thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Trump Doubles Down On Threats To Strike Iranian Cultural Sites

President Donald Trump doubled down Sunday on his belief that the United States military has the right to target Iranian cultural sites , dismissing concerns from the public and even from his own administration that he would be committing a war crime by doing so .
The threat comes as the president continues escalating tensions with Iran after authorizing a U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general at an airport Friday in Baghdad .
The assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani has led to fury from Iran and unhinged threats of war from Trump .
“ They ’ re allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told White House reporters Sunday on Air Force One .
“ They ’ re allowed to torture and maim our people .
They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people .
And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural site ?
It doesn ’ t work that way.
” The remarks echo Trump ’ s comments a day earlier , when he tweeted that he will attack 52 Iranian sites if the country ’ s government retaliates against the U.S. over Soleimani ’ s death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. might strike , but alleged that some of those sites are cultural sites .
The number of sites is the same as the number of Americans held hostage during the Iranian Revolution takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 .
Many responded to his tweet by reminding him that attacking cultural sites and places of worship are war crimes under international law .
The U.S. is a party to the 1954 Hague Convention , a treaty on international law that protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage to cultural property belonging to any people ever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind.
” “ A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage : Through MILLENNIA of history , barbarians have come and ravaged our cities , razed our monuments and burnt out libraries , ” Zarif tweeted Sunday morning in response to Trump ’ s initial comments .
“ Where are they now ?
We ’ re still here , & standing tall.
” The U.S. was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s destruction of historical sites in Mosul , Iraq , and Palmyra , Syria , and of the Taliban ’ s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan .
Two senior U.S. officials on Sunday told CNN that there was widespread opposition within the Trump administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran if the U.S. retaliates .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told several Sunday shows that the U.S. will launch retaliatory strikes against Iran if attacked , but dodged questions about whether those strikes would hit cultural sites .
Soleimani ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington ’ s relationship with Iran .
The country ’ s leaders have vowed to retaliate against the U.S. over the assassination , and Iran on Sunday officially pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal that prevented them from amassing enough material to create an atomic weapon .
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018 and increased sanctions on Tehran , which escalated tensions that eventually resulted in Soleimani ’ s assassination .
The Trump administration has claimed that the airstrike on Soleimani was necessary because he was planning an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not made any details about the supposed attack public .
Iraq ’ s parliament voted Sunday to expel American forces from the country in response to the U.S. airstrike on Soleimani .
More than 5,000 U.S. troops are still on the ground in Iraq 17 years after the war began .
Trump said the U.S. will not leave Iraq without being paid for its military investments in the country .
He then said that if soldiers do have to leave , the president would put economic sanctions on Baghdad .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve never seen before ever .
It ’ ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame , ” he told reporters Sunday .
“ If there ’ s any hostility , that they do anything we think is inappropriate , we are going to put sanctions on Iraq , very big sanctions on Iraq .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump doubled down Sunday on his belief that the United States military has the right to target Iranian cultural sites, dismissing concerns from the public and even from his own administration that he would be committing a war crime by doing so.
The threat comes as the president continues escalating tensions with Iran after authorizing a U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general at an airport Friday in Baghdad. The assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani has led to fury from Iran and unhinged threats of war from Trump.
Advertisement
“They’re allowed to kill our people,” Trump told White House reporters Sunday on Air Force One. “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
Trump defends his cultural site threat: “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. they’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site?. It doesn’t work that way.” — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 6, 2020
The remarks echo Trump’s comments a day earlier, when he tweeted that he will attack 52 Iranian sites if the country’s government retaliates against the U.S. over Soleimani’s death. The president did not say which places the U.S. might strike, but alleged that some of those sites are cultural sites. The number of sites is the same as the number of Americans held hostage during the Iranian Revolution takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Many responded to his tweet by reminding him that attacking cultural sites and places of worship are war crimes under international law. The U.S. is a party to the 1954 Hague Convention, a treaty on international law that protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Signatories adopted the treaty because “damage to cultural property belonging to any people ever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind.”
Advertisement
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hit back at Trump by comparing his threats to that of terrorists who have also destroyed cultural sites.
“A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage: Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt out libraries,” Zarif tweeted Sunday morning in response to Trump’s initial comments. “Where are they now? We’re still here, & standing tall.”
A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage:
Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt our libraries.
Where are they now?
We’re still here, & standing tall. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 5, 2020
Two senior U.S. officials on Sunday told CNN that there was widespread opposition within the Trump administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran if the U.S. retaliates. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told several Sunday shows that the U.S. will launch retaliatory strikes against Iran if attacked, but dodged questions about whether those strikes would hit cultural sites.
Advertisement
“We’ll behave lawfully. We’ll behave inside the system,” Pompeo told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”
NEW: @GStephanopoulos presses Sec. of State Mike Pomepo on Trump's tweet warning cultural sites could be targeted if Iran retaliates: "Why is the president threatening Iran with war crimes?"
Pompeo: "We'll behave lawfully. We'll behave inside the system." https://t.co/YGK7RRbV73 pic.twitter.com/Qg2s6B6lGE — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 5, 2020
Soleimani’s death also marks a massive shift in Washington’s relationship with Iran. The country’s leaders have vowed to retaliate against the U.S. over the assassination, and Iran on Sunday officially pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal that prevented them from amassing enough material to create an atomic weapon. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018 and increased sanctions on Tehran, which escalated tensions that eventually resulted in Soleimani’s assassination.
The Trump administration has claimed that the airstrike on Soleimani was necessary because he was planning an imminent attack, though the White House has not made any details about the supposed attack public.
Advertisement
Iraq’s parliament voted Sunday to expel American forces from the country in response to the U.S. airstrike on Soleimani. More than 5,000 U.S. troops are still on the ground in Iraq 17 years after the war began.
Trump said the U.S. will not leave Iraq without being paid for its military investments in the country. He then said that if soldiers do have to leave, the president would put economic sanctions on Baghdad.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-05--Trump Notifies Congress Via Tweet Of Potential 'Disproportionate' Retaliation Against Iran

President Donald Trump on Sunday used his personal Twitter account to notify Congress of his plans to retaliate “ perhaps in a disproportionate manner ” if Iran retaliates against any American person or asset .
“ These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target , the United States will quickly & fully strike back , & perhaps in a disproportionate manner , ” Trump tweeted on Sunday afternoon .
“ Such legal notice is not required , but is given nevertheless !
” The president appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 , a federal law that checks the president ’ s power and that Democratic lawmakers have called for him to abide by after the unprecedented assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , a high-ranking Iranian military official .
The House Foreign Affairs Committee sarcastically responded to the tweet , saying , “ This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution .
And that you should read the War Powers Act .
And that you ’ re not a dictator.
” After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of transparency , the White House delivered a formal notification of the drone strike to Congress on Saturday .
The War Powers Act of 1973 requires that the president report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing military forces into armed conflict abroad .
Those reports usually include details on the administration ’ s reasoning for intervention , as well as its constitutional and legislative justification to send troops overseas .
Trump ’ s report was entirely classified .
“ This classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress raises more questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) said in a statement .
“ This document prompts serious and urgent questions about the timing , manner and justification of the Administration ’ s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran .
The highly unusual decision to classify this document ... suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security.
” Trump ’ s tweet Sunday came shortly after Iran said it would no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created in order to block Tehran from having enough material to make an atomic weapon .
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians walked alongside a casket carrying Soleimani ’ s remains on Sunday , and Iraq ’ s parliament voted to oust foreign troops — a decision directed at the U.S. — in response to the assassination .
On Saturday , Trump used Twitter to again threaten violence against Iran , saying he will attack 52 unnamed Iranian sites ( some of which he claimed are of cultural importance ) if the Iranian government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many responded to the threat on Twitter by reminding the president that attacking cultural sites and places of worship is a war crime , according to rules established by the Geneva Convention .
People called on Twitter founder Jack Dorsey to do something about the president ’ s tweet , saying they ’ re concerned about the company allowing Trump to threaten war with Iran through its platform .
A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment on Trump ’ s tweet , but referred HuffPost to a blog post about the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter , and another about making exceptions for controversial tweets in the name of public interest .
Wow .
Trump is quite literally using Twitter as a way to declare war on Iran without even notifying Congress through official means .
Never before in the history of the United States has any President been this unhinged and disrespectful of our Constitution .
— Eugene Gu , MD ( @ eugenegu ) January 5 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Sunday used his personal Twitter account to notify Congress of his plans to retaliate “perhaps in a disproportionate manner” if Iran retaliates against any American person or asset.
“These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” Trump tweeted on Sunday afternoon. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”
Advertisement
The president appeared to be mocking the War Powers Act of 1973, a federal law that checks the president’s power and that Democratic lawmakers have called for him to abide by after the unprecedented assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a high-ranking Iranian military official.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee sarcastically responded to the tweet, saying, “This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator.”
This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator. https://t.co/VTroMegWv0 — House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 5, 2020
Advertisement
After Democrats slammed the Trump administration for its lack of transparency, the White House delivered a formal notification of the drone strike to Congress on Saturday. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires that the president report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing military forces into armed conflict abroad. Those reports usually include details on the administration’s reasoning for intervention, as well as its constitutional and legislative justification to send troops overseas. Trump’s report was entirely classified.
“This classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress raises more questions than it does answers,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “This document prompts serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran. The highly unusual decision to classify this document ... suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security.”
Trump’s tweet Sunday came shortly after Iran said it would no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal with major world powers, ending an agreement created in order to block Tehran from having enough material to make an atomic weapon.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians walked alongside a casket carrying Soleimani’s remains on Sunday, and Iraq’s parliament voted to oust foreign troops — a decision directed at the U.S. — in response to the assassination.
Advertisement
On Saturday, Trump used Twitter to again threaten violence against Iran, saying he will attack 52 unnamed Iranian sites (some of which he claimed are of cultural importance) if the Iranian government retaliates over Soleimani’s death. Many responded to the threat on Twitter by reminding the president that attacking cultural sites and places of worship is a war crime, according to rules established by the Geneva Convention.
People called on Twitter founder Jack Dorsey to do something about the president’s tweet, saying they’re concerned about the company allowing Trump to threaten war with Iran through its platform.
A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment on Trump’s tweet, but referred HuffPost to a blog post about the company’s approach to world leaders’ behavior on Twitter, and another about making exceptions for controversial tweets in the name of public interest.
Wow. Trump is quite literally using Twitter as a way to declare war on Iran without even notifying Congress through official means. Never before in the history of the United States has any President been this unhinged and disrespectful of our Constitution. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) January 5, 2020
Please read the Constitution.
Sincerely,
A concerned young American — David Hogg text VOTE to 954-954 (@davidhogg111) January 5, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-05--Lindsey Graham Rips 'Racist' Colin Kaepernick For Criticizing Soleimani 'Terrorist' Hit

