thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Marie Yovanovitch Calls For Investigation After Democrats Release Parnas Documents

Marie Yovanovitch , the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted earlier this year , called for an investigation Tuesday just hours after Democrats released new evidence in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment case that details Rudy Giuliani ’ s push to remove Yovanovitch from her post .
Lawrence Robbins , an attorney representing Yovanovitch , released a statement to several news outlets Tuesday night saying that the idea that the then-ambassador was being surveilled is “ disturbing.
” “ Needless to say , the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch ’ s movements for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in his statement , reported by NBC News and USA Today .
“ We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.
” Parnas received messages from Robert F. Hyde in March 2019 that contained details about Yovanovitch ’ s location in Ukraine from people who appeared to be tailing her in Kyiv .
Those messages came in response to articles , tweets and videos accusing Yovanovitch of being disloyal to Trump ― which Yovanovitch has denied and said was part of a smear campaign by Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Wow .
Can ’ t believe Trumo [ sic ] hasn ’ t fired this bitch .
I ’ ll get right in that , ” Hyde , the Republican congressional candidate , wrote to Parnas before sending him several updates about her whereabouts .
“ They are willing to help if we/you would like a price , ” Hyde said in a separate text message .
“ Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money… what I was told.
” Yovanovitch was removed in May as ambassador after Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden , one of Trump ’ s political rivals in the 2020 presidential election .
She testified in the House ’ s impeachment inquiry that the president was politically motivated to pressure the State Department to remove her because she was an obstacle for Trump and his allies to carry out shadow diplomacy in Ukraine .
Hyde , who is a friend of Trump ’ s , responded to reports of the released documents by telling NBC News , “ How low can liddle Adam Bull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my buddy ’ s and I wrote while we had a few drinks to some dweeb I met a few times ... .
Bull Schiff is a desperate turd , ” referring to House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) .
Parnas is a Florida businessman who helped Giuliani try to find dirt on Biden .
Parnas and Igor Fruman , another Giuliani associate , were arrested in October on charges they funneled foreign money into Republican campaigns , including Trump ’ s .
That arrest came as the House was conducting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas eventually complied with the impeachment inquiry by privately testifying and providing lawmakers with access to phone records and documents that were seized during his arrest .
Over this past weekend , Parnas ’ s attorney Joseph Bondy asked a judge to let him turn over additional documents he considered essential to Trump ’ s impeachment case , including records from two cellphones and an iPad .
The release of documents comes a day before the House is expected to vote on whether to send the articles of impeachment against Trump to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impeach the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted earlier this year, called for an investigation Tuesday just hours after Democrats released new evidence in President Donald Trump’s impeachment case that details Rudy Giuliani’s push to remove Yovanovitch from her post.
The House Intelligence Committee released a collection of documents obtained from Giuliani’s indicted associate Lev Parnas. The evidence includes WhatsApp messages between Parnas and a Connecticut congressional candidate who apparently tracked Yovanovitch’s location in March.
Advertisement
Lawrence Robbins, an attorney representing Yovanovitch, released a statement to several news outlets Tuesday night saying that the idea that the then-ambassador was being surveilled is “disturbing.”
BREAKING: Ambassador Yovanovitch calls for an investigation into whether she was surveilled.
Her lawyer Lawrence Robbins tells @NBCNews the notion her movements were being monitored is "disturbing" pic.twitter.com/aZLISjtieB — Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) January 15, 2020
“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing,” Robbins said in his statement, reported by NBC News and USA Today. “We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”
Parnas received messages from Robert F. Hyde in March 2019 that contained details about Yovanovitch’s location in Ukraine from people who appeared to be tailing her in Kyiv. Those messages came in response to articles, tweets and videos accusing Yovanovitch of being disloyal to Trump ― which Yovanovitch has denied and said was part of a smear campaign by Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.
Advertisement
“Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this bitch. I’ll get right in that,” Hyde, the Republican congressional candidate, wrote to Parnas before sending him several updates about her whereabouts.
“They are willing to help if we/you would like a price,” Hyde said in a separate text message. “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money… what I was told.”
Yovanovitch was removed in May as ambassador after Republicans complained she was undermining efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump’s political rivals in the 2020 presidential election. She testified in the House’s impeachment inquiry that the president was politically motivated to pressure the State Department to remove her because she was an obstacle for Trump and his allies to carry out shadow diplomacy in Ukraine.
Hyde, who is a friend of Trump’s, responded to reports of the released documents by telling NBC News, “How low can liddle Adam Bull Schiff go. To take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote while we had a few drinks to some dweeb I met a few times.... Bull Schiff is a desperate turd,” referring to House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
Parnas is a Florida businessman who helped Giuliani try to find dirt on Biden. Parnas and Igor Fruman, another Giuliani associate, were arrested in October on charges they funneled foreign money into Republican campaigns, including Trump’s. That arrest came as the House was conducting its impeachment inquiry into the president.
Advertisement
We’ve just asked the Court’s permission to give additional materials, extracted from three more of Lev Parnas’ electronic devices, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence #HPSCI for use in the impeachment inquiry. #LetLevSpeak #LevRemembers pic.twitter.com/LUXkkaHy1p — Joseph A. Bondy (@josephabondy) January 11, 2020
Parnas eventually complied with the impeachment inquiry by privately testifying and providing lawmakers with access to phone records and documents that were seized during his arrest. Over this past weekend, Parnas’s attorney Joseph Bondy asked a judge to let him turn over additional documents he considered essential to Trump’s impeachment case, including records from two cellphones and an iPad.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Michael Flynn Files To Withdraw Guilty Plea After Prosecutors Ask For Jail Time

Michael Flynn , President Donald Trump ’ s former national security adviser , filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on Tuesday after federal prosecutors recommended he serve up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI .
Flynn ’ s legal team accused the federal government of breaching a plea agreement and acting in “ bad faith ” after the Justice Department said last week the former aide had grown uncooperative and attempted to get his charges dismissed , rather than own up to his actions .
The move was a sharp rebuke to Flynn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months lambasting special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
“ The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel , ” Flynn ’ s attorneys wrote in the motion .
“ This can only be because with new , unconflicted counsel , Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution .
In pure spite , the government retaliated.
” The motion later noted : “ Justice is not a game , and there should be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice.
” Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian officials .
At the time , he agreed to help Mueller ’ s investigation as it worked to determine if anyone in Trump ’ s orbit conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election .
Prosecutors in turn didn ’ t push for Flynn to serve any prison time , calling him a “ particularly valuable ” font of information .
But prosecutors said Flynn grew increasingly unhelpful over the past year , writing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blame almost every other person and entity involved in his case , including his former counsel.
” “ The defendant has also chosen to reverse course and challenge the elements and circumstances of his false statements to the FBI , ” prosecutors wrote .
Flynn lost an effort to get his charges dismissed last month after a judge filed an exhaustive , 92-page ruling rebuffing a series of accusations that his conviction was rife with misconduct .
In its recommendations last week , the Justice Department also noted that others who have pleaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia inquiry have been sentenced to prison time , notably former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and the lawyer Alex van der Zwaan .
“ Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official , held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States , held a security clearance , had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct , ” prosecutors said .
Flynn is set to be sentenced on Jan. 28 , although his attorneys asked for that date to be rescheduled @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on Tuesday after federal prosecutors recommended he serve up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI.
Flynn’s legal team accused the federal government of breaching a plea agreement and acting in “bad faith” after the Justice Department said last week the former aide had grown uncooperative and attempted to get his charges dismissed, rather than own up to his actions. The move was a sharp rebuke to Flynn and his new attorneys, who have spent months lambasting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Advertisement
“The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel,” Flynn’s attorneys wrote in the motion. “This can only be because with new, unconflicted counsel, Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution. In pure spite, the government retaliated.”
The motion later noted: “Justice is not a game, and there should be no room for such gamesmanship in the Department of Justice.”
Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian officials. At the time, he agreed to help Mueller’s investigation as it worked to determine if anyone in Trump’s orbit conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Prosecutors in turn didn’t push for Flynn to serve any prison time, calling him a “particularly valuable” font of information.
But prosecutors said Flynn grew increasingly unhelpful over the past year, writing this month that he has “sought to blame almost every other person and entity involved in his case, including his former counsel.”
Advertisement
“The defendant has also chosen to reverse course and challenge the elements and circumstances of his false statements to the FBI,” prosecutors wrote.
Flynn lost an effort to get his charges dismissed last month after a judge filed an exhaustive, 92-page ruling rebuffing a series of accusations that his conviction was rife with misconduct.
In its recommendations last week, the Justice Department also noted that others who have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry have been sentenced to prison time, notably former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and the lawyer Alex van der Zwaan.
“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors said.
Flynn is set to be sentenced on Jan. 28, although his attorneys asked for that date to be rescheduled to late February.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--4 Takeaways From The Democratic Presidential Debate In Iowa

