thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Extreme Abortion Restrictions Are On The Ballot In Louisiana And Colorado

Both ballot initiatives use intentionally vague language to mislead voters , abortion rights activists in each state told HuffPost .
Colorado ’ s measure , for example , suggests there could be exceptions to protect the health of the mother , but in reality this would apply only in the most extreme circumstances such as if a woman were dying during childbirth .
The exception does not include health risks that could become exacerbated during pregnancy and later become life-threatening .
Both measures have been contentious in their state but both have a good chance of passing .
If they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians across the country to push more such measures , especially after the wave of extreme abortion restrictions passed in states last year and the Trump administration ’ s growing fight to “ defend the unborn.
” And with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett , who has an anti-abortion track record , the courts would be less likely to limit these measures .
The Colorado measure , Proposition 115 , bans abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy , which is around the five-month mark .
It threatens physicians who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and suspension of medical licenses .
The measure has no exceptions for rape or incest and only allows an exception for the mother ’ s health when “ the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened.
” Abortion later in pregnancy is rare to begin with in the U.S. : Only 1.3 % of abortions in 2015 were done at 21 weeks or later , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( over 90 % of abortions take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most people seeking abortion later in pregnancy do so for extreme health reasons ― say , the mother ’ s life is at risk or the child will be born with a genetic abnormality that makes life outside the womb nearly impossible .
“ If the people behind Prop .
115 would care to ask people who have actually had abortions later in pregnancy what we think , we would tell them we stand firm in our decisions , we feel grateful for the care we received , and we ’ re sickened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twisted , ” Taylor said .
“ Women and pregnant people who would have otherwise traveled to Colorado for abortion care will now have even less access to the essential care they need , ” Ford said .
Like all abortion restrictions , she said , this measure will cause “ disproportionate harm ” to people of color , immigrants and those with low incomes or lacking access to affordable health care .
Louisiana ’ s Amendment 1 is much more extreme than Colorado ’ s measure because , if Roe were overturned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment a person knew they were pregnant .
There would be no exceptions in cases of rape , incest or the health of the mother .
The amendment would add language to the Louisiana Constitution stating that nothing in it “ shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.
” The amendment would be devastating for people who needed an abortion but didn ’ t have the ability , financial or otherwise , to travel outside the state .
In practical terms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from having abortions .
The wealthy would still have access to safe procedures outside the state , while the poor would be driven to undergo unsafe back-alley abortions .
Amendment 1 is about class .
This amendment is not going to end abortion but it is going to punish people who do n't have disposable income .
Katrina Rogers , campaign manager for Louisiana for Personal Freedoms

Voters in Louisiana and Colorado are casting their ballots on two extreme anti-abortion measures that could have devastating effects on people seeking abortions and reproductive health care.
In Colorado, Proposition 115 would ban abortion after 22 weeks with almost no exceptions. In Louisiana, Amendment 1 would ban abortion completely with no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.
Advertisement
Both ballot initiatives use intentionally vague language to mislead voters, abortion rights activists in each state told HuffPost. Colorado’s measure, for example, suggests there could be exceptions to protect the health of the mother, but in reality this would apply only in the most extreme circumstances such as if a woman were dying during childbirth. The exception does not include health risks that could become exacerbated during pregnancy and later become life-threatening.
Both measures have been contentious in their state but both have a good chance of passing. If they are approved, they would embolden conservative politicians across the country to push more such measures, especially after the wave of extreme abortion restrictions passed in states last year and the Trump administration’s growing fight to “defend the unborn.” And with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has an anti-abortion track record, the courts would be less likely to limit these measures.
There are currently over a dozen abortion cases at the federal circuit courts, one step away from heading to the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that protects abortion care, is overturned, it would be extremely difficult to challenge state abortion restrictions in federal court.
“With Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the Supreme Court, a post-Roe world feels like it could soon become a terrifying reality,” said Petrice Sams-Abiodun, vice president of strategic partnerships at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
Advertisement
“If passed, constitutional amendments like the one on the ballot in Louisiana would make legal challenges to harmful abortion restrictions even more difficult. With unreliable court systems, people could lose access to abortion overnight in states across the country,” Sams-Abiodun continued. “This constitutional amendment is one domino in a chain reaction politicians hostile to abortion rights are hoping to see.”
With Barrett’s confirmation to the highest court in the land and the continuing attack on abortion rights at both the federal and state levels, the protection of safe and legal access to abortion is more difficult than ever before.
Colorado
The Colorado measure, Proposition 115, bans abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy, which is around the five-month mark. It threatens physicians who perform abortions after that point with fines and suspension of medical licenses. The measure has no exceptions for rape or incest and only allows an exception for the mother’s health when “the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened.”
Abortion rights advocates say the language of that one exception is deliberately vague. “It’s intentionally meant to confuse and deceive,” said Stefanie Clarke, communications director for No On 115, a Colorado coalition created to fight the ballot measure.
The exception for the mother’s health applies only “if she is at risk of dying on the table,” Clarke said, and does not cover health conditions that could be exacerbated if the pregnancy continued ― such as preeclampsia, which can be life-threatening if left untreated.
Advertisement
“This abortion ban will hurt people who are already facing impossible situations — not just in Colorado but nationwide.” - Kristin Ford, national communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America
Colorado has seen anti-abortion initiatives on the ballot before. Measures declaring the fetus a person were defeated in 2008, 2010 and 2014 by roughly 2-1 margins. Abortion rights advocates say this year’s ballot initiative is much closer to passing because of the misleading language.
Colorado specifically is important because it is one of only seven states (and the District of Columbia) that does not put gestational limits on access to abortion care or, in laypersons’ terms, does allow abortion later in pregnancy.
Abortion later in pregnancy is rare to begin with in the U.S.: Only 1.3% of abortions in 2015 were done at 21 weeks or later, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (over 90% of abortions take place at or before 13 weeks). Most people seeking abortion later in pregnancy do so for extreme health reasons ― say, the mother’s life is at risk or the child will be born with a genetic abnormality that makes life outside the womb nearly impossible.
Christina Taylor, a Coloradan who got an abortion later in pregnancy after learning her fetus had no kidneys or bladder, described her experience in a recent roundtable discussion hosted by the No On 115 campaign.
Advertisement
“If the people behind Prop. 115 would care to ask people who have actually had abortions later in pregnancy what we think, we would tell them we stand firm in our decisions, we feel grateful for the care we received, and we’re sickened that our stories and lives are being twisted,” Taylor said.
Others seek abortion later in pregnancy because they faced roadblocks in their own states (additional testing and waiting periods, as well as financial barriers like the need to take days off work and obtain childcare) that forced them to travel elsewhere to receive care.
“This abortion ban will hurt people who are already facing impossible situations — not just in Colorado but nationwide,” said Kristin Ford, national communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Women and pregnant people who would have otherwise traveled to Colorado for abortion care will now have even less access to the essential care they need,” Ford said. Like all abortion restrictions, she said, this measure will cause “disproportionate harm” to people of color, immigrants and those with low incomes or lacking access to affordable health care.
Louisiana
Louisiana’s Amendment 1 is much more extreme than Colorado’s measure because, if Roe were overturned, it would effectively ban abortion from the moment a person knew they were pregnant. There would be no exceptions in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. The amendment would add language to the Louisiana Constitution stating that nothing in it “shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
Advertisement
The amendment would be devastating for people who needed an abortion but didn’t have the ability, financial or otherwise, to travel outside the state. In practical terms, it would not prevent all Louisiana residents from having abortions. The wealthy would still have access to safe procedures outside the state, while the poor would be driven to undergo unsafe back-alley abortions.
“Amendment 1 is about class. This amendment is not going to end abortion but it is going to punish people who don't have disposable income.” - Katrina Rogers, campaign manager for Louisiana for Personal Freedoms
“I want to be clear: Amendment 1 is about class. This amendment is not going to end abortion but it is going to punish people who don’t have disposable income,” said Katrina Rogers, campaign manager for Louisiana for Personal Freedoms, a reproductive justice group fighting the anti-abortion measure.
“The people who are already under attack and don’t have the money to pay for an abortion are going to be forced to either seek unregulated, unsafe abortions in the state or they’re going to have to endure forced pregnancy,” Rogers added.
In 2018, almost 20% of Louisiana residents lived below the poverty line ― a number that Rogers pointed out is much higher now due to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. One-third of the state’s residents are Black, a group that routinely experiences racism in the health care system.
Advertisement
Louisiana does not require sex education to be taught in schools, and when it is taught, educators are required to emphasize abstinence. There are currently only three abortion clinics in the entire state, and 72% of women live in counties without clinics that provide the procedure.
The proposed amendment was created by state Sen. Katrina Jackson, a Black Democrat, and supported by Gov. John Bel Edwards, another Democrat in favor of strict anti-abortion regulations. Louisiana is following in the footsteps of at least 10 other states that have implemented constitutional bans on abortion that would kick in if Roe were overturned.
“These aren’t just numbers. These are people, these are lives, and folks are going to suffer tremendously,” Rogers said. “If Amendment 1 goes on the [state] constitution, people are going to die, people are going to be criminalized, people are going to have to endure forced pregnancies.”
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at scoops@huffpost.com.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Jon Ossoff Slams GOP Sen. David Perdue For Canceling Last Debate

