The Black Lives Matter movement has shown up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — notably when protesters interrupted several of Sanders ’ 2016 campaign stops .
Sanders has since made substantial inroads with communities of color .
Buttigieg ’ s tenure as mayor of South Bend , which ended this January , makes up much of his pitch for the presidency .
He ’ s said his leadership in the city helped transform a dying Rust Belt town into a prosperous , up-and-coming city .
The city ’ s homelessness dropped 33 % between 2016 and 2019 .
But some in his community , particularly those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical of this version of history .
Poverty remains high in South Bend , particularly among the city ’ s Black and Latinx residents , who make up roughly 40 % of the 100,000-person population .
In 2017 , a city-commissioned study found the Black population of the city had higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the nationwide average for Black Americans , with roughly 40 % of local Black residents living below the poverty line .
While Buttigieg touts South Bend ’ s low overall unemployment rate of 4 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents .
Poverty and unemployment rates among Black residents are substantially lower than when Buttigieg first took office in 2012 .
The Black unemployment rate has dropped nearly 70 % and their poverty rate has fallen roughly 40 % .
Buttigieg ’ s housing initiative , “ 1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days ” — which knocked down vacant and abandoned homes ― created distrust between the mayor ’ s office and South Bend ’ s communities of color .
The project primarily impacted Black and Latinx neighborhoods , where fines were leveled on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city codes .
The local paper reported that in some cases that meant destroying Black-owned investment properties .
“ The opinions of South Bend Black Lives Matter are not necessarily representative of the Black community in South Bend , many of whom are supportive of Pete and believe that our city has gotten better under his leadership , ” Councilwoman Sharon McBride said in a statement .
Since then , the campaign said , aides have organized meetings with local Black elected officials , activists and pastors and held focus groups with Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — titled “ The Douglass Plan For Black America ” — that calls for investments in housing and education and lays out policies to address health disparities , the racial wealth gap , criminal justice reform and voting rights .
The campaign released its second South Carolina radio ad this week featuring Walter Clyburn Reed , the grandson of civil rights champion Rep. Jim Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) and one of Buttigieg ’ s campaign organizers .
But these efforts haven ’ t gone smoothly .
In November , The Intercept reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black leaders in South Carolina had “ endorsed ” his Douglass Plan without the leaders ’ explicit knowledge .
Some had not endorsed the plan , and others were upset that the campaign made it seem like they were backing Buttigieg .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
AMES, Iowa ― Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has a new following on the campaign trail: a group of Black Lives Matter protesters decrying his candidacy.
For the past week, these activists have shown up at Buttigieg’s presidential campaign events in California and Iowa, interrupting the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor’s campaign speeches and passing out flyers headlined “Mayor Pete Has A Black Problem.”
Advertisement
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg (center) greets members of the audience during a campaign stop at Iowa State University on Jan. 13, 2020, in Ames, Iowa. Andrew Harnik/ASSOCIATED PRESS
In Des Moines on Sunday, in the middle of his campaign speech, activists shouted for an ambulance (there was apparently no medical emergency) to get the former’s mayor’s attention and press him about his record on housing and homelessness as mayor of South Bend.
“I think your facts are a little wrong, so I’d love a chance to talk with you about it, but I’d like for us to talk about it respectfully,” Buttigieg, still onstage, told one protester who accused him of systematically demolishing hundreds of Black- and brown-owned homes in the city he oversaw.
“We’ve been trying to talk to you since South Bend, Pete,” a protester shouted back before the interaction was drowned out by “BOOT-EDGE-EDGE” chants from the crowd.
Advertisement
On Monday night in Ames, Iowa, campaign staff politely requested that the activists move their leafleting across the street. The protesters obliged.
Activists with Black Lives Matter protest Pete Buttigieg's visit to a Bridge Home Project homeless shelter in Los Angeles on Jan. 10, 2020. Richard Vogel/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Buttigieg’s campaign has struggled to gain traction with Black voters nationally. His recent bump in the polls has been isolated to largely white states like Iowa and New Hampshire. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll in early January showed Buttigieg with only 2% support among Black voters. Former Vice President Joe Biden polled at 48% and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 20% support.
The activists following Buttigieg around are part of the South Bend chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement, which reignited its work in the summer of 2019 after a white South Bend police officer shot and killed Eric Logan, a 54-year-old Black resident. The group has been holding regular press conferences for several weeks.
Emmanuel Cannady, a BLM activist and graduate student at Notre Dame University who was passing out flyers outside the Ames event, said he initially supported Buttigieg’s presidential run in the spring of 2019. But he has been frustrated to see the candidate’s record in South Bend go unscrutinized, especially after Logan’s death.
Advertisement
“The big word I wish came out of Mayor Pete, that has not come out of Mayor Pete yet, was ‘accountability,’” Cannady said. “Accountability for the police department when Eric Logan was shot and killed this summer by Officer Ryan O’Neill.”
The Logan shooting garnered national attention and shone a harsh spotlight on the then-mayor’s record. Black residents of South Bend openly accused Buttigieg of caring more about winning Black votes in South Carolina than addressing racial injustice at home. The city implemented a body camera policy in 2018, and Buttigieg reinforced rules around the public safety measure after the shooting.
“The ultimate goal is to get people to understand who Pete is. He has not succeeded in making South Bend a 21st-century city,” another BLM activist, Ouija Kane, told HuffPost. “He is anti-Black and anti-poor.”
Pete Buttigieg is getting protested by BLM at his speech in Des Moines about demolishing houses in minority communities in South Bend
“Anti black, anti poor” they chant as they get removed from the venue pic.twitter.com/PGLVN2kHVd — Daniel Newhauser (@dnewhauser) January 13, 2020
While Buttigieg’s campaign vigorously disputes the claims being made, they’ve maintained a cordial relationship with the BLM activists on the campaign trail. The Black Lives Matter movement has shown up at presidential campaign events in the past — notably when protesters interrupted several of Sanders’ 2016 campaign stops. Sanders has since made substantial inroads with communities of color.
Advertisement
Buttigieg’s tenure as mayor of South Bend, which ended this January, makes up much of his pitch for the presidency. He’s said his leadership in the city helped transform a dying Rust Belt town into a prosperous, up-and-coming city. The city’s homelessness dropped 33% between 2016 and 2019. But some in his community, particularly those among the communities of color, are critical of this version of history.
Poverty remains high in South Bend, particularly among the city’s Black and Latinx residents, who make up roughly 40% of the 100,000-person population. In 2017, a city-commissioned study found the Black population of the city had higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the nationwide average for Black Americans, with roughly 40% of local Black residents living below the poverty line. While Buttigieg touts South Bend’s low overall unemployment rate of 4%, the rate is 11% for Black residents. Poverty and unemployment rates among Black residents are substantially lower than when Buttigieg first took office in 2012. The Black unemployment rate has dropped nearly 70% and their poverty rate has fallen roughly 40%.
Buttigieg’s housing initiative, “1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days” — which knocked down vacant and abandoned homes ― created distrust between the mayor’s office and South Bend’s communities of color. The project primarily impacted Black and Latinx neighborhoods, where fines were leveled on vacant homes that didn’t meet city codes. The local paper reported that in some cases that meant destroying Black-owned investment properties.
Buttigieg himself admitted the initiative had problems in implementation. After facing community pressure, his office established a grant program to help families meet the city requirements for their homes.
That said, Buttigieg maintains good relationships with several Black leaders in South Bend.
“The opinions of South Bend Black Lives Matter are not necessarily representative of the Black community in South Bend, many of whom are supportive of Pete and believe that our city has gotten better under his leadership,” Councilwoman Sharon McBride said in a statement.
Advertisement
The Buttigieg campaign is aware that it’s struggled to garner support among Black voters. Last summer Buttigieg called outreach to communities of color part of his campaign’s “homework.”
Since then, the campaign said, aides have organized meetings with local Black elected officials, activists and pastors and held focus groups with Black voters. It released an ambitious platform — titled “The Douglass Plan For Black America” — that calls for investments in housing and education and lays out policies to address health disparities, the racial wealth gap, criminal justice reform and voting rights. The campaign released its second South Carolina radio ad this week featuring Walter Clyburn Reed, the grandson of civil rights champion Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and one of Buttigieg’s campaign organizers.