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) called Colin Kaepernick a “ racist ” after the activist and former NFL quarterback criticized America ’ s airstrike assassination of Iran ’ s top commander .
“ He ’ s a loser on and off the field , ” Graham said of Kaepernick in an interview on “ Sunday Morning Futures ” on Fox News .
“ It ’ s un-American .
He ’ s a racist .
If you ’ re looking for racism in America , Mr. Kaepernick , look in the mirror.
” In a tweet Saturday , Kaepernick described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani in Baghdad as part of a pattern of “ American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism.
” Kaepernick became a target of relentless criticism by President Donald Trump for taking a knee during the national anthem before football games to protest police brutality and systemic racism in America .
There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism .
— Colin Kaepernick ( @ Kaepernick7 ) January 4 , 2020 America has always sanctioned and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and abroad .
America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism , to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world .
— Colin Kaepernick ( @ Kaepernick7 ) January 4 , 2020 “ AOC doesn ’ t know anything about the law of armed conflict , obviously , ” Graham insisted on Fox .
This is a war crime .
Threatening to target and kill innocent families , women and children - which is what you ’ re doing by targeting cultural sites - does not make you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not make you “ strategic.
” It makes you a monster .
https : //t.co/IjkNO8BD07 — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( @ AOC ) January 5 , 2020 In fact , deliberately targeting cultural sites , or the civilians gathered there , would be a war crime , according to several experts , including a former deputy general counsel of the Department of Defense : WAR CRIME '' Making the clearly-recognized historic monuments , works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples ... the object of attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : U.S. Department of Defense , Law of War Manual , 5.18 ) pic.twitter.com/yqKLA6JHbY — Ryan Goodman ( @ rgoodlaw ) January 4 , 2020 Someone better let the President know he 's threatening war crimes .
- 52 sites for purely symbolic reasons would be a war crime .
- Striking cultural sites without military necessity would be a war crime - Striking in revenge is a war crime - Targeting civilians is a war crime — Tom Nichols ( @ RadioFreeTom ) January 4 , 2020 Returning Fox News host Megyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Everything is racist .
Everything , ” she wrote sarcastically .
“ Even fighting back against terrorists who kill Americans .
Nike , feeling proud ?
” Kaepernick was the face of Nike ’ s 30th anniversary “ Just Do It ” advertising campaign .
Filmmaker Ava DuVernay — the first Black woman to be nominated for a Best Director Golden Globe award for “ Selma ” — snapped back in a tweet to Kelly : “ Educate yourself before you talk about racism and legitimate claims .
You sound like what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And desperate.
” You should be ashamed .
Educate yourself before you talk about racism and legitimate claims .
You sound like what you are .
Ignorant .
Attention seeking .
And desperate .
That will be all .
— Ava DuVernay ( @ ava ) January 5 , 2020 NBC fired Kelly in 2018 after she defended blackface during an episode of her morning show on the network .
Kelly later apologized for her comments .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Colin Kaepernick a “racist” after the activist and former NFL quarterback criticized America’s airstrike assassination of Iran’s top commander.
“He’s a loser on and off the field,” Graham said of Kaepernick in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News. “It’s un-American. He’s a racist. If you’re looking for racism in America, Mr. Kaepernick, look in the mirror.”
Advertisement
In a tweet Saturday, Kaepernick described the hit on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad as part of a pattern of “American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism.” Kaepernick became a target of relentless criticism by President Donald Trump for taking a knee during the national anthem before football games to protest police brutality and systemic racism in America.
There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism. — Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) January 4, 2020
America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world. — Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) January 4, 2020
Advertisement
“AOC doesn’t know anything about the law of armed conflict, obviously,” Graham insisted on Fox.
This is a war crime.
Threatening to target and kill innocent families, women and children - which is what you’re doing by targeting cultural sites - does not make you a “tough guy.”
It does not make you “strategic.”
It makes you a monster. https://t.co/IjkNO8BD07 — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 5, 2020
In fact, deliberately targeting cultural sites, or the civilians gathered there, would be a war crime, according to several experts, including a former deputy general counsel of the Department of Defense:
WAR CRIME
"Making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples ... the object of attack"
Geneva Convention Protocol I
(also: U.S. Department of Defense, Law of War Manual, 5.18) pic.twitter.com/yqKLA6JHbY — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) January 4, 2020
Someone better let the President know he's threatening war crimes.
- 52 sites for purely symbolic reasons would be a war crime.
- Striking cultural sites without military necessity would be a war crime
- Striking in revenge is a war crime
- Targeting civilians is a war crime — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 4, 2020
Returning Fox News host Megyn Kelly also mocked Kaepernick on Twitter. “Everything is racist. Everything,” she wrote sarcastically. “Even fighting back against terrorists who kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud?”
Advertisement
Kaepernick was the face of Nike’s 30th anniversary “Just Do It” advertising campaign.
Because everything is racist. Everything. Even fighting back against terrorists who kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud? https://t.co/sfc1Yz3phY — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 4, 2020
Filmmaker Ava DuVernay — the first Black woman to be nominated for a Best Director Golden Globe award for “Selma” — snapped back in a tweet to Kelly: “Educate yourself before you talk about racism and legitimate claims. You sound like what you are. Ignorant. Attention seeking. And desperate.”
You should be ashamed. Educate yourself before you talk about racism and legitimate claims. You sound like what you are. Ignorant. Attention seeking. And desperate.
That will be all. — Ava DuVernay (@ava) January 5, 2020
NBC fired Kelly in 2018 after she defended blackface during an episode of her morning show on the network. Kelly later apologized for her comments.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-05--CBP Denies Reports Of Iranian-Americans Detained At Ports Of Entry

