bonginoreport--2020-01-20--Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to Fund Medicare for All Comes Up Short

In releasing a proposal to pay for single-payer—the fully government-financed health care system she calls Medicare for All—Sen .
Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . )
faced two challenges .
The first was to produce a plan that did not raise taxes on the middle class .
The second was to produce a plan that was simple to understand and easy to explain .
As one anonymous outside adviser told The Washington Post , her campaign `` want [ ed ] to figure out—with one go—how to stop the 'How are you going to pay for it ? '
question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed on both counts .
Warren 's plan , released at the beginning of November , starts with the fact that employers spend about $ 9 trillion a decade on health insurance for their workers .
She aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget , transforming it into government spending .
Under her proposal , large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount , equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend , adjusted for the number of workers they employ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All .
Warren claims `` we do n't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All . ''
Instead , she refers to this as an `` employer Medicare contribution '' under which companies `` would send payments to the federal government for Medicare . ''
But there is a commonly accepted term for requiring companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs .
That word is tax .
Her plan is thus a nearly $ 9 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per-worker basis , with exceptions for small businesses .
That would inevitably end up affecting employees ' compensation .
It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike .
Warren has argued that total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan , but there are reasons to doubt this , including an analysis from Emory University health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under Medicare for All , more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute projects that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $ 7 trillion over a decade , contrary to Warren 's estimates .
Other outside experts , meanwhile , have suggested that Warren 's plan will cost more than she anticipates and raise less revenue .
In an analysis of the fiscal effects of Warren 's plan , Avik Roy , president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity , estimates that she would end up increasing deficits by about $ 15 trillion over a decade .
That 's because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic ripple effects her plan would almost certainly cause ; instead , she assumes that even with an array of new taxes and fees on businesses and wealthy individuals , economic growth would continue without change .
Corporate tax rates would go from 21 percent to 35 percent , which , as Roy notes , `` would have a meaningful [ negative ] effect on employment and economic growth , especially in the manufacturing sector and other capital-intensive industries . ''
This allows her to claim far more tax revenue than is realistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by moving nearly all of America 's health care financing to the federal government , administrative costs—the overhead that supports the actual delivery of care—can be cut down to levels that few independent experts believe possible .
Warren also calls for paying hospitals 110 percent of today 's Medicare rates , reducing the cost of her plan by a little more than $ 4.2 trillion relative to other projections .
Yet faced with political pressure from hospitals , which are typically paid much higher average rates due to private insurance , state-based programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ended up paying far higher amounts .
For Warren , however , realism is clearly not the point .
She released her plan after months of pressure to explain precisely how she would finance the tens of trillions in new government spending that even the cheapest , most implausibly efficient version of a full-fledged single-payer system would require .
Just as World War I generals used wooden tanks to fool enemy infantry , Warren has enlisted a legion of implausible savings mechanisms and unworkable tax hikes , hoping to look convincing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a plan to pay for Medicare for All .
Instead , she concocted a $ 52 trillion package of fanciful assumptions and unworkable reforms , and figured out how to pay for that .

In releasing a proposal to pay for single-payer—the fully government-financed health care system she calls Medicare for All—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) faced two challenges. The first was to produce a plan that did not raise taxes on the middle class. The second was to produce a plan that was simple to understand and easy to explain. As one anonymous outside adviser told The Washington Post, her campaign "want[ed] to figure out—with one go—how to stop the 'How are you going to pay for it?' question."
As it turned out, she failed on both counts.
Warren's plan, released at the beginning of November, starts with the fact that employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance for their workers. She aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget, transforming it into government spending. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend, adjusted for the number of workers they employ, in order to help finance Medicare for All.
Warren claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to this as an "employer Medicare contribution" under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare."
But there is a commonly accepted term for requiring companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. Her plan is thus a nearly $9 trillion tax on employers, charged on a per-worker basis, with exceptions for small businesses. That would inevitably end up affecting employees' compensation. It is hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.
Warren has argued that total costs for middle-class families would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this, including an analysis from Emory University health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under Medicare for All, more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase. A separate analysis from the liberal Urban Institute projects that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $7 trillion over a decade, contrary to Warren's estimates.
Other outside experts, meanwhile, have suggested that Warren's plan will cost more than she anticipates and raise less revenue. In an analysis of the fiscal effects of Warren's plan, Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, estimates that she would end up increasing deficits by about $15 trillion over a decade.
That's because Warren doesn't account for the likely economic ripple effects her plan would almost certainly cause; instead, she assumes that even with an array of new taxes and fees on businesses and wealthy individuals, economic growth would continue without change. Corporate tax rates would go from 21 percent to 35 percent, which, as Roy notes, "would have a meaningful [negative] effect on employment and economic growth, especially in the manufacturing sector and other capital-intensive industries." This allows her to claim far more tax revenue than is realistic.
In addition, Warren assumes that by moving nearly all of America's health care financing to the federal government, administrative costs—the overhead that supports the actual delivery of care—can be cut down to levels that few independent experts believe possible. Warren also calls for paying hospitals 110 percent of today's Medicare rates, reducing the cost of her plan by a little more than $4.2 trillion relative to other projections. Yet faced with political pressure from hospitals, which are typically paid much higher average rates due to private insurance, state-based programs in blue states like Washington and Maryland have ended up paying far higher amounts.
For Warren, however, realism is clearly not the point. She released her plan after months of pressure to explain precisely how she would finance the tens of trillions in new government spending that even the cheapest, most implausibly efficient version of a full-fledged single-payer system would require. Just as World War I generals used wooden tanks to fool enemy infantry, Warren has enlisted a legion of implausible savings mechanisms and unworkable tax hikes, hoping to look convincing from afar.
Warren did not come up with a plan to pay for Medicare for All. Instead, she concocted a $52 trillion package of fanciful assumptions and unworkable reforms, and figured out how to pay for that.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--New Virginia Legislation Aims to Limit Number of Outdoor Gun Ranges

Legislation proposed in early January by a Virginia Democratic lawmaker could effectively limit the number of outdoor gun ranges in the commonwealth through local governments by rezoning property for residential use .
The bill was authored by Democratic state Sen. John Bell , whose district covers portions of Loudoun and Prince William counties .
According to Bell 's legislation , outdoor ranges would not be able to operate within 500 yards of any property zoned for residential use unless the Range Design Criteria established by the U.S. Department of Energy 's Office of Health , Safety , and Security have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranges as “ any partially enclosed or unenclosed area or facility designed for the use of rifles , shotguns , pistols , silhouettes , skeet , trap , black powder , or any other similar sport shooting.
” The state of Virginia offers more than 70 outdoor shooting ranges to the public .
The Washington Examiner reached out to Bell ’ s office for comment , as several of the outdoor ranges are located in his district , but did not hear back .
Mark Oliva , director of public affairs of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ association for the firearms industry , told the Washington Examiner , “ The key language [ in the bill ] is any property zoned for residential use.
” He argued , “ That language would allow a county commission to simply change the zoning designation to regulate out the existence or potential for a small business outdoor range to operate.
” Oliva added that ranges set up on private properties could be considered a violation of the law , pointing to the language that defines an “ outdoor range ” in the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this applies strictly to a commercial , county , state , or federal outdoor range , ” he said .
“ That seems to apply to private parties who are participating in recreational shooting on their own property , making them subject to fines of up to $ 1,000,000 for the first violation and an additional $ 5,000 each day following.
” Oliva added , “ This is an attempt to legislate out of existence the opportunity to learn and participate in the recreational shooting sports and limit the ability of law-abiding Virginians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another Virginia Democratic lawmaker also proposed legislation that would regulate private indoor gun ranges to no more than 50 employees and require the range to collect and maintain personal information of each individual that uses the range .
Since Democrats took over majorities of both chambers in the Virginia legislature in November , a slew of gun control bills have been put forth amid outcry from pro-gun protesters in the commonwealth .
Virginia 's state Senate has already passed three of these bills .
Second Amendment activists from the Virginia Citizens Defense League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual `` Lobby Day '' in Richmond , as they have each year , on Monday , to speak to their legislators and rally .

