thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Progressive Group Announces Digital Ad Campaign Against Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden

Shannon Stapleton / Reuters Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , left , shakes hands with former Vice President Joe Biden after the Democratic presidential debate in October .
Left-wing activists see both men as an obstacle to electing a progressive president .
A campaign spending group affiliated with Justice Democrats , an influential left-wing outfit , plans to spend more than half a million dollars on digital advertisements educating the public about elements of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ’ s records that progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know about Biden ’ s and Buttigieg ’ s records and their relationships with corporate executives and donors , ” Alexandra Rojas , executive director of Justice Democrats and president of Organize for Justice ’ s board , said in a statement .
The group , Organize for Justice , will invest the money ― over half of which it has already raised ― in , among other things , Facebook ads that promote news articles highlighting negative aspects of the moderate candidates ’ records and campaign decisions .
To optimize its message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group teamed up with the polling and public opinion firms Civiqs and Swayable .
The firms generated research demonstrating that similar ads helped raise awareness of Andrew Gillum ’ s ultimately unsuccessful campaign for Florida governor in 2018 .
A sample ad about Biden links to a Paste article from May about the former vice president ’ s past support for cutting Social Security .
“ Joe Biden agrees with Republicans that Social Security is too generous .
Do you ?
” the ad ’ s caption says above a photo of pills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg used to support Medicare for All .
But he flip-flopped soon after the money started flowing , ” the ad ’ s caption says above a photo of a hospital room linking to the article .
( Buttigieg ’ s campaign maintains that the 2018 tweet is consistent with his argument as a White House contender that his public option plan ― “ Medicare for all who want it ” ― would create “ a very natural glide path to a single-payer environment.
” ) The Biden-focused ads are also due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War and the 2003 bankruptcy bill , his authorship of the 1994 crime bill and his management of the Anita Hill hearings in 1991 .
And the Buttigieg-focused ads will also focus on his work at the global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Organize for Justice is trying to push back not just against the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns ’ efforts to discredit progressive ideas like Medicare for All , but also against the spending of outside groups with similar agendas .
A number of groups have also aired television and digital ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All and more modest expansions of public health insurance .
As HuffPost reported in December , the Partnership for America ’ s Health Care Future , a health care industry front group , and One Nation , a super PAC tied to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , have spent millions of dollars on ads blasting Medicare for All without any comparable progressive counteroffensive .
Organize for Justice is structured as what ’ s known as a 501 ( c ) 4 , which means it is able to receive and spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosure than an ordinary political campaign or political action committee .
Justice Democrats ’ establishment of that kind of independent political spending arm is a sign of the group ’ s growing reach just three years after its inception in January 2017 .
The group , which was co-founded by alumni of Bernie Sanders ’ 2016 presidential campaign , is best known for helping to elect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) and continues to support a slate of progressive primary challengers against incumbent Democrats in Congress .
( Justice Democrats has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
“ Black America , and by extension all America , needs a presidential candidate who is willing to confront white supremacy , ” Cliff Albright , a co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund , said in a statement .
“ Not pine for the good old days when it was at its height .
Not negotiate with it .
Not appease it and not hide from it .
”

Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, left, shakes hands with former Vice President Joe Biden after the Democratic presidential debate in October. Left-wing activists see both men as an obstacle to electing a progressive president. Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
A campaign spending group affiliated with Justice Democrats, an influential left-wing outfit, plans to spend more than half a million dollars on digital advertisements educating the public about elements of former Vice President Joe Biden’s and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s records that progressives consider disqualifying.
The ads will target Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, appearing on social media and other internet platforms until voters head to the polls in each state.
Advertisement
“Americans need to know about Biden’s and Buttigieg’s records and their relationships with corporate executives and donors,” Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats and president of Organize for Justice’s board, said in a statement.
The group, Organize for Justice, will invest the money ― over half of which it has already raised ― in, among other things, Facebook ads that promote news articles highlighting negative aspects of the moderate candidates’ records and campaign decisions. To optimize its message against the two presidential hopefuls, the group teamed up with polling and public opinion firms. The firms generated research demonstrating that similar ads helped raise awareness of Andrew Gillum’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign for Florida governor in 2018.
A sample ad about Biden links to a Paste article from May about the former vice president’s past support for cutting Social Security. “Joe Biden agrees with Republicans that Social Security is too generous. Do you?” the ad’s caption says above a photo of pills linking to the article.
Organize for Justice is targeting Biden with ads that draw attention to his support for Social Security cuts. Organize for Justice
Advertisement
A sample ad about Buttigieg links to a Politico article from October about how the former mayor expressed support for a “Medicare for All,” single-payer health care system in a 2018 tweet.
“Mayor Pete Buttigieg used to support Medicare for All. But he flip-flopped soon after the money started flowing,” the ad’s caption says above a photo of a hospital room linking to the article. (Buttigieg’s campaign maintains that the 2018 tweet is consistent with his argument as a White House contender that his public option plan ― “Medicare for all who want it” ― would create “a very natural glide path to a single-payer environment.”)
Organize for Justice targets Buttigieg's shifting stance on "Medicare for All" in its new ad campaign. Organize for Justice
The Biden-focused ads are also due to address his support for the Iraq War and the 2005 bankruptcy bill, his authorship of the 1994 crime bill and his management of the Anita Hill hearings in 1991. And the Buttigieg-focused ads will also focus on his work at the global consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
Organize for Justice is trying to push back not just against the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns’ efforts to discredit progressive ideas like Medicare for All, but also against the spending of outside groups with similar agendas.
Advertisement
Unite the Country, the super PAC supporting Joe Biden, has spent $2.3 million on televisions ads promoting Biden.
A number of groups have also aired television and digital ads specifically trying to warn people against Medicare for All and more modest expansions of public health insurance. As HuffPost reported in December, the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, a health care industry front group, and One Nation, a super PAC tied to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have spent millions of dollars on ads blasting Medicare for All without any comparable progressive counteroffensive.
The Partnership in particular has invested in social media ads, spending $300,000 in Twitter and Facebook ads targeting voters in swing states, according to a November report in Politico.
“As billionaires, SuperPACs, and corporate-backed front groups spend millions to misinform voters about progressive policies and candidates, the progressive movement has to fight back,” Rojas said.
Organize for Justice is structured as what’s known as a 501(c)4, which means it is able to receive and spend large amounts of money with less frequent disclosure than an ordinary political campaign or political action committee.
Advertisement
Justice Democrats’ establishment of that kind of independent political spending arm is a sign of the group’s growing reach just three years after its inception in January 2017. The group, which was co-founded by alumni of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, is best known for helping to elect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and continues to support a slate of progressive primary challengers against incumbent Democrats in Congress. (Justice Democrats has not endorsed anyone in the Democratic presidential primary.)
The ad campaign against Biden and Buttigieg has also attracted support from representatives of the Black Voters Matter Fund and the Iowa Center for Community Improvement Action Fund, which has endorsed Sanders.
“Black America, and by extension all America, needs a presidential candidate who is willing to confront white supremacy,” Cliff Albright, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund, said in a statement. “Not pine for the good old days when it was at its height. Not negotiate with it. Not appease it and not hide from it.”
The timing of the initiative is particularly auspicious given that it’s coming amid a public spat between the presidential campaigns of progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The tiff has alarmed a host of progressive groups eager to present a united front against Biden, Buttigieg and other more centrist candidates.
“Unfortunately, Biden and Buttigieg have made clear that they are more interested in co-governing and acting out the interests of big money and corporations by being the top two candidates with the most billionaire donors,” Jack Reardon of Iowa CCI Action Fund said in a statement about the ad campaign.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--Trump Serves Up Another Happy Meal For The Fast-Food Industry