As tensions between the United States and Iran escalate , U.S. Customs and Border Protection is denying reports that the agency has refused entry to some Iranian-Americans and detained others .
“ Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false , ” Michael Friel , a spokesperson for CBP , told HuffPost in a statement .
“ Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false.
” The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it ’ s heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had traveled from Canada into the U.S. CAIR said individuals were “ detained at length and questioned ... about their political views and allegiances.
” “ These reports are extremely troubling and potentially constitute illegal detentions of United States citizens , ” Masih Fouladi , executive director of CAIR-WA , said in a statement .
“ We are working to verify reports of a broad nationwide directive to detain Iranian-Americans at ports of entry so that we can provide community members with accurate travel guidance.
” CBP has increased its presence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent days , and wait times at the port of entry in Blaine , Washington , jumped to about two hours on Saturday night , with some travelers waiting for up to four hours to enter the U.S. Washington Lt. Gov .
Cyrus Habib ( D ) wrote on Twitter Sunday that his office has also received reports of Iranian-Americans struggling to enter the United States at the Canadian border .
He said officials are “ working to help those being affected ” and gathering more information about the claims .
Other state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard of the reports and were actively seeking more information .
Our office is receiving reports of Iranian Americans being held up at the Canada-WA border .
We are working to help those being affected & gathering info .
If you have firsthand information about this , or if you need assistance , please contact our office at Ltgov @ ltgov.wa.gov .
— Lt. Gov .
Cyrus Habib ( @ waltgov ) January 5 , 2020 The reports add to international concerns about the dramatic rise in tensions after President Donald Trump ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Qassem Suleimani , one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East , in an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq .
Iran on Sunday ended its remaining commitments to limit nuclear fuel production as part of its landmark nuclear deal .
Iran has also vowed to respond to the airstrike in a “ crushing and powerful manner , ” although it ’ s not clear what form such retaliation might take .
Trump has continued to ratchet up his own hard-line rhetoric .
On Sunday , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iran it is willing to strike , including cultural landmarks , in a warning to the country not to attack American assets .
A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage : Through MILLENNIA of history , barbarians have come and ravaged our cities , razed our monuments and burnt our libraries .
Where are they now ?
We ’ re still here , & standing tall .
— Javad Zarif ( @ JZarif ) January 5 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As tensions between the United States and Iran escalate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is denying reports that the agency has refused entry to some Iranian-Americans and detained others.
“Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false,” Michael Friel, a spokesperson for CBP, told HuffPost in a statement. “Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false.”
Advertisement
The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it’s heard from more than 60 Iranians and Iranian-Americans who had traveled from Canada into the U.S. CAIR said individuals were “detained at length and questioned ... about their political views and allegiances.”
“These reports are extremely troubling and potentially constitute illegal detentions of United States citizens,” Masih Fouladi, executive director of CAIR-WA, said in a statement. “We are working to verify reports of a broad nationwide directive to detain Iranian-Americans at ports of entry so that we can provide community members with accurate travel guidance.”
CBP has increased its presence at ports of entry around the country in recent days, and wait times at the port of entry in Blaine, Washington, jumped to about two hours on Saturday night, with some travelers waiting for up to four hours to enter the U.S.
HuffPost has not independently confirmed reports of any detentions.
⚠BREAKING: CAIR Washington Assisting Iranian-Americans Detained at U.S. Border - Over 60 Iranians, Iranian-Americans detained at Blaine, WA border crossing.
READ OUR PRESS RELEASE: https://t.co/cvfq73Sdfy — CAIR Washington (@cair_wa) January 5, 2020
Advertisement
Washington Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib (D) wrote on Twitter Sunday that his office has also received reports of Iranian-Americans struggling to enter the United States at the Canadian border. He said officials are “working to help those being affected” and gathering more information about the claims. Other state lawmakers said they, too, had heard of the reports and were actively seeking more information.
Our office is receiving reports of Iranian Americans being held up at the Canada-WA border. We are working to help those being affected & gathering info. If you have firsthand information about this, or if you need assistance, please contact our office at Ltgov@ltgov.wa.gov. — Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib (@waltgov) January 5, 2020
We have heard reports of Iranian American citizens being detained at the Blaine border crossing. — Rep. Suzan DelBene (@RepDelBene) January 5, 2020
I am actively working to get more information on the reports of Americans and lawful permanent residents of Iranian descent being detained by CBP, including at the Canadian-U.S. border in Washington. — Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) January 5, 2020
The reports add to international concerns about the dramatic rise in tensions after President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iran’s Maj. General Qassem Suleimani, one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East, in an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq.
Advertisement
Iran on Sunday ended its remaining commitments to limit nuclear fuel production as part of its landmark nuclear deal. Iran has also vowed to respond to the airstrike in a “crushing and powerful manner,” although it’s not clear what form such retaliation might take.
Trump has continued to ratchet up his own hard-line rhetoric. On Sunday, he said the U.S. has selected 52 important sites in Iran it is willing to strike, including cultural landmarks, in a warning to the country not to attack American assets.
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, responded with fury, saying targeting cultural sites would amount to a “war crime.” Doing so is against international law.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-05--Elizabeth Warren Questions Timing Of Soleimani Killing Amid Trump's Impeachment

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
is skeptical of President Donald Trump ’ s decision to kill top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike in Baghdad last week , saying it ’ s only reasonable to ask , “ why now ?
” “ The question we have to focus on is why now , why not a month ago , why not a month from now ?
” the presidential candidate told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper on Sunday .
“ The answer from the administration seems to be they can ’ t keep their stories straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing to the White House ’ s varied explanations for the assassination .
Elizabeth Warren on the Qasem Soleimani strike : `` I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now ?
Why not a month ago and why not a month from now ?
And the answer from the administration seems to be that they ca n't keep their story straight on this . ''
# CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/bEcDAEf5Bi — CNN ( @ CNN ) January 5 , 2020 “ We heard that it was for an imminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no , it was to prevent any kind of future attack , then we heard from the vice president himself that it was related to 9/11 , ” she said .
Warren added that Trump has a record of making decisions as president that favor his own political agenda , citing the pressure he put on Ukraine ’ s president last summer to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden as an example .
Trump ’ s communications with the Ukrainian president led to his impeachment in the House in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looming , Warren said it ’ s reasonable to question whether Trump ’ s decision to kill Soleimani now was meant as a distraction .
His death , she argued , doesn ’ t make the U.S. any safer but instead “ moves us closer to war.
” Supporters of Lebanon 's Iran-allied Hezbollah movement on Sunday hold banners vowing for revenge for the death of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , asked the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace on Sunday , defended the White House ’ s decision , saying Soleimani was “ actively engaged in plotting against American interest.
” “ I think any reasonable person who saw the intelligence that the senior American leaders had in their possession would have come to the same conclusion that President Trump and our leadership team did about the fact that there would have been more risk to America , more risk through inaction than there was through the action that we took , ” he said .
Pressing back , Wallace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said there was no threat of an imminent attack and though Soleimani “ was doing bad things ... it was another day in the Middle East.
” “ Don ’ t the American people have the right to have some understanding of what it was , why it was urgent to take out Soleimani now ?
” Wallace said .
“ We ’ ll do everything we can to share this with the American people but I think the American people understand too that there ’ s certain things that you just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Pompeo replied .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is skeptical of President Donald Trump’s decision to kill top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike in Baghdad last week, saying it’s only reasonable to ask, “why now?”
“The question we have to focus on is why now, why not a month ago, why not a month from now?” the presidential candidate told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.
Advertisement
“The answer from the administration seems to be they can’t keep their stories straight on this,” she said, pointing to the White House’s varied explanations for the assassination.
Elizabeth Warren on the Qasem Soleimani strike: "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now? And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this." #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/bEcDAEf5Bi — CNN (@CNN) January 5, 2020
“We heard that it was for an imminent attack, then we heard, no no, it was to prevent any kind of future attack, then we heard from the vice president himself that it was related to 9/11,” she said.
Warren added that Trump has a record of making decisions as president that favor his own political agenda, citing the pressure he put on Ukraine’s president last summer to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden as an example. Trump’s communications with the Ukrainian president led to his impeachment in the House in late December. With his Senate impeachment trial looming, Warren said it’s reasonable to question whether Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani now was meant as a distraction.
Advertisement
His death, she argued, doesn’t make the U.S. any safer but instead “moves us closer to war.”
Supporters of Lebanon's Iran-allied Hezbollah movement on Sunday hold banners vowing for revenge for the death of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. picture alliance via Getty Images
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, asked the same timing question by Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday, defended the White House’s decision, saying Soleimani was “actively engaged in plotting against American interest.”
“I think any reasonable person who saw the intelligence that the senior American leaders had in their possession would have come to the same conclusion that President Trump and our leadership team did about the fact that there would have been more risk to America, more risk through inaction than there was through the action that we took,” he said.
Demonstrators in New Delhi on Sunday, protesting the killing of Soleimani. Hindustan Times via Getty Images
Pressing back, Wallace pointed out that some U.S. intelligence agents have said there was no threat of an imminent attack and though Soleimani “was doing bad things ... it was another day in the Middle East.”
Advertisement
“Don’t the American people have the right to have some understanding of what it was, why it was urgent to take out Soleimani now?” Wallace said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Trump Administration Quietly Goes After Disability Benefits

