thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Half Of Delayed Iowa Caucus Results Expected By End Of Day

State party chairman Troy Price informed campaigns that he would release at least 50 % of all caucus results at 5 p.m. EST , but he declined to answer pointed questions from frustrated campaign representatives about when the party would release the full results or how it could ensure their integrity ― even whether it would be a matter of days or weeks .
“ Ï ’ m feeling good , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a capacity crowd at theater in Keene , New Hampshire Tuesday morning .
“ It ’ s a tight , three-way race at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us will be dividing up most of the delegates coming out of Iowa.
” The party told campaigns earlier Tuesday that the delay was a result of a “ coding issue in the reporting system ” that it said has since been fixed .
The state party said the plan was to release results “ as soon as possible ” later Tuesday .
It said it had verified the accuracy of the collected data and said the problem was not a result of “ a hack or an intrusion.
” Price confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffers across the state to retrieve hard-copy results so they could check them against numbers reported from precincts via a mobile app that proved problematic for many users , according to multiple sources working for the state party and granted anonymity to discuss sensitive party information .
Many precinct organizers were forced to call-in results , experiencing long delays , while aides entered results from some 1,600 sites manually .
Like Warren , former Vice President Joe Biden also said he was “ feeling good ” and predicted that the results would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about the integrity of the results if and when they are released .
Before leaving Iowa , an attorney for Biden ’ s campaign issued a letter to the state party raising concerns about “ acute failures ... occurring statewide ” and insisting on “ full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing , and an opportunity to respond , before any official results are released.
” “ So we don ’ t know all the results , but we know by the time it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have shocked the nation , ” he said before leaving Iowa .
“ By all indications , we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.
” Earlier in the night , Iowa Democrats across the state cast their votes , balancing a strong preference for fundamental change with an overwhelming desire to defeat Trump .
At least four high-profile candidates vied for the lead in a contest that offered the opening test of who and what the party stands for in the turbulent age of Trump .
For Democrats , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party that has seized major gains in states since Trump won the White House in 2016 .
But instead of clear optimism , a growing cloud of uncertainty and intraparty resentment hung over the election as the prospect of an unclear result raised fears of a long and divisive primary fight in the months ahead .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Clouded by doubts on a chaotic day-after, Democratic Party officials planned to release a majority of Iowa’s delayed presidential caucus results by late Tuesday, according to details shared with campaigns on a private conference call.
The news did little to stem rising confusion and concern more than 12 hours after voting ended without the release of a single result in the opening contest of the Democrats 2020 primary season.
Advertisement
State party chairman Troy Price informed campaigns that he would release at least 50% of all caucus results at 5 p.m. EST, but he declined to answer pointed questions from frustrated campaign representatives about when the party would release the full results or how it could ensure their integrity ― even whether it would be a matter of days or weeks.
“We will continue to work through the process,” Price said on the call, which was monitored by The Associated Press. “We want to get some results out there.”
At the same time, the leading candidates tried to spin the uncertainty to their advantage, claiming momentum as they pivoted their campaigns to next-up New Hampshire.
“Ï’m feeling good,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a capacity crowd at theater in Keene, New Hampshire Tuesday morning. “It’s a tight, three-way race at the top. We know that the three of us will be dividing up most of the delegates coming out of Iowa.”
Advertisement
Precinct 68 Iowa Caucus voters seated in the Biden section hold up their first votes. ASSOCIATED PRESS
In a sign of the murkiness in the race, it was clear which three candidates Warren was referring to.
The party’s caucus crisis was an embarrassing twist after months of promoting the contest as a chance for Democrats to find some clarity in a jumbled field with no clear front-runner.
Instead, caucus day ended with no winner, no official results and many fresh questions about whether Iowa can retain its coveted “first” status.
The party told campaigns earlier Tuesday that the delay was a result of a “coding issue in the reporting system” that it said has since been fixed. The state party said the plan was to release results “as soon as possible” later Tuesday. It said it had verified the accuracy of the collected data and said the problem was not a result of “a hack or an intrusion.”
Still, there were signs that the process was ongoing and laborious.
Price confirmed that party official were sending volunteers and staffers across the state to retrieve hard-copy results so they could check them against numbers reported from precincts via a mobile app that proved problematic for many users, according to multiple sources working for the state party and granted anonymity to discuss sensitive party information. Many precinct organizers were forced to call-in results, experiencing long delays, while aides entered results from some 1,600 sites manually.
Advertisement
Like Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden also said he was “feeling good” and predicted that the results would be close. Meanwhile, his campaign raised questions about the integrity of the results if and when they are released.
Before leaving Iowa, an attorney for Biden’s campaign issued a letter to the state party raising concerns about “acute failures ... occurring statewide” and insisting on “full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released.”
Other candidates turned to New Hampshire, which holds its primary in seven days.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he had “a good feeling we’re going to be doing very, very well here in Iowa” once results were posted. “Today marks the beginning of the end for Donald Trump,” he predicted.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, essentially declared victory.
“So we don’t know all the results, but we know by the time it’s all said and done, Iowa, you have shocked the nation,” he said before leaving Iowa. “By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.”
Advertisement
Beyond 2020, the debacle invited fresh criticism about Iowa caucuses, a complicated set of political meetings staged in a state that is whiter and older than the Democratic Party. Many used the moment to question whether it was a quaint political tradition whose time had passed.
The party has tried to accommodate critics before, this year by promising to report three different data points about voters’ preferences, presumably improving transparency. But the new system created new headaches.
State party spokeswoman Mandy McClure said it had “found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results,” forcing officials to try to verify results with “underlying data” and the paper trail.
Some of the trouble stemmed from the buggy app. Organizers at caucuses site reported trouble downloading the app and other glitches. Many turned to a back-up phone system.
In a letter to campaigns Tuesday, the party said the datra collected by the app “sound,” but data it was reported was incomplete.
Advertisement
“While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data,” Iowa Democratic Party chairman Troy Price told campaigns in a somewhat delayed effort to explain the issue. “This issue was identified and fixed. The application’s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.”
Earlier in the night, Iowa Democrats across the state cast their votes, balancing a strong preference for fundamental change with an overwhelming desire to defeat Trump. At least four high-profile candidates vied for the lead in a contest that offered the opening test of who and what the party stands for in the turbulent age of Trump.
It’s just the first in a primary season that will span all 50 states and several U.S. territories, ending at the party’s national convention in mid-July.
For Democrats, the moment was thick with promise for a party that has seized major gains in states since Trump won the White House in 2016. But instead of clear optimism, a growing cloud of uncertainty and intraparty resentment hung over the election as the prospect of an unclear result raised fears of a long and divisive primary fight in the months ahead.
One unsurprising development: Trump won the Republican caucus, a largely symbolic victory given that he faced no significant opposition.
Advertisement
The president eagerly seized on the Democrats’ problems.
“The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster,” Trump tweeted early Tuesday. “Nothing works, just like they ran the Country.” He added: “The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is ‘Trump.’”
Pre-caucus polls suggested Sanders entered the night with a narrow lead, but any of the top four candidates — Sanders, Biden, Warren and Buttigieg — was positioned to score a victory. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who represents neighboring Minnesota, was also claiming momentum, while outsider candidates including entrepreneur Andrew Yang, billionaire activist Tom Steyer and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard could be factors.
“We know one thing: We are punching above our weight,” Klobuchar said late Monday, promising to keep fighting in New Hampshire.
New voters played a significant role in shaping Iowa’s election.
About one-quarter of all voters reported that they were caucusing for the first time, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of voters who said they planned to take part in Monday’s Democratic caucuses. The first-timers were slightly more likely to support Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg, compared with other candidates.
The 2020 fight has already played out over myriad distractions, particularly congressional Democrats’ push to impeach Trump, which has often overshadowed the primary and effectively pinned several leading candidates to Washington at the pinnacle of the early campaign season.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, ultrabillionaire Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is running a parallel campaign that ignored Iowa as he prepares to pounce on any perceived weaknesses in the field come March.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Nevada Democrats Ditch App That Caused Chaos In Iowa Caucuses

“ We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus , ” Nevada Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II said Tuesday .
“ We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems , and are currently evaluating the best path forward.
” “ NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada on February 22nd , ” he added .
As HuffPost first reported Monday night , the Iowa Democratic Party paid the company Shadow more than $ 60,000 to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it easier and quicker for precinct officials to transmit caucus results .
But that process didn ’ t quite go as planned .
Numerous Democrats reported major problems in attempting to download the application and upload results , with many saying they resorted to calling the results into an overloaded and unresponsive hotline at state party headquarters in Des Moines .
The Nevada Democratic Party was set to use that same technology for its own caucuses on Feb. 22 , quickly setting off alarm bells among activists and party officials after the mess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of not going first is that Nevada officials are able to look at what happened on Monday and try to make sure it doesn ’ t go wrong again .