Jon Ossoff , the Democrat vying for a Senate seat in Georgia , said Thursday his GOP competitor , Sen. David Perdue , had canceled their final debate before next week ’ s election after the pair exchanged heated attacks a day before .
“ At last night ’ s debate , millions saw that Perdue had no answers when I called him out on his record of blatant corruption , widespread disease , and economic devastation , ” Ossoff wrote on Twitter .
BREAKING : Senator Perdue just cancelled our final debate .
At last night 's debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I called him out on his record of blatant corruption , widespread disease , and economic devastation .
Shame on you , Senator .
— Jon Ossoff ( @ ossoff ) October 29 , 2020 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the debate , scheduled for next Sunday , was canceled after President Donald Trump planned to hold a campaign rally in the state that day .
Perdue will join the president at that event instead , his campaign told the publication .
Ossoff and Perdue are neck-and-neck in the polls , although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither candidate wins 50 % of the vote .
The pair lobbed barbs at each other during their second debate in Savannah on Wednesday .
Ossoff called Perdue a “ crook ” and accused him of undermining Georgians ’ health care , while the senator incorrectly attacked the Democrat as a radical who supported the Green New Deal and backed “ socialized medicine ” ( both claims are false ) .
“ It ’ s not just that you ’ re a crook , Senator , ” Ossoff told Perdue during one moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bevy of stock trades Perdue made early in the COVID-19 pandemic after lawmakers received a closed-door briefing on the crisis .
“ It ’ s that you ’ re attacking the health of the people that you represent .
You did say COVID-19 was no deadlier than the flu .
You did say there would be no significant uptick in cases .
All the while , you were looking after your own assets and your own portfolio.
” Perdue was one of several senators from both parties to come under fire over shady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April he made at least 112 transactions , including 76 stock purchases , that cost him as much as $ 1.8 million in March , including in a company that makes medical gear .
Ossoff ’ s bid for the senate seat has become a potential lynchpin of Democratic hopes to retake the chamber .
Money has flowed into the state , and the 33-year-old brought in more than $ 21 million in the third quarter of 2020 .
Perdue raised about $ 5.6 million during that period .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jon Ossoff, the Democrat vying for a Senate seat in Georgia, said Thursday his GOP competitor, Sen. David Perdue, had canceled their final debate before next week’s election after the pair exchanged heated attacks a day before.
“At last night’s debate, millions saw that Perdue had no answers when I called him out on his record of blatant corruption, widespread disease, and economic devastation,” Ossoff wrote on Twitter.
Advertisement
HuffPost has reached out to Perdue’s campaign for comment.
BREAKING: Senator Perdue just cancelled our final debate.
At last night's debate, millions saw that Perdue had no answers when I called him out on his record of blatant corruption, widespread disease, and economic devastation.
Shame on you, Senator. — Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) October 29, 2020
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the debate, scheduled for next Sunday, was canceled after President Donald Trump planned to hold a campaign rally in the state that day. Perdue will join the president at that event instead, his campaign told the publication.
Ossoff and Perdue are neck-and-neck in the polls, although the race could lead to a runoff if neither candidate wins 50% of the vote.
The pair lobbed barbs at each other during their second debate in Savannah on Wednesday. Ossoff called Perdue a “crook” and accused him of undermining Georgians’ health care, while the senator incorrectly attacked the Democrat as a radical who supported the Green New Deal and backed “socialized medicine” (both claims are false).
Advertisement
“It’s not just that you’re a crook, Senator,” Ossoff told Perdue during one moment in the debate, pointing to a bevy of stock trades Perdue made early in the COVID-19 pandemic after lawmakers received a closed-door briefing on the crisis. “It’s that you’re attacking the health of the people that you represent. You did say COVID-19 was no deadlier than the flu. You did say there would be no significant uptick in cases. All the while, you were looking after your own assets and your own portfolio.”
Perdue was one of several senators from both parties to come under fire over shady financial transactions. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in April he made at least 112 transactions, including 76 stock purchases, that cost him as much as $1.8 million in March, including in a company that makes medical gear.
Perdue’s campaign has said he was cleared of wrongdoing.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--N.J. GOP Official Quits After Posting Offensive Images Of Kamala Harris, Then Backtracks

Upper Township Republican Hobart Young resigned his seat on the Upper Township Committee after posting vile images of Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on social media .
Now he says he 'll go to court to get his seat back .
A Republican elected official in Cape May County , New Jersey , recently resigned from his post after posting vulgar , manipulated images of Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on social media .
But now he ’ s saying he never officially stepped down and he expects his seat back , vowing to go to court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Young was a member of the Upper Township Committee until last week , after he caused an uproar by sharing doctored images of Harris in sexually suggestive poses on his Facebook page .
People shared his posts with comments of disgust and anger .
Young has since deleted the images and , it appears , his Facebook account .
But HuffPost obtained screenshots of the images before they were taken down .
One depicts Harris performing fellatio on the letter “ J ” in the logo for Joe Biden ’ s Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot of the Oct. 7 debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Harris , whose legs under the table have been replaced with bare legs that are open .
The images are at the bottom of this story , blurred but able to be seen if you click on them .
Be forewarned , they are crudely manipulated and demeaning .
“ Those that know me know that this was not intended to offend others in anyway [ sic ] , ” he said .
“ Just poor I judgement [ sic ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the end of it until Monday night when Young showed up during a virtual , public Upper Township Committee meeting and said he spoke to an attorney who “ totally disagrees ” with the committee lawyer ’ s opinion that he formally resigned .
“ I did not send in a signed letter stating my resignation .
I sent an email to Barb and told her that I was going to resign , ” he said , referring to committee clerk Barbara Young , who is no relation to Hobie Young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought he was muted , he could be heard talking to someone in the room with him and calling the committee members “ lying assholes.
” He apologized when he realized his audio was still on .
It ’ s not clear how Young could get his seat back since he publicly resigned and the committee has moved on to begin filling the seat .
Young did not respond to a request for comment on why he wants the seat back and whether he considers it appropriate to remain in public service after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Township Mayor Richard Palombo did not respond to a request for comment on whether he believes Young has any case in court and if the mayor or other committee members are open to Young returning to the panel .

Republican Hobart Young resigned his seat on the Upper Township Committee after posting vile images of Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on social media. Now he says he'll go to court to get his seat back. Upper Township
A Republican elected official in Cape May County, New Jersey, recently resigned from his post after posting vulgar, manipulated images of Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on social media. But now he’s saying he never officially stepped down and he expects his seat back, vowing to go to court to reclaim it.
Hobard “Hobie” Young was a member of the Upper Township Committee until last week, after he caused an uproar by sharing doctored images of Harris in sexually suggestive poses on his Facebook page. People shared his posts with comments of disgust and anger. Young has since deleted the images and, it appears, his Facebook account.
Advertisement
But HuffPost obtained screenshots of the images before they were taken down. One depicts Harris performing fellatio on the letter “J” in the logo for Joe Biden’s Democratic presidential campaign. The other depicts a wide shot of the Oct. 7 debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Harris, whose legs under the table have been replaced with bare legs that are open. The images are at the bottom of this story, blurred but able to be seen if you click on them. Be forewarned, they are crudely manipulated and demeaning.
Young, who had served on the committee for seven years, announced his resignation “effective immediately” on Oct. 19 on Facebook.
“Those that know me know that this was not intended to offend others in anyway [sic], ” he said. “Just poor I judgement [sic] politically on my part.”
Facebook
Advertisement
That appeared to be the end of it until Monday night when Young showed up during a virtual, public Upper Township Committee meeting and said he spoke to an attorney who “totally disagrees” with the committee lawyer’s opinion that he formally resigned.
“I did not send in a signed letter stating my resignation. I sent an email to Barb and told her that I was going to resign,” he said, referring to committee clerk Barbara Young, who is no relation to Hobie Young.
“I’ll see you in court,” he added.
At one point, when Young thought he was muted, he could be heard talking to someone in the room with him and calling the committee members “lying assholes.” He apologized when he realized his audio was still on.
You can watch the exchange here. It begins around the 1:50 minute mark.
It’s not clear how Young could get his seat back since he publicly resigned and the committee has moved on to begin filling the seat.
Advertisement
Young did not respond to a request for comment on why he wants the seat back and whether he considers it appropriate to remain in public service after sharing vile photos of Harris.
Upper Township Mayor Richard Palombo did not respond to a request for comment on whether he believes Young has any case in court and if the mayor or other committee members are open to Young returning to the panel.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Is Radicalizing Centrist Democrats