The long-expected “ joint employer ” rule , as it ’ s known , raises the bar for workers to prove that two employers are responsible for their working conditions .
A worker at a franchised McDonald ’ s store , for example , would therefore have a tougher time suing McDonald ’ s ― as opposed to just the franchisee ― over minimum wage or overtime violations .
The new rule from Donald Trump ’ s Labor Department undermines legal guidance put out by the agency under former President Barack Obama that was more friendly to workers and hated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a formal rule , the White House also makes it more difficult for a future administration to change it .
It ’ s possible worker advocacy groups will sue in an attempt to keep the rule from going into effect , but senior officials at the Labor Department said they believed issuing it was well within their authority .
The language of the rule was released Sunday ; it is scheduled to be finalized March 16 .
Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia said in a statement that the rule was part of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hinder the American economy , ” an apparent reference to the Obama-era legal guidance .
“ By giving greater clarity to businesses who want to work together , we promote an entrepreneurial culture that has driven American prosperity for decades , ” Scalia said .
The joint employer rule doesn ’ t affect every workplace , but it says a lot about the ideological shift in labor regulations since the Obama years .
Democrats had tried to make franchisers like McDonald ’ s more accountable to workers on the ground floor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was run by a franchisee .
The legal changes they sought would have made it easier for such workers to unionize or recoup lost wages , putting bigger corporations on the hook for violations .
The franchise industry portrayed those efforts as a mortal threat to their businesses .
McDonald ’ s went on trial as a joint employer at the National Labor Relations Board , in what had the potential to be a landmark case .
But after Trump reshaped the board with a Republican majority , it ordered the case to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facto victory for McDonald ’ s .
The new rule at the Labor Department delivers another joint employer win for the industry , in a different legal arena .
Whereas the NLRB case had big implications for collective bargaining , the new rule serves to limit legal liabilities in wage and hour cases .
Fast-food restaurants , for instance , are sued every day over minimum wage claims .
The Labor Department regulation will make it tougher to bundle claims together for workers employed by different franchisees .
The same goes for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common these days for a worker employed by a temp firm to do work that benefits a much larger corporation , like , say , the arrangement in an Amazon warehouse .
Under the new standard , it will be harder for workers to hold the bigger company accountable when they believe they ’ ve been shorted on pay .
The fast-food industry , in particular , should be very happy with the Trump administration so far .
The White House has significantly watered down Obama ’ s overtime reforms , qualifying fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steered clear of any raises to the federal minimum wage .
( Trump even tried to install a fast-food executive as labor secretary , but former CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder ’ s nomination imploded in controversy . )
The new joint employer rule checks another box on the industry ’ s wish list .
It uses four criteria to determine if an entity qualifies as a joint employer : whether the firm hires or fires the worker ; supervises and controls the work and schedule “ to a substantial degree ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the employment records .
But the rule makes clear that simply having a franchiser-franchisee relationship does not establish joint employment .
Business groups pushed hard for the new rule .
The International Franchise Association , a trade group for the industry , issued a statement applauding the changes by the Trump administration .
Robert Cresanti , the group ’ s president , said the new rule “ returns to the traditional standard of business that has fundamentally supported and encouraged franchise entrepreneurship for decades .
”

The fast-food industry should be very pleased with the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks. Illustration: Gabriela Landazuri/HuffPost, Photos: Getty Images
The Trump administration is issuing a new federal rule that will insulate McDonald’s and other franchise-based companies from worker lawsuits, delivering a major regulatory win to industries like fast food and temporary staffing.
The long-expected “joint employer” rule, as it’s known, raises the bar for workers to prove that two employers are responsible for their working conditions. A worker at a franchised McDonald’s store, for example, would therefore have a tougher time suing McDonald’s ― as opposed to just the franchisee ― over minimum wage or overtime violations.
Advertisement
The new rule from Donald Trump’s Labor Department undermines legal guidance put out by the agency under former President Barack Obama that was more friendly to workers and hated by business groups. By issuing it as a formal rule, the White House also makes it more difficult for a future administration to change it.
It’s possible worker advocacy groups will sue in an attempt to keep the rule from going into effect, but senior officials at the Labor Department said they believed issuing it was well within their authority. The language of the rule was released Sunday; it is scheduled to be finalized March 16.
Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia said in a statement that the rule was part of Trump’s campaign to “address regulations that hinder the American economy,” an apparent reference to the Obama-era legal guidance. “By giving greater clarity to businesses who want to work together, we promote an entrepreneurial culture that has driven American prosperity for decades,” Scalia said.
The joint employer rule doesn’t affect every workplace, but it says a lot about the ideological shift in labor regulations since the Obama years. Democrats had tried to make franchisers like McDonald’s more accountable to workers on the ground floor, even if the restaurant they worked in was run by a franchisee. The legal changes they sought would have made it easier for such workers to unionize or recoup lost wages, putting bigger corporations on the hook for violations.
Advertisement
The franchise industry portrayed those efforts as a mortal threat to their businesses. McDonald’s went on trial as a joint employer at the National Labor Relations Board, in what had the potential to be a landmark case. But after Trump reshaped the board with a Republican majority, it ordered the case to be settled in what was a de facto victory for McDonald’s.
The fast-food president in his element. Pool via Getty Images
The new rule at the Labor Department delivers another joint employer win for the industry, in a different legal arena. Whereas the NLRB case had big implications for collective bargaining, the new rule serves to limit legal liabilities in wage and hour cases. Fast-food restaurants, for instance, are sued every day over minimum wage claims. The Labor Department regulation will make it tougher to bundle claims together for workers employed by different franchisees.
The same goes for the temporary staffing industry. It’s common these days for a worker employed by a temp firm to do work that benefits a much larger corporation, like, say, the arrangement in an Amazon warehouse. Under the new standard, it will be harder for workers to hold the bigger company accountable when they believe they’ve been shorted on pay.
The fast-food industry, in particular, should be very happy with the Trump administration so far. The White House has significantly watered down Obama’s overtime reforms, qualifying fewer store managers for time-and-a-half pay, and steered clear of any raises to the federal minimum wage. (Trump even tried to install a fast-food executive as labor secretary, but former CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder’s nomination imploded in controversy.)
Advertisement
The new joint employer rule checks another box on the industry’s wish list. It uses four criteria to determine if an entity qualifies as a joint employer: whether the firm hires or fires the worker; supervises and controls the work and schedule “to a substantial degree”; sets the pay rate; or maintains the employment records. But the rule makes clear that simply having a franchiser-franchisee relationship does not establish joint employment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--Puerto Rico Has Power Back, But Thousands Remain Homeless After Earthquakes

