thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Republicans Now Say It Doesn't Matter If There Was A Quid Pro Quo With Ukraine

WASHINGTON ― Republicans now maintain President Donald Trump was completely justified in engaging in a quid pro quo with Ukraine after an extended period of time adamantly denying that it had ever happened at all .
Last year , after the White House released a summary of Trump ’ s infamous July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , Republicans insisted that they saw no evidence of a direct link between security assistance to Ukraine and the opening of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden , a potential Trump opponent in the 2020 election .
“ It clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Sen. Kevin Cramer ( R-N.D. ) said in November after several top U.S. diplomats testified before the House that the Trump administration did , in fact , withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into a political opponent .
Read the call record , they said over and over again , and it ’ s clear that the aid and the investigations weren ’ t linked .
“ If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo , outside the phone call , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) told Axios in October .
Their position echoed White House talking points sent to Republicans on Capitol Hill ( and mistakenly also to some Democrats ) following Trump ’ s repeated denials on Twitter that there was “ no quid pro quo.
” “ Let ’ s be clear , there was no quid pro quo for Ukraine to get US aid in exchange for looking into Biden or his son , ” said one of the talking points .
But Republicans changed their story on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times revealed the existence of a book manuscript from former national security adviser John Bolton .
The book , which is due to be released later this year , alleges that Trump told Bolton directly that the aid to Ukraine was tied to the Ukrainian government opening investigations into Biden and his son .
The revelation from a first-hand witness threatened to derail Republican desires for a quick acquittal of Trump in the Senate impeachment trial this week and upped the pressure on them to allow witnesses such as Bolton to testify and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings .
During their opening arguments in the Senate , Trump ’ s defense team contended that even if Bolton ’ s account were true , it would not merit the removal of a president during an election year .
Their argument opened the door for some Republican senators to acknowledge that Trump did , in fact , withhold Ukraine aid , but that it didn ’ t merit his removal from office because he was morally justified in seeking investigations into the Bidens .
“ It is clear to me that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be concerned about conflicts of interest on behalf of Hunter Biden and that Vice President Joe Biden ’ s failure to take appropriate action was unacceptable .
This combination , in my view , undercut America ’ s message on reforming corruption in Ukraine , ” Graham said in a statement on Wednesday .
There ’ s no evidence that Biden or his son Hunter engaged in corruption in Ukraine .
Kurt Volker , the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine , also testified in the House inquiry that he saw no validity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bidens .
Trump and other Republicans only began inquiring about Hunter Biden ’ s role on the board of an energy company in Ukraine after his father announced his campaign for president .
Other Republican senators were equally dismissive of Bolton ’ s allegations , maintaining this week that Trump had an official reason to insist on an investigation into the Bidens , rather than a personal one .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Republicans now maintain President Donald Trump was completely justified in engaging in a quid pro quo with Ukraine after an extended period of time adamantly denying that it had ever happened at all.
Last year, after the White House released a summary of Trump’s infamous July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Republicans insisted that they saw no evidence of a direct link between security assistance to Ukraine and the opening of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential Trump opponent in the 2020 election.
Advertisement
“It clearly isn’t a quid pro quo,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said in November after several top U.S. diplomats testified before the House that the Trump administration did, in fact, withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into a political opponent.
Read the call record, they said over and over again, and it’s clear that the aid and the investigations weren’t linked.
“If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Axios in October.
Their position echoed White House talking points sent to Republicans on Capitol Hill (and mistakenly also to some Democrats) following Trump’s repeated denials on Twitter that there was “no quid pro quo.”
Advertisement
“Let’s be clear, there was no quid pro quo for Ukraine to get US aid in exchange for looking into Biden or his son,” said one of the talking points.
But Republicans changed their story on the matter this week after The New York Times revealed the existence of a book manuscript from former national security adviser John Bolton. The book, which is due to be released later this year, alleges that Trump told Bolton directly that the aid to Ukraine was tied to the Ukrainian government opening investigations into Biden and his son.
The revelation from a first-hand witness threatened to derail Republican desires for a quick acquittal of Trump in the Senate impeachment trial this week and upped the pressure on them to allow witnesses such as Bolton to testify and new documents to be presented during the proceedings.
During their opening arguments in the Senate, Trump’s defense team contended that even if Bolton’s account were true, it would not merit the removal of a president during an election year. Their argument opened the door for some Republican senators to acknowledge that Trump did, in fact, withhold Ukraine aid, but that it didn’t merit his removal from office because he was morally justified in seeking investigations into the Bidens.
“It is clear to me that there is ample evidence for the President to be concerned about conflicts of interest on behalf of Hunter Biden and that Vice President Joe Biden’s failure to take appropriate action was unacceptable. This combination, in my view, undercut America’s message on reforming corruption in Ukraine,” Graham said in a statement on Wednesday.
Advertisement
There’s no evidence that Biden or his son Hunter engaged in corruption in Ukraine. Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, also testified in the House inquiry that he saw no validity to Trump’s allegations against the Bidens.
Trump and other Republicans only began inquiring about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of an energy company in Ukraine after his father announced his campaign for president.
Other Republican senators were equally dismissive of Bolton’s allegations, maintaining this week that Trump had an official reason to insist on an investigation into the Bidens, rather than a personal one.
“Quid pro quo doesn’t matter,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
“[Bolton’s] point is what? That doesn’t tell us anything,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) added in a separate Tuesday interview with Hannity.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Roy Moore Is Suing A Conservative News Outlet Over 'Fake News'

Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore is suing the Washington Examiner for $ 40 million , alleging the conservative outlet slandered his reputation .
In a statement Wednesday , Moore called the website “ fake news ” and cast his suit as a strike against media outlets that are , as he put it , “ politically and philosophically motivated to distort the true facts for their own ends.
” “ Like the people of Alabama , I am sick and tired of ‘ fake news , ’ ” he said .
“ Unlike some who choose to suffer in silence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” Despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump , Moore lost a 2017 special election to fill Attorney General Jeff Sessions ’ vacated Senate seat after numerous women accused Moore of sexual harassment and assault , including several who said they were in their teens when the incidents occurred .
Undeterred , Moore decided to run again for the seat in 2020 .
Should he win the Republican primary , he ’ d face off against Sen. Doug Jones ( D ) , whom he lost to in 2017 .
( One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sessions , who hopes to win back his old seat . )
The Washington Examiner reacted negatively to Moore ’ s announcement that he was running again , publishing headlines like “ GOP nightmare as Alabama ’ s Roy Moore signals he might run again ” and “ If Alabamans vote for Roy Moore , they deserve Doug Jones.
” Moore ’ s suit specifically mentions those headlines as being representative of “ false and malicious statements made to disparage , intimidate , and libel the character , reputation , and integrity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore is suing the Washington Examiner for $40 million, alleging the conservative outlet slandered his reputation.
In a statement Wednesday, Moore called the website “fake news” and cast his suit as a strike against media outlets that are, as he put it, “politically and philosophically motivated to distort the true facts for their own ends.”
Advertisement
“Like the people of Alabama, I am sick and tired of ‘fake news,’” he said. “Unlike some who choose to suffer in silence, I have decided to fight back!”
Despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump, Moore lost a 2017 special election to fill Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ vacated Senate seat after numerous women accused Moore of sexual harassment and assault, including several who said they were in their teens when the incidents occurred.
Undeterred, Moore decided to run again for the seat in 2020. Should he win the Republican primary, he’d face off against Sen. Doug Jones (D), whom he lost to in 2017. (One of Moore’s primary opponents is Sessions, who hopes to win back his old seat.)
The Washington Examiner reacted negatively to Moore’s announcement that he was running again, publishing headlines like “GOP nightmare as Alabama’s Roy Moore signals he might run again” and “If Alabamans vote for Roy Moore, they deserve Doug Jones.”
Advertisement
Moore’s suit specifically mentions those headlines as being representative of “false and malicious statements made to disparage, intimidate, and libel the character, reputation, and integrity of Judge Roy Moore.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Read Live Updates As Senate Begins Question Portion Of Impeachment Trial