The GOP ’ s rush to fill a Supreme Court vacancy days before the election and their installment of hundreds of conservative judges across the federal judiciary in recent years is quickly changing the attitudes of rank-and-file Democrats who long resisted hardball tactics in the name of a bygone era of comity and bipartisanship in Washington .
That even centrist lawmakers are now opening the door to broad structural reforms to the Senate and perhaps even the Supreme Court ― steps previously only discussed by the left wing of the Democratic Party ― speaks to the highly politicized nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Ky. ) and his relentless focus on reshaping the federal judiciary for decades to come , norms and rules be damned .
“ I don ’ t want to pack the court .
I don ’ t want to change the number .
I don ’ t want to have to do that , but if all of this rule-breaking is taking place , what does the majority expect ?
What do they expect ?
” an exasperated Sen. Angus King ( I-Maine ) said earlier this week in a noteworthy speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s confirmation on Monday , which sealed a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court .
Even Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
, a mild-mannered senator who ’ s been called the “ GOP ’ s favorite Democrat ” due to his search for common ground , something that has irked progressive for years , now says he ’ s open to expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court .
If Democrat Joe Biden were to be elected president , “ we ’ ll have to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebalance our federal judiciary , ” Coons told CNN recently .
Coons has also come around to reforming the filibuster next year if Democrats win the White House and regain control of the Senate .
His evolution on changing the longstanding Senate rule requiring 60 votes for passage of legislation is remarkable given that he was one of its most outspoken defenders .
The GOP ’ s flip-flop on confirming a Supreme Court justice during an election year ― something they opposed in 2016 when they denied President Barack Obama ’ s high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote ― also shook Sen. Joe Manchin ( D-W.Va. ) .
As one of the last remaining moderates in the Senate , the red-state Democrat voted to confirm both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the high court .
But he opposed Barrett ’ s nomination , calling out Republicans for their “ hypocrisy in its highest form.
” Republicans insist it was the Democrats who started the judicial wars by blocking George W. Bush ’ s judicial nominees and changing rules on lower court nominations in 2013 .
Since then , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which allowed them to confirm over 200 Trump-picked judges to life-time positions .
The GOP also believes “ packing ” the Supreme Court would undermine its legitimacy and backfire on Democrats politically as it did for Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried to do it as a way to protect his New Deal legislative agenda .
Polls show the public opposes changing the size of the Supreme Court , suggesting that doing so would be a risky move for Democrats even if they convince enough of their members to get on board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just 27 % of voters support packing the court , while 43 % oppose such a move .
Thirty percent of those polled said they were unsure .
Democratic voters also have mixed feelings about changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court .
None listed judicial nominations on their list of top issues ahead of the upcoming election in interviews with HuffPost at several campaign events this week , citing instead the cost of health care , education and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic .
“ I don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are constantly moving the finish line when different people get into office , ” said Theron Jamison , 43 , who works as a teacher in Columbia , South Carolina .
“ If they made a particular rule , they should stick with it .
If that person is reelected , let them make the decision.
” “ I personally don ’ t think that the Supreme Court should be expanded .
If there ’ s something else that they could do , I think they should look into it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not for or against it , it may be something that ’ s necessary , ” Cindy Pape , 57 , who works for an education company in Plains , Pennsylvania , said of expanding the court .
“ Democrats have been nice and played by the rules for a long time and done a lot of courtesies within the bipartisan field .
I think it ’ s time to change a little bit .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The GOP’s rush to fill a Supreme Court vacancy days before the election and their installment of hundreds of conservative judges across the federal judiciary in recent years is quickly changing the attitudes of rank-and-file Democrats who long resisted hardball tactics in the name of a bygone era of comity and bipartisanship in Washington.
That even centrist lawmakers are now opening the door to broad structural reforms to the Senate and perhaps even the Supreme Court ― steps previously only discussed by the left wing of the Democratic Party ― speaks to the highly politicized nature of the chamber under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his relentless focus on reshaping the federal judiciary for decades to come, norms and rules be damned.
Advertisement
“I don’t want to pack the court. I don’t want to change the number. I don’t want to have to do that, but if all of this rule-breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect? What do they expect?” an exasperated Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said earlier this week in a noteworthy speech on the Senate floor before Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation on Monday, which sealed a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Although King caucuses with Democrats and often votes with them, he has a reputation of working across the aisle on Capitol Hill and steers clear of partisan disputes.
Even Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a mild-mannered senator who’s been called the “GOP’s favorite Democrat” due to his search for common ground, something that has irked progressive for years, now says he’s open to expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court. If Democrat Joe Biden were to be elected president, “we’ll have to look at what the right steps are to rebalance our federal judiciary,” Coons told CNN recently.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) says he's open to court reforms. Photo by Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images
Advertisement
Coons has also come around to reforming the filibuster next year if Democrats win the White House and regain control of the Senate. His evolution on changing the longstanding Senate rule requiring 60 votes for passage of legislation is remarkable given that he was one of its most outspoken defenders.
“I will not stand idly by for four years and watch the Biden administration’s initiatives blocked at every turn,” Coons, a top ally of Biden, who previously served as the senator from Delaware, said earlier this year.
In 2019, Coons told HuffPost the consequences of getting rid of the filibuster would be “too great,” warning that Republicans could pass a whole host of laws Democrats oppose without it.
The GOP’s flip-flop on confirming a Supreme Court justice during an election year ― something they opposed in 2016 when they denied President Barack Obama’s high court nominee both a hearing and a vote ― also shook Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). As one of the last remaining moderates in the Senate, the red-state Democrat voted to confirm both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the high court. But he opposed Barrett’s nomination, calling out Republicans for their “hypocrisy in its highest form.”
“The hypocrisy and the unfairness. The decency and the unfairness, that’s all. We’ve never done this ... it divides our country more,” Manchin lamented after the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Advertisement
Republicans insist it was the Democrats who started the judicial wars by blocking George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and changing rules on lower court nominations in 2013. Since then, the GOP unilaterally changed Senate rules three times, which allowed them to confirm over 200 Trump-picked judges to life-time positions.
The GOP also believes “packing” the Supreme Court would undermine its legitimacy and backfire on Democrats politically as it did for Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried to do it as a way to protect his New Deal legislative agenda.
Polls show the public opposes changing the size of the Supreme Court, suggesting that doing so would be a risky move for Democrats even if they convince enough of their members to get on board. According to a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll, just 27% of voters support packing the court, while 43% oppose such a move. Thirty percent of those polled said they were unsure.
Democratic voters also have mixed feelings about changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court. None listed judicial nominations on their list of top issues ahead of the upcoming election in interviews with HuffPost at several campaign events this week, citing instead the cost of health care, education and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
“I don’t want it to be like a race where people are constantly moving the finish line when different people get into office,” said Theron Jamison, 43, who works as a teacher in Columbia, South Carolina. “If they made a particular rule, they should stick with it. If that person is reelected, let them make the decision.”
Advertisement
“I don’t think revenge is the answer,” he added of the judicial fights. “Even though I vote Democrat, I’m on the side of humanity.”
Karen Palmer, 54, a small business owner from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, told HuffPost she believed what Republicans did to Obama’s nominees was unfair. But Palmer, who is a Biden supporter, said she didn’t support going so far as to pack the court.
“I personally don’t think that the Supreme Court should be expanded. If there’s something else that they could do, I think they should look into it,” Palmer said.
Other Biden supporters, meanwhile, said it was time for their party to take the gloves off and use the same playbook Republicans successfully used stack the judiciary.
“While I’m not for or against it, it may be something that’s necessary,” Cindy Pape, 57, who works for an education company in Plains, Pennsylvania, said of expanding the court. “Democrats have been nice and played by the rules for a long time and done a lot of courtesies within the bipartisan field. I think it’s time to change a little bit.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Sen. Kelly Loeffler Says She's 'Not Familiar' With Trump 'Grab 'Em' Tape

Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) raised eyebrows Wednesday when she claimed to be “ not familiar ” with the infamous tape in which Donald Trump bragged that he could get away with sexually assaulting women .
( See Loeffler ’ s interview below . )
“ Grab ’ em by the pussy , ” Trump told “ Access Hollywood ” reporter Billy Bush in a 2005 tape that The Washington Post exposed shortly before the 2016 election .
“ You can do anything.
” The off-air moment was soon followed by more than a dozen sexual abuse allegations against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pressed repeatedly by an 11 Alive reporter in Buford , Georgia , about Trump ’ s boast , Loeffler said : “ I ’ m not familiar with that.
” Reminded that it was the “ Access Hollywood ” tape to perhaps jog her memory , Loeffler replied , “ Yeah , no.
” Loeffler , who was appointed to the Senate , is seeking to hold on to her seat in a special election against a slate of Republican and Democratic challengers and then win a likely January runoff , 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her unwavering support of the president .
“ I agree with the approach President Trump has taken since day one to put America first , ” she told reporters Wednesday .
Watch Loeffler ’ s comments below :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) raised eyebrows Wednesday when she claimed to be “not familiar” with the infamous tape in which Donald Trump bragged that he could get away with sexually assaulting women. (See Loeffler’s interview below.)
“Grab ’em by the pussy,” Trump told “Access Hollywood” reporter Billy Bush in a 2005 tape that The Washington Post exposed shortly before the 2016 election. “You can do anything.”
Advertisement
The off-air moment was soon followed by more than a dozen sexual abuse allegations against Trump. He won the presidency anyway.
Pressed repeatedly by an 11 Alive reporter in Buford, Georgia, about Trump’s boast, Loeffler said: “I’m not familiar with that.” Reminded that it was the “Access Hollywood” tape to perhaps jog her memory, Loeffler replied, “Yeah, no.”
Loeffler, who was appointed to the Senate, is seeking to hold on to her seat in a special election against a slate of Republican and Democratic challengers and then win a likely January runoff, 11 Alive noted.
Loeffler is known for her unwavering support of the president.
“I agree with the approach President Trump has taken since day one to put America first,” she told reporters Wednesday. Watch Loeffler’s comments below:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Pete Buttigieg Shuts Down Fox News Spin On Trump's Frenzied Rally Pace