After a recent series of earthquakes hit Puerto Rico , thousands have taken refuge in shelters ― and although power has returned to almost all the island , many are concerned that a drop in tourism could hurt an economy still recovering from Hurricane Maria .
On Saturday , a 5.9-magnitude earthquake caused damage to homes and buildings in the southeastern part of the island ― the same area hit by a powerful 6.4-magnitude quake last week .
After an island-wide blackout from the largest quake , power has returned to 99 % of the island , officials said Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move .
I was petrified , frozen on-site , I couldn ’ t move .
It was just horrible , ” said Ely Tanzarite , 70 , of last week ’ s quake , which hit her home in Yauco while she and her husband , Vincent Rosano , were in bed .
“ Everything came down ― lamps , pictures .
It was glass everywhere ― the glass just flew .
That was very frightening.
” The next day , the couple left to stay with a friend on the northern side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s quake , they still don ’ t know whether their house in Yauco is OK .
The home was their retirement “ dream , ” Tanzarite said , on the island where she grew up and where they ’ ve been spending half the year when they ’ re not in Rosano ’ s native Rhode Island .
“ The whole thing has shattered the way we feel : You plan you ’ re gon na spend your retirement in quiet Puerto Rico .
And to realize we didn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ’ d started sleeping with their clothes and shoes on in case they had to run .
Some neighbors have been sleeping in cars , afraid their homes will crumble if another quake hits .
Even for those living beyond the affected area , other concerns abound , including whether tourism will drop again as it did after the deadly Hurricane Maria in 2017 , causing monthslong blackouts and leaving towns that rely on visitors devastated .
“ The PTSD from facing being closed again after Maria may be more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masters , the owner of the boutique hotel Tres Sirenas in Rincón , on the western tip of the island .
While her place has been physically unaffected by the quakes ― power came back a day after the islandwide blackout last week ― she ’ s felt the financial consequences as guests call to cancel reservations .
She ’ s had to temporarily lay off her staff .
“ The potential economic crisis that will ensue [ from ] the quakes disrupting tourism will be far greater than the damage done by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , urging visitors to come to the island .
Discover Puerto Rico , the island ’ s destination marketing organization launched in 2018 by former Gov .
Ricardo Rossello ’ s administration , is encouraging all visitors with upcoming trips to the island to “ continue to show their support for the Island as tourism is vital to keep the economy recovering.
” “ Puerto Rico is open for tourism , ” said Brad Dean , CEO of Discover Puerto Rico , noting that power is restored in almost all parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all running as usual .
“ We must keep tourism strong as it fuels local communities.
” California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) sent over two dozen disaster specialists to the island for two weeks to help with emergency management , safety assessments and more .
However , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and Reps. Nydia Velázquez ( D-N.Y. ) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) sent a letter to Trump on Monday demanding that his administration release the $ 18 billion in federal disaster assistance that Congress approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting on .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
After a recent series of earthquakes hit Puerto Rico, thousands have taken refuge in shelters ― and although power has returned to almost all the island, many are concerned that a drop in tourism could hurt an economy still recovering from Hurricane Maria.
Advertisement
For those living in the hardest-hit area of the south, the repeated quakes have been traumatic.
“I literally saw the wall move. I was petrified, frozen on-site, I couldn’t move. It was just horrible,” said Ely Tanzarite, 70, of last week’s quake, which hit her home in Yauco while she and her husband, Vincent Rosano, were in bed. “Everything came down ― lamps, pictures. It was glass everywhere ― the glass just flew. That was very frightening.”
The next day, the couple left to stay with a friend on the northern side of the island. After Saturday’s quake, they still don’t know whether their house in Yauco is OK. The home was their retirement “dream,” Tanzarite said, on the island where she grew up and where they’ve been spending half the year when they’re not in Rosano’s native Rhode Island.
“The whole thing has shattered the way we feel: You plan you’re gonna spend your retirement in quiet Puerto Rico. And to realize we didn’t feel safe,” Tanzarite said, noting that they’d started sleeping with their clothes and shoes on in case they had to run. Some neighbors have been sleeping in cars, afraid their homes will crumble if another quake hits.
Advertisement
A man rides his bike in front of a collapsed house after a 6.4-magnitude earthquake hit Guanica, Puerto Rico, on Jan. 11, 2020. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
People line up to receive supplies after a 6.4-magnitude earthquake hit Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, on Jan. 11, 2020. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Even for those living beyond the affected area, other concerns abound, including whether tourism will drop again as it did after the deadly Hurricane Maria in 2017, causing monthslong blackouts and leaving towns that rely on visitors devastated.
“The PTSD from facing being closed again after Maria may be more than we can bear,” said Lisa Masters, the owner of the boutique hotel Tres Sirenas in Rincón, on the western tip of the island. While her place has been physically unaffected by the quakes ― power came back a day after the islandwide blackout last week ― she’s felt the financial consequences as guests call to cancel reservations. She’s had to temporarily lay off her staff.
“The potential economic crisis that will ensue [from] the quakes disrupting tourism will be far greater than the damage done by the quake itself,” Masters warned, urging visitors to come to the island.
Advertisement
Discover Puerto Rico, the island’s destination marketing organization launched in 2018 by former Gov. Ricardo Rossello’s administration, is encouraging all visitors with upcoming trips to the island to “continue to show their support for the Island as tourism is vital to keep the economy recovering.”
“Puerto Rico is open for tourism,” said Brad Dean, CEO of Discover Puerto Rico, noting that power is restored in almost all parts of the island and that airports and major hotels are all running as usual. “We must keep tourism strong as it fuels local communities.”
After calls from lawmakers, President Donald Trump signed an emergency declaration for Puerto Rico last week, allowing federal assistance to go to the island in response to the quakes. The Federal Emergency Management Agency said Puerto Rico’s request for a major disaster declaration — which would allow for more federal aid — was “currently under review.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) sent over two dozen disaster specialists to the island for two weeks to help with emergency management, safety assessments and more.
However, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to Trump on Monday demanding that his administration release the $18 billion in federal disaster assistance that Congress approved post-Maria and that Puerto Rico is still waiting on.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget told HuffPost that the Trump administration “has been working to support recovery efforts in Puerto Rico” and that over $90 billion “has been forecast” to go to the island’s recovery efforts.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--Iowa Forum Will Spotlight Presidential Candidates' Plans To Fix Democracy

Ten years ago , the Supreme Court opened the floodgates on political spending , giving outsize influence to corporations and wealthy donors who often face no accountability because their contributions are allowed to remain secret .
But what would those changes look like ?
And is it even possible to make them happen ?
A majority of Americans see corruption as a significant problem and want major changes to the political system .
On Sunday , Jan. 19 , at 3:00 p.m. Central time in Des Moines , Iowa , HuffPost ’ s Kevin Robillard and I will be talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( Minn. ) , former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( Mass . )
― about their plans to address the dominance of big money in politics , protect the right to vote , ensure fair courts and create a democracy that the American people believe works for them .
The We The People 2020 : Protecting our Democracy a Decade After Citizens United forum will be sponsored by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Action Fund , MoveOn Political Action , NAACP , People For the American Way , Progress Iowa and Public Citizen .
The candidates will present their plans for structural change and will take questions both from the moderators and the audience .
A livestream of the event will be available on HuffPost that day .
Please mark your calendars and tune in .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Things in Washington aren’t working right now.
Ten years ago, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates on political spending, giving outsize influence to corporations and wealthy donors who often face no accountability because their contributions are allowed to remain secret.
Advertisement
But what would those changes look like? And is it even possible to make them happen?
On Sunday, Jan. 19, at 3:00 p.m. Central time in Des Moines, Iowa, HuffPost’s Kevin Robillard and I will be talking with six of the Democratic presidential candidates ― Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Mnn.), Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) ― about their plans to address the dominance of big money in politics, protect the right to vote, ensure fair courts and create a democracy that the American people believe works for them.
The We The People 2020: Protecting our Democracy a Decade After Citizens United forum will be sponsored by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Common Cause, End Citizens United Action Fund, MoveOn Political Action, NAACP, People For the American Way, Progress Iowa and Public Citizen.
The candidates will present their plans for structural change and will take questions both from the moderators and the audience.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Elizabeth Warren Says She Would Eliminate Student Debt On Day One Of Her Presidency

Carlo Allegri / Reuters Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren at a campaign event at Brooklyn 's Kings Theatre in New York on Jan. 7 .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
has said that she would wipe out student loan debt for a vast majority of the nation ’ s borrowers .
On Tuesday , she unveiled a plan to do it starting day one of her presidency .
Warren ’ s plan posits that existing laws give the Department of Education broad , though currently neglected , power to cancel student loan debt through the Higher Education Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order her secretary of education to take advantage of these rules .
Lawyers at the Project on Predatory Student Lending confirm the legality in a letter released with the plan , writing that through the Higher Education Act , Congress gave the secretary of education power to “ create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs.
” In April , Warren announced her intention to cancel up to $ 50,000 in debt for 42 million people ― or 95 % of borrowers .
In July , she introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her latest proposal says that she doesn ’ t have time to wait for Congress to act and that she will wipe out up to $ 50,000 in debt for anyone with a household income below $ 100,000 , providing additional relief for households making up to $ 250,000 .
She pledged to “ amend any regulations or policy positions necessary to get there.
” “ Along the way , I learned two key things .
First , the student debt crisis is deeper than many experts thought was possible .
And second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to end that crisis , ” Warren wrote .
There are already a number of programs that work to provide relief to students who have been defrauded or who work in public service after graduation .
But under the Trump administration , Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has worked to significantly roll back the level of relief provided ― while facing numerous legal challenges to her efforts .
Warren has promised to fully utilize these programs while simplifying the application processes that allow borrowers to apply for relief .
She would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their options .
On the political side of things , Warren pledged to keep fighting for free public college , increase funding for historically black colleges and universities , and expand eligibility for Pell Grants , which help low-income students pay for college .
Her plans would be paid for by enacting a wealth tax for households with a net worth of more than $ 50 million .
Warren frames the plan as one of not only economic justice but also racial justice , citing statistics that black students borrow more money and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often .
Black students also more often have racked up student debt from attending predatory for-profit colleges .
“ If we want to achieve the kind of big , structural changes that will make our education system , our economy , and our society work for everyone , we ’ re going to need to use every tool , every scrap of opportunity that comes our way , to help working families , ” says the plan .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) has promised to wipe out all existing student debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief by income .
His plan does not address specifically how he would go about it .
Vice President Joe Biden has also addressed the issue ― albeit his plan is less ambitious ― promising to enroll individuals with loans in an income-based repayment program .
Through Biden ’ s plan , those making less than $ 25,000 per year would be relieved of payments on undergraduate loans .
Everyone else would have to contribute 5 % of their discretionary income toward repayment .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said that she would wipe out student loan debt for a vast majority of the nation’s borrowers. On Tuesday, she unveiled a plan to do it starting day one of her presidency.
Warren’s plan posits that existing laws give the Department of Education broad, though currently neglected, power to cancel student loan debt through the Higher Education Act. The plan says Warren would immediately order her secretary of education to take advantage of these rules.
Advertisement
Lawyers at the Project on Predatory Student Lending confirm the legality in a letter released with the plan, writing that through the Higher Education Act, Congress gave the secretary of education power to “create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs.”
“That provision empowers the Secretary to execute the broad debt cancellation plan you have proposed,” the lawyers wrote.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren at a campaign event at Brooklyn's Kings Theatre in New York on Jan. 7. Carlo Allegri / Reuters
In April, Warren announced her intention to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 42 million people ― or 95% of borrowers. In July, she introduced a bill to do so. But her latest proposal says that she doesn’t have time to wait for Congress to act and that she will wipe out up to $50,000 in debt for anyone with a household income below $100,000, providing additional relief for households making up to $250,000. She pledged to “amend any regulations or policy positions necessary to get there.”
Advertisement
Warren noted that this has been a central issue for her since joining Congress in 2012.
“Along the way, I learned two key things. First, the student debt crisis is deeper than many experts thought was possible. And second, the Department of Education has broad authority to end that crisis,” Warren wrote.
There are already a number of programs that work to provide relief to students who have been defrauded or who work in public service after graduation. But under the Trump administration, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has worked to significantly roll back the level of relief provided ― while facing numerous legal challenges to her efforts.
Warren has promised to fully utilize these programs while simplifying the application processes that allow borrowers to apply for relief. She would also reach out to let borrowers know about their options.
On the political side of things, Warren pledged to keep fighting for free public college, increase funding for historically black colleges and universities, and expand eligibility for Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college. Her plans would be paid for by enacting a wealth tax for households with a net worth of more than $50 million.
Warren frames the plan as one of not only economic justice but also racial justice, citing statistics that black students borrow more money and end up defaulting on their loans more often. Black students also more often have racked up student debt from attending predatory for-profit colleges.
Advertisement
“If we want to achieve the kind of big, structural changes that will make our education system, our economy, and our society work for everyone, we’re going to need to use every tool, every scrap of opportunity that comes our way, to help working families,” says the plan.
Warren’s Democratic rivals in the presidential race have also promised to tackle this issue, with varying levels of ambition.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has promised to wipe out all existing student debt ― unlike Warren, who caps such relief by income. His plan does not address specifically how he would go about it.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--Senator Cory Booker Ends Presidential Campaign

Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) on Monday suspended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination , saying he no longer has a path to victory in the race to challenge President Donald Trump .
“ Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win – money we don ’ t have , and money that is harder to raise because I won ’ t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Booker ’ s departure from the race , which comes not long after former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro dropped out , means only a handful of candidates of color remain in the race — and none are considered serious contenders for the nomination .
The next Democratic primary debate , scheduled for Tuesday , will feature only white candidates .
Booker , a former mayor of Newark , New Jersey , officially entered the race on Feb. 1 , 2019 , the first day of Black History Month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more pointedly about the plight of Black Americans than any other candidate .
In a video kicking off his run , Booker introduced himself by discussing his parents ’ experience with housing discrimination as they sought a middle-class life for him and his brother in New Jersey .
Booker had a similar tact with issues like gun violence and education , speaking broadly about the impact these issues have on all Americans while also discussing the ways they acutely affected Black people .
The Booker campaign also largely shaped the primary ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first candidate to call for a federal gun licensing program , something more than a dozen other candidates eventually said they supported .
But in polls , Booker ’ s support hovered stubbornly in the low single digits , and the candidate struggled to broaden his support among Black voters .
Although Booker frequently drew praise from activists and polling indicated many Democratic voters had a favorable opinion of him , he struggled to convince voters he should be their first choice .
Booker repeatedly tried to draw distinctions between himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a July debate , Booker criticized Biden , the front-runner for the Democratic nomination , for having endorsed the 1994 crime bill seen by many as a driver of mass incarceration .
“ This is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws , ” Booker said .
“ And you can ’ t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire .
We have got to have far more bold action on criminal justice reform.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tone with some of his zingers .
In another volley with Biden , he accused the former vice president of not knowing the facts about his record on criminal justice .
“ Mr .
Vice President , there ’ s a saying in my community : ‘ You ’ re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don ’ t even know the flavor , ’ ” Booker said .
The line earned raucous applause in the debate hall , but it was received coolly online .
Booker often found himself in a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of ideological war between Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
on the left and Biden and host of other candidates in the center .
He tried to focus his campaign on love and unity , a message that was sometimes out of sync with the fighting approach many Democrats hope a nominee would bring to a general election battle with Trump .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Monday suspended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, saying he no longer has a path to victory in the race to challenge President Donald Trump.
“Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win – money we don’t have, and money that is harder to raise because I won’t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington,” Booker wrote in an email to supporters.
Advertisement
Booker’s departure from the race, which comes not long after former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro dropped out, means only a handful of candidates of color remain in the race — and none are considered serious contenders for the nomination. The next Democratic primary debate, scheduled for Tuesday, will feature only white candidates.
Booker, a former mayor of Newark, New Jersey, officially entered the race on Feb. 1, 2019, the first day of Black History Month. Throughout his campaign, he routinely spoke more pointedly about the plight of Black Americans than any other candidate. In a video kicking off his run, Booker introduced himself by discussing his parents’ experience with housing discrimination as they sought a middle-class life for him and his brother in New Jersey. Booker had a similar tact with issues like gun violence and education, speaking broadly about the impact these issues have on all Americans while also discussing the ways they acutely affected Black people.
The Booker campaign also largely shaped the primary’s debate around gun violence. The senator was the first candidate to call for a federal gun licensing program, something more than a dozen other candidates eventually said they supported.
But in polls, Booker’s support hovered stubbornly in the low single digits, and the candidate struggled to broaden his support among Black voters. Although Booker frequently drew praise from activists and polling indicated many Democratic voters had a favorable opinion of him, he struggled to convince voters he should be their first choice.
Advertisement
Sen. Cory Booker at the SEIU's Unions for All summit in Los Angeles in October. ERIC THAYER / Reuters
Booker repeatedly tried to draw distinctions between himself and former Vice President Joe Biden. In a July debate, Booker criticized Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, for having endorsed the 1994 crime bill seen by many as a driver of mass incarceration.
“This is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws,” Booker said. “And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire. We have got to have far more bold action on criminal justice reform.”
But Booker occasionally struggled to strike the right tone with some of his zingers. In another volley with Biden, he accused the former vice president of not knowing the facts about his record on criminal justice.
“Mr. Vice President, there’s a saying in my community: ‘You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor,’” Booker said. The line earned raucous applause in the debate hall, but it was received coolly online.
Advertisement
Booker often found himself in a political never-never land of sorts, stuck in the middle of ideological war between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the left and Biden and host of other candidates in the center. He tried to focus his campaign on love and unity, a message that was sometimes out of sync with the fighting approach many Democrats hope a nominee would bring to a general election battle with Trump.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--W.H. Press Secretary: Reporters Seeking Briefings Want 'A Moment,' Not Information

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham scoffed at an open letter from past presidential aides that called for the return of regular press briefings , claiming reporters are looking for “ a moment ” rather than information .
“ The press has unprecedented access to President Trump , yet they continue to complain because they can ’ t grandstand on TV , ” Grisham told Axios in response to the letter , which was published by CNN on Friday .
“ They ’ re not looking for information , they ’ re looking for a moment.
” Grisham , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director and a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump , took over as White House press secretary in July after Sarah Huckabee Sanders stepped down from the role .
Trump ’ s White House hasn ’ t held a traditional press briefing since March .
From left , counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway , White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham , and Deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley , listen as President Donald Trump speaks to the media on the South Lawn of the White House .
In their letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included press secretaries who served under Presidents George W. Bush , Bill Clinton and Barack Obama , outlined the necessity of regular press briefings .
“ The press will report a story to the best of their ability whether they are briefed by the administration or not , ” the signatories wrote .
“ But regular briefings generally lead to better and more responsible reporting.
” What ’ s more , they continued , press briefings help “ make the government run better ” and “ force a certain discipline on government decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to know what its government is doing , and the government has a duty to explain what it is doing , ” the former officials wrote .
But Grisham brushed off the open letter as “ groupthink at its finest ” and welcomed former press secretaries to “ publicly pile on all they want.
” “ This president is unorthodox in everything he ’ s done , ” she told Axios .
“ He ’ s rewritten the rules of politics .
His press secretary and everyone else in the administration is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Kirby , one of the letter ’ s signatories and a former spokesman for the Defense and State Departments under Obama , told CNN ’ s “ Reliable Sources ” on Sunday that press briefings are about more than “ access.
” Press briefings aren ’ t just about transparency .
They provide a measure of accountability for the government .
They allow for scrutiny of the decisions being and help make for better policy-making .
My exchange with  @ brianstelter this morning .
https : //t.co/gTuWLh2Dkh — John Kirby ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham scoffed at an open letter from past presidential aides that called for the return of regular press briefings, claiming reporters are looking for “a moment” rather than information.
“The press has unprecedented access to President Trump, yet they continue to complain because they can’t grandstand on TV,” Grisham told Axios in response to the letter, which was published by CNN on Friday. “They’re not looking for information, they’re looking for a moment.”
Advertisement
Grisham, who also serves as the White House communications director and a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump, took over as White House press secretary in July after Sarah Huckabee Sanders stepped down from the role. Trump’s White House hasn’t held a traditional press briefing since March.
From left, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, and Deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley, listen as President Donald Trump speaks to the media on the South Lawn of the White House. ASSOCIATED PRESS
In their letter, the former White House officials, which included press secretaries who served under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, outlined the necessity of regular press briefings.
“The press will report a story to the best of their ability whether they are briefed by the administration or not,” the signatories wrote. “But regular briefings generally lead to better and more responsible reporting.”
Advertisement
What’s more, they continued, press briefings help “make the government run better” and “force a certain discipline on government decision making.”
“The public has a right to know what its government is doing, and the government has a duty to explain what it is doing,” the former officials wrote.
But Grisham brushed off the open letter as “groupthink at its finest” and welcomed former press secretaries to “publicly pile on all they want.”
“This president is unorthodox in everything he’s done,” she told Axios. “He’s rewritten the rules of politics. His press secretary and everyone else in the administration is reflective of that.”
Retired Real Admiral John Kirby, one of the letter’s signatories and a former spokesman for the Defense and State Departments under Obama, told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that press briefings are about more than “access.”
Advertisement
“The briefings give you accountability,” Kirby said. “That’s what’s lacking here.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--The ACLU Is Telling Voters Joe Biden Hasn’t Taken Stances On Key Issues