And even before Monday night ’ s problems , cybersecurity experts raised concerns that the smartphone technology was not secure enough to use for something as sensitive as election results .
The state party also refused to release the name of the app developer or what security measures it was undertaking , claiming it would make it more vulnerable to hackers .
Acronym @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early Tuesday morning distancing the group from Shadow , saying that Acronym is merely one of the investors in the for-profit company .
“ We are reading confirmed reports of Shadow ’ s work with the Iowa Democratic Party on Twitter , and we , like everyone else , are eagerly awaiting more information from the Iowa Democratic Party with respect to what happened , ” read the statement .
But in Democratic digital circles , Shadow and Acronym are widely considered to be one and the same .
And in January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ launching Shadow ” : David Plouffe , one of the chief architects of President Barack Obama ’ s campaigns , joined the board of Acronym in September .
Coincidentally , he was on MSNBC last night commenting on the Iowa results and was asked about Shadow .
He , too , tried to distance himself from the chaos .
“ Acronym is an investor in Shadow .
Shadow ’ s got its own board of directors .
So in my relationship with Acronym , which has been going on for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Shadow , ” Plouffe said , adding he had no idea who developed the app .
Acronym ’ s website currently says that it “ invested ” in Shadow .
But a version of the site last month still said it “ launched ” the company .
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price said in a statement Tuesday morning that the results were delayed due to an issue with the app .
What ’ s more , he said , pre-planned backup measures took longer than expected .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Nevada Democratic Party has decided not to use the app that caused so many problems for the Iowa caucuses Monday night.
“We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus,” Nevada Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II said Tuesday. “We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems, and are currently evaluating the best path forward.”
Advertisement
“NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada on February 22nd,” he added.
As HuffPost first reported Monday night, the Iowa Democratic Party paid the company Shadow more than $60,000 to develop an app that was supposed to make it easier and quicker for precinct officials to transmit caucus results.
But that process didn’t quite go as planned. Numerous Democrats reported major problems in attempting to download the application and upload results, with many saying they resorted to calling the results into an overloaded and unresponsive hotline at state party headquarters in Des Moines.
The Nevada Democratic Party was set to use that same technology for its own caucuses on Feb. 22, quickly setting off alarm bells among activists and party officials after the mess in Iowa. One of the benefits of not going first is that Nevada officials are able to look at what happened on Monday and try to make sure it doesn’t go wrong again.
Advertisement
The Iowa Democratic Party still has not released any caucus results, and it’s not clear when it will.
And even before Monday night’s problems, cybersecurity experts raised concerns that the smartphone technology was not secure enough to use for something as sensitive as election results. The state party also refused to release the name of the app developer or what security measures it was undertaking, claiming it would make it more vulnerable to hackers.
Gerard Niemira, a veteran of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is the head of Shadow. In 2019, the Democratic digital firm Acronym acquired Niemira’s company, which then was turned into Shadow.
Acronym spokesman Kyle Tharp put out a statement early Tuesday morning distancing the group from Shadow, saying that Acronym is merely one of the investors in the for-profit company.
“We are reading confirmed reports of Shadow’s work with the Iowa Democratic Party on Twitter, and we, like everyone else, are eagerly awaiting more information from the Iowa Democratic Party with respect to what happened,” read the statement.
Advertisement
But in Democratic digital circles, Shadow and Acronym are widely considered to be one and the same. And in January, Acronym tweeted out an announcement saying it was “launching Shadow”:
🚨 Some news this morning 🚨 We've acquired SMS tool Groundbase & are launching Shadow, a company focused on building the technology infrastructure needed to enable Democrats to run better, more efficient campaigns. Learn more in @politico's Morning Score: https://t.co/wwibAvwgCw pic.twitter.com/gLGj63gAFE — ACRONYM (@anotheracronym) January 17, 2019
David Plouffe, one of the chief architects of President Barack Obama’s campaigns, joined the board of Acronym in September. Coincidentally, he was on MSNBC last night commenting on the Iowa results and was asked about Shadow. He, too, tried to distance himself from the chaos.
“Acronym is an investor in Shadow. Shadow’s got its own board of directors. So in my relationship with Acronym, which has been going on for a few months, I have no knowledge of Shadow,” Plouffe said, adding he had no idea who developed the app.
Acronym’s website currently says that it “invested” in Shadow. But a version of the site last month still said it “launched” the company.
Advertisement
If you look at Acronym's "About" page today it says "we invested in Shadow" but if you look at the Wayback Machine from last month it's "we launched Shadow" pic.twitter.com/FM5XVddclh — Kate Knibbs 🏄🏻♀ (@Knibbs) February 4, 2020
Niemira previously served as chief technology officer and chief operating officer of Acronym, according to his LinkedIn page.
Tuesday afternoon, Shadow released its first comment on the chaos.
We sincerely regret the delay in the reporting of the results of last night’s Iowa caucuses and the uncertainty it has caused to the candidates, their campaigns, and Democratic caucus-goers. — Shadow, Inc. (@ShadowIncHQ) February 4, 2020
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price said in a statement Tuesday morning that the results were delayed due to an issue with the app. What’s more, he said, pre-planned backup measures took longer than expected.
“While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data,” Price said. “We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Buttigieg, Sanders Lead Pack In First Results Of 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was in third place in the initial returns , Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was in fifth .
The results remained difficult to parse : Only 62 % of precincts have been counted , and it is unknown whether they are representative of the full state .
Sanders led by one metric ( the final popular vote ) while Buttigieg led by another ( state delegate equivalents ) .
The inconclusive returns came on the heels of a chaotic caucus night in which the Iowa Democratic Party failed to reveal any results .
Party officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an app designed for transmitting caucus results to report only “ partial data.
” Although there is insufficient data to determine the winner of the caucuses , they appear to have been damaging for Biden ― long considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination .
He trailed Sanders , Buttigieg and Warren in the popular vote by a distant margin .
The initial results showed Buttigieg with 363 SDEs .
Sanders was in second with 338 SDEs .
Warren had 246 and Biden had 210 .
Klobuchar had 170 , businessman Andrew Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Steyer had 4 .
The popular vote showed Sanders in the lead with 28,220 supporters , ahead of Buttigieg with 27,030 supporters , Warren with 22,254 and Biden with 14,716 .
At a news conference in Des Moines ahead of the release of the partial results , Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price apologized for the reporting breakdown .
“ The reporting of the results and circumstances surrounding the 2020 Iowa Democratic Party caucuses were unacceptable , ” Price said .
“ As chair of the party , I apologize deeply for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results from the remaining 38 % of precincts would be released .
Chaos erupted Monday night as the country awaited the caucus results , only to find out that the Iowa Democrats were conducting a “ quality control ” check and couldn ’ t say when the numbers would be released .
Since 1972 , Iowa has been the first state to hold electoral contests in the presidential primary season .
The caucuses have historically been a strong predictor of who will go on to win a party ’ s nomination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking at a campaign event in New Hampshire moments after the initial Iowa results dropped .
“ It validates for the kid , somewhere in the community , wondering if he belongs or she belongs or they belong in their own family , ” Buttigieg , who is openly gay , said of his early lead in the caucuses .
“ That if you believe in yourself and your country , there ’ s a lot backing up that belief.
” Pete Buttigieg speaking about his Iowa caucus results during event in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kid , somewhere in the community , wondering if he belongs , where she belongs ... that if you believe in yourself and your country , there ’ s a lot backing up that belief.
” pic.twitter.com/rH7D86M6gw — NBC News ( @ NBCNews ) February 4 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Limited results released this week by the Iowa Democratic Party show former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leading Iowa’s Democratic presidential caucuses, with former Vice President Joe Biden in a surprising fourth place.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was in third place in the initial returns, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was in fifth.
Advertisement
The results continue to trickle in: Just after midnight on Thursday, 97% of precincts had been counted, and it is unknown whether they are representative of the full state. Sanders led by one metric (the final popular vote) while Buttigieg led by the total of state delegate equivalents (SDEs).
The inconclusive returns followed Monday night’s chaotic caucus in which the Iowa Democratic Party failed to reveal any results. Party officials said a “coding error” caused an app designed for transmitting caucus results to report only “partial data.”
Although there is insufficient data to determine the winner of the caucuses, they appear to have been damaging for Biden ― long considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. He trailed Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren in the popular vote by a distant margin.
Head over to HuffPost’s Election HQ for a breakdown of the results.
Whoever receives the highest percentage of the state delegate equivalent (SDE) count wins the Iowa Democratic caucuses.
Advertisement
As of early Thursday morning, initial results showed Buttigieg with 550 SDEs. Sanders was in second with 547 SDEs. Warren had 381 and Biden had 331. Klobuchar had 255, businessman Andrew Yang had 22 and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer had 7.
The final popular vote showed Sanders in the lead with 44,753 supporters, ahead of Buttigieg with 42,235 supporters, Warren with 34,312, Biden with 23,051 and Klobuchar with 20,525 supporters.