Under the proposed change , the government would look more closely at whether certain disability insurance recipients still qualify as “ disabled ” after they ’ ve already been awarded those benefits .
While recipients already have to demonstrate their continuing disability every few years , the proposal would ramp up the examinations , potentially running still-eligible beneficiaries out of the program .
It ’ s just one of several unilateral moves the Trump administration has made against social programs that make it easier for people to survive without labor market income .
The proposals may save the government a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political message that President Trump is cracking down on the “ takers ” Republicans have vilified for decades .
Democrats and disability advocates said the proposed new regulation would only hurt disabled people , that it hasn ’ t been vetted and that the rule-making process should be delayed .
More than 8 million Americans receive disability benefits based on past employment and a loss of wage income due to the onset of a severe disability .
“ We are concerned that under the proposed rule , some individuals subject to review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process and , as a result , lose their benefits even though there is no medical improvement , ” a group of House and Senate Democrats led by Rep. Richard Neal ( D-Mass . )
said in a December letter .
The administration , for its part , is making only a halfhearted argument that ramping up medical reviews to kick people off disability benefits is actually going to help them .
“ We believe that there may be positive employment effects as a result of these proposed rules , although we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security Administration said in its notice of proposed rule-making .
“ If they haven ’ t improved enough to go back to self-supporting work then they probably should still be eligible for benefits , ” Kathleen Romig , a senior policy analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , said in an interview .
The regulation could affect hundreds of thousands of SSDI and Supplemental Security Income recipients , Romig said , potentially ending benefits for tens of thousands .
The administration didn ’ t estimate how many would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would save $ 2 billion over a decade .
The rule would not take effect until sometime after the administration releases a final version , for which no date has been set ― and as with other regulations the administration has issued without input from Congress , a lawsuit could stop it .
Social Security disability benefits are not easy to get , and most applications are denied .
Once an application is approved , the government conducts “ continuing disability reviews ” every so often to make sure the beneficiary still can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviews occur depends on whether the applicant ’ s chance of medical improvement gets classified as expected , possible , or not expected .
The draft rule would add a new category : medical improvement likely , as in likelier than possible , but not as likely as expected .
Reviews would occur “ approximately every two years , ” as opposed to within 18 months for people with expected medical improvement and within 3 years for those with possible improvement .
Overall , according to the administration , there would be 2.6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase , at an anticipated cost of $ 1.8 billion ― almost wiping out the $ 2 billion worth of savings on benefits .
For the new category , the regulation specifically targets older disabled workers who didn ’ t win benefits strictly because of their disabilities , but also because they were lower-skilled and unlikely to be able to succeed in some new occupation .
Conservatives have complained about the so-called “ medical-vocational grid ” that the Social Security Administration uses to award benefits to people whose impairments are less severe but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the labor market .
Mark Warshawsky , a Trump-appointed Social Security commissioner for retirement and disability policy , argued in a 2015 paper he co-authored that “ the grid ’ s guidelines make it easier to award SSDI benefits to middle-aged and older workers , unskilled workers , and non-English-speakers , and should be eliminated and replaced with a simpler , fairer , and more uniform system for determining eligibility.
” In a formal comment letter this week , the National Organization of Social Security Claimants ’ Representatives cited research showing that most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on to earn much money in the ensuing five years because they are too disabled .
The letter also noted that the administration itself admitted it could not quantify any beneficial employment effects .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Some Americans could lose Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under a recent Trump administration proposal ― a change that could affect thousands of people but that has received little attention since it was first floated in November.
Under the proposed change, the government would look more closely at whether certain disability insurance recipients still qualify as “disabled” after they’ve already been awarded those benefits. While recipients already have to demonstrate their continuing disability every few years, the proposal would ramp up the examinations, potentially running still-eligible beneficiaries out of the program.
Advertisement
The extra reviews will help “maintain appropriate stewardship of the disability program,” the administration said in the proposal, arguing current rules fail to account fully for the possibility of medical improvement.
It’s just one of several unilateral moves the Trump administration has made against social programs that make it easier for people to survive without labor market income. The proposals may save the government a few dollars, but they also send a political message that President Trump is cracking down on the “takers” Republicans have vilified for decades.
Democrats and disability advocates said the proposed new regulation would only hurt disabled people, that it hasn’t been vetted and that the rule-making process should be delayed. More than 8 million Americans receive disability benefits based on past employment and a loss of wage income due to the onset of a severe disability.
“We are concerned that under the proposed rule, some individuals subject to review will be simply unable to navigate the process and, as a result, lose their benefits even though there is no medical improvement,” a group of House and Senate Democrats led by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a December letter.
Advertisement
The administration, for its part, is making only a halfhearted argument that ramping up medical reviews to kick people off disability benefits is actually going to help them. “We believe that there may be positive employment effects as a result of these proposed rules, although we cannot currently quantify them,” the Social Security Administration said in its notice of proposed rule-making.
“If they haven’t improved enough to go back to self-supporting work then they probably should still be eligible for benefits,” Kathleen Romig, a senior policy analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in an interview.
The regulation could affect hundreds of thousands of SSDI and Supplemental Security Income recipients, Romig said, potentially ending benefits for tens of thousands. The administration didn’t estimate how many would lose benefits, but said the proposal would save $2.6 billion over a decade.
“We believe that there may be positive employment effects as a result of these proposed rules, although we cannot currently quantify them.” - Social Security Administration
The rule would not take effect until sometime after the administration releases a final version, for which no date has been set ― and as with other regulations the administration has issued without input from Congress, a lawsuit could stop it.
Advertisement
Social Security disability benefits are not easy to get, and most applications are denied. Once an application is approved, the government conducts “continuing disability reviews” every so often to make sure the beneficiary still can’t work. How often the reviews occur depends on whether the applicant’s chance of medical improvement gets classified as expected, possible, or not expected.
The draft rule would add a new category: medical improvement likely, as in likelier than possible, but not as likely as expected. Reviews would occur “approximately every two years,” as opposed to within 18 months for people with expected medical improvement and within 3 years for those with possible improvement. Overall, according to the administration, there would be 2.6 million more reviews, an 18% increase, at an anticipated cost of $1.8 billion ― almost wiping out the $2.6 billion worth of savings on benefits.
For the new category, the regulation specifically targets older disabled workers who didn’t win benefits strictly because of their disabilities, but also because they were lower-skilled and unlikely to be able to succeed in some new occupation.
Conservatives have complained about the so-called “medical-vocational grid” that the Social Security Administration uses to award benefits to people whose impairments are less severe but who nonetheless have virtually no place in the labor market.
Mark Warshawsky, a Trump-appointed Social Security commissioner for retirement and disability policy, argued in a 2015 paper he co-authored that “the grid’s guidelines make it easier to award SSDI benefits to middle-aged and older workers, unskilled workers, and non-English-speakers, and should be eliminated and replaced with a simpler, fairer, and more uniform system for determining eligibility.”
Advertisement
In a formal comment letter this week, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives cited research showing that most people whose benefits are terminated do not go on to earn much money in the ensuing five years because they are too disabled. The letter also noted that the administration itself admitted it could not quantify any beneficial employment effects.
“The proposed rule relies on mere guesses or wishes to justify a change that evidence shows to be harmful,” NOSSCR director Barbara Silverstone wrote. “This is not just arbitrary and capricious, but callous and malicious.”
The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request for comment. The White House declined to comment.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story reported that the administration said the proposal would save $2 billion, rather than $2.6 billion.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Mitch McConnell Unites Republicans On Impeachment Trial Rules

Three witnesses were subpoenaed during the Clinton trial , though senators viewed their depositions behind closed doors on videotape .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) has so far refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate and did not answer questions on Tuesday upon entering the Capitol about whether she intended to transmit them to the upper chamber .
McConnell has said he can not begin the trial without the articles .
Democrats argued on Tuesday that Pelosi ’ s gambit had at the very least succeeded in focusing the public ’ s attention toward their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the trial , signaling they may also be ready for the proceedings to begin .
“ I have great faith in the decision she will make , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said at a press conference on Capitol Hill .
“ I think she ’ s done a very , very good job , and it ’ s helped our case.
” Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
said Bolton ’ s offer to testify and new documents that recently came to light about Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to make it “ harder and harder for Republicans to justify opposition to allowing witnesses.
” “ If you want to pattern this after the Clinton trial , remember , in that [ trial ] , there were witnesses , ” he said .
This article has been updated with quotes from McConnell , Schumer and Van Hollen .
CORRECTION : President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial began in January 1999 .
That ’ s 21 years ago ― not 20 years , as the story previously said .