The American Civil Liberties Union has spent nearly $ 1 million on mailers to voters in crucial presidential primary states highlighting leading candidates ’ positions on criminal justice reform and immigration ― and pointing out that former Vice President Joe Biden has avoided taking firm stances .
More than 130,000 mailers , part of the group ’ s quest to spend $ 30 million shaping the 2020 presidential election , are set to arrive in the mailboxes of voters in South Carolina , Georgia and Michigan this week .
The century-old group has already sent 650,000 mailers to voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , Nevada and the delegate-rich Super Tuesday states of California and Texas .
As a nonprofit , the ACLU is not allowed to officially endorse candidates .
But it wants to shape the debate around civil liberties during the 2020 primaries , and has asked the major Democratic and Republican candidates — including President Donald Trump — to commit to civil libertarian issues , including cutting the federal prison population by half , ending CIA drone strikes overseas and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants .
But the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionnaire the ACLU sent to the candidates .
And each of the three mailers — one focused on criminal justice reform , another on immigration and a third on broader civil liberties issues — notes that Biden has declined to answer the group ’ s questions .
“ We think voters deserve to know specifically ― not just generic , rhetorical stump speech talk ― on where you stand on these civil liberties and civil rights issues , ” said Ronald Newman , the ACLU ’ s national political director , adding he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group .
“ We think the failure to go on the record on these issues is concerning.
” Asked for comment , the Biden campaign pointed to its response to an earlier ACLU radio ad that pressured the former vice president to clarify his position on civil rights .
In that case , the campaign highlighted a civil rights activist who questioned why the civil liberties group was inserting itself into the Democratic primary .
The campaign has also committed to some of the ACLU ’ s positions , including a pathway to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans for immigration and criminal justice reform .
Most of each mailer is dedicated to explaining where four other candidates – Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , entrepreneur Andrew Yang , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend , Ind .
Mayor Pete Buttigieg – stand on a variety of issues .
( The ACLU used the national RealClearPolitics polling average to determine the candidates it would highlight , Newman said . )
The mailers highlight several instances in which each candidate breaks from the others .
Only Warren , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of immigrants in detention by 75 % .
Only Buttigieg wouldn ’ t pledge to end CIA drone strikes “ that often kill civilians.
” And only Yang wouldn ’ t commit to cutting the federal prison population in half .
The mailers are not the first time the ACLU has taken Biden to task .
In a radio advertisement in South Carolina that aired this fall , the group questioned the former vice president ’ s commitment to criminal justice reform .
“ We asked how he would address the unnecessary use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have led to countless tragedies and created distrust of those sworn to protect us , ” a narrator said in the ad .
“ No response .
Voters deserve to know : Does Joe Biden support rights for all ?
” The ACLU , which saw its fundraising and membership soar following Trump ’ s election in 2016 , has rapidly increased its political work in recent years , getting heavily involved in referendums on civil liberties issues and playing a significant role in local district attorney races and other elections .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The American Civil Liberties Union has spent nearly $1 million on mailers to voters in crucial presidential primary states highlighting leading candidates’ positions on criminal justice reform and immigration ― and pointing out that former Vice President Joe Biden has avoided taking firm stances.
More than 130,000 mailers, part of the group’s quest to spend $30 million shaping the 2020 presidential election, are set to arrive in the mailboxes of voters in South Carolina, Georgia and Michigan this week. The century-old group has already sent 650,000 mailers to voters in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and the delegate-rich Super Tuesday states of California and Texas.
Advertisement
As a nonprofit, the ACLU is not allowed to officially endorse candidates. But it wants to shape the debate around civil liberties during the 2020 primaries, and has asked the major Democratic and Republican candidates — including President Donald Trump — to commit to civil libertarian issues, including cutting the federal prison population by half, ending CIA drone strikes overseas and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
But the Biden campaign hasn’t responded to a questionnaire the ACLU sent to the candidates. And each of the three mailers — one focused on criminal justice reform, another on immigration and a third on broader civil liberties issues — notes that Biden has declined to answer the group’s questions.
“We think voters deserve to know specifically ― not just generic, rhetorical stump speech talk ― on where you stand on these civil liberties and civil rights issues,” said Ronald Newman, the ACLU’s national political director, adding he still hopes Biden will engage with the group. “We think the failure to go on the record on these issues is concerning.”
Asked for comment, the Biden campaign pointed to its response to an earlier ACLU radio ad that pressured the former vice president to clarify his position on civil rights. In that case, the campaign highlighted a civil rights activist who questioned why the civil liberties group was inserting itself into the Democratic primary. The campaign has also committed to some of the ACLU’s positions, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people, in its plans for immigration and criminal justice reform.
Advertisement
Most of each mailer is dedicated to explaining where four other candidates – Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg – stand on a variety of issues. (The ACLU used the national RealClearPolitics polling average to determine the candidates it would highlight, Newman said.)
The mailers highlight several instances in which each candidate breaks from the others. Only Warren, for example, would not pledge to reduce the number of immigrants in detention by 75%. Only Buttigieg wouldn’t pledge to end CIA drone strikes “that often kill civilians.” And only Yang wouldn’t commit to cutting the federal prison population in half.
Every candidate, including Sanders, failed to commit to decriminalizing all drug use. (Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, previously ran the ACLU’s political program.)
The mailers are not the first time the ACLU has taken Biden to task. In a radio advertisement in South Carolina that aired this fall, the group questioned the former vice president’s commitment to criminal justice reform.
“We asked how he would address the unnecessary use of force by police, incidents that have led to countless tragedies and created distrust of those sworn to protect us,” a narrator said in the ad. “No response. Voters deserve to know: Does Joe Biden support rights for all?”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-13--U.S. To Send Home Saudi Military Students After Pensacola Shooting

