thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Electability Takes Center Stage As Democratic Candidates Try To Close The Deal In Iowa

One week out from the Iowa caucuses , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
wants voters to know one thing : She ’ s as electable as they come .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg is hoping voters go to their caucuses thinking the same thing about him .
Joe Biden too .
After nearly a year of campaigning and debating differences in their platforms , most of the leading Democratic presidential candidates are making their final messages , as seen through their television ads , about President Donald Trump .
Specifically , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren ’ s campaign , once defined almost exclusively by its policy plans , released two ads Monday , one featuring her extended family , mostly Republicans , saying they ’ ll vote for her .
The second resembled a general election ad ; shot after shot showed Warren in direct contrast to Trump .
The ad ’ s title : “ Why She Will Beat Him.
” “ I ’ m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message because I ’ m going to beat him , ” Warren says in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , titled “ Trump Is Nervous.
” By Monday morning , the campaign had spent more than $ 213,000 on the ad , airing it more than 940 times over seven days in all the major Iowa media markets .
There are some exceptions in the field .
Most notably , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , who has made a splash in Iowa in the final weeks , isn ’ t making electability his final rallying cry in the days ahead of the caucuses .
Sanders is polling 3 percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , according to the Real Clear Politics polling average in the final week of January .
While his campaign is quick to point out that Sanders does well against Trump in general election polls , Sanders ’ two television ads in Iowa leading to the caucuses weren ’ t about Trump .
One focused solely on his signature policy proposal , “ Medicare for All , ” a universal government-run health insurance program .
Another ad highlighted his vision for a political revolution .
“ Look around you and find someone you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who doesn ’ t look kind of like you .
Are you willing to fight for that person as much as you ’ re willing to fight for yourself ?
” you can hear Sanders saying in the ad — a recording of a speech he gave at a major campaign rally in Queens , New York , with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) .
The 30-second spot highlights his supporters at town hall events and campaign organizing efforts .
“ If you and millions of others are willing to do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , but together we will transform this country , ” the ad ends , with the sounds of cheering crowds .
Sanders has long argued that his progressive policy platform — and his call for a mass movement of people to rally behind it — is the answer to voters ’ electability concerns .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) who came in third behind Sanders and Biden in a recent Emerson College poll of Iowa Democrats , highlighted a similar message , focusing on her plan for the first 100 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s some reason for that .
When polled , Iowans have consistently highlighted a candidate ’ s ability to beat Trump as one of their top priorities in picking a candidate .
In a late-January Suffolk University poll of Iowa voters , “ defeating Donald Trump ” was the biggest priority for voters ( 39 % of surveyed Americans said it was the most important issue for them ) , followed by health care .
Every candidate in the Democratic presidential race has undergone this “ electability ” scrutiny .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush , tried to raise electability concerns about Sanders in The Atlantic this week , writing , “ Bernie Sanders is a fragile candidate .
He has never fought a race in which he had to face serious personal scrutiny.
” The sentiment was circulated by a number of anti-Trump Republicans , who are undoubtedly spooked by Sanders ’ unabashedly left-wing agenda .
When Warren was asked if she was electable , she pointed out that Obama and Trump were both asked the same question , remarking on misplaced skepticism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong track record winning elections .
Biden has focused on electability from the beginning , making Trump , and his belief that he can beat the president , the centerpiece of his campaign .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
One week out from the Iowa caucuses, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wants voters to know one thing: She’s as electable as they come. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is hoping voters go to their caucuses thinking the same thing about him. Joe Biden too.
After nearly a year of campaigning and debating differences in their platforms, most of the leading Democratic presidential candidates are making their final messages, as seen through their television ads, about President Donald Trump. Specifically, that they are best positioned to beat him.
Advertisement
Warren’s campaign, once defined almost exclusively by its policy plans, released two ads Monday, one featuring her extended family, mostly Republicans, saying they’ll vote for her. The second resembled a general election ad; shot after shot showed Warren in direct contrast to Trump. The ad’s title: “Why She Will Beat Him.”
“I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message because I’m going to beat him,” Warren says in another TV ad her campaign released last week, titled “Trump Is Nervous.” By Monday morning, the campaign had spent more than $213,000 on the ad, airing it more than 940 times over seven days in all the major Iowa media markets.
The opening line of one of Buttigieg’s final TV pushes in Iowa was a testimonial from state Sen. Bill Dotzler: “He has the greatest chance of defeating Donald Trump.”
Advertisement
Biden’s campaign released an ad that made no mention of policy at all, and instead included head-to-head polls that showed the former vice president beating Trump in swing states.
“This is no time to take a risk,” the female narrator said in the Biden ad. “We need our strongest candidate. So let’s nominate the Democrat Trump fears the most. Vote Biden. Beat Trump.”
There are some exceptions in the field. Most notably, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has made a splash in Iowa in the final weeks, isn’t making electability his final rallying cry in the days ahead of the caucuses. Sanders is polling 3 percentage points ahead of the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average in the final week of January.
Advertisement
While his campaign is quick to point out that Sanders does well against Trump in general election polls, Sanders’ two television ads in Iowa leading to the caucuses weren’t about Trump. One focused solely on his signature policy proposal, “Medicare for All,” a universal government-run health insurance program. Another ad highlighted his vision for a political revolution.
“Look around you and find someone you don’t know, maybe somebody who doesn’t look kind of like you. Are you willing to fight for that person as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself?” you can hear Sanders saying in the ad — a recording of a speech he gave at a major campaign rally in Queens, New York, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The 30-second spot highlights his supporters at town hall events and campaign organizing efforts.
“If you and millions of others are willing to do that, not only will we win this election, but together we will transform this country,” the ad ends, with the sounds of cheering crowds.
Are you willing to fight for someone else as much as you're willing to fight for yourself? If we do that, we will transform this country. pic.twitter.com/exoCPYtwew — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 23, 2020
Sanders has long argued that his progressive policy platform — and his call for a mass movement of people to rally behind it — is the answer to voters’ electability concerns. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who came in third behind Sanders and Biden in a recent Emerson College poll of Iowa Democrats, highlighted a similar message, focusing on her plan for the first 100 days in office in her new TV ad.
Advertisement
But the rest of the field is being much more explicit.
There’s some reason for that. When polled, Iowans have consistently highlighted a candidate’s ability to beat Trump as one of their top priorities in picking a candidate. In a late-January Suffolk University poll of Iowa voters, “defeating Donald Trump” was the biggest priority for voters (39% of surveyed Americans said it was the most important issue for them), followed by health care.
Every candidate in the Democratic presidential race has undergone this “electability” scrutiny. David Frum, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, tried to raise electability concerns about Sanders in The Atlantic this week, writing, “Bernie Sanders is a fragile candidate. He has never fought a race in which he had to face serious personal scrutiny.” The sentiment was circulated by a number of anti-Trump Republicans, who are undoubtedly spooked by Sanders’ unabashedly left-wing agenda. When Warren was asked if she was electable, she pointed out that Obama and Trump were both asked the same question, remarking on misplaced skepticism.
Warren and Klobuchar have pointed to their strong track record winning elections. Biden has focused on electability from the beginning, making Trump, and his belief that he can beat the president, the centerpiece of his campaign.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Age Of Voters, Not Candidates, Could Decide Who Wins The Iowa Caucuses

Age has emerged as the crucial dividing line ahead of the Democratic caucuses here , neatly dividing the coalitions of the two septuagenarians in a way education , class and geography do not .
Sanders , whose bold agenda includes aggressive plans to wipe out student debt and battle climate change , disproportionately draws support from millennials and members of Generation Z. Biden , who has unveiled more cautious policy proposals , is heavily reliant on the gray-haired .
Each is struggling with the opposite demographic .
( The coalitions for both Warren and Buttigieg are more consistent across age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College poll released Saturday morning found Sanders jumping to a substantial lead , earning 25 % of the vote , while Buttigeg draws 18 % , Biden 17 % and Warren 15 % .
No other candidate earned double-digit support .
John Anzalone , the pollster for the Biden campaign , immediately suggested the poll ’ s sample leaned too young .
Nate Cohn , the Times reporter responsible for the poll , noted Sanders would have led even without the inclusion of any 18-to-29-year-old voters .
There are also contrary pictures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters could happen .
A CIRCLE/Suffolk University poll found 35 % of Iowans under the age of 35 planned to participate in the caucuses , which would amount to a massive surge from 2016 , when just 11 % of the same age group caucused .
Such a surge would substantially benefit Sanders , who has consolidated younger voters in the state after many considered Warren and Buttigieg earlier in the cycle .
The same poll finds him winning the support of 39 % of Iowa Democrats under 35 , compared to 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg .
Biden earns the support of just 7 % of younger Democrats , even trailing entrepreneur Andrew Yang .