Troy Price takes the stage. Says what happened “was unacceptable.” He adds: “I apologize deeply for this.” #iacaucus pic.twitter.com/mGpeEUp6WR — Barbara Rodriguez (@bcrodriguez) February 4, 2020
At a news conference in Des Moines ahead of the release of the initial results, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price apologized for the reporting breakdown.
“The reporting of the results and circumstances surrounding the 2020 Iowa Democratic Party caucuses were unacceptable,” Price said. “As chair of the party, I apologize deeply for this.”
Advertisement
The Iowa Democratic Party has not announced when the remaining results will be released.
Chaos erupted Monday night as the country awaited the caucus results, only to find out that the Iowa Democrats were conducting a “quality control” check and couldn’t say when the numbers would be released.
Since 1972, Iowa has been the first state to hold electoral contests in the presidential primary season. The caucuses have historically been a strong predictor of who will go on to win a party’s nomination.
Buttigieg became visibly emotional on Tuesday while speaking at a campaign event in New Hampshire moments after the initial Iowa results dropped.
“It validates for the kid, somewhere in the community, wondering if he belongs or she belongs or they belong in their own family,” Buttigieg, who is openly gay, said of his early lead in the caucuses. “That if you believe in yourself and your country, there’s a lot backing up that belief.”
Pete Buttigieg speaking about his Iowa caucus results during event in New Hampshire:
“It validates for the kid, somewhere in the community, wondering if he belongs, where she belongs ... that if you believe in yourself and your country, there’s a lot backing up that belief.” pic.twitter.com/rH7D86M6gw — NBC News (@NBCNews) February 4, 2020
Advertisement
Amid Monday night’s confusion in Iowa, the candidates flocked to New Hampshire, which holds the election cycle’s first primary next Tuesday.
This story has been updated to include the latest results announced by the Iowa Democratic Party.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Pete Buttigieg: When I Said 'Victorious,’ I Actually Meant Something Else

A series of caucus night snafus meant the Iowa Democratic Party was unable to release any results , even hours after the caucuses had ended .
Several candidates filled the void with cautious optimism .
Buttigieg was a bit more brazen .
“ By all indications , we are going on to New Hampshire victorious , ” he told supporters in a soaring late-night speech .
“ Tonight , an improbable hope became an undeniable reality.
” He did acknowledge “ we don ’ t know all the results , ” but then doubled down on the victory message : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation.
” Pete Buttigieg on claiming victory in Iowa despite vote count chaos : `` We 're going to hear the official results and again that ca n't come soon enough , but what we saw and what our precinct information revealed ... is that we have the momentum '' https : //t.co/3NlbBmeSMT pic.twitter.com/mXgSrTPxiF — CNN Politics ( @ CNNPolitics ) February 4 , 2020 Hours later , Buttigieg tapped the brakes in an interview with CNN ’ s John Berman .
“ You said , ‘ By all indications we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” Berman pointed out during the Tuesday morning appearance .
“ By all indications — except the actual official count .
How can you declare victory without actual official numbers ?
” Buttigieg answered by reframing “ victory ” as an “ extraordinary ” show of support from “ rural areas , suburban areas and urban areas , ” based on the campaign ’ s internal reporting .
“ A year ago I think a lot of people were even questioning what right we had to do this and to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So it ’ s clearly a victory for us , even as we , along with the whole country , impatiently wait for some results from the party.
” “ I understand declaring a moral victory , or beating expectations , or being surprised you even got this far , ” Berman replied .
“ But why not wait to hear for sure ?
” Buttigieg again demurred , and returned to his claim that the real win is momentum from “ an extraordinary night that is propelling us toward a win in @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
He spent Tuesday morning hedging.
A series of caucus night snafus meant the Iowa Democratic Party was unable to release any results, even hours after the caucuses had ended. Several candidates filled the void with cautious optimism. Buttigieg was a bit more brazen.
“By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious,” he told supporters in a soaring late-night speech. “Tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality.”
Advertisement
He did acknowledge “we don’t know all the results,” but then doubled down on the victory message: “Iowa, you have shocked the nation.”
Pete Buttigieg on claiming victory in Iowa despite vote count chaos: "We're going to hear the official results and again that can't come soon enough, but what we saw and what our precinct information revealed ... is that we have the momentum" https://t.co/3NlbBmeSMT pic.twitter.com/mXgSrTPxiF — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 4, 2020
Hours later, Buttigieg tapped the brakes in an interview with CNN’s John Berman.
“You said, ‘By all indications we’re going on to New Hampshire victorious,’” Berman pointed out during the Tuesday morning appearance. “By all indications — except the actual official count. How can you declare victory without actual official numbers?”
Buttigieg answered by reframing “victory” as an “extraordinary” show of support from “rural areas, suburban areas and urban areas,” based on the campaign’s internal reporting.
Advertisement
“A year ago I think a lot of people were even questioning what right we had to do this and to make the attempt,” he said. “So it’s clearly a victory for us, even as we, along with the whole country, impatiently wait for some results from the party.”
“I understand declaring a moral victory, or beating expectations, or being surprised you even got this far,” Berman replied. “But why not wait to hear for sure?”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Susan Collins To Vote To Acquit Trump Of All Impeachment Charges

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) announced Tuesday that she does not support removing President Donald Trump from office , sticking with her party on another controversial vote ahead of a tough reelection fight in November .
“ I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president ’ s conduct , however flawed , warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office , ” she said in a short speech on the Senate floor .
The Senate is set to vote Wednesday on whether to remove Trump from office for pressuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation that could benefit him politically , while using congressionally approved foreign aid and a potential White House meeting .
Along with abuse of power , Trump was also impeached by the House for obstruction of justice after he allegedly tried to block the chamber ’ s probe into the matter .
Collins was one of only two Republican senators who supported an effort to call witnesses in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
In a vote last week , nearly every GOP senator opposed allowing witness testimony , making it the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live witnesses .
However , Collins said Tuesday that House Democrats should have pursued testimony from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton by seeking legal action in court before taking steps to impeach Trump .
“ The House chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead went straight to impeachment , ” Collins said , making clear she intended to also vote no on the second article of obstruction of Congress .
Collins is facing a tough re-election fight for what would be her fifth term in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats aiming to flip the Senate in November .
Maine state House Speaker Sara Gideon ( D ) , one of her top would-be challengers , has built a formidable war chest ahead of the state ’ s June primary .
Last month , a Morning Consult tracking poll showed Collins ’ approval with voters in Maine take a substantial hit .
The Maine Republican surpassed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) as the most unpopular senator in the country , according to the poll .
The Senate is expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong majority of Republicans voting against conviction .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , the other GOP senator who supported calling witnesses , has not yet announced how he intends to vote on the removal of the president from office .
On the Democratic side , red-state Sens .
Joe Manchin of West Virginia , Doug Jones of Alabama , and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona remain undecided on Wednesday ’ s vote on the impeachment articles .
In her speech on Tuesday , Collins said it was “ wrong ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate former Vice President Joe Biden , his political rival .
Despite Trump ’ s repeated claims that he behaved appropriately , Collins told CBS News that she believed Trump learned a “ pretty big lesson ” from impeachment and will be “ much more cautious ” about seeking foreign assistance in the future .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced Tuesday that she does not support removing President Donald Trump from office, sticking with her party on another controversial vote ahead of a tough reelection fight in November.
“I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office,” she said in a short speech on the Senate floor.
Advertisement
The Senate is set to vote Wednesday on whether to remove Trump from office for pressuring the government of Ukraine to open an investigation that could benefit him politically, while using congressionally approved foreign aid and a potential White House meeting. Along with abuse of power, Trump was also impeached by the House for obstruction of justice after he allegedly tried to block the chamber’s probe into the matter.
Collins was one of only two Republican senators who supported an effort to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial. In a vote last week, nearly every GOP senator opposed allowing witness testimony, making it the first U.S. presidential impeachment trial to feature no live witnesses.
However, Collins said Tuesday that House Democrats should have pursued testimony from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton by seeking legal action in court before taking steps to impeach Trump.
“The House chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead went straight to impeachment,” Collins said, making clear she intended to also vote no on the second article of obstruction of Congress.
Advertisement
Collins is facing a tough re-election fight for what would be her fifth term in office. Winning her seat is key for Democrats aiming to flip the Senate in November. Maine state House Speaker Sara Gideon (D), one of her top would-be challengers, has built a formidable war chest ahead of the state’s June primary. Last month, a Morning Consult tracking poll showed Collins’ approval with voters in Maine take a substantial hit. The Maine Republican surpassed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the most unpopular senator in the country, according to the poll.
The Senate is expected to acquit Trump on both charges, with a strong majority of Republicans voting against conviction. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the other GOP senator who supported calling witnesses, has not yet announced how he intends to vote on the removal of the president from office.