Legislation proposed in early January by a Virginia Democratic lawmaker could effectively limit the number of outdoor gun ranges in the commonwealth through local governments by rezoning property for residential use.
The bill was authored by Democratic state Sen. John Bell, whose district covers portions of Loudoun and Prince William counties. According to Bell's legislation, outdoor ranges would not be able to operate within 500 yards of any property zoned for residential use unless the Range Design Criteria established by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Health, Safety, and Security have been met.
The bill defines outdoor ranges as “any partially enclosed or unenclosed area or facility designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.”
The state of Virginia offers more than 70 outdoor shooting ranges to the public. The Washington Examiner reached out to Bell’s office for comment, as several of the outdoor ranges are located in his district, but did not hear back.
Mark Oliva, director of public affairs of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry, told the Washington Examiner, “The key language [in the bill] is any property zoned for residential use.”
He argued, “That language would allow a county commission to simply change the zoning designation to regulate out the existence or potential for a small business outdoor range to operate.”
Oliva added that ranges set up on private properties could be considered a violation of the law, pointing to the language that defines an “outdoor range” in the bill.
“This language is unclear if this applies strictly to a commercial, county, state, or federal outdoor range,” he said. “That seems to apply to private parties who are participating in recreational shooting on their own property, making them subject to fines of up to $100,000 for the first violation and an additional $5,000 each day following.”
Oliva added, “This is an attempt to legislate out of existence the opportunity to learn and participate in the recreational shooting sports and limit the ability of law-abiding Virginians to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
Another Virginia Democratic lawmaker also proposed legislation that would regulate private indoor gun ranges to no more than 50 employees and require the range to collect and maintain personal information of each individual that uses the range.
Since Democrats took over majorities of both chambers in the Virginia legislature in November, a slew of gun control bills have been put forth amid outcry from pro-gun protesters in the commonwealth. Virginia's state Senate has already passed three of these bills.
Second Amendment activists from the Virginia Citizens Defense League are expected to attend the state's annual "Lobby Day" in Richmond, as they have each year, on Monday, to speak to their legislators and rally.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--President Trump Highlights Lowest Black Unemployment on Record on MLK Day

Donald Trump celebrated the historically low rate of black unemployment on Martin Luther King , Jr. day .
Black unemployment fell to the lowest annual level ever last year , averaging 6.1 percent in 2019 .
Black unemployment also hit the lowest level ever last year , falling to 5.4 percent in August .
In December , the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 5.9 percent .
While above the all-time lows reached last year , that is still lower than any time prior to Trump ’ s presidency in records going back to 1972 .
On average , the unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1963 and 2012 .
The gap between black unemployment and white unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record last year .
And unlike other times in history when the gap narrowed , it is narrowing for a good reason–black unemployment falling faster than white unemployment .
In the past , the gap narrowed because white unemployment was rising rapidly .
In addition , the ratio of prime-age employment-to-population for African Americans rose by more than two-percentage points over 2019 .
And wages for full-time black workers rose by more than 4 percent @ @ @

Donald Trump celebrated the historically low rate of black unemployment on Martin Luther King, Jr. day.
Black unemployment fell to the lowest annual level ever last year, averaging 6.1 percent in 2019. Black unemployment also hit the lowest level ever last year, falling to 5.4 percent in August.
In December, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 5.9 percent. While above the all-time lows reached last year, that is still lower than any time prior to Trump’s presidency in records going back to 1972.
On average, the unemployment rate for blacks was 11.6 percent between 1963 and 2012.
The gap between black unemployment and white unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record last year. And unlike other times in history when the gap narrowed, it is narrowing for a good reason–black unemployment falling faster than white unemployment. In the past, the gap narrowed because white unemployment was rising rapidly.
In addition, the ratio of prime-age employment-to-population for African Americans rose by more than two-percentage points over 2019. And wages for full-time black workers rose by more than 4 percent after inflation.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--VA Gun Sales Are Nearing a 30-Year High

VA Gun Sales Are Nearing a 30-Year High

Virginia 's monthly gun sales jumped in December and nearly surpassed the highest number of transactions recorded in the last 30 years , according to preliminary data , as gun-rights activists rally at the state capital .
Estimated firearm sales added up to 73,849 last month , according to WHSV .
That 's almost as many sales as in 2012 when sales hit 75,120 , the highest level seen since the data was first collected in 1990 , according to The Associated Press .
December 's sales total was also a 47 percent increase over December 2018 .
Thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capital of Richmond on Monday , and many of them say they 're worried by the Democrat-controlled state government passing tighter gun control laws .
`` [ Customers say ] I 'm only getting this because the governor says I ca n't have it , so I 'm coming to get it .
That happens frequently , so yes they 're very vocal about it , '' gun shop owner Matt Hill told WHSV .
`` We 've had people buy multiple guns , again , because they 're worried they 're not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the future . ''
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS Gov .
Ralph Northam declared a temporary state of emergency days ahead of Monday 's rally , banning all weapons , including guns , from the event on Capitol Square .
Militia groups and white supremacists were among those expected to mix with gun-rights activists , raising fears the state could again see the type of violence that exploded in Charlottesville in 2017 .
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE The Associated Press contributed to this report @

Virginia's monthly gun sales jumped in December and nearly surpassed the highest number of transactions recorded in the last 30 years, according to preliminary data, as gun-rights activists rally at the state capital.
Estimated firearm sales added up to 73,849 last month, according to WHSV. That's almost as many sales as in 2012 when sales hit 75,120, the highest level seen since the data was first collected in 1990, according to The Associated Press.
VIRGINIA'S CAPITAL BRACES FOR GUN RIGHTS RALLY
December's sales total was also a 47 percent increase over December 2018.
Thousands of gun-rights activists are rallying in the state capital of Richmond on Monday, and many of them say they're worried by the Democrat-controlled state government passing tighter gun control laws.
DEMOCRAT CONTENDER BLOOMBERG'S GUN CONTROL GROUP HELPS CITY SUE FIREARMS MAKER
"[Customers say] I'm only getting this because the governor says I can't have it, so I'm coming to get it. That happens frequently, so yes they're very vocal about it," gun shop owner Matt Hill told WHSV. "We've had people buy multiple guns, again, because they're worried they're not going to be able to get them in the future."
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
Gov. Ralph Northam declared a temporary state of emergency days ahead of Monday's rally, banning all weapons, including guns, from the event on Capitol Square. Militia groups and white supremacists were among those expected to mix with gun-rights activists, raising fears the state could again see the type of violence that exploded in Charlottesville in 2017.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
The Associated Press contributed to this report.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--What’s Next in the Michael Flynn Case?

What’s Next in the Michael Flynn Case?