After six days of opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump ’ s defense team , the Senate has begun the question portion of the impeachment trial .
Senators have 16 hours over two days to ask whatever they want of Democratic prosecutors and White House lawyers as they consider whether to vote in favor of calling additional witnesses or introducing new evidence in the case .
The questions will alternate between Republicans and Democrats .
Senators must submit their questions in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an answer .
Senators can not respond after their question is answered .
The House impeachment managers , led by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , want former national security adviser John Bolton to testify .
He reportedly wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that Trump conditioned congressionally approved aid to Ukraine helping with his requested investigations into political rival Joe Biden and the 2016 election .
Trump ’ s defense team , led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone , argues that the president did nothing wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton and other witnesses requested by the Democrats should not be called to testify .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) told senators during a briefing Tuesday evening that he does not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning additional witnesses .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
After six days of opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s defense team, the Senate has begun the question portion of the impeachment trial.
Senators have 16 hours over two days to ask whatever they want of Democratic prosecutors and White House lawyers as they consider whether to vote in favor of calling additional witnesses or introducing new evidence in the case.
Advertisement
Scroll down for live updates from the impeachment trial.
The questions will alternate between Republicans and Democrats. Senators must submit their questions in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial. He will then read them and request an answer. Senators cannot respond after their question is answered.
The House impeachment managers, led by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), want former national security adviser John Bolton to testify. He reportedly wrote in a draft of his forthcoming book that Trump conditioned congressionally approved aid to Ukraine helping with his requested investigations into political rival Joe Biden and the 2016 election.
Trump’s defense team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, argues that the president did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine and that Bolton and other witnesses requested by the Democrats should not be called to testify.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told senators during a briefing Tuesday evening that he does not yet have the votes to block Democrats from summoning additional witnesses.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Trump Team Argues Anything Goes As Long As It's In Service Of Reelection

WASHINGTON ― The president of the United States can essentially do whatever he wants to get himself reelected if he believes that his own reelection would be in the public interest , a lawyer for President Donald Trump argued on Wednesday in a sweeping claim of executive power .
“ Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest , ” Alan Dershowitz , one of the president ’ s attorneys , said on the Senate floor during Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ If a president does something which he believes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
” It was an extremist view of executive power ― instead of arguing Trump shouldn ’ t be removed from office because he didn ’ t do what witnesses and Democrats have accused him of , Dershowitz was arguing that he shouldn ’ t be removed because he has the right to do basically anything he likes , as long as it doesn ’ t violate a specific criminal statute .
He ’ s the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dershowitz has argued that presidents can only be impeached for direct violations of the law .
He ’ s argued that Trump ’ s pressure campaign to get the Ukrainian government to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden , Trump ’ s political rival , doesn ’ t warrant impeachment .
On Wednesday , as members of the Senate sitting in Trump ’ s impeachment trial questioned the House managers and Trump ’ s defense attorneys on issues of fact and law , Dershowitz argued that the president had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought might benefit his reelection and the national interest .
The view extends from the attitude of Trump himself , who has said he has “ the right to do whatever I want as president.
” If he can get enough of the U.S. Senate to agree to acquit him , he may be proven right .
Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the lead House impeachment manager , pushed back on Dershowitz ’ s argument , saying that the founders didn ’ t write that the president could commit whatever high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first term if it was in the interest of his reelection .
He proposed a hypothetical situation in which the president withheld aid to a state in order to get a state attorney general to announce an investigation into a political rival .
“ If you say you can ’ t hold a president accountable in an election year where they ’ re trying to cheat in that election , then you are giving them carte blanche , ” Schiff said .
“ All quid pros are not the same .
Some are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.
” Bolton ’ s unpublished manuscript reportedly confirms Democrats ’ core allegation : that Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine in order to coerce that country into announcing a bogus investigation into Joe Biden , the top-polling Democrat running to unseat Trump .
News of the Bolton book is hanging over the trial and a highly anticipated vote on whether to subpoena witnesses .
Bolton has already said he would testify if he receives a Senate subpoena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it at all , you need to hear from his national security adviser .
Don ’ t wait for the book .
Don ’ t wait until March 17 when it is in black and white to find out the answer to your question , ” Schiff said .
“ If you have any question about it , you can erase all doubt.
” Three Republicans who seemed open to hearing from witnesses signed onto the first question of the day , which suggested they believed Trump might have had mixed motives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins ( R-Maine ) , on behalf of herself , Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) and Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) asked Trump ’ s lawyers how the Senate should respond if they believe Trump had more than one motive in withholding the military aid .
“ Once you ’ re into mixed motive land , it ’ s clear that their case fails .
There can ’ t possibly be an impeachable offense at all , ” Philbin said .
“ Think about it : All elected officials , to some extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , how their decisions , their policy decisions , will affect the next election .
There ’ s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy decisions , and there ’ s nothing wrong with that.
” Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
said that Dershowitz ’ s remarks were “ pretty striking ” and “ disconcerting.
” Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) told HuffPost she plans to ask a question about the Trump team ’ s claim of “ absolute immunity.
” She said the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whack-a-mole , ” with the Justice Department saying the president can ’ t be indicted and the president ’ s impeachment lawyers arguing he can only be impeached for indictable conduct .
She said Dershowitz ’ s arguments were “ not consistent with what even he has said in the past .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― The president of the United States can essentially do whatever he wants to get himself reelected if he believes that his own reelection would be in the public interest, a lawyer for President Donald Trump argued on Wednesday in a sweeping claim of executive power.
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Alan Dershowitz, one of the president’s attorneys, said on the Senate floor during Trump’s impeachment trial. “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Advertisement
It was an extremist view of executive power ― instead of arguing Trump shouldn’t be removed from office because he didn’t do what witnesses and Democrats have accused him of, Dershowitz was arguing that he shouldn’t be removed because he has the right to do basically anything he likes, as long as it doesn’t violate a specific criminal statute. He’s the president, so no one can stop him.
Dershowitz has argued that presidents can only be impeached for direct violations of the law. He’s argued that Trump’s pressure campaign to get the Ukrainian government to publicly announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political rival, doesn’t warrant impeachment. On Wednesday, as members of the Senate sitting in Trump’s impeachment trial questioned the House managers and Trump’s defense attorneys on issues of fact and law, Dershowitz argued that the president had broad leeway to engage in conduct he thought might benefit his reelection and the national interest.
“All quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.” - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
The view extends from the attitude of Trump himself, who has said he has “the right to do whatever I want as president.” If he can get enough of the U.S. Senate to agree to acquit him, he may be proven right.
Advertisement
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, pushed back on Dershowitz’s argument, saying that the founders didn’t write that the president could commit whatever high crimes and misdemeanors he wanted in his first term if it was in the interest of his reelection. He proposed a hypothetical situation in which the president withheld aid to a state in order to get a state attorney general to announce an investigation into a political rival.
“If you say you can’t hold a president accountable in an election year where they’re trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche,” Schiff said. “All quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.”
“For one thing, you can ask John Bolton,” he added.
The questions came the same day that the White House threatened Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, over the planned publication of his book, claiming it contains “significant amounts of classified information.”
Bolton’s unpublished manuscript reportedly confirms Democrats’ core allegation: that Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine in order to coerce that country into announcing a bogus investigation into Joe Biden, the top-polling Democrat running to unseat Trump. News of the Bolton book is hanging over the trial and a highly anticipated vote on whether to subpoena witnesses. Bolton has already said he would testify if he receives a Senate subpoena.
“There’s no way to have a fair trial without witnesses,” Schiff said Wednesday. “To turn him away, to look the other way, I think is deeply at odds with being an impartial juror.”
Advertisement
“If you have any question about it at all, you need to hear from his national security adviser. Don’t wait for the book. Don’t wait until March 17 when it is in black and white to find out the answer to your question,” Schiff said. “If you have any question about it, you can erase all doubt.”
Three Republicans who seemed open to hearing from witnesses signed onto the first question of the day, which suggested they believed Trump might have had mixed motives in withholding aid to Ukraine. Susan Collins (R-Maine), on behalf of herself, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) asked Trump’s lawyers how the Senate should respond if they believe Trump had more than one motive in withholding the military aid.
Patrick Philbin, deputy White House counsel, argued that House managers had to argue that there was no possible public interest at all in an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
“Once you’re into mixed motive land, it’s clear that their case fails. There can’t possibly be an impeachable offense at all,” Philbin said. “Think about it: All elected officials, to some extent, have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions, will affect the next election. There’s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy decisions, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
In a presentation on Monday evening, Dershowitz argued that Democrats’ case is fatally flawed because their two impeachment articles ― for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ― don’t cite specific criminal actions by the president.
Advertisement
He also said that even if Bolton’s allegations are true that the president explicitly told him he was essentially extorting Ukraine ― it wouldn’t matter, because “quid pro quo” arrangements are essential to foreign policy.
“He knows better.” - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Alan Dershowitz's arguments Wednesday.
Several Republicans have embraced the argument that it doesn’t matter if the president engaged in a quid pro quo ― something the president has forcefully denied for months, even though he has admitted he wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.
“Quid pro quo doesn’t matter,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, before the proceedings started, Dershowitz told reporters that he’d received kudos for his Monday argument.
Advertisement
“A number of the senators, as I was waiting for the elevator, just congratulated me on a good presentation, said I had changed some views,” Dershowitz said.
Democrats strongly disagreed with Dershowitz’s assertions.
“He knows better,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Wednesday after Dershowitz made his arguments about the public interest. “He also said that ... the framers wanted us to have indictable crimes for an impeachment. Of course there were no indictable crimes at the time that they wrote that.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said that Dershowitz’s remarks were “pretty striking” and “disconcerting.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told HuffPost she plans to ask a question about the Trump team’s claim of “absolute immunity.” She said the president’s lawyers “are playing a game of whack-a-mole,” with the Justice Department saying the president can’t be indicted and the president’s impeachment lawyers arguing he can only be impeached for indictable conduct. She said Dershowitz’s arguments were “not consistent with what even he has said in the past.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) called Dershowitz’s argument “beyond absurd.”
“I thought he made absolutely no sense because he essentially said that if President Trump believes his election is good for the American people, he can do whatever he wants.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Don Lemon Insists He Wasn't Laughing At Trump Supporters During CNN Segment

One final note that I have for you , because this is personally important to me to address this .
@ @ @ @ @ knows me .
They ’ ll tell you I don ’ t believe in belittling @ @ @ @ @ who they are , for what they believe or where they ’ re from .
@ @ @ @ @ night , one of my guests said something that made me laugh .
And while @ @ @ @ @ the joke humorous ...
I didn ’ t catch everything that was said .
Just @ @ @ @ @ , I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people .