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The United States is removing nearly two dozen Saudi military students from a training program and sending them back to Saudi Arabia following after an investigation into a deadly shooting by a Saudi aviation student at a Florida navy base last month , Attorney General William Barr said Monday .
Many of the 21 cadets had contact with child pornography and possessed jihadist or anti-American material , Barr said .
None is accused of having advanced knowledge of the shooting , which Barr said was motivated by “ jihadist ideology ” and has been classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21-year-old Saudi Air Force officer , 2nd Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani , opened fire at the base in Pensacola , killing three U.S. sailors and injuring eight other people .
The Justice Department has been investigating the incident as an act of terrorism .
Officials have said Alshamrani hosted a party before the shooting , where he and others watched videos of mass shootings .
The gunman had also apparently taken to Twitter before the shooting to criticize U.S. support of Israel and accuse America of being anti-Muslim , another U.S. official told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately clear on what grounds the students were being removed from the program , though the official said they were not suspected of having played any role in the attack .
The precise number of students being removed was also not clear .
The officials discussing the case spoke on condition of anonymity to speak about details involved in an ongoing investigation .
The December shooting raised questions about how well international military students are screened before they attend training at American bases .
Some lawmakers , including a top Republican ally of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia to be suspended from an American military training program .
National security adviser Robert O ’ Brien said in an interview on Fox News that the shooting “ showed that there had been errors in the way that we vetted ” the students .
The actions being taken by the Justice Department and Defense Department to remove the Saudi students are to “ protect our service men and women , ” he said .
Investigators have been trying to access the two devices — an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them because the phones are locked and encrypted , according to a letter from the FBI ’ s general counsel , Dana Boente .
The FBI has received a court authorization to search the phones and the devices have been sent to the bureau ’ s lab in Quantico , Virginia , he said .
FBI officials have sought help from other federal agencies and other experts , and investigators have been trying to guess the passwords , but those efforts have been unsuccessful , according to the letter .
Apple said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators with all the relevant data held by the company and would continue to support the investigators .
At least one of the phones was shot by a sheriff ’ s deputy during the attack , but investigators believe they may still be able to extract data from the device , according to a person familiar with the matter .
The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is removing nearly two dozen Saudi military students from a training program and sending them back to Saudi Arabia following after an investigation into a deadly shooting by a Saudi aviation student at a Florida navy base last month, Attorney General William Barr said Monday.
Many of the 21 cadets had contact with child pornography and possessed jihadist or anti-American material, Barr said. None is accused of having advanced knowledge of the shooting, which Barr said was motivated by “jihadist ideology” and has been classified as an act of terrorism.
Advertisement
The 21-year-old Saudi Air Force officer, 2nd Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, opened fire at the base in Pensacola, killing three U.S. sailors and injuring eight other people. The Justice Department has been investigating the incident as an act of terrorism.
Officials have said Alshamrani hosted a party before the shooting, where he and others watched videos of mass shootings. The gunman had also apparently taken to Twitter before the shooting to criticize U.S. support of Israel and accuse America of being anti-Muslim, another U.S. official told the AP last month.
Alshamrani, who was killed by a sheriff’s deputy during the rampage at a classroom building, was undergoing flight training at Pensacola, where foreign military members routinely receive instruction.
It was not immediately clear on what grounds the students were being removed from the program, though the official said they were not suspected of having played any role in the attack. The precise number of students being removed was also not clear. The officials discussing the case spoke on condition of anonymity to speak about details involved in an ongoing investigation.
Advertisement
The plan to remove the students was first reported by CNN.
FILE- In this Jan. 29, 2016 file photo shows the entrance to the Naval Air Base Station in Pensacola, Fla. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The December shooting raised questions about how well international military students are screened before they attend training at American bases. Some lawmakers, including a top Republican ally of President Donald Trump, have called for Saudi Arabia to be suspended from an American military training program.
Trump called for the program to be reviewed. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the program needed to be reevaluated after the attack.
A Saudi commanding officer had ordered all students from the country to remain at one location at the base after the attack.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien said in an interview on Fox News that the shooting “showed that there had been errors in the way that we vetted” the students. The actions being taken by the Justice Department and Defense Department to remove the Saudi students are to “protect our service men and women,” he said.
Advertisement
Federal officials are still investigating the shooting and examining evidence. Earlier this week, FBI asked Apple to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman.
Investigators have been trying to access the two devices — an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 5 — but have been unable to access them because the phones are locked and encrypted, according to a letter from the FBI’s general counsel, Dana Boente. The FBI has received a court authorization to search the phones and the devices have been sent to the bureau’s lab in Quantico, Virginia, he said.
The investigation is considered a “high-priority national security matter,” Boente said in the letter.
FBI officials have sought help from other federal agencies and other experts, and investigators have been trying to guess the passwords, but those efforts have been unsuccessful, according to the letter.
Apple said in a statement that it has already provided investigators with all the relevant data held by the company and would continue to support the investigators.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Senate Looks Poised To Limit War With Iran

Democrats are pushing to pass a similar measure in the Senate , saying the Trump administration failed to sufficiently justify the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without first seeking congressional approval .
Democrats and a few Republicans have also questioned the administration ’ s initial rationale for the attack , which included a stated “ imminent ” attack on U.S. troops in the region .
On Tuesday , Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-Va. ) announced that four Republican senators ― Rand Paul of Kentucky , Mike Lee of Utah , Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 45 Democrats and two independents in support of his resolution limiting military action in Iran .
The measure needs just 51 votes for passage .
“ We now have a majority of colleagues who will stand strong for the principle that we shouldn ’ t be at war without a vote in Congress .
And I ’ m going to keep working to get more , beyond the 51 , ” the Virginia Democrat said at a press conference .
Kaine , who has been vocal on war powers issues for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support of as many as 10 Republicans .
However , he acknowledged it will not likely get the necessary additional Republican support to override a presidential veto .
Trump is expected to reject the measure .
“ That shouldn ’ t dissuade us from doing our job , ” Kaine said , arguing that the resolution can send a message to Trump and perhaps even alter his behavior despite a veto .
“ The Kaine resolution would continue to allow the President to respond to emergencies created by aggression from any hostile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repel an imminent attack by Iran , ” the senator said in a statement .
Republican leadership , meanwhile , urged the Senate to reject the war powers resolution , warning that it would send a signal to Iran ’ s leadership that the U.S. was not prepared to defend itself abroad in the future .
But unlike most bills introduced by Democrats , GOP leaders can ’ t block it because it is considered privileged and must receive a vote under the War Powers Act of 1973 .
“ President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said in a floor speech on Tuesday .
“ But the Senate risks jeopardizing what we have gained with this strike if it ties the military ’ s hands and tells Iran we have no stomach for this.
” It ’ s unclear when lawmakers will vote on Kaine ’ s resolution given the upcoming Senate impeachment trial , which is expected to begin in earnest next week and last several weeks .
Kaine said it ’ s possible the Senate could agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underway , but that would require unanimous consent from the chamber .
The Senate could also take up the resolution at some point during the trial , but that , too , would require cooperation from all senators .
The House is also expected to take up the Senate bill , which is slightly different , and vote to send it to Trump ’ s desk , according to Politico .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― A majority of the Senate supports limiting further hostilities against Iran despite opposition from Republican leadership and President Donald Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Tuesday.
The House last week approved a war powers resolution forbidding the president from attacking Iran unless there’s an imminent threat or Congress declares war.
Advertisement
Democrats are pushing to pass a similar measure in the Senate, saying the Trump administration failed to sufficiently justify the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without first seeking congressional approval. Democrats and a few Republicans have also questioned the administration’s initial rationale for the attack, which included a stated “imminent” attack on U.S. troops in the region.
On Tuesday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) announced that four Republican senators ― Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana ― had committed to vote with all 45 Democrats and two independents in support of his resolution limiting military action in Iran. The measure needs just 51 votes for passage.
“We now have a majority of colleagues who will stand strong for the principle that we shouldn’t be at war without a vote in Congress. And I’m going to keep working to get more, beyond the 51,” the Virginia Democrat said at a press conference.
Sen. Tim Kaine said four Senate Republicans have committed to vote for a resolution limiting U.S. military action in Iran. Erin Scott/Reuters
Advertisement
Kaine, who has been vocal on war powers issues for years, said the measure may ultimately get the support of as many as 10 Republicans. However, he acknowledged it will not likely get the necessary additional Republican support to override a presidential veto. Trump is expected to reject the measure.
“That shouldn’t dissuade us from doing our job,” Kaine said, arguing that the resolution can send a message to Trump and perhaps even alter his behavior despite a veto.
Collins said it is important that Congress reassert its war-making powers under the Constitution.
“The Kaine resolution would continue to allow the President to respond to emergencies created by aggression from any hostile nation, including Iran, and to repel an imminent attack by Iran,” the senator said in a statement.
Republican leadership, meanwhile, urged the Senate to reject the war powers resolution, warning that it would send a signal to Iran’s leadership that the U.S. was not prepared to defend itself abroad in the future. But unlike most bills introduced by Democrats, GOP leaders can’t block it because it is considered privileged and must receive a vote under the War Powers Act of 1973.
“President Trump’s strategy seems to have re-established deterrence,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a floor speech on Tuesday. “But the Senate risks jeopardizing what we have gained with this strike if it ties the military’s hands and tells Iran we have no stomach for this.”
Advertisement
It’s unclear when lawmakers will vote on Kaine’s resolution given the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, which is expected to begin in earnest next week and last several weeks. Kaine said it’s possible the Senate could agree to do so before the trial gets underway, but that would require unanimous consent from the chamber.
The Senate could also take up the resolution at some point during the trial, but that, too, would require cooperation from all senators.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Stephen Miller Echoes White Nationalists In Leaked Anti-DACA Emails