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea in federal court last Tuesday , a stunning development only two weeks before he was due to be sentenced on Jan. 28 , 2020 .
The judge has since reset the sentencing for the end of February .
This move comes after the government filed a new sentencing memo in which it withdrew its prior recommendation that Flynn receive probation and accused him of reneging on his agreement to cooperate in the prosecution of his former business partner .
In response , Flynn ’ s attorneys argued the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under his plea agreement .
They asserted Flynn had been truthful and accused the prosecutors of wanting Flynn to lie .
This dispute between the prosecution and the defendant is genuine and passionate and reflects their completely divergent views of the relevant facts .
The dispute centers around whether Flynn knowingly made false statements in filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act ( FARA ) about whether he and his partner , Bijan Rafiekian , had acted as agents for Turkey in performing certain work .
Flynn did not plead guilty to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ relevant conduct ” in the Statement of Offense that was part of his plea agreement , meaning the court can consider it in imposing Flynn ’ s sentence .
The backdrop to this dispute is that Covington and Burling , a prominent law firm , had represented Flynn in preparing and submitting the FARA filings that allegedly contained the false statements .
Covington then also represented Flynn in the negotiation of his guilty plea .
As I previously wrote , this created a conflict of interest for Covington that should have precluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Government ’ s View of What Happened In Flynn ’ s case , the Statement of Offense — to which Flynn agreed as part of his guilty plea — says he “ made materially false statements and omissions ” in his FARA filings , but it does not explicitly state that he knew at the time that these statements were false .
In order to constitute a criminal false statement , the defendant must know the statement is false when he makes it .
Flynn says he didn ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false at the time the filings were submitted .
In our justice system , a person can not plead guilty to something that isn ’ t a crime , or to a crime that person didn ’ t commit .
A judge can not accept such a plea .
Thus , a judge questions a defendant at the plea proceeding , called the plea colloquy , to make certain that : 1 ) an offense occurred , and 2 ) the defendant is in fact guilty of the alleged offense .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendant about “ related conduct ” offenses to which the defendant is not actually pleading guilty .
Flynn was not questioned about the details of the FARA filings when he entered his plea .
Instead , the focus was on the false statements he admitted making to FBI agents regarding a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador while Donald Trump was the president-elect .
This issue came to a head long after Flynn entered his plea , when criminal charges against his former partner , Rafiekian , went to trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his counsel and had engaged new counsel .
The government listed Flynn as a witness in the Rafiekian trial and expected him to testify that he knew they were really working for Turkey at the time the FARA filings were submitted — and thus knew the filings were false .
Flynn refused to say this , instead insisting he only later learned that Turkey was their real client .
The government lawyers were outraged by what they view as Flynn ’ s about-face .
In their eyes , he admitted during this plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he “ made materially false statements and omissions ” in his FARA filings .
The prosecutors understood this language to mean Flynn knew the statements were false when he made them .
Otherwise , there would not be criminal conduct , and it could not be included in the Statement of Offense nor the plea in the first place .
Based on my 24 years of experience practicing criminal defense in the D.C. federal court , I believe experienced criminal law practitioners and the judges in our district would virtually all share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Statement of Offense .
The Defense View of What Happened Flynn ’ s new defense team contends that Flynn has never changed his story about what he knew and when he knew it .
Flynn agreed to the Statement of Offense as part of his plea because he had , in hindsight , “ made materially false statements and omissions ” in his FARA filings .
But Flynn says he did not know the statements were false when he made them and never meant to say he did .
To support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new counsel provided a “ redline ” draft version of the Statement of Offense showing that the language in the original version stating the FARA filings were false “ as [ Flynn ] then and there knew ” was edited out of the document .
The defense says this shows Flynn would not , and did not , agree that he knew the FARA filings contained false statements when they were submitted .
Furthermore , the day after Flynn entered his guilty plea , the government had him testify in the grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had allegedly performed for Turkey .
During that testimony , the government did not pin Flynn down about when he found out Turkey was really directing the work .
Flynn ’ s new defense team characterizes the government ’ s efforts to have Flynn testify he knew the FARA statements were false at the time they were made as forcing him to “ lie.
” They say this logically follows from the fact that Flynn has maintained throughout the case that he only came to the realization the statements were false in hindsight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors , they should accept it .
So asking him to testify differently can only be an abusive effort to coerce false testimony from Flynn .
From the prosecutor ’ s perspective , this allegation is an unbelievable outrage .
Prosecutors don ’ t think they are in the business of encouraging witnesses to lie .
They think they encourage witnesses to tell the truth , although sometimes they must confront recalcitrant witnesses to get them to do so .
What View of These Events Will the Court Take ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , would have construed the final , edited version of the Statement of Offense to bypass the issue of whether he knew at the time that the FARA filings were false .
It is not plausible , however , that his then-counsel , Covington , would have done so .
As noted , experienced criminal law practitioners would have understood that the assertion that Flynn “ made materially false statements and omissions ” in his FARA filings meant Flynn knew the statements were false when he made them .
The routine assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be that Covington had advised Flynn that ’ s what the language meant .
Given that Covington had a conflict with respect to the FARA issue , it is conceivable , however , that it did not do so .
Judge Emmet Sullivan likely will want to know if Flynn was correctly advised regarding the final language in the Statement of Offense .
If Sullivan believes Flynn was poorly or incorrectly advised about the legal effect of that language and therefore of his plea , he may permit Flynn to withdraw his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not receive adequate legal advice from his conflicted counsel and therefore did not knowingly enter into that part of his plea .
Even though Flynn has already said in open court that he did voluntarily enter into the plea and understood what he was doing , if later facts show he didn ’ t actually understand the situation , the judge can discount Flynn ’ s earlier statements in court as being misinformed .
Thus , if Flynn told Covington he could not honestly say he knew the statements in the FARA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were submitted , he simply wasn ’ t guilty of that offense and could not legally say he was .
Nor could Covington ethically permit him to do so .
Nor could ( or would ) Sullivan have permitted Flynn to admit culpability in that circumstance — had that issue been brought to his attention , which it wasn ’ t .
While the question remains as to whether Flynn received correct and ethically sound advice from Covington , there are some other possibilities .
It is conceivable the Covington attorneys simply didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn knew the FARA statements were false .
This is probably unlikely , and Flynn ’ s current counsel claim in their pleadings that Flynn was clear about “ what he knew when ” in sessions with the prosecutors attended by Covington .
Another possibility is that Covington did correctly advise Flynn about the import of the revised Statement of Offense , and that Flynn nonetheless decided to “ hold his nose ” and agree to it as part of the plea deal because the prosecutors had allegedly otherwise threatened to indict both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If that ’ s what happened , Flynn misled the government and would also have no basis now to withdraw his plea .
If that were the case , however , there would seem to be no reason for Flynn to change strategies and put in jeopardy the things he gained from accepting the plea by blowing up the plea .
At this point , Judge Sullivan will have to sort out what actually happened to decide whether Flynn should be permitted to withdraw his plea or whether the case should proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dilemma , one of the central issues in this unfolding drama will need to be the actions of the Covington attorneys in advising Flynn during the negotiation of the Statement of Offense and the inclusion of the FARA statement as “ relevant conduct ” in his plea .