Former Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg shut down Fox News host Martha MacCallum ’ s suggestion that President Donald Trump ’ s jam-packed pace of campaign rallies was better than Joe Biden ’ s less numerous campaign stops .
“ Just to be clear , the Trump campaign has made eight stops since Sunday ; today is Wednesday , ” MacCallum said to Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana .
“ The Biden campaign stops have been two ... And as you say , this is a very competitive race , so it might turn out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; we ’ ll see .
But it ’ s clearly something that strategists will be examining.
” “ Yeah , I ’ m not really sure all of those visits from Donald Trump are really helping him though , right ?
” Buttigieg responded .
“ I look at Omaha , where he left his supporters out freezing in the cold , which is a great metaphor for how he ’ s treated his supporters more generally across the country .
In Arizona you ’ ve got a bunch of people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a spreader event , which kind of symbolizes his inability to lead us out of this pandemic.
” “ It ’ s fine , ” she continued .
“ It may or may not be , and like I said we ’ ll see whose strategy turns out to be the right one.
” Buttigieg and MacCallum then launched into a discussion on Biden ’ s views on fracking .
She asked Buttigieg if he believed it was good that fracking allowed the U.S. to become “ energy independent from the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one of the reasons why Joe Biden defeated some Democrats who were further to his left who called for an outright ban on fracking , which he opposes , ” Buttigieg said .
“ I think his position is one that really resonates with the American people who understand that in the long run , we ’ re going to need to continue transitioning to more renewable energy , which is obviously not going to happen when the sitting president of the United States says climate change is a hoax and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance on the network , Buttigieg tweeted a segment of the interview and said that Trump was happy to have supporters cheer for him ― and then leave them freezing for hours as they awaited bus transport to their parked cars , as the president ’ s campaign did following his rally in Omaha , Nebraska , on Tuesday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg shut down Fox News host Martha MacCallum’s suggestion that President Donald Trump’s jam-packed pace of campaign rallies was better than Joe Biden’s less numerous campaign stops.
“Just to be clear, the Trump campaign has made eight stops since Sunday; today is Wednesday,” MacCallum said to Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. “The Biden campaign stops have been two ... And as you say, this is a very competitive race, so it might turn out that less is more in this race; we’ll see. But it’s clearly something that strategists will be examining.”
Advertisement
“Yeah, I’m not really sure all of those visits from Donald Trump are really helping him though, right?” Buttigieg responded. “I look at Omaha, where he left his supporters out freezing in the cold, which is a great metaphor for how he’s treated his supporters more generally across the country. In Arizona you’ve got a bunch of people in a rally that has the potential to be a spreader event, which kind of symbolizes his inability to lead us out of this pandemic.”
MacCallum dismissed the comment, saying “we’ve heard that line a lot.”
“It’s fine,” she continued. “It may or may not be, and like I said we’ll see whose strategy turns out to be the right one.”
Buttigieg and MacCallum then launched into a discussion on Biden’s views on fracking. She asked Buttigieg if he believed it was good that fracking allowed the U.S. to become “energy independent from the Middle East.”
“Yeah, and that’s one of the reasons why Joe Biden defeated some Democrats who were further to his left who called for an outright ban on fracking, which he opposes,” Buttigieg said. “I think his position is one that really resonates with the American people who understand that in the long run, we’re going to need to continue transitioning to more renewable energy, which is obviously not going to happen when the sitting president of the United States says climate change is a hoax and that windmills kill birds.”
Advertisement
Trump at his rallies often falsely says Biden wants to ban fracking.
Following his appearance on the network, Buttigieg tweeted a segment of the interview and said that Trump was happy to have supporters cheer for him ― and then leave them freezing for hours as they awaited bus transport to their parked cars, as the president’s campaign did following his rally in Omaha, Nebraska, on Tuesday.
Trump's rallies are a metaphor for how he views his own supporters. Happy to have them cheer for him, only to leave them out in the cold. pic.twitter.com/ofhRNkZnca — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) October 29, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Sports Fans Ask Why Jack Nicklaus, Jay Cutler Don't Have To 'Shut Up And Play'

After golf star Jack Nicklaus endorsed President Donald Trump and former NFL quarterback Jay Cutler echoed his sentiments , many sports fans pointed out a racist double standard when it comes to athletes speaking about politics .
Nicklaus , who is white , tweeted a statement on Wednesday night claiming Trump has “ delivered on his promises ” and is “ more diverse ” — whatever that means — “ than any President I have seen and has tried to help people from all walks of life – equally.
” The octogenarian , who has played golf with Trump multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You might not like the way our President says or tweets some things – and trust me , I have told him that !
” but added , “ This is not a personality contest ; it ’ s about patriotism , policies and the people they impact .
His love for America and its citizens , and putting his country first , has come through loud and clear .
How he has said it has not been important to me .
What has been important are his actions.
” In response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Instagram and in an Instagram Story , writing on the latter : “ Sign me up.
” While both Nicklaus ’ statement and Cutler ’ s support for it did receive negative feedback ― Cutler may have even lost upwards of 20,000 Instagram followers for the Trump love ― plenty of people lauded the athletes for sharing their political viewpoints with the masses .
The support for the two white athletes highlights a double standard in American athletics .
Just a few years ago , Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham told NBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dribble ” after the athlete , who is Black , discussed Trump ’ s rhetoric in an interview with ESPN .
“ It ’ s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid $ 100 million a year to bounce a ball .
Keep the political comments to yourselves .
...
Shut up and dribble , ” Ingraham said at the time .
Sports journalist Taylor Rooks summed up the contrast well : “ Just want to point out other Trump supporters are praising them .
Meaning they actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
They just don ’ t like when it ’ s different from theirs .
Why don ’ t those two have to shut up and play ?
” Curious to see the people who told the NBA players to “ shut up and dribble ” stay silent when Jack Nicklaus and Jay Cutler endorse Trump .
I wonder why that is ( It ’ s a rhetorical question , I know why that is ) — Sports with Steve ( @ Sports_Steve02 ) October 29 , 2020 So LeBron James has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Jack Nicklaus and Jay Cutler is ok to Magas ?
wonder why ?
I can ’ t quite put my finger on it 🙄🤷🏻♀ — Mafe ( @ mafect ) October 29 , 2020 Where are both of these guys supposed to play ?
You realize that Jack Nicklaus is an 80 year old RETIRED golfer right ?
Jay Cutler is n't in the NFL either .
Apples and Oranges https : //t.co/9imoeCh93f — Dan ( @ WiscoSportsNut ) October 29 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
After golf star Jack Nicklaus endorsed President Donald Trump and former NFL quarterback Jay Cutler echoed his sentiments, many sports fans pointed out a racist double standard when it comes to athletes speaking about politics.
Nicklaus, who is white, tweeted a statement on Wednesday night claiming Trump has “delivered on his promises” and is “more diverse” — whatever that means — “than any President I have seen and has tried to help people from all walks of life – equally.”
Advertisement
The octogenarian, who has played golf with Trump multiple times in the past, wrote: “You might not like the way our President says or tweets some things – and trust me, I have told him that!” but added, “This is not a personality contest; it’s about patriotism, policies and the people they impact. His love for America and its citizens, and putting his country first, has come through loud and clear. How he has said it has not been important to me. What has been important are his actions.”
Nicklaus concluded by sharing that he had already voted for Trump.
Get out and vote. I did! pic.twitter.com/IfQb3NeSO3 — Jack Nicklaus (@jacknicklaus) October 29, 2020
In response to Nicklaus, Cutler shared the statement on Instagram and in an Instagram Story, writing on the latter: “Sign me up.”
Instagram
Advertisement
While both Nicklaus’ statement and Cutler’s support for it did receive negative feedback ― Cutler may have even lost upwards of 20,000 Instagram followers for the Trump love ― plenty of people lauded the athletes for sharing their political viewpoints with the masses.
The support for the two white athletes highlights a double standard in American athletics. Just a few years ago, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham told NBA star LeBron James to “shut up and dribble” after the athlete, who is Black, discussed Trump’s rhetoric in an interview with ESPN.
“It’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid $100 million a year to bounce a ball. Keep the political comments to yourselves. ... Shut up and dribble,” Ingraham said at the time.
Sports journalist Taylor Rooks summed up the contrast well: “Just want to point out other Trump supporters are praising them. Meaning they actually do love when athletes have political opinions! They just don’t like when it’s different from theirs. Why don’t those two have to shut up and play?”
Others joined in calling out the hypocrisy on Twitter:
Jay Cutler and Jack Nicklaus have endorsed Trump. They should shut up and stick to sports. Or, does that only apply to Black athletes? — Kevin B. Chavous (@Kevinchavous) October 29, 2020
Advertisement
Curious to see the people who told the NBA players to “shut up and dribble” stay silent when Jack Nicklaus and Jay Cutler endorse Trump. I wonder why that is (It’s a rhetorical question, I know why that is) — Sports with Steve (@Sports_Steve02) October 29, 2020
So LeBron James has to shut up and dribble but an endorsement from Jack Nicklaus and Jay Cutler is ok to Magas? wonder why? I can’t quite put my finger on it 🙄🤷🏻♀ — Mafe (@mafect) October 29, 2020
me waiting for Fox News to tell Jay Cutler and Jack Nicklaus to shut up and play. pic.twitter.com/HQdAAZIPb1 — Batthew Garcia 🦇 (@sailormatt) October 29, 2020
Predictably, other people suggested it had nothing to do with race.
Where are both of these guys supposed to play? You realize that Jack Nicklaus is an 80 year old RETIRED golfer right? Jay Cutler isn't in the NFL either. Apples and Oranges https://t.co/9imoeCh93f — Dan (@WiscoSportsNut) October 29, 2020
Jack Nicklaus hasn't played a professional round of golf in about 15 years. He's 80 now. Cutler has been retired for about 3 years. Comparing them to active athletes is a ridiculous stretch on your part. — Joe (@JoeFL65) October 29, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Ocasio-Cortez Shreds Fox News Report Attacking Her For Wearing Pricey Clothes