One final note that I have for you, because this is personally important to me to address this. Anyone — ask anyone who knows me. They’ll tell you I don’t believe in belittling people ― belittling anyone for who they are, for what they believe or where they’re from.
During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh. And while in the moment I found the joke humorous ... I didn’t catch everything that was said. Just to make this perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Sean Hannity Demands Former Fox Colleague John Bolton Explain Himself On His Show

Fox News ’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night warned John Bolton to “ stop playing games ” as he demanded the former national security adviser appear on his widely watched show .
The “ Hannity ” host lashed out at what he described as the “ total BS ” in his former Fox colleague ’ s leaked unpublished book “ The Room Where It Happened , ” calling it “ the latest manufactured crisis.
” Bolton , who was a paid Fox News contributor for 11 years until 2018 , reportedly writes in his forthcoming book that President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to Ukraine to the country ’ s announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden .
Hannity , a staunch supporter of Trump who has vowed to campaign on behalf of the president during the 2020 election , claimed he isn ’ t “ recognizing the guy that I thought I knew ” who wanted the position in the Trump administration “ so badly.
” “ I say to you tonight , you have something to say , John , ” Hannity said .
“ Come here .
You worked here .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the show and have your say on this show.
” Hannity ’ s message came as Senate Republicans mulled over allowing witnesses , including Bolton , to testify in Trump ’ s impeachment trial over his Ukraine misconduct .
“ John Bolton , come on the show , ” Hannity later added .
“ Your country wants to hear from you .
I ’ d like to hear from you .
You have a story to tell the country , John .
Stop playing games .
This is not a game when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night warned John Bolton to “stop playing games” as he demanded the former national security adviser appear on his widely watched show.
The “Hannity” host lashed out at what he described as the “total BS” in his former Fox colleague’s leaked unpublished book “The Room Where It Happened,” calling it “the latest manufactured crisis.”
Advertisement
Bolton, who was a paid Fox News contributor for 11 years until 2018, reportedly writes in his forthcoming book that President Donald Trump did link the release of congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to the country’s announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden.
Hannity, a staunch supporter of Trump who has vowed to campaign on behalf of the president during the 2020 election, claimed he isn’t “recognizing the guy that I thought I knew” who wanted the position in the Trump administration “so badly.”
“I say to you tonight, you have something to say, John,” Hannity said. “Come here. You worked here. This is your old home. Come on the show and have your say on this show.”
Hannity’s message came as Senate Republicans mulled over allowing witnesses, including Bolton, to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial over his Ukraine misconduct.
Advertisement
“John Bolton, come on the show,” Hannity later added. “Your country wants to hear from you. I’d like to hear from you. You have a story to tell the country, John. Stop playing games. This is not a game when it’s the presidency of the United States.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Joe Biden Said No Scientist Supports Bernie Sanders’ Climate Plan. Dozens Just Did.

Dozens of scientists have endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ ( I-Vt. ) sweeping plan to combat global climate change after fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared that “ not a single solitary scientist thinks it can work.
” The former vice president derided Sanders ’ proposed $ 16.3 trillion Green New Deal during a campaign stop last week in New Hampshire , adding that “ you can not get to zero emissions by 2030 .
It ’ s impossible.
” Sanders swung back over the weekend , telling a crowd in Iowa that he would soon unveil “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his plan .
The Sanders campaign delivered on Tuesday , releasing a letter of support signed by 57 science professors and researchers from around the country .
“ The Green New Deal you are proposing is not only possible , but it must be done if we want to save the planet for ourselves , our children , grandchildren , and future generations , ” the letter signed by the scientists said .
“ Not only does your Green New Deal follow the [ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ’ s ] timeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are proposing to solve our climate crisis are realistic , necessary , and backed by science .
We must protect the air we breathe , the water we drink , and the planet we call home.
” The Sunrise Movement , the youth-led grassroots group that ’ s campaigned for a Green New Deal and endorsed Sanders for president earlier this month , is helping lead the signature campaign .
Sanders ’ plan is ambitious and popular among climate activists .
It calls for slashing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 71 % below 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether by 2050 ; bans on fracking , oil and gas drilling on federal lands and fossil fuel subsidies ; and promises to create 20 million jobs .
It proposes spending $ 16.3 trillion over the next decade , including $ 1.52 trillion on renewable energy and $ 852 billion on energy storage .
The Sunrise Movement gave Sanders ’ Green New Deal a score of 91.5 % ― the highest among the top Democratic candidates .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Biden scored 85.5 % and 37.5 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an A+ , Warren ’ s an A and Biden ’ s a B+ .
“ I believe that radical decarbonization is possible *if* supported by a deep commitment to and centering of people , ” wrote Emily Grubert , a professor of environmental engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology .
“ It ’ s going to be hard — so hard .
But we must try.
” “ I ’ m a climate scientist and I ’ m freaking out about what ’ s happening to our planet right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist at NASA ’ s Jet Propulsion Lab .
“ Is Bernie ’ s climate plan ambitious ?
Yes .
Is it expensive ?
Yes .
But the alternative is losing ... well , everything .
From where I sit , the thing that ’ s not feasible is doing nothing .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dozens of scientists have endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) sweeping plan to combat global climate change after fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared that “not a single solitary scientist thinks it can work.”
The former vice president derided Sanders’ proposed $16.3 trillion Green New Deal during a campaign stop last week in New Hampshire, adding that “you can not get to zero emissions by 2030. It’s impossible.”
Advertisement
Sanders swung back over the weekend, telling a crowd in Iowa that he would soon unveil “a long list of scientists” who back his plan. The Sanders campaign delivered on Tuesday, releasing a letter of support signed by 57 science professors and researchers from around the country.
“The Green New Deal you are proposing is not only possible, but it must be done if we want to save the planet for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations,” the letter signed by the scientists said. “Not only does your Green New Deal follow the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] timeline for action, but the solutions you are proposing to solve our climate crisis are realistic, necessary, and backed by science. We must protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the planet we call home.”
The Sunrise Movement, the youth-led grassroots group that’s campaigned for a Green New Deal and endorsed Sanders for president earlier this month, is helping lead the signature campaign.
NEW: More than 55 scientists sign letter supporting @BernieSanders' climate plan #GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/xfRvjei7st — People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) January 28, 2020
Advertisement
Sanders’ plan is ambitious and popular among climate activists. It calls for slashing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 71% below 2017 levels by 2030 and zeroing them out altogether by 2050; bans on fracking, oil and gas drilling on federal lands and fossil fuel subsidies; and promises to create 20 million jobs. It proposes spending $16.3 trillion over the next decade, including $1.52 trillion on renewable energy and $852 billion on energy storage.
Biden’s climate plan calls for spending $1.7 trillion over a decade, creating 10 million new jobs and reaching net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
The Sunrise Movement gave Sanders’ Green New Deal a score of 91.5% ― the highest among the top Democratic candidates. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Biden scored 85.5% and 37.5%, respectively. Greenpeace gives Sanders’ plan an A+, Warren’s an A and Biden’s a B+.
Several signatories of Tuesday’s letter also voiced support for Sanders’ push for climate action on Twitter.
“I believe that radical decarbonization is possible *if* supported by a deep commitment to and centering of people,” wrote Emily Grubert, a professor of environmental engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “It’s going to be hard — so hard. But we must try.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Trump's Lawyers Have Muddied Their Own Arguments Against Subpoenas