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea in federal court last Tuesday, a stunning development only two weeks before he was due to be sentenced on Jan. 28, 2020. The judge has since reset the sentencing for the end of February.
This move comes after the government filed a new sentencing memo in which it withdrew its prior recommendation that Flynn receive probation and accused him of reneging on his agreement to cooperate in the prosecution of his former business partner. In response, Flynn’s attorneys argued the government had thereby breached its obligations to Flynn under his plea agreement. They asserted Flynn had been truthful and accused the prosecutors of wanting Flynn to lie.
This dispute between the prosecution and the defendant is genuine and passionate and reflects their completely divergent views of the relevant facts. The dispute centers around whether Flynn knowingly made false statements in filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) about whether he and his partner, Bijan Rafiekian, had acted as agents for Turkey in performing certain work. Flynn did not plead guilty to that offense, but it was included as “relevant conduct” in the Statement of Offense that was part of his plea agreement, meaning the court can consider it in imposing Flynn’s sentence.
The backdrop to this dispute is that Covington and Burling, a prominent law firm, had represented Flynn in preparing and submitting the FARA filings that allegedly contained the false statements. Covington then also represented Flynn in the negotiation of his guilty plea. As I previously wrote, this created a conflict of interest for Covington that should have precluded it from representing Flynn in his plea.
The Government’s View of What Happened
In Flynn’s case, the Statement of Offense — to which Flynn agreed as part of his guilty plea — says he “made materially false statements and omissions” in his FARA filings, but it does not explicitly state that he knew at the time that these statements were false. In order to constitute a criminal false statement, the defendant must know the statement is false when he makes it. Flynn says he didn’t know certain statements in the FARA filing were false at the time the filings were submitted.
In our justice system, a person cannot plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime, or to a crime that person didn’t commit. A judge cannot accept such a plea. Thus, a judge questions a defendant at the plea proceeding, called the plea colloquy, to make certain that: 1) an offense occurred, and 2) the defendant is in fact guilty of the alleged offense.
However, judges usually do not closely question a defendant about “related conduct” offenses to which the defendant is not actually pleading guilty. Flynn was not questioned about the details of the FARA filings when he entered his plea. Instead, the focus was on the false statements he admitted making to FBI agents regarding a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador while Donald Trump was the president-elect.
This issue came to a head long after Flynn entered his plea, when criminal charges against his former partner, Rafiekian, went to trial. Meanwhile, Flynn had discharged Covington as his counsel and had engaged new counsel. The government listed Flynn as a witness in the Rafiekian trial and expected him to testify that he knew they were really working for Turkey at the time the FARA filings were submitted — and thus knew the filings were false. Flynn refused to say this, instead insisting he only later learned that Turkey was their real client.
The government lawyers were outraged by what they view as Flynn’s about-face. In their eyes, he admitted during this plea — in the Statement of Offense — that he “made materially false statements and omissions” in his FARA filings. The prosecutors understood this language to mean Flynn knew the statements were false when he made them.
Otherwise, there would not be criminal conduct, and it could not be included in the Statement of Offense nor the plea in the first place. Based on my 24 years of experience practicing criminal defense in the D.C. federal court, I believe experienced criminal law practitioners and the judges in our district would virtually all share this understanding of the language in Flynn’s Statement of Offense.
The Defense View of What Happened
Flynn’s new defense team contends that Flynn has never changed his story about what he knew and when he knew it. Flynn agreed to the Statement of Offense as part of his plea because he had, in hindsight, “made materially false statements and omissions” in his FARA filings. But Flynn says he did not know the statements were false when he made them and never meant to say he did.
To support this version of events, Flynn’s new counsel provided a “redline” draft version of the Statement of Offense showing that the language in the original version stating the FARA filings were false “as [Flynn] then and there knew” was edited out of the document. The defense says this shows Flynn would not, and did not, agree that he knew the FARA filings contained false statements when they were submitted.
Furthermore, the day after Flynn entered his guilty plea, the government had him testify in the grand jury about the work he and Rafiekian had allegedly performed for Turkey. During that testimony, the government did not pin Flynn down about when he found out Turkey was really directing the work.
Flynn’s new defense team characterizes the government’s efforts to have Flynn testify he knew the FARA statements were false at the time they were made as forcing him to “lie.” They say this logically follows from the fact that Flynn has maintained throughout the case that he only came to the realization the statements were false in hindsight, and having explained that to the prosecutors, they should accept it. So asking him to testify differently can only be an abusive effort to coerce false testimony from Flynn.
From the prosecutor’s perspective, this allegation is an unbelievable outrage. Prosecutors don’t think they are in the business of encouraging witnesses to lie. They think they encourage witnesses to tell the truth, although sometimes they must confront recalcitrant witnesses to get them to do so.
What View of These Events Will the Court Take?
It’s plausible that Flynn, as a lay person, would have construed the final, edited version of the Statement of Offense to bypass the issue of whether he knew at the time that the FARA filings were false. It is not plausible, however, that his then-counsel, Covington, would have done so.
As noted, experienced criminal law practitioners would have understood that the assertion that Flynn “made materially false statements and omissions” in his FARA filings meant Flynn knew the statements were false when he made them. The routine assumption of prosecutors in this kind of situation would be that Covington had advised Flynn that’s what the language meant. Given that Covington had a conflict with respect to the FARA issue, it is conceivable, however, that it did not do so.
Judge Emmet Sullivan likely will want to know if Flynn was correctly advised regarding the final language in the Statement of Offense. If Sullivan believes Flynn was poorly or incorrectly advised about the legal effect of that language and therefore of his plea, he may permit Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that Flynn did not receive adequate legal advice from his conflicted counsel and therefore did not knowingly enter into that part of his plea. Even though Flynn has already said in open court that he did voluntarily enter into the plea and understood what he was doing, if later facts show he didn’t actually understand the situation, the judge can discount Flynn’s earlier statements in court as being misinformed.
Thus, if Flynn told Covington he could not honestly say he knew the statements in the FARA filings were false at the time they were submitted, he simply wasn’t guilty of that offense and could not legally say he was. Nor could Covington ethically permit him to do so. Nor could (or would) Sullivan have permitted Flynn to admit culpability in that circumstance — had that issue been brought to his attention, which it wasn’t.
While the question remains as to whether Flynn received correct and ethically sound advice from Covington, there are some other possibilities. It is conceivable the Covington attorneys simply didn’t drill down on exactly when Flynn knew the FARA statements were false. This is probably unlikely, and Flynn’s current counsel claim in their pleadings that Flynn was clear about “what he knew when” in sessions with the prosecutors attended by Covington.
Another possibility is that Covington did correctly advise Flynn about the import of the revised Statement of Offense, and that Flynn nonetheless decided to “hold his nose” and agree to it as part of the plea deal because the prosecutors had allegedly otherwise threatened to indict both him and his son for other reasons. If that’s what happened, Flynn misled the government and would also have no basis now to withdraw his plea. If that were the case, however, there would seem to be no reason for Flynn to change strategies and put in jeopardy the things he gained from accepting the plea by blowing up the plea.
At this point, Judge Sullivan will have to sort out what actually happened to decide whether Flynn should be permitted to withdraw his plea or whether the case should proceed to sentencing. To properly resolve that dilemma, one of the central issues in this unfolding drama will need to be the actions of the Covington attorneys in advising Flynn during the negotiation of the Statement of Offense and the inclusion of the FARA statement as “relevant conduct” in his plea.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon is the principal of McAdoo Gordon & Associates, P.C., founded in 2003. She provides criminal defense for individuals facing misdemeanor and/or felony charges, as well as “white collar” criminal offenses in state and federal courts. She also represents contractors and individuals facing administrative sanctions, including revocation of security clearances and debarment from federal contracts. Ms. McAdoo Gordon graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1996. She is licensed to practice law in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and numerous federal trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to entering the field of law, she served as a Special Agent for the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service (now the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency), conducting background investigations for security clearances. While at DIS, she completed advanced personnel and facility clearance training. Consequently, as an attorney, Ms. McAdoo Gordon helps individuals and companies navigate the security clearance process, in addition to defending clearance cases.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--International Monetary Fund Trims World’s Economic Growth Forecast for 2020

DAVOS , Switzerland — The International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) has become less optimistic about global growth , warning that the outlook remains sluggish and there are no clear signs of a turning point .
The Washington-based institution forecast in October a global growth rate of 3 % for 2019 and of 3.4 % for 2020 .
The IMF has now revised down those forecasts to 2.9 % and 3.3 % , respectively .
The downward revision was mostly due to lower growth in India .
For 2021 , the Fund has forecast a growth rate of 3.4 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth remains uncertain .
It continues to rely on recoveries in stressed and underperforming emerging market economies , as growth in advanced economies stabilizes at close to current levels , '' Gita Gopinath , the IMF 's chief economist , said in a written statement .
Nonetheless , the Fund noted that some of the biggest economic uncertainties , highlighted in October , have dissipated .
`` Some risks have partially receded with the announcement of a U.S.-China Phase I trade deal and lower likelihood of a no-deal Brexit , '' Gopinath said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one '' trade deal with China last week .
Though the deal has kept some of the existing trade tariffs , it was interpreted as a truce by markets in the heated dispute that started back in 2018 .
Meanwhile in the U.K. , lawmakers have approved an agreement that outlines how the country will leave the European Union , scheduled for January 31 .
The approval allows the U.K. to avoid an abrupt breakup from the EU later this month and gives more certainty to business and citizens on both sides of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of 2020 .
In addition , the IMF has said that central banks are expected to keep supporting their respective economies .
`` Monetary policy has continued to support growth and buoyant financial conditions .
With these developments , there are now tentative signs that global growth may be stabilizing , though at subdued levels , '' Gopinath also said in the report .
However , the IMF is cautious about the state of the global economy going forward , in particular about further trade tensions .
`` New trade tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Union , and U.S.-China trade tensions could return , '' Gopinath said .
The trade relationship between the EU and the U.S. has deteriorated since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 and ended negotiations between both sides of the Atlantic .
Trump has said that Europe is `` possibly just as bad as China '' when it comes to trade and called it a `` brutal '' trading partner .
Trump imposed tariffs on European aluminum and steel — which led the EU to impose duties of 25 % on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2018 .
The U.S. president also approved additional duties on Europe regarding airline subsidies and threatened levies on European carmarkers and on French goods , amid a dispute over digital taxation .
According to Gopinath , further trade tensions `` alongside rising geopolitical risks and intensifying social unrest could reverse easy financing conditions , expose financial vulnerabilities , and severely disrupt growth . ''
`` While there are signs of stabilization , the global outlook remains sluggish and there are no clear signs of a turning point .
There is simply no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs stronger multilateral cooperation and national-level policies to support a sustained recovery that benefits all , '' she concluded .