“ We ’ re not seeing , at this point , a big number of first-time caucusgoers , ” she told WNYC ’ s “ Politics with Amy Walter ” podcast .
“ It ’ s about what it was in 2016.
” Selzer did note her poll didn ’ t pick up on a surge of first-time caucusgoers backing then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 until the final survey , released the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation is a situation where you ’ re the least prejudiced , the most open , you ’ re the best educated , but until recently ― and then thank God , this has changed ― you haven ’ t been very interested in politics , generally , ” he said .
“ And so now you ’ re engaged and I ’ m looking forward to you voting and voting in big numbers .
But everyone is voting in bigger numbers as well.
” Sanders , meanwhile , has continued to remind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security and his plans to bring down prescription drug prices .
The Sanders campaign has spent more than $ 700,000 on a television ad highlighting his willingness to battle pharmaceutical companies , according to data from Advertising Analytics .
And Alex Lawson , a Sanders supporter who runs the advocacy group Social Security Works , has made two trips to Iowa this month to pitch seniors in small towns on Sanders ’ agenda .
( While Lawson has endorsed Sanders , the group he runs has not . )
Although Sanders has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national press with Biden over their respective Social Security records , J.D .
Scholten , an unaligned Democrat making a second bid to challenge Rep. Steve King for a U.S. House seat in Northwest Iowa , is not sure if his particular message on Social Security was breaking through the noise to ordinary voters .
Scholten has seen some signs that the coalition Sanders has promised to awaken of young , working-class and otherwise disengaged voters is starting to tune in as the caucus approaches .
He was impressed with the 1,100-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez in Sioux City on Sunday night .
The Sanders campaign ’ s strategy of relying on younger and more independent voters , who typically show up less at the polls , carries risks .
The number of registered Democrats in Iowa declined relative to this time in 2019 , according to data released by the office of the Iowa secretary of state .
That means the campaign will have to recruit that many more people to register as Democrats on the day of the caucus .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
IOWA CITY, Iowa ― The political fortunes of former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders could hinge on how many young voters show up to next week’s Iowa caucuses, which are historically dominated by older voters with the ability to dedicate a full night to participating in the lengthy, labor-intensive process.
Polling in recent days has shown wildly divergent results for Sanders and Biden, who are competing with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg to win Iowa. The victor will receive a major boost to their efforts to claim the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and the right to challenge President Donald Trump in November.
Advertisement
Age has emerged as the crucial dividing line ahead of the Democratic caucuses here, neatly dividing the coalitions of the two septuagenarians in a way education, class and geography do not. Sanders, whose bold agenda includes aggressive plans to wipe out student debt and battle climate change, disproportionately draws support from millennials and members of Generation Z. Biden, who has unveiled more cautious policy proposals, is heavily reliant on the gray-haired. Each is struggling with the opposite demographic. (The coalitions for both Warren and Buttigieg are more consistent across age groups.)
The Sanders campaign bluntly warned their chances of victory are reliant on college students, in particular, showing up to caucus.
“None of these polls mean anything unless we actually achieve our goal of turning out a record number of college students on Monday,” said Bill Neidhardt, the campaign’s deputy Iowa director.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Saturday morning found Sanders jumping to a substantial lead, earning 25% of the vote, while Buttigeg draws 18%, Biden 17% and Warren 15%. No other candidate earned double-digit support. John Anzalone, the pollster for the Biden campaign, immediately suggested the poll’s sample leaned too young. Nate Cohn, the Times reporter responsible for the poll, noted Sanders would have led even without the inclusion of any 18-to-29-year-old voters.
Advertisement
“This sample has only 24% over the age of [65],” Anzalone wrote. “There could be up to 30% over the age of 65 going to the Iowa caucuses.”
Meanwhile, a poll released last week from the advocacy group Focus on Rural America found Biden with a healthy lead, earning 24% of the vote to Warren’s 18%. Buttigieg drew 16%, Sanders warranted 14% and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar 11%. Sanders allies have suggested that poll’s sample skewed older.
There are also contrary pictures of whether or not a surge of young voters could happen. A CIRCLE/Suffolk University poll found 35% of Iowans under the age of 35 planned to participate in the caucuses, which would amount to a massive surge from 2016, when just 11% of the same age group caucused.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont speaks to Iowa voters at the Ames City Auditorium in Ames, Iowa, on Jan. 25, 2020. Win McNamee via Getty Images
Such a surge would substantially benefit Sanders, who has consolidated younger voters in the state after many considered Warren and Buttigieg earlier in the cycle. The same poll finds him winning the support of 39% of Iowa Democrats under 35, compared to 19% for Warren and 14% for Buttigieg. Biden earns the support of just 7% of younger Democrats, even trailing entrepreneur Andrew Yang.
Advertisement
But J. Ann Selzer, who conducts the state’s definitive poll for the Des Moines Register, said she has yet to see evidence of a surge of new voters.
“We’re not seeing, at this point, a big number of first-time caucusgoers,” she told WNYC’s “Politics with Amy Walter” podcast. “It’s about what it was in 2016.” Selzer did note her poll didn’t pick up on a surge of first-time caucusgoers backing then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 until the final survey, released the weekend before the caucuses.
The generational divide was visible as Sanders and Biden campaigned across Iowa this weekend. Sanders, accompanied by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, drew a 1,200-person crowd on Saturday night in Ames, the home of Iowa State University. Even without Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore drew 800 people to the University of Iowa’s campus in Iowa City.
On Monday, Biden held events at two different college campuses ― at Iowa and at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls ― and drew much smaller crowds. His event at Northern Iowa, in particular, had almost no students in attendance.
At the event, a voter questioned Biden about his lack of support from young people: “What’s an old guy like you going to do to get their support?”
Advertisement
Biden responded by noting that while youth turnout may have jumped in 2018, turnout also spiked among voters over the age of 40.
“Your generation is a situation where you’re the least prejudiced, the most open, you’re the best educated, but until recently ― and then thank God, this has changed ― you haven’t been very interested in politics, generally,” he said. “And so now you’re engaged and I’m looking forward to you voting and voting in big numbers. But everyone is voting in bigger numbers as well.”
Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the University of Iowa on Monday night ahead of the all-important Democratic caucuses in the state. Carlos Barria / Reuters
“The fact is you’ve got to be able to represent anyone,” he continued, before finishing with a joke: “It’s also, I’ve found, very difficult to get people to show up on a college campus before 4 o’clock.”
At the event in Iowa City, Biden specifically took questions from students in the crowd, who quizzed him on his plans for climate change and the economy.
Advertisement
Sanders, meanwhile, has continued to remind voters of his long-standing support for expanding Social Security and his plans to bring down prescription drug prices. The Sanders campaign has spent more than $700,000 on a television ad highlighting his willingness to battle pharmaceutical companies, according to data from Advertising Analytics. And Alex Lawson, a Sanders supporter who runs the advocacy group Social Security Works, has made two trips to Iowa this month to pitch seniors in small towns on Sanders’ agenda. (While Lawson has endorsed Sanders, the group he runs has not.)
Although Sanders has been engaged in a high-profile fight in the national press with Biden over their respective Social Security records, J.D. Scholten, an unaligned Democrat making a second bid to challenge Rep. Steve King for a U.S. House seat in Northwest Iowa, is not sure if his particular message on Social Security was breaking through the noise to ordinary voters.
“It’s hard to say because it gets lumped in with so many other issues,” said Scholten, a Sioux City native who is also a former minor league baseball pitcher.
Scholten has seen some signs that the coalition Sanders has promised to awaken of young, working-class and otherwise disengaged voters is starting to tune in as the caucus approaches. He was impressed with the 1,100-person turnout for a rally with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez in Sioux City on Sunday night.
“I have never seen a political event like that in Sioux City,” he said, noting Ocasio-Cortez helped draw in the area’s growing Latino population.
Advertisement
The Sanders campaign’s strategy of relying on younger and more independent voters, who typically show up less at the polls, carries risks. The number of registered Democrats in Iowa declined relative to this time in 2019, according to data released by the office of the Iowa secretary of state. That means the campaign will have to recruit that many more people to register as Democrats on the day of the caucus.
Biden, meanwhile, had deployed his own millennial congresswoman to campaign in the state. Rep. Abby Finkenauer, who represents the state’s union-heavy northeast, was among a trio of swing-seat Democrats traveling across the state to tout Biden’s ability to win over independent voters and Republicans.
Finkenauer, who is the second-youngest woman ever elected to Congress — Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest — indicated she wasn’t too worried about Biden’s struggles with young voters. After all, Biden had won over a college-age Finkenauer during his last campaign in 2008.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--What It’s Like To Live Undocumented

What It’s Like To Live Undocumented

Castillo weaves devastating details throughout his new memoir , “ Children of the Land , ” which publishes Tuesday from Harper .
They are details that only a person who has lived without papers could know .