Last year , House Democrats issued dozens of formal legal requests for documents and testimony from the Trump administration , and in a few cases they filed lawsuits after the administration refused to comply .
The president ’ s counsel has argued that there ’ s “ no constitutional or statutory basis ” for Congress to ask courts to enforce subpoenas .
Democrats have also issued several subpoenas as part of their investigation into the president ’ s Ukraine scandal , but instead of suing the administration for its blanket refusal to comply , they impeached the president for obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
“ If there is a dispute between the people ’ s House and the president of the United States over the availability of documents or witnesses ― and there is in each and every administration ― then go to court , ” Ken Starr , a guest lecturer for Trump ’ s legal defense , said Monday , expanding on an argument the president ’ s team presented in its initial written response to the articles of impeachment last week .
Now Democrats are using the switch to burnish their earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested .
Lawyers for the House of Representatives on Tuesday told the judge overseeing the Democrats ’ lawsuit for the president ’ s tax returns , which also involved a subpoena , that the court “ should not condone President Trump ’ s maintaining these clearly inconsistent positions , where he is a party both in this case and in the Senate impeachment trial.
” For months , District Judge Trevor McFadden has been weighing whether the District Court of the District of Columbia will even consider the merits of the Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers said the court should just stay out of it , and earlier this month McFadden put the case on hold while an appeals court sorts out whether the House has standing to sue over a different subpoena , one seeking testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn .
In both cases , the question is whether the House has standing to sue .
Democrats are tired of waiting , saying in Tuesday ’ s motion that the tax case “ has been stalled long enough.
” A longstanding federal tax disclosure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hand over any tax records that congressional tax committees request , but the Trump administration refused to give the House Ways and Means Committee copies of the president ’ s personal and business returns last year .
Democrats then issued a subpoena and ultimately sued .
In its motion to dismiss the tax case last year , lawyers for the Justice Department and for the president himself argued that there ’ s no way the courts should get involved , that Congress should haggle directly with the administration to get what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or statutory basis for a Committee of the House of Representatives to take on the role of enforcing its subpoenas in the Federal courts where the executive branch has decided not to do so , ” the president ’ s lawyers told the court .
“ Defendants ’ position that the House is constitutionally barred from judicial enforcement of its subpoenas has now been disavowed by President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial , ” the Ways and Means Committee said , adding that McFadden should lift his stay and make a decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in court right now asserting that mechanism [ suing ] in the McGahn case and simultaneously saying that , well , they don ’ t have to bother with that mechanism ; they can jump to impeachment , ” Philbin said on the Senate floor .
The appeals court will soon rule on whether McGahn has to testify .
Last week Democrats sent a letter putting the court on notice about the administration ’ s contradictory arguments ; the administration responded that it was actually Democrats trying to have it both ways by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In general , I think judges do not like it when parties take contradictory positions in different legal proceedings , particularly where , as in this case , they are doing so contemporaneously and about the exact same topic , ” Reinert said in an email .
“ It is one thing for parties to change their position over time on a legal question ( especially where there has been a change in counsel ) ― but in this case the president appears to be taking a disingenuous position in at least one @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― In President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, his lawyers seemingly reversed their position on whether it’s OK for Democrats to sue the administration over a subpoena.
Last year, House Democrats issued dozens of formal legal requests for documents and testimony from the Trump administration, and in a few cases they filed lawsuits after the administration refused to comply. The president’s counsel has argued that there’s “no constitutional or statutory basis” for Congress to ask courts to enforce subpoenas.
Advertisement
Democrats have also issued several subpoenas as part of their investigation into the president’s Ukraine scandal, but instead of suing the administration for its blanket refusal to comply, they impeached the president for obstruction of Congress in addition to abuse of power.
In the Senate trial this week, Trump’s lawyers are now arguing that Democrats should have gone to court rather than impeach the president.
“If there is a dispute between the people’s House and the president of the United States over the availability of documents or witnesses ― and there is in each and every administration ― then go to court,” Ken Starr, a guest lecturer for Trump’s legal defense, said Monday, expanding on an argument the president’s team presented in its initial written response to the articles of impeachment last week.
“It really is as simple as that. I don’t need to belabor the point,” Starr said, before repeating “go to court” two more times.
Advertisement
Attorney Ken Starr speaks as U.S. President Donald Trump's legal team resumes its presentation of opening arguments in Trump's Senate impeachment trial in this frame grab from video shot in the U.S. Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., Jan. 27, 2020. Handout . / Reuters
Now Democrats are using the switch to burnish their earlier demands for documents and interviews they already requested. Lawyers for the House of Representatives on Tuesday told the judge overseeing the Democrats’ lawsuit for the president’s tax returns, which also involved a subpoena, that the court “should not condone President Trump’s maintaining these clearly inconsistent positions, where he is a party both in this case and in the Senate impeachment trial.”
For months, District Judge Trevor McFadden has been weighing whether the District Court of the District of Columbia will even consider the merits of the Democrats’ tax return complaint. Trump’s lawyers said the court should just stay out of it, and earlier this month McFadden put the case on hold while an appeals court sorts out whether the House has standing to sue over a different subpoena, one seeking testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn. In both cases, the question is whether the House has standing to sue.
Democrats are tired of waiting, saying in Tuesday’s motion that the tax case “has been stalled long enough.” A longstanding federal tax disclosure law says the Treasury Department is supposed to hand over any tax records that congressional tax committees request, but the Trump administration refused to give the House Ways and Means Committee copies of the president’s personal and business returns last year. Democrats then issued a subpoena and ultimately sued.
In its motion to dismiss the tax case last year, lawyers for the Justice Department and for the president himself argued that there’s no way the courts should get involved, that Congress should haggle directly with the administration to get what it wants.
Advertisement
“There is no constitutional or statutory basis for a Committee of the House of Representatives to take on the role of enforcing its subpoenas in the Federal courts where the executive branch has decided not to do so,” the president’s lawyers told the court.
If McFadden, a Trump appointee, agrees that Democrats can’t sue, then he can throw out the case for lack of jurisdiction instead of having to decide it on the merits.
In their motion Tuesday, Democrats alerted Judge McFadden to what the president’s people are telling the Senate.
“Defendants’ position that the House is constitutionally barred from judicial enforcement of its subpoenas has now been disavowed by President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial,” the Ways and Means Committee said, adding that McFadden should lift his stay and make a decision on the case.
A key difference between the McGahn case and the tax case, they argued, is that Democrats lodged their initial request for the president’s taxes under a longstanding federal law giving Congress access to private tax information.
Advertisement
Trump deputy counsel Patrick Philbin acknowledged Monday that the Trump administration has taken seemingly contrary positions, but he said that since the McGahn case is still ongoing, Democrats can’t complain.
“They are in court right now asserting that mechanism [suing] in the McGahn case and simultaneously saying that, well, they don’t have to bother with that mechanism; they can jump to impeachment,” Philbin said on the Senate floor.
The appeals court will soon rule on whether McGahn has to testify. Last week Democrats sent a letter putting the court on notice about the administration’s contradictory arguments; the administration responded that it was actually Democrats trying to have it both ways by simultaneously doing impeachment and litigation.
Alexander Reinert, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said it’s possible that unlike in electoral politics, taking wildly different positions could have negative consequences in a federal court.
“In general, I think judges do not like it when parties take contradictory positions in different legal proceedings, particularly where, as in this case, they are doing so contemporaneously and about the exact same topic,” Reinert said in an email. “It is one thing for parties to change their position over time on a legal question (especially where there has been a change in counsel) ― but in this case the president appears to be taking a disingenuous position in at least one of the proceedings.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--50 U.S. Troops Now Diagnosed With Traumatic Brain Injuries After Iran Attack