“We know Iowa is incredibly white. We are able to provide an experience of Mayor Pete that they don’t know.” - Emmanuel Cannady, Black Lives Matter activist, on protesting at the Iowa primary debate
But these efforts haven’t gone smoothly. In November, The Intercept reported that Buttigieg’s campaign had claimed prominent Black leaders in South Carolina had “endorsed” his Douglass Plan without the leaders’ explicit knowledge. Some had not endorsed the plan, and others were upset that the campaign made it seem like they were backing Buttigieg.
Buttigieg’s campaign then distanced itself from a leaked report from one of its focus groups, which said that Black voters had an issue with the candidate’s sexual orientation.
Advertisement
For now, the Black Lives Matter activists have no plans to slow down ― they’re seeking donations to keep up their efforts ― and expect to be there at the Democratic primary debate in Iowa Tuesday night.
“We know Iowa is incredibly white. We are able to provide an experience of Mayor Pete that they don’t know,” Cannady said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--'Do Right And Fear No One': Ryan Zinke Gifts $11K Campaign Fund To Wife's Foundation

Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke talks to journalists outside the White House in August 2018 .
HELENA , Mont .
( AP ) — Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closed his congressional campaign account and given nearly all of the fundraising cash that was left to a charitable foundation he started and his wife now runs .
Federal Election Commission reports show that Zinke , a former Republican U.S. representative from Montana , terminated his House campaign fundraising account earlier this month .
Zinke founded that nonprofit organization to maintain a park in Whitefish , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer on the foundation ’ s board , but his wife Lola is the president of the foundation , previously known as the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park Foundation .
Zinke told The Associated Press in a phone interview on Monday that it was time to close the fundraising account , that not a lot of money was left in it and it was “ absolutely appropriate ” to give the fundraising cash to an organization his family runs .
“ I ’ m not worried about appearances because you do right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ I can ’ t think of a better place for it to go than a place I helped found where kids can go and sled.
” Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said campaigns can give money to charities as long as the funds don ’ t provide any benefit to the candidate or his family .
“ If neither Zinke or his wife are getting a salary or financial benefits , it ’ s probably permissable , ” Fischer said .
Zinke said his family are the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park .
The money would likely go toward those operations , he said .
The Great Northern Foundation is the same organization involved in a land deal in 2018 with the chairman of Halliburton , an energy services company that did business with Interior when Zinke was secretary .
That prompted an inquiry by the Interior Department ’ s inspector general .
Zinke said there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the deal and the news media twisted an agreement to provide better access to sledding into “ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closed his congressional campaign account and given nearly all of the fundraising cash that was left to a charitable foundation he started and his wife now runs.
Federal Election Commission reports show that Zinke, a former Republican U.S. representative from Montana, terminated his House campaign fundraising account earlier this month.
Advertisement
The last transaction is a Dec. 8 payment of $11,594 to the Great Northern Foundation.
Zinke founded that nonprofit organization to maintain a park in Whitefish, Montana, his hometown. He is no longer on the foundation’s board, but his wife Lola is the president of the foundation, previously known as the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park Foundation.
Zinke told The Associated Press in a phone interview on Monday that it was time to close the fundraising account, that not a lot of money was left in it and it was “absolutely appropriate” to give the fundraising cash to an organization his family runs.
“I’m not worried about appearances because you do right and fear no one,” he said. “I can’t think of a better place for it to go than a place I helped found where kids can go and sled.”
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke talks to journalists outside the White House in August 2018. Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Advertisement
Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said campaigns can give money to charities as long as the funds don’t provide any benefit to the candidate or his family.
“If neither Zinke or his wife are getting a salary or financial benefits, it’s probably permissable,” Fischer said.
Zinke said his family are the only donors to the foundation, which maintains the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park. The money would likely go toward those operations, he said.
Politico first reported the Zinke campaign’s donation to the foundation.
The Great Northern Foundation is the same organization involved in a land deal in 2018 with the chairman of Halliburton, an energy services company that did business with Interior when Zinke was secretary.
The foundation allowed Chairman David Lesar to use land for a commercial development adjacent to the park.
Advertisement
That prompted an inquiry by the Interior Department’s inspector general. Zinke said there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the deal and the news media twisted an agreement to provide better access to sledding into “an illicit oil deal.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Wisconsin Appeals Court Puts Voter Rolls Purge On Hold

MADISON , Wis. ( AP ) — A Wisconsin appeals court on Tuesday put on hold an order to immediately remove up to 209,000 names from the state ’ s voter registration rolls , handing Democrats who had fought the move a victory in the battleground state .
The appeals court sided with the bipartisan state elections commission in putting the brakes on removing any voters while the court fight continues .
It also put on hold a ruling from Monday in which a judge found the commission and its three Democratic members in contempt for not proceeding with removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that brought the case — the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty — had wanted the purge to happen immediately , even though the elections commission raised concerns about the accuracy of data used to identify voters who would have their registrations deactivated .
“ What is true yesterday is true today , ” he said .
“ The Wisconsin Elections Commission isn ’ t following state law and we look forward to making that case in the Court of Appeals.
” The case is being closely watched , as Wisconsin is among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by both Democrats and President Donald Trump this year .
Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016 by fewer than 23,000 votes , putting even more of a focus on every voter in the state .
Trump was back in the state on Tuesday night for a rally in Milwaukee , kicking off what is expected to be an intense fight to win Wisconsin .
The voter purge lawsuit was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty , a conservative law firm .
It argued that the state elections commission broke the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the rolls who did not respond within 30 days to a mailing in October indicating they may have moved .
The commission wanted to wait until after the November 2020 presidential election before removing anyone because of inaccuracies found while previously attempting to identify voters who may have moved .
Even if a voter has their registration deactivated , they can register again later or on Election Day when they show up at the polls , assuming they have the required documentation .
Because voters who moved were concentrated in more Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the lawsuit was meant to lower turnout on their side .
Republicans countered that it was about reducing the likelihood of voter fraud and making sure that people who have moved are not able to vote from their previous addresses .
A judge last month sided with conservatives and ordered the removal of the voters .
When the bipartisan elections commission deadlocked on proceeding with the purge , the judge on Monday found it and its three Democratic commissioners in contempt , and again ordered the voters ’ names removed .
Hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to take the case .
That shifted the fight back to the appeals court , which sided with the elections commission on Tuesday and put the judge ’ s original ruling on hold .
A three-judge panel in the 4th District of the appeals court — Michael Fitzpatrick , JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — issued the ruling .
They said they would have a follow-up order later that explains their reasoning , but that they wanted to act quickly given the contempt order and the commission ’ s meeting .
Nashold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after running unopposed .
Fitzpatrick also ran unopposed and was first elected in 2017 .
Kloppenburg has been on the appeals court since 2012 and also ran unsuccessfully twice for the state Supreme Court with Democratic support .
The decision effectively hits the pause button on the fast-moving case and means there will be no immediate change to the state ’ s voter registration rolls .
There are a number of elections coming soon , including a February primary for a state Supreme Court seat , a primary in the special election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races for a host of local offices .
Wisconsin ’ s presidential primary is on April 7 .

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin appeals court on Tuesday put on hold an order to immediately remove up to 209,000 names from the state’s voter registration rolls, handing Democrats who had fought the move a victory in the battleground state.
The appeals court sided with the bipartisan state elections commission in putting the brakes on removing any voters while the court fight continues. It also put on hold a ruling from Monday in which a judge found the commission and its three Democratic members in contempt for not proceeding with removing the voters.
The orders came as the commission was meeting in a closed session with attorneys from the state Department of Justice to discuss the case.
Advertisement
A conservative law firm that brought the case — the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty — had wanted the purge to happen immediately, even though the elections commission raised concerns about the accuracy of data used to identify voters who would have their registrations deactivated.
The law firm’s president, Rick Esenberg, didn’t directly address the court’s order in a statement.
“What is true yesterday is true today,” he said. “The Wisconsin Elections Commission isn’t following state law and we look forward to making that case in the Court of Appeals.”
The case is being closely watched, as Wisconsin is among a group of swing states being targeted by both Democrats and President Donald Trump this year. Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016 by fewer than 23,000 votes, putting even more of a focus on every voter in the state.
Trump was back in the state on Tuesday night for a rally in Milwaukee, kicking off what is expected to be an intense fight to win Wisconsin.
Advertisement
The voter purge lawsuit was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative law firm. It argued that the state elections commission broke the law when it did not remove voters from the rolls who did not respond within 30 days to a mailing in October indicating they may have moved.
The commission wanted to wait until after the November 2020 presidential election before removing anyone because of inaccuracies found while previously attempting to identify voters who may have moved. Even if a voter has their registration deactivated, they can register again later or on Election Day when they show up at the polls, assuming they have the required documentation.