Details like driving in a car with your mother and turning off the radio when a show about what happens to migrant bodies in the desert comes on .
What it ’ s like to dive into the immigration system in search of a legal path to keep your mother in America , and get your father out of Mexico .
What it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a green card and have to prove your love for your partner .
What it ’ s like to help your mother prepare to move back to Mexico — to self-deport — because that is the only way she can be reunited with her husband .
We met through a mutual friend .
I was in Miami in 2018 for the Miami Book Festival and she was there .
I went to a reading where she was at and she walked out and I tapped her shoulder and I just started weeping and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just held my face for a long time and we just stood there silently and she ’ s like , “ I have your book , I know who you are .
I have it on my nightstand.
” I said , “ Get out of here , and stop.
” She said she liked the book .
I just actually could not believe it .
So much of the memoir is about you trying not to be seen , to hide in plain sight .
I was thinking about the struggle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in the writing as well , like what you choose to place on the record , and what you choose to leave out .
I was wondering if you could speak to the process of that .
Did you try and dump everything on the page and then be judicious about what you took out ?
I think that ’ s why I turned to prose in the first place , because I finally came to a point where there were things I had to say that I couldn ’ t in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prose .
This narrative that I have built , I did it very carefully .
I excluded my brothers and my sister , in part , to respect them , but also because this is a story of my relationship to my parents and my relationship to my wife and my relationship to my son and my relationship to my grandparents and great-grandparents and ancestors .
All the intersecting voices of all of those .
I think it was the fact that I stopped writing poetry .
And I couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of friends of mine if they enjoy the actual ride of writing or do they enjoy the lead up to the writing or do they enjoy once they finish .
A lot of my friends all say , yeah , I really like the writing .
For me it ’ s very difficult .
I like the end result of once it ’ s all done .
The actual working of it , it ’ s very , very difficult for me .
I wasn ’ t writing poetry .
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then I started writing prose just to make myself ... fake it until you make it , right ?
And just make myself believe that I was doing something with my hands .
I bought a Kindle and I just started getting as many because they were a lot cheaper on Kindle so I could go through a bunch of them and I would just be on a plane and I would just be at home and really thinking about how to approach it .
But the wonderful thing is that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonfiction , and I didn ’ t have the pressure of these are the conventions and this is how it works .
If you don ’ t do this , it might be a failure .
I was very free to just fail , just wonderfully fail and not really care about failing because I knew that I didn ’ t have much experience with it .
I knew that I could really just go ahead kind of like take the dive into the blue .
Let ’ s see what happens .

Illustration by Violet Reed for HuffPost
This article is the second in a series called “How To Human,” interviews with memoirists that explore how we tackle life’s alarms, marvels and bombshells. The first interview was with Ada Calhoun.
When Marcelo Hernandez Castillo crossed the border as a child with his family from Mexico to the United States, he experienced stress-induced blindness. It’s a horrifying, parent’s-worst-nightmare detail that no one could possibly imagine without having known it.
Advertisement
Castillo weaves devastating details throughout his new memoir, “Children of the Land,” which publishes Tuesday from Harper. They are details that only a person who has lived without papers could know. Details like driving in a car with your mother and turning off the radio when a show about what happens to migrant bodies in the desert comes on. What it’s like to dive into the immigration system in search of a legal path to keep your mother in America, and get your father out of Mexico. What it’s like to be interviewed for a green card and have to prove your love for your partner. What it’s like to help your mother prepare to move back to Mexico — to self-deport — because that is the only way she can be reunited with her husband.
In writing from the heart of truth, Castillo paints an honest and nuanced portrait of the undocumented life. His memoir published weeks after “American Dirt,” a novel about a mother and her son fleeing Mexico after a drug cartel kills their family. It is written by Jeanine Cummins, a white woman, and was criticized by readers and the Latinx community for its cliched descriptions of Mexico. The book has created a debate over who gets to tell certain stories.
Castillo is also the author of “Cenzontle,” a collection of poetry. In an interview with HuffPost, he talks about his often painful writing process, and how he feels like his story, the immigrant story, has no ending.
The book is just so vivid and anchored in scene, just like a movie. Same with the action, the back and forth across the border, the waiting to hear from immigration. It creates this enormous tension for the reader. Is that something that you played with when you were writing it? That aspect of time and when to slow down and speed up, when to go back in time, when to stay in the present?
Advertisement
Being a poet really allowed me to move things around and not be faithful to a particular chronology. For me, that was far more interesting, because that is a more accurate representation of the undocumented experience. You’re not just living in the present; you’re still living in the legacy of the past and the consequences of even things that happened, say, in 1916. We’re still waiting or we’re still moving or we’re still doing this maddening back and forth that just seems to not end.
I love the historical re-creations you do for your grandfather, your great-grandfather and even when you are writing about your mother’s ancestral home. Could you talk about the research you did for that and how you re-created those scenes?
I interviewed an uncle of mine who’s in his late 80s who actually went through the whole process of delousing. I used documents that I found, too. They weren’t necessarily passports, but just little cards that said your name, the date, your physical features, occupation and port of entry and then the return. And I read a wonderful book by David Dorado Romo called “Ringside Seat to a Revolution.”
There are beautiful scenes in the book in which you describe the ruins of your mother’s ancestral home. Did she tell you about it?
I’ve always known about it because at family gatherings, I remember as a kid the only conversations were conversations about Mexico. Issues about land. Conversations about cattle. Conversations about who was where. Conversations about who died. It was always directed that way. I grew up almost having an idea of these places and of these homes and this landscape before I ever actually went back. After 21 years away, I ended up going back because of DACA. I was able to see firsthand the places that my mother was talking about. They were abandoned and in shambles.
Advertisement
Seeing it for myself, it was pretty devastating to see my mother’s house the way it was. There was so much life, she explained, on that ranch, just how alive it was. How, with all of my aunts, their kids everywhere, the arroyo was still going. It’s just a very picturesque, very beautiful, quiet place.
HarperCollins
There’s a part, I think toward the beginning of the book, where you describe watching interviews with David Letterman, old ones, ones which were staged in which the guest predetermined what questions were off the table. I love that you drew the parallel with your interview with immigration, in which immigration could ask you anything at all, no matter how intimate. Could you speak to that juxtaposition?
Yeah, that’s one of my favorite sections of the book. That’s one of the parts that I changed the least. I have never thought about it so deeply until it was time for my own immigration interview. I had always loved the glamour of Hollywood, this opulence that I didn’t have; it’s a kind of freedom. But I was very intentionally thinking about those parallels and thinking about how the interview is a phenomenon that creates new knowledge that wasn’t there before.
I have an idea as to how I want to answer the questions you’re asking right now and you have an idea based off of your questions. At the end of the day, we have a product that didn’t exist before because of collaboration.
Advertisement
The part of the interview that talks about love is something I spent a lot of time thinking about because of the comparison between that and the celebrity interviews. I think for me it was, I would say ... I’m at a loss for words.
My observation is that celebrities in front of David Letterman got to dictate what could and could not be asked of them. And then you set up a parallel where you are asked during your green card interview really intimate questions that no stranger should be allowed to ask another person. You had to prove that you really loved your wife, and that you were not just marrying her for a green card; in the parallel you show what separated the two kinds of interviews.
Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That expectation for those rules to be followed and then something strange happens when those rules are not followed.
A glitch in the matrix.
Where suddenly you have somebody who doesn’t follow the rules and who ends up with this meta commentary on the gaze. One of the best ones is in that Crispin Glover video where he turns to the camera and wonders if he’s even being filmed. That gaze. For me the interviewer at immigration had all of my documents spread out in front of her and I had to prove what she already knew. I just had to repeat it.
The only thing that we needed to discuss was that idea of love. If it was a constant, what would be a basis for rejection? Did they really expect love to be a constant? If I would’ve said we’re getting married, but I don’t love this person, or if I had said, we will stay married for the rest of our lives, but I don’t love this person. She basically is an arbiter of love and she decides what counts. I love her incredibly right now, but I fear that in the future that level of love will wane. Would that be cause for rejection?
Advertisement
Let’s say in the future, if a person breaks up with a person who they got their green card with, if things go as they are, would that be grounds for being stripped of their citizenship. It’s pretty scary.
I was reading the acknowledgments and I noticed you thank Sandra Cisneros. I was wondering what was that relationship? Did she mentor you or offer you feedback on your memoir?
We met through a mutual friend. I was in Miami in 2018 for the Miami Book Festival and she was there. I went to a reading where she was at and she walked out and I tapped her shoulder and I just started weeping and, really, just weeping. She just held my face for a long time and we just stood there silently and she’s like, “I have your book, I know who you are. I have it on my nightstand.” I said, “Get out of here, and stop.” She said she liked the book. I just actually could not believe it.