Three witnesses were subpoenaed during the Clinton trial, though senators viewed their depositions behind closed doors on videotape.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate and did not answer questions on Tuesday upon entering the Capitol about whether she intended to transmit them to the upper chamber. McConnell has said he cannot begin the trial without the articles.
Democrats argued on Tuesday that Pelosi’s gambit had at the very least succeeded in focusing the public’s attention toward their efforts at making sure witnesses are heard in the trial, signaling they may also be ready for the proceedings to begin.
“I have great faith in the decision she will make,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I think she’s done a very, very good job, and it’s helped our case.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Bolton’s offer to testify and new documents that recently came to light about Trump’s pressure campaign toward Ukraine are going to make it “harder and harder for Republicans to justify opposition to allowing witnesses.”
“If you want to pattern this after the Clinton trial, remember, in that [trial], there were witnesses,” he said.
This article has been updated with quotes from McConnell, Schumer and Van Hollen.
CORRECTION: President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial began in January 1999. That’s 21 years ago ― not 20 years, as the story previously said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Pete Buttigieg Fails To Secure Delegates In Illinois’ Most Diverse Districts

Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign filled less than half of the delegate slots for the four most diverse congressional districts in Illinois , a sign of how his campaign continues to struggle with Black and Latino voters .
Voters in Illinois cast ballots not only for their pick for president , but also for delegates to the Democratic National Convention .
Delegates are generally associated with one of the presidential campaigns , meaning each campaign needs to find 101 people willing to serve as a delegate — at least three in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts , with additional delegates in more heavily Democratic districts .
Finding a person to fill each slot — and collecting the 500 signatures necessary to put them on the ballot — is considered an early test of a campaign ’ s strength in the delegate-rich state , and supporters of Buttigieg ’ s rivals said his failure to fill the slots points to a potentially fatal weakness with voters of color .
The three leading Democratic candidates in national polling all filled an overwhelming majority of slots .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available slot , while former Vice President Joe Biden filled all but three slots .
Buttigieg , who trails the other three candidates in national polling but is a top contender in the early voting state of Iowa , filled just 53 of the slots .
Two lower-profile candidates , Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and entrepreneur Andrew Yang , both filled more than 60 slots .
Buttigieg ’ s missing delegates are concentrated in the state ’ s most diverse congressional districts , according to an analysis of candidate data files from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has two majority-Black districts : The 1st , represented by Rep. Bobby Rush , and the 2nd , represented by Rep. Robin Kelly .
Buttigieg filled zero of the eight slots in the 1st District , and just four of seven slots in the 2nd District .
In the 7th District , which is plurality Black and represented by Rep. Danny Davis , Buttigieg filled six of eight slots .
( Of the four delegates in the 7th District , the Buttigieg campaign said two are Black and two are Hispanic . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 109 people to run for slate positions , some of whom failed to collect the signatures necessary to make the ballot .
Of those 109 , the Buttigieg campaign said , half are women , one-fifth are Black , 15 % are Latino , 18 % are LGBT and nearly a third are under 30 .
“ We are proud of our volunteers ’ hard work to collect more than 6,000 signatures and put Pete on the ballot to ensure he is eligible to earn the maximum number of delegates in every congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sean Savett said .
“ The delegate petitioning process is onerous and complex , especially for those new to the political process .
We ’ re glad we ’ re bringing in so many fresh faces who have never run for delegate before or been to a convention .
Our campaign will have a diverse slate of delegates on the ballot in March , and we will continue to build a group of Illinoisans to serve as delegates for Pete that is reflective of the diversity of our country.
” Buttigieg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in majority-minority parts of a state where his campaign is partially headquartered is likely to generate further questions about his ability to attract enough support from Black and Latino voters to win the nomination ― and if he has the ability to motivate enough turnout from voters of color to defeat President Donald Trump in November .
“ No Democrat wins the White House without significant support from the Black community , the Latino community and young people , ” said Chicago Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa , a Sanders supporter .
“ I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Black and Latino communities , and I ’ m not sure he knows how to connect .
It means he would have a very difficult time beating Trump.
” Finding sufficient delegates in Illinois and placing them on the ballot is a famously labor-intensive process for presidential candidates of both parties .
Ultimately , candidates pay little electoral price for failing to do so : If a candidate receives 15 % of the vote in a given district , the state Democratic party will assign delegates to them after the primary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Michael Bloomberg and businessman Tom Steyer , for instance , did not field any delegates .
Buttigieg ’ s struggles with voters of color are well-documented , and date back to his earliest days as mayor .
In a CNN poll conducted in mid-December , for instance , 8 % of Democrats nationally said they planned on backing Buttigieg in the primary , but only 2 % of nonwhite Democrats did .
A late November poll from Victory Research , however , did find stronger support for Buttigieg among voters of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only candidate in the sprawling 2020 Democratic presidential field who has struggled with ballot qualification .
Yang failed to make the ballot in Ohio because of a bureaucratic error by his campaign , and his supporters have now launched a write-in effort , Biden is reportedly struggling to make the ballot in Indiana , and former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick failed to collect enough signatures for the ballot in Michigan .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign filled less than half of the delegate slots for the four most diverse congressional districts in Illinois, a sign of how his campaign continues to struggle with Black and Latino voters.
Voters in Illinois cast ballots not only for their pick for president, but also for delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Delegates are generally associated with one of the presidential campaigns, meaning each campaign needs to find 101 people willing to serve as a delegate — at least three in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts, with additional delegates in more heavily Democratic districts.
Advertisement
Finding a person to fill each slot — and collecting the 500 signatures necessary to put them on the ballot — is considered an early test of a campaign’s strength in the delegate-rich state, and supporters of Buttigieg’s rivals said his failure to fill the slots points to a potentially fatal weakness with voters of color.
The three leading Democratic candidates in national polling all filled an overwhelming majority of slots. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders filled every available slot, while former Vice President Joe Biden filled all but three slots. Buttigieg, who trails the other three candidates in national polling but is a top contender in the early voting state of Iowa, filled just 53 of the slots. Two lower-profile candidates, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and entrepreneur Andrew Yang, both filled more than 60 slots.
Buttigieg’s missing delegates are concentrated in the state’s most diverse congressional districts, according to an analysis of candidate data files from the Illinois State Board of Elections. Illinois has two majority-Black districts: The 1st, represented by Rep. Bobby Rush, and the 2nd, represented by Rep. Robin Kelly. Buttigieg filled zero of the eight slots in the 1st District, and just four of seven slots in the 2nd District.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg campaigns in South Carolina, a state where polls show him struggling with African-American voters. Randall Hill / Reuters
Advertisement
In the 7th District, which is plurality Black and represented by Rep. Danny Davis, Buttigieg filled six of eight slots. (Of the four delegates in the 7th District, the Buttigieg campaign said two are Black and two are Hispanic.)
The state also has a lone majority-Hispanic district, the 4th, which is represented by Rep. Chuy Garcia. Buttigieg filled just a single delegate slot of the five available there.
Buttigieg’s campaign said they selected 109 people to run for slate positions, some of whom failed to collect the signatures necessary to make the ballot. Of those 109, the Buttigieg campaign said, half are women, one-fifth are Black, 15% are Latino, 18% are LGBT and nearly a third are under 30.
“We are proud of our volunteers’ hard work to collect more than 6,000 signatures and put Pete on the ballot to ensure he is eligible to earn the maximum number of delegates in every congressional district in Illinois,” Buttigieg spokesman Sean Savett said. “The delegate petitioning process is onerous and complex, especially for those new to the political process. We’re glad we’re bringing in so many fresh faces who have never run for delegate before or been to a convention. Our campaign will have a diverse slate of delegates on the ballot in March, and we will continue to build a group of Illinoisans to serve as delegates for Pete that is reflective of the diversity of our country.”
Buttigieg’s failure to get delegates on the ballot in majority-minority parts of a state where his campaign is partially headquartered is likely to generate further questions about his ability to attract enough support from Black and Latino voters to win the nomination ― and if he has the ability to motivate enough turnout from voters of color to defeat President Donald Trump in November.
Advertisement
“No Democrat wins the White House without significant support from the Black community, the Latino community and young people,” said Chicago Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, a Sanders supporter. “I just don’t see his campaign connecting with Black and Latino communities, and I’m not sure he knows how to connect. It means he would have a very difficult time beating Trump.”
Buttigieg does have some support from minority communities in Illinois: State Rep. Lamont Robinson, the first openly gay Black man to serve in the state legislature there, endorsed him in September.
Finding sufficient delegates in Illinois and placing them on the ballot is a famously labor-intensive process for presidential candidates of both parties. Ultimately, candidates pay little electoral price for failing to do so: If a candidate receives 15% of the vote in a given district, the state Democratic party will assign delegates to them after the primary. The campaigns of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and businessman Tom Steyer, for instance, did not field any delegates.
Illinois’ primary is late: It will be on St. Patrick’s Day, two weeks after an overwhelming number of delegates are awarded on Super Tuesday. But as a heavily Democratic and heavily populated state, its 155 delegates could prove crucial in a close race.
Buttigieg’s struggles with voters of color are well-documented, and date back to his earliest days as mayor. In a CNN poll conducted in mid-December, for instance, 8% of Democrats nationally said they planned on backing Buttigieg in the primary, but only 2% of nonwhite Democrats did. A late November poll from Victory Research, however, did find stronger support for Buttigieg among voters of color in Illinois.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Biden: Mitch McConnell Will Become 'Mildly Cooperative' With Democrats Post-Trump

Think about what you ’ re willing to do personally .
You ’ re in a group , whether it is a tennis group , a golf club , a sewing circle , a reading group , wherever it is , and you got nine people in the group .
And five of them have a view on where , in fact , we ’ re on , on a position .
And four on the other side .
And one of the five thinks that , well , maybe the four are correct .
But unless they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that other group , they ’ re gon na win , it ’ s not worth dying on a small cross .
So what do you do ?
You stay away .
I predicted once we found that we took back the House , you would find members of the House of Representatives who thought that some of the policies ... being proposed by the administration were wrong would start to step up .
No sense in stepping up when you ’ re going to lose anyway , because then you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfit .
But it becomes worth it if you step up and it actually changes policy .
That ’ s what you [ are ] beginning to see in the House .
And that ’ s [ what ] you begin to see in the Senate .
I ’ m not suggesting all of a sudden everyone ’ s going to project a new sense of courage and political courage .
What I ’ m suggesting [ is ] that the dynamic changes when the right vote , as opposed to the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes a possibility if you vote for it .
But when it ’ s not a possibility if you vote for it , there ’ s no sense in doing it because all you ’ re doing is going to be ostracized by your outfit .
And nothing ’ s going to change .
That ’ s just the way human nature works .
Think about it [ in ] your own lives .
That ’ s how politics works .
And so that ’ s why I think you ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas or being more ― how can I say ― mildly cooperative .

