thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Sanders Campaign Co-Chair After Debate: 30 Years Ago, Warren Was A Republican

David McNew/Getty Images Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner , seen here at a Sanders campaign town hall in Los Angeles in July , is one of his most combative surrogates .
DES MOINES , Iowa ― Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
discussed their disagreement about their private 2018 conversation on the electability of female candidates relatively amicably on the debate stage on Tuesday night .
But in a related exchange , Warren tripped Sanders up with her claim that she was the only person onstage to have unseated an incumbent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Sanders later asked to “ set the record straight ” that he had unseated a Republican in 1990 , Warren reminded him that that was 30 years ago ( though it may have actually been just over 29 years ago ) .
Asked whether Warren ’ s 30-year comment was an unfair jab at Sanders , Turner replied , “ You should ask [ Sen. Warren ] that , but I know 30 years ago she was a Republican.
” In the two days leading up to the debate , many progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Warren were urging them to bury their differences out of a shared commitment to blocking more centrist Democrats from nabbing the presidential nomination .
Turner suggested that if the debate had failed to ease tensions between the two candidates , a greater share of the blame lay with Warren .
“ Sen .
Sanders made a point that he beat a Republican .
Just leave it at that , ” she said .
“ Sen .
Warren took it to a whole ’ nother level .
That was not necessary to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican until the mid-1990s .
She said her research as a legal scholar into the root causes of household bankruptcy reshaped her worldview .
As a Democrat , she defeated Republican Sen. Scott Brown in 2012 in her first run for office .
After Tuesday ’ s debate , a reporter asked whether the two senators ’ failure to shake hands at the end meant that they continue to be at odds with one another .
“ Go back and watch the clip .
Sen. Sanders put his hand out , ” Turner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleague ’ s hand , but again , we ’ re getting caught up on this.
” ( The video indeed appears to show Warren refusing Sanders ’ hand . )
Adam Green , a co-chair of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , which is backing Warren , took a more conciliatory approach , declining to disparage Sanders for his handling of the exchange .
“ What we saw tonight was the escalation and then a quick pivot to offense and the most definitive electability case we ’ ve heard from Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win , ” Green said .
“ It was devastating.
” Turner , a veteran of the 2016 Sanders run and frequent surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail , often relishes her role as an attack dog for the Vermont senator .
She delivered the toughest hits against Sanders ’ opponents in her remarks at Sanders ’ post-heart attack comeback rally in New York City in October , and just this week , she wrote an op-ed in a South Carolina newspaper attacking former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s record on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clarify whether her remarks represent the campaign ’ s official stance .
When delivering a speech ahead of the November debate in Atlanta , she blasted former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and simultaneously insisted she was not speaking on the campaign ’ s behalf .
And her comments Tuesday night exposed Sanders to a line of criticism he has sought to avoid : his own refusal to formally affiliate with the Democratic Party .

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, seen here at a Sanders campaign town hall in Los Angeles in July, is one of his most combative surrogates. David McNew/Getty Images
DES MOINES, Iowa ― Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) discussed their disagreement about their private 2018 conversation on the electability of female candidates relatively amicably on the debate stage on Tuesday night.
But in a related exchange, Warren tripped Sanders up with her claim that she was the only person onstage to have unseated an incumbent Republican in the past 30 years. When Sanders later asked to “set the record straight” that he had unseated a Republican in 1990, Warren reminded him that that was 30 years ago (though it was actually just over 29 years ago).
Advertisement
Sanders campaign co-chair and former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner expressed her dismay with Warren’s comments in a conversation with reporters after the debate.
Asked whether Warren’s 30-year comment was an unfair jab at Sanders, Turner replied, “You should ask [Sen. Warren] that, but I know 30 years ago she was a Republican.”
In the two days leading up to the debate, many progressive groups nervous about a spat between Sanders and Warren were urging them to bury their differences out of a shared commitment to blocking more centrist Democrats from nabbing the presidential nomination.
Turner suggested that if the debate had failed to ease tensions between the two candidates, a greater share of the blame lay with Warren.
Advertisement
“Sen. Sanders made a point that he beat a Republican. Just leave it at that,” she said. “Sen. Warren took it to a whole ’nother level. That was not necessary to do that.”
Warren was indeed a registered Republican until the mid-1990s. She said her research as a legal scholar into the root causes of household bankruptcy reshaped her worldview. As a Democrat, she defeated Republican Sen. Scott Brown in 2012 in her first run for office.
After Tuesday’s debate, a reporter asked whether the two senators’ failure to shake hands at the end meant that they continue to be at odds with one another.
“Go back and watch the clip. Sen. Sanders put his hand out,” Turner said. “You just shake your colleague’s hand, but again, we’re getting caught up on this.” (The video indeed shows Warren refusing Sanders’ hand.)
Adam Green, a co-chair of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is backing Warren, took a more conciliatory approach, declining to disparage Sanders for his handling of the exchange.
Advertisement
“What we saw tonight was the escalation and then a quick pivot to offense and the most definitive electability case we’ve heard from Elizabeth Warren so far about how a woman can win,” Green said. “It was devastating.”
Turner, a veteran of the 2016 Sanders run and frequent surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail, often relishes her role as an attack dog for the Vermont senator. She delivered the toughest hits against Sanders’ opponents in her remarks at Sanders’ post-heart attack comeback rally in New York City in October, and just this week, she wrote an op-ed in a South Carolina newspaper attacking former Vice President Joe Biden’s record on race.
But Turner has sometimes struggled to clarify whether her remarks represent the campaign’s official stance. When delivering a speech ahead of the November debate in Atlanta, she blasted former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and simultaneously insisted she was not speaking on the campaign’s behalf.
And her comments Tuesday night exposed Sanders to a line of criticism he has sought to avoid: his own refusal to formally affiliate with the Democratic Party.
“Desperation sure is cute,” Wesley Whistle, an expert at the New America Foundation supporting Warren, tweeted. “If only Bernie was EVER a Democrat.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--'Do Right And Fear No One': Ryan Zinke Gifts $11,000 Campaign Fund To Wife's Foundation

HELENA , Mont .
( AP ) — Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closed his congressional campaign account and given nearly all of the fundraising cash that was left to a charitable foundation he started and his wife now runs .
Federal Election Commission reports show that Zinke , a former Republican U.S. representative from Montana , terminated his House campaign fundraising account earlier this month .
Zinke founded that nonprofit organization to maintain a park in Whitefish , Montana , his hometown .
He is no longer on the foundation ’ s board , but his wife Lola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously known as the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park Foundation .
Zinke told The Associated Press in a phone interview on Monday that it was time to close the fundraising account , that not a lot of money was left in it and it was “ absolutely appropriate ” to give the fundraising cash to an organization his family runs .
“ I ’ m not worried about appearances because you do right and fear no one , ” he said .
“ I can ’ t think of a better place for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped found where kids can go and sled.
” Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said campaigns can give money to charities as long as the funds don ’ t provide any benefit to the candidate or his family .
“ If neither Zinke or his wife are getting a salary or financial benefits , it ’ s probably permissable , ” Fischer said .
Zinke said his family are the only donors to the foundation , which maintains the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park .
The money would likely go toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Northern Foundation is the same organization involved in a land deal in 2018 with the chairman of Halliburton , an energy services company that did business with Interior when Zinke was secretary .
That prompted an inquiry by the Interior Department ’ s inspector general .
Zinke said there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the deal and the news media twisted an agreement to provide better access to sledding into “ an illicit oil deal .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closed his congressional campaign account and given nearly all of the fundraising cash that was left to a charitable foundation he started and his wife now runs.
Federal Election Commission reports show that Zinke, a former Republican U.S. representative from Montana, terminated his House campaign fundraising account earlier this month.
Advertisement
The last transaction is a Dec. 8 payment of $11,594 to the Great Northern Foundation.
Zinke founded that nonprofit organization to maintain a park in Whitefish, Montana, his hometown. He is no longer on the foundation’s board, but his wife Lola is the president of the foundation, previously known as the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park Foundation.
Zinke told The Associated Press in a phone interview on Monday that it was time to close the fundraising account, that not a lot of money was left in it and it was “absolutely appropriate” to give the fundraising cash to an organization his family runs.
“I’m not worried about appearances because you do right and fear no one,” he said. “I can’t think of a better place for it to go than a place I helped found where kids can go and sled.”
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke talks to journalists outside the White House in August 2018. Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Advertisement
Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said campaigns can give money to charities as long as the funds don’t provide any benefit to the candidate or his family.
“If neither Zinke or his wife are getting a salary or financial benefits, it’s probably permissable,” Fischer said.
Zinke said his family are the only donors to the foundation, which maintains the Great Northern Veterans Peace Park. The money would likely go toward those operations, he said.
Politico first reported the Zinke campaign’s donation to the foundation.
The Great Northern Foundation is the same organization involved in a land deal in 2018 with the chairman of Halliburton, an energy services company that did business with Interior when Zinke was secretary.
The foundation allowed Chairman David Lesar to use land for a commercial development adjacent to the park.
Advertisement
That prompted an inquiry by the Interior Department’s inspector general. Zinke said there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the deal and the news media twisted an agreement to provide better access to sledding into “an illicit oil deal.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell Slams CNN For Paying People To Spread Donald Trump’s Lies