“ A brain injury changes the way you move , act , think , and feel ― it has the @ @ @ @ @ are at your core , ” Connors said .
“ What could be more serious @ @ @ @ @ of Foreign Wars , a prominent veterans organization , called on Trump to apologize for @ @ @ @ @ “ TBI is a serious injury and one that can not be taken lightly , @ @ @ @ @ a statement Friday .
“ The VFW expects an apology from the president to our @ @ @ @ @ his misguided remarks , ” the statement continued .
“ And , we ask that @ @ @ @ @ join with us in our efforts to educate Americans of the dangers TBI has on @ @ @ @ @ our great nation in these trying times.
” The White House did not immediately respond @ @ @ @ @ for comment .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The number of U.S. service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries as a result of an Iranian attack on an Iraqi airbase earlier this month has risen to 50, the Defense Department said.
Last week, the Pentagon said 34 American troops had been diagnosed with TBIs following the Jan. 3 attack, which Iran launched in retaliation for U.S. forces killing Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani.
Advertisement
President Donald Trump initially said zero Americans were wounded in the attack. After first reports that some Americans suffered concussion-like symptoms, Trump shrugged off the injuries as “headaches.”
“As of today, 50 U.S. service members have been diagnosed with TBI,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell said in the statement first reported by CNN on Tuesday.
“Of these 50, 31 total service members were treated in Iraq and returned to duty, including 15 of the additional service members who have been diagnosed since the previous report,” Campbell said.
Eighteen U.S. troops have been transported to Germany for further evaluation and treatment and one service member who had been transported to Kuwait has since returned to duty, Campbell added.
Advertisement
He noted that the numbers are a “snap shot in time” and can change.
In this Monday, Jan. 13, 2020, photo, U.S. troops stand near their residence area that was destroyed by Iranian bombing at Al-Asad air base, in Anbar, Iraq. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Trump faced backlash over his comments downplaying the troops’ injuries during a news conference at the glitzy World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week.
“I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things,” Trump said when asked about varying reports on the number of injuries. “But I would say, and I can report, it is not very serious.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a concussion as a traumatic brain injury that can occur from a blow to the head. Concussions are not usually considered life-threatening, but their effects can be serious.
Pressed on whether he considers TBIs to be “serious,” Trump said he did not “relative to other injuries” he’s seen like the loss of limbs from roadside bombings.
Advertisement
Susan Connors, president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America, said in a statement to HuffPost last week that her group was “disappointed” by Trump’s remarks.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Joe Manchin Says Hunter Biden Would Be A Relevant Impeachment Trial Witness

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia , breaking ranks with most of his Democratic colleagues , says he ’ d like to hear from former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
“ I think so , I really do , ” Manchin ― one of his party ’ s more conservative lawmakers ― said Wednesday when asked on MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe ” whether Hunter Biden would be a relevant witness in the trial .
Trump is on trial in the Senate after being impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to open an investigation into the Bidens that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid until it did so , and then obstructing Congress ’ s efforts to look into the matter .
Trump himself has said he wanted Ukraine to launch an investigation into the Bidens .
As Democrats have pushed for allowing testimony from former Trump national security adviser John Bolton , whose upcoming book essentially confirmed the House allegations against Trump , some Republicans have insisted that Hunter Biden should be called as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his comments on MSNBC , agreed that he would like to hear about the younger Biden ’ s service on the board of a major Ukraine natural gas company that began while his father still served as vice president in Barack Obama ’ s administration .
“ I think that he can clear himself of what I know and what I ’ ve heard .
But being afraid to put anybody ( on the stand in the trial ) that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manchin said .
Despite rhetoric by members of Trump ’ s defense team in opening arguments , no evidence has surfaced that Hunter Biden or his father engaged in corruption .
And Kurt Volker , the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine , testified in the House impeachment inquiry that he saw no validity to allegations Trump and his allies have lodged against the Bidens .
Manchin said that he remains undecided about voting to acquit or convict the president on either charge against him .
“ I take my oath seriously about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision yet , ” he said .
Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama , another red-state Democrat who is perhaps the most vulnerable senator up for re-election in 2020 , told HuffPost he wanted to “ hear from relevant witnesses ” when asked about Hunter Biden potentially testifying in the Senate trial .
Asked earlier this week about Trump ’ s trial defense , Jones noted that the president ’ s lawyers had made “ some good points factually ” concerning the obstruction of Congress charge but that he was undecided on removal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ another moderate who is seen as a possible vote to acquit Trump on at least one charge of impeachment .
Democrats downplayed the possibility of not staying united on a vote to remove Trump , a scenario that could give the president more ammunition to portray his impeachment as illegitimate .
Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) , referring to the outcome of President Bill Clinton ’ s 1999 impeachment trial , said of the prospect of some Democrats voting to acquit Trump that “ it ’ s just one , two , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number .
There were 10 Republicans who joined with us in voting against ” convicting Clinton on one of the two impeachment articles he faced ( five GOP senators voted for acquittal on the other article ) .
Republicans are eying a quick acquittal vote after senators later this week consider the issue of whether to call witnesses and allow new evidence in the case to be presented .
Democrats will need four GOP senators to vote with them to allow witnesses , and it remains unclear whether they would have that support @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, breaking ranks with most of his Democratic colleagues, says he’d like to hear from former Vice President Joe Biden’s son in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
“I think so, I really do,” Manchin ― one of his party’s more conservative lawmakers ― said Wednesday when asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether Hunter Biden would be a relevant witness in the trial.
Advertisement
Trump is on trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House for pressuring the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into the Bidens that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid until it did so, and then obstructing Congress’s efforts to look into the matter. Trump himself has said he wanted Ukraine to launch an investigation into the Bidens.
As Democrats have pushed for allowing testimony from former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, whose upcoming book essentially confirmed the House allegations against Trump, some Republicans have insisted that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness, as well. Manchin, in his comments on MSNBC, agreed that he would like to hear about the younger Biden’s service on the board of a major Ukraine natural gas company that began while his father still served as vice president in Barack Obama’s administration.
“I think that he can clear himself of what I know and what I’ve heard. But being afraid to put anybody (on the stand in the trial) that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican,” Manchin said.
Despite rhetoric by members of Trump’s defense team in opening arguments, no evidence has surfaced that Hunter Biden or his father engaged in corruption. And Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, testified in the House impeachment inquiry that he saw no validity to allegations Trump and his allies have lodged against the Bidens.
Advertisement
Manchin said that he remains undecided about voting to acquit or convict the president on either charge against him. “I take my oath seriously about impartiality, I have not made a decision yet,” he said.
Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, another red-state Democrat who is perhaps the most vulnerable senator up for re-election in 2020, told HuffPost he wanted to “hear from relevant witnesses” when asked about Hunter Biden potentially testifying in the Senate trial.
Asked earlier this week about Trump’s trial defense, Jones noted that the president’s lawyers had made “some good points factually” concerning the obstruction of Congress charge but that he was undecided on removal.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is another moderate who is seen as a possible vote to acquit Trump on at least one charge of impeachment.
Democrats downplayed the possibility of not staying united on a vote to remove Trump, a scenario that could give the president more ammunition to portray his impeachment as illegitimate.
Advertisement
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), referring to the outcome of President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, said of the prospect of some Democrats voting to acquit Trump that “it’s just one, two, three people as opposed to a larger number. There were 10 Republicans who joined with us in voting against” convicting Clinton on one of the two impeachment articles he faced (five GOP senators voted for acquittal on the other article).


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Jimmy Kimmel Slaps Mitt Romney With A Mocking Hashtag Request

# MittOrGetOffThePot .
Come on , @ MittRomney - this is your moment .
Please do the right thing .
@ @ @ @ @ most crucial time for our country .
If we don ’ t have a fair @ @ @ @ @ , will we ever have one again ?

#MittOrGetOffThePot. Come on, @MittRomney - this is your moment. Please do the right thing. You know this is the most crucial time for our country. If we don’t have a fair and free election this time, will we ever have one again?


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Bernie Sanders Endorses Progressive Challenger In Key Texas Primary