Think about what you’re willing to do personally. You’re in a group, whether it is a tennis group, a golf club, a sewing circle, a reading group, wherever it is, and you got nine people in the group. And five of them have a view on where, in fact, we’re on, on a position. And four on the other side. And one of the five thinks that, well, maybe the four are correct. But unless they’re pretty damn sure that if they go with that other group, they’re gonna win, it’s not worth dying on a small cross. So what do you do? You stay away.
I predicted once we found that we took back the House, you would find members of the House of Representatives who thought that some of the policies ... being proposed by the administration were wrong would start to step up. No sense in stepping up when you’re going to lose anyway, because then you’re in real trouble with your own outfit. But it becomes worth it if you step up and it actually changes policy. That’s what you [are] beginning to see in the House. And that’s [what] you begin to see in the Senate.
I’m not suggesting all of a sudden everyone’s going to project a new sense of courage and political courage. What I’m suggesting [is] that the dynamic changes when the right vote, as opposed to the vote you don’t agree with, becomes a possibility if you vote for it. But when it’s not a possibility if you vote for it, there’s no sense in doing it because all you’re doing is going to be ostracized by your outfit. And nothing’s going to change. That’s just the way human nature works. Think about it [in] your own lives. That’s how politics works. And so that’s why I think you’re going to see even Mitch McConnell changing some ideas or being more ― how can I say ― mildly cooperative.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Ex-Trump Aide Michael Flynn Deserves Prison Time: Justice Department

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn deserves up to six months behind bars , the Justice Department said Tuesday , reversing its earlier position that he was entitled to avoid prison time because of his extensive cooperation with prosecutors .
The government ’ s sentencing memo is a sharp rebuke to Flynn ’ s new legal team , which for months has attacked special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation and accused prosecutors of withholding information that they said was favorable to their client .
A judge rejected those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially praised Flynn ’ s cooperation said he had “ retreated from his acceptance of responsibility ” and “ therefore is not entitled to any such credit unless he clearly and credibly disavows those statements.
” They asked U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to impose a sentence of zero to six months .
Flynn was to have been sentenced in December 2018 for lying to the FBI about his conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States , including about his request that Russia not escalate tensions with the U.S. in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for election interference .
But the hearing was abruptly postponed midway through it at Flynn ’ s request after scathing criticism from Sullivan raised the prospect that he might send him to prison , even though prosecutors hadn ’ t recommended it .
Flynn asked that the hearing be put off so that he could continue cooperating with prosecutors in hopes of avoiding any prison time .
At the time of his December 2017 guilty plea , he was the closest Trump associate to agree to cooperate with Mueller ’ s Russia investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following months as they investigated whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the 2016 election .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn deserves up to six months behind bars, the Justice Department said Tuesday, reversing its earlier position that he was entitled to avoid prison time because of his extensive cooperation with prosecutors.
The government’s sentencing memo is a sharp rebuke to Flynn’s new legal team, which for months has attacked special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and accused prosecutors of withholding information that they said was favorable to their client. A judge rejected those arguments last month.
Advertisement
Prosecutors who had initially praised Flynn’s cooperation said he had “retreated from his acceptance of responsibility” and “therefore is not entitled to any such credit unless he clearly and credibly disavows those statements.” They asked U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to impose a sentence of zero to six months.
Flynn was to have been sentenced in December 2018 for lying to the FBI about his conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States, including about his request that Russia not escalate tensions with the U.S. in response to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration for election interference.
But the hearing was abruptly postponed midway through it at Flynn’s request after scathing criticism from Sullivan raised the prospect that he might send him to prison, even though prosecutors hadn’t recommended it. Flynn asked that the hearing be put off so that he could continue cooperating with prosecutors in hopes of avoiding any prison time.
At the time of his December 2017 guilty plea, he was the closest Trump associate to agree to cooperate with Mueller’s Russia investigation. He met repeatedly with prosecutors over the following months as they investigated whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the 2016 election.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Wurtzel, 'Prozac Nation' Author And Memoirist, Dead At 52