MSNBC ’ s Lawrence O ’ Donnell called out CNN for paying its pro-Donald Trump contributors to spew lies in defense of the president in a new interview in which he also lamented how Fox News has gotten “ way , way worse ” in the Trump era .
O ’ Donnell , appearing on the latest episode of “ The Al Franken Podcast , ” objected to former Sen. Al Franken ’ s ( D-Minn. ) assertion that CNN plays “ it down the middle , except we hate Trump.
” “ One-third of the people on their payroll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donnell , host of MSNBC ’ s nightly show “ The Last Word.
” “ So you ’ re guaranteed on any hour of CNN , minimum one-third of the programming will be supportive of Trump .
Someone on their payroll saying , ‘ here ’ s why Trump ’ s right.
’ ” It was “ one of the reasons ” Trump wants people to watch CNN over MSNBC because “ he knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him , because we don ’ t bring on liars , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t bring on a liar .
I won ’ t do that.
” O ’ Donnell , who in August apologized for making an “ error in judgment ” after he was forced to retract an unverified story about Trump ’ s finances , replied : How else do you defend a liar ?
A pathological liar who lies about everything ?
You have to lie .
So CNN has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies to the CNN audience in the middle of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so Trump knows that if you watch CNN at least you ’ ll hear someone lying in my favor .
So that ’ s one of the reasons why he attacks them .
CNN President Jeff Zucker has previously defended the network ’ s decision to give airtime to pro-Trump guests .
“ You can ’ t run a news channel and you can ’ t do a show if you don ’ t talk to all sides , ” he told The Hollywood Reporter last year .
Primetime host Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow anchor Chris Cuomo over the booking of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway following an interview that took a chaotic turn .
“ She never answers a question .
She berates you .
She ’ s condescending , ” Lemon told Cuomo .
“ For me , it feels beneath the dignity of this network to have someone on who constantly lies and misconstrues things.
” Later in the podcast , O ’ Donnell criticized Fox News , whose hosts Sean Hannity , Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson frequently use their widely watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative network has gotten “ way , way worse , ” said O ’ Donnell .
“ Just like the Republican Party in the Senate and the House have gotten way , way worse .
And they get worse every year of Trump .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell called out CNN for paying its pro-Donald Trump contributors to spew lies in defense of the president in a new interview in which he also lamented how Fox News has gotten “way, way worse” in the Trump era.
O’Donnell, appearing on the latest episode of “The Al Franken Podcast,” objected to former Sen. Al Franken’s (D-Minn.) assertion that CNN plays “it down the middle, except we hate Trump.”
Advertisement
“No, they don’t,” O’Donnell told Franken, who resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.
“One-third of the people on their payroll love Trump,” said O’Donnell, host of MSNBC’s nightly show “The Last Word.” “So you’re guaranteed on any hour of CNN, minimum one-third of the programming will be supportive of Trump. Someone on their payroll saying, ‘Here’s why Trump’s right.’”
It was “one of the reasons” Trump wants people to watch CNN over MSNBC because “he knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him, because we don’t bring on liars,” O’Donnell continued. “I don’t bring on a liar. I won’t do that.”
Franken asked if “to defend Trump, you have to lie?”
O’Donnell, who in August apologized for an “error in judgment” after he was forced to retract an unverified story about Trump’s finances, replied:
Advertisement
How else do you defend a liar? A pathological liar who lies about everything? You have to lie. So CNN has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies to the CNN audience in the middle of a CNN hour for some number of minutes. And so Trump knows that if you watch CNN at least you’ll hear someone lying in my favor. So that’s one of the reasons why he attacks them.
CNN President Jeff Zucker has previously defended the network’s decision to give airtime to pro-Trump guests. “You can’t run a news channel and you can’t do a show if you don’t talk to all sides,” he told The Hollywood Reporter last year.
Prime time CNN host Don Lemon, however, in 2019 berated fellow anchor Chris Cuomo over the booking of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway following an interview that took a chaotic turn.
“She never answers a question. She berates you. She’s condescending,” Lemon told Cuomo. “For me, it feels beneath the dignity of this network to have someone on who constantly lies and misconstrues things.”
Check out the clip here:
Advertisement
Later in the podcast, O’Donnell criticized Fox News, whose hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson frequently use their widely watched shows to stump for Trump.
Hannity has even vowed to campaign for Trump during the 2020 election.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Joe Biden Unleashes New Anti-Donald Trump Ad: ‘Why Are You So Obsessed With Me?’

President Donald Trump can ’ t stop talking about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in a new attack ad that the former vice president ’ s 2020 campaign released this week .
“ Donald Trump has made it clear .
He ’ s got Joe Biden on his mind , ” the voiceover begins the 30-second clip .
“ Because Trump knows Biden will beat him in Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin , the states we need to take back the presidency , ” he continues .
The narrator notes how Biden , during former President Barack Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage , helped made Obamacare the law of the land ” and claims he can “ step in on day one.
” “ It ’ s why Trump can ’ t stop talking about , ” he concludes to the sound of Trump repeatedly saying Biden ’ s name .
Why are you so obsessed with me , Mr. President ?
pic.twitter.com/BbAawEvQo6 — Joe Biden ( Text Join to 30330 ) ( @ JoeBiden ) January 14 , 2020 “ Why are you so obsessed with me , Mr. President ?
” Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which garnered more than half a million views in its first 12 hours online .
Trump ’ s reported concern about Biden becoming his Democratic rival in November ’ s election manifested with the Ukraine scandal , over which the House impeached the president last month .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump can’t stop talking about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in an attack ad that the former vice president’s 2020 campaign released this week.
“Donald Trump has made it clear. He’s got Joe Biden on his mind,” the narrator says in the 30-second clip.
Advertisement
“Trump knows Biden will beat him in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the states we need to take back the presidency,” he continues.
The narrator notes how Biden, during former President Barack Obama’s administration, “stood on the world stage” and “helped make Obamacare the law of the land,” and declares he can “step in on day one.”
“It’s why Trump can’t stop talking about...” he adds, followed by the sound of Trump repeatedly saying Biden’s name.
Why are you so obsessed with me, Mr. President? pic.twitter.com/BbAawEvQo6 — Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) January 14, 2020
Advertisement
“Why are you so obsessed with me, Mr. President?” Biden’s campaign tweeted alongside the video, which garnered more than half a million views in its first 12 hours online.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Late Night Hosts Rip Democratic Debate’s All-White Stage: Thought Oscars Was Next Month?

Tuesday night ’ s Democratic debate gave late-night television comedians plenty to joke about — with all hosts calling out @ @ @ @ @ People who turned on their TVs were like ’ wait , I thought the Oscars @ @ @ @ @ quipped “ The Late Late Show ” host James Corden .
“ The only person @ @ @ @ @ teenage climate activist ) Greta Thunberg because the stage was so white it reflected sunlight @ @ @ @ @ ” added Trevor Noah of “ The Daily Show.
” Jimmy Kimmel , “ The @ @ @ @ @ Colbert and Jimmy Fallon of “ The Tonight Show ” also riffed on the lack @ @ @ @ @ .
Check out Colbert ’ s take on the debate in Des Moines , Iowa @ @ @ @ @ Fallon of “ The Tonight Show ” here :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Tuesday night’s Democratic debate gave late night television comedians plenty to joke about — with all hosts calling out the all-white stage.
“People who turned on their TVs were like, ‘Wait, I thought the Oscars were next month’” quipped “The Late Late Show” host James Corden.
Advertisement
“The only person happy about this was (teenage climate activist) Greta Thunberg because the stage was so white it reflected sunlight back into the atmosphere,” said Trevor Noah of “The Daily Show.”
Jimmy Kimmel, “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon of “The Tonight Show” also riffed on the lack of diversity in the Democratic lineup.
Check out Colbert’s take on the debate in Des Moines, Iowa, here:
Noah’s clip here:
Advertisement
Corden’s zingers here:
Kimmel’s segment here:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Nancy Pelosi Names Trump Impeachment Managers For Senate Trial