Because voters who moved were concentrated in more Democratic parts of the state, liberals argued that the lawsuit was meant to lower turnout on their side. Republicans countered that it was about reducing the likelihood of voter fraud and making sure that people who have moved are not able to vote from their previous addresses.
A judge last month sided with conservatives and ordered the removal of the voters. When the bipartisan elections commission deadlocked on proceeding with the purge, the judge on Monday found it and its three Democratic commissioners in contempt, and again ordered the voters’ names removed.
Hours later, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to take the case. That shifted the fight back to the appeals court, which sided with the elections commission on Tuesday and put the judge’s original ruling on hold.
Advertisement
A three-judge panel in the 4th District of the appeals court — Michael Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — issued the ruling. They said they would have a follow-up order later that explains their reasoning, but that they wanted to act quickly given the contempt order and the commission’s meeting.
Nashold was elected to the court last year after running unopposed. Fitzpatrick also ran unopposed and was first elected in 2017. Kloppenburg has been on the appeals court since 2012 and also ran unsuccessfully twice for the state Supreme Court with Democratic support.
The decision effectively hits the pause button on the fast-moving case and means there will be no immediate change to the state’s voter registration rolls. There are a number of elections coming soon, including a February primary for a state Supreme Court seat, a primary in the special election to fill the 7th Congressional District seat and races for a host of local offices. Wisconsin’s presidential primary is on April 7.
The issue is unlikely to be resolved in court before the presidential election. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin also filed a federal lawsuit to stop the purge.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Twitter Users Drag Michelle Malkin For Claiming Prince Harry Is Emasculated

Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin is getting dragged on Twitter for a hot take about Prince Harry that wasn ’ t so hot .
On Monday , the right-wing firebrand felt obliged to comment on the decision of Harry and wife Meghan Markle ’ s decision to step back from royal duties .
However , Malkin ’ s comment turned out to be a bizarre tweet suggesting the Duchess of Sussex had somehow “ emasculated ” her hubby .
The tweet included photos of Harry in his British Army uniform alongside images showing him in civilian clothes with Meghan .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The toxic impact of SJW Hollywood feminism on Western man can not be understated .
pic.twitter.com/wMLNQ6uzOk — Michelle Malkin ( @ michellemalkin ) January 13 , 2020 Harry served in the British Army for 10 years .
He went on two tours of Afghanistan and attained the rank of Captain before resigning his commission in 2015 .
Though Malkin cited the photos as the “ toxic impact of SJW feminism on Western man , ” there ’ s no evidence that Meghan ― who Harry is not on record as dating until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with him leaving the military .
Malkin may have wanted throw red meat at her base , but many Twitter users had a beef with the tweet .
Nuts .
No part of Harry ’ s story ( “ man joins army , deploys to Afghanistan , flies helicopters in combat , comes home from war , marries , has child ” ) is emasculating .
Quite the opposite .
https : //t.co/oO9Lbo7YXj — Phillip Carter ( @ Carter_PE ) January 14 , 2020 Some just didn ’ t understand what Malkin was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weird and emasculating he does not still walk around wearing a uniform and carrying a machine gun at social events .
Probably has nothing to do with the fact he is no longer in the army .
All Markle .
— Don Moynihan ( @ donmoyn ) January 14 , 2020 Nothing is more emasculating than .
.
.
*checks notes* .
.
.
having a smoking hot , brilliant wife who clearly adores you and makes you better every day .
Real men marry guns but cheat on them with a picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jerking off into a sock while sobbing .
https : //t.co/FO71vH5z6T — Myke Cole ( @ MykeCole ) January 14 , 2020 Some had theories as to what really happened to Prince Harry .
I wonder if he stopped wearing his uniform because he left the military ?
... no , ca n't be .
Too simple .
— Tommy Vietor ( @ TVietor08 ) January 14 , 2020 Typical malice from Michelle .
All she did is remind us that Prince Harry willingly served , at extreme risk to himself .
Nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilian formal event .
Absurd .
https : //t.co/UhMZ7A5Ij1 — David French ( @ DavidAFrench ) January 14 , 2020 Others threw shade at Malkin by sarcastically agreeing with her .
thank you michelle , i am always saying sjw hollywood is trying to emasculate men by convincing them to marry a woman https : //t.co/OzTUqQLevN — jordan ( @ JordanUhl ) January 14 , 2020 Wow !
I can ’ t believe Prince Harry didn ’ t wear a combat uniform and carry an M4 to a meeting or film premiere with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
https : //t.co/anEYE2yjYA — Yashar Ali 🐘 ( @ yashar ) January 14 , 2020 Yes , rather than growing up , marrying a beautiful woman and fathering a child , Harry should ’ ve stayed a “ real man ” by remaining a literal prince under the rule of his elderly grandmother .
Yes , that *is* smart .
— Kevin M. Kruse ( @ KevinMKruse ) January 14 , 2020 But one tweet may have summed up the general reaction quite appropriately .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin is getting dragged on Twitter for a hot take about Prince Harry that wasn’t so hot.
On Monday, the right-wing firebrand felt obliged to comment on the decision of Harry and wife Meghan Markle’s decision to step back from royal duties.
Advertisement
However, Malkin’s comment turned out to be a bizarre tweet suggesting the Duchess of Sussex had somehow “emasculated” her hubby. The tweet included photos of Harry in his British Army uniform alongside images showing him in civilian clothes with Meghan.
The Emasculation of Prince Harry in Six Pictures.
The toxic impact of SJW Hollywood feminism on Western man cannot be understated. pic.twitter.com/wMLNQ6uzOk — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) January 13, 2020
Harry served in the British Army for 10 years. He went on two tours of Afghanistan and attained the rank of Captain before resigning his commission in 2015.
Though Malkin cited the photos as the “toxic impact of SJW feminism on Western man,” there’s no evidence that Meghan ― who Harry is not on record as dating until late 2016 ― had anything to do with him leaving the military.
Advertisement
Malkin may have wanted throw red meat at her base, but many Twitter users had a beef with the tweet.
Nuts. No part of Harry’s story (“man joins army, deploys to Afghanistan, flies helicopters in combat, comes home from war, marries, has child”) is emasculating. Quite the opposite. https://t.co/oO9Lbo7YXj — Phillip Carter (@Carter_PE) January 14, 2020
Some just didn’t understand what Malkin was driving at.
Yeah, its super weird and emasculating he does not still walk around wearing a uniform and carrying a machine gun at social events. Probably has nothing to do with the fact he is no longer in the army. All Markle. — Don Moynihan (@donmoyn) January 14, 2020
Nothing is more emasculating than . . . *checks notes* . . . having a smoking hot, brilliant wife who clearly adores you and makes you better every day.
Real men marry guns but cheat on them with a picture of Trump when they’re not jerking off into a sock while sobbing. https://t.co/FO71vH5z6T — Myke Cole (@MykeCole) January 14, 2020
Some had theories as to what really happened to Prince Harry.
I wonder if he stopped wearing his uniform because he left the military? ...no, can't be. Too simple. — Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 14, 2020
Typical malice from Michelle. All she did is remind us that Prince Harry willingly served, at extreme risk to himself. Nobody brings a true assault rifle to a civilian formal event. Absurd. https://t.co/UhMZ7A5Ij1 — David French (@DavidAFrench) January 14, 2020
Advertisement
Others threw shade at Malkin by sarcastically agreeing with her.
thank you michelle, i am always saying sjw hollywood is trying to emasculate men by convincing them to marry a woman https://t.co/OzTUqQLevN — jordan (@JordanUhl) January 14, 2020
Wow!
I can’t believe Prince Harry didn’t wear a combat uniform and carry an M4 to a meeting or film premiere with his wife.
What a soy boy! https://t.co/anEYE2yjYA — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 14, 2020
Yes, rather than growing up, marrying a beautiful woman and fathering a child, Harry should’ve stayed a “real man” by remaining a literal prince under the rule of his elderly grandmother. Yes, that *is* smart. — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) January 14, 2020
Others felt Malkin’s tweet raised more questions than answers.
fellas, is it gay to have a wife? https://t.co/aQyuaBmj0X — JP (@jpbrammer) January 14, 2020
But one tweet may have summed up the general reaction quite appropriately.
Hello Michelle,
I’m a reporter with WXLK in Pontiac MI.
I’m doing a story on people that have the worst takes on the internet.
May I use this tweet? — Kaj-Erik Eriksen™ (@KajEriksen) January 14, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Jersey City Kosher Store Shooters Planned Attack For Months: Authorities

NEWARK , N.J. ( AP ) — The two people who fatally shot a police officer then killed three people at a kosher grocery in Jersey City planned an assault for some time and were equipped to cause greater destruction , authorities said Monday .
State and federal law enforcement officials revealed details about the months leading up to the shootings by David Anderson and Francine Graham , a couple who expressed hatred of Jews and law enforcement in notes left at the grocery shooting scene and in online posts .
Anderson , 47 , and Graham , 50 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seals in a chance meeting in a cemetery Dec. 10 , then drove to the market and killed Mindel Ferencz , 31 , who owned the store with her husband ; Moshe Deutsch , 24 , a rabbinical student from Brooklyn who was shopping there ; and store employee Douglas Miguel Rodriguez .
Five weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition were found in the store afterward .
Investigators also found a bomb in the couple ’ s van that could have sprayed shrapnel fragments “ five football fields long , ” Gregory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI in Newark , said .
The van also contained materials that could have made a second bomb , he said .
It ’ s not known for certain what prompted the confrontation between Seals and the shooters .
Officials speculated that Seals , a 13-year veteran who was meeting someone about returning a car that had been impounded , may have stopped the U-Haul van Anderson and Graham were driving because it fit the description of a vehicle connected to the slaying of a livery car driver in Bayonne a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the casket for New Jersey Detective Joseph Seals is brought out of a church during his funeral on December 17 , 2019 in Jersey City , New Jersey .
In doing so , Seals may have thrown off their plans and prevented more bloodshed , Carpenito said , but he did not provide more detail .
Anderson and Graham bludgeoned and then shot the livery driver Michael Rumberger , 34 , officials said , though it wasn ’ t clear if he had been targeted .
The pair also had done online research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the days before the attack in Jersey City , Carpenito said .
Barricaded in the kosher store , Anderson and Graham were killed after a lengthy gun battle with the police that sent the sound of gunfire booming for hours through the neighborhood in New Jersey ’ s second-largest city , across the street from a school .
A gun recovered at the kosher grocery that was used by Anderson and Graham to kill Rumberger also was used to shoot out the windows of a car driven by a Hasidic man on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation revealed .
That man was not injured .
“ Up until the attack , there wasn ’ t anything that would have put either of them on anybody ’ s radar , ” Ehrie said .
But surveillance video showed Anderson and Graham had driven past the market in their rented U-Haul van twice in the week leading up to the shootings , Carpenito said .
At the scene , a note found on Anderson contained a reference to a 1990s documentary , “ The FBI ’ s War on Black America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s targeting of individuals involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960s , Carpenito said .
He added that a timestamp written on the note corresponded to a segment in the documentary where an interviewee advocates killing “ fascist pig cops .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — The two people who fatally shot a police officer then killed three people at a kosher grocery in Jersey City planned an assault for some time and were equipped to cause greater destruction, authorities said Monday.
State and federal law enforcement officials revealed details about the months leading up to the shootings by David Anderson and Francine Graham, a couple who expressed hatred of Jews and law enforcement in notes left at the grocery shooting scene and in online posts.
Advertisement
“This was a senseless and cowardly act,” U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito said.
Anderson, 47, and Graham, 50, shot and killed Jersey City Detective Joseph Seals in a chance meeting in a cemetery Dec. 10, then drove to the market and killed Mindel Ferencz, 31, who owned the store with her husband; Moshe Deutsch, 24, a rabbinical student from Brooklyn who was shopping there; and store employee Douglas Miguel Rodriguez.
Members of the Jewish community gather around the JC Kosher Supermarket on December 11, 2019 in Jersey City, New Jersey. Rick Loomis via Getty Images
Rodriguez held the back door open for a wounded customer to escape before he was shot, authorities said Monday.
Five weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition were found in the store afterward. Investigators also found a bomb in the couple’s van that could have sprayed shrapnel fragments “five football fields long,” Gregory Ehrie, special agent in charge of the FBI in Newark, said. The van also contained materials that could have made a second bomb, he said.
Advertisement
It’s not known for certain what prompted the confrontation between Seals and the shooters. Officials speculated that Seals, a 13-year veteran who was meeting someone about returning a car that had been impounded, may have stopped the U-Haul van Anderson and Graham were driving because it fit the description of a vehicle connected to the slaying of a livery car driver in Bayonne a few days earlier.
Family members watch as the casket for New Jersey Detective Joseph Seals is brought out of a church during his funeral on December 17, 2019 in Jersey City, New Jersey. Spencer Platt via Getty Images
In doing so, Seals may have thrown off their plans and prevented more bloodshed, Carpenito said, but he did not provide more detail.
Anderson and Graham bludgeoned and then shot the livery driver Michael Rumberger, 34, officials said, though it wasn’t clear if he had been targeted. The pair also had done online research on a Jewish center in nearby Bayonne in the days before the attack in Jersey City, Carpenito said.
Barricaded in the kosher store, Anderson and Graham were killed after a lengthy gun battle with the police that sent the sound of gunfire booming for hours through the neighborhood in New Jersey’s second-largest city, across the street from a school.
Advertisement
A gun recovered at the kosher grocery that was used by Anderson and Graham to kill Rumberger also was used to shoot out the windows of a car driven by a Hasidic man on a highway near Jersey City, the investigation revealed. That man was not injured.
That shooting wasn’t reported until investigators began probing the the market shootings.
“Up until the attack, there wasn’t anything that would have put either of them on anybody’s radar,” Ehrie said.
A photograph captures the scene the day after an hours-long gun battle with two shooters at a kosher market in Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S., December 11, 2019. Lloyd Mitchell / Reuters
But surveillance video showed Anderson and Graham had driven past the market in their rented U-Haul van twice in the week leading up to the shootings, Carpenito said.
At the scene, a note found on Anderson contained a reference to a 1990s documentary, “The FBI’s War on Black America,” which explored the FBI’s targeting of individuals involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Carpenito said. He added that a timestamp written on the note corresponded to a segment in the documentary where an interviewee advocates killing “fascist pig cops.”
Advertisement
Investigators found among Anderson’s social media posts a reference to Jews as “imposters who inhabited synagogues of Satan.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Millions Said ‘Me Too,' But The Presidential Debates Have Largely Ignored Them

Since the last U.S. presidential election , the Me Too movement has exploded worldwide as survivors of sexual harassment and abuse have pushed people in power to combat these systemic problems .
But so far , it ’ s getting very little attention in the Democratic presidential primary — and disappointed activists want leading candidates to step up .
“ Centering sexual violence in the 2020 election is critical because it ’ s been two years since millions of people spoke out and said ‘ me too , ’ ” Tarana Burke , who created the Me Too movement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Those people are still waiting for a response from our national leaders.
” Burke created the hashtag # MeTooVoter ahead of the fourth primary debate in October to galvanize other survivors who also felt overlooked in the 2020 conversation .
She wrote an op-ed for Time titled “ Survivors of Sexual Assault Are Voters Too .
So Why Aren ’ t the Presidential Candidates Paying Attention to Them ?
” Three months and two debates later — and on the eve of actual caucus and primary votes — Burke still has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has bubbled up on Twitter before the last few debates but garnered little attention from debate moderators .
Out of the 200 questions asked in the first six primary debates , only one has been about Me Too , according to an analysis by the anti-sexual harassment group Time ’ s Up .
During the fifth debate in November , NBC moderator Kristen Welker asked what specific actions former Vice President Joe Biden would take on the topic of sexual assault if voted into office .
In true Biden debate fashion , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an inappropriate pun that the country has to continue “ punching ” at domestic violence .
“ No man has a right to raise a hand in anger other than in self-defense and that rarely ever occurs , ” Biden said during the debate .
“ So we have to change the culture .
Period .
And keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it.
” Buttigieg announced a $ 10 billion proposal in October to seek to end sexual harassment and discrimination against women in the workplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from closing the so-called Gingrich-Edwards payroll tax loophole , a Buttigieg campaign spokesperson told HuffPost ) would fund measures to make employers accountable for protecting female workers .
The proposal also advocates a law banning forced arbitration in cases of harassment or discrimination .
Biden has repeatedly noted on the campaign trail that he helped create the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and co-founded the anti-sexual violence organization It ’ s On Us in 2014 .
Biden ’ s commitment to ending sexual violence is often overshadowed , however , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1991 , his continuous campaign gaffes ( like “ punching ” at domestic violence ) and his old-school approach to protecting women .
Hill , who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings nearly 30 years ago , commented in October that she was surprised there hadn ’ t been any discussion about gender violence during the current presidential debates .
Survivors are a “ powerful force ” who need to be recognized by presidential candidates , the law professor said at Fortune ’ s Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Me Too movement more than a decade ago , but it gained notable traction in October 2017 after a tweet by actor Alyssa Milano .
Nearly 5 million people shared their stories of sexual violence , commented or otherwise reacted on Facebook in the first 24 hours after Milano ’ s tweet .
In less than a week , the conversation had reached 85 countries .
The Me Too hashtag was used more than 19 million times on Twitter in the following year ― that ’ s around 55,000 uses every day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 425 prominent people were accused of and faced consequences for sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to rape in the first year alone .
“ I would like to see a candidate that is ready to roll up their sleeves , listen to those who have been harmed , and help shift the focus from accusations to accountability , ” Burke told HuffPost .
“ Survivors deserve to see a candidate stand up for their rights , and vow to invest real time and energy into understanding how their lives are impacted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trauma-informed lens looks like .
”

Illustration: Damon Dahlen/HuffPost; Photos: Getty
Since the last U.S. presidential election, the Me Too movement has exploded worldwide as survivors of sexual harassment and abuse have pushed people in power to combat these systemic problems. But so far, it’s getting very little attention in the Democratic presidential primary — and disappointed activists want leading candidates to step up.
“Centering sexual violence in the 2020 election is critical because it’s been two years since millions of people spoke out and said ‘me too,’” Tarana Burke, who created the Me Too movement in 2007, told HuffPost in an email. “Those people are still waiting for a response from our national leaders.”
Advertisement
Burke created the hashtag #MeTooVoter ahead of the fourth primary debate in October to galvanize other survivors who also felt overlooked in the 2020 conversation. She wrote an op-ed for Time titled “Survivors of Sexual Assault Are Voters Too. So Why Aren’t the Presidential Candidates Paying Attention to Them?” Three months and two debates later — and on the eve of actual caucus and primary votes — Burke still has the same question
“Survivors are fed up, but we’re also gaining clarity ― we’re becoming clearer around how this country chooses to deal (or not deal) with issues that affect women in large proportion ― more specifically women of color, migrant women and trans women,” Burke said.
The four front-runners in the Democratic primary have proposed policies to combat violence against women. But not all of those plans address sexual violence specifically and none are getting the attention the issue demands.
The relative silence is even more baffling given that Democrats are running against President Donald Trump, a man who has been accused by over 20 women of sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to assault and rape.
Advertisement
The #MeTooVoter hashtag has bubbled up on Twitter before the last few debates but garnered little attention from debate moderators. Out of the 200 questions asked in the first six primary debates, only one has been about Me Too, according to an analysis by the anti-sexual harassment group Time’s Up.
During the fifth debate in November, NBC moderator Kristen Welker asked what specific actions former Vice President Joe Biden would take on the topic of sexual assault if voted into office. In true Biden debate fashion, his answer was a bit nonsensical and ended with an inappropriate pun that the country has to continue “punching” at domestic violence.
“No man has a right to raise a hand in anger other than in self-defense and that rarely ever occurs,” Biden said during the debate. “So we have to change the culture. Period. And keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it.”
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Biden are the only two candidates who have somewhat fleshed out how they would address sexual and domestic violence if elected president.
Buttigieg announced a $10 billion proposal in October to seek to end sexual harassment and discrimination against women in the workplace. That money (which would come from closing the so-called Gingrich-Edwards payroll tax loophole, a Buttigieg campaign spokesperson told HuffPost) would fund measures to make employers accountable for protecting female workers. The proposal also advocates a law banning forced arbitration in cases of harassment or discrimination.
Advertisement
Biden has repeatedly noted on the campaign trail that he helped create the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and co-founded the anti-sexual violence organization It’s On Us in 2014. Biden’s commitment to ending sexual violence is often overshadowed, however, by his mishandling of the Anita Hill hearing in 1991, his continuous campaign gaffes (like “punching” at domestic violence) and his old-school approach to protecting women.
Hill, who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings nearly 30 years ago, commented in October that she was surprised there hadn’t been any discussion about gender violence during the current presidential debates. Survivors are a “powerful force” who need to be recognized by presidential candidates, the law professor said at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit.
“Survivors deserve to see a candidate stand up for their rights, and vow to invest real time and energy into understanding how their lives are impacted, and what sexual violence prevention through a trauma-informed lens looks like.” - Tarana Burke
While Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) mention combating sexual harassment and domestic violence in their policy plans, both proposals lack any real depth or detail in those areas.
Burke created the Me Too movement more than a decade ago, but it gained notable traction in October 2017 after a tweet by actor Alyssa Milano. Nearly 5 million people shared their stories of sexual violence, commented or otherwise reacted on Facebook in the first 24 hours after Milano’s tweet. In less than a week, the conversation had reached 85 countries. The Me Too hashtag was used more than 19 million times on Twitter in the following year ― that’s around 55,000 uses every day. And the movement saw results: At least 425 prominent people were accused of and faced consequences for sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to rape in the first year alone.
Advertisement
Jennifer Klein, chief policy and strategy officer at Time’s Up, said she wants to see more specifics.
“Politicians who ignore this pervasive issue do so at their own peril,” Klein said. “Any candidate for president should have clear and robust policies for combatting sexual harassment and assault, and promoting equity and dignity for working women,” she added later.
Former presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) ran on a platform of gender equality, centering sexual assault as a major policy issue. But she never gained traction and dropped out in August. It seemed that no one wanted a Me Too candidate for president.
“I would like to see a candidate that is ready to roll up their sleeves, listen to those who have been harmed, and help shift the focus from accusations to accountability,” Burke told HuffPost. “Survivors deserve to see a candidate stand up for their rights, and vow to invest real time and energy into understanding how their lives are impacted, and what sexual violence prevention through a trauma-informed lens looks like.”
Actor and activist Rose McGowan, who accused film producer Harvey Weinstein of raping her in her early 20s, told HuffPost that she’s astounded so few candidates have centered violence against women in their campaigns.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--St. Louis Attorney Files 'Unprecedented' Lawsuit Accusing City Of Racist Conspiracy

The lawsuit names the city of St. Louis , the St. Louis Police Officers Association , its business manager , Jeff Roorda , and Gerard Carmody , a special prosecutor who indicted an investigator hired by Gardner .
It also names Carmody ’ s son and daughter , who helped in his investigation , and a former police officer who sued over Gardner ’ s use of private attorneys related to Carmody ’ s investigation .
“ This is about the will of the people being silenced by a concerted effort to stop reform in the city of St. Louis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Gardner said in an interview with The Associated Press .
“ This is saying , ’ No more are we going to let the powerful few who want to hold onto the status quo prevent an elected prosecutor from doing her job , ” ′ she said .
Gardner said she believes the lawsuit is the first of its kind and that she has the support of other progressive prosecutors .
In her lawsuit , Gardner cites St. Louis ’ “ long history of racial inequality and prejudice in its criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police force particularly.
” She said she was elected to change that , but that the police union and others “ have mobilized to thwart these efforts , ” including “ the unprecedented appointment of a white , ethically conflicted Special Prosecutor ” in an effort to oust Gardner .
The lawsuit cites a watchdog group ’ s report last year that identified several St. Louis officers accused of posting racist , violent or prejudiced messages on Facebook .
Some of the posts highlighted by The Plain View Project included one in 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black demonstrators , calling the officer “ Captain ‘ Hug a Thug ’ ” and “ a disgrace to the uniform.
” Another post in 2018 read : “ If the Confederate flag is racist , then so is Black History Month.
” The lawsuit says the police union “ has gone out of its way to support white officers accused of perpetrating acts of violence and excessive force against African American citizens.
” It cites Roorda ’ s support of Darren Wilson , the white officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferguson , Missouri , in 2014 .
That killing touched off months of protests .
Wilson was not charged with a crime and he later resigned .
The lawsuit also cites how a black undercover officer was allegedly attacked by four white colleagues who mistook him for a protester during a 2017 demonstration in downtown St. Louis after a white officer was acquitted of killing a black suspect .
The police union provided lawyers after the officers were indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice .
Gardner ’ s lawsuit said Gerard Carmody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially concerning because of his lifelong friendship with Edward L. Dowd Jr. , one of Greitens ’ attorneys .
The two went to school together and served in the same law practice .
Gardner said her efforts to raise conflict-of-interest concerns were ignored .
Soon after taking office , she announced she would cease prosecutions of low-level marijuana crimes .
In 2018 , she developed an “ exclusion list ” of more than two dozen police officers who were barred from serving as primary witnesses in criminal cases over what Gardner called credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Hayden , who also is black , and drew a strong rebuke from many others , including Roorda , a former police officer and state legislator , who is white .
But she drew her strongest criticism in 2018 , when she hired a private investigator , former FBI agent William Tisaby , rather than working with police to investigate claims that then-Missouri Gov .
Eric Greitens took a compromising photo of a woman during an extra-marital affair .
The investigation led to a felony invasion of privacy charge .
Though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican , resigned in June 2018 .
The indictment also raised concerns about whether Gardner was complicit in Tisaby ’ s alleged crimes , saying she failed to correct his inaccuracies or report them , and that she made incorrect statements to defense lawyers and a judge .
She said she did nothing illegal or unethical .
She was not indicted but the investigation is ongoing .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner on Monday filed what she called an unprecedented federal civil rights lawsuit, accusing the city, the local police union and others of a coordinated and racist conspiracy aimed at forcing her out of office.
Gardner, the city’s elected prosecutor, also accused “entrenched interests” of intentionally impeding her efforts to reform racist practices that have led to a loss of trust in the criminal justice system.
Advertisement
The lawsuit alleges civil rights violations as well as violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Gardner is black. The named defendants are white.
The lawsuit names the city of St. Louis, the St. Louis Police Officers Association, its business manager, Jeff Roorda, and Gerard Carmody, a special prosecutor who indicted an investigator hired by Gardner. It also names Carmody’s son and daughter, who helped in his investigation, and a former police officer who sued over Gardner’s use of private attorneys related to Carmody’s investigation.
“This is about the will of the people being silenced by a concerted effort to stop reform in the city of St. Louis, and this has to be addressed,” Gardner said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“This is saying, ’No more are we going to let the powerful few who want to hold onto the status quo prevent an elected prosecutor from doing her job,”′ she said. Gardner said she believes the lawsuit is the first of its kind and that she has the support of other progressive prosecutors.
Advertisement
Roorda said the union considered the lawsuit “frivolous and without merit.” A spokesman for Mayor Lyda Krewson declined comment. Messages left with Gerard Carmody were not immediately returned.
In her lawsuit, Gardner cites St. Louis’ “long history of racial inequality and prejudice in its criminal justice system generally, and within its police force particularly.” She said she was elected to change that, but that the police union and others “have mobilized to thwart these efforts,” including “the unprecedented appointment of a white, ethically conflicted Special Prosecutor” in an effort to oust Gardner.
“The Ku Klux Klan Act was adopted to address precisely this scenario: a racially motivated conspiracy to deny the civil rights of racial minorities by obstructing a government official’s efforts to ensure equal justice under law for all,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit cites a watchdog group’s report last year that identified several St. Louis officers accused of posting racist, violent or prejudiced messages on Facebook. Some of the posts highlighted by The Plain View Project included one in 2014 showing a black officer standing with two black demonstrators, calling the officer “Captain ‘Hug a Thug’” and “a disgrace to the uniform.” Another post in 2018 read: “If the Confederate flag is racist, then so is Black History Month.”
Two veteran officers were fired after the Facebook postings became public.
The lawsuit says the police union “has gone out of its way to support white officers accused of perpetrating acts of violence and excessive force against African American citizens.” It cites Roorda’s support of Darren Wilson, the white officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black, in nearby Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. That killing touched off months of protests. Wilson was not charged with a crime and he later resigned.
Advertisement
The lawsuit also cites how a black undercover officer was allegedly attacked by four white colleagues who mistook him for a protester during a 2017 demonstration in downtown St. Louis after a white officer was acquitted of killing a black suspect. The police union provided lawyers after the officers were indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Gardner’s lawsuit said Gerard Carmody’s appointment as special prosecutor was especially concerning because of his lifelong friendship with Edward L. Dowd Jr., one of Greitens’ attorneys. The two went to school together and served in the same law practice. Gardner said her efforts to raise conflict-of-interest concerns were ignored.
Gardner, a Democrat, became the city’s first African American circuit attorney when she was elected in 2016. Her relationship with police was testy from the start.
Soon after taking office, she announced she would cease prosecutions of low-level marijuana crimes. In 2018, she developed an “exclusion list” of more than two dozen police officers who were barred from serving as primary witnesses in criminal cases over what Gardner called credibility concerns. The move angered Police Chief John Hayden, who also is black, and drew a strong rebuke from many others, including Roorda, a former police officer and state legislator, who is white.
But she drew her strongest criticism in 2018, when she hired a private investigator, former FBI agent William Tisaby, rather than working with police to investigate claims that then-Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens took a compromising photo of a woman during an extra-marital affair. The investigation led to a felony invasion of privacy charge. Though the charge was eventually dropped, Greitens, a Republican, resigned in June 2018.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Greitens’ attorneys accused Tisaby of perjury by lying during a deposition. Last June, Carmody indicted Tisaby for perjury. Tisaby denied wrongdoing and his case is still pending.
The indictment also raised concerns about whether Gardner was complicit in Tisaby’s alleged crimes, saying she failed to correct his inaccuracies or report them, and that she made incorrect statements to defense lawyers and a judge. She said she did nothing illegal or unethical. She was not indicted but the investigation is ongoing.
The police union’s Roorda called Gardner’s lawsuit “a frantic ploy to distract the public from Gardner’s court ordered deposition on Wednesday” related to the probe into Tisaby’s conduct.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Joe Biden Avoids Major Scrutiny Of His Blunders In Democratic Debate

He co-authored the 1994 crime bill , lobbied for the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill , and voted for both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iraq War .
Despite that record , Biden began the presidential race as a front-runner and continues to top the polls in early states , including several recent surveys in Iowa , the first-in-the-nation caucus state where he had previously been weaker .
Foreign policy and international trade , previously lightly discussed , took up large chunks of time .
And while there were disagreements between the candidates Tuesday night , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they largely avoided aggressively attacking one another .
Warren and Sanders passed on relitigating what happened in their 2018 meeting , and Biden avoided a pile-on about the Iraq War and his support for international trade deals protested bitterly by labor unions .
The decision to avoid head-on fights was motivated no doubt by the fact that much of the Democratic electorate seems to have little appetite for such squabbles , preferring the focus be kept on attacking Trump and not doing too much lasting damage for the general election .
The greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tone was Biden .
Tuesday night ’ s debate was the last chance Iowans had to hear Biden answer in greater detail about his record before they head to caucus sites on Feb. 3 .
But at the CNN/Des Moines Register Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night , Biden ’ s legislative record got less scrutiny from the moderators and his fellow candidates than , say , the potential costs of “ Medicare for All ” and Sanders ’ assorted other social policies .
Sanders , who has for weeks been hammering Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade deals that cost the country manufacturing jobs , did his best to initiate discussions with Biden on both fronts .
Sanders noted that he and Biden were both in Congress in 2002 during the vote to authorize the Iraq War , but unlike Biden , he did not believe Bush administration officials ’ claims about the threat Iraq posed .
“ I thought they were lying .
I didn ’ t believe them for a moment .
I took to the floor , ” he said .
“ I did everything I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw it differently.
” The moderators , from CNN and the Des Moines Register , could have pressed Biden to answer directly for Sanders ’ criticism , or explain whether withdrawing those troops ended up being a mistake given the rise of the so-called Islamic State , but they did not follow up with him ― and neither did any of the other candidates on the stage .
“ Joe and I have a fundamental disagreement here ― in case you haven ’ t noticed , ” Sanders said , eliciting laughter from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , NAFTA , PNTR with China , other trade agreements ― were written for one reason alone , and that is to increase the profits of large multinational corporations.
” He did not directly answer for his votes for those trade agreements or explain his thinking .
And once again , neither the moderators nor the other candidates joined in to press Biden .
Several other controversial elements of Biden ’ s record did not make it into the debate at all , including his authorship of the 1994 crime bill blamed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his role in advocating for a 2005 law making it harder for households to declare bankruptcy , and his past support for cutting Social Security benefits .
Even Sanders , whose campaign intimated that the Vermont senator would use the debate to attack Biden for that last stance , declined to engage in that line of questioning .
Sanders , Warren and Klobuchar engaged in a spirited discussion of the potential milestone of the first female president , which was spurred by Warren ’ s allegation that Sanders had told her privately in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not get elected .
( Sanders denies saying that . )

LOADING ERROR LOADING
DES MOINES, Iowa ― Former Vice President Joe Biden has played a role in some of the most controversial domestic and foreign policy decisions from the 1970s to the 2010s.
He co-authored the 1994 crime bill, lobbied for the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill, and voted for both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iraq War. Despite that record, Biden began the presidential race as a front-runner and continues to top the polls in early states, including several recent surveys in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus state where he had previously been weaker.
Advertisement
Foreign policy and international trade, previously lightly discussed, took up large chunks of time. And while there were disagreements between the candidates Tuesday night, in the final stretch before the Iowa caucuses, they largely avoided aggressively attacking one another. Warren and Sanders passed on re-litigating what happened in their 2018 meeting, and Biden avoided a pile-on about the Iraq War and his support for international trade deals protested bitterly by labor unions.
The decision to avoid head-on fights was motivated no doubt by the fact that much of the Democratic electorate seems to have little appetite for such squabbles, preferring the focus be kept on attacking Trump and not doing too much lasting damage for the general election.
The greatest beneficiary of the debate’s calm tone was Biden. Tuesday night’s debate was the last chance Iowans had to hear Biden answer in greater detail about his record before they head to caucus sites on Feb. 3.
Advertisement
The debate moderators and most candidates declined to press former Vice President Joe Biden about the many controversial elements of his four-decade policy record. ROBYN BECK/Getty Images
But at the CNN/Des Moines Register Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night, Biden’s legislative record got less scrutiny from the moderators and his fellow candidates than, say, the potential costs of “Medicare for All” and Sanders’ assorted other social policies.
Sanders, who has for weeks been hammering Biden for supporting the Iraq War and approving trade deals that cost the country manufacturing jobs, did his best to initiate discussions with Biden on both fronts.
Sanders noted that he and Biden were both in Congress in 2002 during the vote to authorize the Iraq War, but unlike Biden, he did not believe Bush administration officials’ claims about the threat Iraq posed.
“I thought they were lying. I didn’t believe them for a moment. I took to the floor,” he said. “I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.”
Advertisement
In response, Biden declined to engage Sanders directly, focusing instead on his support for withdrawing combat troops during the Obama administration.
“I was asked to bring 156,000 troops home from that war, which I did,” Biden said. “I led that effort.”
The moderators, from CNN and the Des Moines Register, could have pressed Biden to answer directly for Sanders’ criticism, or explain whether withdrawing those troops ended up being a mistake given the rise of the so-called Islamic State, but they did not follow up with him ― and neither did any of the other candidates on the stage.
Sanders also blasted Biden for voting to authorize NAFTA and permanent normalized trade relations with China, which he said cost the country 4 million jobs.
“Joe and I have a fundamental disagreement here ― in case you haven’t noticed,” Sanders said, eliciting laughter from the audience. “And that is, NAFTA, PNTR with China, other trade agreements ― were written for one reason alone, and that is to increase the profits of large multinational corporations.”
Advertisement
Biden reacted by agreeing with Sanders on the need for greater “corporate responsibility” and expounding on the need for tougher enforcement of existing laws as well.
He did not directly answer for his votes for those trade agreements or explain his thinking. And once again, neither the moderators nor the other candidates joined in to press Biden.
Several other controversial elements of Biden’s record did not make it into the debate at all, including his authorship of the 1994 crime bill blamed for the explosion of the carceral state, his role in advocating for a 2005 law making it harder for households to declare bankruptcy, and his past support for cutting Social Security benefits. Even Sanders, whose campaign intimated that the Vermont senator would use the debate to attack Biden for that last stance, declined to engage in that line of questioning.
Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar engaged in a spirited discussion of the potential milestone of the first female president, which was spurred by Warren’s allegation that Sanders had told her privately in 2018 that he thought a woman could not get elected. (Sanders denies saying that.)
But Biden’s comments about gender earlier this month did not come up during the debate.
At a campaign event in Iowa, Biden recalled how Hillary Clinton had suffered sexist attacks during her 2016 presidential run, but said, “That’s not going to happen with me.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Intel Committee Releases Handwritten Note On Trump's Ukraine Plans

The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released a collection of new evidence obtained from Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani , that looks into how Giuliani communicated with the president of Ukraine on behalf of President Donald Trump .
Among the documents was a previously unseen handwritten note by Parnas , a Florida businessman who helped Giuliani try to dig up dirt on one of Trump ’ s political rivals .
The new evidence also includes letters sent to then-Ukranian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky from Giuliani and WhatsApp message exchanges between Parnas and a man who apparently tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in March .
Parnas and Igor Fruman , another Giuliani associate , were arrested in October on claims that they funneled foreign money into Trump ’ s presidential campaign as the House continued its impeachment inquiry .
As seen in the documents obtained by lawmakers , Parnas received messages from Republican Robert F. Hyde in March 2019 with details on Yovanovitch ’ s location in Ukraine from people who were apparently spying on the diplomat in Kyiv .
Hyde is a Connecticut congressional candidate , The Daily Beast confirmed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can ’ t believe Trumo [ sic ] hasn ’ t fired this bitch .
I ’ ll get right in that , ” Hyde wrote to Parnas before sending him a series of updates on her location and movements .
“ They are willing to help if we/you would like a price , ” Hyde said in another message .
“ Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money ... what I was told.
” In response to his messages to Parnas , Hyde told NBC News that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Schiff a “ turd.
” “ How low can liddle Adam Bill Schiff go .
To take some texts my buddy ’ s and I wrote while we had a few drinks to some dweeb I met a few times , ” he said in a text message to NBC ’ s Josh Lederman .
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) sent the additional evidence to the House Judiciary Committee on two flash drives on Tuesday .
It was submitted to be included as part of the official records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the articles of impeachment against Trump .
“ Despite the President ’ s unprecedented and sweeping obstruction of our impeachment inquiry , we have continued to collect additional evidence relevant to the President ’ s scheme to abuse his power by pressing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the President ’ s benefit , ” the chairs of four House committees said in a statement Tuesday .
The four ― Schiff , Nadler , Carolyn Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) and Eliot Engel ( D-N.Y. ) ― described the evidence submitted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that provide more information about the effort to coerce Ukraine into helping the President ’ s reelection campaign.
” Weeks after his arrest , Parnas agreed to comply with the impeachment inquiry by testifying and giving lawmakers access to phone records and documents seized during his arrest .
Over the weekend , Parnas ’ s attorney asked a judge to allow him to hand over even more documents that were “ essential ” to Trump ’ s impeachment inquiry , including records from two cellphones and an iPad .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released a collection of new evidence obtained from Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, that looks into how Giuliani communicated with the president of Ukraine on behalf of President Donald Trump.
Among the documents was a previously unseen handwritten note by Parnas, a Florida businessman who helped Giuliani try to dig up dirt on one of Trump’s political rivals.
Advertisement
The note read: “Get Zalensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”
The new evidence also includes letters sent to then-Ukranian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky from Giuliani and WhatsApp message exchanges between Parnas and a man who apparently tracked the location of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in March.
The House Intelligence Committee obtained more documents from Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas to use as evidence in Trump's impeachment inquiry. U.S. House Intelligence Committee
U.S. House Intelligence Committee
Parnas and Igor Fruman, another Giuliani associate, were arrested in October on claims that they funneled foreign money into Trump’s presidential campaign as the House continued its impeachment inquiry.
Advertisement
As seen in the documents obtained by lawmakers, Parnas received messages from Republican Robert F. Hyde in March 2019 with details on Yovanovitch’s location in Ukraine from people who were apparently spying on the diplomat in Kyiv. Hyde is a Connecticut congressional candidate, The Daily Beast confirmed with Parnas’s lawyer.
“Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this bitch. I’ll get right in that,” Hyde wrote to Parnas before sending him a series of updates on her location and movements.
“They are willing to help if we/you would like a price,” Hyde said in another message. “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money... what I was told.”
Robert F. Hyde was apparently tracking the location of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, according to WhatsApp messages to Parnas. HuffPost US
Hyde apparently had contacts in Kyiv who were willing to track Yovanovitch for money. HuffPost US
Advertisement
In response to his messages to Parnas, Hyde told NBC News that he wrote them when he was drinking and called Schiff a “turd.”
“How low can liddle Adam Bill Schiff go. To take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote while we had a few drinks to some dweeb I met a few times,” he said in a text message to NBC’s Josh Lederman.
NEWS - Robert Hyde reacts
He tells me tonight via text message:
“How low can liddle Adam Bull Schiff go. To take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote while we had a few drinks to some dweeb I met a few times.... Bull Schiff is a desperate turd.” — Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) January 15, 2020
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) sent the additional evidence to the House Judiciary Committee on two flash drives on Tuesday. It was submitted to be included as part of the official records sent to the Senate, along with the articles of impeachment against Trump.
Schiff described the documents as “pertinent to the impeachment inquiry” in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).
Advertisement
“Despite the President’s unprecedented and sweeping obstruction of our impeachment inquiry, we have continued to collect additional evidence relevant to the President’s scheme to abuse his power by pressing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the President’s benefit,” the chairs of four House committees said in a statement Tuesday.
The four ― Schiff, Nadler, Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) ― described the evidence submitted by Parnas as a “trove of documents that provide more information about the effort to coerce Ukraine into helping the President’s reelection campaign.”
Weeks after his arrest, Parnas agreed to comply with the impeachment inquiry by testifying and giving lawmakers access to phone records and documents seized during his arrest. Over the weekend, Parnas’s attorney asked a judge to allow him to hand over even more documents that were “essential” to Trump’s impeachment inquiry, including records from two cellphones and an iPad.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--CNN Completely Botched The Democratic Presidential Debate

Who will stand up for the “ insurance town ” in the 2020 election ?
Why should the government do things ?
Will Bernie Sanders bankrupt America ?
Who onstage will let Iran have a nuclear weapon ― you know , just because ?
If these sound like terrible questions to you , you ’ re right .
They were awful .
And they were the focus of CNN ’ s tedious , interminable , frivolous debate on Tuesday night ― a fiasco of irrelevance held three weeks before the Iowa caucuses .
Again and again , CNN anchors substituted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then followed up predictable responses with further centrist talking points , rarely illuminating any substantive disagreements between the candidates or problems with their policy positions .
CNN anchor Abby Phillip asked former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg if he would embrace President Donald Trump ’ s vow to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon .
When Buttigieg said that yes , in fact , he would block Iran from going nuclear , Phillip persisted : “ Mayor Buttigieg , to be clear , would you allow Iran to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Buttigieg acknowledged that , no , he would not .
If it isn ’ t obvious , no presidential candidate is going to strut out on national television and say , “ Yes , I want to ensure that other countries get more nuclear weapons.
” None .
Everybody knows nuclear weapons are bad .
It takes no moral sacrifice or strategic cunning to state that yes , you too are against nuclear weapons .
To which Sanders replied : Well , the health insurance industry is ripping off the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to live with it .
But they will be eligible for money from a “ transition fund ” offering up to five years of income , health care and job training for people who work for health insurance companies .
It was a reasonable response to a ridiculous question .
No matter what the next president does about the American health care system , health insurers and health care providers are going to make less money .
The health care crisis in America is a product of health insurance companies and health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t fix that without sticking it to them .
And yet tonight , nothing could stop Phillip from invoking something a random billionaire probably cares a lot about .
“ Senator Sanders , your campaign proposals would double federal spending over the next decade , an unprecedented level of spending not seen since World War II .
How would you keep your plans from bankrupting the country ?
” Who will stand up for the 'insurance town ' in the 2020 election ?
Why should the government do things ?
Will Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let Iran have a nuclear weapon ― you know , just because ?
Just to be sure that viewers didn ’ t miss the point , CNN also posted the elegant chyron : “ Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the country ?
” This was a dumb question and a cheap chyron .
Contenders for the Democratic nomination have been debating health care for almost a year now .
Sanders ’ position isn ’ t a secret .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace them with tax revenue .
Either you believe he ’ ll be able to bring down health care costs by bringing the government to bear on the process , or you don ’ t .
But the idea that shifting health care premiums over to tax revenue will “ bankrupt ” the country is a financial joke .
But the festival of inanity ground on .
“ Senator Warren , ” Wolf Blitzer asked , “ Why does it make sense for the government ― for the government to manufacture drugs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near historic lows ?
” This was not quite what Elizabeth Warren has proposed , and she said so .
Under Warren ’ s plan , the government would make use of its existing authority to let generic drug companies manufacture drugs at low prices if prescription drug companies refuse to offer them at affordable rates .
It ’ s called compulsory licensing , and other countries make use of it all the time .
Blitzer ’ s query , however , didn ’ t just misconstrue Warren ’ s drug plan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the catastrophic problems facing the country and the world ― from climate change to health care to wages and inequality .
Given public distrust of government , why bother with anything ?
Why not just wait and see what happens , folks ?
Maybe something will turn up ?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Who will stand up for the “insurance town” in the 2020 election? Why should the government do things? Will Bernie Sanders bankrupt America? Who onstage will let Iran have a nuclear weapon ― you know, just because?
If these sound like terrible questions to you, you’re right. They were awful. And they were the focus of CNN’s tedious, interminable, frivolous debate on Tuesday night ― a fiasco of irrelevance held three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Advertisement
Again and again, CNN anchors substituted centrist talking points for questions ― and then followed up predictable responses with further centrist talking points, rarely illuminating any substantive disagreements between the candidates or problems with their policy positions.
CNN anchor Abby Phillip asked former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg if he would embrace President Donald Trump’s vow to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. When Buttigieg said that yes, in fact, he would block Iran from going nuclear, Phillip persisted: “Mayor Buttigieg, to be clear, would you allow Iran to become a nuclear power, yes or no?” Buttigieg acknowledged that, no, he would not.
If it isn’t obvious, no presidential candidate is going to strut out on national television and say, “Yes, I want to ensure that other countries get more nuclear weapons.” None. Everybody knows nuclear weapons are bad. It takes no moral sacrifice or strategic cunning to state that yes, you too are against nuclear weapons.
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer didn’t just misconstrue Elizabeth Warren’s drug plan on Tuesday. He called into question government action on any of the catastrophic problems facing the country and the world. Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
Advertisement
But Phillip was on a roll. Des Moines, she noted, is an “insurance town.” What will happen to the poor insurance company employees if “Medicare for All” replaces the private insurance industry?
To which Sanders replied: Well, the health insurance industry is ripping off the country. They’re gonna have to live with it. But they will be eligible for money from a “transition fund” offering up to five years of income, health care and job training for people who work for health insurance companies.
It was a reasonable response to a ridiculous question. No matter what the next president does about the American health care system, health insurers and health care providers are going to make less money. The health care crisis in America is a product of health insurance companies and health care providers ripping everybody off. You can’t fix that without sticking it to them.
And yet tonight, nothing could stop Phillip from invoking something a random billionaire probably cares a lot about. “Senator Sanders, your campaign proposals would double federal spending over the next decade, an unprecedented level of spending not seen since World War II. How would you keep your plans from bankrupting the country?”
“Who will stand up for the 'insurance town' in the 2020 election? Why should the government do things? Will Bernie Sanders bankrupt America? Who onstage will let Iran have a nuclear weapon ― you know, just because?”
Advertisement
Just to be sure that viewers didn’t miss the point, CNN also posted the elegant chyron: “Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the country?”
This was a dumb question and a cheap chyron. Contenders for the Democratic nomination have been debating health care for almost a year now. Sanders’ position isn’t a secret. He’s going to eliminate premiums and copays and replace them with tax revenue. Either you believe he’ll be able to bring down health care costs by bringing the government to bear on the process, or you don’t. But the idea that shifting health care premiums over to tax revenue will “bankrupt” the country is a financial joke.
Sanders, to his credit, responded with restraint: “No, our plan wouldn’t bankrupt the country.”
But the festival of inanity ground on. “Senator Warren,” Wolf Blitzer asked, “Why does it make sense for the government ― for the government to manufacture drugs, especially when public trust in government is near historic lows?”
This was not quite what Elizabeth Warren has proposed, and she said so. Under Warren’s plan, the government would make use of its existing authority to let generic drug companies manufacture drugs at low prices if prescription drug companies refuse to offer them at affordable rates. It’s called compulsory licensing, and other countries make use of it all the time.
Blitzer’s query, however, didn’t just misconstrue Warren’s drug plan. It called into question government action on any of the catastrophic problems facing the country and the world ― from climate change to health care to wages and inequality. Given public distrust of government, why bother with anything? Why not just wait and see what happens, folks? Maybe something will turn up?
Advertisement