On the Democratic side, red-state Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona remain undecided on Wednesday’s vote on the impeachment articles.
In her speech on Tuesday, Collins said it was “wrong” for Trump to ask a foreign country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his political rival.
Despite Trump’s repeated claims that he behaved appropriately, Collins told CBS News that she believed Trump learned a “pretty big lesson” from impeachment and will be “much more cautious” about seeking foreign assistance in the future.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Nixon Quit, Clinton Apologized, But Trump Likely To See Proof Of Invincibility

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images US President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up during a `` Keep America Great '' campaign rally at Wildwoods Convention Center in Wildwood , New Jersey on January 28 , 2020 .
Americans will likely get their first taste of that future on Tuesday evening , when Trump delivers his State of the Union address the day before the Senate is all but certain to grant him an acquittal .
A senior administration official previewing the speech , who spoke on condition of anonymity , said that while the remarks would have an “ optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the possibility that Trump would address the House lawmakers who led the impeachment against him .
“ I won ’ t preview if he ’ s going to call anybody out because I ― but I think the president will be entirely comfortable with that , ” the official said .
“ He will feel empowered to do anything he wants to now , ” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat , a New York University history professor and an expert on authoritarianism who has long warned about Trump ’ s behavior .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Republican political consultant who has criticized Trump from the start of the 2016 primary campaign , said Trump will see his acquittal not as a narrow and lucky escape from disaster , but as proof that he is invincible .
“ We are about to witness Donald Trump empowered to break any law , to wreck any norm , and to detonate Washington , D.C. , without fear of consequences .
It ’ s a bad , bad scenario , ” he said .
Some Republican senators who last week voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any witnesses ― including former national security adviser John Bolton , whose forthcoming book shows he has firsthand knowledge of the actions for which Trump was impeached ― said that the president would modify his behavior going forward .
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander , who said Trump ’ s attempt to coerce Ukraine to hurt a political opponent was wrong but not impeachable , argued that the ordeal will have an effect on the president .
“ I would think he ’ d think twice before doing it again , ” Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing to describe what he did as “ perfect , ” Yale University psychiatry professor Bandy Lee said he is highly unlikely to change his behavior .
“ In psychiatry , the degree to which a person is able to have remorse and to apologize is the degree to which one will check one ’ s own behavior and not harm others , ” she said .
“ Those who insist on innocence or flawless ‘ perfection , ’ not only against evidence to the contrary , but will protest and even bulldoze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are exactly the most dangerous individuals .
...
He will likely unleash a level of vindictiveness and retaliation we have not yet seen.
” One longtime Trump friend , the owner of the conservative news site NewsMax , said Trump would move on with his agenda .
“ This is a president who is totally focused on results , and he ’ s going to continue that approach , even more so because of election this year , ” Chris Ruddy said .
Trump ’ s speech on Tuesday ― his third State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Congress ― is themed “ The Great American Comeback , ” and it will , among other things , boast of and take credit for the economy and low unemployment rate , criticize sanctuary cities and call for lower costs for prescription drugs , the senior administration official said .
What Trump might add to the words scrolling up his teleprompter , however , can not be predicted .
President Clinton similarly gave his 1999 State of the Union speech while his Senate trial was ongoing .
He did not mention impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to his script in his congressional speeches ― last year ’ s complaint about “ ridiculous partisan investigations ” was in the prepared remarks ― he frequently strays from the text in other official speeches , often turning them into de facto campaign rallies .
In any case , regardless of the content of Tuesday ’ s speech , the chances that Trump will continue to stay “ on message ” are slim , if the past is any guide .
The president regularly says and posts thing on social media just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech that bear little resemblance to the remarks that others have written for him .
Just five days after his 2018 State of the Union address , for example , Trump complained during an “ official ” speech about tax cuts in Ohio that Democratic lawmakers had not clapped enough for him .
“ Can we call that treason ?
Why not ?
I mean , they certainly didn ’ t seem to love our country very much , ” he said .
And it ’ s that sort of attitude that worries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit to what he is capable of doing , and with the precarious global situation , partly through his own creation , it would take very little for us to enter into a catastrophic situation , ” she said .

US President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up during a "Keep America Great" campaign rally at Wildwoods Convention Center in Wildwood, New Jersey on January 28, 2020. SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
WASHINGTON ― Richard Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment. Bill Clinton apologized, repeatedly. So how will Donald Trump handle his post-impeachment life?
Americans will likely get their first taste of that future on Tuesday evening, when Trump delivers his State of the Union address the day before the Senate is all but certain to grant him an acquittal.
Advertisement
A senior administration official previewing the speech, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while the remarks would have an “optimistic tone,” he could not rule out the possibility that Trump would address the House lawmakers who led the impeachment against him. “I won’t preview if he’s going to call anybody out because I ― but I think the president will be entirely comfortable with that,” the official said.
Critics, though, are already sounding the alarm that Trump’s verbal attacks on those who impeached him will likely be just the beginning.
“He will feel empowered to do anything he wants to now,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University history professor and an expert on authoritarianism who has long warned about Trump’s behavior. “We are in big trouble.”
Rick Wilson, a Republican political consultant who has criticized Trump from the start of the 2016 primary campaign, said Trump will see his acquittal not as a narrow and lucky escape from disaster, but as proof that he is invincible. “We are about to witness Donald Trump empowered to break any law, to wreck any norm, and to detonate Washington, D.C., without fear of consequences. It’s a bad, bad scenario,” he said.
Advertisement
Some Republican senators who last week voted to end the impeachment trial without hearing from any witnesses ― including former national security adviser John Bolton, whose forthcoming book shows he has firsthand knowledge of the actions for which Trump was impeached ― said that the president would modify his behavior going forward.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, who said Trump’s attempt to coerce Ukraine to hurt a political opponent was wrong but not impeachable, argued that the ordeal will have an effect on the president. “I would think he’d think twice before doing it again,” Alexander told NBC News.
But with Trump continuing to describe what he did as “perfect,” Yale University psychiatry professor Bandy Lee said he is highly unlikely to change his behavior. “In psychiatry, the degree to which a person is able to have remorse and to apologize is the degree to which one will check one’s own behavior and not harm others,” she said. “Those who insist on innocence or flawless ‘perfection,’ not only against evidence to the contrary, but will protest and even bulldoze those who may dare to contradict them are exactly the most dangerous individuals. ... He will likely unleash a level of vindictiveness and retaliation we have not yet seen.”
The White House did not respond to HuffPost’s queries about the president’s likely behavior in the coming days and weeks.
One longtime Trump friend, the owner of the conservative news site NewsMax, said Trump would move on with his agenda. “This is a president who is totally focused on results, and he’s going to continue that approach, even more so because of election this year,” Chris Ruddy said.
Advertisement
Trump’s speech on Tuesday ― his third State of the Union and fourth joint address to Congress ― is themed “The Great American Comeback,” and it will, among other things, boast of and take credit for the economy and low unemployment rate, criticize sanctuary cities and call for lower costs for prescription drugs, the senior administration official said.
What Trump might add to the words scrolling up his teleprompter, however, cannot be predicted. President Clinton similarly gave his 1999 State of the Union speech while his Senate trial was ongoing. He did not mention impeachment once.
While Trump has stuck fairly close to his script in his congressional speeches ― last year’s complaint about “ridiculous partisan investigations” was in the prepared remarks ― he frequently strays from the text in other official speeches, often turning them into de facto campaign rallies.
In any case, regardless of the content of Tuesday’s speech, the chances that Trump will continue to stay “on message” are slim, if the past is any guide. The president regularly says and posts thing on social media just days or even hours after a major speech that bear little resemblance to the remarks that others have written for him.
Just five days after his 2018 State of the Union address, for example, Trump complained during an “official” speech about tax cuts in Ohio that Democratic lawmakers had not clapped enough for him. “Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much,” he said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Fox News Guest Slams Trump Campaign Manager For Claiming Dems 'Rigged' Iowa Caucus

A Fox News guest shut down a false conspiracy claim from President Donald Trump ’ s campaign manager , who said a lack of Iowa Caucus voting results meant it was “ rigged.
” The trouble began Monday when the Iowa Democratic Party failed to release the results for the first vote in the party ’ s presidential race .
As of Tuesday morning , the results still remain unclear .
Officials said tallying results involved using an app that was intended to make the process faster .
Instead , the app was too slow , overloaded and led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2020 campaign manager , spoke to Fox News Monday night as the chaos ensued to float his own baseless conspiracy that the delayed results were an attempt to sabotage Democratic nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
“ I don ’ t know exactly what ’ s going on in their back rooms ... but I get that deja vu , ” Parscale said .
“ I think things might be a little big rigged against [ Sanders ] .
” Fox News ' decision desk guy tears into Brad Parscale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : `` One thing that we can say with a whole lot of confidence is this was not rigged .