The Candidates Are ( Mostly ) OK With The Race ’ s Status Quo Many of the prior debates featured sharp exchanges between a leading candidate and a candidate hoping to take their place in the top tier ― think back to former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris ’ s clash in the first round of debates , or the battles between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg in October .
But the small debate stage ― just six candidates managed to qualify ― meant that only those who felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were participating .
It ’ s potentially a rational decision : Public polling indicates Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , Buttigieg and Warren ( D-Mass . )
are all in position to win Iowa , or at least to finish strong enough to continue campaigning .
Businessman Tom Steyer , who is polling strong in Nevada and South Carolina , is self-funding his campaign and will be able to continue running even with a weak finish .
The one candidate who needs to win Iowa , and isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , who had some clashes with Warren and Sanders and overall turned in a strong performance .
But she didn ’ t generate a clear game-changing moment .
The same could be said of Buttigieg , whose numbers in the state have slipped in some recent public polling .
Warren And Sanders Survive Their Beef , For Now “ Can a woman beat Donald Trump ?
” she asked .
“ Look at the men on this stage .
Collectively , they have lost 10 elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women.
” Her response won laughter and applause from the debate audience .
Issues championed by those candidates were missing from the debate stage .
Save for a mention by Warren of how her child care plan would help Black and Latino women who work , there was little direct discussion of how any candidate ’ s plans would specifically help racial minorities .
( There was also no mention of the deadly earthquakes that have rocked Puerto Rico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Booker and former Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke ( D-Texas ) had emphasized combating gun violence in their campaigns , there was no discussion of the issue on Tuesday night , even though public polling shows it ’ s a top issue for primary voters .
Castro ’ s emphasis and willingness to press the other candidates on immigration reform was also absent , as was Gabbard ’ s willingness to challenge the other candidates with her unorthodox foreign policy views and Yang ’ s focus on the future of the workforce .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-runner in Iowa , he is the clear leader nationally , thanks to his strength with Black voters and the primary electorate ’ s broad belief that he ’ d be the strongest candidate against Trump .
And it ’ s not clear that a victory by another candidate in Iowa would change that .
So it was somewhat surprising Biden did not face more attacks from the other candidates .
Sanders , in particular , had signaled he wanted to challenge Biden on his vote for the Iraq War and his past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security topic never came up in the debate , and Sanders did not force the issue .
And though Biden and Sanders did clash over the war , a lack of pointed follow-ups from the moderators allowed each candidate to mostly repeat their standard talking points .
“ Joe and I listened to what Dick Cheney and George Bush and Rumsfeld had to say , ” Sanders said .
“ I thought they were lying .
I didn ’ t believe them for a moment .
I took to the floor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that war .
Joe saw it differently.
” “ I was asked to bring 156,000 troops home from that war , which I did , ” Biden responded , referring to his time as Barack Obama ’ s vice president .
“ I led that effort .
It was a mistake to trust that they weren ’ t going to go to war .
They said they were not going to go to war.
” Warren , who last week released a plan to reverse the bankruptcy law that Biden pushed into law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that issue either .
And during the exchange over the ability of a woman to win the presidency , no candidate or moderator mentioned Biden ’ s recent suggestion that it would be harder for Trump to attack him because he ’ s a man .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The theoretical stakes for Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, sponsored by CNN and The Des Moines Register, were gigantic. Four candidates, locked in what polling indicates is a four-way tie, were debating in Iowa’s capital just weeks before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses.
But the eventual debate saw little in the way of new dividing lines between the candidates and nothing that was likely to dramatically change voters’ minds.
Advertisement
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) listen as former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Democratic presidential debate at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Here are four takeaways from the Democratic presidential debate, and they’re more about what didn’t happen than what did.
The Candidates Are (Mostly) OK With The Race’s Status Quo
Many of the prior debates featured sharp exchanges between a leading candidate and a candidate hoping to take their place in the top tier ― think back to former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris’s clash in the first round of debates, or the battles between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in October. But the small debate stage ― just six candidates managed to qualify ― meant that only those who felt good about their standing on the race were participating.
It’s potentially a rational decision: Public polling indicates Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Buttigieg and Warren (D-Mass.) are all in position to win Iowa, or at least to finish strong enough to continue campaigning. Businessman Tom Steyer, who is polling strong in Nevada and South Carolina, is self-funding his campaign and will be able to continue running even with a weak finish.
Advertisement
The one candidate who needs to win Iowa, and isn’t in a position to do so, is Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who had some clashes with Warren and Sanders and overall turned in a strong performance. But she didn’t generate a clear game-changing moment. The same could be said of Buttigieg, whose numbers in the state have slipped in some recent public polling.
Warren And Sanders Survive Their Beef, For Now
Tensions between Warren and Sanders were running high before the debate following a CNN report that Sanders had told Warren during a 2018 meeting that a woman could not win the presidential election. Both candidates’ campaigns, and much of the broader progressive infrastructure, signaled that they wanted a de-escalation.
When CNN brought up its own reporting, Sanders repeated his denial ― and Warren turned in what’s likely going to be the signature moment of the debate.
“Can a woman beat Donald Trump?” she asked. “Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.” Her response won laughter and applause from the debate audience.
Though some events after the debate indicate the tension hasn’t totally dissipated, it’s likely both campaigns will try to move on from the fight for now.
Advertisement
Missing Candidates Mean Missing Issues
Repeat debate viewers might have missed some old friends, including every candidate or former candidate of color in the race: Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
Issues championed by those candidates were missing from the debate stage. Save for a mention by Warren of how her child care plan would help Black and Latino women who work, there was little direct discussion of how any candidate’s plans would specifically help racial minorities. (There was also no mention of the deadly earthquakes that have rocked Puerto Rico in recent days.)
And while Booker and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) had emphasized combating gun violence in their campaigns, there was no discussion of the issue on Tuesday night, even though public polling shows it’s a top issue for primary voters. Castro’s emphasis and willingness to press the other candidates on immigration reform was also absent, as was Gabbard’s willingness to challenge the other candidates with her unorthodox foreign policy views and Yang’s focus on the future of the workforce.
Biden Slides By
Though Biden isn’t the clear front-runner in Iowa, he is the clear leader nationally, thanks to his strength with Black voters and the primary electorate’s broad belief that he’d be the strongest candidate against Trump. And it’s not clear that a victory by another candidate in Iowa would change that.
So it was somewhat surprising Biden did not face more attacks from the other candidates. Sanders, in particular, had signaled he wanted to challenge Biden on his vote for the Iraq War and his past support for cutting Social Security. The Social Security topic never came up in the debate, and Sanders did not force the issue. And though Biden and Sanders did clash over the war, a lack of pointed follow-ups from the moderators allowed each candidate to mostly repeat their standard talking points.
Advertisement
“Joe and I listened to what Dick Cheney and George Bush and Rumsfeld had to say,” Sanders said. “I thought they were lying. I didn’t believe them for a moment. I took to the floor. I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.”
“I was asked to bring 156,000 troops home from that war, which I did,” Biden responded, referring to his time as Barack Obama’s vice president. “I led that effort. It was a mistake to trust that they weren’t going to go to war. They said they were not going to go to war.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Biden Allegedly Told Bush He'd Get The Nobel Peace Prize If He Could Invade Iraq Quickly