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) on Wednesday named the lawmakers she has chosen to argue for President Donald Trump ’ s removal from office during the upcoming trial in the Senate .
During a news conference on Capitol Hill , she announced her choice of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) as lead impeachment manager .
The other six managers ― all Democrats ― include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ( N.Y. ) , House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren ( Calif. ) , and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries ( N.Y. ) , Val Demings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colo. ) and Sylvia Garcia ( Texas ) .
The House voted hours later in favor of the managers and to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
Pelosi is expected to hold a formal engrossment ceremony of the impeachment articles at 5 p.m ET .
The managers will then ceremoniously march through the Capitol and deliver the charges to the Senate .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has said that opening arguments in the impeachment trial are likely to begin next Tuesday .
After a monthslong impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in favor of two articles of impeachment against Trump regarding his dealings with Ukraine : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Pelosi for weeks had refrained from sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate over concerns that McConnell wouldn ’ t lead a fair trial .
“ Time has been our friend in all of this because it yielded more incriminating evidence , more truth into the public domain , ” Pelosi said during the news conference Wednesday , referring in part to new documents related to a campaign by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oust then-U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
McConnell backed a resolution earlier this month that would change the Senate ’ s rules to allow lawmakers to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Trump before the House sends them over .
But Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri , the No .
4 Republican in the Senate , said Monday that the GOP would not have the votes needed to dismiss the charges .
“ If the Senate doesn ’ t permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and of all the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the Senate is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up , ” Nadler said at the news conference Wednesday .
Most of the managers Pelosi selected are in districts that are safely Democratic , likely shielding them from any election fallout that could come from their involvement in the impeachment trial .
“ All of this work was supposed to be done by the House , not the Senate !
” he wrote .
It ’ s unclear what “ work ” the president was specifically referring to in his tweet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Job by the Do Nothing Democrats .
All of this work was supposed to be done by the House , not the Senate !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 15 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday named the lawmakers she has chosen to argue for President Donald Trump’s removal from office during the upcoming trial in the Senate.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill, she announced her choice of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as lead impeachment manager. The other six managers ― all Democrats ― include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Val Demings (Fla.), Jason Crow (Colo.) and Sylvia Garcia (Texas).
Advertisement
Today, I have the privilege of naming the Managers of the impeachment trial of the President. #DefendOurDemocracy pic.twitter.com/Y2613Ni3pC — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 15, 2020
The House voted hours later in favor of the managers and to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi is expected to hold a formal engrossment ceremony of the impeachment articles at 5 p.m ET. The managers will then ceremoniously march through the Capitol and deliver the charges to the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that opening arguments in the impeachment trial are likely to begin next Tuesday.
After a monthslong impeachment inquiry, the House voted last month in favor of two articles of impeachment against Trump regarding his dealings with Ukraine: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Advertisement
Pelosi for weeks had refrained from sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate over concerns that McConnell wouldn’t lead a fair trial.
“Time has been our friend in all of this because it yielded more incriminating evidence, more truth into the public domain,” Pelosi said during the news conference Wednesday, referring in part to new documents related to a campaign by indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas to oust then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
McConnell backed a resolution earlier this month that would change the Senate’s rules to allow lawmakers to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Trump before the House sends them over. But Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 4 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that the GOP would not have the votes needed to dismiss the charges.
“If the Senate doesn’t permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and of all the documents that the House wants to introduce ... then the Senate is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up,” Nadler said at the news conference Wednesday.
“The Senate is on trial as well as the president,” he added.
Rep. Jerry Nadler: "Does the Senate conduct a trial according to the Constitution, to vindicate the Republic—or does the Senate participate in the president's crimes by covering them up?" https://t.co/OucyU2lqMj pic.twitter.com/3xgpBJ1pZl — ABC News (@ABC) January 15, 2020
Advertisement
Most of the managers Pelosi selected are in districts that are safely Democratic, likely shielding them from any election fallout that could come from their involvement in the impeachment trial.
As Pelosi’s news conference wrapped up, Trump posted a tweet lamenting “another Con Job by the Do Nothing Democrats.”
“All of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate!” he wrote. It’s unclear what “work” the president was specifically referring to in his tweet.
Here we go again, another Con Job by the Do Nothing Democrats. All of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 15, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Trump Wears Glasses? Photog Snaps Rare Photo Of The Presidential Peepers.

President Donald Trump isn ’ t often seen wearing glasses in public , but it happened on Tuesday when a photographer snapped him in his limo reading something on his phone .
Doug Mills of The New York Times captured the rare moment as Trump headed for Air Force One on the way to a campaign rally : Wearing glasses , of course , isn ’ t unusual .
Trump , however , has only rarely been seen in them .
When he ’ s at work in the White House , Trump often dictates tweets when others are around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen wearing “ the reading glasses he needs to see the screen , ” The New York Times reported last year .
The newspaper said an aide will print out suggested tweets in extra-large fonts for Trump to sign off on .
He was last seen publicly wearing glasses in 2017 , also through a car window : The president also typically does not wear sunglasses .
But he did don protective lenses to view a solar eclipse in 2017 : President Donald Trump looks up at the partial solar eclipse from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 , 2017 .
Except he also tried to view the eclipse without them : President Donald Trump looks toward the solar eclipse without his protective glasses from the Truman balcony of the White House .
Journalist Ashley Feinberg speculated in Slate in August that Trump ’ s vision ― and his aversion to wearing glasses ― might be connected to some of his infamous gaffes , including mistaking Dayton , Ohio , for Toledo in a speech after a mass shooting , even though a teleprompter in front of him showed the @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump isn’t often seen wearing glasses in public, but it happened on Tuesday when a photographer snapped him in his limo reading something on his phone.
Doug Mills of The New York Times captured the rare moment as Trump headed for Air Force One on the way to a campaign rally:
Advertisement
.@realDonaldTrump
reads his phone as he arrives in his SUV to board Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Md. for a campaign trip to Milwaukee, WI. pic.twitter.com/01z5UJOD8H — Doug Mills (@dougmillsnyt) January 14, 2020
Wearing glasses, of course, isn’t unusual. Trump, however, has only rarely been seen in them.
When he’s at work in the White House, Trump often dictates tweets when others are around because he does not like to be seen wearing “the reading glasses he needs to see the screen,” The New York Times reported last year.
The newspaper said an aide will print out suggested tweets in extra-large fonts for Trump to sign off on.
He was last seen publicly wearing glasses in 2017, also through a car window:
President Donald Trump departs Trump National Golf Club, Sunday, Oct. 22, 2017, in Sterling, Va. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
The president also typically does not wear sunglasses. But he did don protective lenses to view a solar eclipse in 2017:
President Donald Trump looks up at the partial solar eclipse from the balcony of the White House on August 21, 2017. AFP Contributor via Getty Images
Except he also tried to view the eclipse without them:
President Donald Trump looks toward the solar eclipse without his protective glasses from the Truman balcony of the White House. Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
Journalist Ashley Feinberg speculated in Slate in August that Trump’s vision ― and his aversion to wearing glasses ― might be connected to some of his infamous gaffes, including mistaking Dayton, Ohio, for Toledo in a speech after a mass shooting, even though a teleprompter in front of him showed the correct city.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--State Senator Tells Female Reporter Boys Could 'Have A Lot Of Fun’ With Her