The seal of the International Monetary Fund(IMF) is seen outside of the headquarters building in Washington, DC on April 8, 2019. Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images
DAVOS, Switzerland — The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has become less optimistic about global growth, warning that the outlook remains sluggish and there are no clear signs of a turning point. The Washington-based institution forecast in October a global growth rate of 3% for 2019 and of 3.4% for 2020. The IMF has now revised down those forecasts to 2.9% and 3.3%, respectively. The downward revision was mostly due to lower growth in India. For 2021, the Fund has forecast a growth rate of 3.4%. "The projected recovery for global growth remains uncertain. It continues to rely on recoveries in stressed and underperforming emerging market economies, as growth in advanced economies stabilizes at close to current levels," Gita Gopinath, the IMF's chief economist, said in a written statement. Nonetheless, the Fund noted that some of the biggest economic uncertainties, highlighted in October, have dissipated. "Some risks have partially receded with the announcement of a U.S.-China Phase I trade deal and lower likelihood of a no-deal Brexit," Gopinath said.
watch now
The U.S. signed a "phase one" trade deal with China last week. Though the deal has kept some of the existing trade tariffs, it was interpreted as a truce by markets in the heated dispute that started back in 2018. Meanwhile in the U.K., lawmakers have approved an agreement that outlines how the country will leave the European Union, scheduled for January 31. The approval allows the U.K. to avoid an abrupt breakup from the EU later this month and gives more certainty to business and citizens on both sides of the English Channel, at least until the end of 2020. In addition, the IMF has said that central banks are expected to keep supporting their respective economies. "Monetary policy has continued to support growth and buoyant financial conditions. With these developments, there are now tentative signs that global growth may be stabilizing, though at subdued levels," Gopinath also said in the report. However, the IMF is cautious about the state of the global economy going forward, in particular about further trade tensions. "New trade tensions could emerge between the United States and the European Union, and U.S.-China trade tensions could return," Gopinath said.
watch now


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--A Bill That Would Exempt Certain Cryptocurrency Transactions From Taxes Is Sitting in Congress

Last Thursday , the Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020 was introduced in Congress .
The bill has the potential to solve a major issue with payments made via Bitcoin , Ethereum , and other major cryptocurrency networks in that an exception would be created for the potential capital gains taxes that often occur when these digital assets are used in everyday commerce .
The bill was introduced with bipartisan support from U.S. House Representatives DelBene , Schweikert , Soto , and Emmer .
Coin Center , which is a group that advocates for regulatory policy on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this tax-related issue with Bitcoin payments since at least 2017 .
Notably , 2019 saw a number of different members of Congress comment on Bitcoin .
With Congressman Brad Sherman ( D-CA ) claiming the crypto asset is a threat to the U.S. dollar and Congressman Patrick McHenry ( R-NC ) sharing his own bullish comments on the long term utility of Bitcoin .
A key usability issue with Bitcoin payments is that taxes may need to be paid in a situation where a capital gain has occurred , which could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bitcoin at a local restaurant .
Under current U.S. law , the use of Bitcoin to pay for goods or services is treated as a sale of those Bitcoin holdings , which is a taxable event .
In addition to dealing with the wild price fluctuations found in the cryptocurrency space , users must also track the gains made every time they want to use Bitcoin or another crypto asset as a medium of exchange — at least if they plan on paying the proper amount of taxes .
While a previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementing a tax exemption for transactions in the amount of $ 600 or less , a different approach has been taken with the 2020 version of the bill .
In the Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020 , capital gains taxes are only exempt in situations where the gains made by an individual as a result of the transaction would be greater than $ 200 .
This is somewhat similar to exemptions that already exist for foreign currencies , so cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That said , moves by governments to issue their own digital currencies this decade could be extremely helpful to Bitcoin ’ s value proposition .
If passed , the tax exemption would be instated for the 2020 fiscal year .
While the vast majority of Bitcoin users are focused on the speculation and store of value use cases , this sort of legislation could be massively helpful in a situation where more people want to start using the digital currency for smaller payments , especially as the Lightning Network continues to develop as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cheap Bitcoin transactions .
The progress of this bill should be tracked closely by anyone holding crypto assets , along with the five other major Bitcoin trends to watch in 2020 .
In other Bitcoin regulatory news , one analyst recently said there is a 60 % chance of a Bitcoin ETF approval happening in 2020 .
More financial advisors are expected to add Bitcoin to their clients ’ portfolios in 2020 ( according to a survey from last week ) , and this increased acceptance of the digital asset in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event are two key parts of one industry executive ’ s bull case for Bitcoin in 2020 .

The Dome of U.S. Capitol building is seen on Thursday, January 16, 2020. NurPhoto via Getty Images
Last Thursday, the Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020 was introduced in Congress. The bill has the potential to solve a major issue with payments made via Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major cryptocurrency networks in that an exception would be created for the potential capital gains taxes that often occur when these digital assets are used in everyday commerce.
The bill was introduced with bipartisan support from U.S. House Representatives DelBene, Schweikert, Soto, and Emmer. Coin Center, which is a group that advocates for regulatory policy on behalf of the cryptocurrency industry, has been working on this tax-related issue with Bitcoin payments since at least 2017.
Notably, 2019 saw a number of different members of Congress comment on Bitcoin. With Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) claiming the crypto asset is a threat to the U.S. dollar and Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) sharing his own bullish comments on the long term utility of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin’s Tax Issue
A key usability issue with Bitcoin payments is that taxes may need to be paid in a situation where a capital gain has occurred, which could be when someone is simply buying a meal with Bitcoin at a local restaurant. Under current U.S. law, the use of Bitcoin to pay for goods or services is treated as a sale of those Bitcoin holdings, which is a taxable event.
In addition to dealing with the wild price fluctuations found in the cryptocurrency space, users must also track the gains made every time they want to use Bitcoin or another crypto asset as a medium of exchange — at least if they plan on paying the proper amount of taxes.
While a previous version of this bill was focused on implementing a tax exemption for transactions in the amount of $600 or less, a different approach has been taken with the 2020 version of the bill. In the Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020, capital gains taxes are only exempt in situations where the gains made by an individual as a result of the transaction would be $200 or less.
This is somewhat similar to exemptions that already exist for foreign currencies, so cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to their potential use in daily commerce. That said, moves by governments to issue their own digital currencies this decade could be extremely helpful to Bitcoin’s value proposition.
If passed, the tax exemption would be instated for the 2020 fiscal year.
While the vast majority of Bitcoin users are focused on the speculation and store of value use cases, this sort of legislation could be massively helpful in a situation where more people want to start using the digital currency for smaller payments, especially as the Lightning Network continues to develop as a second layer protocol layer for fast, cheap Bitcoin transactions.
The progress of this bill should be tracked closely by anyone holding crypto assets, along with the five other major Bitcoin trends to watch in 2020.
In other Bitcoin regulatory news, one analyst recently said there is a 60% chance of a Bitcoin ETF approval happening in 2020. More financial advisors are expected to add Bitcoin to their clients’ portfolios in 2020 (according to a survey from last week), and this increased acceptance of the digital asset in the financial industry combined with the upcoming halving event are two key parts of one industry executive’s bull case for Bitcoin in 2020.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--U.S. Home Building Surged 17% in December

U.S. homebuilding surged to a 13-year high in December as activity increased across the board , suggesting the housing market @ @ @ @ @ amid low mortgage rates , and could help support the longest economic expansion on record @ @ @ @ @ % to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.608 million units last month , the @ @ @ @ @ .
The percentage gain was the largest since October 2016 .
Data for November was @ @ @ @ @ rising to a pace of 1.375 million units , instead of advancing to a rate @ @ @ @ @ previously reported .
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast housing starts would increase to a @ @ @ @ @ in December .
Housing starts soared 40.8 % on a year-on-year basis in December .
@ @ @ @ @ units were started in 2019 , up 3.2 % compared to 2018 .
Building permits @ @ @ @ @ rate of 1.416 million units in December after hitting their highest level in more than @ @ @ @ @

U.S. homebuilding surged to a 13-year high in December as activity increased across the board, suggesting the housing market recovery was back on track amid low mortgage rates, and could help support the longest economic expansion on record.
Housing starts jumped 16.9% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.608 million units last month, the highest level since December 2006. The percentage gain was the largest since October 2016. Data for November was revised higher to show homebuilding rising to a pace of 1.375 million units, instead of advancing to a rate of 1.365 million units as previously reported.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast housing starts would increase to a pace of 1.375 million units in December.
Housing starts soared 40.8% on a year-on-year basis in December. An estimated 1.290 million housing units were started in 2019, up 3.2% compared to 2018.
Building permits fell 3.9% to a rate of 1.416 million units in December after hitting their highest level in more than 12-1/2 years in November.