“ It was a mistake to trust that they [ President George W. Bush ’ s administration ] weren ’ t going to go to war .
They said they were not going to go to war , ” he added .
“ They said they were just going to get inspectors in .
The world , in fact , voted to send inspectors in , and they still went to war .
From that point on , I was in the position of making the case that it was a big , big mistake , and from that point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops home.
” Most recently , in Iowa this month , Biden told voters that as soon as Bush “ went ahead with ‘ shock and awe , ’ and right after that ― and from the very moment he did that , right after that ― I opposed what he was doing , and spoke to him.
” “ I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq , ” said Biden .
“ He looked me in the eye in the Oval Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( authorizing the war ) to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not ( Iraqi dictator ) Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program .
He got them in , and before we know it , we had a shock and awe .
Immediately , the moment it started , I came out against the war at that moment.
” We want to work with the UN , Bush said , otherwise we will have to act unilaterally .
The President also told the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
One leading Democratic senator who later voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq told the President , “ I will be with you on condition we level with the American people ― we ’ ll have to say [ in Iraq ] awhile.
” “ If you can get it done without staying , we ’ ll give you the Nobel Peace Prize , ” the senator said .
“ I ’ ll support you for President , ” he added .
“ I don ’ t know whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Bush said to the room ’ s amusement .
“ Then-Senator Biden was not interviewed for this book , and we don ’ t infrequently disagree with Ari Fleischer , ” the aide said .
“ In fact , Biden fought for legislation that would have forced Bush to first attempt to get U.N. approval for any military action and in its absence certify to Congress that there was no alternative course of action.
” Tom Daschle , Dick Gephardt and Carl Levin , who were then top Democratic senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Fleischer , they “ raised the most questions about Bush ’ s goals , mostly by asking what the plan would be after Saddam leaves .
Daschle asked what new evidence there was .
Levin [ warned ] that senior military leaders have concerns about an attack .
‘ Saddam Hussein is a survivalist ’ Levin warned Bush.
” It ’ s not surprising that a Democratic presidential candidate would shy away from a record supporting the Iraq invasion .
It ’ s a deeply unpopular war and has doomed other candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s been , in many ways , the defining litmus test for the party in recent years .
And in recent days , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , who is among those challenging Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination , has been going after him for his war vote .
“ I said I made a mistake trusting that he would not use force .
...
The extent to which I misspoke was , my public statements were that we were doing this all the wrong way , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done it the way we did it , and we should be supporting the troops if they ’ re in there , but we should be getting an international coalition to support this , etc.
” But four months later , Biden was again portraying himself as a war critic , without any mention of his support for the invasion .
And his campaign defended his comments , telling CNN he was “ referring to how he immediately opposed the specific way we went to war ― without giving diplomacy and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on hyped intelligence , without sufficient allies and without a plan for the day after ― and the manner in which the war was being carried out.
” In the run-up to the 2003 invasion , Biden tried to figure out a compromise that would narrow the scope of the war authority that Bush wanted ― while still authorizing force .
It was , in many ways , a classic Biden role of trying to forge a deal between two sides .
But Biden also fought against alternatives from his more liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further .
“ She voted for a resolution called , and I quote , ‘ a resolution to authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq.
’ Now she ’ s saying that she wasn ’ t really voting for war , ” he said .
“ She cast her vote after failing to read the national intelligence estimates on Iraq ― a report that raised enough doubts that the majority of Democratic senators who read it voted against the war .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Seventeen years after the invasion of Iraq, the war remains a live wire for many voters in the Democratic Party.
Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, voted for the war ― along with 28 other Democratic senators and all but one Republican.
Advertisement
But Biden has been distancing himself from his vote, making it seem like he was against the endeavor from the beginning.
Biden had to defend his record on the Iraq War right at the top of the Democratic debate in Des Moines on Tuesday.
“I was asked to bring 156,000 troops home from that war. Which I did. I led that effort,” Biden emphasized.
“It was a mistake to trust that they [President George W. Bush’s administration] weren’t going to go to war. They said they were not going to go to war,” he added. “They said they were just going to get inspectors in. The world, in fact, voted to send inspectors in, and they still went to war. From that point on, I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake, and from that point on, I moved to bring those troops home.”
Advertisement
Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), right, supported deposing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2003 while George W. Bush was president. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Biden did not immediately start making the case that the war was a mistake. In 2005, Biden did start calling his vote for the war a “mistake.” But he continued to argue for staying in Iraq in 2004.
But over the past few months, Biden has repeatedly claimed that he was against the war from the beginning.
Most recently, in Iowa this month, Biden told voters that as soon as Bush “went ahead with ‘shock and awe,’ and right after that ― and from the very moment he did that, right after that ― I opposed what he was doing, and spoke to him.”
Similarly, in September, he told NPR that he supported Bush putting inspectors in Iraq, not waging a war.
Advertisement
“I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq,” said Biden. “He looked me in the eye in the Oval Office; he said he needed the vote (authorizing the war) to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not (Iraqi dictator) Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in, and before we know it, we had a shock and awe. Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment.”
Ari Fleischer was Bush’s press secretary at the time. In 2005, he wrote a book, “Taking Heat,” in which he talked about a Sept. 4, 2002, meeting at the White House where the president asked congressional leaders for support for a resolution of force against Iraq. He recounted an exchange between Bush and a “Democratic senator”:
We want to work with the UN, Bush said, otherwise we will have to act unilaterally. The President also told the group he believed Iraq could eventually be a democracy. One leading Democratic senator who later voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq told the President, “I will be with you on condition we level with the American people ― we’ll have to say [in Iraq] awhile.” “You’re right,” Bush said. “If you can get it done without staying, we’ll give you the Nobel Peace Prize,” the senator said. “I’ll support you for President,” he added. “I don’t know whether that will help me or hurt me,” Bush said to the room’s amusement.
The Democratic senator mentioned in the book is Biden. New York Times journalist Peter Baker used this same anecdote for his 2014 book, “Days of Fire,” and noted that he confirmed Biden’s identity with Fleischer.
Biden seemed skeptical a short commitment in Iraq was possible, so his Nobel Prize comments were, in that respect, in jest.
Advertisement
But in the exchange Biden gives Bush his support for an invasion; he certainly doesn’t come off as a senator who was against the use of force in Iraq.
A Biden aide denied the account in Fleischer’s book to HuffPost and said Baker never interviewed Biden either.
“Then-Senator Biden was not interviewed for this book, and we don’t infrequently disagree with Ari Fleischer,” the aide said. “In fact, Biden fought for legislation that would have forced Bush to first attempt to get U.N. approval for any military action and in its absence certify to Congress that there was no alternative course of action.”
But Fleischer stood by his account to HuffPost on Tuesday, going back and checking his notes from the time ― and providing more detail from the meeting.
Fleischer said that Biden told Bush he needed the “informed consent of the American people” and that it was the “world’s problem, not ours.”
Advertisement
Biden further told Bush that he was impressed with him. “I think you’re doing it the exact, right way. You have a little bit of time here. Check off all the boxes.”
It’s not clear what Biden thought Bush was doing the “right way” ― it could have simply been that Bush was trying to get congressional approval.
Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt and Carl Levin, who were then top Democratic lawmakers, were also in the meeting. According to Fleischer, they “raised the most questions about Bush’s goals, mostly by asking what the plan would be after Saddam leaves. Daschle asked what new evidence there was. Levin [warned] that senior military leaders have concerns about an attack. ‘Saddam Hussein is a survivalist’ Levin warned Bush.”
He said Biden did not raise any other topics or ask more questions.
It’s not surprising that a Democratic presidential candidate would shy away from a record supporting the Iraq invasion. It’s a deeply unpopular war and has doomed other candidates with primary voters in the past. It’s been, in many ways, the defining litmus test for the party in recent years. And in recent days, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is among those challenging Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been going after him for his war vote.
After his comments last September to NPR, Biden said he misspoke.
“I said I made a mistake trusting that he would not use force. ... The extent to which I misspoke was, my public statements were that we were doing this all the wrong way,” Biden said. “We should not have done it the way we did it, and we should be supporting the troops if they’re in there, but we should be getting an international coalition to support this, etc.”
Advertisement
“So, the misrepresentation was how quickly I said I was immediately against the war. I was against the war internally and trying to put together coalitions to try to change the way in which the war was conducted,” he explained.
But four months later, Biden was again portraying himself as a war critic, without any mention of his support for the invasion. And his campaign defended his comments, telling CNN he was “referring to how he immediately opposed the specific way we went to war ― without giving diplomacy and the weapons inspectors a chance to succeed, based on hyped intelligence, without sufficient allies and without a plan for the day after ― and the manner in which the war was being carried out.”
In the run-up to the 2003 invasion, Biden tried to figure out a compromise that would narrow the scope of the war authority that Bush wanted ― while still authorizing force. It was, in many ways, a classic Biden role of trying to forge a deal between two sides. But Biden also fought against alternatives from his more liberal colleagues that would have restricted Bush even further.
“I supported the resolution to go to war. I am not opposed to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq,” he said in a February 2003 speech. “I am not opposed to war to remove [Hussein] from those weapons if it comes to that.”
Biden added that while he believed it “may well be true” that the war would be “prosecuted quickly and successfully,” it would still “be a long haul” ― and the president needed to tell the public the facts.
Advertisement
“The point is, we have every reason to have faith in our military,” he said. “But while it is reasonable to expect the best, it would be irresponsible not to prepare for the worst.”
In the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois ― who eventually chose Biden to be his vice president ― was scathing in his criticism of opponent Hillary Clinton and her attempt to “rewrite history” concerning her Iraq war vote as a New York senator (Obama wasn’t in the chamber when the vote occurred).
“She voted for a resolution called, and I quote, ‘a resolution to authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq.’ Now she’s saying that she wasn’t really voting for war,” he said. “She cast her vote after failing to read the national intelligence estimates on Iraq ― a report that raised enough doubts that the majority of Democratic senators who read it voted against the war.”
“We need accountability in our leaders,” Obama added. “You can’t undo a vote for war just because a war stops being popular.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Read Live Updates From The First Democratic Debate Of 2020

The event , co-hosted by CNN and The Des Moines Register , starts at 9 p.m. and lasts two hours @ @ @ @ @ Blitzer and Abby Phillip and the Register ’ s Brianne Pfannenstiel moderate .
Six candidates @ @ @ @ @ making this one the smallest and least diverse of this primary .
Former Vice President @ @ @ @ @ Tom Steyer ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; and Sens @ @ @ @ @ . )
, Amy Klobuchar ( Minn. ) and Bernie Sanders ( Vt. ) will @ @ @ @ @ event .