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) endorsed immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros ’ primary challenge against conservative Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D ) on Wednesday , lending additional heft to the insurgent in one of the most contentious House primaries of the election cycle .
Sanders , who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination , announced his support for Cisneros as part of a broader slate of congressional endorsements released Wednesday .
He is backing San Diego City Council President Georgette Gómez in an open Democratic House primary in California , as well as the reelections of Democratic Reps. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khanna ( Calif. ) , Ayanna Pressley ( Mass . )
, Ilhan Omar ( Minn. ) , Rashida Tlaib ( Mich. ) , Peter Welch ( Vt. ) , and Mark Pocan ( Wis. ) .
“ This is the most important election in our lifetime and I ’ m proud there are so many candidates running for Congress who understand that real change comes from the bottom on up , not the top on down , ” Sanders said in a statement .
“ They ’ re all strong advocates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a movement to transform this nation so that it works for all our people.
” Cisneros , however , is the only candidate on the list who is challenging an incumbent Democrat .
Sanders ’ previous decision not to get involved in her race had drawn criticism from some progressive activists in December .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, a rival of Sanders ’ for the Democratic presidential nomination , endorsed Cisneros in September ; Ocasio-Cortez , who has endorsed Sanders , joined her in October .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsement from Bernie who has dedicated his career to fighting for working families and needs fighters like Jessica in Congress to enact a bold agenda , ” said Alexandra Rojas , Justice Democrats ’ executive director , in a statement .
Neither Cisneros nor Justice Democrats has endorsed in the Democratic presidential primary .
( Justice Democrats has , however , initiated a $ 500,000 digital ad campaign blasting former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg . )
The other candidates on Sanders ’ list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced presidential endorsements , save for Pressley , who is backing Warren .
If elected , Cisneros , 26 , would be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress .
She is running on a similar platform to Sanders , promising to fight for “ Medicare for All , ” a Green New Deal and tuition-free college .
Most importantly , Cisneros casts herself as a better representative than Cuellar of the residents of Texas ’ 28th Congressional District , an impoverished , predominantly Latino and heavily Democratic swath of South Texas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the border with Mexico .
Cuellar , who has strong ties to Texas Republicans like former Gov .
Rick Perry , has a record of right-leaning stances on abortion rights , gun regulation and immigration that put him far outside the Democratic mainstream .
He spoke approvingly of President Donald Trump ’ s killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in early January ; his campaign spokesman accused Cisneros of “ standing with Iran ” for criticizing the move .
For its part , Cuellar ’ s campaign maintains that his moderate stances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better fit for the rural district where guns , the oil industry and border enforcement are part of the local culture and economy .
The Texas congressional primary is on the same day as the presidential primary ― Super Tuesday , March 3 .
It is also an open primary , which could benefit Cuellar since Republicans and independents can choose to cast ballots on his behalf .
Cisneros has nonetheless raised a significant amount of money for a primary challenger , raising over $ 500,000 in the final quarter of 2019 alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mainstream liberal and Democratic endorsements , including from the deep-pocketed pro-choice groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and EMILY ’ s List .
The reason for the timing of Sanders ’ decision is unclear , but it came after Cisneros got another big push .
The Texas AFL-CIO , which is the state ’ s largest federation of labor unions , backed Cisneros over the weekend , opening the door to additional influence and financial resources .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros’ primary challenge against conservative Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) on Wednesday, lending additional heft to the insurgent in one of the most contentious House primaries of the election cycle.
Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, announced his support for Cisneros as part of a broader slate of congressional endorsements released Wednesday. He is backing San Diego City Council President Georgette Gómez in an open Democratic House primary in California, as well as the reelections of Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Peter Welch (Vt.), and Mark Pocan (Wis.).
Advertisement
“This is the most important election in our lifetime and I’m proud there are so many candidates running for Congress who understand that real change comes from the bottom on up, not the top on down,” Sanders said in a statement. “They’re all strong advocates for real change and together we will build a movement to transform this nation so that it works for all our people.”
Democrat Jessica Cisneros campaigns for a House seat in Laredo, Texas, on Oct. 8, 2019. Veronica Cardenas / Reuters
Cisneros, however, is the only candidate on the list who is challenging an incumbent Democrat. Sanders’ previous decision not to get involved in her race had drawn criticism from some progressive activists in December. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a rival of Sanders’ for the Democratic presidential nomination, endorsed Cisneros in September; Ocasio-Cortez, who has endorsed Sanders, joined her in October.
Justice Democrats, the left-wing group founded by Sanders 2016 alumni that recruited Cisneros, applauded the decision.
Advertisement
“We’re proud she’s received this endorsement from Bernie who has dedicated his career to fighting for working families and needs fighters like Jessica in Congress to enact a bold agenda,” said Alexandra Rojas, Justice Democrats’ executive director, in a statement.
Cisneros welcomed the backing of Sanders, who she said is “running a grassroots campaign to fight for working people, not big corporate donors.”
Neither Cisneros nor Justice Democrats has endorsed in the Democratic presidential primary. (Justice Democrats has, however, initiated a $500,000 digital ad campaign blasting former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.) The other candidates on Sanders’ list are either backing him or have not announced presidential endorsements, save for Pressley, who is backing Warren.
If elected, Cisneros, 26, would be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. She is running on a similar platform to Sanders, promising to fight for “Medicare for All,” a Green New Deal and tuition-free college.
Most importantly, Cisneros casts herself as a better representative than Cuellar of the residents of Texas’ 28th Congressional District, an impoverished, predominantly Latino and heavily Democratic swath of South Texas that stretches from the San Antonio area down to the border with Mexico.
Advertisement
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), left, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who have both endorsed Jessica Cisneros, want to make Congress more receptive to their agenda. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Cuellar, who has strong ties to Texas Republicans like former Gov. Rick Perry, has a record of right-leaning stances on abortion rights, gun regulation and immigration that put him far outside the Democratic mainstream. He spoke approvingly of President Donald Trump’s killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in early January; his campaign spokesman accused Cisneros of “standing with Iran” for criticizing the move.
It’s all part of what makes Cuellar “Trump’s favorite Democrat,” according to Cisneros.
For its part, Cuellar’s campaign maintains that his moderate stances and penchant for bipartisan collaboration are a better fit for the rural district where guns, the oil industry and border enforcement are part of the local culture and economy.
The Texas congressional primary is on the same day as the presidential primary ― Super Tuesday, March 3. It is also an open primary, which could benefit Cuellar since Republicans and independents can choose to cast ballots on his behalf.
Cisneros has nonetheless raised a significant amount of money for a primary challenger, raising over $500,000 in the final quarter of 2019 alone. And she boasts a long list of mainstream liberal and Democratic endorsements, including from the deep-pocketed pro-choice groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and EMILY’s List.
Advertisement
The reason for the timing of Sanders’ decision is unclear, but it came after Cisneros got another big push. The Texas AFL-CIO, which is the state’s largest federation of labor unions, backed Cisneros over the weekend, opening the door to additional influence and financial resources.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Bernie Sanders’ Electability Is On The Ballot In Iowa Caucuses