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--Maxine Waters: We Will Not Stop Investigating President Trump, Even If When Acquitted

Representative Maxine Waters ( D-CA ) said on Sunday ’ s broadcast of MSNBC ’ s “ Weekends ” that even if President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate , House Democrats would not stop investigating him .
Witt said , “ What about if the president is ultimately acquitted by the Senate ?
Do you see the house potentially taking up other articles of impeachment against him ?
You are the chair of the Financial Services Committee .
There has been plenty of talk of emoluments clause violations .
Might those potentially be stronger than what we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken up ?
Waters said , “ Let me just say this .
All of us have the responsibility for oversight .
Yes , I have subpoenaed documents from Deutsche bank .
Yes , I am concerned about the financial affairs of the president of the United States , including money laundering .
And I ’ m continuing with that .
As a matter of fact , the subpoenas that I ’ ve issued that ’ s gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the Supreme Court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity , I don ’ t know .
But I know we must continue with the work that our constituents have elected us to come to Congress to do .
”

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) said on Sunday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Weekends” that even if President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate, House Democrats would not stop investigating him.
Witt said, “What about if the president is ultimately acquitted by the Senate? Do you see the house potentially taking up other articles of impeachment against him? You are the chair of the Financial Services Committee. There has been plenty of talk of emoluments clause violations. Might those potentially be stronger than what we’ve seen here, could that be taken up?
Waters said, “Let me just say this. All of us have the responsibility for oversight. Yes, I have subpoenaed documents from Deutsche bank. Yes, I am concerned about the financial affairs of the president of the United States, including money laundering. And I’m continuing with that. As a matter of fact, the subpoenas that I’ve issued that’s gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the Supreme Court in March. We will not stop. Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, I don’t know. But I know we must continue with the work that our constituents have elected us to come to Congress to do.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


bonginoreport--2020-01-20--Illegal Border Crossings Down 90% in Arizona Following Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” Policy

Illegal border crossings in Arizona “ plunged ” in December of 2019 , according to the Associated Press , dropping a staggering 90 % year-over-year following a Trump administration change in policy that has asylum seekers waiting for their adjudication hearings in Mexico and not in the United States .
Last winter , a “ record number ” of illegal border crossers were apprehended in the Arizona sector of the United States-Mexico border , with 60,000 migrants taken into United States Border Protection custody in December of 2019 alone , per the Washington Examiner .
That was the beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ southern border ; by May of 2019 , the Border Patrol was recording a record number of apprehensions every month , sometimes topping 100,000 .
“ 50,753 people were arrested for trespassing from Mexico in December .
It marks the third month in a row that more than 50,000 people have illegally crossed into to the U.S. Another 10,000 people who tried to enter through ports were told they lacked the documents to do so , ” according to the Examiner .
“ Illegal immigration apprehensions at the southern border have skyrocketed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office , when 15,000 to 20,000 people were reported being apprehended per month.
” In Arizona alone , the Border Patrol was registering around 14,000 apprehensions per month by May of 2019 , but in October of 2019 , there were only 800 apprehensions .
In December of 2019 , the streak kept up , and apprehensions dropped around 90 % .
The Border Patrol credits the Trump administration ’ s new “ remain in Mexico ” policy , which requires those who want to seek refuge from violence and disorder by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ south of the border until their asylum case comes before a judge .
Before that policy took effect , asylum seekers were given a piece of paper with a court date and then released into the United States to stay with friends and family until they had to appear before a judge .
By the time their cases rolled around — sometimes two to three years after apprehension — most asylum-seekers were in the wind , impossible to find , and well-integrated into American life .
“ Arrests in the Border Patrol ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , when the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico took effect there .
By October , they fell 94 % , to less than 800 , and have stayed there since , making Yuma the second-slowest of the agency ’ s nine sectors on the Mexican border , just ahead of the perennially quiet Big Bend sector in Texas , ” the AP reported .
“ Illegal crossings in western Arizona have swung sharply before , and there are several reasons for the recent drop .
But Anthony Porvaznik , chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector , said the so-called Migration Protection Protocols have been a huge deterrent , based on agents ’ interviews with people arrested , ” the outlet added .
“ Their whole goal was to be released into the United States , and once that was taken off the shelf for them , and they couldn ’ t be released into the United States anymore , then that really diminished the amount of traffic that came through here , ” Porvaznik said .
So far , the courts have largely upheld the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court did order that asylum seekers be provided with access to an attorney before being sent back , and the courts have also suggested that those apprehended by Border Patrol be processed within 72 hours .
Some waited “ up to a week ” in Yuma before being sent on .

Illegal border crossings in Arizona “plunged” in December of 2019, according to the Associated Press, dropping a staggering 90% year-over-year following a Trump administration change in policy that has asylum seekers waiting for their adjudication hearings in Mexico and not in the United States.
Last winter, a “record number” of illegal border crossers were apprehended in the Arizona sector of the United States-Mexico border, with 60,000 migrants taken into United States Border Protection custody in December of 2019 alone, per the Washington Examiner. That was the beginning of a surge migrants crossing the United States’ southern border; by May of 2019, the Border Patrol was recording a record number of apprehensions every month, sometimes topping 100,000.
“50,753 people were arrested for trespassing from Mexico in December. It marks the third month in a row that more than 50,000 people have illegally crossed into to the U.S. Another 10,000 people who tried to enter through ports were told they lacked the documents to do so,” according to the Examiner. “Illegal immigration apprehensions at the southern border have skyrocketed since Trump’s first few months in office, when 15,000 to 20,000 people were reported being apprehended per month.”
In Arizona alone, the Border Patrol was registering around 14,000 apprehensions per month by May of 2019, but in October of 2019, there were only 800 apprehensions. In December of 2019, the streak kept up, and apprehensions dropped around 90%.
The Border Patrol credits the Trump administration’s new “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires those who want to seek refuge from violence and disorder by emigrating to the United States to stay south of the border until their asylum case comes before a judge. Before that policy took effect, asylum seekers were given a piece of paper with a court date and then released into the United States to stay with friends and family until they had to appear before a judge.
By the time their cases rolled around — sometimes two to three years after apprehension — most asylum-seekers were in the wind, impossible to find, and well-integrated into American life.
“Arrests in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector nearly hit 14,000 in May, when the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico took effect there. By October, they fell 94%, to less than 800, and have stayed there since, making Yuma the second-slowest of the agency’s nine sectors on the Mexican border, just ahead of the perennially quiet Big Bend sector in Texas,” the AP reported.
“Illegal crossings in western Arizona have swung sharply before, and there are several reasons for the recent drop. But Anthony Porvaznik, chief of the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector, said the so-called Migration Protection Protocols have been a huge deterrent, based on agents’ interviews with people arrested,” the outlet added.
“Their whole goal was to be released into the United States, and once that was taken off the shelf for them, and they couldn’t be released into the United States anymore, then that really diminished the amount of traffic that came through here,” Porvaznik said.
So far, the courts have largely upheld the president’s policy. In California, a court did order that asylum seekers be provided with access to an attorney before being sent back, and the courts have also suggested that those apprehended by Border Patrol be processed within 72 hours. Some waited “up to a week” in Yuma before being sent on.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--Contrary to IMF, Fund Managers Haven’t Been This Optimistic About Global Growth Since 2013

Fund managers in January were the most optimistic on global growth in nearly two years as they kept their cash positions at the lowest level since 2013 .
The monthly Bank of America fund manager survey found global growth expectations shot up 7 percentage points to 36 % expecting global growth to improve .
On Monday , the International Monetary Fund published an economic forecast that expects global GDP to accelerate in 2020 , though its view was slightly weaker than the one published in October .
The big change for the global outlook is the agreement between the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal on trade .
Economists also expect the lagged impact of interest-rate cuts from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to help growth this year .
Inflation expectations surged 14 percentage points to 56 % of survey participants expecting higher global CPI in the next 12 months , which is the highest level since Nov. 2018 .
Global corporate profit expectations also jumped 14 percentage points .
That said , fund managers kept a similar allocation toward assets .
“ Investors are bullish but not euphoric , ” said Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
Cash levels stayed at 4.2 % for the third consecutive month , which is the lowest since March 2013 .
The allocation to global equities rose 1 percentage point to a net 32 % overweight , the highest in 17 months .
The allocation to commodities rose 4 percentage points to a net 10 % overweight , which is the highest level since March 2012 .
A net 53 % say the U.S. dollar DXY , -0.12 % is overvalued , the second-highest percentage since 2002 .
Bank of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in assets under management .
The S & P 500 SPX , +0.39 % has set six records in the new year and is up 26 % from its 2019 low .
Stock futures ES00 , -0.31 % fell on Tuesday on worries over a spreading virus in China .