A Michigan state senator is under fire after he reportedly told a young female reporter that a group of high school boys touring the state Capitol could “ have a lot of fun ” with her if she stuck around .
Donahue , in an article detailing her experience published Wednesday , said Lucido said he ’ d speak with her after addressing about 30 visiting boys from De La Salle Collegiate , which is an all-boys Catholic school in Warren .
Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue said she was hoping to ask Sen. Lucido a question following a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made the suggestive remark to her in front of a group of boys .
“ You ’ ve heard of De La Salle , right ?
” Donahue said Lucido told her .
When Donahue said she had not , he informed her that it is an all-boys school that he had attended in his youth .
“ You should hang around !
You could have a lot of fun with these boys , or they could have a lot of fun with you , ” Donahue quoted Lucido as telling her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burst out laughing , leaving Donahue , in her words , feeling “ objectified and humiliated.
” “ I ’ m 22 years old and one of the youngest current Capitol reporters , ” Donahue said .
“ The senator ’ s insinuating comments about the ‘ fun ’ I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it came from a place of power.
” The senator ’ s insinuating comments about the ‘ fun ’ I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donahue said she later confronted Lucido about his remark but he brushed it off by telling her it was nothing personal and that he made the comment because boys at that age are simply awkward and shy around women .
He admitted that he had made similar comments in the past to a group of school-age girls .
Lucido , who did not immediately respond to a request for comment , told the Detroit Free Press that he didn ’ t believe he owed Donahue an apology .
Late Wednesday morning , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donahue for what he called a misunderstanding and for her offense .
“ Senator Lucido ’ s comments do not represent De La Salle nor the values and conduct we instill in our young men , ” Maus said .
“ We are very sorry the reporter was put in this position and we have met with the boys who were on the tour to discuss the improper nature of this situation.
” Thank you @ donahual for being brave and speaking out about what happened to you .
Basic respect & decency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Capitol .
Speaking up about harassment and reporting through official channels is critical to end this unacceptable behavior .
https : //t.co/Yn0PMnkJQ2 — Stephanie Chang ( @ stephanielily ) January 15 , 2020 It is quite clear @ PeterLucido owes reporter Allison Donahue an apology - and considering he admits to talking like this all the time he really needs to re-evaluate his communication skills .
I don ’ t know what era he is living in but this is unacceptable in 2020 .
@ FOX2News https : //t.co/Z38yucE66L — Amy Lange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Donahue encouraged other women to stand up for themselves and for all others to offer their support and encouragement .
“ So many times I have acted like I didn ’ t hear it , or I thought it was funny or I didn ’ t understand .
And every time I walk away from that feeling disappointed in myself and guilty .
This time easily could have been like that , ” she tweeted .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Michigan state senator is under fire after he reportedly told a young female reporter that a group of high school boys touring the state Capitol could “have a lot of fun” with her if she stuck around.
Sen. Peter Lucido (R) reportedly made the suggestive comments to Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue on Tuesday after she approached him with a question following a Senate session.
Advertisement
Donahue, in an article detailing her experience published Wednesday, said Lucido said he’d speak with her after addressing about 30 visiting boys from De La Salle Collegiate, which is an all-boys Catholic school in Warren.
Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue said she was hoping to ask Sen. Lucido a question following a Senate session at the Capitol on Tuesday when he made the suggestive remark to her in front of a group of boys. Rebecca Cook / Reuters
“You’ve heard of De La Salle, right?” Donahue said Lucido told her. When Donahue said she had not, he informed her that it is an all-boys school that he had attended in his youth.
“You should hang around! You could have a lot of fun with these boys, or they could have a lot of fun with you,” Donahue quoted Lucido as telling her. This comment prompted the students to burst out laughing, leaving Donahue, in her words, feeling “objectified and humiliated.”
Advertisement
“I’m 22 years old and one of the youngest current Capitol reporters,” Donahue said. “The senator’s insinuating comments about the ‘fun’ I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it came from a place of power.”
“The senator’s insinuating comments about the ‘fun’ I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it came from a place of power.” - Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue
Donahue said she later confronted Lucido about his remark but he brushed it off by telling her it was nothing personal and that he made the comment because boys at that age are simply awkward and shy around women. He admitted that he had made similar comments in the past to a group of school-age girls.
Lucido, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, told the Detroit Free Press that he didn’t believe he owed Donahue an apology. Late Wednesday morning, however, he issued a public apology to Donahue for what he called a misunderstanding and for her offense.
Advertisement
De La Salle Collegiate’s principal, Nathan Maus, also distanced the school from Lucido’s comments in a statement to HuffPost on Wednesday.
“Senator Lucido’s comments do not represent De La Salle nor the values and conduct we instill in our young men,” Maus said. “We are very sorry the reporter was put in this position and we have met with the boys who were on the tour to discuss the improper nature of this situation.”
Fellow reporters and politicians have meanwhile rallied around Donahue on social media, offering their support.
Thank you @donahual for being brave and speaking out about what happened to you. Basic respect & decency should be expected and guaranteed at the State Capitol.
Speaking up about harassment and reporting through official channels is critical to end this unacceptable behavior. https://t.co/Yn0PMnkJQ2 — Stephanie Chang (@stephanielily) January 15, 2020
We must stand up to sexist, violent hate speech everywhere- especially in government institutions. Thank you @donahual for bravely telling your story. https://t.co/SWrXfiCOl4 — Rep. Debbie Dingell (@RepDebDingell) January 15, 2020
Advertisement
“The 15-year-old girl in me, who didn’t know how to advocate for herself then, was telling me to do it now.” Good for Allison Donahue @donahual @MichiganAdvance. https://t.co/dV9GOG7SWO — melissa block (@NPRmelissablock) January 15, 2020
It is quite clear @PeterLucido owes reporter Allison Donahue an apology - and considering he admits to talking like this all the time he really needs to re-evaluate his communication skills. I don’t know what era he is living in but this is unacceptable in 2020. @FOX2News https://t.co/Z38yucE66L — Amy Lange (@langeamyFOX2) January 15, 2020
Donahue encouraged other women to stand up for themselves and for all others to offer their support and encouragement.
“So many times I have acted like I didn’t hear it, or I thought it was funny or I didn’t understand. And every time I walk away from that feeling disappointed in myself and guilty. This time easily could have been like that,” she tweeted.
It wasn’t the comment that necessarily knocked me off my feet, it was the fact that he knew he could get away with saying it.
That’s not happening anymore. — Allison R. Donahue (@donahual) January 15, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--House Votes To Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate

The House voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate nearly one month after voting to impeach him , clearing the way for his trial to begin .
Members of the House are expected to formally march the impeachment articles over to the Senate later in the day , following tradition .
Earlier on Wednesday , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) announced the seven lawmakers she had chosen to act as managers in the Senate trial , arguing the case for removing Trump from office .
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager .
The other six are House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) , House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif. ) , and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries ( D-N.Y. ) , Val Demings ( D-Fla. ) , Jason Crow ( D-Colo. ) and Sylvia Garcia ( D-Texas ) .
The vote to approve the managers and send the impeachment articles to the Senate fell almost entirely along party lines , 228-193 , with just one Democrat , House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota , joining the Republicans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment approved Dec. 18 ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― involve Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine and its president , Volodymyr Zelensky .
Trump is accused of attempting to use congressionally approved military aid earmarked for Ukraine as leverage to advance conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and to make trouble for a key 2020 rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
Impeachment advocates have pointed to a particular phrase , “ do us a favor , ” which Trump used in a July phone call with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusing his power .
“ Do me a favor ?
” Pelosi said Wednesday on the House floor as she recapped the president ’ s alleged wrongdoing .
“ Do you paint houses , too ?
What is this , ‘ do me a favor ’ ?
” Trump , the speaker said , had launched “ an assault on the U.S. Constitution ” and “ gave us no choice ” but to pursue impeachment .
During the weekslong delay imposed by Pelosi , Democrats had hoped to secure assurances from Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the trial would be conducted , but received none .
In the interim , however , new evidence emerged in the form of a cache of emails that offered new details about the Ukrainian aid .
In one email , an Office of Management and Budget official told a top Pentagon official there was “ [ c ] lear direction from POTUS to hold , ” referring to the aid .
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) have pressed for new witnesses and documentation to be introduced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from four Republican senators , which would give them just enough leverage to issue subpoenas .
Impeachment hearings in the House held late last year produced an array of testimony from State Department officials , but the Trump administration has blocked people who were closest to the conversations with Ukraine from speaking to investigators .
One such official , former national security adviser John Bolton , said earlier this month he would testify if the Senate subpoenas him ― putting pressure on Republicans to do so .
Trump has said he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of executive privilege .
McConnell and other top GOP leaders , however , have been extremely dismissive about the prospect of a trial , with McConnell going so far as to say he would be “ coordinating with the White House .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The House voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate nearly one month after voting to impeach him, clearing the way for his trial to begin.
Members of the House are expected to formally march the impeachment articles over to the Senate later in the day, following tradition.
Advertisement
Earlier on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the seven lawmakers she had chosen to act as managers in the Senate trial, arguing the case for removing Trump from office. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will serve as lead manager. The other six are House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The vote to approve the managers and send the impeachment articles to the Senate fell almost entirely along party lines, 228-193, with just one Democrat, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota, joining the Republicans to oppose the resolution.
Due to Republicans’ control of the Senate, the president will most likely be acquitted.
The two articles of impeachment approved Dec. 18 ― abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― involve Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump is accused of attempting to use congressionally approved military aid earmarked for Ukraine as leverage to advance conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and to make trouble for a key 2020 rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Impeachment advocates have pointed to a particular phrase, “do us a favor,” which Trump used in a July phone call with Zelensky, to argue that he was abusing his power.
“Do me a favor?” Pelosi said Wednesday on the House floor as she recapped the president’s alleged wrongdoing. “Do you paint houses, too? What is this, ‘do me a favor’?”
Advertisement
Trump, the speaker said, had launched “an assault on the U.S. Constitution” and “gave us no choice” but to pursue impeachment.
During the weekslong delay imposed by Pelosi, Democrats had hoped to secure assurances from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about how the trial would be conducted, but received none.
In the interim, however, new evidence emerged in the form of a cache of emails that offered new details about the Ukrainian aid. In one email, an Office of Management and Budget official told a top Pentagon official there was “[c]lear direction from POTUS to hold,” referring to the aid.
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have pressed for new witnesses and documentation to be introduced. They are reportedly very close to securing support from four Republican senators, which would give them just enough leverage to issue subpoenas.
“Time has been our friend in all of this,” Pelosi said earlier Wednesday.
Impeachment hearings in the House held late last year produced an array of testimony from State Department officials, but the Trump administration has blocked people who were closest to the conversations with Ukraine from speaking to investigators. One such official, former national security adviser John Bolton, said earlier this month he would testify if the Senate subpoenas him ― putting pressure on Republicans to do so. Trump has said he would move to block a subpoena on grounds of executive privilege.
Advertisement
McConnell and other top GOP leaders, however, have been extremely dismissive about the prospect of a trial, with McConnell going so far as to say he would be “coordinating with the White House.”
“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it,” he told reporters in December.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Guns Banned From Virginia State Capitol Grounds As Pro-Gun Rally Draws Near

Baseless conspiracy theories have also been floating around online that the National Guard will be called in and that the @ @ @ @ @ the electric grid .
The hoaxes have proliferated so widely that the governor had to @ @ @ @ @ he is not going to shut off the electric grid .
“ We have no @ @ @ @ @ National Guard , ” Northam said last week .
“ We ’ re not going @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re not going to go door to door and confiscate people ’ @ @ @ @ @ ban on guns will end the following Tuesday .