... [ Parscale 's claim ] is slightly more ridiculous than the outcome of the caucuses last night . ''
pic.twitter.com/N22KVyFXke — Lis Power ( @ LisPower1 ) February 4 , 2020 “ If something is rigged , it benefits the people that rigged it , ” Anderson said .
“ And this is the absolute worst outcome for the Iowa Democratic party.
” He added that Parscale ’ s claim was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the caucuses last night — which is just a travesty .
It wasn ’ t rigged , there ’ s no way around that .
This is a total diminishment of the Iowa caucuses , even if they do put their results out .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Fox News guest shut down a false conspiracy claim from President Donald Trump’s campaign manager, who said a lack of Iowa Caucus voting results meant it was “rigged.”
The trouble began Monday when the Iowa Democratic Party failed to release the results for the first vote in the party’s presidential race. As of Tuesday morning, the results still remain unclear. Officials said tallying results involved using an app that was intended to make the process faster. Instead, the app was too slow, overloaded and led to delays.
Advertisement
Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, spoke to Fox News Monday night as the chaos ensued to float his own baseless conspiracy that the delayed results were an attempt to sabotage Democratic nominee Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
“I don’t know exactly what’s going on in their back rooms ... but I get that deja vu,” Parscale said. “I think things might be a little big rigged against [Sanders].”
He later repeated the claim on Fox News Radio.
Fox News' decision desk guy tears into Brad Parscale for 'rigged' claims
Decision desk guy: "One thing that we can say with a whole lot of confidence is this was not rigged. ... [Parscale's claim] is slightly more ridiculous than the outcome of the caucuses last night." pic.twitter.com/N22KVyFXke — Lis Power (@LisPower1) February 4, 2020
Chris Anderson, a commenter with the Fox News decision desk, shut down the claim Tuesday.
“If something is rigged, it benefits the people that rigged it,” Anderson said. “And this is the absolute worst outcome for the Iowa Democratic party.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Trump Allies Use Iowa To Sow Distrust In The Voting System

Widespread problems in tallying the results of Monday ’ s Democratic caucuses in Iowa have caused confusion in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary , as officials have delayed releasing results well into Tuesday .
Into the vacuum stepped President Donald Trump ’ s sons , his surrogates and right-wing media allies , who quickly sought to push disinformation that the caucuses were somehow rigged .
The truth of what happened appears to be much more mundane .
There were numerous technical and logistical issues with the reporting of results , in large part related to an app that the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s particularly a concern for this kind of disinformation to come from those close to the president , ” said Larry Norden , director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice .
“ It ’ s bad enough this kind of social media environment where disinformation can spread easily , but when you have it from sources that many rely on , it ’ s particularly dangerous.
” There is no proof for the serious allegation that Democratic officials had interfered with vote totals and potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no indication the votes are lost or nonexistent because of the app failure ― they exist as hard-copy paper ballots that will remain as evidence of caucus results .
The Iowa Democratic Party says the app had a coding problem related to the transmission of results , but did accurately collect the results themselves .
Some organizers also struggled to download the app in the first place .
Phone lines became backed up as many tried to call in the results , leading to further delays and problems .
This is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disinformation that we ’ re seeing .
Larry Norden , director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice “ There ’ s absolutely zero evidence that the results that they ’ re putting together in Iowa are inaccurate in any way , ” Norden said .
“ They ’ re double-checking with paper records that they have to ensure that the results are accurate.
” Trump ’ s campaign had already implied that there would be tampering with the Iowa results even before the app failure led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage Bernie Sanders ’ campaign in favor of Joe Biden ’ s .
Parscale claimed he “ could see Bernie getting messed with , ” while Trump Jr. offered that Democrats could “ set it up ” for Biden to win .
Trump administration officials , conservative pundits and lawmakers also spread messages that created the appearance the tabulation app may have been hacked by a malicious actor .
Trump boosters like Charlie Kirk , Ryan Saavedra and Benny Johnson all promoted the notion the vote was rigged .
White House counselor Kellyanne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security spokesperson ’ s specific and unprompted claim that Democratic officials declined to have the agency test their app for cybersecurity .
( DHS officials have also stated there are no signs of hacking ) .
Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) on Tuesday asked “ what are the odds ” that the app failure “ has nothing to do with a Bernie blowout and a Biden crash.
” Iowa was the first state to weigh in on what could be a monthslong primary process ahead of the general election in November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s willingness to exploit it for political gain , has experts concerned .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Widespread problems in tallying the results of Monday’s Democratic caucuses in Iowa have caused confusion in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, as officials have delayed releasing results well into Tuesday. Into the vacuum stepped President Donald Trump’s sons, his surrogates and right-wing media allies, who quickly sought to push disinformation that the caucuses were somehow rigged.
“The fix is in… AGAIN. And we get to watch it play out on live tv. Incredible,” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted.
Advertisement
“Mark my words, they are rigging this thing,” Eric Trump tweeted.
“Quality control = rigged?” Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign director, tweeted.
The truth of what happened appears to be much more mundane. There were numerous technical and logistical issues with the reporting of results, in large part related to an app that the Democratic Party commissioned to help log the tallies.
In sending out groundless conspiracy theories, Trump’s sons and campaign attempted to turn a technical problem into a way to undermine faith in the voting process and smear the president’s political rivals.
“It’s particularly a concern for this kind of disinformation to come from those close to the president,” said Larry Norden, director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s bad enough this kind of social media environment where disinformation can spread easily, but when you have it from sources that many rely on, it’s particularly dangerous.”
There is no proof for the serious allegation that Democratic officials had interfered with vote totals and potentially violated election laws. And there’s no indication the votes are lost or nonexistent because of the app failure ― they exist as hard-copy paper ballots that will remain as evidence of caucus results.
Advertisement
The Iowa Democratic Party says the app had a coding problem related to the transmission of results, but did accurately collect the results themselves. Some organizers also struggled to download the app in the first place. Phone lines became backed up as many tried to call in the results, leading to further delays and problems.
“This is only going to get worse in terms of the disinformation that we’re seeing.” - Larry Norden, director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice
Rigging an election through an app failure also makes little sense, as it makes Democratic officials look incredibly inept and draws immense scrutiny to the proceedings.
“There’s absolutely zero evidence that the results that they’re putting together in Iowa are inaccurate in any way,” Norden said. “They’re double-checking with paper records that they have to ensure that the results are accurate.”
The Trump-world allegations echoed longtime Trump talking points that the Democratic Party is corrupt and trying to rig votes to protect establishment candidates or steal elections, pushing his far-right populist message that labels his opponents as liberal political elites.
Advertisement
“Dems rigging it in Iowa? … They just can’t let the People have their say!” Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, tweeted.
Trump’s campaign had already implied that there would be tampering with the Iowa results even before the app failure led to disaster, suggesting that Democratic officials would damage Bernie Sanders’ campaign in favor of Joe Biden’s. Parscale claimed he “could see Bernie getting messed with,” while Trump Jr. offered that Democrats could “set it up” for Biden to win.
Trump administration officials, conservative pundits and lawmakers also spread messages that created the appearance the tabulation app may have been hacked by a malicious actor. Trump boosters like Charlie Kirk, Ryan Saavedra and Benny Johnson all promoted the notion the vote was rigged. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway tweeted out a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson’s specific and unprompted claim that Democratic officials declined to have the agency test their app for cybersecurity. (DHS officials have also stated there are no signs of hacking). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday asked “what are the odds” that the app failure “has nothing to do with a Bernie blowout and a Biden crash.”
Iowa was the first state to weigh in on what could be a monthslong primary process ahead of the general election in November. Monday’s debacle, and the president’s willingness to exploit it for political gain, has experts concerned.
“This is only going to get worse in terms of the disinformation that we’re seeing around elections,” Norden said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--What To Watch For During Trump's State Of The Union Speech

On the brink of his Senate acquittal , President Donald Trump will be unleashing “ relentless optimism ” during his third State of the Union address , a speech designed to pivot from his impeachment to his drive for reelection .
Trump is speaking from a position of strength , with nearly complete control of the Republican Party .
The theme of his speech : “ The Great American Comeback.
” It ’ ll be a different experience for Democrats , nearly all of whom voted for Trump ’ s impeachment in the House .
Where Trump will point to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats and their difficult nomination will be on display after a long night of uncertainty in Iowa ’ s kickoff caucuses .
The contrast with Trump ’ s State of the Union address last year will be stark .
Then , Democrats were triumphant just a few days after taking control of the House .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had forced Trump to reopen the government .
Her smirking clap , eye-to-eye with him , mocked the president of the United States in front of the world .
But officials would not guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The president will be in the same room as his accusers at a moment of impending victory .
He has a strong and often-stated sense of grievance and is known for going off-script .
Look for Trump , like Clinton , to promote a strong economy .
Trump is expected to lead with talk about what the White House calls a “ blue-collar boom.