But rather than focus on Sanders ’ interest in boundary-pushing policies ― like leveraging U.S. aid to change the Israeli government ’ s behavior ― or his embrace of pro-Palestinian surrogates , the group targeted the issue of his electability in a general-election matchup with President Donald Trump .
For all of the evidence that Sanders has crossover appeal with some independents and even Republicans , his campaign has done little to make the case for his electability in any conventional sense of the term .
Sanders has not always shied away from the argument .
In September , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tour through six Iowa counties that had flipped from supporting President Barack Obama to voting for Trump .
It was an explicit bid to persuade the party that he is uniquely capable of bringing the mostly white , working-class voters who have abandoned Democrats back into the fold .
The Sanders television ads that have been airing in Iowa for the past month tout , among other themes , his reliance on grassroots donors , his championship of “ Medicare for All , ” and his support for abortion rights and pay equity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advertising Analytics .
But none expressly addresses Sanders ’ electability against Trump .
And in a Tuesday night video responding to the news of the Democratic Majority for Israel attacking his electability , Sanders chose to treat the $ 680,000 TV ad campaign as merely the last desperate gasp of a billionaire class frightened of a working-class populist like himself .
“ The billionaire class is getting nervous .
And they should , ” he said .
“ Under our administration , there will be real campaign finance reform so that billionaires will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re trying to do right now.
” In a video made public by an attorney for Lev Parnas , a Ukrainian American businessman implicated in Trump ’ s impeachment scandal , the president is seen talking with donors at a private meeting in April 2018 .
Trump argues that if Hillary Clinton had picked Sanders as a running mate , it would have been “ tougher ” for him because of Sanders ’ opposition to international trade agreements .
“ You know I got 20 % of Bernie vote .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trade , because he ’ s a big trade guy ― you know he basically says we ’ re getting screwed on trade , and he ’ s right , and I ’ m worse than he is , and we can do something about it .
I don ’ t know if he could have , ” Trump said .
“ He was the only one I didn ’ t want her to pick.
” Opposition to international trade agreements that have cost the United States manufacturing jobs runs particularly high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handed the 2016 election to Trump .
Sanders managed his upset victory against Clinton in the Michigan primary in March 2016 thanks in significant part to his clear opposition to NAFTA and other trade agreements .
Trump went on to defeat Clinton in Michigan by 0.3 percentage points in the general election .
Those Iowa Democrats already in Sanders ’ corner have little doubt he ’ d make a formidable candidate against Trump .
Among Iowa Democrats supporting Sanders , 79 % believe he would have the “ best chance ” of beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 82 % of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s supporters who say he has the best chance , according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll .
Just 51 % of the supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and 49 % of the supporters of former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg said the same of their preferred candidates .
On the campaign trail in Iowa , though , Democrats looking toward the Feb. 3 caucuses have occasionally told HuffPost that they ’ re nervous about voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s too left-wing to win a general election .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Democratic Majority for Israel, a centrist group concerned about progressive Democrats’ increasingly vocal criticism of the Israeli government, is mounting a last-ditch effort to thwart Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
But rather than focus on Sanders’ interest in boundary-pushing policies ― like leveraging U.S. aid to change the Israeli government’s behavior ― or his embrace of pro-Palestinian surrogates, the group targeted the issue of his electability in a general-election matchup with President Donald Trump.
Advertisement
Its new 30-second ad features primary voters expressing concern about how Sanders’ “socialism” and his recent heart attack will land in battleground states ― a focus that reflects mainstream Democrats’ long-standing fears about his candidacy.
For all of the evidence that Sanders has crossover appeal with some independents and even Republicans, his campaign has done little to make the case for his electability in any conventional sense of the term.
Sanders has not always shied away from the argument. In September, he conducted a “Bernie Beats Trump” tour through six Iowa counties that had flipped from supporting President Barack Obama to voting for Trump. It was an explicit bid to persuade the party that he is uniquely capable of bringing the mostly white, working-class voters who have abandoned Democrats back into the fold.
But compared to his rivals, who are making their ability to beat a Trump a key part of their closing argument to Iowans, Sanders has been relatively quiet.
Advertisement
The Sanders television ads that have been airing in Iowa for the past month tout, among other themes, his reliance on grassroots donors, his championship of “Medicare for All,” and his support for abortion rights and pay equity, according to the media monitoring firm Advertising Analytics. But none expressly addresses Sanders’ electability against Trump.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has leaned into his populist brand rather than argue for his electability against President Donald Trump. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
And in a Tuesday night video responding to the news of the Democratic Majority for Israel attacking his electability, Sanders chose to treat the $680,000 TV ad campaign as merely the last desperate gasp of a billionaire class frightened of a working-class populist like himself.
“The billionaire class is getting nervous. And they should,” he said. “Under our administration, there will be real campaign finance reform so that billionaires will not be able to buy elections as they’re trying to do right now.”
The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how it is making the case for his electability.
Advertisement
The senator does have a case to make. Trump himself has commented on how a Sanders vice presidential candidacy in 2016 would have hurt him.
In a video made public by an attorney for Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian American businessman implicated in Trump’s impeachment scandal, the president is seen talking with donors at a private meeting in April 2018. Trump argues that if Hillary Clinton had picked Sanders as a running mate, it would have been “tougher” for him because of Sanders’ opposition to international trade agreements.
“You know I got 20% of Bernie vote. People don’t realize that. Because of trade, because he’s a big trade guy ― you know he basically says we’re getting screwed on trade, and he’s right, and I’m worse than he is, and we can do something about it. I don’t know if he could have,” Trump said. “He was the only one I didn’t want her to pick.”
Opposition to international trade agreements that have cost the United States manufacturing jobs runs particularly high in some of the industrial states that handed the 2016 election to Trump. Sanders managed his upset victory against Clinton in the Michigan primary in March 2016 thanks in significant part to his clear opposition to NAFTA and other trade agreements. Trump went on to defeat Clinton in Michigan by 0.3 percentage points in the general election.
Polling also backs up Sanders’ electability in a hypothetical matchup with Trump. Sanders leads the president by 3 points on average, according to Real Clear Politics’ average of general election polls.
Advertisement
Those Iowa Democrats already in Sanders’ corner have little doubt he’d make a formidable candidate against Trump. Among Iowa Democrats supporting Sanders, 79% believe he would have the “best chance” of beating Trump ― a percentage second only to the 82% of former Vice President Joe Biden’s supporters who say he has the best chance, according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll. Just 51% of the supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and 49% of the supporters of former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said the same of their preferred candidates.
On the campaign trail in Iowa, though, Democrats looking toward the Feb. 3 caucuses have occasionally told HuffPost that they’re nervous about voting for Sanders because of fears that he’s too left-wing to win a general election.
In a mid-January conversation at a Des Moines diner, Antoinette Shade, a Goodyear tire factory worker and member of the United Steel Workers union, was trying to decide between Sanders and Biden.
“I like Bernie’s ideas more,” she said, singling out his plans for making prescription drugs and college more affordable. “Biden, I like his experience. I think he has a better chance of beating Donald Trump than Bernie does.”
Travis Padget, a financial professional who attended a Buttigieg rally in Newton, Iowa, in mid-January, was deciding between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Segment Of Trump's Border Wall Falls Over Into Mexico Due To Wind

A segment of President Donald Trump ’ s signature border wall fell in California and onto some trees on the Mexican side on Wednesday amid high winds , according to footage from KYMA shared by CNN .
No one was injured in the incident at Calexico , California , about 100 miles east of San Diego .
PART OF WALL FALLS : The area is part of an ongoing construction project to improve existing sections of the wall .
Read more : https : //t.co/uu93kQPi52 pic.twitter.com/CuLExoPZdx — KION News 5 46 ( @ KION546 ) January 30 , 2020 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were able to divert traffic from the nearby street , ” Carlos Pitones of Customs and Border Patrol told the Los Angeles Times .
He said the panels were newly installed and the concrete anchoring it in place had not yet cured .
CNN noted that winds of up to 37 mph were recorded in the area .
A day earlier , Trump had boasted about the strength of his wall .
“ And we are now building that beautiful wall , ” he said at a campaign event in Wildwood , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful border wall is going up at record speed.
” Trump made a “ big beautiful wall ” that extends across the entire border a key part of his 2016 campaign .
He also vowed that Mexico would pay for it .
So far , most of the wall built ― including the segment that fell Wednesday ― has replaced older barrier segments .
Trump claimed this week that about 100 miles have been built so far .
Mexico did not pay for it .
Tom Steyer , seeking the Democratic presidential nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the wall fall on Twitter : '' I own buildings .
I 'm a builder ; I know how to build .
Nobody can build like I can build .
Nobody .
And the builders in New York will tell you that .
I build the best product . ''
- @ realDonaldTrumphttps : //t.co/Ygj6vKqrdQ — Tom Steyer ( @ TomSteyer ) January 30 , 2020 A piece of the border wall toppled over on Mexican side .
I guess Mexicans wanted their property back .
They paid for it , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navarro-Cárdenas ( @ ananavarro ) January 30 , 2020 This is the only thing with Trump ’ s name on it that couldn ’ t dodge a draft https : //t.co/3A155kSZw8 — The Daily Show ( @ TheDailyShow ) January 30 , 2020 Part of the border wall fell down on the Mexico side .
They ’ re gon na make us pay for that .
— Scott Linnen ( @ ScottLinnen ) January 30 , 2020 This feels like a metaphor for this entire Presidency .
The wind blew Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Mexican side of the border .
https : //t.co/q407JuRNxS — Angry Staffer ( @ AngrierWHStaff ) January 30 , 2020 Newly installed panels from the US border wall fell over in high winds Wednesday , landing on trees on the Mexican side of the border .
CLASSIC .
https : //t.co/fReo4Jgkcq — Amee Vanderpool ( @ girlsreallyrule ) January 30 , 2020 So , breeze really took out a part of Trump 's big beautiful , impenetrable border wall ?
?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 A portion of the newly installed US border wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , landing on trees on Mexico 's side.https : //t.co/1oC0RLahp2 — Covie ( @ roper_93 ) January 30 , 2020 '' such a big , beautiful , powerful wall that nobody could get past ... '' Unless they have a ladder .
Or there 's a slight breeze blowing .
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣https : //t.co/HEpIJXEgfu — BrooklynDad_Defiant !
( @ mmpadellan ) January 30 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A segment of President Donald Trump’s signature border wall fell in California and onto some trees on the Mexican side on Wednesday amid high winds, according to footage from KYMA shared by CNN.
No one was injured in the incident at Calexico, California, about 100 miles east of San Diego.
PART OF WALL FALLS: The area is part of an ongoing construction project to improve existing sections of the wall. Read more: https://t.co/uu93kQPi52 pic.twitter.com/CuLExoPZdx — KION News 5 46 (@KION546) January 30, 2020
Advertisement
“Luckily, Mexican authorities responded quickly and were able to divert traffic from the nearby street,” Carlos Pitones of Customs and Border Patrol told the Los Angeles Times.
He said the panels were newly installed and the concrete anchoring it in place had not yet cured.
CNN noted that winds of up to 37 mph were recorded in the area.
A day earlier, Trump had boasted about the strength of his wall.
“And we are now building that beautiful wall,” he said at a campaign event in Wildwood, New Jersey, on Tuesday. “This powerful border wall is going up at record speed.”
Trump made a “big beautiful wall” that extends across the entire border a key part of his 2016 campaign. He also vowed that Mexico would pay for it.
So far, most of the wall built ― including the segment that fell Wednesday ― has replaced older barrier segments. Trump claimed this week that about 100 miles have been built so far.
Advertisement
Mexico did not pay for it.
Tom Steyer, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination to run against Trump, mocked him for the wall fall on Twitter:
"I own buildings. I'm a builder; I know how to build. Nobody can build like I can build. Nobody. And the builders in New York will tell you that. I build the best product." -@realDonaldTrumphttps://t.co/Ygj6vKqrdQ — Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) January 30, 2020
Others joined in:
A piece of the border wall toppled over on Mexican side. I guess Mexicans wanted their property back. They paid for it, after all. https://t.co/odNEt0Yb3d — Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) January 30, 2020
Dear Trumpers,
Here is your "great, big, beautiful wall"https://t.co/gLRRjcWBZx … — Don Winslow (@donwinslow) January 30, 2020
Don’t worry, the Senate will declare it a perfect wall. https://t.co/8J4J0L1KfS — Schooley (@Rschooley) January 30, 2020
Advertisement
This is the only thing with Trump’s name on it that couldn’t dodge a draft https://t.co/3A155kSZw8 — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) January 30, 2020
Part of the border wall fell down on the Mexico side. They’re gonna make us pay for that. — Scott Linnen (@ScottLinnen) January 30, 2020
This feels like a metaphor for this entire Presidency.
The wind blew Trump’s big beautiful wall over and it landed on the Mexican side of the border. https://t.co/q407JuRNxS — Angry Staffer (@AngrierWHStaff) January 30, 2020
Newly installed panels from the US border wall fell over in high winds Wednesday, landing on trees on the Mexican side of the border.
CLASSIC. https://t.co/fReo4Jgkcq — Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) January 30, 2020
So, breeze really took out a part of Trump's big beautiful, impenetrable border wall?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A portion of the newly installed US border wall fell over on Wednesday during high winds, landing on trees on Mexico's side.https://t.co/1oC0RLahp2 — Covie (@roper_93) January 30, 2020
Advertisement
This episode of arrested development really has it all. https://t.co/M0W80YhLJd — Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) January 30, 2020
"such a big, beautiful, powerful wall that nobody could get past..."
Unless they have a ladder.
Or there's a slight breeze blowing.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣https://t.co/HEpIJXEgfu — BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) January 30, 2020
TFW your big dumb border wall falls over while you're tweeting a racism pic.twitter.com/75D4H38nGC — Johnny, Certified Nobody (@Enjoneer01) January 30, 2020
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Oh, who am I kidding? I'm laughing my ass off! https://t.co/Njcv4y9IAM — 𝘿𝙪𝙢𝙥 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙨𝙚𝙮 𝙂𝙧𝙖𝙝𝙖𝙢 (@dumptrump33) January 30, 2020
Well we will at least be secure on non windy days. How did they all cross the border? Santa Ana’s.
Idiots.
Portion of US border wall in California falls over in high winds and lands on Mexican side - CNNPolitics https://t.co/AjaXmo1Aip — MikeFarb (@mikefarb1) January 30, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-29--Republicans Argue Impeachment Witnesses Would Just Be A Waste Of Time