Elizabeth Wurtzel , the author of the memoir “ Prozac Nation ” who became known for her raw reflections on depression and addiction , died at a hospital in Manhattan on Tuesday , years after being diagnosed with breast cancer .
Wurtzel had undergone a double mastectomy , but her cancer had metastasized to her brain , her husband Jim Freed told The Washington Post .
She was 52 years old .
Wurtzel wrote her best-selling memoir , “ Prozac Nation , ” when she was 27 years old in 1993 , a time when mental illness , especially clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about candidly .
Relatively unknown at the time , Wurtzel ’ s deeply personal and explicit style of writing started a larger discussion about her generation ’ s struggles with depression and mental health .
It 's impossible to convey the impact Elizabeth Wurtzel had in the '90s .
She was unapologetic , raw , honest .
She stood for a very specific form of GenX femininity , confession , rage .
We learned from her—and from how intensely she was mocked for writing about her own life .
pic.twitter.com/1KAViZL503 — Erin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 “ By turns wrenching and comical , self-indulgent and self-aware , “ Prozac Nation ” possesses the raw candor of Joan Didion ’ s essays , the irritating emotional exhibitionism of Sylvia Plath ’ s “ Bell Jar ” and the wry , dark humor of a Bob Dylan song , ” The New York Times ’ Michiko Kakutani wrote in her review of the book .
While the book could have benefited from “ strict editing , ” Kakutani said , Wurtzel ’ s “ willingness to expose herself ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader over.
” Wurtzel continued her writing career just as unapologetically .
In 1998 , she published a collection of essays titled “ Bitch ” featuring a topless photo of herself with a raised middle finger on the cover .
In 2002 , she published her second memoir , “ More , Now Again , ” which dives deeper into her addiction to snorting Ritalin as a coping mechanism for depression and life in New York City .
“ Lizzie ’ s literary genius rests not just in her acres of quotable one-liners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a new form , which has more or less replaced literary fiction — the memoir by a young person no one has ever heard of before , ” Samuels told the paper in an email .
“ It was a form that Lizzie fashioned in her own image , because she always needed to be both the character and the author.
” She “ filled spaces that might have otherwise been lonely with her warmth and humor and idiosyncratic voice , ” he wrote .
I met Lizzie in law school .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ young .
We were both misfits and she was kind and generous and filled spaces that might have otherwise been lonely with her warmth and humor and idiosyncratic voice .
She gave a lot to a lot of us .
I miss her .
https : //t.co/nn4uY77rJO — Ronan Farrow ( @ RonanFarrow ) January 7 , 2020 Wurtzel eventually discovered that she had the BRCA genetic mutation , which greatly increases a person ’ s lifetime risk of breast cancer .
She advocated for more people to get tested for the mutation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 that she could have “ avoided all this if I had been tested.
” In 2018 , Wurtzel demanded that people not feel sorry for her , declaring she was unafraid and that she was “ excited to be alive.
” “ Everyone else can hate cancer , ” she wrote .
“ I don ’ t .
Everyone else can be afraid of cancer .
I am not .
It is part of me .
It is my companion .
I live with it .
It ’ s inside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer that runs deep .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Elizabeth Wurtzel, the author of the memoir “Prozac Nation” who became known for her raw reflections on depression and addiction, died at a hospital in Manhattan on Tuesday, years after being diagnosed with breast cancer.
Wurtzel had undergone a double mastectomy, but her cancer had metastasized to her brain, her husband Jim Freed told The Washington Post. She was 52 years old.
Advertisement
Author Elizabeth Wurtzel died Tuesday at age 52. Neville Elder via Getty Images
Wurtzel wrote her best-selling memoir, “Prozac Nation,” when she was 27 years old in 1993, a time when mental illness, especially clinical depression, was still too taboo to talk about candidly.
Relatively unknown at the time, Wurtzel’s deeply personal and explicit style of writing started a larger discussion about her generation’s struggles with depression and mental health.
It's impossible to convey the impact Elizabeth Wurtzel had in the '90s. She was unapologetic, raw, honest. She stood for a very specific form of GenX femininity, confession, rage.
We learned from her—and from how intensely she was mocked for writing about her own life. pic.twitter.com/1KAViZL503 — Erin Blakemore (@heroinebook) January 7, 2020
Advertisement
The memoir attracted both criticism and praise. In 2001, it was adapted into a film starring actress Christina Ricci.
“By turns wrenching and comical, self-indulgent and self-aware, “Prozac Nation” possesses the raw candor of Joan Didion’s essays, the irritating emotional exhibitionism of Sylvia Plath’s “Bell Jar” and the wry, dark humor of a Bob Dylan song,” The New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani wrote in her review of the book.
While the book could have benefited from “strict editing,” Kakutani said, Wurtzel’s “willingness to expose herself ― narcissism and all ― ultimately wins the reader over.”
Wurtzel continued her writing career just as unapologetically. In 1998, she published a collection of essays titled “Bitch” featuring a topless photo of herself with a raised middle finger on the cover. In 2002, she published her second memoir, “More, Now Again,” which dives deeper into her addiction to snorting Ritalin as a coping mechanism for depression and life in New York City.
Writer David Samuels, Wurtzel’s friend, told The New York Times that her writing changed the world of literature.
Advertisement
“Lizzie’s literary genius rests not just in her acres of quotable one-liners but in her invention of what was really a new form, which has more or less replaced literary fiction — the memoir by a young person no one has ever heard of before,” Samuels told the paper in an email. “It was a form that Lizzie fashioned in her own image, because she always needed to be both the character and the author.”
In a tribute on Twitter, journalist Ronan Farrow described Wurtzel as “kind and generous.”
She “filled spaces that might have otherwise been lonely with her warmth and humor and idiosyncratic voice,” he wrote.
I met Lizzie in law school. She started mid-career as I was starting young. We were both misfits and she was kind and generous and filled spaces that might have otherwise been lonely with her warmth and humor and idiosyncratic voice. She gave a lot to a lot of us. I miss her. https://t.co/nn4uY77rJO — Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 7, 2020
Wurtzel eventually discovered that she had the BRCA genetic mutation, which greatly increases a person’s lifetime risk of breast cancer. She advocated for more people to get tested for the mutation, writing for The New York Times in 2015 that she could have “avoided all this if I had been tested.”
In 2018, Wurtzel demanded that people not feel sorry for her, declaring she was unafraid and that she was “excited to be alive.”
Advertisement
“Everyone else can hate cancer,” she wrote. “I don’t. Everyone else can be afraid of cancer. I am not. It is part of me. It is my companion. I live with it. It’s inside of me. I have an intimacy with cancer that runs deep.”
She later declared: “Do you know what I’m scared of? Nothing.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Mitch McConnell Says Targeting Iran's Cultural Sites Would Be 'Inappropriate.' It's Also Illegal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) pushed back Tuesday against President Donald Trump ’ s threats against Iranian cultural sites , saying that destroying them would not be “ appropriate.
” McConnell made that understatement to reporters two days after Trump doubled down on his threats to attack locations that could include Iran ’ s two dozen UNESCO World Heritage sites .
Destroying a country ’ s cultural sites is considered a war crime under the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1972 World Heritage Convention , which both the U.S. and Iran have ratified .
On Saturday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target sites “ important to Iran & the Iranian culture.
” On Sunday , he reiterated that threat .
“ They ’ re allowed to kill our people .
They ’ re allowed to torture and maim our people .
They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people .
And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural sites , ” Trump said aboard Air Force One on Sunday .
“ It doesn ’ t work that way.
” Shortly after McConnell ’ s comments on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If that ’ s what the law is , I like to obey the law , ” he told reporters from the Oval Office regarding the possibility of illegally destroying cultural sites .
Trump ’ s response also comes after Defense Secretary Mark Esper refused to back the president ’ s threats during an interview on CNN on Monday , repeatedly saying the U.S. “ will follow the laws of armed conflict ” when asked if he was willing to target cultural sites .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushed back Tuesday against President Donald Trump’s threats against Iranian cultural sites, saying that destroying them would not be “appropriate.”
Advertisement
On Saturday, Trump tweeted that the U.S. military may target sites “important to Iran & the Iranian culture.”
On Sunday, he reiterated that threat. “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites,” Trump said aboard Air Force One on Sunday. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Shortly after McConnell’s comments on Tuesday, Trump backed away from the idea.
“If that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law,” he told reporters from the Oval Office regarding the possibility of illegally destroying cultural sites.
Trump’s response also comes after Defense Secretary Mark Esper refused to back the president’s threats during an interview on CNN on Monday, repeatedly saying the U.S. “will follow the laws of armed conflict” when asked if he was willing to target cultural sites.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Warren Takes Shot At Joe Biden With New Bankruptcy Reform Plan

