bonginoreport--2020-01-14--Border Apprehensions Fall 78% From May Peak, Indicating Drastic Decline in Illegal Crossings

There are a lot of statistics Mark A. Morgan , acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner , uses to show how Trump policies have helped to cut illegal immigration into the United States .
But there are two that he feels really make clear the victory his agency has had in the past year , and he highlighted them in a small meeting Tuesday .
First is daily apprehensions , a number that hit 4,600 at the height of the latest crisis in May .
That has now dropped to 1,300 .
What ’ s more , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a 78 % cut .
“ That ’ s a dramatic reduction , ” he said , in updating the numbers released last week .
Then there are the numbers of illegal immigrants “ in custody.
” That was a horrific 20,000 in May for an agency that has just 4,000 beds .
Now a quarter of those beds are unused .
“ We were having those conversations back then about how the system was overwhelmed , there was overcrowding .
We ’ re just not experiencing that now , ” Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what we ’ re seeing is our in-custody numbers right now are actually below 3,000 , and it has been steady for the past few weeks , ” he said .
He added that some 731 Border Protection officers pulled off the border to handle the housing crisis last year have also been put back on the border .
“ They are all back , ” he said .
While he stressed that the crisis is far from over , especially as Mexican cartels turn to drugs to replace moving people across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said that President Trump ’ s policies get the credit for the change .
Noting that Congress has done little to change outdated immigration laws , he said that Trump took action and built relationships with Mexico and other Central American nations that now hold immigrants seeking to come into the U.S. until the government gives them the green light .
“ This is not a political statement , it ’ s because I believe it and because it is true : The success that I just outlined is absolutely a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Morgan , a career government officer .
He added , “ We are succeeding in addressing this crisis .
”

There are a lot of statistics Mark A. Morgan, acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner, uses to show how Trump policies have helped to cut illegal immigration into the United States.
But there are two that he feels really make clear the victory his agency has had in the past year, and he highlighted them in a small meeting Tuesday.
First is daily apprehensions, a number that hit 4,600 at the height of the latest crisis in May. That has now dropped to 1,300.
What’s more, he said, the 21-daily average is below 1,000, a 78% cut. “That’s a dramatic reduction,” he said, in updating the numbers released last week.
Then there are the numbers of illegal immigrants “in custody.” That was a horrific 20,000 in May for an agency that has just 4,000 beds.
Now a quarter of those beds are unused.
“We were having those conversations back then about how the system was overwhelmed, there was overcrowding. We’re just not experiencing that now,” Morgan said.
“Currently, right now, what we’re seeing is our in-custody numbers right now are actually below 3,000, and it has been steady for the past few weeks,” he said.
He added that some 731 Border Protection officers pulled off the border to handle the housing crisis last year have also been put back on the border. “They are all back,” he said.
While he stressed that the crisis is far from over, especially as Mexican cartels turn to drugs to replace moving people across the border as their money source, he said that President Trump’s policies get the credit for the change.
Noting that Congress has done little to change outdated immigration laws, he said that Trump took action and built relationships with Mexico and other Central American nations that now hold immigrants seeking to come into the U.S. until the government gives them the green light.
“This is not a political statement, it’s because I believe it and because it is true: The success that I just outlined is absolutely a direct result of this president’s strategies,” said Morgan, a career government officer. He added, “We are succeeding in addressing this crisis.”


bonginoreport--2020-01-14--Leftist Stephen King Under Fire From Leftists for Making Reasonable Observation

Horror author Stephen King backtracked after being criticized for saying he `` would never consider diversity in matters of art . ''
Reacting to this year 's list of Oscar nominations , which drew flak for featuring what many called a lack of diversity , the 72-year-old writer and outspoken liberal tweeted , `` As a writer , I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories : Best Picture , Best Adapted Screenplay , and Best Original Screenplay .
For me , the diversity issue — as it applies to individual actors and directors , anyway — did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would never consider diversity in matters of art .
Only quality .
It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong . ''
King 's writing has been adapted into many Hollywood films , such as The Shining , Carrie , and It .
King , who lives in Bangor , Maine , was met with online backlash .
Author Morgan Jenkins , 25 , accused King of being `` unfair '' and guilty of `` implicit bias , '' tweeting , `` When films created by people of color , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by institutions that are predominately comprised of white men , there is an implicit bias at work here . ''
Film director Ava DuVernay , 47 , said she was dismayed by King 's take on diversity because she admired him .
`` When you wake up , meditate , stretch , reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant you want to go back to bed , '' she wrote .
Posting nearly three hours after his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , writing , `` The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot , regardless of sex , color , or orientation .
Right now such people are badly under-represented , and not only in the arts .
You ca n't win awards if you 're shut out of the game . ''