The event, co-hosted by CNN and The Des Moines Register, starts at 9 p.m. and lasts two hours. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip and the Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel moderate.
Six candidates qualified for the debate, making this one the smallest and least diverse of this primary. Former Vice President Joe Biden; billionaire activist Tom Steyer; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.) will all take part in the event.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Bernie Sanders Said A Woman Can Beat Trump. Elizabeth Warren Asked, Can A Man?

“ Bernie is my friend , and I ’ m not here to try to fight with Bernie , ” said Warren , asked for her reaction to Sanders ’ reported skepticism that a woman could defeat President Donald Trump .
“ Look at the men on this stage , ” she grinned .
“ Collectively , they have lost 10 elections .
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women : Amy and me .
And the only person on this stage who has beaten an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years is me.
” “ Anybody who knows me knows that it ’ s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman can not be president of the United States , ” he said .
Sanders had sat out the 2016 presidential race until the Draft Warren effort had run its course , he said .
And , he added , if either of the women onstage with him were to win the nomination , he would do “ everything in my power to make sure they are elected in order to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our country.
” On Monday , Warren corroborated the story , which claimed that Sanders had cast doubt on her chances in a private meeting of the two candidates in late 2018 : “ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed , ” she said in a brief statement .
Sanders ’ campaign vehemently denied CNN ’ s reporting , which did not initially cite on-the-record sources .
“ It is a lie .
Bernie Sanders has always stood for women and women ’ s rights , ” Sanders campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the account as “ lying ” from “ staff who weren ’ t in the room.
” Klobuchar one-upped Warren , saying , “ Every single person I have beaten , my Republican opponents , have gotten out of politics forever … I think that sounds pretty good with the guy we have in the White House right now.
” But Sanders , in what became an irritated exchange with Warren , took issue with the senator ’ s claim that she was the only candidate to beat a Republican incumbent in 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren has made the sexism she faced throughout her career more of a prominent part of her story .
She is one of the only women left running in the Democratic presidential primary , and she is the only female candidate with broad voter support in the early-nominating states .
Her account of her 2018 meeting with Sanders has some supporters worried that the truce between the two candidates is in peril .
Sanders and Warren have avoided openly attacking each other so that neither alienates the other ’ s supporters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Vice President Joe Biden , an avowed moderate who remains the front-runner .
The truce — reportedly hammered out at that same 2018 meeting — preserves the possibility that one candidate could support the other if that person emerges as the clear favorite of progressives .
But three weeks out from the all-important Iowa caucuses , neither candidate has faded , raising their incentive to try to tarnish each other .
To that end , the Sanders campaign has tacitly raised doubts about Warren ’ s commitment to longshot progressive ideas such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grouped her with other elite candidates representing the old guard of the Democratic Party .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
At Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders carefully sidestepped a potential scuffle over whether Sanders had once told Warren a woman could not win the presidency.
Instead, they got into a pithy skirmish about who was more electable — and what counts as three decades.
Advertisement
“Bernie is my friend, and I’m not here to try to fight with Bernie,” said Warren, asked for her reaction to Sanders’ reported skepticism that a woman could defeat President Donald Trump.
But she and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar were, in fact, more electable than the men on the stage, Warren said.
“Look at the men on this stage,” she grinned. “Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy and me. And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me.”
Sanders, for his part, again denied that he’d had any doubts about a woman running for president.
“Anybody who knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States,” he said.
Advertisement
Sanders had sat out the 2016 presidential race until the Draft Warren effort had run its course, he said. And, he added, if either of the women onstage with him were to win the nomination, he would do “everything in my power to make sure they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Bernie Sanders participate in the seventh Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season at the Drake University campus in Des Moines, Iowa. ROBYN BECK via Getty Images
The back-and-forth was a sign that the two progressive front-runners were eager to stifle any disagreement — their most public to date — about a divisive CNN report.
On Monday, Warren corroborated the story, which claimed that Sanders had cast doubt on her chances in a private meeting of the two candidates in late 2018: “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said in a brief statement.
Sanders’ campaign vehemently denied CNN’s reporting, which did not initially cite on-the-record sources. “It is a lie. Bernie Sanders has always stood for women and women’s rights,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said. Sanders characterized the account as “lying” from “staff who weren’t in the room.”
Advertisement
“Do I believe a woman can win in 2020?” he told CNN. “Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
After Sanders repeated his denial on the debate stage in Iowa, the moderators spared Warren from having to say “did so.”
“Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” asked Des Moines Register politics chief Brianne Pfannenstiel.
“I disagreed,” she replied crisply before laying out the case for her electability.
Klobuchar one-upped Warren, saying, “Every single person I have beaten, my Republican opponents, have gotten out of politics forever … I think that sounds pretty good with the guy we have in the White House right now.”
But Sanders, in what became an irritated exchange with Warren, took issue with the senator’s claim that she was the only candidate to beat a Republican incumbent in 30 years.
Advertisement
“Just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress,” he said.
Warren asked when.
“1990.”
Warren counted in her head.
“That’s how I won,” Sanders said.
“Thirty years ago,” she said. “Wasn’t that 30 years ago?”
A Shaky Truce
In recent appearances with voters, Warren has made the sexism she faced throughout her career more of a prominent part of her story. She is one of the only women left running in the Democratic presidential primary, and she is the only female candidate with broad voter support in the early-nominating states.
Her account of her 2018 meeting with Sanders has some supporters worried that the truce between the two candidates is in peril. Sanders and Warren have avoided openly attacking each other so that neither alienates the other’s supporters and so progressive groups can focus on weakening former Vice President Joe Biden, an avowed moderate who remains the front-runner.
The truce — reportedly hammered out at that same 2018 meeting — preserves the possibility that one candidate could support the other if that person emerges as the clear favorite of progressives. But three weeks out from the all-important Iowa caucuses, neither candidate has faded, raising their incentive to try to tarnish each other.
To that end, the Sanders campaign has tacitly raised doubts about Warren’s commitment to longshot progressive ideas such as “Medicare for All” and grouped her with other elite candidates representing the old guard of the Democratic Party.
Sanders is supported by a diverse group of primary voters now, but he drew criticism during his 2016 presidential campaign for failing to emphasize gender and racial discrimination in his political vision.
Advertisement
Polling shows that a majority of voters who support Sanders would flock to Warren if he were knocked out of the Democratic primary and vice versa. “And I don’t think you win them over by going after him,” former Iowa state Sen. Steve Sovern (D), a Sanders-turned-Warren supporter, said Monday.
For some, the claim that Sanders did not think a woman could win the presidency caused just such a backlash against Warren.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Trump Says ‘Tough Guy’ President Lyndon B. Johnson Might Be In Hell, Too

President Donald Trump once again cracked that a deceased politician may be in hell , suggesting Tuesday night that former President Lyndon B. Johnson could be “ looking up ” from below .
But he added that wherever Johnson is , he probably approves of Trump ’ s phone calls with world leaders ― specifically the call in which he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
Trump was impeached last month on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress over the incident .
“ Lyndon Johnson was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you imagine his phone calls ?
” Trump said during a rally in Milwaukee .
“ He ’ s probably looking down , or looking up.
” “ He ’ s probably saying , ‘ These people are going crazy .
That ’ s the nicest call I ’ ve ever ... ’ ” Trump said .
“ In fact , somebody said , ’ I never knew you could be so nice on the telephone.
” '' You know , Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy .
Can you imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking down , or looking up '' -- Trump suggests LBJ is in hell pic.twitter.com/4At8tr4Tvv — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) January 15 , 2020 Trump last month suggested that former Rep. John Dingell ( D-Mich. ) , who died last February , could be “ looking up ” from hell in the afterlife .
Even Republicans criticized him over the line .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump once again cracked that a deceased politician may be in hell, suggesting Tuesday night that former President Lyndon B. Johnson could be “looking up” from below.
But he added that wherever Johnson is, he probably approves of Trump’s phone calls with world leaders ― specifically the call in which he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Advertisement
Trump was impeached last month on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress over the incident.
“Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy. Can you imagine his phone calls?” Trump said during a rally in Milwaukee. “He’s probably looking down, or looking up.”
The crowd laughed at the line.
“He’s probably saying, ‘These people are going crazy. That’s the nicest call I’ve ever ...’” Trump said. “In fact, somebody said, ’I never knew you could be so nice on the telephone.”
"You know, Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy. Can you imagine his phone calls? He's probably looking down, or looking up" -- Trump suggests LBJ is in hell pic.twitter.com/4At8tr4Tvv — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 15, 2020
Advertisement
Trump last month suggested that former Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who died last February, could be “looking up” from hell in the afterlife.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--The Problem With Worrying That A Woman Can't Defeat Trump