Presenting our December cover star : Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez !
Two elections in , the congresswoman is still fighting the @ @ @ @ @ sure as she ’ s ever been .
Now , she opens up about her @ @ @ @ @ her political life , the day Ted Yoho lost his shit , and what it @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I don ’ t want to be a savior , ” she tells @ @ @ @ @ to be a mirror.
” Read the cover story now at the link in bio @ @ @ @ @ .
Photograph by @ tylersphotos .
Sittings editor @ mr_carlos_nazario .
Fashion director @ chapoteau @ @ @ @ @ frau.juliawagner .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is being shamed by conservatives for spending money on her appearance again, and her rebuttals are as fiery as ever.
The progressive Democrat responded on Thursday to an article by Fox News that sought to cast her as hypocritical because she condemns President Donald Trump for not paying taxes and attacks politicians beholden to Wall Street but also sometimes wears expensive clothes.
Advertisement
Fox News quotes the Daily Mail, which reported that Ocasio-Cortez’s outfits for a cover story in Vanity Fair’s December issue were worth more than $14,000 and she was given one worth $2,850.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to this familiar line of attack with a textbook schooling.
“Republicans are “Very Mad (again) about my appearance. This time they’re mad that I look good in borrowed clothes (again),” she wrote, before sharing a beauty pointer:
Republicans are Very Mad (again) about my appearance. This time they’re mad that I look good in borrowed clothes (again).
Listen, if Republicans want pointers on looking your best, I’m happy to share.
Tip #1: Drink water and don’t be racist — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 29, 2020
She also retweeted Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who’d linked to the Fox News article.
“I don’t know if you’ve been in a photoshoot Laura, but you don’t keep the clothes,” she wrote.
💯% worth it, would do again https://t.co/0crlR7eXWT — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 29, 2020
Advertisement
(& I don’t know if you’ve been in a photoshoot Laura, but you don’t keep the clothes.) — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 29, 2020
The whole “she wore clothes in a magazine, let’s pretend they’re hers” gimmick is the classic Republican strategy of “let’s willfully act stupid, and if the public doesn’t take our performative stupidity seriously then we’ll claim bias.”
GOP, get yourselves together. It’s sad. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 29, 2020
Ocasio-Cortez has faced similar attacks time and time again. Shortly after she was elected in 2018, a conservative journalist questioned her for wearing a nice-looking jacket on Capitol Hill after she’d said she struggled to afford an apartment in Washington.
And last year a right-leaning news site published an article titled “Exclusive: Self-declared socialist AOC splurges on high-dollar hairdo” because she got a normal-priced haircut and color. After conservatives pounced, Ocasio-Cortez reminded them: “Our policies, like Medicare for All, advance prosperity for working people. They’re just mad we look good doing it.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Trump’s USGS Chief Violated Whistleblower Protection Law, Inspector General Says

The head of the U.S. Geological Survey violated the federal whistleblower protection law when he retaliated against an agency employee who had filed a complaint about his conduct , according to a new report from the Interior Department ’ s internal watchdog .
The Interior Department ’ s Office of Inspector General concluded that USGS Director James Reilly had the employee reassigned after learning of the individual ’ s complaint regarding Reilly ’ s conduct ― though the report does not detail the content of that initial complaint .
The scathing report , posted Thursday afternoon , comes two days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boasted of its efforts to hire additional ethics staff in order to “ remove the rotten stench from the blatant failure of the prior administration.
” The agency has repeatedly blamed the Obama administration for its ethical shortfalls .
As Thursday ’ s report details , Reilly tried to convince investigators that the reassignment was due to the employee ’ s inability to work with another staff member and “ negative influence ” on the office ― claims that that agency staff directly contradicted .
“ A witness also told us that Reilly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ without explaining why he believed this , and Reilly ultimately acknowledged that he said in front of others that the complainant had an ‘ evil streak , ’ or words to that effect , which he admitted ‘ was a very poor choice of words , ’ ” the report states .
Another witness told investigators about a meeting in which Reilly said the complainant had “ weaponized the IG process ” against him .
And USGS employees reported that Reilly sought information about any other employee complaints against him so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the [ Department of the Interior ] provided some evidence of other motivations that may have played a role in its personnel decision , it failed to disentangle those motivations from the evidence of impermissible , retaliatory motive found during our investigation , ” investigators wrote .
“ Whistleblower retaliation does not get more clear cut than this , ” Reps. Carolyn Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) , Raúl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) and Gerald Connolly ( D-Va. ) said in a joint statement .
“ Director Reilly made it a practice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfer .
Anyone who uses official power to retaliate against whistleblowers — who help uncover waste , fraud , abuse , and mismanagement — is not fit to hold government office.
” In an emailed statement , Interior spokesman Nicholas Goodwin dismissed the report as “ wrong in its legal and factual conclusions ” and said it “ attempts to turn the USGS human resources department ’ s reassignment of an administrative employee into a prohibited personnel practice.
” He noted that the employee did not receive a reduction in pay or grade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first controversy since he was confirmed as USGS director in April 2018 .
Recent press reports have uncovered how he intervened to halt , alter or delay research on critical scientific topics , including climate change , endangered species , and COVID-19 .
Reilly was also involved in manipulating agency data to promote logging .
And in interviews with Wired , some employees at the USGS described his tenure there as hostile .
Under Trump , the Interior Department has been plagued by scandals .
Former Interior chief Ryan Zinke resigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and several other high-ranking officials have been found to have violated federal ethics rules .
Several IG probes are ongoing .
The IG ’ s office released two scathing reports on Assistant Interior Secretary Douglas Domenech in the past year , finding that he used his office to benefit family members as well as his former employer , a Koch-linked think tank .
Despite the seriousness of the findings , Domenech remains in his position atop the agency ’ s insular and international affairs office .
Domenech is a top lieutenant and close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ For the DOI generally , I would be shocked if they do anything about this report ” on Reilly , said Kevin Bell , senior counsel at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility , a government watchdog group that advocates for whistleblowers .
“ If anything , ” he added , “ Reilly ’ s retaliation against whistleblowers only solidifies his Trumpian credentials.
” Additional IG reports on the misdeeds of top Interior Department officials , including one who used his office to promote the policy priorities of the National Rifle Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As HuffPost previously reported , Trump and his team have led a slow strangling of IGs across the federal government since taking office .
That has ramped up earlier this year : Trump removed five inspectors general from their posts over a three-month period..