Horror author Stephen King backtracked after being criticized for saying he "would never consider diversity in matters of art."
Reacting to this year's list of Oscar nominations, which drew flak for featuring what many called a lack of diversity, the 72-year-old writer and outspoken liberal tweeted, "As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. For me, the diversity issue — as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway — did not come up. That said, I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong." King's writing has been adapted into many Hollywood films, such as The Shining, Carrie, and It.
...I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
King, who lives in Bangor, Maine, was met with online backlash. Author Morgan Jenkins, 25, accused King of being "unfair" and guilty of "implicit bias," tweeting, "When films created by people of color, irrespective of quality, constantly get overlooked by institutions that are predominately comprised of white men, there is an implicit bias at work here."
With the utmost respect, I think this is quite a bit unfair. When films created by people of color, irrespective of quality, constantly get overlooked by institutions that are predominately comprised of white men, there is an implicit bias at work here. — Morgan Jerkins (@MorganJerkins) January 14, 2020
Film director Ava DuVernay, 47, said she was dismayed by King's take on diversity because she admired him. "When you wake up, meditate, stretch, reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant you want to go back to bed," she wrote.
When you wake up, meditate, stretch, reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant you want to go back to bed. https://t.co/nPXOeAebkb — Ava DuVernay (@ava) January 14, 2020
Posting nearly three hours after his initial comment, King clarified his position, writing, "The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts. You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game."


bonginoreport--2020-01-14--GOP Will Appeal to FISC for a New Person to Head FISA Reform Effort

Rep. Mark Meadows said Monday that congressional Republicans plan to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) over its choice to oversee the FBI ’ s surveillance reforms in the wake of a damning inspector general ’ s report regarding the bureau ’ s wiretapping of Carter Page .
In an interview with journalist Sara Carter , Meadows criticized the FISC ’ s pick of former Justice Department official David Kris to assist the court to ensure that the FBI implements the reforms .
“ I can tell you that a few of us , are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now taken over the FISA process but we are also looking at this when it comes to renewing the FISA process within Congress , ” Meadows told Carter .
Judge James Boasberg , who presides over the FISC , tapped Kris on Friday to serve as what ’ s known as an amicus curiae .
Boasberg said that Kris , who served in the Obama Justice Department , will assist the FISC by monitoring the FBI ’ s surveillance reforms .
( RELATED : Ex-DOJ Official Picked To Assist FISA Reform Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of Carter Page ) The IG report found “ significant ” errors and omissions in the FBI ’ s applications to surveil Page .
The report said that FBI agents withheld exculpatory information related to Page , and information that was damaging to the credibility of former British spy Christopher Steele .
FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 19 to come up with a plan to address the failures laid out in the IG report .
Collyer said that the FBI made “ false ” and “ misleading ” statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes and Page immediately criticized the choice of Kris because of his well-known defense of the FBI ’ s activities during the Trump-Russia probe .
Nunes , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Kris ’ s appointment was “ shocking and inexplicable.
” As a media pundit , Kris downplayed Republicans ’ concerns that the FBI misled the FISC in order to obtain wiretap warrants on Page .
He also suggested in an essay published on March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI ’ s characterization of Page as a Russian agent , and that Nunes had “ falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.
” Kris went as far as suggesting that Nunes should be charged with obstruction of justice because of his critique of the bureau .
“ If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess , it extinguished with David Kris ’ appointment , ” Page told The DCNF .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Rep. Mark Meadows said Monday that congressional Republicans plan to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) over its choice to oversee the FBI’s surveillance reforms in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report regarding the bureau’s wiretapping of Carter Page.
In an interview with journalist Sara Carter, Meadows criticized the FISC’s pick of former Justice Department official David Kris to assist the court to ensure that the FBI implements the reforms.
“I can tell you that a few of us, are not only appealing this to the judge who has now taken over the FISA process but we are also looking at this when it comes to renewing the FISA process within Congress,” Meadows told Carter.
Judge James Boasberg, who presides over the FISC, tapped Kris on Friday to serve as what’s known as an amicus curiae. Boasberg said that Kris, who served in the Obama Justice Department, will assist the FISC by monitoring the FBI’s surveillance reforms. (RELATED: Ex-DOJ Official Picked To Assist FISA Reform Was Arden Defender Of FBI’s Surveillance Of Carter Page)
The IG report found “significant” errors and omissions in the FBI’s applications to surveil Page. The report said that FBI agents withheld exculpatory information related to Page, and information that was damaging to the credibility of former British spy Christopher Steele.
FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 19 to come up with a plan to address the failures laid out in the IG report. Collyer said that the FBI made “false” and “misleading” statements in applications for the Page surveillance warrants.
California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes and Page immediately criticized the choice of Kris because of his well-known defense of the FBI’s activities during the Trump-Russia probe.
Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Kris’s appointment was “shocking and inexplicable.”
As a media pundit, Kris downplayed Republicans’ concerns that the FBI misled the FISC in order to obtain wiretap warrants on Page.
He also suggested in an essay published on March. 1, 2018 that he believed the FBI’s characterization of Page as a Russian agent, and that Nunes had “falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.”
Kris went as far as suggesting that Nunes should be charged with obstruction of justice because of his critique of the bureau.
“If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess, it extinguished with David Kris’ appointment,” Page told The DCNF.
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--2020-01-15--House Democrats Block Vote  Condemning Iran for Killing 1,500 Protesters, Shooting Down Ukrainian Fl

House Democrats Block Vote  Condemning Iran for Killing 1,500 Protesters, Shooting Down Ukrainian Flight

Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked a vote Tuesday to support the protesters in Iran who are demonstrating against the regime .
Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ’ s resolution was blocked because Democrats advanced the previous question , by a vote of 226-191 .
The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government , as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 , killing 176 people .
In addition , the resolution ; “ ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for repeatedly lying to its people and to the world about its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 ; ( 4 ) calls on the Government of Iran to— ( A ) refrain from the use of violence ; and ( B ) protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly ; and ( 5 ) supports the protestors in Iran , their demands for accountability , and their desire for the Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights.
” “ What a disappointment —Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting the Iranian protestors .
This is not the time for partisan politics .
This should be a time for the US Congress to speak with one voice to condemn an Iranian regime that kills its own people , ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a tweet .
McCarthy announced Monday he will introduce the resolution in support of the protesters in Iran .
The House Minority Leader made the announcement on Twitter as Iranian security forces reportedly fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters in the streets Sunday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is watching , ” and that “ the people of Iran need to know that they are not alone in this pivotal moment.
” ( RELATED : Kevin McCarthy Will Introduce Resolution In Support Of Iranian Protestors ) The resolution comes as Trump tweeted his support for anti-government Iranian protesters on Saturday night , saying , “ I ’ ve stood with you since the beginning of my Presidency , and my Administration will continue to stand with you .
We are following your protests closely , and are inspired by your courage.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reportedly Firing Live Ammunition At Protesters Angry With Regime ) Many of the protesters are upset about the news that their government accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner carrying 176 people six days after the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 2 .

Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked a vote Tuesday to support the protesters in Iran who are demonstrating against the regime.
Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked because Democrats advanced the previous question, by a vote of 226-191. The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.
In addition, the resolution; “(3) condemns the Government of Iran for repeatedly lying to its people and to the world about its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752; (4) calls on the Government of Iran to— (A) refrain from the use of violence; and (B) protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; and (5) supports the protestors in Iran, their demands for accountability, and their desire for the Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights.”
“What a disappointment —Democrats just blocked a vote on a resolution supporting the Iranian protestors. This is not the time for partisan politics. This should be a time for the US Congress to speak with one voice to condemn an Iranian regime that kills its own people,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a tweet.
McCarthy announced Monday he will introduce the resolution in support of the protesters in Iran. The House Minority Leader made the announcement on Twitter as Iranian security forces reportedly fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters in the streets Sunday. The California Republican said “The world is watching,” and that “the people of Iran need to know that they are not alone in this pivotal moment.” (RELATED: Kevin McCarthy Will Introduce Resolution In Support Of Iranian Protestors)
The resolution comes as Trump tweeted his support for anti-government Iranian protesters on Saturday night, saying, “I’ve stood with you since the beginning of my Presidency, and my Administration will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely, and are inspired by your courage.” (RELATED: Iranian Security Forces Reportedly Firing Live Ammunition At Protesters Angry With Regime)
Many of the protesters are upset about the news that their government accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner carrying 176 people six days after the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 2.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--Dem Debate: Elizabeth Warren Appears to Refuse to Shake Bernie’s Hand in Tense Exchange Following De

Dem Debate: Elizabeth Warren Appears to Refuse to Shake Bernie’s Hand in Tense Exchange Following Debate

Massachusets Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday night apparently refused to shake Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders hand after the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ as the two have continued to clash .
After the debates , the candidates shook @ @ @ @ @ when Sanders approached Warren , she refused to shake his hand and the two exchanged @ @ @ @ @ Monday of having told her in a private 2018 meeting that he did not believe @ @ @ @ @ White House .
( RELATED : CNN Cites Four Anonymous Sources With No Direct Knowledge @ @ @ @ @ Sanders Sexist ) During the debate , Sanders denied Warren ’ s claim that he @ @ @ @ @ meeting that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency .
( RELATED @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Claim That He Said A Woman Couldn ’ t Win The Presidency ) @ @ @ @ @ exchange between Warren and Sanders out after the debate , focusing on the fact they @ @ @ @ @

Massachusets Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday night apparently refused to shake Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders hand after the Democratic Presidential debate in Iowa, as the two have continued to clash.
After the debates, the candidates shook each others hands, and when Sanders approached Warren, she refused to shake his hand and the two exchanged words. Warren accused Sanders Monday of having told her in a private 2018 meeting that he did not believe a woman could win the White House. (RELATED: CNN Cites Four Anonymous Sources With No Direct Knowledge In Order To Call Bernie Sanders Sexist)
WATCH:
During the debate, Sanders denied Warren’s claim that he told her in a private meeting that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Denies Warren’s Claim That He Said A Woman Couldn’t Win The Presidency)
CNN anchors pointed out the exchange between Warren and Sanders out after the debate, focusing on the fact they did not shake hands.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--All of the “Woke” Candidates Have Fizzled Out

In the run-up to tonight 's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa , the last such contest before primary voting begins , one of the big storylines is about who wo n't be among the half-dozen candidates on stage .
`` This debate is so white , it 's not allowed to bring the potato salad , '' cracked Mediaite 's Tommy Christopher .
`` The smallest , whitest one yet , '' concurred Politico .
With Sen. Cory Booker ( D–N.J . )
exiting the race Monday , and both Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D–Hawaii ) failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting lineup is not just pale , it 's ancient—the three highest-polling of the six debaters would each be the oldest president ever sworn into office .
A fourth , Tom Steyer , is a hedge fund billionaire who literally bought his way to the podium , after an entire season in which Democrats debated whether billionaires should even exist .
( An even older white billionaire , Michael Bloomberg , currently sits fifth in national polls but is not bothering with early primary/caucus states . )
So you can see why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above their weight in Democratic political discourse would be dismayed .
`` Bad for democracy , '' pronounced Salon 's David Daley .
`` The system they have designed has suppressed the most loyal base of the Democratic Party , '' charged Color of Change Executive Director Rashad Robinson in The Washington Post .
`` Anyone with an understanding of civil rights law understands how the rules can be set up to benefit some communities .
The Democratic Party should look at the impact of these rules and question the results . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would suggest at least considering another .
Cory Booker was one of five Gen X candidates ( only one white male among them ) who came into the race with ideologically mixed pedigrees—including not a small amount of what progressives would deride as `` neoliberal '' policy positions on deficits , trade , and education—but then competed with varying levels of believability on being the most woke , before eventually collapsing .
First Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D–N.Y . )
, then Beto O'Rourke , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D–Calif . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all made the affirmative choice to either tack heavily left on economics or just downplay their past heresies in favor of talking up issues such as slavery reparations , Medicare for all illegal immigrants , and the racism/sexism of President Donald Trump .
The abject failure of this approach is one of the greater underexplored storylines of the 2020 presidential nominating season .
Eleven months ago , this group accounted for about one-quarter of voter support in national polls : Around 12 percent for Harris , 6 percent for O'Rourke , 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Castro and Gillibrand .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . )
, who would eventually vault herself up to near-frontrunner status , was then just a face in this crowd : 7 percent .
Democrats were making similar murmurs of pride about their energetic and historically diverse field that you heard among Republicans in the first half of 2015 .
What happened next ?
While Warren went on a white-paper spree of policy `` plans '' for every economic and regulatory issue under the sun , the Gen X Five engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session , only with less sincerity .
O'Rourke agonized publicly about his ancestors owning slaves .
Harris the cop tried gruesomely to rebrand herself as a hip Jamaican pot smoker .
Gillibrand spent valuable debate-stage time talking about the need to educate people about her white privilege .
Booker pushed for reparations and policed Joe Biden 's language , while Castro was busy shaking his damn head that all these leftward lurches did n't go nearly left enough .
The late-night comedy skits wrote themselves .
And by August , Warren was outpolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that the more successful septuagenarian progressives shied away from calling Trump a racist—far from it .
But voters did not have to guess about what got the northeastern senators up early every morning : It 's the economic policy , stupid .
What , exactly , was Kirsten Gillibrand 's selling proposition ?
Why were O'Rourke and Booker ( at least until the last of the latter 's debates ) running away from much of the stuff that made them interesting in the first place ?
What makes their choice that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this race : The progressive bloc in the 2020 Democratic field has consistently lagged the centrists by about 10 percentage points .
The RealClearPolitics running national averages for Biden ( 27.4 percent ) , Pete Buttigieg ( 7.8 percent ) , Bloomberg ( 6.2 ) , and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( 3.0 ) ( D–Minn . )
combine for 44.4 percent ; Sanders ( 18.8 percent ) + Warren ( 16.8 ) + Steyer ( 2.2 ) = 37.8 .
Instead of using their ideological dexterity to compete against a very old-looking frontrunner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xers chased whatever progressive crumbs had n't already been hoovered by two strong candidates .
The great irony of this blown strategy playing out even today is that Elizabeth Warren , after benefiting directly from her competitors ' stumbles , seems to be making the exact same tactical mistake .
By leaking a private conversation with Sanders in a not-particularly-convincing attempt to make him look possibly sexist , Warren 's campaign is engaging in the same kind of bad-faith word-policing that so many voters find off-putting .
Tonight 's debate may well feature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying in place of conversations about what the federal government should and should n't do .
That is not what got Warren into the top three .
Donald Trump , like successful populists worldwide , campaigned and won in part by railing against the perceived political correctness of the country 's political , journalistic , and cultural elites .
Continuing to mash that button is one way he strengthens his grip on the Republican Party , though there 's some evidence that the attendant crude manners and cruel policies are driving away suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Trump-averse political actors thus face a challenge : How to forcefully oppose the president 's malodorous actions without alienating fence-sitters via in-group jargon and out-group condescension ?
The now-vanished field of Gen X candidates already tried out I-am-Spartacus histrionics , serial F-bombery , and even a bizarre if fleeting attempt to make school busing a litmus test .
Forget the general election ; none of this worked in the Democratic primary .
How Democrats react to # DebatesSoWhite might give us a hint of how they 're approaching the Trump problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Bernie Sanders has drawn strong Latino support .
Those who pin such preferences onto structural racism are wandering directly into the briar patch of false consciousness , which is rarely a good look .
In a season where electability is the primary Democratic virtue , Democratic voters have been sending a consistent message : Identity politics ai n't the ticket .
Maybe next time around the Gen X candidates of all hues and genders will run as how they really are , as opposed to how Brooklyn Twitter wants them to be @