President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial is hurtling toward a showdown over whether the Senate will call witnesses to testify ― namely , former national security adviser John Bolton , who has written a book manuscript that effectively confirms the quid pro quo at the heart of the impeachment charges .
Republican senators argue that calling Bolton or virtually any other witnesses would be a waste of time — because their vote won ’ t change .
That argument is an accidental admission of the essential truth of this trial : Republicans are prepared to acquit Trump no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , for example , said he was “ very , very skeptical ” that there would be a witness who would change his mind “ about how I ought to vote on the final question.
” “ For the sake of argument , one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office , ” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said in a statement Wednesday .
Graham ’ s colleagues have taken a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) said that “ I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness , ” despite Bolton ’ s new information .
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) similarly argued that the House had already made its case and “ additional witnesses are not necessary.
” Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) warned that calling witnesses would lead to a long string of people testifying and allow Democrats to “ string this thing out.
” This is a far different stance than Graham and others took as recently as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there was simply a lack of evidence to support the charges against the president .
Trump and allies such as Graham have continuously tried to narrow the scope of the impeachment investigation and direct attention solely to the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Although the call alone includes Trump bringing up groundless conspiracy theories and asking Zelensky to investigate a political rival , recent months have provided additional evidence and testimony that Trump directed a quid pro quo campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his son Hunter .
Republicans have been eager to ignore and suppress that evidence , especially when it comes to Bolton .
Trump ’ s lawyers in the impeachment trial have argued that Bolton ’ s book draft is inadmissible and the White House has warned him against publishing it .
Senators are expected to debate and vote on whether to call witnesses on Friday , with Democrats needing four Republicans to side with them in order for it to pass .
If witnesses are allowed , it could extend the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be required to testify .
The fact that allowing witnesses would take time came up repeatedly on the Senate floor on Wednesday , as Trump ’ s defenders cautioned that anything but a swift acquittal could tie up the chamber indefinitely .
Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said that if the Senate allows witnesses , his side would demand some as well , including the lead House impeachment manager , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) ; Hunter Biden ; and the whistleblower whose concerns about Trump ’ s phone call with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many Republicans have said they ’ d like to hear from Hunter Biden if witnesses are called .
Sekulow accused the House ― which was unable to obtain certain testimony and documents because the president blocked them ― of speeding through its inquiry and sending the matter to the Senate to figure out .
Schiff said the Trump team was trying to dissuade them from calling witnesses .
He said the process would not necessarily be the slow one Trump ’ s attorneys warned of , because the Senate could vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , on hand to make quick decisions on whose testimony was material , whether to out the whistleblower and what part of a document was privileged .
Schiff later pledged that House impeachment managers would not push back on decisions made by Roberts and challenged the defense to agree to the same .
( Sekulow flatly rejected the idea : “ We are not willing to do that.
” ) “ Don ’ t be thrown off by this claim , ‘ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to make you pay with delays like we ’ ve never seen .
We ’ re going to call witnesses that will turn this into a circus , ’ ” Schiff told senators .
“ It shouldn ’ t be a circus ; it should be a fair trial .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is hurtling toward a showdown over whether the Senate will call witnesses to testify ― namely, former national security adviser John Bolton, who has written a book manuscript that effectively confirms the quid pro quo at the heart of the impeachment charges.
Republican senators argue that calling Bolton or virtually any other witnesses would be a waste of time — because their vote won’t change. That argument is an accidental admission of the essential truth of this trial: Republicans are prepared to acquit Trump no matter what.
Advertisement
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), for example, said he was “very, very skeptical” that there would be a witness who would change his mind “about how I ought to vote on the final question.”
“For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement Wednesday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks to reporters Tuesday as he leaves a closed-door Senate Republican caucus meeting after the Senate adjourned for the day during the impeachment trial. Drew Angerer via Getty Images
Graham’s colleagues have taken a similar stance. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said that “I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” despite Bolton’s new information. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) similarly argued that the House had already made its case and “additional witnesses are not necessary.” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) warned that calling witnesses would lead to a long string of people testifying and allow Democrats to “string this thing out.”
Advertisement
“Unless there’s a witness that’s going to change the outcome, I can’t imagine why we’d want to stretch this out for weeks and months,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said earlier this week.
This is a far different stance than Graham and others took as recently as a few months ago, when they suggested that there was simply a lack of evidence to support the charges against the president.
“If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing,” Graham told Axios in October.
Trump and allies such as Graham have continuously tried to narrow the scope of the impeachment investigation and direct attention solely to the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the call alone includes Trump bringing up groundless conspiracy theories and asking Zelensky to investigate a political rival, recent months have provided additional evidence and testimony that Trump directed a quid pro quo campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching a probe of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Republicans have been eager to ignore and suppress that evidence, especially when it comes to Bolton. Trump’s lawyers in the impeachment trial have argued that Bolton’s book draft is inadmissible and the White House has warned him against publishing it.
Advertisement
Senators are expected to debate and vote on whether to call witnesses on Friday, with Democrats needing four Republicans to side with them in order for it to pass. If witnesses are allowed, it could extend the impeachment proceedings and start a fight over who should be required to testify.
The fact that allowing witnesses would take time came up repeatedly on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Trump’s defenders cautioned that anything but a swift acquittal could tie up the chamber indefinitely. Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said that if the Senate allows witnesses, his side would demand some as well, including the lead House impeachment manager, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); Hunter Biden; and the whistleblower whose concerns about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president brought the matter to light. Many Republicans have said they’d like to hear from Hunter Biden if witnesses are called.
Sekulow accused the House ― which was unable to obtain certain testimony and documents because the president blocked them ― of speeding through its inquiry and sending the matter to the Senate to figure out.
“Is that going to be the new norm for impeachment?” Sekulow said.
Schiff said the Trump team was trying to dissuade them from calling witnesses. He said the process would not necessarily be the slow one Trump’s attorneys warned of, because the Senate could vote to subpoena Bolton and would have Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, on hand to make quick decisions on whose testimony was material, whether to out the whistleblower and what part of a document was privileged. Schiff later pledged that House impeachment managers would not push back on decisions made by Roberts and challenged the defense to agree to the same. (Sekulow flatly rejected the idea: “We are not willing to do that.”)
If senators want a fair trial, they must approve witnesses, Schiff said.
“Don’t be thrown off by this claim, ‘If you even think about it, we’re going to make you pay with delays like we’ve never seen. We’re going to call witnesses that will turn this into a circus,’” Schiff told senators. “It shouldn’t be a circus; it should be a fair trial.”
Advertisement