Baseless conspiracy theories have also been floating around online that the National Guard will be called in and that the governor plans to shut down the electric grid. The hoaxes have proliferated so widely that the governor had to clarify that, no, he is not going to shut off the electric grid.
“We have no intention of calling out the National Guard,” Northam said last week. “We’re not going to cut off your electricity. We’re not going to go door to door and confiscate people’s weapons.”
The temporary ban on guns will end the following Tuesday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--The Ministry Of Untruth

The Ministry Of Untruth

Editor’s note: At a press briefing on Aug. 13, Dáte asked Trump whether he regretted his lying. Watch what happened here.
As our president sat across from Volodymyr Zelensky in New York last autumn, he explained to the newly elected leader that he knew all about his country because, after all, he used to own the Miss Universe pageant, and one year the winner was from Ukraine.
Advertisement
“We got to know the country very well in a lot of different ways,” Donald Trump said.
It was, unsurprisingly, completely false. A Miss Ukraine had never won the Miss Universe title in the pageant’s 66-year history, including the 20 that Trump had owned it.
Equally unsurprisingly, the lie went largely unnoticed and uncared about. In the flood of falsehoods that gush from Trump’s mouth and Twitter feed most every day, something like this lacked anywhere near the heft to make a splash.
Indeed, on that day during his United Nations General Assembly visit, Trump also claimed: “We have created the greatest economy in the history of our country.” Of the USMCA trade agreement: “It’s a great trade deal — the greatest we’ve ever had. NAFTA was a horrible trade deal. It replaces NAFTA.” Of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “A lot of her members now are having second thoughts. They’re saying they’re in a very bad position.” Of his long-promised wall along the Mexican border: “And the wall is going up, many miles a week.” Of the WTO: “World Trade Organization was not one of the greats. Not one of the greats. That was the creation of China, which went like a rocket ship from the day they signed.” And of new automotive plants: “Many of the great Japanese companies, at my request, are now building their plants in the United States. … Big ones going up in South Carolina, Florida.”
Advertisement
Not a single one of Trump’s assertions was true.
Today’s economy is not the greatest economy in the country’s history, and has, in fact, over the past year been slowing down. Trump’s United States Mexico Canada Agreement is essentially the North American Free Trade Agreement with some minor tweaks. Pelosi was not losing support among her Democratic members. Not a single mile of new fence had been built someplace where there hadn’t already been a barrier. China did not create the WTO, and Toyota and Nissan are not suddenly building new plants here. Not in Florida. Not anywhere.
And on that day, the scandal now threatening Trump’s presidency – his request of Zelensky for the “favor” of investigating a political rival – was just erupting into full bloom, the day after Pelosi had announced a formal impeachment inquiry.
It was easy for the fake Ukrainian Miss Universe to get lost.
_____________________________
It is exhausting. All of it.
I’ve been a journalist for 33 years. I’ve covered Congress. NASA and the military space program. City and county halls. The Florida statehouse. Criminal courts, including armed robbers and serial killers. In all of that time, I have never encountered a public official, a candidate for office, a bureaucrat, a defense lawyer or, frankly, an actual criminal who is as regularly and aggressively dishonest as the current president of the United States. And that includes a dozen years covering the Florida legislature.
It is, in fact, the defining feature of this White House: The president will spew falsehoods about nearly everything, morning, noon and night. He lies in one-on-one interviews, in formal news conferences, and standing beside other world leaders. He lies in “official” government speeches and at campaign rallies.
Protesters gather against Trump in London, July 2018. Mike Kemp via Getty Images
Advertisement
Trump lied about the size of his inaugural crowd on his very first full day in office, at CIA headquarters standing in front of a memorial to officers killed in the line of duty. He invented “millions” of illegal votes by illegal aliens to rationalize Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory. He made up Japanese officials who supposedly told him that Democrats wanted our country to fail, just to make Trump look bad. He told the leader of Pakistan that India’s prime minister wanted Trump to mediate an agreement on Kashmir. The Indian government within minutes put out a statement denying that Narendra Modi had said any such thing.
He has lied repeatedly about the status of the border wall he promised Mexico would pay for. (He lied several times that Mexico was actually paying for it, when, in fact, Mexico has not paid a single peso.) He has lied and continues to lie that China is paying the tariffs he imposed on imported Chinese goods. And he lies and he lies and he lies, over and over again, that he was somehow responsible for the VA choice law, which allowed veterans facing long wait times at VA clinics to see private doctors. In fact, it came to be thanks to three Trump nemeses: the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who wrote it, and Democratic President Barack Obama, who signed it into law two years before Trump was elected.
A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2017 and President Barack Obama on Jan. 20, 2009. Reuters Staff / Reuters
In all, to date, there have been many thousands of falsehoods, and a significant percentage of them are lies: That is, Trump knows what he saying is not true, but says it anyway. It is not worth trying to list even a small subset of them – other journalists are doing yeoman’s work in that area – but it is nevertheless truly astonishing when you stop and think about it: Whenever the president of the United States opens his mouth, odds are that the words that tumble forth are false. Whenever the erstwhile leader of the free world puts his thumbs to his iPhone keypad, it is more likely than not that the assertions that pop up on social media moments later are an exaggeration. Or a random fabrication. Or a dramatic embellishment. Or a deliberate lie.
And perhaps the most troubling part of all this? That three years into the Donald Trump presidency, these observations lack the capacity to shock or even to raise an eyebrow. It is no longer newsworthy that the person leading the world’s most powerful nation, commanding the most destructive arsenal in human history, is untrustworthy to his core. It is simply where we are today.
Advertisement
If Ronald Reagan is the president who won the Cold War, and Obama will be remembered as the first Black president, Trump’s place in the history books is certain to be considerably less flattering: the impeached president who made up the most stuff, pretty much all day, pretty much every day.
Once upon a time, not terribly long ago, Donald J. Trump’s difficult relationship with the truth was of little actual consequence to anyone.
He was an outer-borough real estate guy turned Manhattan celebrity turned game show host, whose fame was built largely on his willingness to fill New York City’s tabloid gossip pages. He would say whatever juicy or outrageous or provocative thing that came to mind to get himself ink. It mattered not at all whether he was truly sleeping with a particular supermodel, as his made-up-spokesman alias would claim, or if a member of the royal family was really moving into one of his properties – except perhaps to the writer struggling to fill those remaining column inches by deadline.
That all changed in May 2016, when he became the presumptive presidential nominee for one of the two major American political parties. Overnight, his utterances became deeply significant, every syllable pored over both in America, where many until that point had not paid much attention to him, and more so in capital cities the world over ― even if he didn’t appreciate it or care.
Three and a half years later, pretty much everyone on the planet paying even the least bit of attention understands that when it comes to assertions of fact from the American president, there is good reason to take them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Several healthy doses, in fact. And because Donald Trump demands loyalty both in words and deed – expecting behavior that tends to normalize his own – that caveat became necessary early on for just about everyone who works at the White House as well as the political appointees across the executive branch agencies.
Advertisement
Real estate magnate Donald Trump and his then-girlfriend (and eventual second wife) Marla Maples are seen at the Holyfield-Foreman fight at Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, N.J., April 19, 1991. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Which brings us to today. The president faces removal from office for withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of congressionally approved military aid to coerce a foreign leader into helping Trump’s own reelection campaign. He is simultaneously embracing a go-it-alone escalation with Iran that could easily blossom into a full-on war.
Regarding Ukraine, there are a great number of facts out there, both from witness testimony and documents, corroborating the accusations against him. And on Iran, there seem to be few facts backing up his claims that it was preparing imminent attacks against the United States.
To survive a Senate trial and win reelection later this year, the president needs a substantial plurality of Americans to ignore all of that and instead accept Trump’s word.
Based on his track record, there is zero reason for anyone to do so. Zero.
_____________________________
On an Air Force One flight back to Washington after a Louisiana outing last spring, House Republican Whip Steve Scalise couldn’t help but chortle as he recounted all the absurdities sprinkled into Trump’s remarks earlier that day: “Windmills cause cancer! Dead birds!”
Advertisement
Trump, as is his wont, had been railing on about another of his nemeses, wind turbines, and how they are unreliable for watching television because ― what if the wind dies? How their spinning blades kill birds, and especially, for some reason, bald eagles. How they cause nearby homes to plummet in value. How, he even claimed once, they cause cancer.
It goes without saying that not a word Trump had said about wind power was true. Indeed, implicit in Scalise’s levity was that Trump’s words are not to be taken seriously. They are terrific for their entertainment value, but it is pointless to parse them for meaning.
Unfortunately, the nation and the world do parse Trump’s words, because while they are often absurd and even more often false, he himself usually intends them seriously, and the powers at his fingertips are so vast that he cannot be safely ignored.
His words mattered a great deal, for example, to a U.S. Navy SEAL and an untold number of Yemeni civilians who died in the first days of Trump’s presidency when he approved a special operations raid there ― in no small measure because predecessor Barack Obama had refused to approve it.
They’ve mattered and will continue to matter in the Middle East, where his decisions to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement ― again, in large measure because Obama had achieved it ― to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and, most recently, to kill Iran’s top military leader have all further destabilized the region.
Advertisement
And they’ve certainly mattered to farmers in the American Midwest, whose livelihoods have been crushed because Trump’s trade war with China wrecked a market they had spent decades nurturing.
President Donald Trump displays the "Space Policy Directive 4" establishing a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces, Feb. 19, 2019. Jim Young / Reuters
Each of these decisions had been telegraphed for months or years along with outlandish claims of his military acumen, his foreign policy expertise and his mastery of international trade ― claims that have turned out to be entirely specious. Trump does not, in fact, know more about war than “his generals.” The Iran agreement was actually working, as officials in his own administration were telling him. And trade wars, it appears, are neither “good” nor “easy to win.”
More so than any previous administration in modern times, Donald Trump and his White House are eager and willing to disseminate false information to advance an agenda that seems to have no other goal than to secure Trump a second term.