Jess McIntosh , who has worked on the Clinton campaign and with EMILY ’ s List , said that even in the progressive movement , she ’ s heard men express doubts that women can win .
“ It ’ s just an unwillingness to step out of the way or share power with a bigger pool .
I don ’ t want to believe that about Sanders ( or Biden ) , but it ’ s very convenient to define ‘ electable ’ as ‘ someone who looks exactly like me , ’ ” she said in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for office for over 30 years and people have told me all kinds of things and you know , you just move on , ” Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-Hawaii ) said .
“ In this day and age , it ’ s not anything that is accurate.
” Warren presents her feminism a bit differently than Clinton did , as Traister noted on Tuesday .
“ It ’ s not that Warren hasn ’ t talked about gender ; it ’ s that until now , she has presented the feminist ambitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been about her or her experiences of bias , instead giving a series of big speeches that have subtly reframed the history of American organizing and policy change by foregrounding women , ” Traister wrote on The Cut .
It ’ s been a way to talk about the power of women , she added , “ without actually having to get into the muck of describing what it ’ s like to be that candidate or what it ’ s like to run against her .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the muck.
” Hours after CNN came out with its report about the 2018 meeting between Warren and Sanders , the Massachusetts senator put out a statement saying , “ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed ” and asking that people move on .
Drawing attention to sexism carries risks .
Women can be ― and have been ― accused of simply seeking the limelight or trying to profit off their misfortune .
But Lawless said her research has shown that in a Democratic primary , launching a gender-based attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake .
“ The male candidate pays a bigger price , ” she said .
“ So part of the reason that we don ’ t see this kind of attack that often , I think , is because male candidates know that they might take a hit , and that hit is bigger than the doubts that voters might have about the woman against whom the attack was launched.
” “ Those who withhold support from women and/or foster doubt about women ’ s capacity for success , rooted in dated notions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the project of women ’ s political progress , ” Kelly Ditmar , a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University , wrote in a post on Tuesday .
“ So when it comes to the non-believers , don ’ t believe them .
”

These sorts of perceptions and doubts have real-life effects on whether women run for political office.
Jennifer Lawless is a political science professor at the University of Virginia who co-authored a 2016 book that examined female candidates and the biases they face. Lawless found that the perception of sexism in the electoral arena at the congressional level was widespread.
“You had more than 50% of voters believe that a woman couldn’t win an election, couldn’t raise as much money, faced higher standards on the campaign trail. And as a result, female candidates think that they need to be more qualified than the men against whom they compete,” Lawless said.
If that’s the uneven playing field women are looking at, she said, “then that’s certainly a rational reason to say, ‘You know what? I’m going to sit it out.’”
In reality, women raise just as much money and are just as likely to win as men.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Bloomberg Campaign Counterprograms Democratic Debate With Weird Tweetstorm

Billionaire businessman Mike Bloomberg didn ’ t qualify for Tuesday night ’ s Democratic debate , but his campaign cooked up a bizarre plan to insert him into the conversation anyway : a lot of weird tweets .
Since Bloomberg has been financing his presidential run with his own money , he did not meet the Democratic National Committee ’ s grassroots fundraising threshold , which required each campaign to prove it had more than 200,000 unique donors spread across the country .
No matter for the extremely well financed Bloomberg , who has already spent tens of millions ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His social media staffers came up with dozens of strange tweets that had the effect of shadowing the whole debate conversation on social media .
Campaign spokeswoman Gaila Slayen confirmed the account had not been hacked , saying , “ The social team is trying something fun tonight.
” Apparently , at some point during his inauguration , Bloomberg plans to flaunt his love for “ A Star Is Born , ” the Lady Gaga version : For the price of a postage stamp , you can receive a hardened , crusty slab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What ’ s your # DemDebate # DebateSnack ?
If you want to sample Mike ’ s spicy guacamole , send a self-addressed , stamped envelope to Mike 2020 headquarters and Mike will send you a scoop !
— Team Bloomberg ( @ Mike2020 ) January 15 , 2020 And good luck trying to forget ever seeing this : Whether the second billionaire to enter the 2020 race as a Democrat got his money ’ s worth out of this stunt , however , has yet to be seen .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Billionaire businessman Mike Bloomberg didn’t qualify for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, but his campaign cooked up a bizarre plan to insert him into the conversation anyway: a lot of weird tweets.
Since Bloomberg has been financing his presidential run with his own money, he did not meet the Democratic National Committee’s grassroots fundraising threshold, which required each campaign to prove it had more than 200,000 unique donors spread across the country.
Advertisement
No matter for the extremely well financed Bloomberg, who has already spent tens of millions (and counting) on television ads. His social media staffers came up with dozens of strange tweets that had the effect of shadowing the whole debate conversation on social media.
Campaign spokeswoman Gaila Slayen confirmed the account had not been hacked, saying, “The social team is trying something fun tonight.”
Behold: the fun!
Apparently, at some point during his inauguration, Bloomberg plans to flaunt his love for “A Star Is Born,” the Lady Gaga version:
In lieu of an inaugural address, Mike plans on singing “Shallow” with Lady Gaga. #BloombergFacts #DemDebate — Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 15, 2020
Advertisement
For the price of a postage stamp, you can receive a hardened, crusty slab of brown guacamole in a grease-stained envelope:
What’s your #DemDebate #DebateSnack? If you want to sample Mike’s spicy guacamole, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to Mike 2020 headquarters and Mike will send you a scoop! — Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 15, 2020
And good luck trying to forget ever seeing this:
Test your political knowledge:
SPOT THE MEATBALL THAT LOOKS LIKE MIKE. pic.twitter.com/CkzdgwpzdI — Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 15, 2020
Whether the second billionaire to enter the 2020 race as a Democrat got his money’s worth out of this stunt, however, has yet to be seen.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Pete Buttigieg Rejects Notion That Black Voters Aren't Interested In His Candidacy

Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg was asked on the Democratic debate stage if it ’ s possible that Black voters just don ’ t like what he has to say .
He didn ’ t take the provocation .
“ The Black voters who know me best are supporting me , ” Buttigieg said Tuesday night in Des Moines , Iowa , after being served a difficult question about his campaign ’ s struggle to earn the votes of Black Americans .
A Washington Post/Ipsos poll in early January showed Buttigieg with only 2 % support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden polled at 48 % and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) had 20 % support .
As The Post pointed out , Buttigieg was also the top-tier Democratic candidate with the highest unfavorable rating among Black voters — 21 % — despite having the third-lowest name recognition .
For the past week , Black Lives Matter activists have shown up at Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign events in California and Iowa , passing out flyers headlined “ Mayor Pete Has A Black Problem ” asserting that Buttigieg has been inactive on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and Latino neighborhoods for development projects .
The Buttigieg campaign vigorously disputes these claims , citing South Bend ’ s decline in homelessness and grant programs for families to update their homes .
“ You say you have had trouble earning the support of Black voters because you are unknown , but you have been campaigning for a year now , and polling shows you have next to no Black support , ” CNN ’ s Abby Phillip said Tuesday , directing a question at Buttigieg .
“ Is it possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have simply chosen to support another candidate ?
” In response , Buttigieg listed a number of endorsements from prominent Black elected officials , including Rep. Anthony Brown ( D-Md . )
, who provided Buttigieg ’ s first endorsement from a member of the Congressional Black Caucus , and Quentin Hart , the first Black mayor of Waterloo , Iowa .
Last summer , Buttigieg said outreach to communities of color was “ one of the most important pieces of homework ” for his campaign .
In June , he came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot a Black South Bend resident .
The police officer ’ s body camera was turned off .
“ Of course there is a long way to go , but my commitment as president is to continue doing this work , ” Buttigieg said .
Buttigieg ’ s record on race relations also came up on the debate stage in June , when he was asked why only 6 % of South Bend police officers were Black , while Black people make up 26 % of the city ’ s residents .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held outreach meetings with pastors , local elected officials , activists and scholars .
The campaign also released an ambitious platform — titled “ The Douglass Plan For Black America ” — calling for federal investment in housing and education and laying out policies to address health disparities , the racial wealth gap , criminal justice reform and voting rights .
Many prominent Black officials in South Bend have publicly supported Buttigieg .
While that hasn ’ t changed his polling numbers with Black voters nationwide , the former mayor made a promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The biggest mistake we could make is to take Black votes for granted , and I never will .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg was asked on the Democratic debate stage if it’s possible that Black voters just don’t like what he has to say. He didn’t take the provocation.
“The Black voters who know me best are supporting me,” Buttigieg said Tuesday night in Des Moines, Iowa, after being served a difficult question about his campaign’s struggle to earn the votes of Black Americans.
Advertisement
A Washington Post/Ipsos poll in early January showed Buttigieg with only 2% support among Black voters. Former Vice President Joe Biden polled at 48% and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 20% support. As The Post pointed out, Buttigieg was also the top-tier Democratic candidate with the highest unfavorable rating among Black voters — 21% — despite having the third-lowest name recognition.
For the past week, Black Lives Matter activists have shown up at Buttigieg’s presidential campaign events in California and Iowa, passing out flyers headlined “Mayor Pete Has A Black Problem” asserting that Buttigieg has been inactive on homelessness, police reform and has targeted Black and Latino neighborhoods for development projects. The Buttigieg campaign vigorously disputes these claims, citing South Bend’s decline in homelessness and grant programs for families to update their homes.
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks on Jan. 14, 2020 at the Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register in Des Moines, Iowa. ASSOCIATED PRESS
“You say you have had trouble earning the support of Black voters because you are unknown, but you have been campaigning for a year now, and polling shows you have next to no Black support,” CNN’s Abby Phillip said Tuesday, directing a question at Buttigieg. “Is it possible that Black voters have gotten to know you and have simply chosen to support another candidate?”
Advertisement
In response, Buttigieg listed a number of endorsements from prominent Black elected officials, including Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.), who provided Buttigieg’s first endorsement from a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Quentin Hart, the first Black mayor of Waterloo, Iowa.
Last summer, Buttigieg said outreach to communities of color was “one of the most important pieces of homework” for his campaign. In June, he came under scrutiny when a police officer fatally shot a Black South Bend resident. The police officer’s body camera was turned off.
On the debate stage, Buttigieg touted reforms in South Bend’s policing, saying it led the region in transparency and a reduction of force.
“Of course there is a long way to go, but my commitment as president is to continue doing this work,” Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg’s record on race relations also came up on the debate stage in June, when he was asked why only 6% of South Bend police officers were Black, while Black people make up 26% of the city’s residents.
Advertisement
“Because I couldn’t get it done,” he responded at the time.
Since last April, the Buttigieg campaign has held outreach meetings with pastors, local elected officials, activists and scholars. The campaign also released an ambitious platform — titled “The Douglass Plan For Black America” — calling for federal investment in housing and education and laying out policies to address health disparities, the racial wealth gap, criminal justice reform and voting rights. Many prominent Black officials in South Bend have publicly supported Buttigieg.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam To Ban Guns From State Capitol Grounds