In the emails , obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center , a nonprofit civil rights advocacy group , Miller attacks fellow Republicans who have supported the program , rooting his criticism in ideas common in white supremacist literature .
Former Florida Gov .
Jeb Bush ( R ) gets a mention in a March 2015 thread on DACA , at a time Bush was considered a front-runner in the presidential race .
Miller accused the candidate of wanting to use “ immigration to replace existing demographics.
” The mention of demographic “ replacement ” is a clear reference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American culture is being supplanted by nonwhite immigrants .
A sizable ― and growing ― chorus has been calling for the White House to fire Miller over his shockingly racist views .
That coalition includes at least 24 U.S. senators , 107 members of the U.S. House , more than 50 major civil rights groups including the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign , and eight organizations belonging to an initiative called Jews Against White Nationalism .
Miller also attacked former Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the same thread , apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. “ Demanding DREAMers be given citizenship because they ‘ know no other home.
’ That principle is an endorsement of perpetual birthright citizenship for the foreign-born , ” Miller wrote , referencing those who would be protected by the proposed DREAM Act .
“ Not only will the U.S.-born children of future illegal immigrants and guest workers be made automatic U.S. citizens , but their foreign-born children will too because , as Cantor said , ‘ Our country was founded on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the more than 900 messages Miller sent to editors for far-right outlet Breitbart in 2015 and 2016 seeking to influence the site ’ s coverage .
Former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh leaked the trove to the SPLC late last year .
DACA , which began under former President Barack Obama , shields immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and provides legal access to jobs and education , provided they meet certain requirements like avoiding criminal charges and reapply every two years .
The Trump administration tried to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was blocked from doing so by federal courts .
The issue is now before the Supreme Court , which is expected to make a ruling by June 2020 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A new series of leaked emails show senior White House adviser Stephen Miller echoing disturbing white nationalist talking points in arguments against Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.
In the emails, obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights advocacy group, Miller attacks fellow Republicans who have supported the program, rooting his criticism in ideas common in white supremacist literature.
Advertisement
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) gets a mention in a March 2015 thread on DACA, at a time Bush was considered a front-runner in the presidential race. Miller accused the candidate of wanting to use “immigration to replace existing demographics.”
The mention of demographic “replacement” is a clear reference to racist white supremacist ideology, which claims American culture is being supplanted by nonwhite immigrants.
A sizable ― and growing ― chorus has been calling for the White House to fire Miller over his shockingly racist views. That coalition includes at least 24 U.S. senators, 107 members of the U.S. House, more than 50 major civil rights groups including the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, and eight organizations belonging to an initiative called Jews Against White Nationalism.
Miller also attacked former Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the same thread, apparently over his support for the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S.
Advertisement
“Demanding DREAMers be given citizenship because they ‘know no other home.’ That principle is an endorsement of perpetual birthright citizenship for the foreign-born,” Miller wrote, referencing those who would be protected by the proposed DREAM Act. “Not only will the U.S.-born children of future illegal immigrants and guest workers be made automatic U.S. citizens, but their foreign-born children will too because, as Cantor said, ‘Our country was founded on the principle.’”
The emails are some of the more than 900 messages Miller sent to editors for far-right outlet Breitbart in 2015 and 2016 seeking to influence the site’s coverage. Former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh leaked the trove to the SPLC late last year.
DACA, which began under former President Barack Obama, shields immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and provides legal access to jobs and education, provided they meet certain requirements like avoiding criminal charges and reapply every two years.
Polling has consistently shown a majority of Americans support DACA. The program also enjoys bipartisan support in Congress.
The Trump administration tried to end the program in September 2017, but was blocked from doing so by federal courts. The issue is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to make a ruling by June 2020.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Off-Duty Secret Service Agent Fatally Shoots Leashed Dog In Brooklyn

The Secret Service , in a statement to The Daily Beast , initially described the dog as “ unleashed.
” But a photographer for The New York Daily News snapped a photo shortly after the incident that showed the slain dog ― reportedly a female Belgian Shepherd ― covered by a white sheet with a leash protruding from it .
In a statement to HuffPost on Tuesday , the Secret Service described the dog as “ unrestrained and aggressive ” but did not use the word “ unleashed.
” “ As this is an ongoing investigation , the Secret Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the statement .
Asked to clarify whether the dog was wearing a leash , a Secret Service spokesperson told HuffPost : “ Respectfully , we know that the canine was wearing a leash , but there was no owner present at the time of the incident.
” The shooting took place around 10 p.m. in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Windsor Terrace near Prospect Park , reported the Daily News .
The agent , who has not been publicly identified , told police that the dog charged at him , reported The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cop who was walking home , ” the dog ’ s owner said , according to the Daily News .
“ He shot her and she ’ s dead.
” Walker Blankenship , the stable master at the Kensington Stable , located across the street from where the incident unfolded , told HuffPost that he heard gunfire followed by people arguing .
Blankenship said hearing gunshots in the neighborhood is “ definitely not normal.
” He added he was at the scene while police were gathering information about the incident when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put into a white SUV .
He described the canine as beige and small to medium-sized .
“ It definitely was not big , ” he told HuffPost .
“ Something easily a person could pick up and carry .
Certainly under 50 pounds .
Probably under 40 pounds.
” The New York Police Department directed a request for comment to the Secret Service .
As the Times noted , a 2011 report from the Justice Department found that the majority of officer-involved shooting incidents in the U.S. involved animals , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying are becoming so disastrously casual , ” Democratic New York City Council Member Brad Lander tweeted in response to reports that the Secret Service initially claimed that the dog was unleashed .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
An off-duty Secret Service agent in Brooklyn shot and killed a dog wearing a leash in a Brooklyn neighborhood Monday night, the government agency confirmed to HuffPost.
The Secret Service, in a statement to The Daily Beast, initially described the dog as “unleashed.” But a photographer for The New York Daily News snapped a photo shortly after the incident that showed the slain dog ― reportedly a female Belgian Shepherd ― covered by a white sheet with a leash protruding from it.
Advertisement
In a statement to HuffPost on Tuesday, the Secret Service described the dog as “unrestrained and aggressive” but did not use the word “unleashed.”
“As this is an ongoing investigation, the Secret Service will not have further comment,” according to the statement.
Asked to clarify whether the dog was wearing a leash, a Secret Service spokesperson told HuffPost: “Respectfully, we know that the canine was wearing a leash, but there was no owner present at the time of the incident.”
Advertisement
The shooting took place around 10 p.m. in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Windsor Terrace near Prospect Park, reported the Daily News. The agent, who has not been publicly identified, told police that the dog charged at him, reported The New York Times.
“She scared a cop who was walking home,” the dog’s owner said, according to the Daily News. “He shot her and she’s dead.”
Walker Blankenship, the stable master at the Kensington Stable, located across the street from where the incident unfolded, told HuffPost that he heard gunfire followed by people arguing.
“I heard a guy cursing,” said Blankenship. “He said, ‘I can’t believe you let it fucking go off.’”
Blankenship said hearing gunshots in the neighborhood is “definitely not normal.” He added he was at the scene while police were gathering information about the incident when he saw the dog’s body being put into a white SUV. He described the canine as beige and small to medium-sized.
“It definitely was not big,” he told HuffPost. “Something easily a person could pick up and carry. Certainly under 50 pounds. Probably under 40 pounds.”
Advertisement
“There are a lot of dog owners over here,” he added. “Everybody is really upset.”
The New York Police Department directed a request for comment to the Secret Service. As the Times noted, a 2011 report from the Justice Department found that the majority of officer-involved shooting incidents in the U.S. involved animals, most of which were dogs.
“Violence & lying are becoming so disastrously casual,” Democratic New York City Council Member Brad Lander tweeted in response to reports that the Secret Service initially claimed that the dog was unleashed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Elizabeth Warren Says She Would Eliminate Student Debt On Day 1 Of Her Presidency


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Here’s How The Senate Rules May Work For The Impeachment Of Donald Trump