Fund managers in January were the most optimistic on global growth in nearly two years as they kept their cash positions at the lowest level since 2013.
The monthly Bank of America fund manager survey found global growth expectations shot up 7 percentage points to 36% expecting global growth to improve.
On Monday, the International Monetary Fund published an economic forecast that expects global GDP to accelerate in 2020, though its view was slightly weaker than the one published in October.
The big change for the global outlook is the agreement between the U.S. and China on a so-called phase one deal on trade. Economists also expect the lagged impact of interest-rate cuts from the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to help growth this year.
Inflation expectations surged 14 percentage points to 56% of survey participants expecting higher global CPI in the next 12 months, which is the highest level since Nov. 2018. Global corporate profit expectations also jumped 14 percentage points.
That said, fund managers kept a similar allocation toward assets.
“Investors are bullish but not euphoric,” said Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist, in a statement.
Cash levels stayed at 4.2% for the third consecutive month, which is the lowest since March 2013. The allocation to global equities rose 1 percentage point to a net 32% overweight, the highest in 17 months. The allocation to commodities rose 4 percentage points to a net 10% overweight, which is the highest level since March 2012.
A net 53% say the U.S. dollar DXY, -0.02% is overvalued, the second-highest percentage since 2002.
Bank of America surveyed 249 panelists with $739 billion in assets under management.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--Eight Things You Need to Know About the Senate Trial

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation ’ s history , with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton .
Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
1 .
When Will the Trial Begin , and How Long Will It Last ?
Senate President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts , who will preside over the trial .
Roberts , in turn , administered the oath to all senators .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday .
The Clinton impeachment took five weeks , and Johnson ’ s lasted 11 weeks .
The Senate ’ s impeachment trial rules , adopted in 1986 , mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment shall be rendered.
” 2 .
What Happens at the Trial ?
An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial , but it does have some similarities .
House managers will act as the prosecution , presenting the case for impeachment to the senators , whose role is a combination of judge and jury .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers , including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s defense , including White House counsel Pat Cipollone ; Trump ’ s personal attorney , Jay Sekulow ; and former independent counsel Ken Starr , whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton ’ s impeachment .
Roberts will preside over the trial , consistent with Article 3 , Section 6 of the Constitution , although it is mostly a ceremonial role .
After presiding over Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said , “ I took a leaf out of [ Gilbert and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iolanthe ’ … ‘ I did nothing in particular , and did it very well.
’ ” When the trial begins , the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable , including the time allotted for each side to present its case , senators to ask questions , and the Senate to consider motions .
At that point , if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial , the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and , if that motion fails , on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During Johnson ’ s impeachment trial , the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses .
During the Clinton trial , three witnesses provided videotaped testimony .
McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House , while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify .
3 .
Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate ?
No .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual being tried , its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney .
The Senate tried , unsuccessfully , to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial .
The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president .
“ In a loud voice , and amid the stillness of the whole chamber , he called three times , ‘ Andrew Johnson , Andrew Johnson , Andrew Johnson !
’ ” but instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Attorney General Henry Stanbery ( who resigned the day before ) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis , arrived .
Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial .
Trump previously indicated he would “ strongly consider ” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry , but that didn ’ t happen .
Odds are , Trump won ’ t be present at the Senate trial .
4 .
What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow ?
Senators are not required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne , he made a motion to designate “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” —the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial .
After the presiding officer ruled that “ the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually , ” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard .
Similarly , the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial .
The Senate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence .
Any senator , however , may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters .
That reflects the Constitution ’ s assignment to the Senate of “ the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
” 5 .
Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias ?
Senators have taken an oath to “ do impartial justice , according to the Constitution and laws ” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial .
Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators have already failed to meet the “ independent and dignified ” standard the Constitution envisioned .
There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question .
There is no basis in the Constitution , Senate rules , or history for such an attempt .
The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator .
6 .
What Happens After the Trial ?
While the trial itself will be open to the public , the Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment .
Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety , and the Constitution requires the vote of “ two-thirds of the [ senators ] present ” for conviction .
Removal from office is automatic upon conviction , and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office .
The Constitution explicitly provides , however , that these consequences by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendant ’ s conduct is also criminal , prevent “ Indictment , Trial , Judgment and Punishment , according to Law.
” 7 .
If the Vote Fails in the Senate , Can the President Be Retried ?
In theory , he likely could be retried in the future .
Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue , and no precedent exists for it , a few legal scholars , such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal , have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retrial on the same charges , however , would seem highly unlikely , and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone can not be tried twice for the same offense .
What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment , which it could do .
8 .
Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial , and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court ’ s Work ?
Senate committees may hold hearings in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing any business such as sending bills , nominations , or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators .
The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way .
The trial should not affect the Supreme Court ’ s oral argument schedule .
The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday , but those will conclude by 11 a.m .
The court won ’ t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24 .
Aside from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the afternoon , the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court .

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation’s history, with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton.
Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump’s impeachment trial.
1. When Will the Trial Begin, and How Long Will It Last?
Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial.
Roberts, in turn, administered the oath to all senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday.
The Clinton impeachment took five weeks, and Johnson’s lasted 11 weeks. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules, adopted in 1986, mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn, Monday through Saturday, “until final judgment shall be rendered.”
2. What Happens at the Trial?
An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial, but it does have some similarities. House managers will act as the prosecution, presenting the case for impeachment to the senators, whose role is a combination of judge and jury.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers, including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
A team of lawyers will put on the president’s defense, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton’s impeachment.
Roberts will preside over the trial, consistent with Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution, although it is mostly a ceremonial role.
After presiding over Clinton’s impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “I took a leaf out of [Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera] ‘Iolanthe’ … ‘I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.’”
When the trial begins, the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable, including the time allotted for each side to present its case, senators to ask questions, and the Senate to consider motions.
At that point, if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial, the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and, if that motion fails, on whether additional witnesses or evidence should be considered.
During Johnson’s impeachment trial, the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses provided videotaped testimony.
McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House, while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify.
3. Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate?
No. While the Senate does issue a summons to the individual being tried, its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney.
The Senate tried, unsuccessfully, to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial. The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president.
“In a loud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole chamber, he called three times, ‘Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson!’” but instead the president’s legal team, including Attorney General Henry Stanbery (who resigned the day before) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, arrived.
Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial.
Trump previously indicated he would “strongly consider” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry, but that didn’t happen. Odds are, Trump won’t be present at the Senate trial.
4. What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow?
Senators are not required to employ a specific standard of proof. During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne, he made a motion to designate “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial.
After the presiding officer ruled that “the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually,” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard.
Similarly, the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules state that the Senate’s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence.
Any senator, however, may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters. That reflects the Constitution’s assignment to the Senate of “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
5. Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias?
Senators have taken an oath to “do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, argued that some senators have already failed to meet the “independent and dignified” standard the Constitution envisioned.
There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question. There is no basis in the Constitution, Senate rules, or history for such an attempt.
The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator.
6. What Happens After the Trial?
While the trial itself will be open to the public, the Senate’s deliberations after its conclusion will not be.
The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment. Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety, and the Constitution requires the vote of “two-thirds of the [senators] present” for conviction.
Removal from office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office.
The Constitution explicitly provides, however, that these consequences by the Senate do not, if the defendant’s conduct is also criminal, prevent “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
7. If the Vote Fails in the Senate, Can the President Be Retried?
In theory, he likely could be retried in the future. Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue, and no precedent exists for it, a few legal scholars, such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal, have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to impeachment proceedings.
A retrial on the same charges, however, would seem highly unlikely, and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offense.
What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment, which it could do.
8. Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial, and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court’s Work?
Senate committees may hold hearings in the morning of each trial day, but doing any business such as sending bills, nominations, or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators.
The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way.
The trial should not affect the Supreme Court’s oral argument schedule. The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, but those will conclude by 11 a.m.
The court won’t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24. Aside from taking up some of Roberts’ time in the afternoon, the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--VA Already Passing New Gun Control Legislation Following 2A Rally