RICHMOND , Va. ( AP ) — Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam plans to declare a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons , including guns , from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights .
That ’ s according to two state officials who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak publicly about them .
The governor , a Democrat , plans to announce the plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon because of credible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one official said .
Northam ’ s planned announcement comes days after Democratic leaders used a special rules committee to ban guns inside the Capitol and a legislative office building .
That ban did not include Capitol grounds , which are under the governor ’ s control and are where a huge number of gun-rights advocates are expected to rally Monday .
One official said Northam decided to ban all guns from the grounds of Capitol Square after receiving reports for weeks about inflammatory online postings by out-of-state pro-gun and militia groups who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally .
The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence , but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia .
The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “ great sight angles from certain buildings ” near Capitol Square .
Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam gestures as he delivers his State of the Commonwealth address before a joint session of the Assembly at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , Jan. 8 , 2020 .
( AP Photo/Steve Helber ) Virginia law enforcement officials have been criticized for their planning and response to a deadly 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville that involved heavily armed protesters .
One woman was killed and several more were injured when a car plowed into a group of counterprotesters .
Northam ’ s declaration will also ban items like helmets and shields , items that some white nationalists carried in Charlottesville .
It ’ s unclear how long the temporary ban will be in effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statehouse for the first time in a generation and are set to pass a number of gun-control restrictions , including limiting handgun purchases to once a month and universal background checks on gun purchases .
For the first time in decades , commonsense gun safety measures are finally advancing in the Virginia legislature .
This is the first step in the process—Virginians are demanding real action on gun violence , and they are watching .
https : //t.co/biJryNFFI5 — Ralph Northam ( @ GovernorVA ) January 13 , 2020 Gun owners are descending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish sanctuaries for gun rights .
More than 100 counties , cities and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and vowed to oppose any new “ unconstitutional restrictions ” on guns .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam plans to declare a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights.
That’s according to two state officials who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak publicly about them. The governor, a Democrat, plans to announce the plans at a news conference Wednesday afternoon because of credible threats of potential violence and extremism, one official said.
Advertisement
Northam’s planned announcement comes days after Democratic leaders used a special rules committee to ban guns inside the Capitol and a legislative office building. That ban did not include Capitol grounds, which are under the governor’s control and are where a huge number of gun-rights advocates are expected to rally Monday.
One official said Northam decided to ban all guns from the grounds of Capitol Square after receiving reports for weeks about inflammatory online postings by out-of-state pro-gun and militia groups who are promising to attend Monday’s rally.
The official said the state does not have intelligence that the groups are planning a specific act of violence, but said Northam has grown increasingly concerned about numerous ominous-sounding postings on social media from forces outside Virginia. The official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 and said there are “great sight angles from certain buildings” near Capitol Square.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gestures as he delivers his State of the Commonwealth address before a joint session of the Assembly at the state Capitol in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020. (AP Photo/Steve Helber) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Virginia law enforcement officials have been criticized for their planning and response to a deadly 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville that involved heavily armed protesters. One woman was killed and several more were injured when a car plowed into a group of counterprotesters.
Northam’s declaration will also ban items like helmets and shields, items that some white nationalists carried in Charlottesville. It’s unclear how long the temporary ban will be in effect.
Gun laws have become a dominant issue this legislative session and there’s been a heavy police at the Capitol.
Democrats have full control of the statehouse for the first time in a generation and are set to pass a number of gun-control restrictions, including limiting handgun purchases to once a month and universal background checks on gun purchases.
For the first time in decades, commonsense gun safety measures are finally advancing in the Virginia legislature. This is the first step in the process—Virginians are demanding real action on gun violence, and they are watching. https://t.co/biJryNFFI5 — Ralph Northam (@GovernorVA) January 13, 2020
Advertisement
Republicans and gun-rights groups have pledged stiff resistance.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--Tennessee Passes Bill Rolling Back Same-Sex Adoption Rights

In a kickoff to their 2020 legislative session , Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that gives adoption agencies the right to discriminate against same-sex couples .
The bill was passed by the House last year and by the state Senate on Tuesday .
It now goes to the desk of Republican Gov .
Bill Lee .
If he signs it , licensed adoption agencies in the state will be allowed to refuse a child placement if doing so would “ violate the agency ’ s written religious or moral convictions or policies.
” While some agencies reportedly already do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them legal protections if hopeful adoptive parents decide to sue .
State Sen. Paul Rose ( R ) , the bill ’ s sponsor , said at Tuesday ’ s vote that the bill wouldn ’ t have any effect on “ traditional ” families .
“ This bill does not restrict any rights to place a child with a family , what I would consider a traditional family , mother and father , ” he said , noting that he was concerned that agencies would have had to shut down because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups have come out against the bill , arguing that adoption agencies are taxpayer-funded .
The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is urging people to write to their state senators saying that the bill is not only discriminatory but also untenable for the thousands of children in foster care in the state waiting to be adopted .
Chris Sanders , executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project , issued a statement calling on Lee , who has refused to comment on the issue , to veto the legislation .
“ Passing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foster care is one of the worst ways to start a legislative session , ” he said .
“ Despite a vigorous debate on the bill , the best interests of children in Tennessee lost today .
We join friends and allies across the country in calling for the governor to veto the bill.
” The bill passed 20-6 in the state Senate on Tuesday .
State Sen. Steve Dickerson was among the few Republican lawmakers who objected , citing concerns about people and businesses boycotting the state .
The NFL , NCAA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events in Tennessee soon , he noted .
“ I think we can probably kiss that goodbye , ” he said of those opportunities .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a kickoff to their 2020 legislative session, Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that gives adoption agencies the right to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The bill was passed by the House last year and by the state Senate on Tuesday. It now goes to the desk of Republican Gov. Bill Lee. If he signs it, licensed adoption agencies in the state will be allowed to refuse a child placement if doing so would “violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.” While some agencies reportedly already do that, the proposed law would offer them legal protections if hopeful adoptive parents decide to sue.
Advertisement
The bill also applies to agencies placing children in foster homes.
State Sen. Paul Rose (R), the bill’s sponsor, said at Tuesday’s vote that the bill wouldn’t have any effect on “traditional” families.
“This bill does not restrict any rights to place a child with a family, what I would consider a traditional family, mother and father,” he said, noting that he was concerned that agencies would have had to shut down because of their religious objections.
Major civil rights groups have come out against the bill, arguing that adoption agencies are taxpayer-funded. The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is urging people to write to their state senators saying that the bill is not only discriminatory but also untenable for the thousands of children in foster care in the state waiting to be adopted.
Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, issued a statement calling on Lee, who has refused to comment on the issue, to veto the legislation.
Advertisement
“Despite a vigorous debate on the bill, the best interests of children in Tennessee lost today.” - Chris Sanders, Tennessee Equality Project
“Passing a bill that funds discrimination in adoption and foster care is one of the worst ways to start a legislative session,” he said. “Despite a vigorous debate on the bill, the best interests of children in Tennessee lost today. We join friends and allies across the country in calling for the governor to veto the bill.”
The bill passed 20-6 in the state Senate on Tuesday. State Sen. Steve Dickerson was among the few Republican lawmakers who objected, citing concerns about people and businesses boycotting the state. The NFL, NCAA and NHL are all considering hosting large events in Tennessee soon, he noted.
“I think we can probably kiss that goodbye,” he said of those opportunities.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Rupert Murdoch’s Son Just Went After News Corp’s Coverage Of Climate Change