Warren ’ s latest plan will make it easier for people to file for bankruptcy , pare back some of the rules that make it harder for people to recover afterward , allow student loans to be discharged in the bankruptcy process , and address racist and gender disparities in the bankruptcy system , among other things .
Bankruptcy is a bread-and-butter issue for the Massachusetts senator .
She is one of the nation ’ s leading bankruptcy experts and focused on that area in her legal career .
In the 1990s , she served on a blue-ribbon commission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren never mentions Biden in her new plan .
But releasing proposals that go after one of his key Senate accomplishments is a direct swipe at the former vice president , who is leading her in the Democratic presidential primary polls .
Biden worked on the bankruptcy law for nearly 10 years , and its passage in 2005 marked one of the signature legislative events of his Senate career .
The law made it much more difficult for overburdened consumers to eliminate credit card debt and all but impossible to discharge student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill was a top lobbying priority for credit card companies including MBNA , a Delaware-based corporation whose employees were among Biden ’ s most important campaign donors over the course of his Senate career .
MBNA paid consulting fees to Biden ’ s son Hunter between 2001 and 2005 , while his father was at work on the legislation .
The company was acquired by Bank of America in 2006 and sold to Lloyds Bank in 2017 .
Prior to her Senate career , Warren was an academic who specialized in bankruptcy law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of individual bankruptcy was generally not raw overspending but personal tragedies ― the loss of a job , an unexpected medical bill , or divorce ― which disrupted family finances .
She believed Biden ’ s bill would squeeze families who had already been hit by hardship in order to generate revenue for banks and credit card companies .
Biden , by contrast , billed his legislation as an effort to stop spendthrifts from abusing the bankruptcy system .
Bankruptcy filings declined sharply after the bill was passed , and subsequent research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislation was making it harder for families to weather the Great Recession .
Porter , a onetime student of Warren ’ s , is now a Democratic congresswoman from California and has endorsed Warren for the Democratic presidential nomination .
They ’ re set to campaign together in Iowa this weekend .
Biden has defended his support for the legislation , including as Barack Obama 's running mate in 2008 .
Obama opposed the legislation , calling it `` the credit card industry ’ s bankruptcy bill that made it harder for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Biden argued that many low-income individuals were still protected under the new bill .
`` In 2016 , Trump tapped into a very real anti-establishment sentiment by railing against Wall Street speeches , corporate trade deals , and the corrupt swamp .
When thinking about electability , it would be complete malpractice to nominate someone who conspired in backrooms for years with credit card lobbyists and voted for every corporate bankruptcy bill , Wall Street deregulation , and trade deal that voters hate .
Biden would ironically cede the outsider mantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Adam Green , co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , who is backing Warren .
In her new plan , Warren praises people like Ted Kennedy , Paul Wellstone , Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin , senators who fought the credit card industry for years over the legislation .
Without naming names , she also talks about how the industry “ rallied its allies in Congress again and managed to push through another version of its bill in 2005 with overwhelming Republican support and some Democratic support ” ― a reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ One million men and women each year are turning to bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious medical problem , and three-quarters of them have health insurance , ” Warren said in her testimony .
“ A family with children is nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy than an individual or couple with no children.
” Biden accused Warren of making a “ mildly demagogic argument , ” but acknowledged that he didn ’ t disagree with her facts .
Instead , he seized on those medical bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stations and car dealerships should have to foot the bill for people ’ s health care costs .
( He didn ’ t mention the credit card issuers , which have long been a major employer in his home state of Delaware . )
Warren said that until the United States fixed its health care system , families needed somewhere to turn .
She conceded that Biden was right that the health care industry was saddling the broader economy with high costs , but she said that the credit card industry was essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fees .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s newest plan takes a direct shot at former Vice President Joe Biden’s record, going after a key piece of legislation benefiting credit card companies that he once championed.
Warren wants to repeal portions of the 2005 bankruptcy law in order to make it easier for families to find relief from crushing debt and start over.
Advertisement
Warren’s latest plan will make it easier for people to file for bankruptcy, pare back some of the rules that make it harder for people to recover afterward, allow student loans to be discharged in the bankruptcy process, and address racist and gender disparities in the bankruptcy system, among other things.
Bankruptcy is a bread-and-butter issue for the Massachusetts senator. She is one of the nation’s leading bankruptcy experts and focused on that area in her legal career. In the 1990s, she served on a blue-ribbon commission to review the nation’s bankruptcy laws.
She was also the leading critic of the 2005 legislation, testifying before Congress and working with allied lawmakers to try to stop it.
But she was up against a deep-pocketed credit card industry, corporate-friendly Republicans, and some Democrats ― most notably, then-Sen. Biden.
Advertisement
Warren never mentions Biden in her new plan. But releasing proposals that go after one of his key Senate accomplishments is a direct swipe at the former vice president, who is leading her in the Democratic presidential primary polls.
Biden worked on the bankruptcy law for nearly 10 years, and its passage in 2005 marked one of the signature legislative events of his Senate career. The law made it much more difficult for overburdened consumers to eliminate credit card debt and all but impossible to discharge student debts through the bankruptcy process.
The bill was a top lobbying priority for credit card companies including MBNA, a Delaware-based corporation whose employees were among Biden’s most important campaign donors over the course of his Senate career. MBNA paid consulting fees to Biden’s son Hunter between 2001 and 2005, while his father was at work on the legislation. The company was acquired by Bank of America in 2006 and sold to Lloyds Bank in 2017.
"I'm not the senator from MBNA," Biden insisted in 1999.
Prior to her Senate career, Warren was an academic who specialized in bankruptcy law. Her research concluded that the leading cause of individual bankruptcy was generally not raw overspending but personal tragedies ― the loss of a job, an unexpected medical bill, or divorce ― which disrupted family finances. She believed Biden’s bill would squeeze families who had already been hit by hardship in order to generate revenue for banks and credit card companies.
Biden, by contrast, billed his legislation as an effort to stop spendthrifts from abusing the bankruptcy system. Bankruptcy filings declined sharply after the bill was passed, and subsequent research from scholars including Katie Porter determined that the legislation was making it harder for families to weather the Great Recession. Porter, a onetime student of Warren’s, is now a Democratic congresswoman from California and has endorsed Warren for the Democratic presidential nomination. They’re set to campaign together in Iowa this weekend.
Advertisement
Biden has defended his support for the legislation, including as Barack Obama's running mate in 2008. Obama opposed the legislation, calling it "the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt." Biden argued that many low-income individuals were still protected under the new bill.
"It gets complicated but the point is this, Barack Obama saw the glass as half empty. I saw it as half full," he said.
"In 2016, Trump tapped into a very real anti-establishment sentiment by railing against Wall Street speeches, corporate trade deals, and the corrupt swamp. When thinking about electability, it would be complete malpractice to nominate someone who conspired in backrooms for years with credit card lobbyists and voted for every corporate bankruptcy bill, Wall Street deregulation, and trade deal that voters hate. Biden would ironically cede the outsider mantle to a corrupt incumbent president," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who is backing Warren.
In her new plan, Warren praises people like Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin, senators who fought the credit card industry for years over the legislation. Without naming names, she also talks about how the industry “rallied its allies in Congress again and managed to push through another version of its bill in 2005 with overwhelming Republican support and some Democratic support” ― a reference no doubt to Biden, among others.
Warren and Biden even went head-to-head on the bankruptcy bill in February 2005, when the then-Harvard Law professor testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Advertisement
“One million men and women each year are turning to bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious medical problem, and three-quarters of them have health insurance,” Warren said in her testimony. “A family with children is nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy than an individual or couple with no children.”
Biden accused Warren of making a “mildly demagogic argument,” but acknowledged that he didn’t disagree with her facts. Instead, he seized on those medical bills, asking why other creditors like gas stations and car dealerships should have to foot the bill for people’s health care costs. (He didn’t mention the credit card issuers, which have long been a major employer in his home state of Delaware.)
Warren said that until the United States fixed its health care system, families needed somewhere to turn. She conceded that Biden was right that the health care industry was saddling the broader economy with high costs, but she said that the credit card industry was essentially pre-compensating itself for bankruptcies with high-interest rates and fees.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Twitter Users Greatly Amused After Trump Says, 'I Like To Obey The Law'

President Donald Trump on Tuesday backed off from previous comments that he was willing to destroy 52 cultural sites in Iran .
And he did it with an unintentional self-own comparable to when President Richard Nixon insisted , “ I am not a crook , ” in 1973 .
Trump was answering reporters ’ questions about his Twitter threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites when he admitted he probably wouldn ’ t go through with it since it ’ s a war crime and all .
“ They are allowed to kill our people .
They are allowed to maim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to blow up everything that we have , and there ’ s nothing that stops them , ” the president said .
“ We are , according to various laws , supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage.
” Then he added , without irony , “ And you know what ?
If that ’ s what the law is , I like to obey the law.
” Trump responds to a question about his statement on bombing cultural sites : If that ’ s what the law is , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acyn Torabi ( @ Acyn ) January 7 , 2020 Considering Trump ’ s M.O .
his whole life has been to show that the rules don ’ t apply to him , many Twitter users had a field day mocking the president ’ s probable fib .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Tuesday backed off from previous comments that he was willing to destroy 52 cultural sites in Iran.
And he did it with an unintentional self-own comparable to when President Richard Nixon insisted, “I am not a crook,” in 1973.
Advertisement
Trump was answering reporters’ questions about his Twitter threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites when he admitted he probably wouldn’t go through with it since it’s a war crime and all.
“They are allowed to kill our people. They are allowed to maim our people, they’re allowed to blow up everything that we have, and there’s nothing that stops them,” the president said. “We are, according to various laws, supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage.”
Then he added, without irony, “And you know what? If that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law.”
Watch for yourself:
Trump responds to a question about his statement on bombing cultural sites: If that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law pic.twitter.com/ynsASku939 — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) January 7, 2020
Advertisement
Considering Trump’s M.O. his whole life has been to show that the rules don’t apply to him, many Twitter users had a field day mocking the president’s probable fib.
He likes to obey the law ... pic.twitter.com/HZWoWYBGjK — Terra (@tmilmi1996) January 7, 2020
NARRATOR: He didn't like to obey the law. — Billy Corben (@BillyCorben) January 7, 2020
Sure, like he obeys his marriage vows. — The Accidental Tweeterist 🏳🌈🌊 (@DavidOry) January 7, 2020
He "likes to." OMG — Sustainergy Advisors🌹 (@SustainergyA) January 7, 2020
Advertisement
Which law? Name one. — Stealthgirl (@stealthgirl21) January 7, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Warren Uses Kate McKinnon’s 'SNL' Impression For 2020 Pitch

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
has a soft spot for Kate McKinnon ’ s mocking impersonation of her on “ Saturday Night Live.
” “ I have to say , she is really fabulous , ” the Democratic presidential candidate told Seth Meyers on Monday ’ s broadcast of “ Late Night.
” “ She ’ s smart , she ’ s engaged .
She brings a lot of energy .
We wear the same jackets , ” Warren continued , before turning her admiration for the actor into a 2020 campaign pitch : And look , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the United States and we get eight more years of Kate McKinnon on “ Saturday Night Live.
” Elsewhere in the interview , Warren said it was “ really nice ” that former Housing Secretary Julián Castro , who pulled out of the 2020 race last week , endorsed her campaign for president .
She described the suggestion that Castro could become her running mate as “ way too presumptuous ” for now .
Warren also said President Donald Trump ’ s order to kill top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edge of war ” with Iran .
Check out the first part of the interview above and the second segment below : And watch McKinnon ’ s portrayal of Warren in these clips :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a soft spot for Kate McKinnon’s mocking impersonation of her on “Saturday Night Live.”
“I have to say, she is really fabulous,” the Democratic presidential candidate told Seth Meyers on Monday’s broadcast of “Late Night.”
Advertisement
“She’s smart, she’s engaged. She brings a lot of energy. We wear the same jackets,” Warren continued, before turning her admiration for the actor into a 2020 campaign pitch:
And look, here’s the deal. Elect me president of the United States and we get eight more years of Kate McKinnon on “Saturday Night Live.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Warren said it was “really nice” that former Housing Secretary Julián Castro, who pulled out of the 2020 race last week, endorsed her campaign for president. She described the suggestion that Castro could become her running mate as “way too presumptuous” for now.
Advertisement
Warren also said President Donald Trump’s order to kill top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was “moving us closer to the very edge of war” with Iran.
Check out the first part of the interview above and the second segment below:
And watch McKinnon’s portrayal of Warren in these clips: