bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Nancy Pelosi Reportedly Got Idea to Withhold Impeachment Articles From Watching CNN

Breitbart reports that the Time article , tweeted by Byron York , states : Pelosi , according to an aide , had been mulling the tactic since she heard former Nixon White House counsel John Dean float the idea on CNN on Dec. 5 .
In the committee meeting , she added that she believed McConnell would be motivated to move .
“ Somebody said to me today that he may not even take up what we send .
[ But ] then [ Trump ] will never be vindicated , ” she said , according to the aide in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeached forever .
Forever .
No matter what the Senate does.
” The following day , Pelosi presided over the floor vote on impeachment , wearing a striking black suit to project solemnity , accessorized with a large gold brooch of the Mace of the Republic , a symbol of the House .
When scattered cheers broke out inside the chamber after the first article was approved , she sternly and silently shushed them with a glare and a sharp gesture .
After the vote , she announced that she did not plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying she could not determine how to appoint House impeachment managers until the Senate decides on its rules for the trial .
It was originally understood that Pelosi was inspired by Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe , who “ also advised Democrats that they could withhold the articles of impeachment as leverage — even though the Constitution says explicitly that ‘ The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments , ' ” writes Breitbart ’ s Joel Pollak .
Fox News political analyst , Brit Hume slammed Pelosi for taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major role in the coverup of the Watergate scandal during the Nixon Administration : Breitbart ’ s Alex Marlow called Pelosi out for “ basing her strategy on a network that just had to settle for defaming a 16-year-old , ” – a reference to the recent news that Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann settled his multimillion dollar lawsuit with CNN .
“ I ’ m not withholding them indefinitely , ” she said during a press conference .
“ I ’ ll send them over when I ’ m ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… documentation , witnesses , facts , truth .
That ’ s what they ’ re afraid of ” Pelosi ’ s comments come as Democratic senators have expressed frustration with the lack of urgency from the Speaker to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate .
“ The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes , ” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Politico .
“ So if it ’ s serious and urgent , send them over .
It it isn ’ t , don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-ME ) , Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) and Chris Coons ( D-DE ) have also come out this week calling for Pelosi to speed up the impeachment process .

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi got her brilliant idea to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate by watching Fake News CNN, according to a report in Time magazine.
Breitbart reports that the Time article, tweeted by Byron York, states:
Pelosi, according to an aide, had been mulling the tactic since she heard former Nixon White House counsel John Dean float the idea on CNN on Dec. 5. In the committee meeting, she added that she believed McConnell would be motivated to move. “Somebody said to me today that he may not even take up what we send. [But] then [Trump] will never be vindicated,” she said, according to the aide in the room. “He will be impeached forever. Forever. No matter what the Senate does.”
The following day, Pelosi presided over the floor vote on impeachment, wearing a striking black suit to project solemnity, accessorized with a large gold brooch of the Mace of the Republic, a symbol of the House. When scattered cheers broke out inside the chamber after the first article was approved, she sternly and silently shushed them with a glare and a sharp gesture. After the vote, she announced that she did not plan to transmit the articles right away, saying she could not determine how to appoint House impeachment managers until the Senate decides on its rules for the trial.
It was originally understood that Pelosi was inspired by Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who
“also advised Democrats that they could withhold the articles of impeachment as leverage — even though the Constitution says explicitly that ‘The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments,'” writes Breitbart’s Joel Pollak.
Fox News political analyst, Brit Hume slammed Pelosi for taking advice from Dean, who played a major role in the coverup of the Watergate scandal during the Nixon Administration:
Always good to get strategic advice from the mastermind of the Watergate coverup. https://t.co/oviMkfMddp — Brit Hume (@brithume) January 9, 2020
Breitbart’s Alex Marlow called Pelosi out for “basing her strategy on a network that just had to settle for defaming a 16-year-old,”– a reference to the recent news that Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann settled his multimillion dollar lawsuit with CNN.
Pelosi is now basing her strategy on a network that just had to settle for defaming a 16-year-old. https://t.co/kE9FWIlCwM — Alex Marlow (@AlexMarlow) January 9, 2020
Earlier today, Pelosi told reporters she would send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate “when I’m ready.”
“I’m not withholding them indefinitely,” she said during a press conference. “I’ll send them over when I’m ready. And that will probably be soon. … documentation, witnesses, facts, truth. That’s what they’re afraid of”
Speaker Pelosi: "I'm not withholding them indefinitely. I'll send them over when I'm ready. And that will probably be soon. … documentation, witnesses, facts, truth. That's what they're afraid of" https://t.co/FdmhM5pCLB pic.twitter.com/ig5xhRa97W — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 9, 2020
Pelosi’s comments come as Democratic senators have expressed frustration with the lack of urgency from the Speaker to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate.
“The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Politico. “So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. It it isn’t, don’t send them over”
Senators Angus King (D-ME), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have also come out this week calling for Pelosi to speed up the impeachment process.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Monmouth University Poll: Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders in Dead Heat in New Hampshire

West Long Branch , NJ – Support for former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has grown while backing for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden has declined in New Hampshire .
This makes the latest Monmouth University Poll of the Granite State primary effectively a four-way race right now .
The poll also finds that primary voters are divided on whether the current nomination calendar gives all types of Democrats an equal voice in the process .
In fact , a plurality would be willing to share their “ first-in-the-nation ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the February 2020 Democratic primary , 20 % currently support Buttigieg , 19 % back Biden , 18 % back Sanders , and 15 % back Warren .
Others registering support include Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( 6 % ) , Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( 4 % ) , former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer ( 4 % ) , entrepreneur Andrew Yang ( 3 % ) , Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet ( 2 % ) , and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates included in the poll ( former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick , former Maryland Rep. John Delaney , author Marianne Williamson ) earn less than 1 % .
Another 7 % of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean toward any candidate choice at this time .
[ Note : Mike Bloomberg will not appear on the New Hampshire ballot and is not included in this poll . ]
Compared to Monmouth ’ s last New Hampshire poll in September , Buttigieg ’ s support has grown by 10 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ support has increased by 6 points ( from 12 % ) .
Warren ’ s support has dropped by 12 points ( from 27 % ) and Biden ’ s has decreased by 6 points ( from 25 % ) .
“ The race remains fairly wide-open .
To the extent that New Hampshire voters could take some cues from Iowa , it ’ s also worth keeping an eye on lower polling candidates like Klobuchar if any of the leading contenders stumble in the earlier Iowa contest , ” said Patrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University Polling Institute .
Self-described liberals divide their preference among Sanders ( 26 % ) , Warren ( 24 % ) , Buttigieg ( 16 % ) , and Biden ( 16 % ) .
Self-described moderates and conservatives are split between Buttigieg ( 25 % ) and Biden ( 22 % ) .
Sanders gets 10 % and Warren gets 7 % support among non-liberals , placing them at about the same level as Klobuchar ( 9 % ) , Gabbard ( 7 % ) , and Steyer ( 6 % ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the age of 50 , Sanders leads ( 26 % ) , followed by Buttigieg ( 17 % ) , Warren ( 16 % ) and Biden ( 15 % ) .
Among voters age 65 and over , the battle is between Biden ( 27 % ) and Buttigieg ( 20 % ) , with double-digit backing for Warren ( 16 % ) and Sanders ( 14 % ) as well .
With the race still in flux , Monmouth analysts ran a variety of different likely voter models in addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A model that increases the share of lower propensity voters shows Biden , Buttigieg , and Sanders each with 19 % support , Warren with 15 % , Klobuchar and Gabbard with 5 % each , and Steyer and Yang with 4 % each .
A model that gives more weight to traditional primary voters shows Buttigieg with 23 % support , Biden with 20 % , Sanders with 16 % , Warren with 15 % , Klobuchar with 7 % , and Gabbard with 4 % .
The Monmouth poll also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back if the nomination race came down to just a few candidates by the time of the state ’ s February 11th primary .
No single candidate emerges as a presumptive front-runner in a scenario involving just the four candidates who lead in the poll right now .
Biden ’ s vote share grows by 5 points to 24 % , Buttigieg increases 3 points to 23 % , Sanders increases 3 points to 21 % , and Warren increases 3 points to 18 % .
Another 5 % – half of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not vote for any of these candidates in a four-way race .
“ There appears to be no natural heir if the field winnows before New Hampshire .
Supporters of lower polling candidates tend to disperse fairly evenly among the top contenders , ” said Murray .
The Monmouth University Poll also asked voters their overall opinion of nine candidates .
Sanders currently holds the most positive rating at 69 % favorable and 23 % unfavorable , which is up from September ( 63 % -28 % ) .
Yang ’ s rating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -18 % ) than it was in the fall ( 31 % -26 % ) while Klobuchar ’ s rating has also ticked up ( 48 % -17 % from 41 % -19 % ) .
Other candidate ratings have slipped , though , including Warren ( 64 % -27 % now , from 74 % -19 % in September ) , Biden ( 62 % -29 % from 66 % -24 % ) , and , to a lesser degree , Buttigieg ( 62 % -17 % from 62 % -12 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % from 49 % -18 % ) .
Steyer ’ s net rating has inched up since September ( 41 % -26 % from 32 % -22 % ) , while Patrick enters the race with a net negative rating of 27 % favorable and 32 % unfavorable .
There has been a debate over the representativeness of the early contests in the Democratic nomination process .
Nationally , the party includes voters with different political views as well as diverse races and ethnicities , while the first contests in Iowa and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Granite State primary voters are divided as to whether the current calendar provides adequate representation to the entire party , with 47 % saying the calendar gives some types of Democratic voters more influence than others in the party ’ s presidential nominating process and 38 % saying it gives all types of Democrats an equal voice .
Self-identified liberals ( 56 % ) are more likely than moderates and conservatives ( 40 % ) to say that the current calendar gives some types of voters more influence than others .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary voters ( 63 % ) feel that states like Iowa and New Hampshire have the right amount of influence on who wins the presidential nomination .
Another 20 % say these states have too much influence while 11 % counter that that they do not have enough influence over the final outcome .
Similarly , 63 % say that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the nominating process makes little difference one way or the other in the likelihood that the Democratic Party will nominate the best candidate for president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states go first makes it more likely that the Democrats will nominate the best candidate while only 9 % say it makes this outcome less likely .
There are few demographic or voter group differences in this opinion .
A plurality of Granite State primary voters ( 46 % ) would be open to the idea of one or two other states holding their presidential primaries on the same day as New Hampshire , while 31 % say this would be a bad idea .
Liberals ( 52 % ) are somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 41 % ) to think that having another state or two vote on the same day as New Hampshire is a good idea .
“ New Hampshire ’ s first-in-the-nation status has taken on a mythic quality .
But when you ask voters there about it , few seem willing to back the idea that their position on the calendar necessarily leads to a better outcome overall , ” said Murray .
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from January 3 to 7 , 2020 with 404 New Hampshire voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential primary in February 2020 , out of 697 registered voters that were contacted for the poll .
The question results in this release have a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points .
The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch , NJ .
The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from January 3 to 7 , 2020 with a statewide random sample of 697 New Hampshire voters drawn from a list of registered voters who participated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past two election cycles .
This includes 313 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 384 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone , in English .
Results are based on 404 voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020 .
Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design , data weighting and analysis .
The full sample is weighted for party registration , age , gender , race , and education based on state voter registration list information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplement ) .
Data collection support provided by Braun Research ( field ) and Aristotle ( voter sample ) .
For results based on the sample of likely Democratic primary voters , one can say with 95 % confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points ( unadjusted for sample design ) .
Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups ( see table below ) .
In addition to sampling error , one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bias into the findings of opinion polls .
Click on pdf file link below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups .

Download This Poll Report with Crosstabs
New Hampshire
West Long Branch, NJ – Support for former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has grown while backing for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden has declined in New Hampshire. This makes the latest Monmouth University Poll of the Granite State primary effectively a four-way race right now. The poll also finds that primary voters are divided on whether the current nomination calendar gives all types of Democrats an equal voice in the process. In fact, a plurality would be willing to share their “first-in-the-nation” status.
Among registered New Hampshire Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the February 2020 Democratic primary, 20% currently support Buttigieg, 19% back Biden, 18% back Sanders, and 15% back Warren. Others registering support include Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (6%), Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (4%), former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer (4%), entrepreneur Andrew Yang (3%), Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (2%), and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (1%). Three other candidates included in the poll (former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, author Marianne Williamson) earn less than 1%. Another 7% of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean toward any candidate choice at this time. [Note: Mike Bloomberg will not appear on the New Hampshire ballot and is not included in this poll.]
Compared to Monmouth’s last New Hampshire poll in September, Buttigieg’s support has grown by 10 points (from 10%) and Sanders’ support has increased by 6 points (from 12%). Warren’s support has dropped by 12 points (from 27%) and Biden’s has decreased by 6 points (from 25%).
“The race remains fairly wide-open. To the extent that New Hampshire voters could take some cues from Iowa, it’s also worth keeping an eye on lower polling candidates like Klobuchar if any of the leading contenders stumble in the earlier Iowa contest,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
Self-described liberals divide their preference among Sanders (26%), Warren (24%), Buttigieg (16%), and Biden (16%). Self-described moderates and conservatives are split between Buttigieg (25%) and Biden (22%). Sanders gets 10% and Warren gets 7% support among non-liberals, placing them at about the same level as Klobuchar (9%), Gabbard (7%), and Steyer (6%) with this bloc.
Among voters under the age of 50, Sanders leads (26%), followed by Buttigieg (17%), Warren (16%) and Biden (15%). Among voters age 65 and over, the battle is between Biden (27%) and Buttigieg (20%), with double-digit backing for Warren (16%) and Sanders (14%) as well.
With the race still in flux, Monmouth analysts ran a variety of different likely voter models in addition to the benchmark results reported in this release. A model that increases the share of lower propensity voters shows Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders each with 19% support, Warren with 15%, Klobuchar and Gabbard with 5% each, and Steyer and Yang with 4% each. A model that gives more weight to traditional primary voters shows Buttigieg with 23% support, Biden with 20%, Sanders with 16%, Warren with 15%, Klobuchar with 7%, and Gabbard with 4%.
The Monmouth poll also asked New Hampshire voters who they would back if the nomination race came down to just a few candidates by the time of the state’s February 11th primary. No single candidate emerges as a presumptive front-runner in a scenario involving just the four candidates who lead in the poll right now. Biden’s vote share grows by 5 points to 24%, Buttigieg increases 3 points to 23%, Sanders increases 3 points to 21%, and Warren increases 3 points to 18%. Another 5% – half of whom are Gabbard supporters – say they will not vote for any of these candidates in a four-way race.
“There appears to be no natural heir if the field winnows before New Hampshire. Supporters of lower polling candidates tend to disperse fairly evenly among the top contenders,” said Murray.
2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD
NEW HAMPSHIRE PARTY VOTER OPINION
Net Rating (favorable – unfavorable) Jan ’20 Sept ’19 May ’19 Bernie Sanders +46 +35 +54 Pete Buttigieg +45 +50 +47 Elizabeth Warren +37 +55 +39 Andrew Yang +35 +5 –3 Joe Biden +33 +42 +65 Amy Klobuchar +31 +22 +33 Cory Booker +24 +31 +42 Tom Steyer +15 +10 n/a Deval Patrick –5 n/a n/a
The Monmouth University Poll also asked voters their overall opinion of nine candidates. Sanders currently holds the most positive rating at 69% favorable and 23% unfavorable, which is up from September (63%-28%). Yang’s rating is much better now (53%-18%) than it was in the fall (31%-26%) while Klobuchar’s rating has also ticked up (48%-17% from 41%-19%). Other candidate ratings have slipped, though, including Warren (64%-27% now, from 74%-19% in September), Biden (62%-29% from 66%-24%), and, to a lesser degree, Buttigieg (62%-17% from 62%-12%) and Booker (47%-23% from 49%-18%). Steyer’s net rating has inched up since September (41%-26% from 32%-22%), while Patrick enters the race with a net negative rating of 27% favorable and 32% unfavorable.
There has been a debate over the representativeness of the early contests in the Democratic nomination process. Nationally, the party includes voters with different political views as well as diverse races and ethnicities, while the first contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have almost entirely non-Hispanic white electorates. Granite State primary voters are divided as to whether the current calendar provides adequate representation to the entire party, with 47% saying the calendar gives some types of Democratic voters more influence than others in the party’s presidential nominating process and 38% saying it gives all types of Democrats an equal voice. Self-identified liberals (56%) are more likely than moderates and conservatives (40%) to say that the current calendar gives some types of voters more influence than others.
At the same time, most Granite State primary voters (63%) feel that states like Iowa and New Hampshire have the right amount of influence on who wins the presidential nomination. Another 20% say these states have too much influence while 11% counter that they do not have enough influence over the final outcome. Similarly, 63% say that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the nominating process makes little difference one way or the other in the likelihood that the Democratic Party will nominate the best candidate for president. However, 21% say having these states go first makes it more likely that the Democrats will nominate the best candidate while only 9% say it makes this outcome less likely. There are few demographic or voter group differences in this opinion.
A plurality of Granite State primary voters (46%) would be open to the idea of one or two other states holding their presidential primaries on the same day as New Hampshire, while 31% say this would be a bad idea. Liberals (52%) are somewhat more likely than moderates and conservative Democrats (41%) to think that having another state or two vote on the same day as New Hampshire is a good idea.
“New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status has taken on a mythic quality. But when you ask voters there about it, few seem willing to back the idea that their position on the calendar necessarily leads to a better outcome overall,” said Murray.
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from January 3 to 7, 2020 with 404 New Hampshire voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020, out of 697 registered voters that were contacted for the poll. The question results in this release have a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.
QUESTIONS AND RESULTS
(* Some columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.)
1. If the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED]? [If UNDECIDED: If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?] TREND: (with leaners) Jan.
2020 Sept.
2019 May
2019 Pete Buttigieg 20% 10% 9% Joe Biden 19% 25% 36% Bernie Sanders 18% 12% 18% Elizabeth Warren 15% 27% 8% Amy Klobuchar 6% 2% 2% Tulsi Gabbard 4% 2% <1% Tom Steyer 4% 2% n/a Andrew Yang 3% 2% 1% Michael Bennet 2% 0% 0% Cory Booker 1% 2% 2% John Delaney <1% <1% <1% Deval Patrick <1% n/a n/a Marianne Williamson 0% 1% <1% (VOL) Other 0% 5%* 11%* (VOL) No one 0% 1% <1% (VOL) Undecided 7% 9% 11% (n) (404) (401) (376) * Includes candidates who have since dropped out.
2. If the Democratic nomination came down to the following seven candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED] Jan.
2020 Joe Biden 21% Bernie Sanders 21% Pete Buttigieg 20% Elizabeth Warren 15% Amy Klobuchar 7% Andrew Yang 5% Cory Booker 2% (VOL) None of these/won’t vote 3% (VOL) Undecided 8% (n) (404)
3. And if the Democratic nomination came down to just these four candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED] Jan.
2020 Joe Biden 24% Pete Buttigieg 23% Bernie Sanders 21% Elizabeth Warren 18% (VOL) None of these/won’t vote 5% (VOL) Undecided 8% (n) (404)
4. I’m going to read you the names of some people who are running for president in 2020. Please tell me if your general impression of each is favorable or unfavorable, or if you don’t really have an opinion. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED] TREND: Favorable Unfavorable No
opinion Not
heard of (n) Former Vice President Joe Biden 62% 29% 10% 0% (404) — Sept. 2019 66% 24% 10% 0% (401) — May 2019 80% 15% 5% 0% (376) Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 69% 23% 7% 0% (404) — Sept. 2019 63% 28% 8% 1% (401) — May 2019 73% 19% 8% 0% (376) Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren 64% 27% 9% 0% (404) — Sept. 2019 74% 19% 6% 1% (401) — May 2019 63% 24% 11% 2% (376) Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 48% 17% 28% 7% (404) — Sept. 2019 41% 19% 29% 11% (401) — May 2019 44% 11% 25% 20% (376) Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg 62% 17% 17% 4% (404) — Sept. 2019 62% 12% 18% 8% (401) — May 2019 54% 7% 19% 21% (376) New Jersey Senator Cory Booker 47% 23% 24% 6% (404) — Sept. 2019 49% 18% 27% 6% (401) — May 2019 54% 12% 22% 13% (376) Entrepreneur Andrew Yang 53% 18% 25% 4% (404) — Sept. 2019 31% 26% 30% 13% (401) — May 2019 11% 14% 30% 45% (376) Former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer 41% 26% 27% 5% (404) — Sept. 2019 32% 22% 33% 13% (401) — May 2019 — — — — — Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick 27% 32% 34% 7% (404) — Sept. 2019 — — — — — — May 2019 — — — — —
5. Do you think voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on who wins the party nominations for president, not enough influence, or about the right amount of influence on who wins the party nominations for president? Jan.
2020 Too much influence 20% Not enough influence 11% Right amount of influence 63% (VOL) Don’t know 7% (n) (404)
6. Do you think having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the nominating process makes it more likely or less likely that the Democratic Party will nominate the best candidate for president, or do you think having those states go first makes little difference in the likelihood that Democrats will nominate the best candidate? Jan.
2020 More likely 21% Less likely 9% Little difference 63% (VOL) Don’t know 7% (n) (404)
7. Nationally, the Democratic Party includes voters with different political views, races and ethnicities, and other characteristics. Does the current presidential primary calendar give all types of Democratic voters an equal voice in the party’s presidential nomination process or does the calendar give some types of voters more influence than others? [If MORE INFLUENCE: Is that a lot more influence or just a little more?] Jan.
2020 Gives all an equal voice 38% Some have a lot more influence 18% Some have a little more influence 17% Some have more influence, not sure how much 12% (VOL) Don’t know 15% (n) (404)
8. Do you think it would be a good idea or bad idea to allow one or two other states to hold their presidential primary on the same day as New Hampshire? Jan.
2020 Good idea 46% Bad idea 31% (VOL) Depends 7% (VOL) Don’t know 15% (n) (404)
METHODOLOGY
The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from January 3 to 7, 2020 with a statewide random sample of 697 New Hampshire voters drawn from a list of registered voters who participated in a primary or general election in the past two election cycles. This includes 313 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 384 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 404 voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample is weighted for party registration, age, gender, race, and education based on state voter registration list information and U.S. Census information (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For results based on the sample of likely Democratic primary voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted) Party Registration 58% Democrat 42% None Self-Reported Party 50% Democrat 50% Other, independent 44% Male 56% Female 14% 18-34 17% 35-49 33% 50-64 35% 65+ 95% White, non-Hispanic 5% Other race, Hispanic 46% No degree 54% 4 year degree
Click on pdf file link below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Fitness Trainer Jillian Michaels Under Fire for Opposing Obesity

When I was 12 years old , I weighed over 180 lbs .
I was 5 ’ 2 ” .
Yeah — I was quite overweight , and it posed a serious problem for my health .
I didn ’ t feel good about it .
The occasional nastiness about my weight I got from friends and some family members certainly didn ’ t help matters .
But I knew it was more than just in my head .
My obesity was not only unattractive but also unhealthy .
Anyone who told me it was okay would have been doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be healthy drove me to start eating better , take up sports , and shed most of my excess weight over the next few years .
That was a decade ago — and it 's probably a good thing I did it then .
In our current `` woke '' culture , even obesity is to be glorified .
Had I faced my struggle today , I might have been told by someone that my overweight body was “ beautiful ” and “ fierce.
” Who knows if my health would ever have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d surmise from this latest controversy Buzzfeed has stirred up with their interview of former Biggest Loser host and fitness guru Jillian Michaels .
The interviewer asked Michaels , who literally hosted a show helping overweight people lose weight , a question basically saying , isn ’ t it great that the pop star Lizzo shows off her obese body and slays !
!
In the least surprising answer ever , Michaels said , well … no .
`` Why are we celebrating her body ?
Why does it matter ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
'Cause it is n't gon na be awesome if she gets diabetes , '' Michaels .
“ I ’ m just being honest .
I love her music , my kid loves her music , but there ’ s never a moment when I ’ m like , ‘ I ’ m so glad she ’ s overweight.
’ Why do I even care ?
Why is it my job to care about her weight ?
” So yeah , Michaels refused to glorify obesity .
For this apparent thought-crime , Michaels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left .
Lizzo is a talented singer .
She is also obese — and not just a little bit — which makes her unhealthy .
She absolutely does not deserve an ounce of shame or cruelty for her weight , but it is immoral to glorify such unhealthiness , especially amid a national with obesity rates reaching 40 % .
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost to heart disease and other obesity-related illnesses , which are probably the main driver behind most of our nation 's healthcare crisis .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obesity puts individuals at risk for many of the leading causes of death , including heart disease , stroke , some types of cancer , respiratory diseases , diabetes and kidney disease .
Obesity costs the U.S. about $ 147 billion in medical expenses each year . ''
What next ?
Are we going to start praising people for smoking cigarettes ?
It is not compassion , but cruelty , to pretend that obesity is perfectly fine , let alone worthy of celebration .
Whether we like it or not , pop stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of young people .
When we pretend that their obesity is not a problem or bizarrely delude ourselves into saying it ’ s “ beautiful , ” it only encourages an entire generation of kids like me to grow up and never make the tough choices they need to make to be healthy .
And no , this is not about shaming Lizzo or making anyone feel bad about their body .
That ’ s never called for , and it ’ s not productive .
While standing her ground , Michaels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to the backlash .
Here ’ s what she said : She ’ s right .
Internet lefties can insist all they want that fat is not unhealthy , but it is just one more anti-science lie .
Michaels deserves credit , not condemnation , for refusing to bend at the altar of woke “ body positivity ” politics when people ’ s lives are on the line .

When I was 12 years old, I weighed over 180 lbs. I was 5’2”.
Yeah — I was quite overweight, and it posed a serious problem for my health.
I didn’t feel good about it. The occasional nastiness about my weight I got from friends and some family members certainly didn’t help matters. But I knew it was more than just in my head. My obesity was not only unattractive but also unhealthy. Anyone who told me it was okay would have been doing me a disservice.
A desire to be healthy drove me to start eating better, take up sports, and shed most of my excess weight over the next few years. That was a decade ago — and it's probably a good thing I did it then. In our current "woke" culture, even obesity is to be glorified. Had I faced my struggle today, I might have been told by someone that my overweight body was “beautiful” and “fierce.” Who knows if my health would ever have actually improved?
That’s what you’d surmise from this latest controversy Buzzfeed has stirred up with their interview of former Biggest Loser host and fitness guru Jillian Michaels. The interviewer asked Michaels, who literally hosted a show helping overweight people lose weight, a question basically saying, isn’t it great that the pop star Lizzo shows off her obese body and slays!!
In the least surprising answer ever, Michaels said, well … no.
"Why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? Why aren't we celebrating her music? 'Cause it isn't gonna be awesome if she gets diabetes," Michaels said . “I’m just being honest. I love her music, my kid loves her music, but there’s never a moment when I’m like, ‘I’m so glad she’s overweight.’ Why do I even care? Why is it my job to care about her weight?”
So yeah, Michaels refused to glorify obesity. For this apparent thought-crime, Michaels has been savaged by the woke online Left.
What I was going to say here is that Lizzo has been incredibly important in giving so many of us a possibility model for accepting our bodies as we are and celebrating bodies that are normally ridiculed. Had to restrain myself from defending Lizzo's honor! https://t.co/UH2k5MulWo — Alex Berg (@itsalexberg) January 8, 2020
People who have incredibly deep-seated self-hatred and have spun it into a "fitness" empire are particularly inclined to say shit like this. Jillian Michaels has successfully projected her body dysmorphia outwards for years and made a ton of cash off it. https://t.co/ui19darO7J — Sara Benincasa (@SaraJBenincasa) January 8, 2020
Jillian Michaels needs to stfu and leave BW’s bodies alone. Fat =/= unhealthy. And thin doesn’t mean healthy.
People wanna talk body positivity until a BW actually embraces her body shamelessly. https://t.co/dvp9iC7RkK — #FattyInLove Jillian Michael’s Nightmare (@4WheelWorkOut) January 8, 2020
Lizzo is a talented singer. She is also obese — and not just a little bit — which makes her unhealthy. She absolutely does not deserve an ounce of shame or cruelty for her weight, but it is immoral to glorify such unhealthiness, especially amid a national obesity crisis, with obesity rates reaching 40%.
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost to heart disease and other obesity-related illnesses, which are probably the main driver behind most of our nation's healthcare crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control, "Obesity puts individuals at risk for many of the leading causes of death, including heart disease, stroke, some types of cancer, respiratory diseases, diabetes and kidney disease. Obesity costs the U.S. about $147 billion in medical expenses each year."
What next? Are we going to start praising people for smoking cigarettes?
It is not compassion, but cruelty, to pretend that obesity is perfectly fine, let alone worthy of celebration. Whether we like it or not, pop stars such as Lizzo are role models for millions of young people. When we pretend that their obesity is not a problem or bizarrely delude ourselves into saying it’s “beautiful,” it only encourages an entire generation of kids like me to grow up and never make the tough choices they need to make to be healthy.
And no, this is not about shaming Lizzo or making anyone feel bad about their body. That’s never called for, and it’s not productive. While standing her ground, Michaels made this clear in a tweet put out in response to the backlash. Here’s what she said:
As I’ve stated repeatedly, we are all beautiful, worthy, and equally deserving. I also feel strongly that we love ourselves enough to acknowledge there are serious health consequences that come with obesity - heart disease, diabetes, cancer to name only a few. I would never wish these for ANYONE and I would hope we prioritize our health because we LOVE ourselves and our bodies.
She’s right. Internet lefties can insist all they want that fat is not unhealthy, but it is just one more anti-science lie. Michaels deserves credit, not condemnation, for refusing to bend at the altar of woke “body positivity” politics when people’s lives are on the line.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Virginia’s Gun Sanctuary Movement Has At Least 100,000 People Ready to Fight Gun Control

Some 100,000 Virginia gun owners who have rallied at county and town meetings for “ gun sanctuaries ” on Thursday began “ bombarding ” state Democratic lawmakers eager to use their new majority in Richmond to push through new restrictions and bans .
“ Now it ’ s time .
Now we ’ re going to melt down their phones , explode their inboxes on their email .
We ’ re going to bombard them more than they ’ ve been bombarded , ” said Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which is leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he issued an “ alert ” to supporters to start lobbying lawmakers in Richmond against gun control .
He said that the new anti-gun laws from Democrats are “ pouring in like a waterfall.
” Later this month , his group is also organizing its annual “ lobbying day ” that is expected to draw dozens of buses full of supporters from around Virginia as well as from 13 states as far away as Texas , Florida , and Connecticut .
“ They picked a fight with a set of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re tired of being the whipping boy .
Every time somebody shoots up a bunch of people in a gun-free zone , they come after us , and we ’ re tired of it .
We ’ re fed up , and we 're not giving up any more .
We ’ re not the problem , ” he told Secrets .
Van Cleave ’ s group and another organization , Gun Owners of America , have helped to spark a pro-gun movement in Virginia that did not exist before Democrats swept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months since , they led the sanctuary movement that has won approval in 94 % of the state .
He estimated that over 100,000 gun supporters have flooded into those county and state meetings held to debate gun control and sanctuaries .
And now , he expects those and more to respond to his alert and target pro-gun control lawmakers .
`` We want their phones to melt down , '' said the alert , adding , `` Let 's roll ! ''
Van Cleave told Secrets that the movement in Virginia grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been one of the most pro-gun and those who took that for granted were rocked awake by the new bid to impose gun controls , including bans on modern sporting rifles and a universal background check .
“ It was different when it hit Virginia , ” he said .
“ Virginia had been a very free state for a long time .
This is where freedom started , and it ’ s ironic that this is coming here , and I think that ’ s another reason that people are looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and … we ’ ll be damned if it ends here , ” he added .

Some 100,000 Virginia gun owners who have rallied at county and town meetings for “gun sanctuaries” on Thursday began “bombarding” state Democratic lawmakers eager to use their new majority in Richmond to push through new restrictions and bans.
“Now it’s time. Now we’re going to melt down their phones, explode their inboxes on their email. We’re going to bombard them more than they’ve been bombarded,” said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which is leading the gun sanctuary movement.
On Thursday, he issued an “alert” to supporters to start lobbying lawmakers in Richmond against gun control. He said that the new anti-gun laws from Democrats are “pouring in like a waterfall.”
Later this month, his group is also organizing its annual “lobbying day” that is expected to draw dozens of buses full of supporters from around Virginia as well as from 13 states as far away as Texas, Florida, and Connecticut.
Latest map with 124 sanctuaries. I never realized how much I like green! So do the red and blue areas underneath 😎 pic.twitter.com/wnOQ3KaG5S — Phil Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) January 8, 2020
“They picked a fight with a set of people who are tired of it. We’re tired of being the whipping boy. Every time somebody shoots up a bunch of people in a gun-free zone, they come after us, and we’re tired of it. We’re fed up, and we're not giving up any more. We’re not the problem,” he told Secrets.
Van Cleave’s group and another organization, Gun Owners of America, have helped to spark a pro-gun movement in Virginia that did not exist before Democrats swept the November 2019 elections.
In the two months since, they led the sanctuary movement that has won approval in 94% of the state. He estimated that over 100,000 gun supporters have flooded into those county and state meetings held to debate gun control and sanctuaries.
And now, he expects those and more to respond to his alert and target pro-gun control lawmakers. "We want their phones to melt down," said the alert, adding, "Let's roll!"
Van Cleave told Secrets that the movement in Virginia grew fast in part because the state had been one of the most pro-gun and those who took that for granted were rocked awake by the new bid to impose gun controls, including bans on modern sporting rifles and a universal background check.
“It was different when it hit Virginia,” he said. “Virginia had been a very free state for a long time. This is where freedom started, and it’s ironic that this is coming here, and I think that’s another reason that people are looking at Virginia, saying our freedom started here and … we’ll be damned if it ends here,” he added.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles “Probably Soon”

Nancy Pelosi says she 'll stop holding out on sending impeachment articles when she 's 'ready ' : 'That will @ @ @ @ @ getting tired of it

Despite criticisms from both sides of the aisle, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) still won't say specifically when she plans to send the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump over to the Senate for a trial.
Pelosi said during a press briefing with reporters Thursday that she doesn't plan to hold onto the articles of impeachment indefinitely, but that she'll send them to the Senate "when I'm ready," which "will probably be soon."
The speaker followed up her answer with a reiteration of her desire to see what a potential Senate process would look like before sending the articles over.
"We want to see what they're willing to do and the manner in which they will do it," Pelosi said.
Pelosi's statement is the latest development — or lack thereof — in the ongoing stalemate between congressional leaders of the House and Senate over when a Senate impeachment trial will begin and how it will be conducted. For weeks, Pelosi has refused to transmit the articles of impeachment and the House impeachment managers — who act as prosecutors — to the Senate, citing concerns over how the terms of the trial will be structured.
On the other side of things, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has declared that the Senate cannot begin working on a trial until the House sends the matter over and has called the idea of Pelosi dictating terms a "fantasy" and a "non-starter."
Earlier this week, McConnell announced that Senate Republicans had sufficient votes to agree to "phase one" of a trial without having to accept Democrats' demands on the process.
Pelosi later responded with a statement saying that the process under consideration "designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony" that Democrats want brought in during the course trial, and called on McConnell to put his proposal in writing so "we can see the arena in which we will be participating."
And while it still has no clear end in sight, Pelosi's ongoing impeachment holdout tactic has drawn criticism from members of both parties. Earlier this week, the delay prompted some of the upper chamber's Republicans to sign on to an effort to amend the Senate's impeachment rules to allow members of the chamber to dismiss the matter "for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles" if they aren't sent to the Senate within 25 calendar days after being voted on.
On the other side of the aisle, multiple Senate Democrats have started to say that it's time for Pelosi to let the Senate take over on the issue.
"The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes," Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. "So if it's serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn't, don't send it over."
One congressional Democrat, however, has changed his tune since coming out against Pelosi's impeachment stall, and did so fairly quickly. Within a few hours of saying that it was time to send the matter to the Senate, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (Wash.) backtracked and tweeted that he "misspoke."
"If the Speaker believes that holding on to the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate, then I wholeheartedly support that decision," he tweeted.


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--CNN Pays Out $76 Million in Union-Busting Case

CNN agreed to pay out $ 76 million in back pay to settle a lawsuit that alleged union busting by the cable network after it fired 200 camera operators rather than dealing with the union that claimed to represent them .
The National Labor Relations Board , the main federal labor law enforcement agency , announced the settlement Friday .
The case is the single largest monetary settlement in the agency 's history .
The case dates back to 2003 , when CNN canceled a contract with a company called Team Video Services , whose workers were members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Communications Workers of America .
The workers alleged that the contract was canceled because of the union connection , and the agency agreed .
`` CNN sought to operate as a nonunion workplace and conveyed to the workers that their prior employment with TVS and union affiliation disqualified them from employment , '' the agency said .
“ After more than 15 years , this settlement agreement finally delivers justice for workers who experienced serious hardship in their lives due to CNN ’ s union-busting practices , ” said NABET-CWA President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never the camera operators ' employer but rather that it merely contracted with the company that was .
The NLRB ruled against CNN in 2014 , and a federal appeals court affirmed the ruling in 2017 , calling CNN the camera operators ' `` successor employer . ''
The settlement amount in the case is more than what the NLRB collects in a typical year .
The case turned on the question of whether a company that contracts with another can be held liable for the latter 's employment policies , a legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Traditionally , federal labor law says they can , if they have `` direct control '' over the workplaces .
Joint employer became a hot issue under President Barack Obama when his administration attempted to expand the definition to the much vaguer standard of `` indirect control . ''
The Trump administration has since moved to roll back the legal standard .
A representative of CNN could not be reached for comment .

CNN agreed to pay out $76 million in back pay to settle a lawsuit that alleged union busting by the cable network after it fired 200 camera operators rather than dealing with the union that claimed to represent them.
The National Labor Relations Board, the main federal labor law enforcement agency, announced the settlement Friday. The case is the single largest monetary settlement in the agency's history.
The case dates back to 2003, when CNN canceled a contract with a company called Team Video Services, whose workers were members of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians and the Communications Workers of America.
The workers alleged that the contract was canceled because of the union connection, and the agency agreed. "CNN sought to operate as a nonunion workplace and conveyed to the workers that their prior employment with TVS and union affiliation disqualified them from employment," the agency said.
“After more than 15 years, this settlement agreement finally delivers justice for workers who experienced serious hardship in their lives due to CNN’s union-busting practices,” said NABET-CWA President Charlie Braico.
CNN argued it was never the camera operators' employer but rather that it merely contracted with the company that was. The NLRB ruled against CNN in 2014, and a federal appeals court affirmed the ruling in 2017, calling CNN the camera operators' "successor employer."
The settlement amount in the case is more than what the NLRB collects in a typical year.
The case turned on the question of whether a company that contracts with another can be held liable for the latter's employment policies, a legal doctrine known as "joint employer." Traditionally, federal labor law says they can, if they have "direct control" over the workplaces.
Joint employer became a hot issue under President Barack Obama when his administration attempted to expand the definition to the much vaguer standard of "indirect control." The Trump administration has since moved to roll back the legal standard.
A representative of CNN could not be reached for comment.


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--Trump Considering Expanding Travel Ban

Trump Considering Expanding Travel Ban

US President Donald Trump speaks during a `` Keep America Great '' campaign rally at Huntington Center in Toledo , Ohio , on January 9 , 2020 .
The White House is considering expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration issues by President Donald Trump , according to four people familiar with the deliberations .
A document outlining the plans has been circulating the White House , but the countries that would be affected are blacked out , according to two of the people , who spoke on condition of anonymity because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The expanded ban could cover several countries that were included when Trump announced the first iteration of the ban by executive order in January 2017 but were later removed amid rounds of litigation .
Iraq , Sudan and Chad , for instance , had originally been affected by the order ; the Supreme Court upheld a watered-down version of it by a 5-4 vote .
The most recent iteration of the ban includes restrictions on five majority-Muslim nations : Iran , Libya , Somalia , Syria and Yemen , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House did not immediately respond to questions about the effort , which appeared timed for release in conjunction with the third anniversary of Trump 's first travel ban , which was announced on Jan. 27 , 2017 .
That ban sparked an uproar , with massive protests across the nation against what many derided as a `` Muslim ban '' and chaos at airports , where passengers were detained .

US President Donald Trump speaks during a "Keep America Great" campaign rally at Huntington Center in Toledo, Ohio, on January 9, 2020.
The White House is considering expanding its much-litigated travel ban to additional countries amid a renewed election-year focus on immigration issues by President Donald Trump, according to four people familiar with the deliberations.
A document outlining the plans has been circulating the White House, but the countries that would be affected are blacked out, according to two of the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the measure has yet to be finalized.
The expanded ban could cover several countries that were included when Trump announced the first iteration of the ban by executive order in January 2017 but were later removed amid rounds of litigation. Iraq, Sudan and Chad, for instance, had originally been affected by the order; the Supreme Court upheld a watered-down version of it by a 5-4 vote.
The most recent iteration of the ban includes restrictions on five majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as Venezuela and North Korea.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the effort, which appeared timed for release in conjunction with the third anniversary of Trump's first travel ban, which was announced on Jan. 27, 2017.
That ban sparked an uproar, with massive protests across the nation against what many derided as a "Muslim ban" and chaos at airports, where passengers were detained.


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--(Video) CNN: Trump’s Booming Economy, Low Unemployment Rate a “Very Good Calling Card” for 2020

CNN ’ s John King illustrates how President Donald Trump ’ s booming economy and low unemployment rates , including @ @ @ @ @ a “ good calling card ” for 2020 .
Be sure to like the video @ @ @ @ @ the latest on the Democrats ’ hypocrisy , media bias and punditry , and coverage @ @ @ @ @ accomplishments : http : //www.youtube.com/subscription_c ...
Already subscribed ?
Be sure to click the YouTube @ @ @ @ @ notified each time we upload a new video .
****** Follow Us !
Official RNC @ @ @ @ @ regularly updated blog posts from RNC Research , visit gop.com/research/ # RNCResearch # MAGA # @

Please update your browser
Your browser isn’t supported anymore. Update it to get the best YouTube experience and our latest features. Learn more


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--Trump Indicates He Would Invoke Executive Privilege to Prevent Bolton From Testifying

President Donald Trump said in a new interview on Fox News ’ “ The Ingraham Angle ” that he would use executive privilege to prevent former White House aide John Bolton from testifying in an impeachment trial .
“ Why not call Bolton ?
Why not allow him to testify ?
This thing is bogus .
Why not allow Bolton to testify ?
” Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham asked in a recent interview set to air 10 PM Friday .
“ No problem other than one thing , ” Trump said .
“ You can ’ t be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m talking about future…any future presidents- and have a security advisor , anybody having to do with security , and legal and other things but especially… ” ( RELATED : Tucker Takes Aim At ‘ Bureaucratic Tapeworm ’ John Bolton For Fomenting War With Iran ) “ Are you going to invoke executive privilege ?
” Ingraham said .
“ Well I think you have to for the sake of the office , ” the president responded .
Bolton ‘ s possible testimony in the impeachment trial of Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the probe was opened by Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi in this fall .
( RELATED : Bolton Contradicts Trump On Syria Withdrawal ) The former UN ambassador said in a statement this week that he was “ prepared to testify ” if he was subpoenaed in a Senate trail .
( RELATED : NBC News Legal Analyst : John Bolton Needs To ‘ Woman Up ’ And Testify In Impeachment Hearing ) Bolton has made a number of cryptic comments since getting fired from the White House , such as saying in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security priorities is under attack from within.
” ( RELATED : Tucker Carlson Blasts Neocon ‘ Non-Geniuses Like Max Boot And John Bolton , ’ Makes The Case Against War With Iran )

President Donald Trump said in a new interview on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that he would use executive privilege to prevent former White House aide John Bolton from testifying in an impeachment trial.
“Why not call Bolton? Why not allow him to testify? This thing is bogus. Why not allow Bolton to testify?” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham asked in a recent interview set to air 10 PM Friday.
“No problem other than one thing,” Trump said. “You can’t be in the White House as president, future, I’m talking about future…any future presidents- and have a security advisor, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things but especially…” (RELATED: Tucker Takes Aim At ‘Bureaucratic Tapeworm’ John Bolton For Fomenting War With Iran)
“Are you going to invoke executive privilege?” Ingraham said.
“Well I think you have to for the sake of the office,” the president responded.
Bolton‘s possible testimony in the impeachment trial of Trump has become the subject of much scrutiny since the probe was opened by Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi in this fall. (RELATED: Bolton Contradicts Trump On Syria Withdrawal)
The former UN ambassador said in a statement this week that he was “prepared to testify” if he was subpoenaed in a Senate trail. (RELATED: NBC News Legal Analyst: John Bolton Needs To ‘Woman Up’ And Testify In Impeachment Hearing)
Bolton has made a number of cryptic comments since getting fired from the White House, such as saying in November that America’s “national security priorities is under attack from within.” (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Blasts Neocon ‘Non-Geniuses Like Max Boot And John Bolton,’ Makes The Case Against War With Iran)


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--At Least Five States Move to Stop Biological Men From Competing as Girls in Sports

Since this issue doesn ’ t appear to be going away any time soon and the federal government doesn ’ t seem inclined to deal with it , a number of states are attempting to take matters into their own hands this year .
The subject at hand is transgender students who “ identify ” as females competing in girls ’ high school sports .
It ’ s a topic we ’ ve discussed here often , but solutions that would prevent the utter implosion of competitive women ’ s sports have been hard to come by .
That may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , however .
As the Wall Street Journal reports , multiple states are working to pass legislation restricting girls ’ high school sports to actual girls .
The protests will be loud and frequent , but at least somebody is trying to do something .
More statehouses are wading into the contentious debate over the participation of transgender athletes in men ’ s and women ’ s sports .
In recent weeks , Republican legislators in at least five states have drafted measures aimed at preventing athletes from competing in categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they are specifically concerned about female athletes facing unfair competition .
The bills—introduced or prefiled in New Hampshire , Washington , Georgia , Tennessee and Missouri—reflect growing attention around the issue of whether transgender-rights protections are leading to unfair competition in women ’ s sports .
Policies regulating the eligibility of transgender high-school athletes are usually set by school associations and vary .
In about a third of states , transgender students can freely compete on teams of the gender they identify with , according to transathlete.com , which tracks athletics policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see New Hampshire and Washington on the list , but apparently they ’ ve been keeping an eye on the news and want to head these problems off at the pass .
Georgia , Tennessee and Missouri should have less trouble passing their laws , but they will then have to survive the inevitable court challenges to come .
I ’ m not exactly sure why the restrictions have to go in both directions .
If a girl wants to compete against the boys , particularly in cases where smaller schools may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some sports , I don ’ t see the harm in letting them try .
In fact , it can cause an entirely different set of problems if you forbid them .
The clearest example of that would be Mack Beggs from Texas .
She was “ transitioning ” to become a boy in eleventh grade and taking testosterone supplements .
Because of state laws already in place , she had to compete in the girls ’ division despite having asked to be allowed to compete against the boys .
She easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a row .
I don ’ t know if Beggs would have been able to compete at the top level against the boys , but that ’ s really not the issue here .
The point is that it ’ s just as unfair to make the rest of the girls compete against a female classmate who is bulking up on testosterone as it is to make them compete against a boy .
For only one of many examples of the latter , look no further than Connecticut .
Two boys “ identifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track and field events for two years running , resulting in a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the actual girls who were shut out .
Assuming any or all of these pending state-level bills are passed , they will end up on a direct collision course with the federal government if the Democrats retake control of the Senate and the White House and pass the Equality Act .
That would codify the ability of these gender-bending competitors to cross the line all across the nation .
And that would basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sports as we know it today .
As a reminder , consistent polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose allowing transgender girls to compete against actual girls in sporting events while less than one-third support the idea .
And yet somehow the practice continues to proliferate .
None of this touches on the question of whether or not doctors who distort the bodies of children with foreign hormones or postpone the natural onset of puberty using drugs should be prosecuted , but that ’ s a debate for another day .

Since this issue doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon and the federal government doesn’t seem inclined to deal with it, a number of states are attempting to take matters into their own hands this year. The subject at hand is transgender students who “identify” as females competing in girls’ high school sports. It’s a topic we’ve discussed here often, but solutions that would prevent the utter implosion of competitive women’s sports have been hard to come by.
That may be changing in at least some locations in 2020, however. As the Wall Street Journal reports, multiple states are working to pass legislation restricting girls’ high school sports to actual girls. The protests will be loud and frequent, but at least somebody is trying to do something.
More statehouses are wading into the contentious debate over the participation of transgender athletes in men’s and women’s sports. In recent weeks, Republican legislators in at least five states have drafted measures aimed at preventing athletes from competing in categories different than their biological sex. Lawmakers say they are specifically concerned about female athletes facing unfair competition. The bills—introduced or prefiled in New Hampshire, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri—reflect growing attention around the issue of whether transgender-rights protections are leading to unfair competition in women’s sports. Policies regulating the eligibility of transgender high-school athletes are usually set by school associations and vary. In about a third of states, transgender students can freely compete on teams of the gender they identify with, according to transathlete.com, which tracks athletics policies nationwide.
I was a little surprised to see New Hampshire and Washington on the list, but apparently they’ve been keeping an eye on the news and want to head these problems off at the pass. Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri should have less trouble passing their laws, but they will then have to survive the inevitable court challenges to come.
I’m not exactly sure why the restrictions have to go in both directions. If a girl wants to compete against the boys, particularly in cases where smaller schools may not have a competitive program for girls in some sports, I don’t see the harm in letting them try. In fact, it can cause an entirely different set of problems if you forbid them. The clearest example of that would be Mack Beggs from Texas. She was “transitioning” to become a boy in eleventh grade and taking testosterone supplements. Because of state laws already in place, she had to compete in the girls’ division despite having asked to be allowed to compete against the boys. She easily won the state championship two years in a row.
I don’t know if Beggs would have been able to compete at the top level against the boys, but that’s really not the issue here. The point is that it’s just as unfair to make the rest of the girls compete against a female classmate who is bulking up on testosterone as it is to make them compete against a boy. For only one of many examples of the latter, look no further than Connecticut. Two boys “identifying” as girls swept the competition in track and field events for two years running, resulting in a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the actual girls who were shut out.
Assuming any or all of these pending state-level bills are passed, they will end up on a direct collision course with the federal government if the Democrats retake control of the Senate and the White House and pass the Equality Act. That would codify the ability of these gender-bending competitors to cross the line all across the nation. And that would basically spell the end of competitive women’s sports as we know it today.
As a reminder, consistent polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose allowing transgender girls to compete against actual girls in sporting events while less than one-third support the idea. And yet somehow the practice continues to proliferate. None of this touches on the question of whether or not doctors who distort the bodies of children with foreign hormones or postpone the natural onset of puberty using drugs should be prosecuted, but that’s a debate for another day.


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--Trump Administration Asks SCOTUS To Hold Off on ObamaCare Decision Until After Election

The Department of Justice does n't want the Supreme Court to fast-track a case that could result in Obamacare being thrown out ahead of the presidential election , despite its position that the healthcare law should be abolished .
If the court agrees with the Trump administration , then President Trump and Republicans will be spared the possibility of having to come up with an Obamacare replacement in the middle of campaigning .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco spelled out the Trump administration 's argument on Friday in a letter written at the high court 's request .
Democratic states have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a challenge to Obamacare before the lower courts are done litigating it , saying that the law remains too much in limbo for patients and healthcare providers .
But the Trump administration disagreed , saying that a decision from the Supreme Court on Obamacare would be `` premature '' and that lower court decisions created `` no present , real-world emergency . ''
Francisco wrote that the Supreme Court should let the lower courts deliberate on Obamacare before taking it up .
`` The accelerated review petitioners seek is unnecessary , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear the case , a decision on whether parts or all of Obamacare can be struck down would land just ahead of the 2020 presidential election .
Such a timeline would allow Democrats to draw attention away from proposals such as `` Medicare for all '' and toward the future of Obamacare , a topic that has proven politically advantageous for Democrats in the Trump era .
They have particularly highlighted its popular provisions that prohibit insurers from turning away sick people or charging them more than healthy people .
The case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of a lawsuit by Republican state officials who said that Obamacare must be struck down because the 2017 GOP tax overhaul zeroed out the healthcare law 's fine on the uninsured .
Republicans , who had the support of the Trump administration , said the fine had been central to Obamacare and that the rest of its provisions would not work and should not stand without it .
Judge Reed O'Connor , who was appointed by President George W. Bush , agreed with the GOP states , but the case was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeals .
On Dec. 18 , the judges ruled 2-1 that the health insurance mandate was unconstitutional but that the rest of the law needed further analysis by the lower courts to see whether some parts could be separated out and others could not .
Republican state officials , despite wanting the law to be struck down in court , agreed with the Trump administration in their own letter to the Supreme Court that the justices should n't take up the case now .
The letter arrived after the Trump administration 's , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court .
`` There may come a day when this court ’ s review is appropriate , '' but only after the lower courts decide on the case , the officials wrote .

The Department of Justice doesn't want the Supreme Court to fast-track a case that could result in Obamacare being thrown out ahead of the presidential election, despite its position that the healthcare law should be abolished.
If the court agrees with the Trump administration, then President Trump and Republicans will be spared the possibility of having to come up with an Obamacare replacement in the middle of campaigning.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco spelled out the Trump administration's argument on Friday in a letter written at the high court's request. Democratic states have asked the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to Obamacare before the lower courts are done litigating it, saying that the law remains too much in limbo for patients and healthcare providers.
But the Trump administration disagreed, saying that a decision from the Supreme Court on Obamacare would be "premature" and that lower court decisions created "no present, real-world emergency." Francisco wrote that the Supreme Court should let the lower courts deliberate on Obamacare before taking it up.
"The accelerated review petitioners seek is unnecessary," he wrote.
Should the court decide to hear the case, a decision on whether parts or all of Obamacare can be struck down would land just ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Such a timeline would allow Democrats to draw attention away from proposals such as "Medicare for all" and toward the future of Obamacare, a topic that has proven politically advantageous for Democrats in the Trump era. They have particularly highlighted its popular provisions that prohibit insurers from turning away sick people or charging them more than healthy people.
The case in question, Texas v. Azar, is the result of a lawsuit by Republican state officials who said that Obamacare must be struck down because the 2017 GOP tax overhaul zeroed out the healthcare law's fine on the uninsured. Republicans, who had the support of the Trump administration, said the fine had been central to Obamacare and that the rest of its provisions would not work and should not stand without it.
Judge Reed O'Connor, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed with the GOP states, but the case was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 18, the judges ruled 2-1 that the health insurance mandate was unconstitutional but that the rest of the law needed further analysis by the lower courts to see whether some parts could be separated out and others could not.
Republican state officials, despite wanting the law to be struck down in court, agreed with the Trump administration in their own letter to the Supreme Court that the justices shouldn't take up the case now. The letter arrived after the Trump administration's, around the 4 p.m. deadline set by the court.
"There may come a day when this court’s review is appropriate," but only after the lower courts decide on the case, the officials wrote.


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--High School Dropout Shames “Older Generations” Over Climate Change

In an op-ed published days before political and business leaders meet at the annual Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland , 17-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg blasted `` older generations '' for not moving quickly to meet her demands for nation 's to `` completely divest from fossil fuels . ''
`` Young people are being let down by older generations and those in power , '' wrote the Swedish teenager in the Guardian .
`` To some it may seem like we are asking for a lot .
But this is just the very minimum of effort needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that this still — in 2020 — hasn ’ t been done already is , quite frankly , a disgrace . ''
Thunberg apologized in December after stating that world leaders should be put `` against the wall '' if they refuse to meet her demands on environmental policy .
`` We demand that at this year ’ s forum , participants from all companies , banks , institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction , immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added Thunberg .
Time magazine named Thunberg their `` Person of the Year '' in 2019 , and the teenager came in second to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in Nobel Peace Prize voting last year .
Thunberg recently got into a Twitter spat with rocker Meat Loaf after the Texas singer called her `` brainwashed . ''
Thunberg posted a link to her opinion piece on Twitter Friday , warning adults not to `` twist '' her words because child climate activists `` live under constant threat just for communicating the situation @ @ @ @ @

In an op-ed published days before political and business leaders meet at the annual Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland, 17-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg blasted "older generations" for not moving quickly to meet her demands for nation's to "completely divest from fossil fuels."
"Young people are being let down by older generations and those in power," wrote the Swedish teenager in the Guardian. "To some it may seem like we are asking for a lot. But this is just the very minimum of effort needed to start the rapid sustainable transition. The fact that this still — in 2020 — hasn’t been done already is, quite frankly, a disgrace."
Thunberg apologized in December after stating that world leaders should be put "against the wall" if they refuse to meet her demands on environmental policy.
"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels," added Thunberg.
Time magazine named Thunberg their "Person of the Year" in 2019, and the teenager came in second to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in Nobel Peace Prize voting last year. Thunberg recently got into a Twitter spat with rocker Meat Loaf after the Texas singer called her "brainwashed."
Thunberg posted a link to her opinion piece on Twitter Friday, warning adults not to "twist" her words because child climate activists "live under constant threat just for communicating the situation we are in."


bonginoreport--2020-01-10--The Average Unemployment Rate Under Trump Is the Lowest in Recorded History

President Trump starts off 2020 having presided over a lower average unemployment rate than any president at a comparable point in office in recorded history .
On Friday , the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate held steady at a historically low 3.5 % in December .
Since February 2017 , Trump 's first full month in office , the monthly unemployment rate has averaged 3.9 % .
No prior president has averaged less than 4 % over the first 35 months of his presidency .
The closest was Dwight Eisenhower , when the rate averaged 4.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Modern unemployment statistics did not start being kept until 1948 , after Harry Truman 's first 35 months in office , so this analysis only starts with Eisenhower .
Nonetheless , it does point to the unprecedented nature of this consistently low level of unemployment .
To be sure , this statistic is n't predictive of the election outcome .
The economy is only one of many factors that voters use to evaluate incumbent presidents .
Also , voters tend to weigh the trend of the economy , which is not reflected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George H.W .
Bush averaged lower unemployment during the first 35 months of his presidency than his predecessor , Ronald Reagan .
But the Reagan economy started weak , then expanded rapidly in the run-up to his reelection , whereas Bush inherited an economy in decent shape and was voted out of office when it had declined .
But Trump 's case is unique because he took over a recovering economy with unemployment already at 4.6 % , and the rate continued to go down and stay low .
So now he starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of consistently low unemployment that 's currently holding steady at 3.5 % .
It 's still possible the economy will decline in time for it to hurt Trump in the election .
And the Trump presidency has been polarizing for many other reasons .
Despite the economic news , more Americans still disapprove of his performance than approve of it .
Nevertheless , the job market has been objectively good under Trump , and it 's one factor that he has going for him even as other factors cut against him .

President Trump starts off 2020 having presided over a lower average unemployment rate than any president at a comparable point in office in recorded history.
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate held steady at a historically low 3.5% in December. Since February 2017, Trump's first full month in office, the monthly unemployment rate has averaged 3.9%. No prior president has averaged less than 4% over the first 35 months of his presidency. The closest was Dwight Eisenhower, when the rate averaged 4.3% between February 1953 and December 1955.
Modern unemployment statistics did not start being kept until 1948, after Harry Truman's first 35 months in office, so this analysis only starts with Eisenhower. Nonetheless, it does point to the unprecedented nature of this consistently low level of unemployment.
To be sure, this statistic isn't predictive of the election outcome. The economy is only one of many factors that voters use to evaluate incumbent presidents. Also, voters tend to weigh the trend of the economy, which is not reflected in the average. For instance, George H.W. Bush averaged lower unemployment during the first 35 months of his presidency than his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. But the Reagan economy started weak, then expanded rapidly in the run-up to his reelection, whereas Bush inherited an economy in decent shape and was voted out of office when it had declined.
But Trump's case is unique because he took over a recovering economy with unemployment already at 4.6%, and the rate continued to go down and stay low. So now he starts off his potential reelection year with a record of consistently low unemployment that's currently holding steady at 3.5%.
It's still possible the economy will decline in time for it to hurt Trump in the election. And the Trump presidency has been polarizing for many other reasons. Despite the economic news, more Americans still disapprove of his performance than approve of it. Nevertheless, the job market has been objectively good under Trump, and it's one factor that he has going for him even as other factors cut against him.


bonginoreport--2020-01-11--CNN: Well Actually, “Death to America” Doesn’t Mean What You Think

CNN anchor Erin Burnett said Thursday night that Iranian chants of “ death to America ” might not actually be “ seriously meant.
” Burnett made the remark while interviewing Republican Ohio Rep. Mike Turner , who brought up that “ Iran itself continues to have even its entire parliament chant death to America.
” “ I will say , I will say , I was in Tehran when they were chanting ‘ Death to America ’ once .
I was at a rally , the people couldn ’ t have been any friendlier to me personally as an American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing and a trope , as opposed to anything that actually was seriously meant and considered , ” Burnett replied .
“ I understand your point , but having been there my experience was quite different.
” Turner shot back that “ pretty much your entire life , Iran has chanted ‘ Death to America , ’ and they have taken actions against Americans , American interests , in ways that are lethal — killing Americans , giving weaponry to people who have intentioned and do kill Americans.
” ( RELATED : MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soldiers ) “ So it ’ s not just a slogan , ” Turner continued .
“ This obviously is something that Iran has systematically continued to do , it ’ s part of their seeking weapons of mass destruction , in their claim to want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
” Burnett wasn ’ t the only news anchor to make eyebrow-raising statements about Iran .
MSNBC anchor Katy Tur expressed amazement at the size of funeral crowds for deceased Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani .
Tur called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Iran ’ s authoritarian government , a “ stunning show of solidarity.
” She added that it “ seems President [ Donald ] Trump did what the Iranian government has been unable to do — unite the country.
” 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 .