The examples are legion. Trump, and his staff, claim that drug prices are coming down. That air quality is the best in the world. That the southern border wall is rapidly getting built. That the military is suddenly bristling with hundreds of brand-new airplanes and ships. That jobs are “pouring” back into the country from overseas.
Advertisement
A conference call the White House staged last summer was beyond Orwellian. The former coal lobbyist Trump had put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency was literally giving his boss credit for environmental progress made under presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. We had truly entered the upside-down world.
This happens so often, on so many fronts, that it becomes numbing. We simply get used to the nonsense and shrug. Perhaps that is the intended goal.
Progressives excoriate and conservatives praise the policies that Trump has put into place, from rolling back environmental regulations to installing Federalist Society judges to signing a tax cut that disproportionately helps the richest. Trump has, indeed, done those things ― but most if not all would have come from any Republican president from that 2016 field.
What Trump has brought, uniquely, is far more consequential long term: He has destroyed the credibility of the United States government, both at home and abroad. And while Scalise and other Republicans like to pretend that that doesn’t really matter, it does. Immensely.
In this June 30, 2019, file photo, Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un pose at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
The only time NATO’s mutual defense provision has ever been triggered in its 70-year history was when, we, the United States of America, were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Soldiers, pilots and sailors from 14 countries put their lives at risk on behalf of ours.
Yet over the past three years, our president has repeatedly lied about our allies and their financial obligations to the military alliance. He has falsely claimed that the European Union was created to undermine the United States. He has similarly lied about the terms of military and trade agreements with Japan and South Korea.
In Trump’s first year, European officials would hear from top administration voices, including then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, that the core relationship had not changed, regardless of what the president personally might be saying at any given moment. Over time, though, reassuring words have lost meaning as they saw that Trump could and would act precipitously, such as his announcement to abandon the Kurds in Syria ― who had done much of the fighting and bleeding and dying for America in the fight against ISIS ― to the mercies of Turkey’s strongman Recep Erdoğan.
What will happen if the day comes when we truly need those traditional allies again? How will they trust us? Why should they trust us?
_____________________________
Of course, what might happen in some future overseas crisis, even one as looming and as plausible as a war with Iran, is a hypothetical that for a variety of reasons will not alarm many Americans.
Advertisement
A far more worrisome example of the Trump White House’s toxic mix of recklessness and mendacity already took place right here at home, just a few months back.
On Sept. 1, at 10:21 a.m. Washington time, the president of the United States emerged from a hurricane briefing and decided to offer his own update on Twitter: “In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!”
Except, by then, the National Hurricane Center’s consensus was that Dorian would parallel the east coast of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, before eventually turning northeast and off to sea. Hurricane watches and warnings were posted along those coasts.
In other words, Trump’s inclusion of Alabama had zero relationship to the actual Hurricane Center forecast.
To appreciate why what happened next was so appalling, it is perhaps necessary to have lived in a hurricane-prone state for a period of years. In those places, the rule is simple: Accept the experts’ analyses and recommendations. Don’t embellish. Don’t play games. People’s lives hang in the balance.
Advertisement
It’s also important to understand that the public advisories issued by forecasters are carefully workshopped to strike a balance between providing meteorological precision and managing an orderly public response. Evacuations are time-consuming and come with their own risks and opportunity costs. Evacuating southeast Florida, for instance, makes evacuating Central Florida much harder, because, first, there are only so many hotel rooms and shelters within a day’s drive of the coast and, second, the interstates and turnpike can only carry so many cars before they become parking lots. Most of all, forecasters want to maintain public confidence in their products to maximize compliance with whatever response emergency managers choose to order. For example, they hate “windshield wipering” a forecast track ― bending it in one direction, and then the other – even if successive computer model runs indicate exactly that, because doing so exasperates an anxious public.
Donald Trump’s Alabama tweet ran roughshod over all of that.
Why he did so is probably not worth the headache that trying to divine Trump’s motives often brings. The simplest explanation is that Trump has always been a drama junkie, and that his last career before his White House run was hosting a reality television show where that trait was particularly prized. Alabama has been a favorite of his ever since a campaign visit to Mobile in August 2015 brought out a crowd of 30,000. He simply wrote the state into the Hurricane Dorian episode.
Trump holds a Hurricane Dorian forecast tracking chart -- adjusted by a Sharpie -- as he talks with reporters in the White House Oval Office. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The consequences, of course, were immediate. The National Weather Service office in Birmingham was flooded with panicked phone calls, asking about the monster hurricane that was suddenly bearing down on their state. Forecasters responded 20 minutes later with their own tweet: “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east.”
Advertisement
And that act of truth-telling set off more than a week of Trump and his political appointees at the White House waging war on the actual experts, the actual facts and, really, the actual truth.
Rather than just admit the mistake and move on, Trump instead insisted that he had been right. He claimed – falsely – that at the time of the tweet, there had still been a decent chance that Alabama would be struck. And that, in turn, triggered a response that had already happened so many times previously and which continues to happen today: His staff tried to re-engineer reality to fit the lie their boss had told and was refusing to back away from.
To this end, they ordered up a large poster board of a forecast map from nearly a week earlier, when the storm had been predicted to cross the Florida peninsula. Trump then drew in an additional semicircle with a black Sharpie to include southeastern Alabama.
And this, within the White House, became the official line. For days. That Trump had been right, and the country’s best meteorologists had been wrong. One top press officer, in fact, kept an 8 1/2-by-11 printout of the outdated tracking map on his desk – a prop to continue arguing to reporters, for months, that Trump had been correct.
The whole thing became comical – which served to hide the perils it exposed.
Trump, even in serious matters, could not be counted on to tell the truth or to correct obvious mistakes. Even worse, his White House and top agency officials would take his side and chastise line-level employees who dared contradict him.
Advertisement
The USS John S. McCain destroyer is moored out of sight in Japan on June 1, 2019, after the White House and Defense Department exchanged emails on hiding the ship during Trump's visit so he wouldn't be enraged by seeing the name of his rival. Tomohiro Ohsumi via Getty Images
The National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are among the crown jewels of the federal government – islands of quiet competence regardless of the political winds of the moment. Trump’s childishness drew them both into the churning chaos that constantly surrounds him.
On Sept. 6, NOAA headquarters released a statement – unsigned but presumably a political appointee – backing up Trump and scolding the Birmingham office. That, in turn, drew a chorus of condemnation from the top scientists and career staff. It was a mess, generated for no good reason at all.
This was a hurricane, a relatively predictable weather event for which the White House is not the sole or even the main source of information. What happens when it is something else, a terrorist bombing, an attack on an overseas military base, a disease outbreak, where the White House is a primary or perhaps the only source of information?
Something like, say, the targeted killing of a top leader of a hostile nation?
_____________________________
As Trump made dishonesty a principal feature of his White House, he had an unwitting accomplice: the White House press corps itself.
Advertisement
Part of this was inevitable, at least in the beginning. Journalists generally assume that someone is telling the truth when they talk to us, and Trump and his staff were afforded that same benefit of the doubt. Now, arguably, given his decades-long history as a fabulist – recall that he used to dial up gossip columnists and, identifying himself as “John Barron” or “John Miller,” try to plant fake stories about his sexual and business conquests – perhaps Trump should not have been trusted from the outset.
But there was a notion, pushed strongly by national Republican leaders, that Trump would grow into the job, that the responsibility of the office would weigh on his shoulders and that he would finally act like an adult.
Of course, that did not happen. I was by chance the pool reporter for Trump’s first full day in office, and watched with my own eyes as he stood in front of the memorial wall at CIA headquarters across the river in Langley, Virginia, and claimed, falsely, that there had been as many as a million and a half people on the National Mall for his inauguration and that the media were lying about him having had a much smaller crowd than Barack Obama eight years earlier. A couple of hours later, White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s first official act in that job was to march into the briefing room, repeat those lies and then march out.
The barrage of near-daily dishonesties that followed helped sweep away that deep-seated aversion that most journalists – including this one – had to using the word “lie” in print and on the air. The likelihood of turning off some in the audience with such a charged term aside, there was the definitional problem: A lie means that the purported liar knows what he is saying is false at the moment that he says it. On a real-time basis, of course, that’s nearly impossible to prove. How can we know what is going through people’s heads as they say things?
As the weeks and months passed, though, we began to see that Trump had, in fact, time after time, been given accurate information about topics as silly as to whether Ronald Reagan had won Wisconsin (he had) to as consequential as to whether China was paying the tariffs Trump had imposed (they were not). Yet he had continued to make the false claims anyway. This eventually led to more and more news organizations getting past their reticence and calling Trump a liar as warranted.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, other more deeply rooted factors remain that have served to make this president’s relationship with the truth seem to reside within a band of normal, when in reality it is an extreme outlier.
Instead of pointing out the casual lies coming from the administration as they happen, too many members of the press corps just put the lie out there as news. “The president said X,” is the headline, rather than: “The president lied about X” or, more accurately, “The president lied about X again.”
As a former Associated Press reporter versed in the responsibility of providing just-the-facts coverage, I appreciate that there are times our jobs require that we act as stenographers. As someone who has covered Trump from the day he rode down his escalator, I appreciate that this approach does our audience an enormous disservice. Yet it remains a staple of far too much White House coverage.
Some of this is a function of journalists too young and too inexperienced to understand that Trump’s behavior is not merely unusual, but aberrant and dangerous to a self-governing society.