In the run-up to tonight's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, the last such contest before primary voting begins, one of the big storylines is about who won't be among the half-dozen candidates on stage.
"This debate is so white, it's not allowed to bring the potato salad," cracked Mediaite's Tommy Christopher. "The smallest, whitest one yet," concurred Politico.
With Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) exiting the race Monday, and both Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) failing to meet the qualification thresholds, the resulting lineup is not just pale, it's ancient—the three highest-polling of the six debaters would each be the oldest president ever sworn into office. A fourth, Tom Steyer, is a hedge fund billionaire who literally bought his way to the podium, after an entire season in which Democrats debated whether billionaires should even exist. (An even older white billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, currently sits fifth in national polls but is not bothering with early primary/caucus states.)
So you can see why the younger, more progressive voices who punch above their weight in Democratic political discourse would be dismayed. "Bad for democracy," pronounced Salon's David Daley. "The system they have designed has suppressed the most loyal base of the Democratic Party," charged Color of Change Executive Director Rashad Robinson in The Washington Post. "Anyone with an understanding of civil rights law understands how the rules can be set up to benefit some communities. The Democratic Party should look at the impact of these rules and question the results."
That is certainly one theory. But I would suggest at least considering another. Cory Booker was one of five Gen X candidates (only one white male among them) who came into the race with ideologically mixed pedigrees—including not a small amount of what progressives would deride as "neoliberal" policy positions on deficits, trade, and education—but then competed with varying levels of believability on being the most woke, before eventually collapsing.
First Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), then Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Julián Castro, and now Booker all made the affirmative choice to either tack heavily left on economics or just downplay their past heresies in favor of talking up issues such as slavery reparations, Medicare for all illegal immigrants, and the racism/sexism of President Donald Trump. The abject failure of this approach is one of the greater underexplored storylines of the 2020 presidential nominating season.
Eleven months ago, this group accounted for about one-quarter of voter support in national polls: Around 12 percent for Harris, 6 percent for O'Rourke, 5 percent for Booker, and 1 percent each for Castro and Gillibrand. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who would eventually vault herself up to near-frontrunner status, was then just a face in this crowd: 7 percent. Democrats were making similar murmurs of pride about their energetic and historically diverse field that you heard among Republicans in the first half of 2015.
What happened next? While Warren went on a white-paper spree of policy "plans" for every economic and regulatory issue under the sun, the Gen X Five engaged in more identity-politics emoting than a campus struggle session, only with less sincerity. O'Rourke agonized publicly about his ancestors owning slaves. Harris the cop tried gruesomely to rebrand herself as a hip Jamaican pot smoker. Gillibrand spent valuable debate-stage time talking about the need to educate people about her white privilege. Booker pushed for reparations and policed Joe Biden's language, while Castro was busy shaking his damn head that all these leftward lurches didn't go nearly left enough.
The late-night comedy skits wrote themselves. And by August, Warren was outpolling all five whippersnappers combined.
It's not that the more successful septuagenarian progressives shied away from calling Trump a racist—far from it. But voters did not have to guess about what got the northeastern senators up early every morning: It's the economic policy, stupid. What, exactly, was Kirsten Gillibrand's selling proposition? Why were O'Rourke and Booker (at least until the last of the latter's debates) running away from much of the stuff that made them interesting in the first place?
What makes their choice that much more curious is the persistent math of this race: The progressive bloc in the 2020 Democratic field has consistently lagged the centrists by about 10 percentage points. The RealClearPolitics running national averages for Biden (27.4 percent), Pete Buttigieg (7.8 percent), Bloomberg (6.2), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (3.0) (D–Minn.) combine for 44.4 percent; Sanders (18.8 percent) + Warren (16.8) + Steyer (2.2) = 37.8. Instead of using their ideological dexterity to compete against a very old-looking frontrunner for the scared-of-socialists vote, the Gen Xers chased whatever progressive crumbs hadn't already been hoovered by two strong candidates.
The great irony of this blown strategy playing out even today is that Elizabeth Warren, after benefiting directly from her competitors' stumbles, seems to be making the exact same tactical mistake. By leaking a private conversation with Sanders in a not-particularly-convincing attempt to make him look possibly sexist, Warren's campaign is engaging in the same kind of bad-faith word-policing that so many voters find off-putting. Tonight's debate may well feature several minutes of linguistic hair-splitting and I'm-not-saying/I'm-just saying in place of conversations about what the federal government should and shouldn't do. That is not what got Warren into the top three.
Donald Trump, like successful populists worldwide, campaigned and won in part by railing against the perceived political correctness of the country's political, journalistic, and cultural elites. Continuing to mash that button is one way he strengthens his grip on the Republican Party, though there's some evidence that the attendant crude manners and cruel policies are driving away suburban voters, especially women.
Democrats and other Trump-averse political actors thus face a challenge: How to forcefully oppose the president's malodorous actions without alienating fence-sitters via in-group jargon and out-group condescension? The now-vanished field of Gen X candidates already tried out I-am-Spartacus histrionics, serial F-bombery, and even a bizarre if fleeting attempt to make school busing a litmus test. Forget the general election; none of this worked in the Democratic primary.
How Democrats react to #DebatesSoWhite might give us a hint of how they're approaching the Trump problem. Black voters have overwhelmingly preferred Joe Biden; Bernie Sanders has drawn strong Latino support. Those who pin such preferences onto structural racism are wandering directly into the briar patch of false consciousness, which is rarely a good look.
In a season where electability is the primary Democratic virtue, Democratic voters have been sending a consistent message: Identity politics ain't the ticket. Maybe next time around the Gen X candidates of all hues and genders will run as how they really are, as opposed to how Brooklyn Twitter wants them to be.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--Michael Avenatti Arrested by IRS Agents