An estimated 22,000 turned out for the rally , 16,000 of which were armed , and there wasn ’ t a single act of violence .
The average protester turned out to be about as provocative as Nick Sandmann ’ s smirk ( i.e.
, not at all provocative to any sane individual ) , and the only arrest was for someone who wore a mask in public .
Journalists sympathetic to antifa and oblivious to irony were quick to highlight the arrest .
Rather than admit they were mistaken , Northam cited the peacefulness of yesterday ’ s protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked .
He also said he would continue to “ listen to the voices or Virginians ” in a widely ridiculed tweet .
Northam didn ’ t listen – he won ’ t be listening – and his fellow Democrats proved that today .
As WTVR reported : [ On Tuesday ] the Democratic-led Senate gave preliminary approval to approved the so-called “ red flag ” law .
SB 240 would create a process for attorneys and law enforcement to file emergency orders prohibiting a person from purchasing , possessing or transferring a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of injury to himself or others.
” In a separate article covering Virginia ’ s Congress today , WTVR reported that : Democrats rejected several Republican-sponsored bills to loosen restrictions .
Some of those bills include carrying a concealed handgun with no permit required , firearm free zones designated by localities and carrying weapons in places of worship .
Last week Virginia passed three gun control bills .
The three bills require background checks on all firearm sales ( SB 70 ) , limit handgun purchases to one per month ( SB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban guns from public events ( SB 35 ) .
The most radical bill ( SB 16 ) which included the ban on assault weapons , high-capacity magazines , bump stocks , and silencers , was killed , but it ’ s already on track to be resurrected .
A nearly identical bill to SB 16 remains alive , and those three aforementioned laws only represent what is going to be the first wave of many .
Virginia ’ s legislators haven ’ t listened when tens of thousands showed up to protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiastic to vote all these legislators out of office .

Before yesterday’s rally for the Second Amendment in Virginia even began, Virginia Democrats were smearing it as a dangerous “racist” rally. We were warned that everyone from white supremacist groups to fringe militias and possibly even antifa would be showing up. Governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency ahead of the rally, preventing anyone from carrying firearms at the capitol building, and signaling to the media that danger was afoot. “They’re not coming to peacefully protest. They are coming to intimidate and cause harm,” be said at a press conference.
An estimated 22,000 turned out for the rally, 16,000 of which were armed, and there wasn’t a single act of violence. The average protester turned out to be about as provocative as Nick Sandmann’s smirk (i.e., not at all provocative to any sane individual), and the only arrest was for someone who wore a mask in public. Journalists sympathetic to antifa and oblivious to irony were quick to highlight the arrest.
Rather than admit they were mistaken, Northam cited the peacefulness of yesterday’s protests as proof that his unspecified de-escalation measures worked. He also said he would continue to “listen to the voices or Virginians” in a widely ridiculed tweet.
Northam: I will continue to listen to the voices of Virginians – except for the tens of thousands that just showed up to protest my gun control policies — Bongino Report (@BonginoReport) January 20, 2020
Northam didn’t listen – he won’t be listening – and his fellow Democrats proved that today.
As WTVR reported: [On Tuesday] the Democratic-led Senate gave preliminary approval to approved the so-called “red flag” law. SB 240 would create a process for attorneys and law enforcement to file emergency orders prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or transferring a firearm if they pose “a substantial risk of injury to himself or others.”
In a separate article covering Virginia’s Congress today, WTVR reported that: Democrats rejected several Republican-sponsored bills to loosen restrictions. Some of those bills include carrying a concealed handgun with no permit required, firearm free zones designated by localities and carrying weapons in places of worship.
Last week Virginia passed three gun control bills. The three bills require background checks on all firearm sales (SB 70), limit handgun purchases to one per month (SB 69), and allow localities to ban guns from public events (SB 35). The most radical bill (SB 16) which included the ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, and silencers, was killed, but it’s already on track to be resurrected. A nearly identical bill to SB 16 remains alive, and those three aforementioned laws only represent what is going to be the first wave of many.
Virginia’s legislators haven’t listened when tens of thousands showed up to protest. Hopefully the protesters are just as enthusiastic to vote all these legislators out of office.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--Pete Buttigieg Has His Own “Please Clap” Moment

Democratic 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg had to instruct audience members to clap for him in an awkward moment on the campaign trail Tuesday .
Buttigieg asked audience members at an Iowa campaign event if he “ can look to you to spread that sense of hope to those that you know ?
” The room went silent as the audience neither clapped nor applauded in response to Buttigieg ’ s question .
“ Come on !
” Buttigieg said , motioning with his arms for the audience to cheer .
The awkward moment immediately drew comparisons online to former Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ please clap ” gaffe during the 2016 Republican primary .
Bush ’ s plea to his audience ended up becoming one of the defining moments of his doomed 2016 campaign .
A splice-up of Buttigieg and Bush asking their audiences to clap showed the similarities between the two moments .
Buttigieg is currently running fourth in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa primary polls .
( RELATED : ‘ Bull**** ’ : Buttigieg Flips Out On NYT Writer ) Former Vice President Joe Biden , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , and Massachusetts Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg in Iowa , according to the RCP average .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Democratic 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg had to instruct audience members to clap for him in an awkward moment on the campaign trail Tuesday.
Buttigieg asked audience members at an Iowa campaign event if he “can look to you to spread that sense of hope to those that you know?” The room went silent as the audience neither clapped nor applauded in response to Buttigieg’s question.
“Come on!” Buttigieg said, motioning with his arms for the audience to cheer.
WATCH:
The awkward moment immediately drew comparisons online to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s much-mocked “please clap” gaffe during the 2016 Republican primary.
Bush’s plea to his audience ended up becoming one of the defining moments of his doomed 2016 campaign. A splice-up of Buttigieg and Bush asking their audiences to clap showed the similarities between the two moments.
I put the Buttigieg “Come On” and the Jeb “Please Clap” side by side and it’s kind of mesmerizing pic.twitter.com/Gp4L5oRq0J — Alec Sears (@alec_sears) January 21, 2020
Buttigieg is currently running fourth in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa primary polls. (RELATED: ‘Bull****’: Buttigieg Flips Out On NYT Writer)
Former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are all polling ahead of Buttigieg in Iowa, according to the RCP average.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--Even Mitt Romney Is Losing Patience With Democrats

Sen. Mitt Romney brushed off Democrats for complaining about the Senate ’ s decision to follow trial rules similar to those used during President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment .
Romney , 72 , the junior senator for Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee , has been one of the few Senate Republicans to in the events that led to impeachment , but he claimed that Democrats have taken their protests too far .
While speaking to CNN on Monday , the Utah senator criticized his Democratic colleagues for opposing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 's version of the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impeachment .
“ Well , the changes [ in the trial rules ] are pretty modest and I don ’ t think are significant in any dramatic way .
So for instance , whether something is going to be taking 12 hours per day or eight hours per day , it ’ s still going to be covered in the news , ” Romney said .
“ And what ’ s officially going into evidence doesn ’ t make a big difference because the senators are , of course , free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have that comes from the House.
” He added , “ I think the Democrats make a mistake when they cry outrage time and time again .
If everything is an outrage , then nothing is an outrage.
” Romney said he would be supportive of hearing testimony from additional witnesses , saying , “ I ’ m interested in hearing from John Bolton , perhaps , among others.
” It is not clear how many witnesses , if any , will participate in the impeachment trial .
Several Republicans have said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Hunter Biden , testify for every witness the Democrats want to call , such as Bolton .
Sen. Ted Cruz , a Republican from Texas , said the impeachment trial could last if several additional witnesses are called .

Sen. Mitt Romney brushed off Democrats for complaining about the Senate’s decision to follow trial rules similar to those used during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Romney, 72, the junior senator for Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, has been one of the few Senate Republicans to question President Trump’s behavior in the events that led to impeachment, but he claimed that Democrats have taken their protests too far. While speaking to CNN on Monday, the Utah senator criticized his Democratic colleagues for opposing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's version of the impeachment trial rules that were used during Clinton’s impeachment.
“Well, the changes [in the trial rules] are pretty modest and I don’t think are significant in any dramatic way. So for instance, whether something is going to be taking 12 hours per day or eight hours per day, it’s still going to be covered in the news,” Romney said. “And what’s officially going into evidence doesn’t make a big difference because the senators are, of course, free to look at all the information they have that comes from the House.”
He added, “I think the Democrats make a mistake when they cry outrage time and time again. If everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage.”
Romney said he would be supportive of hearing testimony from additional witnesses, saying, “I’m interested in hearing from John Bolton, perhaps, among others.”