Once upon a time, covering the White House was a mid- or late-career assignment. Reporters making their way there would have spent decades covering school boards, county commissions, criminal courts, statehouses, Congress, the Pentagon, the State Department – all of which provided a solid foundation for understanding the functioning of American government and the players who make it work.
Advertisement
Trump holds what appears to be a prepared statement and handwritten notes after watching testimony by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland as he speaks to reporters from the South Lawn of the White House on Nov. 20, 2019. Erin Scott / Reuters
Today, the White House press corps is radically different. Many reporters had covered just a few, or even just one, political campaign before their White House assignments. They would be hard-pressed to explain ad valorem taxation. Or how a bond issue works. Or statewide school funding formulas. This is one reason, for example, that when 2016 candidates vowed to eliminate Common Core educational standards and bring decisions to local school boards, too many of the reporters covering them just scribbled it all down, rather than ask the candidates what they meant, given that schools are already controlled by local boards.
In fairness, this isn’t completely their fault. The recession of 2008-09 wreaked havoc on the news business, which made wholesale cuts of higher-salaried journalists, which is to say those with a decade or more of experience. This resulted in a press corps nationally and in Washington far younger and greener than prior to the recession, while the industry itself morphed to keep up with the Internet and social media.
And it’s this last piece that’s the most sinister element “normalizing” someone like Trump.
The era of filing one or two articles a day, let alone weekly in-depth pieces, is long gone at the vast majority of news organizations. Some “new media” outlets have a quota of five or six bylined items a day. It goes without saying that this is not a winning formula for producing high-quality journalism.
As it turns out, though, the Trump noise machine is perfectly suited for meeting that five-or-six piece quota. Indeed, between the morning tweets and the random comments at Oval Office photo opportunities, Cabinet meeting preambles and shouting sessions on the South Lawn beside the idling jet turbines of Marine 1, Donald Trump generates enough fresh material for a dozen, sometimes two dozen pieces of “content” each and every day. Contrast this with the Obama presidency, or the George W. Bush presidency, when days or even a week could go by without the president saying anything particularly newsworthy.
Advertisement
This is why even senior members of the White House press corps – those who should know better – actually praise Trump and his White House for being the most “accessible” in history, without acknowledging that so much of that access is to material that is either straight-up false or noisy nonsense.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks to reporters on the North Lawn outside the White House on May 23, 2019. ASSOCIATED PRESS
A perfect example of this is Sarah Huckabee Sanders. As press secretary to the White House, her main job should have been to provide accurate information to the American public through the news media. Of course she had the right to “spin” facts to put the president in the best possible light. But she went way beyond that. She would often claim, for instance, that Trump worked harder than anyone she had ever known – even though Trump has kept the lightest work schedule of any president going back at least 50 years. She would claim that Trump was fully versed on details of his administration’s policy goals – even though a cursory review of his statements shows that he often doesn’t have the slightest idea of what is contained in legislation or, sometimes, in his own executive orders.
Yet even flackery that far over the top can be excused. What she did in the days following the May 2017 firing of James Comey cannot.
When asked about morale at the FBI after Trump dismissed their director in hopes of blocking an investigation into his campaign, Sanders said that she personally had heard from “countless members of the FBI” in support of the firing. When asked a follow-up the next day about how many “countless” might mean, exactly, she said: “I have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the FBI that said they’re very happy with the president’s decision.”
Advertisement
As it turned out, all of that was a lie. Not just a small lie, but invented out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of destroying someone’s reputation. This came out in simple, matter-of-fact prose in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report nearly two years later. From that day forward, Sanders should have been treated as if she were wearing a giant scarlet “L,” and no journalist should have trusted a word she said again.
Instead, months later when she stepped down, all was apparently forgiven. Two members of the White House Correspondents Association board even hosted a farewell party for her.
_____________________________
There will come a day when Donald Trump is no longer president.
Perhaps that’s a year from now. Perhaps five years. Or, in the off chance an unforeseen turn ends in his removal or resignation, perhaps just weeks or months. In any case, his departure from the White House will bring a serious reckoning of what we, as Americans, will tolerate from our top elected official.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Pensacola, Florida, on Dec. 8, 2017. Carlo Allegri / Reuters
After Richard Nixon, the nation came to a consensus that what had happened was not at all good, and introduced institutional safeguards to try to prevent it from happening again. Nixon’s use of barely regulated slush funds to pay the Watergate burglars resulted in new campaign finance laws imposing limits and requiring better disclosure. Other laws provided privacy protections, created independent inspectors general for executive agencies, codified presidential record keeping and strengthened the Freedom of Information Act.
Advertisement
Underlying all of these reforms was the shared conviction that a president ought not to lie and cheat. This was the fundamental virtue Jimmy Carter was selling in 1976: that he would not lie to the American people. He was a long shot, but that message made him a winner.
Four decades later, is truth still of value to Americans? Polling shows that the vast majority of the public knows full well that Trump and his White House are profoundly dishonest. A CNN survey in September showed that only 28% of Americans believe all or most of the information coming out of the White House. Yet some 40% to 45% continue to approve of Trump. I’ve talked to a great number of people in that subset who disbelieve Trump but support him anyway. Among their top rationales: All politicians lie, so what’s so terrible about Trump’s lies?
And that, perhaps, is the worst, most corrosive lie that Trump has sold to his defenders: That everyone is corrupt, that everyone lies, so Republicans may as well go with a corrupt liar who is on their side.
I’ve seen this attitude in Trump supporters from Wisconsin to New Hampshire to Florida when confronted with irrefutable evidence of Trump’s falsehoods and self-dealing. A selectman from Plymouth, New Hampshire, population 6,752, said he didn’t mind if Trump was dishonest because all politicians were, although he could not at that moment give any examples. A treasurer for a county GOP committee in western Iowa told me it didn’t bother him that Trump was trying to steer a multi-million dollar government contract to his own South Florida golf resort because all elected officials find ways to funnel themselves public money.
Well, everyone is not corrupt. Everyone does not lie.
President Donald Trump gestures as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) speaks in the East Room of the White House on Nov. 6, 2019. Graham has become one of Trump's leading GOP apologists. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
In fact, most politicians do not lie, and do everything they can to avoid lying. They try to present unfavorable facts about themselves in as favorable a light as they can manage. They obfuscate. They change the subject. They avoid journalists and the public. But by and large, they try hard not to lie, because lying brings opprobrium at best and the end of one’s political career at worst.
At least, that was the landscape before Trump’s presidency.
The conduct of Trump’s most ardent Republican supporters in the House – most vividly on display during the impeachment hearings – suggests there will be a cadre of public officials who will try to make “alternative facts” a permanent feature of American politics going forward.
It’s hard to overstate how dangerous this would be. The revelation that Nixon had lied about something Big and Important led to his downfall when a substantial slice of voters in his own party decided that such conduct was unacceptable. Forty-six years later, with an analogous set of facts already in the public domain that Trump tried to cheat his way to victory in his reelection, Republican voters appear to be giving Trump a pass, seeming to embrace instead a series of lies nonsensical on their face.
How does self-government survive when a significant number of participants simply refuse to accept facts because they are harmful to the leader who panders to their prejudices?
In astrophysics, there is a maxim that gravity always wins in the end. After the strong and weak nuclear forces are spent, after all the photons have scattered and dissipated, gravity will remain and will inexorably make its presence felt.
Advertisement
So it is in the world of the everyday. Facts can be ignored, but cannot be willed away. Calling climate change a hoax will not prevent Miami and Norfolk and Annapolis from flooding every spring tide. Claiming that North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is no longer interested in nuclear weapons does not, as it turns out, actually make it so.
Yet if truth is to win post-Trump, it will have to be the American public that makes it so. Average citizens, those who do not spend hours each day monitoring cable news and Twitter, will have to decide that lying is unacceptable in our governance. That those entrusted with the public’s money and the public’s well-being have a core obligation to provide that public the truth.
The news media cannot lead the way in this. News is a business, and in business, the customer is always right. If the customer in this case prefers to hear lies that match up with his fears and preconceptions, there are plenty of media outlets willing to offer that service.
In this Sept. 25, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during the United Nations General Assembly in New York. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The question Americans need to ask themselves is do we have the right to accurate information from our White House, or not? Would we permit an elected small town mayor to lie this frequently about town business? How about a school board chair?
Advertisement
In hindsight, it is easy to understand why the fake Ukrainian Miss Universe winner was so easy to miss in that Sept. 25 photo opportunity.
In those 17 minutes, Trump claimed – falsely – that he had not pressured the new Ukrainian president into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden, even though the call memo of that phone conversation from two months earlier made clear that he had done precisely that. He claimed that other European countries were not helping Ukraine as much as the United States was, when the opposite is true.
He defended his lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to push a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia had not helped Trump win the 2016 election, and that Ukraine had framed Russia by planting fake evidence. He repeated his frequent, but untrue, claim that China had “given” Hunter Biden $1.5 billion.
And squeezed in there among all the lies was one statement to Volodymyr Zelensky that could almost qualify as a policy declaration. Asked by Zelensky for help getting Crimea back from Russia, Trump essentially washed his hands of the matter, saying the invasion and annexation had happened under predecessor Barack Obama – “It’s just one of those things” – and urging Zelensky to work with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. “You’ve really made some progress with Russia,” Trump told him. “Just keep it going.”
The pained expression on Zelensky’s face through most of the session said it all. Correcting Trump about the Miss Universe pageant was the least of his worries. Or ours.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Sanders' Wife Shuts Down Discussions Over Warren Dispute