CNN anchor Erin Burnett said Thursday night that Iranian chants of “death to America” might not actually be “seriously meant.”
Burnett made the remark while interviewing Republican Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, who brought up that “Iran itself continues to have even its entire parliament chant death to America.”
“I will say, I will say, I was in Tehran when they were chanting ‘Death to America’ once. I was at a rally, the people couldn’t have been any friendlier to me personally as an American. It sort of felt like a thing and a trope, as opposed to anything that actually was seriously meant and considered,” Burnett replied. “I understand your point, but having been there my experience was quite different.”
Turner shot back that “pretty much your entire life, Iran has chanted ‘Death to America,’ and they have taken actions against Americans, American interests, in ways that are lethal — killing Americans, giving weaponry to people who have intentioned and do kill Americans.” (RELATED: MSNBC Airs Baseless Iranian Propaganda About Dead US Soldiers)
“So it’s not just a slogan,” Turner continued. “This obviously is something that Iran has systematically continued to do, it’s part of their seeking weapons of mass destruction, in their claim to want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”
WATCH:
Burnett wasn’t the only news anchor to make eyebrow-raising statements about Iran.
MSNBC anchor Katy Tur expressed amazement at the size of funeral crowds for deceased Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani. Tur called the rallies, which reportedly included forced attendance by Iran’s authoritarian government, a “stunning show of solidarity.”
She added that it “seems President [Donald] Trump did what the Iranian government has been unable to do — unite the country.”
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--2020-01-11--For the First Time Ever, the Betting Odds Favor Bernie Sanders Becoming the Democrat Nominee

$6,014,519 bet so far
Democratic nominee for the Presidential election to be held on Nov 5 2024


bonginoreport--2020-01-11--Trump Threatens Iraq’s Access to Their Account at the New York Federal Reserve

President Donald J. Trump address to the nation from the Grand Foyer at the White House on Wednesday , Jan 08 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
President Trump said no Americans were killed or wounded when Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against two military bases in Iraq early Wednesday local time , marking the most significant Iranian attack in a growing conflict with the United States .
The Trump administration this week warned Iraq that it could lose access to its central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Baghdad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi officials told The Wall Street Journal .
The State Department 's warning follows the U.S. airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani , Iran 's top military commander and the face of the Islamic Republic 's interventions across the Middle East .
The strike led to Iraq 's parliament voting to force out American troops — a move some officials argued would hurt Iraq — and a counterstrike by Iran on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq last week .
Shutting down Iraq 's account at the Federal Reserve Bank of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial system .
The country puts its revenue from oil sales there , and takes out that money to pay government salaries and contracts .
The Fed held almost $ 3 billion in overnight deposits at the close of 2018 , according to the most recent financial statement from the Central Bank of Iraq .
President Trump threatened to place economic sanctions on Iraq after parliament voted to request that Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi oust about 5,300 American troops .
Those sanctions would also extend to Iran .
The White House could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country 's power , placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss .
Mahdi has argued that forcing out American troops is the only way to avoid conflict in Iraq .
He was warned about the central bank account in a call on Wednesday , an Iraqi official told The Journal .

President Donald J. Trump address to the nation from the Grand Foyer at the White House on Wednesday, Jan 08, 2020 in Washington, DC. President Trump said no Americans were killed or wounded when Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against two military bases in Iraq early Wednesday local time, marking the most significant Iranian attack in a growing conflict with the United States.
The Trump administration this week warned Iraq that it could lose access to its central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Baghdad expels American troops from the region, Iraqi officials told The Wall Street Journal.
The State Department's warning follows the U.S. airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top military commander and the face of the Islamic Republic's interventions across the Middle East.
The strike led to Iraq's parliament voting to force out American troops — a move some officials argued would hurt Iraq — and a counterstrike by Iran on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq last week.
Shutting down Iraq's account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York could be detrimental to its financial system. The country puts its revenue from oil sales there, and takes out that money to pay government salaries and contracts.
The Fed held almost $3 billion in overnight deposits at the close of 2018, according to the most recent financial statement from the Central Bank of Iraq.
President Trump threatened to place economic sanctions on Iraq after parliament voted to request that Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi oust about 5,300 American troops. Those sanctions would also extend to Iran.
The White House could also end waivers that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country's power, placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss.
Mahdi has argued that forcing out American troops is the only way to avoid conflict in Iraq. He was warned about the central bank account in a call on Wednesday, an Iraqi official told The Journal.


bonginoreport--2020-01-11--British Ambassador Detained in Iran for Allegedly “Inciting Protesters”

Hardliner Iranian websites on Saturday evening reported that the British ambassador in Tehran , Robert Macaire , was arrested by security forces `` amongst protesters '' .
According to these reports , the Iranian foreign ministry intervened and Macaire was released after a few hours .
Tasnim News Agency affiliated with Revolutionary Guard claimed that the British ambassador who was arrested for `` instigating and organizing suspicious activities in front of Amir Kabir University '' where a large protest rally was underway will be summoned to the foreign ministry tomorrow for further investigation .
Tasnim also claimed that a `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main place '' for the British ambassador 's purported activities .
Criticizing the foreign ministry for intervening to free the British ambassador a hardliner Twitter user tweeted : `` Do we have a foreign ministry or a British Interests Section ? ''
and posted a photo of the British ambassador allegedly showing Macaire after being detained .
Rahbord-e Moaser , a hardliner website , said the reason for Macaire 's arrest was `` instigating the crowd and taking photos of the protest '' .
According to a statement released on the website of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Dominic Raab said : The arrest of our Ambassador in Tehran without grounds or explanation is a flagrant violation of international law .
The Iranian government is at a cross-roads moment .
It can continue its march towards pariah status with all the political and economic isolation that entails , or take steps to deescalate tensions and engage in a diplomatic path forwards .
In 2009 during the unrest that followed a disputed election , Iran alleged that Iranian employees of the British embassy had played a role in the post-election protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy with espionage and acting against national security .
The Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blamed Britain for the unrest in his first speech after the announcement of the election results .
In November 2011 hardliner mobs that demanded the expulsion of the ambassador stormed the embassy and ransacked its offices .
The embassy closed and British diplomats went back home until diplomatic relations were re-established and the embassy opened again in 2015 .

Hardliner Iranian websites on Saturday evening reported that the British ambassador in Tehran, Robert Macaire, was arrested by security forces "amongst protesters". According to these reports, the Iranian foreign ministry intervened and Macaire was released after a few hours.
Tasnim News Agency affiliated with Revolutionary Guard claimed that the British ambassador who was arrested for "instigating and organizing suspicious activities in front of Amir Kabir University" where a large protest rally was underway will be summoned to the foreign ministry tomorrow for further investigation. Tasnim also claimed that a "shop opposite Amir Kabir University was the main place" for the British ambassador's purported activities.
Criticizing the foreign ministry for intervening to free the British ambassador a hardliner Twitter user tweeted: "Do we have a foreign ministry or a British Interests Section?" and posted a photo of the British ambassador allegedly showing Macaire after being detained.
Rahbord-e Moaser, a hardliner website, said the reason for Macaire's arrest was "instigating the crowd and taking photos of the protest".
According to a statement released on the website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said: The arrest of our Ambassador in Tehran without grounds or explanation is a flagrant violation of international law. The Iranian government is at a cross-roads moment. It can continue its march towards pariah status with all the political and economic isolation that entails, or take steps to deescalate tensions and engage in a diplomatic path forwards.
In 2009 during the unrest that followed a disputed election, Iran alleged that Iranian employees of the British embassy had played a role in the post-election protests and charged an Iranian employee of the embassy with espionage and acting against national security.
The Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blamed Britain for the unrest in his first speech after the announcement of the election results.
In November 2011 hardliner mobs that demanded the expulsion of the ambassador stormed the embassy and ransacked its offices. The embassy closed and British diplomats went back home until diplomatic relations were re-established and the embassy opened again in 2015.