Chief Justice John Roberts will oversee the trial , dictated by both long-standing Senate procedure and specific parameters for the Trump proceedings that will be set by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and then approved by the Senate .
That framework ― and the extent to which Roberts forces the body to adhere to certain rules ― will go a long way to determining how much the American public learns about Trump ’ s efforts to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for damaging information on his political rival , Joe Biden .
How It Will Start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion will only require a plain majority vote to pass ― a lower threshhold than the 60 needed to overcome a potential filibuster during many other Senate proceedings .
The only time that a different vote total may be required is if Roberts rules that a motion would change the standing impeachment rules , which would trigger the need for a 67-vote supermajority .
Under the Senate rules , the impeachment trial will commence at noon every Monday through Saturday until completion , unless the Senate votes to adjourn and set a make-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the president pro tempore of the Senate ― in this case Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) .
Roberts will then give each senator the oath they must take to act as an impartial juror in the trial .
We still don ’ t know how the trial will be structured — while Senate procedure dictates the broad guardrails around an impeachment trial , McConnell still has discretion to pass an organizing resolution that would set the timing and order of votes for the impeachment without changing any rules if he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McConnell has called for the Senate to adopt a resolution copying the rules used for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton , the last president to go on trial for impeachment .
Democrats generally oppose these rules as they put a vote on calling witnesses after arguments from the House managers and the president ’ s lawyers .
They want subpoenas for new witnesses to be included in the organizing resolution , something that McConnell will not agree to .
The adoption of McConnell ’ s desired resolution would only require 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will We Hear From Witnesses ?
Next , the Clinton impeachment rules call for debate on both a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment , and on any motions offered by the House managers and the president ’ s lawyers to subpoena new witnesses or to enter in new evidence not previously in the record .
This debate would be evenly divided between the managers and the president ’ s lawyers , not to exceed six hours .
During the Clinton impeachment , there wasn ’ t a dramatic need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had testified , many multiple times , before the grand jury that recommended the House impeach the president , and whose report made up the existing record presented to the Senate .
Throughout the process , Clinton did not block any witnesses from testifying .
He even testified himself and provided blood for a DNA test .
But in the matter of Trump ’ s efforts to withhold military aid from Ukraine in order to get the country to open investigations into his political rivals , there are many witnesses we have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify before the House nor any judicial proceeding about the scandal .
These witnesses include former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who reportedly objected to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine and referred to Rudy Giuliani , the president ’ s lawyer , as engaged in a metaphorical “ drug deal ” in his efforts to fabricate dirt on the Bidens .
Bolton has said he would appear if the Senate called him .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) has already told McConnell that he would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff Mick Mulvaney , senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair , Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey and Bolton .
These four witnesses all have “ direct knowledge ” of Trump ’ s withholding of military aid to Ukraine , according to Schumer .
Mulvaney , Blair and Duffey all refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the House ’ s impeachment inquiry to testify .
Trump and his Republican allies do not want any more testimony in this case .
The only Republican who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) claimed that she is organizing an effort to adopt rules that would allow for the calling of new witnesses , however , that could simply be the adoption of the Clinton impeachment rules structure .
Some Republicans would like to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower as witnesses if any other witnesses are summoned .
If the Senate decides to subpoena new witnesses , lawmakers would have to determine how to take their testimony .
During the Clinton impeachment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on camera .
Their videotaped interrogations were later presented by the House managers to the Senate .
The Senate could theoretically host witnesses in the Senate Chamber .
Were any sitting senators to be called as witnesses , they would be required to testify from their Senate desk .
Throughout this process senators may move to question a ruling made by the chief justice .
The Senate will shut its doors and debate in private when this happens .
During these debates , senators are provided ten minutes each to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final question of conviction , 15 minutes each .
The Senate may overturn any ruling made by the chief justice with a simple majority .
Senators may be able to publicly release their remarks during the final closed door debate on conviction , but otherwise these debates are not recorded in the Congressional Record .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
When the House votes Wednesday to send two articles of impeachment to the Senate, the rules of the upper chamber will suddenly change. All the procedural hallmarks normally associated with the Senate — filibusters, cloture votes, and so on — will disappear. A new and incredibly arcane process will control the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
It’s a confusing process, and some rules won’t be determined until the Senate votes on procedure in the coming days. Here’s what we know about how it will go down.
Advertisement
Chief Justice John Roberts will oversee the trial, dictated by both long-standing Senate procedure and specific parameters for the Trump proceedings that will be set by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and then approved by the Senate. That framework ― and the extent to which Roberts forces the body to adhere to certain rules ― will go a long way to determining how much the American public learns about Trump’s efforts to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for damaging information on his political rival, Joe Biden.
How It Will Start
The trial will begin after the House appoints impeachment managers, likely on Wednesday, who will then deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The impeachment managers, chosen from current members of the House, will argue the case for the removal of the president before the Senate.
The Senate will send a summons to Chief Justice John Roberts to act as the presiding officer during the trial. Trump will also receive a summons, although he can, and will, send lawyers to represent him and argue against his impeachment.
The rules for the impeachment trial are written in a section of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which dictate all of the chamber’s proceedings. These rules were first written for the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson and then amended over the years during various judicial impeachments.
Advertisement
During the impeachment trial, almost every motion will only require a plain majority vote to pass ― a lower threshhold than the 60 needed to overcome a potential filibuster during many other Senate proceedings. The only time that a different vote total may be required is if Roberts rules that a motion would change the standing impeachment rules, which would trigger the need for a 67-vote supermajority.
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts will preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Under the Senate rules, the impeachment trial will commence at noon every Monday through Saturday until completion, unless the Senate votes to adjourn and set a make-up date. Roberts will be sworn in by the president pro tempore of the Senate ― in this case Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Roberts will then give each senator the oath they must take to act as an impartial juror in the trial.
At the end of the trial, the newly sworn-in jurors will vote to convict or acquit Trump on the impeachment charges. Conviction and removal from office requires a 67 vote supermajority.
The Clinton Rules
We still don’t know how the trial will be structured — while Senate procedure dictates the broad guardrails around an impeachment trial, McConnell still has discretion to pass an organizing resolution that would set the timing and order of votes for the impeachment without changing any rules if he can muster a simple majority to do so.
Advertisement
McConnell has called for the Senate to adopt a resolution copying the rules used for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the last president to go on trial for impeachment. Democrats generally oppose these rules as they put a vote on calling witnesses after arguments from the House managers and the president’s lawyers. They want subpoenas for new witnesses to be included in the organizing resolution, something that McConnell will not agree to. The adoption of McConnell’s desired resolution would only require 51 votes, which he says he has.
The rules used for the Clinton impeachment, and that McConnell wants to adopt, would first allow the president’s lawyers to make any motions except for a motion to call witnesses.
House impeachment managers would then present their case for impeachment to the Senate for no more than 24 hours. The Clinton impeachment rules would limit this presentation to the existing record, meaning it could only reference evidence and testimony submitted to or taken by the House’s impeachment inquiry in the House Intelligence Committee and House Judiciary Committee.
After the House managers make their presentation, the president’s lawyers will be allowed to make theirs, also not to exceed 24 hours. After the president’s rebuttal, senators are provided with up to 16 hours to question both sides. Senators may only submit questions in writing through the chief justice.
In January 1999, then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., reads the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton to the Senate as the other House managers who will conduct the impeachment trial watch in Washington. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Will We Hear From Witnesses?
Then comes the most hotly contested part of the impeachment: the witnesses. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) withheld delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate for nearly one month to try and pressure McConnell to adopt rules requiring the calling of new witnesses.
Next, the Clinton impeachment rules call for debate on both a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment, and on any motions offered by the House managers and the president’s lawyers to subpoena new witnesses or to enter in new evidence not previously in the record. This debate would be evenly divided between the managers and the president’s lawyers, not to exceed six hours.
During the Clinton impeachment, there wasn’t a dramatic need for new witnesses. All the relevant witnesses had testified, many multiple times, before the grand jury that recommended the House impeach the president, and whose report made up the existing record presented to the Senate. Throughout the process, Clinton did not block any witnesses from testifying. He even testified himself and provided blood for a DNA test.
But in the matter of Trump’s efforts to withhold military aid from Ukraine in order to get the country to open investigations into his political rivals, there are many witnesses we have not heard from ― they didn’t testify before the House nor any judicial proceeding about the scandal. These witnesses include former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who reportedly objected to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine and referred to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, as engaged in a metaphorical “drug deal” in his efforts to fabricate dirt on the Bidens. Bolton has said he would appear if the Senate called him.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already told McConnell that he would like to hear from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey and Bolton. These four witnesses all have “direct knowledge” of Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine, according to Schumer. Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey all refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the House’s impeachment inquiry to testify.
Advertisement
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate in the impeachment trial of President Trump. Nikolai Petrov via Getty Images
Trump and his Republican allies do not want any more testimony in this case. The only Republican who appears open to calling new witnesses remains Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) claimed that she is organizing an effort to adopt rules that would allow for the calling of new witnesses, however, that could simply be the adoption of the Clinton impeachment rules structure. Some Republicans would like to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower as witnesses if any other witnesses are summoned.
Once the debate ends on these motions, the Senate will vote on whether to dismiss them, which is unlikely. If the articles are not dismissed, it will then immediately consider the motions to subpoena witnesses or admit new evidence.
If the Senate decides to subpoena new witnesses, lawmakers would have to determine how to take their testimony. During the Clinton impeachment, the three witnesses were questioned in private and on camera. Their videotaped interrogations were later presented by the House managers to the Senate. The Senate could theoretically host witnesses in the Senate Chamber. Were any sitting senators to be called as witnesses, they would be required to testify from their Senate desk.
Throughout this process senators may move to question a ruling made by the chief justice. The Senate will shut its doors and debate in private when this happens. During these debates, senators are provided ten minutes each to make their arguments or, during debate on the final question of conviction, 15 minutes each. The Senate may overturn any ruling made by the chief justice with a simple majority. Senators may be able to publicly release their remarks during the final closed door debate on conviction, but otherwise these debates are not recorded in the Congressional Record.
Advertisement