In a statement to The Daily Beast , a spokesperson for the couple said the Murdochs were “ disappointed ” with what they called “ ongoing denial ” at both Fox News and the broader News Corp empire , which owns much of the media outlets in Australia .
The country is currently fighting a scourge of devastating bushfires that have left at least 28 people dead and scorched more than 15 million acres .
“ Kathryn and James ’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spokesperson told the Beast .
“ They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.
” The statement is a rare public rebuke of Rupert Murdoch ’ s empire from one of his closest family members .
News Corp has been accused in recent weeks of trying to downplay Australia ’ s deadly fire season within the Australian media while promoting misinformation about what has caused the disaster .
Scientists and fire officials have called on the Australian government to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires rage on .
Climate change doesn ’ t cause wildfires , but it can exacerbate conditions , experts say .
Australia has seen a particularly hot and dry fire season , and 2019 was the country ’ s hottest and driest year on record .
News Corp has rejected assertions that it ’ s fueling climate change denial , telling The New York Times this month that its coverage “ has recognized Australia is having a conversation about climate change and how to respond to it.
” The company said , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which diminish the role of climate change , were “ legitimate stories to report in the public interest.
” Murdoch has said publicly that he is a climate change “ skeptic ” but not a denier .
He also said last year there were no “ climate change deniers ” working within News Corp.
It ’ s not the first time the younger Murdoch has criticized the conservative media titan .
In September , James said there were views aired on Fox News that he “ really disagree [ s ] with.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being manipulated to make us fight with each other , making us the worst versions of ourselves , ” James Murdoch told The New Yorker in an interview .
Kathryn Murdoch has worked for more than a decade on climate issues and has recently taken a more high-profile role in fighting climate change .
In an interview with The New York Times in September , she said she had been motivated by the urgency of the global warming crisis to increase her activism and had decided to “ switch everything I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to look my children in the eye and say , ‘ I did everything I could , ’ ” she said at the time .
James Murdoch left his role as the CEO of 21st Century Fox early last year after Disney acquired its film and television assets .
His brother , Lachlan Murdoch , was chosen to lead what remained as part of the newly minted Fox Corp. Lachlan Murdoch has repeatedly come to the defense of Fox News .
During an interview in 2018 , he said he was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all , ” saying the cable news channel served a purpose in the U.S. discourse .
“ You have to understand that Fox News is the only mass media company in America , in this country , with conservative opinion , with strong conservative opinion in prime time , ” Lachlan Murdoch said at that year ’ s New York Times DealBook conference .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
James Murdoch, the son of News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch, and his wife, Kathryn, unleashed fierce criticism Tuesday over the handling of climate change and environmental issues by the media titan’s slate of conservative news outlets.
In a statement to The Daily Beast, a spokesperson for the couple said the Murdochs were “disappointed” with what they called “ongoing denial” at both Fox News and the broader News Corp empire, which owns much of the media outlets in Australia. The country is currently fighting a scourge of devastating bushfires that have left at least 28 people dead and scorched more than 15 million acres.
Advertisement
“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” the spokesperson told the Beast. “They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”
The statement is a rare public rebuke of Rupert Murdoch’s empire from one of his closest family members. News Corp has been accused in recent weeks of trying to downplay Australia’s deadly fire season within the Australian media while promoting misinformation about what has caused the disaster.
James and Kathryn Murdoch said they were "disappointed" with the ongoing "denial" at Rupert Murdoch's media outlets. Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for National Geographic
Scientists and fire officials have called on the Australian government to do more to address climate change as the fires rage on. Climate change doesn’t cause wildfires, but it can exacerbate conditions, experts say. Australia has seen a particularly hot and dry fire season, and 2019 was the country’s hottest and driest year on record.
Advertisement
News Corp has rejected assertions that it’s fueling climate change denial, telling The New York Times this month that its coverage “has recognized Australia is having a conversation about climate change and how to respond to it.” The company said, however, that disputed claims of arson, which diminish the role of climate change, were “legitimate stories to report in the public interest.”
Murdoch has said publicly that he is a climate change “skeptic” but not a denier. He also said last year there were no “climate change deniers” working within News Corp.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corp have donated millions of dollars to bushfire recovery efforts, as has his other son, Lachlan.
It’s not the first time the younger Murdoch has criticized the conservative media titan. In September, James said there were views aired on Fox News that he “really disagree[s] with.”
“The connective tissue of our society is being manipulated to make us fight with each other, making us the worst versions of ourselves,” James Murdoch told The New Yorker in an interview.
Advertisement
At least 28 people have been killed by a series of wildfires in Australia. Luis Ascui via Getty Images
Kathryn Murdoch has worked for more than a decade on climate issues and has recently taken a more high-profile role in fighting climate change. In an interview with The New York Times in September, she said she had been motivated by the urgency of the global warming crisis to increase her activism and had decided to “switch everything I was doing.”
“I wanted to be able to look my children in the eye and say, ‘I did everything I could,’” she said at the time.
James Murdoch left his role as the CEO of 21st Century Fox early last year after Disney acquired its film and television assets. His brother, Lachlan Murdoch, was chosen to lead what remained as part of the newly minted Fox Corp.
Lachlan Murdoch has repeatedly come to the defense of Fox News. During an interview in 2018, he said he was “not embarrassed” by the network “at all,” saying the cable news channel served a purpose in the U.S. discourse.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Trade, Then Health Care Highlighted The Sanders-Warren Divide

The USMCA is a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) , which first took effect in the 1990s and has been a source of discontent for labor unions and environmentalists ever since .
Sanders has said he would vote against the new agreement , Warren has said she would vote for it , and on Tuesday they reiterated those positions .
Both Sanders and Warren think the USMCA would help American industries and workers at the margins ― by , for example , requiring that cars have more parts from North America in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , both think that the USMCA doesn ’ t go nearly far enough to rectify the problems in NAFTA .
The difference is over how to react .
Sanders is voting no mainly because , as he put it in Tuesday ’ s debate , “ we could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal ... .
This deal ― and I think the proponents of it acknowledge ― will result in the continuation of the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs as a result of outsourcing.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moines Register turned to Warren , asking her about Sanders ’ s position and hers , she made it clear she understood the USMCA ’ s deficiencies and that , as president , she would try to negotiate a better agreement .
“ This new trade deal is a modest improvement ― Sen. Sanders himself has said so , ” Warren said .
“ It will give some relief to our farmers .
It will give some relief to our workers .
I believe we accept that relief , we try to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal.
” But given the political and practical obstacles to creating such a system right away , Warren has said she would focus first on doing what she could right away ― by signing executive orders designed to bring down drug prices and , then , pushing for legislation that would bolster the financial assistance in the Affordable Care Act while creating a government-run plan for people who want to enroll in it .
“ My approach to this is we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help to as many people as quickly as possible , ” Warren said .
“ What I can do are the things I can do as president on the first day .
We can cut the cost of prescription drugs .
I ’ ll use the power that ’ s already given to the president to reduce the cost of insulin and EpiPens and HIV-AIDS drugs .
Let ’ s get some relief to those families .
And I will defend the Affordable Care Act.
” Sanders didn ’ t answer Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke in between . )
But in the past , when asked about what he ’ d do if enacting Medicare for All wasn ’ t possible right away , he ’ s brushed off the question and simply restated his case for the program ― something he did again Tuesday night .
“ Now is the time to take on the greed and corruption of the health care industry , of the drug companies , and finally provide health care to all through a Medicare for All single-payer program , ” Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be easy , but that is what we have to do.
” In 2009 , after all , he voted for the Affordable Care Act even though it was far , far short of what he thought necessary to make health care a right .
Many of his supporters argue that , by staking out his ideal position , he is moving the conversation to the left ― and , ultimately , setting up a more progressive final compromise .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Voters watching Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate got a pretty good glimpse into the differences between the two most progressive candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
All voters had to do was listen closely to the way the two talked about trade and health care.
The Divide On Trade
The trade discussion came first, and its focus was the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA), which the Trump administration has negotiated, the House passed last month and the Senate is set to consider next week.
Advertisement
The USMCA is a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which first took effect in the 1990s and has been a source of discontent for labor unions and environmentalists ever since. Sanders has said he would vote against the new agreement, Warren has said she would vote for it, and on Tuesday they reiterated those positions.
But what has made their argument especially interesting is that they actually agree, for the most part, about the merits of the new pact.
Both Sanders and Warren think the USMCA would help American industries and workers at the margins ― by, for example, requiring that cars have more parts from North America in order to be exempt from tariffs. At the same time, both think that the USMCA doesn’t go nearly far enough to rectify the problems in NAFTA.
The difference is over how to react. Sanders is voting no mainly because, as he put it in Tuesday’s debate, “we could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal .... This deal ― and I think the proponents of it acknowledge ― will result in the continuation of the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs as a result of outsourcing.”
Advertisement
Sanders also cited the objections of environmental organizations, which noted that the agreement never mentions the phrase “climate change.”
“Given the fact that climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet, I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world,” Sanders said.
When moderator Brianne Pfannenstiel of the Des Moines Register turned to Warren, asking her about Sanders’s position and hers, she made it clear she understood the USMCA’s deficiencies and that, as president, she would try to negotiate a better agreement.
But then she talked about the people who would benefit if the USMCA is passed now.
“This new trade deal is a modest improvement ― Sen. Sanders himself has said so,” Warren said. “It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal.”
“We need a policy that actually helps our workers, our farmers,” Warren added. “I’m ready to have that fight, but let’s help the people who need help right now.
Advertisement
The Divide On Health Care
That line of thinking should have sounded familiar because it’s the same way Warren has justified her position on health care.
Warren says that, like Sanders, she hopes to create a “Medicare for All” system that would replace existing insurance arrangements, public and private, with a single, government-run plan.
But given the political and practical obstacles to creating such a system right away, Warren has said she would focus first on doing what she could right away ― by signing executive orders designed to bring down drug prices and, then, pushing for legislation that would bolster the financial assistance in the Affordable Care Act while creating a government-run plan for people who want to enroll in it.
“My approach to this is we’ve got to get as much help to as many people as quickly as possible,” Warren said. “What I can do are the things I can do as president on the first day. We can cut the cost of prescription drugs. I’ll use the power that’s already given to the president to reduce the cost of insulin and EpiPens and HIV-AIDS drugs. Let’s get some relief to those families. And I will defend the Affordable Care Act.”
Sanders didn’t answer Warren’s argument directly. (Other candidates spoke in between.) But in the past, when asked about what he’d do if enacting Medicare for All wasn’t possible right away, he’s brushed off the question and simply restated his case for the program ― something he did again Tuesday night.
Advertisement
“Now is the time to take on the greed and corruption of the health care industry, of the drug companies, and finally provide health care to all through a Medicare for All single-payer program,” Sanders said. “It won’t be easy, but that is what we have to do.”
It’s easy to make too much of the differences on display Tuesday night ― or in the Sanders and Warren candidacies more generally.
The two still agree far more than they disagree on policy. Warren has never shied away from establishing lofty goals, as her strongly progressive voting record indicates, just as Sanders has proved himself capable of compromise when it mattered.
In 2009, after all, he voted for the Affordable Care Act even though it was far, far short of what he thought necessary to make health care a right. Many of his supporters argue that, by staking out his ideal position, he is moving the conversation to the left ― and, ultimately, setting up a more progressive final compromise.
But rhetorical differences matter, and Tuesday night’s exchange suggests that, at some level, Warren is more sympathetic to incremental change than is Sanders. Which position makes more sense ― and how much, ultimately, the distinction matters ― is something Democratic voters will have to contemplate, starting in Iowa early next month.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-14--California Cities That Don't Reduce Homelessness Could Be Sued Under New Proposal