We talked for another hour or so. She said, “If you ever need anything from me, here’s my email. If you want me to blurb your book, here’s my email.”
The time came and I asked, and she said, “Yeah.” When it came to it and I sent her the manuscript, I was devastated because she went through it with a fine-tooth comb.
Advertisement
She gutted it. She went into it: “This is missing a comma. There’s a lot of spelling mistakes. There’s an inconsistency in your Spanish versus your English.” We went back and forth for months. I almost thought that she wasn’t going to blurb it at all because there were just too many problems with it. But at the end of the day she did. She wrote back with her blurb I was just so grateful for that, for taking her time. How many requests does she have, right?
It’s that level of commitment to community and paying things forward that I really admire and want to take on myself. It was just really beautiful and really touching.
So much of the memoir is about you trying not to be seen, to hide in plain sight. I was thinking about the struggle of trying to be seen and not seen and in the writing as well, like what you choose to place on the record, and what you choose to leave out. I was wondering if you could speak to the process of that. Did you try and dump everything on the page and then be judicious about what you took out?
Yeah. It was very purposeful, because it was difficult ... I didn’t enjoy writing this book. I hated it. It was probably the most difficult two years of my entire life, because I was still recovering from 2016 and there was a lot of changes going on. I had just recently been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder. I haven’t told anyone that. I wanted to not necessarily let that be something that I have to hide.
But I had to be very careful about how I presented my family because they’re very, very private to the point where they don’t want their kids in the pictures of other people’s cameras. My brother has told me, “I will never be OK with this book,” but he understands that this is my job. This is my occupation. This is what I do and this is what I’ve continued doing. I had to purposefully and very intentionally control what I could say about my experiences.
Advertisement
I told my editor that I didn’t want to sensationalize any of this. I wanted to instead look at the interior of what’s happening on the exterior. I didn’t want to focus on the details. I wanted to focus on the effects of those details on my personal health, on my emotional well-being, on how I understood and how I walked through the world in this body.
That was the case with my book of poems. It’s written in a way that is surreal. At that time, I was still undocumented. Writing that book didn’t jeopardize me. It didn’t put me in danger. But memoir is a memoir. You can’t do that. You have to be more exposed; you have to be more naked. You can’t hide behind imagery. You can’t hide behind symbolism. You’ve got the thing itself, rather than what something is. Something is life.
I think that’s why I turned to prose in the first place, because I finally came to a point where there were things I had to say that I couldn’t in poetry. You have to say it in prose. This narrative that I have built, I did it very carefully. I excluded my brothers and my sister, in part, to respect them, but also because this is a story of my relationship to my parents and my relationship to my wife and my relationship to my son and my relationship to my grandparents and great-grandparents and ancestors. All the intersecting voices of all of those.
You speak about going from writing in cryptic form, when you were waiting for your mother to go back to Mexico, to giving yourself permission to write about your life in a less cryptic way. Could you speak about that moment? Is that where you maybe figured out you wanted to write a memoir?
I think it was the fact that I stopped writing poetry. And I couldn’t handle not writing. I ask a lot of friends of mine if they enjoy the actual ride of writing or do they enjoy the lead up to the writing or do they enjoy once they finish. A lot of my friends all say, yeah, I really like the writing. For me it’s very difficult. I like the end result of once it’s all done. The actual working of it, it’s very, very difficult for me. I wasn’t writing poetry. I was super depressed because my mom was leaving. Then I started writing prose just to make myself ... fake it until you make it, right? And just make myself believe that I was doing something with my hands.
Advertisement
And then also by that time I had already gotten my green card and I felt a tiny nudge toward being able to say a little bit more. I had a little bit more protection. That was in 2015 and so the current administration wasn’t in place. Had it been 2016, ’17, ’18, it would’ve been a very different work. I had to consult both of my lawyers, plus Harper’s lawyers, to make sure that we were good and that there wouldn’t be anything that would really jeopardize me. It would be a very different book if I had written this in the Trump era.
Were there other memoirs that you turned to while you were writing for inspiration or just to look and see how they did it?
Yeah. Being mostly a poet and not a nonfiction writer, I had to really do my research in the genre. I read a lot of memoirs, seeing the conventions that people do. Some of the memoirs that I really liked are “The Distance Between Us” by Reyna Grande, in which she documents the tale of how her parents came to the U.S. and left her in Mexico for a long time. I really enjoyed other folks that played with genre and played with form and played with fragments. There are the works of Anne Carson or some poets who have also written memoirs, like Mary Ruefle’s “Madness, Rack and Honey,” which is just stunning and beautiful. And then the classics, Joan Didion. I lived for Joan Didion.
I bought a Kindle and I just started getting as many because they were a lot cheaper on Kindle so I could go through a bunch of them and I would just be on a plane and I would just be at home and really thinking about how to approach it. But the wonderful thing is that I don’t have an MFA in nonfiction, and I didn’t have the pressure of these are the conventions and this is how it works. If you don’t do this, it might be a failure. I was very free to just fail, just wonderfully fail and not really care about failing because I knew that I didn’t have much experience with it. I knew that I could really just go ahead kind of like take the dive into the blue. Let’s see what happens.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Palestinians Reject Trump 'Peace Plan' As Netanyahu Pushes Annexation

The ceremony came amid Trump ’ s impeachment trial and a U.S. election year , and after Netanyahu was indicted on counts of fraud , breach of trust and bribery in three separate cases .
The longtime Israeli leader , who denies any wrongdoing , also faces a March 2 parliamentary election , Israel ’ s third in less than a year .
Under the terms of the “ peace vision ” that Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has been working on for nearly three years , all settlers would remain in place , and Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlements as well as the strategic Jordan Valley .
The only concession the plan appears to demand of Israel is a four-year freeze on the establishment of new Israeli settlements in certain areas of the West Bank .
But Netanyahu clarified later that this only applied to areas where there are no settlements and Israel has no immediate plans to annex , and that he considered the plan to impose no limitations on construction .
Trump said he sent a letter to Abbas to tell him that the territory that the plan has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will remain open and undeveloped for four years .
“ It ’ s going to work , ” Trump said .
“ If they do this , it will work .
Your response to this historic opportunity will show the world to what extent you are ready to lead the Palestinian people to statehood.
” “ President Abbas , I want you to know , that if you chose the path to peace , America and many other countries ... we will be there to help you in so many different ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the way , ” Trump said .
“ Mr .
President , because of this historic recognition and because I believe your peace plan strikes the right balance where other plans have failed , ” Netanyahu said .
“ I ’ ve agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan .
It ’ s a great plan for Israel .
It ’ s a great plan for peace.
” U.S. officials , speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the plan ’ s release , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as Turkey and Iran , but were hopeful that Jordan and Egypt , the only two Arab nations to have peace treaties with Israel , would not reject it outright .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Middle East plan Tuesday, winning immediate praise from a beaming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but a swift rejection from the Palestinians, who called it “nonsense.”
Trump’s plan calls for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but it falls far short of minimal Palestinian demands and would leave sizable chunks of the occupied West Bank in Israeli hands.
Advertisement
Netanyahu said he would move forward on Sunday and ask his Cabinet to approve plans to annex West Bank territory — an explosive move that is likely to be met with harsh international reaction.
Trump called his plan a “win-win” for both Israel and the Palestinians, and Netanyahu called it a “great plan for Israel.”
At a speech in the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “nonsense.”
“We say 1,000 no’s to the Deal of the Century,” Abbas said, using a nickname for Trump’s proposal.
“We will not kneel and we will not surrender,” he said, adding that the Palestinians would resist the plan through “peaceful, popular means.”
With Netanyahu standing beside him, Trump presented the plan at a White House ceremony filled with other Israeli officials and allies, including evangelical Christian leaders and wealthy Republican donors but no Palestinian representatives.
Advertisement
The ceremony came amid Trump’s impeachment trial and a U.S. election year, and after Netanyahu was indicted on counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery in three separate cases. The longtime Israeli leader, who denies any wrongdoing, also faces a March 2 parliamentary election, Israel’s third in less than a year.
The Palestinians seek all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — for an independent state and the removal of more than 700,000 Israeli settlers from these areas.
But as details emerged, it became clear that the plan sides heavily with Netanyahu’s hard-line nationalist vision for the region and shunts aside many of the Palestinians’ core demands.
Under the terms of the “peace vision” that Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has been working on for nearly three years, all settlers would remain in place, and Israel would retain sovereignty over all of its settlements as well as the strategic Jordan Valley.
Advertisement
The proposed Palestinian state would also include more than a dozen Israeli “enclaves” with the entity’s borders monitored by Israel. In addition, the areas of east Jerusalem offered to the Palestinians consist of poor, crowded neighborhoods located behind a hulking concrete separation barrier.
Trump acknowledged that he has done a lot for Israel, but he said he wanted the deal to be a “great deal for the Palestinians.”