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The head of the U.S. Geological Survey violated the federal whistleblower protection law when he retaliated against an agency employee who had filed a complaint about his conduct, according to a new report from the Interior Department’s internal watchdog.
The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General concluded that USGS Director James Reilly had the employee reassigned after learning of the individual’s complaint regarding Reilly’s conduct ― though the report does not detail the content of that initial complaint.
Advertisement
The scathing report, posted Thursday afternoon, comes two days after Trump’s Interior Department publicly boasted of its efforts to hire additional ethics staff in order to “remove the rotten stench from the blatant failure of the prior administration.” The agency has repeatedly blamed the Obama administration for its ethical shortfalls.
As Thursday’s report details, Reilly tried to convince investigators that the reassignment was due to the employee’s inability to work with another staff member and “negative influence” on the office ― claims that that agency staff directly contradicted.
“A witness also told us that Reilly had described the complainant as ‘evil’ without explaining why he believed this, and Reilly ultimately acknowledged that he said in front of others that the complainant had an ‘evil streak,’ or words to that effect, which he admitted ‘was a very poor choice of words,’” the report states.
Another witness told investigators about a meeting in which Reilly said the complainant had “weaponized the IG process” against him. And USGS employees reported that Reilly sought information about any other employee complaints against him so that he could “move them.”
Advertisement
Asked if he had any issues with the whistleblower, Reilly told investigators, “Well, there’s one very large one that’s sitting in this room. It’s this investigation, to be perfectly honest.”
The report does not name the whistleblower or any other USGS staffers interviewed as part of the probe.
“While the [Department of the Interior] provided some evidence of other motivations that may have played a role in its personnel decision, it failed to disentangle those motivations from the evidence of impermissible, retaliatory motive found during our investigation,” investigators wrote.
The Democratic chairs of the House oversight and natural resources committees responded to Thursday’s report by calling for Reilly’s immediate resignation or removal from office.
“Whistleblower retaliation does not get more clear cut than this,” Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) said in a joint statement. “Director Reilly made it a practice to seek out whistleblowers and target them for transfer. Anyone who uses official power to retaliate against whistleblowers — who help uncover waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement — is not fit to hold government office.”
Advertisement
In an emailed statement, Interior spokesman Nicholas Goodwin dismissed the report as “wrong in its legal and factual conclusions” and said it “attempts to turn the USGS human resources department’s reassignment of an administrative employee into a prohibited personnel practice.” He noted that the employee did not receive a reduction in pay or grade status.
USGS Director James Reilly is a former astronaut and oil-industry geologist. REUTERS/NASA Kim Shiflett
This isn’t Reilly’s first controversy since he was confirmed as USGS director in April 2018. Recent press reports have uncovered how he intervened to halt, alter or delay research on critical scientific topics, including climate change, endangered species, and COVID-19. Reilly was also involved in manipulating agency data to promote logging. And in interviews with Wired, some employees at the USGS described his tenure there as hostile.
Under Trump, the Interior Department has been plagued by scandals. Former Interior chief Ryan Zinke resigned amid numerous investigations into his conduct, and several other high-ranking officials have been found to have violated federal ethics rules. Several IG probes are ongoing.
If past violations are any indication, Interior is unlikely to take action against Reilly.
The IG’s office released two scathing reports on Assistant Interior Secretary Douglas Domenech in the past year, finding that he used his office to benefit family members as well as his former employer, a Koch-linked think tank. Despite the seriousness of the findings, Domenech remains in his position atop the agency’s insular and international affairs office. Domenech is a top lieutenant and close personal friend of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.
Advertisement
“For the DOI generally, I would be shocked if they do anything about this report” on Reilly, said Kevin Bell, senior counsel at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a government watchdog group that advocates for whistleblowers. “If anything,” he added, “Reilly’s retaliation against whistleblowers only solidifies his Trumpian credentials.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told HuffPost via email that the report “shows that the risk of being a whistleblower has never been higher than during the Trump administration.”
The administration, he added, “has used every trick in the book, from demotions to presidential tweets, to bully whistleblowers into silence.”
Additional IG reports on the misdeeds of top Interior Department officials, including one who used his office to promote the policy priorities of the National Rifle Association, are expected in the near future.
As HuffPost previously reported, Trump and his team have led a slow strangling of IGs across the federal government since taking office. That has ramped up earlier this year: Trump removed five inspectors general from their posts over a three-month period..


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Jerry Falwell Jr. Sues Liberty University For Allegedly Damaging His Reputation

Falwell announced Thursday that he is suing the evangelical Christian university he was ousted from this summer following allegations of an extramarital affair , The Associated Press reports .
“ Liberty University not only accepted the salacious and baseless accusations against the Falwells at face value , but directly participated in the defamation , ” the lawsuit alleges , according to AP .
“ We attempted to meet several times with the Liberty University Board of Trustees Executive Committee but were unsuccessful in doing so , ” Falwell ’ s lawyer Robert Raskopf said in a press release .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedy for Mr. Falwell ’ s ongoing injuries and damage to his reputation through the Court.
” “ The University would need to read and review a lawsuit before making comment , and as of this moment we have not been served , ” Lamb said .
Falwell resigned in August from his role as the chancellor and president of Liberty University , a school founded by his famous televangelist father , Jerry Falwell , Sr .
The younger Falwell dramatically increased the school ’ s enrollment and endowment , while building a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
His departure from Liberty came days after Reuters published the allegations of a young businessman , Giancarlo Granda , who claimed he had a yearslong affair with Falwell ’ s wife , Becki Falwell , and that Jerry Falwell sometimes participated in the liaisons as a voyeur .
Granda gave Reuters a recording of a 2018 phone call he allegedly had with the Falwells , which purports to capture the couple discussing Becki Falwell ’ s jealousy about Granda dating other women .
The Falwells have acknowledged that Becki Falwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denies that he participated .
Jerry Falwell has called Granda a “ criminal ” and a “ liar , ” and claims the man tried to extort the couple over the affair .
Giancarlo Granda says he was befriended by Jerry Falwell , Jr. and his wife Rebecca while he was working as a pool attendant at a luxury Miami Beach hotel .
Falwell ’ s tenure at Liberty was on rocky ground before the Granda accusations came to light .
He was suspended in August after posting a photo of himself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their pants zipped down .
Before that , Falwell had faced criticism from Black students at Liberty for tweeting out a racist image , as well as claims that he worked hard to silence dissent on the campus .
Liberty University has engaged a Chicago-based law firm , Baker Tilly US , to conduct an independent investigation into Falwell ’ s tenure as president , including accusations of self-dealing .
The school ’ s board said the investigation would look into financial , real estate and legal matters .
In August , Falwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving Libeerty because he didn ’ t want his wife ’ s conduct to embarrass the school .
He also claimed he had been bored and was seeking to move on .
“ Other than God and my family , there is nothing in the world I love more than Liberty University , ” Falwell said in the press release .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jerry Falwell Jr., ex-president of Virginia’s Liberty University, has filed a lawsuit against his former school in an attempt to reverse his fall from grace.
Falwell announced Thursday that he is suing the evangelical Christian university he was ousted from this summer following allegations of an extramarital affair, The Associated Press reports.
Advertisement
The lawsuit filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court on Wednesday describes Falwell and his family as the targets of a “malicious smear campaign incited by anti-evangelical forces.”
“Liberty University not only accepted the salacious and baseless accusations against the Falwells at face value, but directly participated in the defamation,” the lawsuit alleges, according to AP.
The lawsuit also claimed breach of contract.
“We attempted to meet several times with the Liberty University Board of Trustees Executive Committee but were unsuccessful in doing so,” Falwell’s lawyer Robert Raskopf said in a press release. “Thus, we were forced to seek remedy for Mr. Falwell’s ongoing injuries and damage to his reputation through the Court.”
Liberty University spokesperson Scott Lamb told HuffPost that the university hasn’t reviewed the lawsuit.
Advertisement
“The University would need to read and review a lawsuit before making comment, and as of this moment we have not been served,” Lamb said.
Jerry Falwell Jr. is the former president of Liberty University, an evangelical school founded by his late televangelist father. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Falwell resigned in August from his role as the chancellor and president of Liberty University, a school founded by his famous televangelist father, Jerry Falwell, Sr. The younger Falwell dramatically increased the school’s enrollment and endowment, while building a reputation as an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump.
His departure from Liberty came days after Reuters published the allegations of a young businessman, Giancarlo Granda, who claimed he had a yearslong affair with Falwell’s wife, Becki Falwell, and that Jerry Falwell sometimes participated in the liaisons as a voyeur. Granda gave Reuters a recording of a 2018 phone call he allegedly had with the Falwells, which purports to capture the couple discussing Becki Falwell’s jealousy about Granda dating other women.
The Falwells have acknowledged that Becki Falwell had an affair, but Jerry Falwell denies that he participated. Jerry Falwell has called Granda a “criminal” and a “liar,” and claims the man tried to extort the couple over the affair.
Advertisement
Giancarlo Granda says he was befriended by Jerry Falwell, Jr. and his wife Rebecca while he was working as a pool attendant at a luxury Miami Beach hotel. Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Falwell’s tenure at Liberty was on rocky ground before the Granda accusations came to light. He was suspended in August after posting a photo of himself and another woman on social media with both their pants zipped down. Before that, Falwell had faced criticism from Black students at Liberty for tweeting out a racist image, as well as claims that he worked hard to silence dissent on the campus.
Falwell’s lawyer did not return HuffPost’s request for comment.
Liberty University has engaged a Chicago-based law firm, Baker Tilly US, to conduct an independent investigation into Falwell’s tenure as president, including accusations of self-dealing. The school’s board said the investigation would look into financial, real estate and legal matters.
Last week, the firm launched a website where Liberty University employees, contractors, and business affiliates can confidentially report evidence of misconduct.
This November 2018 file photo shows Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife, Becki, during a town hall at a convocation at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Advertisement
In August, Falwell told The Washington Post that he was leaving Libeerty because he didn’t want his wife’s conduct to embarrass the school. He also claimed he had been bored and was seeking to move on.
On Thursday, Falwell said the lawsuit was a “necessary” step to restore his reputation and “help repair the damage to the Liberty University brand.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Justice Department Quietly Stalled Investigation Into Tamir Rice Case: Report