A California task force on homelessness , appointed by California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) , has recommended the creation of a “ legally enforceable ” mandate for cities and counties to reduce the number of people who are unhoused .
In a report to the governor released Monday , the task force ― led by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg ( D ) ― suggested that state lawmakers place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would require California ’ s cities and counties to make measurable progress on homelessness or risk being sued .
“ Homelessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as a humanitarian crisis tantamount to any sustained natural disaster , ” the report declares , adding that the state should establish by law that “ it is not morally or legally acceptable to deny housing for people on the streets.
” Under the suggested mandate , city and county governments would have to provide temporary and permanent housing to reduce the number of people who are homeless in their jurisdictions .
Within a year of the mandate being in place , cities and counties would have to develop a plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless populations ” within an “ aggressive but reasonable ” timeline .
If local governments then didn ’ t meet their goals , “ designated public officials ” ( to be determined by lawmakers ) would have the authority to sue in court to appropriate resources from the jurisdiction or take other unspecified actions to “ move the jurisdiction toward compliance.
” For such a mandate to become law , the state legislature would have to vote by June to place it on the ballot , and then a majority of California voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The task force acknowledged in its report that there was “ still much work to be done to negotiate the parameters ” of such a mandate and said that it would work with lawmakers on further details .
The governor told the San Francisco Chronicle that “ this notion of accountability ― a mandate of sorts ― is a good one , ” adding that the challenge will be to get lawmakers ’ support to place it on the ballot .
The task force ’ s report argues that leaving homelessness as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments hasn ’ t spurred change fast enough .
It notes there is currently no legal accountability for California cities that fail to house the homeless ― as opposed to other supports that the state currently mandates , such as free public education and subsidized health insurance for low-income residents .
While the lack of affordable housing is a nationwide crisis , California has one of the highest rates of homelessness .
On any given day in January 2018 , more than 500,000 people were homeless in the U.S. ― and nearly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homelessness rates have worsened in California in recent years , with spikes in the number of homeless residents in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles over the past two years .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Democratic officeholders in California over the high rates of homelessness .
At one point last year , he said that people living on the streets were ruining the “ prestige ” of Los Angeles and San Francisco .
On Tuesday , homeless mothers with the Moms4Housing movement were arrested and evicted from a house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d occupied for months , drawing further attention to the housing crisis .
Oakland , California , Mayor Libby Schaaf , who is also a member of the governor ’ s task force , called their squatting a “ courageous act of civil disobedience ” and told the local Fox TV station , “ I applaud them for giving everyone a wake-up call.
” Newsom has been leading efforts to address homelessness statewide .
Last week , he signed an executive order setting up a fund to combat homelessness and ordering state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can be used to provide temporary shelter for unhoused residents .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A California task force on homelessness, appointed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), has recommended the creation of a “legally enforceable” mandate for cities and counties to reduce the number of people who are unhoused.
In a report to the governor released Monday, the task force ― led by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg (D) ― suggested that state lawmakers place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would require California’s cities and counties to make measurable progress on homelessness or risk being sued.
Advertisement
“Homelessness, especially unsheltered homelessness, must be viewed as a humanitarian crisis tantamount to any sustained natural disaster,” the report declares, adding that the state should establish by law that “it is not morally or legally acceptable to deny housing for people on the streets.”
Under the suggested mandate, city and county governments would have to provide temporary and permanent housing to reduce the number of people who are homeless in their jurisdictions.
Within a year of the mandate being in place, cities and counties would have to develop a plan to house the “vast majority of their homeless populations” within an “aggressive but reasonable” timeline. If local governments then didn’t meet their goals, “designated public officials” (to be determined by lawmakers) would have the authority to sue in court to appropriate resources from the jurisdiction or take other unspecified actions to “move the jurisdiction toward compliance.”
For such a mandate to become law, the state legislature would have to vote by June to place it on the ballot, and then a majority of California voters would have to approve it in November.
Advertisement
The task force acknowledged in its report that there was “still much work to be done to negotiate the parameters” of such a mandate and said that it would work with lawmakers on further details.
Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
The governor told the San Francisco Chronicle that “this notion of accountability ― a mandate of sorts ― is a good one,” adding that the challenge will be to get lawmakers’ support to place it on the ballot.
Today we recommended that the Legislature place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would hold local and state governments responsible for getting the 93,000 people on California's streets indoors.
Read our report here: https://t.co/1KLk5ZKkp8 — Darrell Steinberg (@Mayor_Steinberg) January 13, 2020
The task force’s report argues that leaving homelessness as a “voluntary” responsibility of local governments hasn’t spurred change fast enough. It notes there is currently no legal accountability for California cities that fail to house the homeless ― as opposed to other supports that the state currently mandates, such as free public education and subsidized health insurance for low-income residents.
While the lack of affordable housing is a nationwide crisis, California has one of the highest rates of homelessness. On any given day in January 2018, more than 500,000 people were homeless in the U.S. ― and nearly a quarter of those lived in California.
Advertisement
Homelessness rates have worsened in California in recent years, with spikes in the number of homeless residents in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles over the past two years.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Democratic officeholders in California over the high rates of homelessness. At one point last year, he said that people living on the streets were ruining the “prestige” of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
HuffPost reached out to San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for comment on the proposed mandate, but did not immediately receive a response.
On Tuesday, homeless mothers with the Moms4Housing movement were arrested and evicted from a house in the West Oakland neighborhood that they’d occupied for months, drawing further attention to the housing crisis. Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf, who is also a member of the governor’s task force, called their squatting a “courageous act of civil disobedience” and told the local Fox TV station, “I applaud them for giving everyone a wake-up call.”
Newsom has been leading efforts to address homelessness statewide. Last week, he signed an executive order setting up a fund to combat homelessness and ordering state agencies to identify state land and property that can be used to provide temporary shelter for unhoused residents.