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Jane O ’ Meara Sanders , the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders , has a clear message about the simmering dispute between her husband and Elizabeth Warren : It ’ s over .
O ’ Meara Sanders defended her husband ’ s integrity during a Wednesday interview , but she declined to attack Warren — or inflame the feud in any way — a day after the Massachusetts senator reiterated during a nationally televised debate that Sanders , a Vermont senator , told her privately that a woman couldn ’ t defeat President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this discussion is over , ” O ’ Meara Sanders told The Associated Press .
The leading liberal presidential contenders have been trying to de-escalate the feud almost since Warren inexplicably made the explosive allegation on the eve of this week ’ s debate , claiming that Sanders questioned the viability of a female presidential candidate during a private conversation in 2018 .
The subsequent attempts to tamp down the conflict , from the candidates on the debate stage Tuesday night and from their chief surrogates on Wednesday , reflect the dangerous stakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apart the Democratic Party ’ s progressive base less than three weeks before presidential primary voting begins .
O ’ Meara Sanders said their campaign has no interest in promoting divisions “ like Trump does by gender , race or ethnicity.
” “ We remain committed to continuing a progressive movement made up of women and men , black and white , gay an straight , ” she said .
“ The message is unity.
” At the same time , she described her husband as “ a person that everybody can trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s accusation .
“ Maybe people sometimes misremember things that happened , ” she said .
“ But I know without a doubt that it is not anything Bernie would ever say .
It is inconceivable because it ’ s not what he believes .
And there ’ s proof of that going back many , many years.
” “ I ’ m not attacking Elizabeth Warren in any way , shape or form on this , ” O ’ Meara Sanders continued .
“ My message is Bernie is trying to bring @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Jane O’Meara Sanders, the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, has a clear message about the simmering dispute between her husband and Elizabeth Warren: It’s over.
O’Meara Sanders defended her husband’s integrity during a Wednesday interview, but she declined to attack Warren — or inflame the feud in any way — a day after the Massachusetts senator reiterated during a nationally televised debate that Sanders, a Vermont senator, told her privately that a woman couldn’t defeat President Donald Trump.
Advertisement
“I think that this discussion is over,” O’Meara Sanders told The Associated Press.
The leading liberal presidential contenders have been trying to de-escalate the feud almost since Warren inexplicably made the explosive allegation on the eve of this week’s debate, claiming that Sanders questioned the viability of a female presidential candidate during a private conversation in 2018. The subsequent attempts to tamp down the conflict, from the candidates on the debate stage Tuesday night and from their chief surrogates on Wednesday, reflect the dangerous stakes surrounding a fight that threatens to tear apart the Democratic Party’s progressive base less than three weeks before presidential primary voting begins.
O’Meara Sanders said their campaign has no interest in promoting divisions “like Trump does by gender, race or ethnicity.”
“We remain committed to continuing a progressive movement made up of women and men, black and white, gay an straight,” she said. “The message is unity.”
At the same time, she described her husband as “a person that everybody can trust” and pushed back against Warren’s accusation.
Advertisement
“Maybe people sometimes misremember things that happened,” she said. “But I know without a doubt that it is not anything Bernie would ever say. It is inconceivable because it’s not what he believes. And there’s proof of that going back many, many years.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Republicans Divided On Witness Testimony Ahead Of Senate Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial is due to begin in earnest next week but Republicans are still debating whether to even allow an opportunity to call witnesses during the proceedings , which are expected to last several weeks .
A handful of moderates , who are sensitive to making the trial at least appear credible to the public , are pushing for a provision in the rules governing the proceedings that leaves the door open to call witnesses after the presentation of evidence by both the House impeachment managers and Trump ’ s defense team .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins of Maine , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , Mitt Romney of Utah , and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee .
Alexander , who is retiring this year , made clear he would oppose a motion to dismiss the case before having an opportunity to consider hearing additional witness testimony and other evidence during the trial .
“ Just because the House was a circus , it doesn ’ t mean the Senate has to be .
We should hear the case , not dismiss it .
Then we should ask our questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote on whether we need additional evidence , ” Alexander told reporters on Tuesday .
A simple majority , or 51 votes , is required to pass a motion to subpoena a witness during the trial .
Calling someone like former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who has expressed a desire to testify with new evidence about the case , will require four Republicans joining all Democrats to support the measure .
The leaders of the conservative wing of the caucus , meanwhile , are pushing back and demanding that the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case and vowing to call witnesses desired by the president and his allies , like Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who filed the complaint that led to impeachment .
Paul , who is close to Trump , suggested that some of his Republican colleagues ought to be careful about how they intend to vote on bringing in one set of witnesses but not the other .
“ If they vote against the president bringing in witnesses , it ’ s not going to be helpful to them with the Republican base , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case is strong , there ’ s no need for the judge and jury to re-open the investigation , ” McConnell said in a floor speech on Tuesday , suggesting his opposition to calling witnesses .
“ If the existing case is weak , House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place.
” McConnell has not yet revealed the rules governing the proceedings ― known as an organizing resolution ― that will determine what the trial will look like , though he is expected to do so next week .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the resolution ’ s specific language .
The rules for then-President Bill Clinton ’ s 1999 trial included specific language about calling witnesses after evidence had been presented .
Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , who reportedly attended Tuesday ’ s meeting with McConnell , told reporters that the rules will include a guarantee that senators will be able to call witnesses .
He also said the effort to dismiss the case early is a “ waste of everybody ’ s time , ” because it does not have enough support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American history ― is due to begin after some procedural steps this week .
The first few days will feature made-for-TV moments : the swearing-in of all senators and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who will preside over the proceedings , as well as the reading of the articles charging Trump with obstruction of Congress and using the power of his office to further his political ambitions .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is due to begin in earnest next week but Republicans are still debating whether to even allow an opportunity to call witnesses during the proceedings, which are expected to last several weeks.
A handful of moderates, who are sensitive to making the trial at least appear credible to the public, are pushing for a provision in the rules governing the proceedings that leaves the door open to call witnesses after the presentation of evidence by both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. The group includes GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
Advertisement
Alexander, who is retiring this year, made clear he would oppose a motion to dismiss the case before having an opportunity to consider hearing additional witness testimony and other evidence during the trial.
“Just because the House was a circus, it doesn’t mean the Senate has to be. We should hear the case, not dismiss it. Then we should ask our questions. Then following that we should have a vote on whether we need additional evidence,” Alexander told reporters on Tuesday.
A simple majority, or 51 votes, is required to pass a motion to subpoena a witness during the trial. Calling someone like former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has expressed a desire to testify with new evidence about the case, will require four Republicans joining all Democrats to support the measure.
The leaders of the conservative wing of the caucus, meanwhile, are pushing back and demanding that the trial rules include a motion to dismiss the case and vowing to call witnesses desired by the president and his allies, like Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who filed the complaint that led to impeachment.
Advertisement
“I don’t think we should selectively call just witnesses that don’t like the president, that wouldn’t be any kind of fairness,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday.
Paul, who is close to Trump, suggested that some of his Republican colleagues ought to be careful about how they intend to vote on bringing in one set of witnesses but not the other.
“If they vote against the president bringing in witnesses, it’s not going to be helpful to them with the Republican base,” Paul said.
Paul helped make the case for calling witnesses desired by Trump alongside Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday, according to Politico. The leader was reportedly receptive to the strategy.
“If the existing case is strong, there’s no need for the judge and jury to re-open the investigation,” McConnell said in a floor speech on Tuesday, suggesting his opposition to calling witnesses. “If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place.”
Advertisement
McConnell has not yet revealed the rules governing the proceedings ― known as an organizing resolution ― that will determine what the trial will look like, though he is expected to do so next week. The delay reflects the disagreement within his caucus about the resolution’s specific language. The rules for then-President Bill Clinton’s 1999 trial included specific language about calling witnesses after evidence had been presented.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who reportedly attended Tuesday’s meeting with McConnell, told reporters that the rules will include a guarantee that senators will be able to call witnesses. He also said the effort to dismiss the case early is a “waste of everybody’s time,” because it does not have enough support.