He said his vision gives the Palestinians the time needed for them to meet the challenges of statehood.
The only concession the plan appears to demand of Israel is a four-year freeze on the establishment of new Israeli settlements in certain areas of the West Bank. But Netanyahu clarified later that this only applied to areas where there are no settlements and Israel has no immediate plans to annex, and that he considered the plan to impose no limitations on construction.
Thousands of Palestinians protested in Gaza City ahead of the announcement, burning pictures of Trump and Netanyahu and raising a banner reading “Palestine is not for sale.”
Advertisement
Trump said he sent a letter to Abbas to tell him that the territory that the plan has set aside for a new Palestinian state will remain open and undeveloped for four years.
“It’s going to work,” Trump said. “If they do this, it will work. Your response to this historic opportunity will show the world to what extent you are ready to lead the Palestinian people to statehood.”
“President Abbas, I want you to know, that if you chose the path to peace, America and many other countries ... we will be there to help you in so many different ways. And we will be there every step of the way,” Trump said.
The 50-page plan builds on a 30-page economic plan for the West Bank and Gaza that was unveiled last June and which the Palestinians have also rejected.
The plan envisions a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, connected by a combination of roads and tunnels. It also would give small areas of southern Israel to the Palestinians as compensation for lost West Bank land.
Advertisement
But the many caveats, and ultimate overall Israeli control, made the deal a nonstarter for the Palestinians.
Netanyahu and his main political challenger in March elections, Benny Gantz, had signed off on the plan.
“Mr. President, because of this historic recognition and because I believe your peace plan strikes the right balance where other plans have failed,” Netanyahu said. “I’ve agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan. It’s a great plan for Israel. It’s a great plan for peace.”
Tuesday’s developments set the contours for his election campaign.
Netanyahu will highlight his close relationship with Trump and the “historic opportunity” provided by the peace plan, while Gantz will focus on Netanyahu’s legal woes. Netanyahu will soon go on trial for a series of corruption charges.
The Jordan Valley annexation plan is a big part of Netanyahu’s strategy. Annexing West Bank land is a key promise meant to appeal to his hard-line nationalist base.
Advertisement
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the plan’s release, said they expected negative responses from the Palestinians, as well as Turkey and Iran, but were hopeful that Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab nations to have peace treaties with Israel, would not reject it outright.
Jordan gave the plan a cool reaction, saying it remained committed to a two-state solution based on Israel’s pre-1967 lines. It also said it rejected any unilateral move by Israel, referring to the annexation plan.
Egypt, the first Arab country to reach a peace deal with Israel, urged Israelis and Palestinians to carefully study the plan. The European Union also said it needed to study it more closely.
Officials said they expected Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others to cautiously welcome the plan.
Arab League chief, Ahmed Abuel-Gheit said the Palestinian reaction would define the Arab response. He spoke after meeting with Palestinian official Jibril Rajoub at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo.
Advertisement
The reaction of Jordan, which would retain its responsibilities over Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque under the plan, is particularly significant, according to the officials, who said Kushner and others were reaching out to Arab leaders ahead of the rollout.
The Palestinians see the West Bank as the heartland of a future independent state and east Jerusalem as their capital. Most of the international community supports their position, but Trump has reversed decades of U.S. foreign policy by siding more blatantly with Israel. The centerpiece of his strategy was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American Embassy there. He’s also closed Palestinian diplomatic offices in Washington and cut funding to Palestinian aid programs.
Those policies have proven popular among Trump’s evangelical and pro-Israel supporters.
But the Palestinians refuse to even speak to Trump and they called on support from Arab leaders. The Palestinian leadership also has encouraged protests in the West Bank, raising fears of a new round of violence. Ahead of the announcement, the Israeli military said it was reinforcing infantry troops along the Jordan Valley.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Mitch McConnell Says The GOP Can't Block Witnesses — Yet

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Republican leaders do not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning John Bolton or other witnesses at President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell conceded to fellow GOP senators late Tuesday .
It could be a major hurdle for Trump ’ s hopes to end the trial with a quick acquittal .
Democrats are demanding several witnesses , especially Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden .
That ’ s the crux of one major article of impeachment against the president .
There are still several days before any potential witness vote would be taken .
A decision to call more witnesses would require 51 votes to pass .
With a 53-47 majority , Republicans can only afford to lose three .
’ Senators are being warned that if they agree to call Bolton to testify or try to access his book manuscript , the White House will block him , beginning a weeks-long court battle over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had seemed to leave the few senators , including Sen. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts , Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , who have expressed a desire to hear new testimony without strong backing .
Also , other Republicans including Sen. Pat Toomey want reciprocity ― bring in Bolton or another Democratic witness in exchange for one from the GOP side .
Some Republicans want to hear from Biden and his son , who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company when his father was vice president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday night from Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz , who said that nothing in the manuscript — even if true — rises to the level of an impeachable offense .
Sekulow also sought to undermine the credibility of Bolton ’ s book by noting that Attorney General William Barr has disputed comments attributed to him by Bolton .
The legal team also delved into areas that Democrats see as outside the scope of impeachment , chastising former FBI Director James Comey and seizing on surveillance errors the FBI has acknowledged making in its Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses , the case now moves toward written questions , with senators on both sides getting 16 hours to pose queries .
By late in the week , they are expected to hold a vote on whether or not to hear from any witnesses .
“ I don ’ t know that the manuscript would make any difference in the outcome of the trial , ” said Roy Blunt of Missouri , a member of GOP leadership .
And some Republicans said they simply don ’ t trust Bolton ’ s word .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgruntled ” ’ and seeking to make money off his time at the White house .
Trump is charged with abusing his presidential power by asking Ukraine ’ s leader to help investigate Biden at the same time his administration was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid .
A second charge accuses Trump of obstructing Congress in its probe .
On Tuesday , as he was resting his case , Cipollone played video clips from House Democrats during the presidential impeachment of Bill Clinton — including several who are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an attempt to depict them as hypocritical for sounding the alarm then about the partisan dangers of impeachment .
“ What they are asking you do is to throw out a successful president on the eve of an election , with no basis , and in violation of the Constitution , ” Cipollone said .
“ Why not trust the American people with this decision ?
Why tear up their ballots ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders do not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning John Bolton or other witnesses at President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell conceded to fellow GOP senators late Tuesday. It could be a major hurdle for Trump’s hopes to end the trial with a quick acquittal.
McConnell gave the news to senators, according to a Republican familiar with a closed-door meeting of GOP senators and granted anonymity to discuss it.
Advertisement
McConnell convened the meeting shortly after Trump’s legal team made its closing arguments in the trial.
Democrats are demanding several witnesses, especially Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it helped with investigations into Democratic rival Joe Biden. That’s the crux of one major article of impeachment against the president.
There are still several days before any potential witness vote would be taken. A decision to call more witnesses would require 51 votes to pass. With a 53-47 majority, Republicans can only afford to lose three.
The news came as Trump’s legal team argued forcefully against the relevance of testimony from Bolton and concluded their defense as the Senate braced for debate on witnesses.
Advertisement
While scoffing at Bolton’s manuscript, Trump and the Republicans have strongly resisted summoning Bolton to testify in person about what he saw and heard as Trump’s top national security adviser.
Senate Republicans spent two days behind closed doors discussing ideas to satisfy those who want to hear more testimony without prolonging the proceedings -or jeopardizing the president’s expected acquittal.
Those lost steam, and Democrats showed no interest.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, called a proposal for senators to be shown the manuscript in private, keeping Bolton out of public testimony, “absurd.”
“We’re not bargaining with them. We want four witnesses, and four sets of documents, then the truth will come out,” Schumer said.
’Senators are being warned that if they agree to call Bolton to testify or try to access his book manuscript, the White House will block him, beginning a weeks-long court battle over executive privilege and national security. That had seemed to leave the few senators, including Sen. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who have expressed a desire to hear new testimony without strong backing.
Advertisement
Also, other Republicans including Sen. Pat Toomey want reciprocity ― bring in Bolton or another Democratic witness in exchange for one from the GOP side. Some Republicans want to hear from Biden and his son, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company when his father was vice president.
A day after the defense team largely brushed past Bolton, attorney Jay Sekulow addressed the controversy head-on by dismissing his manuscript — said to contradict a key defense argument about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine — as “inadmissible.”
“It is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts,” Sekulow said.
The argument built on a separate one Monday night from Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz, who said that nothing in the manuscript — even if true — rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Sekulow also sought to undermine the credibility of Bolton’s book by noting that Attorney General William Barr has disputed comments attributed to him by Bolton.
The legal team also delved into areas that Democrats see as outside the scope of impeachment, chastising former FBI Director James Comey and seizing on surveillance errors the FBI has acknowledged making in its Russian election interference probe.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the Founding Fathers took care to make sure that impeachment was narrowly defined, with offenses clearly enumerated.
Advertisement
“The bar for impeachment cannot be set this low,” Sekulow said. “Danger. Danger. Danger. These articles must be rejected. The Constitution requires it. Justice demands it.”
Before consideration of witnesses, the case now moves toward written questions, with senators on both sides getting 16 hours to pose queries. By late in the week, they are expected to hold a vote on whether or not to hear from any witnesses.
“I don’t know that the manuscript would make any difference in the outcome of the trial,” said Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of GOP leadership. And some Republicans said they simply don’t trust Bolton’s word. Rand Paul of Kentucky called Bolton “disgruntled”’ and seeking to make money off his time at the White house.
John Kelly, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, told an audience in Sarasota, Florida, that he believes Bolton.
White House officials privately acknowledge that they are essentially powerless to block the book’s publication, but could sue after the fact if they believe it violated the confidentiality agreement Bolton signed against disclosing classified information.
Advertisement
Trump is charged with abusing his presidential power by asking Ukraine’s leader to help investigate Biden at the same time his administration was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid. A second charge accuses Trump of obstructing Congress in its probe.
Trump and his lawyers have argued repeatedly that Democrats are using impeachment to try to undo the results of the last presidential election and drive Trump from office.
On Tuesday, as he was resting his case, Cipollone played video clips from House Democrats during the presidential impeachment of Bill Clinton — including several who are now managers of the Trump impeachment trial — in an attempt to depict them as hypocritical for sounding the alarm then about the partisan dangers of impeachment.
“What they are asking you do is to throw out a successful president on the eve of an election, with no basis, and in violation of the Constitution,” Cipollone said. “Why not trust the American people with this decision? Why tear up their ballots?”
Democrats, meanwhile, say Trump’s refusal to allow administration officials to testify only reinforces that the White House is hiding evidence. The White House has had Bolton’s manuscript for about a month, according to a letter from Bolton’s attorney.
Advertisement
No matter the vote on witness, acquittal still seems likely given that Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate and conviction would require a two-thirds majority.
According to data compiled by C-SPAN, the House managers used just under 22 of their 24 hours over three days, while the White House team used almost 12 hours, or half their time.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--George Conway Taunts Donald Trump With A Long List Of His Geopolitical Gaffes

Conservative attorney George Conway used a lengthy Twitter thread to mock President Donald Trump over his many , many geopolitical gaffes .
The husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ― who despite his wife ’ s role has become a staunch critic of the Trump White House ― on Tuesday tweeted 20 examples of Trump ’ s mistakes , from calling countries by the wrong name to making errors about where they are located .
“ A thread for those who think @ realDonaldTrump could find Ukraine on a marked map , ” began Conway , who is leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure Trump ’ s defeat in the 2020 election .
Check out the rest of the thread here : A thread for those who think @ realDonaldTrump could find Ukraine on a marked map : — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump seems to think Paris is in Germany .
( It kind of was for a few years in the 1940s , I guess . )
https : //t.co/RF5e3Rb1VO — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump thinks there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nipple ” and “ Button.
” ( Do NOT , under any circumstances , ask him to point them out .
PLEASE . )
https : //t.co/1rRD1SOw0C — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 Also , @ realDonaldTrump didn ’ t understand that when it ’ s the afternoon in Washington , it ’ s the middle of the night in Tokyo .
https : //t.co/1rRD1SOw0C — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 In a meeting with leaders from the *Baltic* states , @ realDonaldTrump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the *Balkans* .
( No , seriously .
This created quite a stir in diplomatic circles . )
https : //t.co/F5DzrV2E7y — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 I have to say that really is my personal favorite .
@ realDonaldTrump is there trashing the presidents of Latvia , Lithuania , and Estonia for the breakup Yugoslavia , and they ’ re like , WTF .
And then it dons on them—Balkans , Baltics ... buffoon.https : //t.co/ecZ4a9qOx1 — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall @ realDonaldTrump is building between Colorado and Mexico .
https : //t.co/xfFrhFScg9 — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 Oh , wait .
A small correction .
@ realDonaldTrump thought Nipple and Button were in India , not separate countries .
My bad—we all make mistakes .
Sorry .
https : //t.co/TfvMJ05n9m — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump once got a call from the president of *South* Korea , but then told hundreds of journalists that he ’ d gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea .
https : //t.co/qtGtTS2WSf — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 “ After I had won , everybody was calling me from all over the world .
I never knew we had so many countries.
” — @ realDonaldTrump https : //t.co/b7n5Q3hJZF — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump once told the prime minister of India , “ It ’ s not like you ’ ve got China on your border.
” ( India has a 2,520-mile border with China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump has to be told in 2018 that Ireland isn ’ t part of the U.K. ... .https : //t.co/mQtXIyShb6 — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 ... yet made the mistake again in 2019. https : //t.co/XsRCDJlxbe — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 And just a few days ago , @ realDonaldTrump earned global mockery when met with the president of *Iraqi* Kurdistan but thought he was taking to someone from *Syria* .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 When Gordon Sondland called @ realDonaldTrump on July 26 and said he was in Kyiv , Trump had to ask whether Sondland was in Ukraine , according to the testimony of embassy staffer David Holmes .
https : //t.co/IXRiivo82z pic.twitter.com/RGkFTYCZ15 — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 National-security officials once showed @ realDonaldTrump a map of Korea .
What he saw stunned him : He had no idea Seoul was so close ( 15 mi ) to the DMZ , well within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/8JZTJQ5Qqt — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020 .
@ realDonaldTrump asked , “ Why is Seoul so close to the North Korean border ?
” And then , referring to the 10 million inhabitants of South Korea ’ s capital , he said , “ They have to move !
” https : //t.co/8JZTJQ5Qqt — George Conway ( @ gtconway3d ) January 28 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Conservative attorney George Conway used a lengthy Twitter thread to mock President Donald Trump over his many, many geopolitical gaffes.
The husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ― who, despite his wife’s role, has become a staunch critic of Trump ― on Tuesday tweeted 20 examples of Trump’s mistakes, from calling countries by the wrong name to making errors about where they are located.
Advertisement
“A thread for those who think @realDonaldTrump could find Ukraine on a marked map,” began Conway, who is leading The Lincoln Project campaign that aims to ensure Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.
Check out the rest of the thread here:
A thread for those who think @realDonaldTrump could find Ukraine on a marked map: — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
.@realDonaldTrump thinks Belgium is a city, albeit a pretty one. https://t.co/0CQWpckgk7 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
.@realDonaldTrump seems to think Paris is in Germany. (It kind of was for a few years in the 1940s, I guess.) https://t.co/RF5e3Rb1VO — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
.@realDonaldTrump thinks there are countries on this planet called “Nipple” and “Button.” (Do NOT, under any circumstances, ask him to point them out. PLEASE.)https://t.co/1rRD1SOw0C — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Also, @realDonaldTrump didn’t understand that when it’s the afternoon in Washington, it’s the middle of the night in Tokyo. https://t.co/1rRD1SOw0C — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
In a meeting with leaders from the *Baltic* states, @realDonaldTrump thought he was talking to people from the *Balkans*. (No, seriously. This created quite a stir in diplomatic circles.)https://t.co/F5DzrV2E7y — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
I have to say that really is my personal favorite. @realDonaldTrump is there trashing the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia for the breakup Yugoslavia, and they’re like, WTF. And then it dons on them—Balkans, Baltics ... buffoon.https://t.co/ecZ4a9qOx1 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Don’t forget that beautiful border wall @realDonaldTrump is building between Colorado and Mexico. https://t.co/xfFrhFScg9 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
Oh, wait. A small correction. @realDonaldTrump thought Nipple and Button were in India, not separate countries. My bad—we all make mistakes. Sorry. https://t.co/TfvMJ05n9m — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
.@realDonaldTrump once bombed Syria but thought he bombed Iraq. https://t.co/Njl96SgjNL — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
.@realDonaldTrump once got a call from the president of *South* Korea, but then told hundreds of journalists that he’d gotten a call from the leader of *North* Korea. https://t.co/qtGtTS2WSf — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
“After I had won, everybody was calling me from all over the world. I never knew we had so many countries.”
— @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/b7n5Q3hJZF — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
.@realDonaldTrump once told the prime minister of India, “It’s not like you’ve got China on your border.” (India has a 2,520-mile border with China.)https://t.co/U5ncPjFbbp — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
.@realDonaldTrump has to be told in 2018 that Ireland isn’t part of the U.K. ....https://t.co/mQtXIyShb6 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
... yet made the mistake again in 2019. https://t.co/XsRCDJlxbe — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
And just a few days ago, @realDonaldTrump earned global mockery when met with the president of *Iraqi* Kurdistan but thought he was taking to someone from *Syria*. https://t.co/tJjHWhZ3vk — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
When Gordon Sondland called @realDonaldTrump on July 26 and said he was in Kyiv, Trump had to ask whether Sondland was in Ukraine, according to the testimony of embassy staffer David Holmes. https://t.co/IXRiivo82z pic.twitter.com/RGkFTYCZ15 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
National-security officials once showed @realDonaldTrump a map of Korea. What he saw stunned him: He had no idea Seoul was so close (15 mi) to the DMZ, well within the range of KPA-GF artillery. https://t.co/8JZTJQ5Qqt — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
.@realDonaldTrump asked, “Why is Seoul so close to the North Korean border?”
And then, referring to the 10 million inhabitants of South Korea’s capital, he said, “They have to move!”https://t.co/8JZTJQ5Qqt — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020
In 2018, @realDonaldTrump didn’t know the difference between England and the United Kingdom, our closest ally. https://t.co/FItdET3MV5 — George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 28, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Andrew Napolitano Blasts Trump Allies: Bolton Was A 'Conservative Icon Until 2 Days Ago'

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano blasted Republicans on Tuesday for turning on former national security adviser John Bolton , who he said was considered to be “ a conservative icon until two days ago.
” In an appearance on Fox Business , Napolitano defended Bolton , who was a regular contributor at the network for 11 years until he took up his White House post in 2018 .
Bolton was “ a conservative icon until two days ago , ” he went on .
“ Now the things they ’ re saying about him , it sounds like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he has come out with something that goes to the core of the case.
” It was recently reported that an upcoming book by Bolton contains allegations that confirm the main charge against President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial , according to The New York Times , which obtained a copy of Bolton ’ s manuscript .
His account alleges that the president tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to that country ’ s government opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure on Senate Republicans to call witnesses in the Senate trial , including Bolton , who has said he ’ s willing to testify .
Dobbs , a Fox Business Network host , attacked Bolton ― who has served in every Republican administration since President Ronald Reagan ― as “ a tool for the radical [ Democrats ] and the deep state.
” Napolitano argued Tuesday that because Trump ’ s legal team had chosen to argue the facts of the case , instead of simply stating that the charge was not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blew a hole in their defense .
( He added that , for the record , he does think it was an impeachable offense . )
“ Now that this witness at the core of everything who had personal conversations with just the president has come forward with a version 180 degrees from theirs , I think they ’ re stuck with this , ” Napolitano said .
“ I think many Republicans are now going to say , ‘ We have to hear from Bolton.
’ ” Republicans have repeatedly blocked Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment trial , squashing pushes for testimony from firsthand witnesses like Bolton .
However , some hours after Napolitano ’ s remarks Tuesday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) reportedly said the GOP does not currently have enough votes to prevent witnesses .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano blasted Republicans on Tuesday for turning on former national security adviser John Bolton, who he said was considered to be “a conservative icon until two days ago.”
In an appearance on Fox Business, Napolitano defended Bolton, who was a regular contributor at the network for 11 years until he took up his White House post in 2018.
Advertisement
“We know John,” Napolitano, a former judge, said. “He used to work here. He’s a very intelligent, strong-willed, meticulously honest person.”
Bolton was “a conservative icon until two days ago,” he went on. “Now the things they’re saying about him, it sounds like they’re talking about Nancy Pelosi. But he has come out with something that goes to the core of the case.”
It was recently reported that an upcoming book by Bolton contains allegations that confirm the main charge against President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of Bolton’s manuscript.
His account alleges that the president tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to that country’s government opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The bombshell accusation has increased pressure on Senate Republicans to call witnesses in the Senate trial, including Bolton, who has said he’s willing to testify.
Advertisement
Dobbs, a Fox Business Network host, attacked Bolton ― who has served in every Republican administration since President Ronald Reagan ― as “a tool for the radical [Democrats] and the deep state.”
Napolitano argued Tuesday that because Trump’s legal team had chosen to argue the facts of the case, instead of simply stating that the charge was not an impeachable offense, Bolton’s account blew a hole in their defense. (He added that, for the record, he does think it was an impeachable offense.)
“Now that this witness at the core of everything who had personal conversations with just the president has come forward with a version 180 degrees from theirs, I think they’re stuck with this,” Napolitano said. “I think many Republicans are now going to say, ‘We have to hear from Bolton.’”
Republicans have repeatedly blocked Democrats’ attempts to allow new evidence in the impeachment trial, squashing pushes for testimony from firsthand witnesses like Bolton. However, some hours after Napolitano’s remarks Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly said the GOP does not currently have enough votes to prevent witnesses.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Washington Post Reporter Suspended For Kobe Bryant Tweets Speaks Out

The Washington Post reporter who was suspended after tweeting a story about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant on the day he died called on the newspaper ’ s executive editor to speak directly about the decision to punish her and explain how the paper planned to protect employees ’ safety going forward .
Felicia Sonmez , who was placed on administrative leave for the tweet and reprimanded for “ hurting ” the Post as an institution , said in a statement Tuesday that she wanted answers after the newspaper lifted her suspension following a media outcry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had commented or emailed her “ abuse and death threats ” after she shared a link to a story without comment about the 2003 allegations against Bryant .
Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter were among nine people killed Sunday in a helicopter crash in Calabasas , California .
When she reported the abuse to her editors , including Executive Editor Martin Baron and Managing Editor Tracy Grant , she was told to take the tweets down before being placed on paid leave .
“ I believe that Washington Post readers and employees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Marty Baron on the newspaper ’ s handling of this matter , ” Sonmez said .
“ Washington Post journalists endeavor to live up to the paper ’ s mission statement , which states , ‘ The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it , concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
’ ” She added that Baron ’ s emails to her had only “ sown confusion about the depth of management ’ s commitment to this goal.
” Washington Post journalists endeavor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mission statement , which states , “ The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it , concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
” — Felicia Sonmez ( @ feliciasonmez ) January 29 , 2020 Grant released a statement on Tuesday noting the suspension had been lifted , but she stood by her characterization that the tweets were “ ill-timed ” even if they weren ’ t in direct violation of the Post ’ s social media policy .
She did not offer an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said the episode had raised the notion that the Post ’ s social media guidelines “ are in need of an update.
” The statement didn ’ t appear to appease those in the Post ’ s newsroom , many of whom initially stood by Sonmez during her suspension ( including the newspaper ’ s own media reporter ) .
The Washington Post Newspaper Guild , which represents about 1,000 employees , said Tuesday it was “ disappointed ” that Grant didn ’ t offer an apology , noting it remained “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swift action to provide her with protection and support.
” “ I hope Washington Post newsroom leaders will not only prioritize their employees ’ safety in the face of threats of physical harm , ” she wrote , “ but also ensure that no journalist will be punished for speaking the truth .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Washington Post reporter who was suspended after tweeting a story about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant on the day he died called on the newspaper’s executive editor to speak directly about the decision to punish her and explain how the paper planned to protect employees’ safety going forward.
Felicia Sonmez, who was placed on administrative leave for the tweet and reprimanded for “hurting” the Post as an institution, said in a statement Tuesday that she wanted answers after the newspaper lifted her suspension following a media outcry. Sonmez initially said about 10,000 people had commented or emailed her “abuse and death threats” after she shared a link to a story without comment about the 2003 allegations against Bryant. Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter were among nine people killed Sunday in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California.
Advertisement
When she reported the abuse to her editors, including Executive Editor Martin Baron and Managing Editor Tracy Grant, she was told to take the tweets down before being placed on paid leave.
“I believe that Washington Post readers and employees, including myself, deserve to hear directly from Marty Baron on the newspaper’s handling of this matter,” Sonmez said. “Washington Post journalists endeavor to live up to the paper’s mission statement, which states, ‘The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.’”
She added that Baron’s emails to her had only “sown confusion about the depth of management’s commitment to this goal.”
Washington Post journalists endeavor to live up to the paper’s mission statement, which states, “The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.” — Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) January 29, 2020
Advertisement
My suspension, and @PostBaron’s Jan. 26 email warning me that my tweets about a matter of public record were “hurting this institution,” have unfortunately sown confusion about the depth of management’s commitment to this goal. — Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) January 29, 2020
Grant released a statement on Tuesday noting the suspension had been lifted, but she stood by her characterization that the tweets were “ill-timed” even if they weren’t in direct violation of the Post’s social media policy. She did not offer an apology and, alongside other top editors, said the episode had raised the notion that the Post’s social media guidelines “are in need of an update.”
“We consistently urge restraint, which is particularly important when there are tragic deaths,” Grant wrote. “We regret having spoken publicly about a personnel matter.”
The statement didn’t appear to appease those in the Post’s newsroom, many of whom initially stood by Sonmez during her suspension (including the newspaper’s own media reporter). The Washington Post Newspaper Guild, which represents about 1,000 employees, said Tuesday it was “disappointed” that Grant didn’t offer an apology, noting it remained “concerned that The Post did not take swift action to provide her with protection and support.”
Sonmez concluded her request of Baron on Tuesday by urging newsroom leaders to safeguard reporters’ ability to share information.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-28--Rudy Giuliani Goes After John Bolton For Book Revelations: 'He's A Backstabber'

Rudy Giuliani said this week that John Bolton was a “ backstabber ” who should not testify in the Senate impeachment trial despite reports that the former national security adviser recalls President Donald Trump tying withheld Ukraine aid to an investigation into a political rival .
Giuliani , who is Trump ’ s personal attorney and integral to the allegations against the president , gave “ CBS This Morning ” in an interview that will be aired Wednesday .
A snippet of the interview was released Tuesday .
“ He never said to me , ‘ I ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ukraine , ’ ” Giuliani told CBS ’ s Catherine Herridge .
Never once , never winked , never sent me a little note .
He is a personal friend , I thought .
So here ’ s the only conclusion I can come to , and it ’ s a harsh one , and I feel very bad about it : He ’ s a backstabber.
” “ If your friend was complaining about you behind your back and didn ’ t have the guts to come up to your face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re screwin ’ up , Catherine , ’ that ’ d be a backstabber , ” the former New York City mayor said .
“ That ’ s classic backstabber .
So I feel I got a swamp character here.
” According to a New York Times report from earlier this week , Bolton wrote in a draft of his upcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to continue freezing nearly $ 400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son Hunter Biden .
Tying the two actions together would reveal that the president attempted a quid pro quo with a foreign government for political advantage .
“ I find his testimony about the president pretty close to incredible , ” Giuliani said .
“ I can ’ t imagine that the president of the United States said that to him.
” Bolton sent an unpublished manuscript to the White House for review in December as required of former administration officials writing books , and he has denied leaking the draft to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal team said nobody outside the National Security Council has reviewed the manuscript .
Trump himself denied Bolton ’ s reported account .
I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats , including the Bidens .
In fact , he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination .
If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book .
With that being said , the ... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reported recollections included Giuliani himself .
According to the Times , Bolton alleged that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo privately admitted there was no basis to Giuliani ’ s claims that ousted U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was corrupt .
Bolton also reportedly wrote that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was present for at least one phone call in which Trump and Giuliani discussed Yovanovitch .
Bolton also wrote that he expressed concern regarding Giuliani ’ s shadow diplomacy role with Attorney General William Barr after Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , when the alleged political “ favor ” was requested , according to the Times .
The revelations led Democrats to repeat their demands for witnesses in the Senate trial , as Bolton ’ s potential testimony could bolster House managers ’ argument that the president abused the power of his office to further his own political interests .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) privately conceded to fellow GOP senators late Tuesday that Republicans do not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority in the Senate , Republicans can afford to lose only three senators in a potential vote to call more witnesses .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rudy Giuliani said this week that John Bolton was a “backstabber” who should not testify in the Senate impeachment trial despite reports that the former national security adviser recalls President Donald Trump tying withheld Ukraine aid to an investigation into a political rival.
Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney who is integral to the allegations against the president, gave the bitter assessment of Bolton in an interview with “CBS This Morning” that aired Wednesday.
Advertisement
“He never said to me, ‘I’ve got a problem with what you are doing in Ukraine,’” Giuliani told CBS’s Catherine Herridge. “Never once, never winked, never sent me a little note. He is a personal friend, I thought. So here’s the only conclusion I can come to, and it’s a harsh one, and I feel very bad about it: He’s a backstabber.”
NEW: President Trump's personal attorney @RudyGiuliani called John Bolton a "backstabber" and told @CBS_Herridge he doesn't think the former national security adviser should testify in the Senate impeachment trial.
More on @CBSThisMorning Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/TR1vCveIOQ — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 28, 2020
When Herridge noted the seriousness of putting such a label on a former White House official, Giuliani responded: “It’s not serious. It’s true.”
“If your friend was complaining about you behind your back and didn’t have the guts to come up to your face and tell you, ‘I think you’re screwin’ up, Catherine,’ that’d be a backstabber,” the former New York City mayor said. “That’s classic backstabber. So I feel I got a swamp character here.”
Advertisement
According to a New York Times report from earlier this week, Bolton wrote in a draft of his upcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to continue freezing nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Tying the two actions together would reveal that the president attempted a quid pro quo with a foreign government for political advantage.
“I find his testimony about the president pretty close to incredible,” Giuliani said. “I can’t imagine that the president of the United States said that to him.”
Giuliani also said he maintains regular contact with Trump and can’t be part of the president’s impeachment defense team at the Senate trial because he’s a “possible witness.”
Bolton sent an unpublished manuscript to the White House for review in December as required of former administration officials writing books, and he has denied leaking the draft to the Times. WBUR reported Tuesday that Trump’s legal team said nobody outside the National Security Council has reviewed the manuscript. Trump himself denied Bolton’s reported account.
I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
Advertisement
Part of Bolton’s reported recollections included Giuliani himself. According to the Times, Bolton alleged that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo privately admitted there was no basis to Giuliani’s claims that ousted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was corrupt. Bolton also reportedly wrote that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was present for at least one phone call in which Trump and Giuliani discussed Yovanovitch.
Bolton also wrote that he expressed concern regarding Giuliani’s shadow diplomacy role with Attorney General William Barr after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, when the alleged political “favor” was requested, according to the Times.
The revelations led Democrats to repeat their demands for witnesses in the Senate trial, as Bolton’s potential testimony could bolster House managers’ argument that the president abused the power of his office to further his own political interests.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) privately conceded to fellow GOP senators late Tuesday that Republicans do not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning Bolton or other witnesses. With a 53-47 majority in the Senate, Republicans can afford to lose only three senators in a potential vote to call more witnesses.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Harvard Law Professor Warns Senators: Call Witnesses Or Face 'Dictatorship'

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has urged the GOP-controlled Senate to allow witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump over his Ukraine misconduct ― or risk setting a “ terrible ” precedent for the country .
On Tuesday ’ s broadcast of MSNBC ’ s “ The Last Word with Lawrence O ’ Donnell , ” Tribe claimed the only way to hold a fair trial was for lawmakers to vote to hear from Trump ’ s former national security adviser John Bolton “ and other witnesses and the evidence.
” Bolton reportedly confirms the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming book “ The Room Where It Happened , ” in which he writes Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to its announcement of a probe into Joe Biden .
Tribe described the defense argument being made by Trump ’ s lawyer Alan Dershowitz as “ remarkably absurd and extreme and dangerous.
” “ Namely , it doesn ’ t matter if a president uses the vast powers of his office to shake down an ally and help an adversary in order to get dirt on an enemy and corrupt an election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators risked “ leaving a message to future generations , to future presidents , that any way they want to abuse the power of their office is just fine because Trump got away with it since the ultimate ruling was , ‘ so what ?
It doesn ’ t matter.
’ ” “ You will harm not only the country today but you will leave a lesson for future presidents that will be terrible to the Republic .
It will not be a constitutional democracy but it will be a dictatorship , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you are inclined to vote to acquit this president , don ’ t do it on the ridiculous basis that abuse of power , because it ’ s not a statutory crime and is rather open-ended , is not a basis to remove .
Don ’ t do it on that basis .
Do it perhaps on the basis that after you ’ ve heard John Bolton and looked at the evidence , you ’ re just not convinced .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe urged the GOP-controlled Senate to allow witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump ― or risk setting a “terrible” precedent for the country.
On Tuesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell,” Tribe argued the only way to hold a fair trial was for lawmakers to vote to hear from Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton “and other witnesses and the evidence.”
Advertisement
Bolton reportedly confirms the Democrats’ case for impeachment in his forthcoming book “The Room Where It Happened,” in which he writes Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to its announcement of a probe into Joe Biden.
Tribe described the defense argument being made by Trump impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz as “remarkably absurd and extreme and dangerous.”
“Namely, it doesn’t matter if a president uses the vast powers of his office to shake down an ally and help an adversary in order to get dirt on an enemy and corrupt an election,” he said, summarizing Dershowitz’s argument.
Tribe also said senators risked “leaving a message to future generations, to future presidents, that any way they want to abuse the power of their office is just fine because Trump got away with it since the ultimate ruling was, ‘so what? It doesn’t matter.’”
Advertisement
“You will harm not only the country today, but you will leave a lesson for future presidents that will be terrible to the Republic,” he warned GOP senators. “It will not be a constitutional democracy but it will be a dictatorship.
Concluded Tribe:
So I implore you, if you are inclined to vote to acquit this president, don’t do it on the ridiculous basis that abuse of power, because it’s not a statutory crime and is rather open-ended, is not a basis to remove. Don’t do it on that basis. Do it perhaps on the basis that after you’ve heard John Bolton and looked at the evidence, you’re just not convinced.