” There have been gains in blue-collar wages under Trump , though some of those gains have faded as Trump ’ s trade war hurt manufacturing .
Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high road rhetorically , in his own style .
Clinton ended his by asking the nation to envision a State of the Union speech 100 years from that night , from the “ mountaintop of the American Century.
” “ Let it be said of us then that we were thinking not only of our time , but of their time ; that we reached as high as our ideals .
That we put aside our divisions and found a new hour of healing and hopefulness ; that we joined together to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Will Trump even mention Ukraine ?
Republicans have started to come out and agree that the president had “ inappropriately ” tried to get political help from that country while he held up military aid .
“ We ’ ve offered China help , but we can ’ t have thousands of people coming in who may have this problem , the coronavirus , ” Trump said Sunday .
At the same time , the president has tried to avoid angering China by being too outspoken , according to confidants .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good test .
Trump said that his efforts to solve the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would gain support because it ’ s a “ win-win ” for both sides .
In fact , Trump ’ s plan favors Israel on key contentious issues and attaches nearly impossible conditions for granting the Palestinians their hoped-for state .
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “ nonsense.
” Listen for how harsh Trump is on Tehran in the wake of Iran ’ s bombing that injured U.S. soldiers in Iraq .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
In the month since , an uneasy quiet has settled over the region .
The Taliban want U.S. and other coalition forces to leave .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says a deal is close , but it won ’ t happen without a reduction in violence and a pathway for talks between the Taliban and other Afghans about a peaceful way forward for the nation .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Who’s clapping now?
On the brink of his Senate acquittal, President Donald Trump will be unleashing “relentless optimism” during his third State of the Union address, a speech designed to pivot from his impeachment to his drive for reelection. Trump is speaking from a position of strength, with nearly complete control of the Republican Party. The theme of his speech: “The Great American Comeback.”
It’ll be a different experience for Democrats, nearly all of whom voted for Trump’s impeachment in the House. Where Trump will point to GOP unity ahead of the 2020 elections, Democrats and their difficult nomination will be on display after a long night of uncertainty in Iowa’s kickoff caucuses.
Advertisement
The contrast with Trump’s State of the Union address last year will be stark. Then, Democrats were triumphant just a few days after taking control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had forced Trump to reopen the government. Her smirking clap, eye-to-eye with him, mocked the president of the United States in front of the world.
What to watch during Trump’s speech at 9 p.m. EST Tuesday:
___
TRUMP AND PELOSI
They haven’t spoken since Pelosi stood up, pointed at Trump across a table at the White House and bluntly suggested he is controlled by the president of Russia. “All roads lead to Putin,” she said, before stalking out.
The extraordinary moment last October was captured in a now-famous photograph that Trump released and Pelosi slapped across the top of her Twitter page. At other times, she’s questioned his “manhood” and he’s called her “crazy.”
Impeachment has only inflamed things. Pelosi last week said Trump will never have a true acquittal because the Senate did not hold a real trial with witnesses. But, she’s said with relish, “He’ll be impeached forever.”
Advertisement
Trump, meanwhile, is poised to claim vindication in yet another “witch hunt” by Democrats who, he says, just wanted to overturn the 2016 election.
Watch them for any spark of civility. Pelosi and many Democratic women are expected to wear suffragette white to the speech.
____
TONE
The White House said last week to look for “can-do optimism in the face of unjustified pessimism we are hearing from some in Congress.”
But officials would not guarantee that Trump will stick to his speech. The president will be in the same room as his accusers at a moment of impending victory. He has a strong and often-stated sense of grievance and is known for going off-script.
Look for roaring applause and cheers from Republicans, who have almost completely stuck with the retribution-loving president.
Advertisement
___
THE BIG PICTURE
Trump is sure to use the speech to try to remind the country of what he’s accomplished.
The White House would not say whether it is modeling Trump’s speech on President Bill Clinton’s in 1999, amid his own impeachment trial. Clinton never mentioned the I-word.
Look for Trump, like Clinton, to promote a strong economy. Trump is expected to lead with talk about what the White House calls a “blue-collar boom.” There have been gains in blue-collar wages under Trump, though some of those gains have faded as Trump’s trade war hurt manufacturing.
Watch to see if Trump can stick to the high road rhetorically, in his own style. Clinton ended his by asking the nation to envision a State of the Union speech 100 years from that night, from the “mountaintop of the American Century.”
“Let it be said of us then that we were thinking not only of our time, but of their time; that we reached as high as our ideals. That we put aside our divisions and found a new hour of healing and hopefulness; that we joined together to serve and strengthen the land we love.”
At the time, some said his rhetoric was over the top.
____
UKRAINE?
Will Trump even mention Ukraine? Republicans have started to come out and agree that the president had “inappropriately” tried to get political help from that country while he held up military aid.
Advertisement
The House impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his actions in response to the House investigation.
The issue clearly puts Republicans in a bind. Several have said that House prosecutors proved their case, but even so, the wrongdoing didn’t rise to the level of impeachment or removal from office.
___
CORONAVIRUS
Will he make any mention of the new coronavirus?
“We’ve offered China help, but we can’t have thousands of people coming in who may have this problem, the coronavirus,” Trump said Sunday. At the same time, the president has tried to avoid angering China by being too outspoken, according to confidants.
Under new rules, U.S. citizens who have traveled in China within the last 14 days will be re-routed to one of 11 designated airports, where they will undergo enhanced health screening procedures.
___
MIDEAST PEACE
Trump is focused on re-introducing himself to Americans as a president who has made the country — and voters’ lives specifically — better. So listen for any mention of foreign policy and national security issues.
Advertisement
Trump’s Mideast peace plan is a good test. Trump said that his efforts to solve the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would gain support because it’s a “win-win” for both sides. In fact, Trump’s plan favors Israel on key contentious issues and attaches nearly impossible conditions for granting the Palestinians their hoped-for state. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “nonsense.”
If Trump says nothing about the plan during the speech, that could signal that Trump knows it’s in trouble.
___
IRAN
Listen for how harsh Trump is on Tehran in the wake of Iran’s bombing that injured U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The attack was retribution for the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In the month since, an uneasy quiet has settled over the region.
Will Trump suggest he’ll eventually want to sit down and talk with the Iranians, signal the door is closed for talks, or poke Tehran?
The White House said to expect Trump’s tone to be “determined” and “forceful.”
___
AFGHANISTAN
Will Trump announce a troop withdrawal?
The Taliban want U.S. and other coalition forces to leave. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says a deal is close, but it won’t happen without a reduction in violence and a pathway for talks between the Taliban and other Afghans about a peaceful way forward for the nation.
Advertisement
___
IN THE ROOM
There’s always some suspense over who shows up and who stays away.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s campaign said late Monday it was unlikely that the Massachusetts senator will attend Trump’s speech, coming the day after the Iowa caucuses. Another Democratic contender, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, has an event in New Hampshire scheduled earlier Tuesday evening.
Other legislators have their own reasons for attending — or not.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she’ll attend “to bear witness.”
“That means that I do not clap. I do not acknowledge. I’m just there as a witness,” she said.
____
Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.
____


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--GOP Challenger Claims Efforts To Rig Near 100% Iowa Vote For Trump

Matt Rourke/ASSOCIATED PRESS Republican presidential candidate Joe Walsh ( center ) is seen through a window during a campaign event at Riley 's Cafe on Jan. 29 , 2020 , in Cedar Rapids , Iowa .
President Donald Trump did not quite win every single Republican vote in the Iowa caucuses , but it was not , according to one of his challengers , for want of trying by the GOP ’ s state and county leaders .
At some caucus sites on Monday , according to multiple observers , cast ballots were taken out of the room and counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of all the voters or at least in the presence of representatives from each of the participating candidates ’ campaigns .
At other sites , there was no secret ballot at all , and participants were asked to raise their hands if they favored a particular candidate .
“ The state party did everything they could do to make sure their dictator got 100 percent of the vote , and they almost did , ” said former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh , one of two Republicans running uphill challenges to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike the Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa , who publicly declare their support for their preferred candidates , Republicans mark down their choices on slips of paper , which are then supposed to be treated like secret ballots .
Iowa GOP spokesman Aaron Britt said the state party had not received any complaints about voting problems .
As for the issues flagged by the Walsh campaign , he said , “ It sounded like some baseless information , and that ’ s that.
” However , at times on Monday night , as results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Walsh and Weld actually decreased .
HuffPost witnessed two instances of this , while Walsh campaign manager Lucy Caldwell documented one case using her mobile phone .
Helene Walsh , the former congressman ’ s wife , said she visited a caucus site in Grimes , about a half-hour northwest of Des Moines , where she spoke to someone who intended to vote for her husband , but then did not when the caucus leader asked for a show of hands for Trump instead of passing out slips of paper .
Everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step out of line and people know , there is pressure , ” she said .
At a precinct in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale , the leaders did not , as they were supposed to , count the ballots either in front of the 50 voters assembled in the room or before witnesses from each of the campaigns present , said Allen Huffman , who voted for Walsh .
“ After the ballots were collected , they just went somewhere , ” said Huffman , who is 50 and works in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be surprised if they undercounted the alternatives to Trump.
” Four years earlier , he recalled , all the ballots were separated into piles on a table and counted and then the totals were announced right there .
“ I think everybody in the room figured it ’ s Trump , so why bother ?
” he said .
“ Even the guy leading it was wearing a Trump shirt and a Trump hat.
” Britt said he had not heard of any such irregularities as those described by Huffman or Helene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote counts , he said that was simply a matter of fixing incorrectly entered data .
One precinct had shown a total of 55 votes for Walsh , for example , when he had won only five votes .
Joe Walsh said what he saw as an effort to grab every last vote for Trump was just another symptom of the brook-no-dissent devotion that the president ’ s supporters have for him , and which Walsh ’ s months of campaigning in Iowa were not able to dent .
Walsh said he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site of the first primary next Tuesday , where he would push on , at least for a time .
“ We ’ ll attack New Hampshire for a couple of days and see what we can do , ” he said .

Republican presidential candidate Joe Walsh (center) is seen through a window during a campaign event at Riley's Cafe on Jan. 29, 2020, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Matt Rourke/ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Donald Trump did not quite win every single Republican vote in the Iowa caucuses, but it was not, according to one of his challengers, for want of trying by the GOP’s state and county leaders.
At some caucus sites on Monday, according to multiple observers, cast ballots were taken out of the room and counted by pro-Trump precinct leaders, rather than in front of all the voters or at least in the presence of representatives from each of the participating candidates’ campaigns. At other sites, there was no secret ballot at all, and participants were asked to raise their hands if they favored a particular candidate.
Advertisement
“The state party did everything they could do to make sure their dictator got 100 percent of the vote, and they almost did,” said former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, one of two Republicans running uphill challenges to take the 2020 nomination away from Trump.
Unlike the Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, who publicly declare their support for their preferred candidates, Republicans mark down their choices on slips of paper, which are then supposed to be treated like secret ballots.
Iowa GOP spokesman Aaron Britt said the state party had not received any complaints about voting problems. As for the issues flagged by the Walsh campaign, he said, “It sounded like some baseless information, and that’s that.”
According to the Iowa Republican Party’s website on Tuesday, Trump had won 31,422 votes of 32,345 cast across the state, or 97%. Walsh received 348 and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld received 424, or about 1% each.
Advertisement
However, at times on Monday night, as results were coming in, the vote totals for Walsh and Weld actually decreased. HuffPost witnessed two instances of this, while Walsh campaign manager Lucy Caldwell documented one case using her mobile phone.
At 9:58 p.m. Iowa time, Trump had 28,287 votes, Weld had 370 and Walsh had 344. Forty-nine minutes later, Trump had 29,658 votes, Weld 388 and Walsh 337.
Helene Walsh, the former congressman’s wife, said she visited a caucus site in Grimes, about a half-hour northwest of Des Moines, where she spoke to someone who intended to vote for her husband, but then did not when the caucus leader asked for a show of hands for Trump instead of passing out slips of paper. Everyone voted for Trump. “If you step out of line and people know, there is pressure,” she said.
At a precinct in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale, the leaders did not, as they were supposed to, count the ballots either in front of the 50 voters assembled in the room or before witnesses from each of the campaigns present, said Allen Huffman, who voted for Walsh.
“After the ballots were collected, they just went somewhere,” said Huffman, who is 50 and works in information technology. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they undercounted the alternatives to Trump.”
Advertisement
Four years earlier, he recalled, all the ballots were separated into piles on a table and counted and then the totals were announced right there. “I think everybody in the room figured it’s Trump, so why bother?” he said. “Even the guy leading it was wearing a Trump shirt and a Trump hat.”
Britt said he had not heard of any such irregularities as those described by Huffman or Helene Walsh. As to the decreases in vote counts, he said that was simply a matter of fixing incorrectly entered data. One precinct had shown a total of 55 votes for Walsh, for example, when he had won only five votes.
“There were just a couple of corrections that had to made there,” Britt said.
Joe Walsh said what he saw as an effort to grab every last vote for Trump was just another symptom of the brook-no-dissent devotion that the president’s supporters have for him, and which Walsh’s months of campaigning in Iowa were not able to dent.
“Last night was an eye-opener,” he said. “My party is a cult and I don’t belong in it anymore.”
Walsh said he was on his way to New Hampshire, site of the first primary next Tuesday, where he would push on, at least for a time. “We’ll attack New Hampshire for a couple of days and see what we can do,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--6 Times Trump Ramped Up His Assault On The Environment Since 2020's Start

During a speech on the environment last July , Trump boasted about the work he and his team have done to “ preserve ” the nation ’ s “ incredible natural splendor.
” Asked in early January about climate change , a global threat that he ’ s previously dismissed as a hoax , Trump said , “ Nothing ’ s a hoax about that .
It ’ s a very serious subject.
” And while addressing world leaders last month in Davos , Switzerland , the president declared that “ the United States has among the cleanest air and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to keep it that way.
” As Trump greenwashes his record ahead of the 2020 election ― an effort that will almost certainly continue during Tuesday night ’ s State of the Union address ― the administration is plowing ahead with an agenda that overwhelmingly benefits polluting industries at the expense of the climate , clean air and water , wildlife and public lands .
In the first three years of Trump ’ s tenure , the administration has reversed or is in the process of rolling back nearly 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clean Power Plan to weakening the Endangered Species Act , according to a New York Times analysis .
A self-proclaimed “ sagebrush rebel , ” Pendley holds extreme anti-environmental views and has a long history of advocating for the sale of the federal lands he now manages .
The Wyoming native is the former longtime president of Mountain States Legal Foundation , a Colorado-based conservative legal nonprofit , and been called the “ ideological twin ” of James Watt , the controversial Interior Department chief under President Ronald Reagan .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks to streamline the permitting process for pipelines , power plants , highways and other development by limiting the number of projects that require in-depth environmental review and expediting the process for those that do .
Equally as significant , it would allow agencies to ignore a project ’ s vulnerability to climate change , as well as its “ cumulative ” effects on global warming ― at a time when billion-dollar climate and weather disasters are on the rise .
How significant would this change be ?
In announcing the administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former oil lobbyist , said the reforms “ will be the most significant deregulatory proposal ” the president implements during his time in office and effect “ virtually every significant decision made by the federal government that affects the environment.
” Trump talks often about how his team works to ensure Americans have “ crystal clean ” water .
Undermining that promise , however , is the administration ’ s decision last month to remove protections for about half the nation ’ s wetlands and hundreds of thousands of streams .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers finalized Jan. 23 , replaces President Barack Obama ’ s 2015 Waters of the United States regulation , better known as WOTUS or the Clean Water Rule .
The rule extended federal safeguards to 2 million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands .
Last week , the U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed rule to codify 2017 guidance from the Interior Department ’ s top lawyer that legalizes the incidental killing of migratory birds , including deaths caused by fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turbines .
The administration ’ s position is that the 100-year-old Migratory Bird Treaty Act solely prohibits the intentional hunting , killing or capturing of bird species .
The biggest beneficiaries of the change are fossil fuel interests , power companies and major developers , which the administration says should be able to operate without fear of prosecution .
The USFWS acknowledges in its proposed regulation that the rollback will result in industries doing less to prevent incidental avian deaths , as E & E News first reported .
Allowing more “ forever @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump, a well-established serial liar, has been working in recent months to persuade the American public that his extreme anti-regulatory agenda is good for the planet and human health.
During a speech on the environment last July, Trump boasted about the work he and his team have done to “preserve” the nation’s “incredible natural splendor.” Asked in early January about climate change, a global threat that he’s previously dismissed as a hoax, Trump said, “Nothing’s a hoax about that. It’s a very serious subject.” And while addressing world leaders last month in Davos, Switzerland, the president declared that “the United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth ― and we’re going to keep it that way.”
Advertisement
As Trump greenwashes his record ahead of the 2020 election ― an effort that will almost certainly continue during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address ― the administration is plowing ahead with an agenda that overwhelmingly benefits polluting industries at the expense of the climate, clean air and water, wildlife and public lands.
Ten of the country’s leading environmental groups, including Earthjustice and the League of Conservation Voters, issued a joint statement ahead of Trump’s Tuesday speech condemning his “unprecedented assault on our environment and the health of our communities.”
“No amount of his greenwashing can change the simple fact: Donald Trump has been the worst president for our environment in history,” the groups wrote. “Unfortunately, our children will pay the costs of this president’s recklessness.”
In the first three years of Trump’s tenure, the administration has reversed or is in the process of rolling back nearly 100 environmental rules and regulations, from replacing the Clean Power Plan to weakening the Endangered Species Act, according to a New York Times analysis.