Michael Avenatti Arrested by IRS Agents

Attorney and Trump foe Michael Avenatti was arrested Tuesday while attending a California State bar disciplinary hearing for another legal matter .
Avenatti ’ s arrest came outside of the California disciplinary hearing related to allegations that the attorney scammed a client out of almost $ 840,000 .
During a break , the United States Attorney ’ s Office for the Central District of California arrested Avenatti for a different criminal matter .
“ I understand that Mr. Avenatti has been arrested by the federal authorities for violating the terms of his release , ” attorney Steven Bledsoe , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scamming case , said according to The Daily Beast .
Avenatti was arrested following allegations that he violated the terms set for his pre-trial release , and is expected to appear in federal court Wednesday .
The attorney , who previously represented porn star Stormy Daniels , is facing numerous legal issues .
The Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported on his growing debts and tax bills .
Avenatti faces federal indictments for crimes in both California and New York , including allegations that he tried to extort millions from Nike .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Last Laugh On Avenatti Indictment — # Basta ) Avenatti ’ s Tuesday arrest was confirmed by Thom Mrozek , a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney ’ s office in L.A. , according to The Daily Beast .
“ Completely innocent , ” Avenatti said as he was taken out of the courthouse .

Attorney and Trump foe Michael Avenatti was arrested Tuesday while attending a California State bar disciplinary hearing for another legal matter.
Avenatti’s arrest came outside of the California disciplinary hearing related to allegations that the attorney scammed a client out of almost $840,000. During a break, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California arrested Avenatti for a different criminal matter.
“I understand that Mr. Avenatti has been arrested by the federal authorities for violating the terms of his release,” attorney Steven Bledsoe, who is representing Avenatti’s accuser in the scamming case, said according to The Daily Beast.
Avenatti was arrested following allegations that he violated the terms set for his pre-trial release, and is expected to appear in federal court Wednesday.
In other news, Michael Avenatti has been arrested again. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles say he violated the terms of his pretrial release. pic.twitter.com/qqJPaSl1zR — Brad Heath (@bradheath) January 15, 2020
The attorney, who previously represented porn star Stormy Daniels, is facing numerous legal issues. The Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported on his growing debts and tax bills. Avenatti faces federal indictments for crimes in both California and New York, including allegations that he tried to extort millions from Nike. (RELATED: Don Jr. Get’s Last Laugh On Avenatti Indictment — #Basta)
Avenatti’s Tuesday arrest was confirmed by Thom Mrozek, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A., according to The Daily Beast.
“Completely innocent,” Avenatti said as he was taken out of the courthouse.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--John Bolton is Releasing a Book – And It’ll Discuss Ukraine

Amid the debate over whether John Bolton will testify about Ukraine in President Trump 's Senate impeachment trial , a new report revealed he will open up about the matter in a forthcoming book .
Trump 's former national security adviser is nearing the completion of his book , which is expected to expand on `` at least some of what he saw '' in regards to Trump pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden , according to the New York Times .
The book , published by Simon & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to Russia and Venezuela , and some top Trump officials are said to be subject to unkind descriptions .
Bolton 's former aide , Fiona Hill , testified that Bolton opposed the Ukraine pressure campaign , saying he wanted no part of what he described as a `` drug deal '' that fellow Trump administration officials were `` cooking up . ''
Bolton , who left the White House in September — Trump said he was fired , while Bolton said he quit — announced last week he is willing to testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by lawmakers .
The Senate is poised to consider calling witnesses , which could include Bolton , after the House has sent two articles of impeachment over to the upper chamber .
Trump , who is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , indicated last week he might use executive privilege to block Bolton from speaking .

Amid the debate over whether John Bolton will testify about Ukraine in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial, a new report revealed he will open up about the matter in a forthcoming book.
Trump's former national security adviser is nearing the completion of his book, which is expected to expand on "at least some of what he saw" in regards to Trump pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, according to the New York Times.
The book, published by Simon & Schuster, will also touch on controversies related to Russia and Venezuela, and some top Trump officials are said to be subject to unkind descriptions.
Bolton's former aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Bolton opposed the Ukraine pressure campaign, saying he wanted no part of what he described as a "drug deal" that fellow Trump administration officials were "cooking up."
Bolton, who left the White House in September — Trump said he was fired, while Bolton said he quit — announced last week he is willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if called by lawmakers.
The Senate is poised to consider calling witnesses, which could include Bolton, after the House has sent two articles of impeachment over to the upper chamber.
Trump, who is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, indicated last week he might use executive privilege to block Bolton from speaking.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--Dow Jones Closes Above 29,000 for the First Time Ever

U.S. stocks hit record highs , then pulled back , after the signing of the historic phase one trade deal @ @ @ @ @ .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its first close above 29,000 points , two @ @ @ @ @ above 28,000 .
That is a key psychological level for investors .
The Dow added @ @ @ @ @ % , to 29,030 .
The S & P 500 also rallied with both hitting @ @ @ @ @ Composite also registered modest gains .
Economic data out Wednesday morning showed producer prices rose @ @ @ @ @ in December , according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
That was below the @ @ @ @ @ surveyed by Refinitiv were expecting .
Looking at commodities , gold was up 0.8 % @ @ @ @ @ and West Texas Intermediate crude oil was down 0.5 % at $ 57.99 a barrel @ @ @ @ @ unexpected inventory build .
U.S. Treasurys gained , lowering the yield on the 10-year note @ @ @ @ @ 1.792 % .

article
U.S. stocks hit record highs, then pulled back, after the signing of the historic phase one trade deal between the U.S. and China.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its first close above 29,000 points, two months after its first close above 28,000. That is a key psychological level for investors. The Dow added 91 points, or 0.3%, to 29,030.
The S&P 500 also rallied with both hitting fresh records. The Nasdaq Composite also registered modest gains.
Economic data out Wednesday morning showed producer prices rose 0.1% year over year in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was below the 0.2% gain that economists surveyed by Refinitiv were expecting.
Looking at commodities, gold was up 0.8% near $1,557 an ounce and West Texas Intermediate crude oil was down 0.5% at $57.99 a barrel after weekly data showed an unexpected inventory build.
U.S. Treasurys gained, lowering the yield on the 10-year note by 2.6 basis points to 1.792%.
Read more at FOXBUSINESS.COM


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--How the Mighty Have Fallen: Michael Avenatti Jailed Without Bond

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels ( Stephanie Clifford ) and Michael Avenatti , attorney for Stormy Daniels , speak to the media after a hearing related to Michael Cohen .
A federal judge in California on Wednesday revoked the bail of disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti , a day after he was dramatically arrested for allegedly committing a raft of new financial crimes while free and awaiting trial on charges against him in three federal criminal cases .
Avenatti was ordered to be detained in jail without bond pending his upcoming trials after a nearly hourlong hearing in U.S. District Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge James Selna .
Selna ordered Avenatti to be transported `` forthwith , '' by no later than Friday , to New York , where he had been scheduled to begin trial next Tuesday on charges of trying to extort more than $ 20 million from athletic apparel giant Nike .
That trial now will be delayed by no longer than a week , the judge in that case , Paul Gardephe , said later Wednesday during a conference call with prosecutors and defense lawyers .
In that call , Avenatti 's lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack funds , or access to funds , to pay for an expert witness and expenses related to other witnesses in that case .
Despite that , Gardephe said , `` I want the trial to begin at least by Jan .
27 . ''
The judge clearly was irked that federal prosecutors in California had sought Avenatti 's arrest on the eve of trial in New York , and suggested there was no good reason for that arrest , noting that the conduct alleged by prosecutors dates back months .
Avenatti is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shake down the company by threatening to expose alleged evidence of bribing amateur basketball players and their families unless the company paid up .
The U.S. attorney 's office in Los Angeles , in a filing in Santa Ana court unsealed Wednesday , said it wanted Avenatti 's bail revoked because there is reason to believe he had violated terms of his release by engaging in `` mail fraud , '' `` wire fraud , '' and `` structuring financial transactions to evade [ currency ] reporting requirements , '' as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was charged in all three pending federal cases last spring .
Avenatti , an ardent foe of President Donald Trump , engaged in those alleged crimes to hide money from creditors , whom he owes more than $ 10 million , prosecutors said .
`` The fact that [ Avenatti ] continued to engage in criminal conduct after he had been indicted in this case and while on bond demonstrates that defendant remains a substantial economic danger to the community , '' the U.S. attorney 's office wrote .
Avenatti , 49 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the alleged bail violation by IRS criminal investigation agents in Los Angeles in the middle of a state bar court hearing .
State bar officials want his law license involuntarily suspended because of claims he ripped off a client for more than $ 800,000 .
Avenatti is separately charged in another case pending in Manhattan federal court with scamming his former client , porn star Stormy Daniels , out of $ 300,000 in proceeds from a book deal .
A trial in that case is set to begin April 21 .
Avenatti has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
He has claimed he is the victim of politically motivated prosecutions as a result of `` animus '' toward him by Trump .
But Daniels in a tweet Wednesday lashed out at a Twitter user who suggested that Avenatti was `` unjustifiably arrested '' by Trump 's `` hired gunman because he helped reveal the @ StormyDaniels story . ''
`` Did they make him forge my name , steal my money and lie to me ?
F -- - him ! ''
Daniels tweeted .
Court documents filed by prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last May fraudulently transferred most of a $ 1 million payment to his law firm to hide that payment from creditors who include a former law partner , a client , his second wife and Washington state tax officials .
Prosecutors also said he has `` engaged in a number of other fraudulent transactions '' to defraud his creditors `` and conceal his assets . ''
Those transactions included using a portion of the payment to his firm to have his ex-wife buy a $ 50,000 Mercedes-Benz car in her name that Avenatti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transport '' Avenatti .
Prosecutors in court papers detailed how Avenatti , since his arrest last spring for the federal cases , has repeatedly withdrawn cash and cashed checks in amounts of thousands of dollars , but less than the $ 10,000 threshold that requires banks to report financial transactions to federal regulators .
In the pending criminal case in California that was the subject of the bail revocation , Avenatti last year was charged in a 36-count indictment accusing him of tax crimes , wire fraud and perjury , with Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clients out of millions of dollars .
Prosecutors claimed at the time that Avenatti hid and then spent a $ 4 million legal settlement obtained in January 2015 in favor of a mentally ill paraplegic client , and hid a $ 2.75 million settlement for another client that Avenatti allegedly used to help pay for his share of the purchase of a private jet valued at up to $ 5 million .
Avenatti 's trial in California is scheduled to begin in May .
Avenatti 's bail terms for all his pending cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognizance bond , required him to limit his travel to certain parts of California , New York and Florida unless he received permission from pretrial services officials .
He also was prohibited from committing crimes as a condition of his release .
Earlier Wednesday , Manhattan federal court Judge Gardephe denied Avenatti 's motion to toss the Nike extortion case , seeming to pave the way for Avenatti 's trial beginning next Tuesday , the same day that Trump 's impeachment trial is expected to begin the Senate .
But Gardephe said later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been `` thrown into chaos '' by Avenatti 's arrest in California .
During a telephone conference after Avenatti 's bail was revoked , his lawyer , Jose Manuel Quinon , told Gardephe , `` We have some very difficult problems . ''
Quinon said he does not know if Avenatti has enough money to pay for trial expenses , leaving the defense team at a serious disadvantage .
`` We may have to have an indigency hearing , '' Quinon said , referring to proceeding where a judge could decide that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his defense , and was entitled to access to a special fund .
`` We were dealing with very little resources , and now we have none , '' Quinon said .
`` We find out that the rug has been pulled out from under us , because this was totally unexpected . ''
Prosecutors in the case opposed a long delay for the trial , saying that Avenatti 's assets had not been seized as part of his arrest in California .
Gardephe , in his ruling earlier Wednesday rejecting a dismissal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to throw out all three counts of the indictment on the grounds that `` that he was targeted for prosecution in this case for unconstitutionally vindictive and selective reasons . ''
Gardephe said that prosecutors have `` broad discretion '' to enforce criminal laws .
The judge also wrote that `` although Avenatti has proffered ample evidence of the animosity President Trump feels towards him , Avenatti has not offered any evidence suggesting that that animosity played any role in the U.S. Attorney 's decision to prosecute him . ''
The judge added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities wholly unrelated to the political arena . ''