The DOJ brought to a halt its probe last year by blocking prosecutors from using a grand jury to investigate , per the Times .
The department has not told Rice ’ s family it wouldn ’ t be bringing charges in the case , which technically remains open on the books , but has not advanced .
A Justice Department official told HuffPost that the case remains under review , and said that Attorney General William Barr never weighed in on the case .
Officer Timothy Loehmann shot Tamir Rice , who was playing with a toy gun in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the scene .
In late 2015 , the county prosecutor announced that a grand jury decided not to charge Loehmann with any crime .
The Justice Department said at the time that it would “ continue our independent review ” of the case — but has been largely silent since .
The Government Accountability Project confirmed Thursday that it had been told last week by the Justice Department inspector general that his office would not be investigating its whistleblower complaint alleging that Tamir Rice ’ s case had been mishandled .
Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge police officers who shoot and kill people because the Justice Department must be able to prove that an officer used excessive force willingly and knew that doing so was wrong .
Proving an officer ’ s intent is a particularly difficult hurdle to overcome , especially when officers know exactly what to say — that they were afraid for their life — to justify a shooting .
Under Trump , the Justice Department has continued bringing individual criminal cases against law enforcement officers when there ’ s extensive evidence of excessive use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims who were already restrained when they were assaulted , and are often brought against corrections officers .
More broadly , the Trump administration has almost entirely ended “ pattern or practice ” investigations that identify systemic issues and routine unconstitutional behavior within local law enforcement agencies .
Under the Obama administration , those types of broad investigations have forced change and helped cities overcome embedded political obstacles standing in the way of police reform .
The unit within the Civil Rights Division that is charged with conducting such investigations has been cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched just one police pattern or practice investigation : a probe of a troubled narcotics unit in the Springfield , Massachusetts , police department that found officers “ repeatedly punch [ ed ] individuals in the face unnecessarily ” and used “ excessive force without accountability.
” As was the case in many police department investigations launched by DOJ during the Obama administration , federal investigators found a number of instances of “ untruthful reporting ” by officers and said it was “ not uncommon for Narcotics Bureau officers to write false or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Justice Department effectively ceased its civil rights investigation into the 2014 police killing of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old Black boy in Cleveland, reported The New York Times.
The DOJ brought to a halt its probe last year by blocking prosecutors from using a grand jury to investigate, per the Times. The department has not told Rice’s family it wouldn’t be bringing charges in the case, which technically remains open on the books, but has not advanced.
Advertisement
A Justice Department official told HuffPost that the case remains under review, and said that Attorney General William Barr never weighed in on the case.
Officer Timothy Loehmann shot Tamir Rice, who was playing with a toy gun in a playground, mere seconds after arriving at the scene. In late 2015, the county prosecutor announced that a grand jury decided not to charge Loehmann with any crime.
The Justice Department said at the time that it would “continue our independent review” of the case — but has been largely silent since.
Subodh Chandra, a lawyer representing the Rice family, told the Times that the federal investigation had been the family’s “last hope for justice.”
Advertisement
The Government Accountability Project confirmed Thursday that it had been told last week by the Justice Department inspector general that his office would not be investigating its whistleblower complaint alleging that Tamir Rice’s case had been mishandled.
EXCLUSIVE: DOJ a year ago quashed its civil-rights investigation into the police killing of Tamir Rice by blocking career prosecutors from using a grand jury -- but has kept it technically open & never told the family it will bring no charges. w/ @ktbenner https://t.co/rhCpGapPRV — Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) October 29, 2020
Federal civil rights laws make it difficult to charge police officers who shoot and kill people because the Justice Department must be able to prove that an officer used excessive force willingly and knew that doing so was wrong. Proving an officer’s intent is a particularly difficult hurdle to overcome, especially when officers know exactly what to say — that they were afraid for their life — to justify a shooting.
Under Trump, the Justice Department has continued bringing individual criminal cases against law enforcement officers when there’s extensive evidence of excessive use of force. Those cases frequently involve victims who were already restrained when they were assaulted, and are often brought against corrections officers.
More broadly, the Trump administration has almost entirely ended “pattern or practice” investigations that identify systemic issues and routine unconstitutional behavior within local law enforcement agencies.
Advertisement
Under the Obama administration, those types of broad investigations have forced change and helped cities overcome embedded political obstacles standing in the way of police reform. The unit within the Civil Rights Division that is charged with conducting such investigations has been cut nearly in half.
The Trump administration launched just one police pattern or practice investigation: a probe of a troubled narcotics unit in the Springfield, Massachusetts, police department that found officers “repeatedly punch[ed] individuals in the face unnecessarily” and used “excessive force without accountability.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Wisconsin Republican Party Says Hackers Stole $2.3 Million

MADISON , Wis. ( AP ) — Hackers stole $ 2.3 million from the Wisconsin Republican Party ’ s account that was being used to help reelect President Donald Trump in the key battleground state , the party ’ s chairman told The Associated Press on Thursday .
The party noticed the suspicious activity on Oct. 22 and contacted the FBI on Friday , said Republican Party Chairman Andrew Hitt .
Hitt said the FBI is investigating .
FBI spokesman Leonard Peace did not immediately return a message seeking comment .
“ There ’ s no doubt RPW is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone , ” Hitt said .
The party and campaign needs money late in the race to make quick decisions , he said .
Hitt said the hackers were able to manipulate invoices from four vendors who were being paid to send out direct mail for Trump ’ s reelection efforts and to provide pro-Trump material such as hats that could be handed out to supporters .
Invoices were altered so when the party paid them , the money went to the hackers instead of the vendors , Hitt said .
Hitt said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phishing attempt .
Trump won Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes in 2016 and it remains a key swing state this year .
Trump planned his third visit to the state in a week on Friday .
Democrat Joe Biden also planned to campaign in Wisconsin on Friday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hackers stole $2.3 million from the Wisconsin Republican Party’s account that was being used to help reelect President Donald Trump in the key battleground state, the party’s chairman told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The party noticed the suspicious activity on Oct. 22 and contacted the FBI on Friday, said Republican Party Chairman Andrew Hitt.
Advertisement
Hitt said the FBI is investigating. FBI spokesman Leonard Peace did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
“There’s no doubt RPW is now at a disadvantage with that money being gone,” Hitt said. The party and campaign needs money late in the race to make quick decisions, he said.
Hitt said the hackers were able to manipulate invoices from four vendors who were being paid to send out direct mail for Trump’s reelection efforts and to provide pro-Trump material such as hats that could be handed out to supporters. Invoices were altered so when the party paid them, the money went to the hackers instead of the vendors, Hitt said.
Hitt said it appears the attack began as a phishing attempt.
Trump won Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes in 2016 and it remains a key swing state this year. Trump planned his third visit to the state in a week on Friday. Democrat Joe Biden also planned to campaign in Wisconsin on Friday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Trump Was Impeached. But It's Not Even A Blip In The Presidential Campaign.

Julio Cortez/Associated Press The issue of Donald Trump 's impeachment has barely come up in the approach to Election Day .
On Dec. 19 , the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
It was just the third time in U.S. history that the chamber had impeached a president .
Yet if you had forgotten this happened , it would be understandable .
It basically hasn ’ t come up at all during the presidential election .
Not a single Democratic presidential campaign ad has mentioned the word “ impeach ” or “ impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee , according to data compiled by Kantar Media/CMAG .
And it ’ s not like Biden has made it a big issue , either .
( The Biden campaign declined to comment for this piece . )
The Trump campaign ran one ad that mentioned impeachment , going after Biden ’ s son , Hunter , and his business in Ukraine and saying Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for talking about it .
When the Trump campaign has discussed it , as first lady Melania Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Democrats for a “ sham impeachment.
” “ Impeachment was never about persuading voters , it was about upholding the rule of law and holding Donald Trump accountable .
You were never going to see it in campaign ads , ” said Shripal Shah , vice president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century .
It may not have been all that effective , either .
While impeachment preoccupied politically involved Americans for months , polls show that after the initial proceedings , it did little to affect dug-in partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic firm Navigator found that 53 % of registered voters believed Trump had committed crimes , with 86 % of Democrats agreeing with that statement , 46 % of independents and 15 % of Republicans .
But those numbers are basically unchanged from November 2019 .
“ Most Americans already believe Trump committed crimes as president so they don ’ t need to be reminded .
But elections are about what ’ s going on in people ’ s lives and , for too many Americans , the crime they ’ re feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to COVID , ” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson , who is on the advisory board of Navgiator .
And in the months since the House impeached Trump ― and since the Senate acquitted him of the charges in February ― the coronavirus pandemic and economic collapse have largely wiped the issue both from campaign rhetoric and voters ’ minds .
But Max Bergmann , director of the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress , argues that just because impeachment isn ’ t turning up in ads now doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bergmann argued that impeachment put the issue of Trump ’ s corruption front and center , “ forcing the public to reckon with his behavior [ and ] further drove home how out of control and corrupt his administration is.
” Impeachment centered around whether , on a July 25 phone call , Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into allegations of wrongdoing by Biden and investigate his son ’ s business dealings , essentially asking a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Zelensky to explore the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine , not Russia , that interfered in the 2016 election .
There is no evidence to support this claim , and U.S. intelligence agencies have stood behind the assertion that Russia was the country involved .
Trump ’ s campaign has been trying to pull off an October surprise , planting last-minute stories in an effort to show that Biden himself was involved in his son ’ s lobbying .
But that effort has failed due to significant questions about the stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal finding no role for the former vice president .
“ By impeaching him over Ukraine and therefore revealing what Trump was up to , ” he said , “ enabled the whole non-scandal to be discredited a year before the election .
”

The issue of Donald Trump's impeachment has barely come up in the approach to Election Day. Julio Cortez/Associated Press
On Dec. 19, the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. It was just the third time in U.S. history that the chamber had impeached a president.
Yet if you had forgotten this happened, it would be understandable. It basically hasn’t come up at all during the presidential election.
Advertisement
Not a single Democratic presidential campaign ad has mentioned the word “impeach” or “impeachment” since mid-April when former Vice President Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to data compiled by Kantar Media/CMAG. And it’s not like Biden has made it a big issue, either. (The Biden campaign declined to comment for this piece.)
The Trump campaign ran one ad that mentioned impeachment, going after Biden’s son, Hunter, and his business in Ukraine and saying Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for talking about it. When the Trump campaign has discussed it, as first lady Melania Trump did recently, it’s to attack Democrats for a “sham impeachment.”
“Impeachment was never about persuading voters, it was about upholding the rule of law and holding Donald Trump accountable. You were never going to see it in campaign ads,” said Shripal Shah, vice president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century.
It may not have been all that effective, either. While impeachment preoccupied politically involved Americans for months, polls show that after the initial proceedings, it did little to affect dug-in partisan views.
Advertisement
An October poll by the Democratic firm Navigator found that 53% of registered voters believed Trump had committed crimes, with 86% of Democrats agreeing with that statement, 46% of independents and 15% of Republicans. But those numbers are basically unchanged from November 2019.
“Most Americans already believe Trump committed crimes as president so they don’t need to be reminded. But elections are about what’s going on in people’s lives and, for too many Americans, the crime they’re feeling now is that of his negligence in response to COVID,” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson, who is on the advisory board of Navgiator.
And in the months since the House impeached Trump ― and since the Senate acquitted him of the charges in February ― the coronavirus pandemic and economic collapse have largely wiped the issue both from campaign rhetoric and voters’ minds.
“Impeachment mattered a great deal and shouldn’t be measured by whether it is being talked about.” - Max Bergmann, Center for American Progress
But Max Bergmann, director of the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress, argues that just because impeachment isn’t turning up in ads now doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthwhile.
Advertisement
“Impeachment mattered a great deal and shouldn’t be measured by whether it is being talked about,” he said.
Bergmann argued that impeachment put the issue of Trump’s corruption front and center, “forcing the public to reckon with his behavior [and] further drove home how out of control and corrupt his administration is.”
Impeachment centered around whether, on a July 25 phone call, Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into allegations of wrongdoing by Biden and investigate his son’s business dealings, essentially asking a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf.
During that same phone call, Trump asked Zelensky to explore the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election. There is no evidence to support this claim, and U.S. intelligence agencies have stood behind the assertion that Russia was the country involved.
Trump’s campaign has been trying to pull off an October surprise, planting last-minute stories in an effort to show that Biden himself was involved in his son’s lobbying. But that effort has failed due to significant questions about the stories’ credibility and a piece by The Wall Street Journal finding no role for the former vice president.
Advertisement
Impeachment, Bergmann said, helped provide context for these controversies and made clear what Trump trying to accomplish with his talk of Hunter Biden’s work.
“By impeaching him over Ukraine and therefore revealing what Trump was up to,” he said, “enabled the whole non-scandal to be discredited a year before the election.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-29--Trump’s Most Effective Lie Has Been The Economy, But It May Have Lost Its Punch

Trump has never had overall favorability ratings in his entire three years and nine months in office , but for most of that time has enjoyed the perception that he was doing a good job handling the economy .
Now , with his election for a second term only days away , just about as many Americans think he is doing a bad job .
“ Reality has caught up with him .
He had a huge lead in terms of people ’ s confidence in him as an economic manager , and he blew it , ” said Justin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor .
“ One issue is that people don ’ t trust what he says anymore .
Another is , well , look around — things are pretty grim , and people know this .
You can ’ t bluster past the reality that people are having their hours cut , millions of families are getting by on one fewer paycheck , and no one feels confident that they know what ’ s coming next.
” That drop in public confidence in his abilities , though , has not stopped Trump boasts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 33.1 GDP , the biggest in the history of our country by almost triple , ” he said Thursday at a Tampa , Florida , rally hours after the release of new gross domestic product numbers .
“ We created the greatest economy in the history of the world , ” he said at a Bullhead City , Arizona , campaign rally Wednesday .
Neither assertion was accurate .
The economy under Trump has not been the greatest in this country , let alone the world , even before the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his campaign are touting is an annualized rate , and does not make up for the productivity declines earlier this year during the pandemic .
Further , the economy now is as weak as it was during the depths of the Great Recession in 2009 .
“ It ’ s the ‘ Big Lie , ’ ” said Anthony Scaramucci , a longtime Trump friend and briefly a top White House aide who is now a critic of the president .
He compared his use of the technique to the infamous Nazi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as Goebbels.
” Trump inherited a moderately strong economy from his predecessor , Barack Obama , which continued on the same basic trajectory for his first three years .
GDP growth was slightly higher in 2018 , thanks to a tax cut that suddenly injected billions into the economy , but fell back to the long-term average of 2 % in 2019 .
Despite this , Trump repeated hundreds of times , on social media and public remarks , that he had transformed what had been a horrible economy under Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , variously , U.S. history or the entire world .
By mid-2019 , economic advisers in his own administration understood this was not true , as they looked for ways to counteract a manufacturing recession caused by Trump ’ s trade war with much of the rest of the world .
They even pushed the idea of a reduction in payroll taxes — which fund Social Security and Medicare — as a way to boost consumer spending .
Voters , though , historically have not had a sophisticated understanding of the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its health to the president who happened to be in office .
Republican George H.W .
Bush was blamed for a recession that was nearly over by the time of his 1992 campaign .
Democrat Bill Clinton was credited with the boom taking place at the time of his 1996 reelection — even though some of the policies that helped create it were passed under his predecessor , Bush .
That principle , Hart said , could wind up helping Democratic nominee Joe Biden , should he win the presidency next week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the economy is almost certain to be doing better by 2022 , in time for his first mid-term elections .
“ In this case , it may be like the 1929 depression , ” Hart said .
“ The voters always blamed Hoover , and Roosevelt got the credit because he cleaned up the mess and was a positive and empathetic leader .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s most frequent and most effective lie, that he had built “the greatest economy in history,” appears to be losing its punch at the worst possible time for him.
Trump has never had overall favorability ratings in his entire three years and nine months in office, but for most of that time has enjoyed the perception that he was doing a good job handling the economy. Now, with his election for a second term only days away, just about as many Americans think he is doing a bad job.
Advertisement
A Gallup poll Thursday found that Trump’s approval for his handling of the economy has fallen to 52%, from a high of 63% just this January.
A CNBC poll this month found his approval on the economy at 47-47, compared to the 51-36 advantage he had two years ago.
“Reality has caught up with him. He had a huge lead in terms of people’s confidence in him as an economic manager, and he blew it,” said Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economics professor. “One issue is that people don’t trust what he says anymore. Another is, well, look around — things are pretty grim, and people know this. You can’t bluster past the reality that people are having their hours cut, millions of families are getting by on one fewer paycheck, and no one feels confident that they know what’s coming next.”
That drop in public confidence in his abilities, though, has not stopped Trump boasts. “Did you see the number today: 33.1 GDP, the biggest in the history of our country by almost triple,” he said Thursday at a Tampa, Florida, rally hours after the release of new gross domestic product numbers. “We created the greatest economy in the history of the world,” he said at a Bullhead City, Arizona, campaign rally Wednesday.
Advertisement
Neither assertion was accurate. The economy under Trump has not been the greatest in this country, let alone the world, even before the pandemic. And the 33% growth figure he and his campaign are touting is an annualized rate, and does not make up for the productivity declines earlier this year during the pandemic. Further, the economy now is as weak as it was during the depths of the Great Recession in 2009.
“It’s the ‘Big Lie,’” said Anthony Scaramucci, a longtime Trump friend and briefly a top White House aide who is now a critic of the president. He compared his use of the technique to the infamous Nazi propaganda minister: “He does it as well as Goebbels.”
President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally outside Raymond James Stadium on Oct. 29 in Tampa. AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Trump inherited a moderately strong economy from his predecessor, Barack Obama, which continued on the same basic trajectory for his first three years. GDP growth was slightly higher in 2018, thanks to a tax cut that suddenly injected billions into the economy, but fell back to the long-term average of 2% in 2019.
Despite this, Trump repeated hundreds of times, on social media and public remarks, that he had transformed what had been a horrible economy under Obama into “the greatest economy” in, variously, U.S. history or the entire world.
Advertisement
By mid-2019, economic advisers in his own administration understood this was not true, as they looked for ways to counteract a manufacturing recession caused by Trump’s trade war with much of the rest of the world. They even pushed the idea of a reduction in payroll taxes — which fund Social Security and Medicare — as a way to boost consumer spending.
Voters, though, historically have not had a sophisticated understanding of the economy and how it works and typically just attributed its health to the president who happened to be in office. Republican George H.W. Bush was blamed for a recession that was nearly over by the time of his 1992 campaign. Democrat Bill Clinton was credited with the boom taking place at the time of his 1996 reelection — even though some of the policies that helped create it were passed under his predecessor, Bush.
“If it is on your watch, you get the upside and the downside,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. “Fair or unfair, that is how it works.”
That principle, Hart said, could wind up helping Democratic nominee Joe Biden, should he win the presidency next week. The pandemic is likely to have receded and the economy is almost certain to be doing better by 2022, in time for his first mid-term elections.
“In this case, it may be like the 1929 depression,” Hart said. “The voters always blamed Hoover, and Roosevelt got the credit because he cleaned up the mess and was a positive and empathetic leader.”