Advertisement
Here’s what he’s done in just the first month of 2020 ― none of which are likely to get a mention tonight.
Irony alert: As President Donald Trump announced proposals to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act on Jan. 9 at the White House, in the background loomed a portrait of the president who spurred America’s conservationist movement, Theodore Roosevelt. Drew Angerer via Getty Images
Extending an anti-environmentalist’s tenure as public lands chief
The administration kicked off the new year by extending William Perry Pendley’s stint as acting director of the Bureau of Land Management, further shielding him from the scrutiny of a Senate confirmation process that a formal nomination would trigger.
A self-proclaimed “sagebrush rebel,” Pendley holds extreme anti-environmental views and has a long history of advocating for the sale of the federal lands he now manages. The Wyoming native is the former longtime president of Mountain States Legal Foundation, a Colorado-based conservative legal nonprofit, and been called the “ideological twin” of James Watt, the controversial Interior Department chief under President Ronald Reagan.
Pendley has slammed the Endangered Species Act as a tool “to kill or prevent anybody from making a living on federal land,” railed against what he terms environmental “terrorists” and “eco-fascists,” and compared the climate crisis to a “unicorn.”
Advertisement
He also has ties to the late cult leader, convicted fraudster and paranoid conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, as HuffPost reported. In the early 1990s, he published anti-environmental pieces in 21st Century Science & Technology, a fringe LaRouche magazine loaded with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
Pendley has said repeatedly that his personal views and past actions, including his views on federal land policy and connections to LaRouche, are “irrelevant” to the job of managing more than one-third of all federal land.
Limiting environmental reviews
Next came the administration’s long-anticipated attack on what is arguably America’s most important environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act. This 50-year-old law protects air, water and land by requiring federal agencies to look closely at the potential environmental impacts of major infrastructure projects.
Trump’s proposal, unveiled Jan. 9, looks to streamline the permitting process for pipelines, power plants, highways and other development by limiting the number of projects that require in-depth environmental review and expediting the process for those that do. Equally as significant, it would allow agencies to ignore a project’s vulnerability to climate change, as well as its “cumulative” effects on global warming ― at a time when billion-dollar climate and weather disasters are on the rise.
How significant would this change be? In announcing the administration’s plans, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, a former oil lobbyist, said the reforms “will be the most significant deregulatory proposal” the president implements during his time in office and effect “virtually every significant decision made by the federal government that affects the environment.”
Advertisement
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, an ex-oil lobbyist seen here with Trump at a White House event last August, lead the push to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act. Carlos Barria / Reuters
Eroding water protections
Trump talks often about how his team works to ensure Americans have “crystal clean” water. Undermining that promise, however, is the administration’s decision last month to remove protections for about half the nation’s wetlands and hundreds of thousands of streams.
Trump went well beyond simply scrapping the regulation, instead eliminating Clean Water Act protections for bodies of water that have been in place for decades. Experts warn that the move could prove devastating for drinking water resources, wildlife and food security.
“If allowed to stand, this bulldozing of clean water protections would be among this administration’s dirtiest, most dangerous deeds,” Blan Holman, a lawyer and water expert at the Southern Environmental Law Center, previously told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Sacrificing migratory birds
Much like former Interior Department chief Ryan Zinke, Trump has become fixated on the negative impacts of wind turbines on birds. “You want to see a bird graveyard?” Trump asked at a summit in Florida last month. “Go under a windmill someday.”
Trump’s professed concern for feathered species hasn’t stopped him from making it easier for companies to kill birds.
Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed rule to codify 2017 guidance from the Interior Department’s top lawyer that legalizes the incidental killing of migratory birds, including deaths caused by fossil fuel operations, power lines and wind turbines. The administration’s position is that the 100-year-old Migratory Bird Treaty Act solely prohibits the intentional hunting, killing or capturing of bird species.
The biggest beneficiaries of the change are fossil fuel interests, power companies and major developers, which the administration says should be able to operate without fear of prosecution. The USFWS acknowledges in its proposed regulation that the rollback will result in industries doing less to prevent incidental avian deaths, as E&E News first reported.
Migratory white pelicans take off from the shoreline of an island battered by oil from the BP oil spill in December 2010, in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Recent Trump administration moves will put birds further at risk from various environmental dangers. Mario Tama via Getty Images
Advertisement
Approving neurotoxic insecticides
Another recent Trump administration decision also puts birds at risk. Last Thursday, the EPA formally announced its support for the continued use and registration of five neurotoxic insecticides that studies show are wiping out populations of songbirds and bees.
In a set of proposed interim decisions, the agency put some new restrictions on acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, chemicals collectively known as neonicotinoids. But the EPA bucked calls from environmentalists to ban or seriously limit the pesticides, which are also linked to developmental problems in human babies.
Allowing more “forever chemicals” on the market
For much of the past year, the EPA has been touting its efforts to curb per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals contaminating the drinking water of at least 19 million Americans.
Yet as the agency dithers on strict new rules, it looks poised to approve four new varieties of the chemical, HuffPost reported this week.
Among them is a compound that’s “lethal if inhaled” and “corrosive to the skin,” an EPA fact sheet showed. Others present a “severe health hazard,” including “irreversible injury” and “life-threatening, permanent or major injury” from “a single or repeated exposure.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucus Voter Demands Ballot For Pete Buttigieg Be Returned After Learning He's Gay

A caucus precinct captain for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg remained calm and astute after being confronted with a disgruntled Iowan voter who learned she ’ d just supported an openly gay man .
Video footage showing the tense exchange was posted to Twitter early Tuesday , where it had been viewed more than a million times by afternoon .
In it , an unidentified woman demands a signed ballot back from captain Nikki van den Heever after she learns that Buttigieg is in a same-sex marriage .
“ Are you saying that he has the same-sex partner ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before adding , “ I don ’ t want anybody like that in the White House.
” Though van den Heever explains Buttigieg ’ s sexuality is “ common knowledge , ” the voter ― who is wearing buttons in support of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar ― remains unconvinced .
“ He ’ d better read the Bible , ” the voter proclaims , noting that her support for the candidate “ all just went down the toilet.
” Van den Heever acknowledges that the voter has a “ right to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I teach my son is that love is love , and that we ’ re all human beings.
” Neither van den Heever nor Buttigieg campaign representatives responded to HuffPost ’ s request for comment on the video , which has appeared in The Advocate and Business Insider , as well as on CNBC , among other outlets .
A former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , Buttigieg has been married to his husband Chasten , a junior high school teacher , since 2018 .
In May of last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time magazine .
The candidate spent much of Tuesday hedging after having appeared to proclaim victory in Iowa ’ s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses late Monday in spite of the fact that no official results had been reported .
“ A year ago I think a lot of people were even questioning what right we had to do this and to make the attempt , ” he told CNN ’ s John Berman .
“ So it ’ s clearly a victory for us , even as we , along with the whole country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A caucus precinct captain for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg remained calm and astute after being confronted with a disgruntled Iowan voter who learned she’d just supported an openly gay man.
Video footage showing the tense exchange was posted to Twitter early Tuesday, where it had been viewed more than a million times by afternoon. In it, an unidentified woman demands a signed ballot back from captain Nikki van den Heever after she learns that Buttigieg is in a same-sex marriage.
Advertisement
“Are you saying that he has the same-sex partner? Are you kidding?” the voter asks, before adding, “I don’t want anybody like that in the White House.”
#PeteButtigieg precinct captain in rural Iowa responds to a caucus-goer flipping out upon learning that he has a same-sex partner. It’s a masterclass in patience, persistence, and love. Bravo @nikkiheever #IowaCaucuses #cresco #howardcountyiowa pic.twitter.com/PhX7vRFh8X — Annabel Park (@annabelpark) February 4, 2020
Though van den Heever explains Buttigieg’s sexuality is “common knowledge,” the voter ― who is wearing buttons in support of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar ― remains unconvinced.
“He’d better read the Bible,” the voter proclaims, noting that her support for the candidate “all just went down the toilet.”
Advertisement
Van den Heever acknowledges that the voter has a “right to her opinion,” but concludes, “What I teach my son is that love is love, and that we’re all human beings.”
Neither van den Heever nor Buttigieg campaign representatives responded to HuffPost’s request for comment on the video, which has appeared in The Advocate and Business Insider, as well as on CNBC, among other outlets.
A former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Buttigieg has been married to his husband Chasten, a junior high school teacher, since 2018. In May of last year, the couple appeared on the cover of Time magazine.
The candidate spent much of Tuesday hedging after having appeared to proclaim victory in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses late Monday in spite of the fact that no official results had been reported.
“A year ago I think a lot of people were even questioning what right we had to do this and to make the attempt,” he told CNN’s John Berman. “So it’s clearly a victory for us, even as we, along with the whole country, impatiently wait for some results from the party.”