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) and Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, speak to the media after a hearing related to Michael Cohen.
A federal judge in California on Wednesday revoked the bail of disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti, a day after he was dramatically arrested for allegedly committing a raft of new financial crimes while free and awaiting trial on charges against him in three federal criminal cases.
Avenatti was ordered to be detained in jail without bond pending his upcoming trials after a nearly hourlong hearing in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, before Judge James Selna.
Selna ordered Avenatti to be transported "forthwith," by no later than Friday, to New York, where he had been scheduled to begin trial next Tuesday on charges of trying to extort more than $20 million from athletic apparel giant Nike .
That trial now will be delayed by no longer than a week, the judge in that case, Paul Gardephe, said later Wednesday during a conference call with prosecutors and defense lawyers.
In that call, Avenatti's lawyers complained to the judge that they now lack funds, or access to funds, to pay for an expert witness and expenses related to other witnesses in that case.
Despite that, Gardephe said, "I want the trial to begin at least by Jan. 27."
The judge clearly was irked that federal prosecutors in California had sought Avenatti's arrest on the eve of trial in New York, and suggested there was no good reason for that arrest, noting that the conduct alleged by prosecutors dates back months.
Avenatti is accused in the Nike case of trying to shake down the company by threatening to expose alleged evidence of bribing amateur basketball players and their families unless the company paid up.
The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, in a filing in Santa Ana court unsealed Wednesday, said it wanted Avenatti's bail revoked because there is reason to believe he had violated terms of his release by engaging in "mail fraud," "wire fraud," and "structuring financial transactions to evade [currency] reporting requirements," as well as "money laundering" since he was charged in all three pending federal cases last spring.
Avenatti, an ardent foe of President Donald Trump, engaged in those alleged crimes to hide money from creditors, whom he owes more than $10 million, prosecutors said.
"The fact that [Avenatti] continued to engage in criminal conduct after he had been indicted in this case and while on bond demonstrates that defendant remains a substantial economic danger to the community," the U.S. attorney's office wrote.
Avenatti, 49, was arrested Tuesday evening without warning for the alleged bail violation by IRS criminal investigation agents in Los Angeles in the middle of a state bar court hearing.
State bar officials want his law license involuntarily suspended because of claims he ripped off a client for more than $800,000.
Avenatti is separately charged in another case pending in Manhattan federal court with scamming his former client, porn star Stormy Daniels, out of $300,000 in proceeds from a book deal. A trial in that case is set to begin April 21.
Avenatti has pleaded not guilty in all three federal cases.
He has claimed he is the victim of politically motivated prosecutions as a result of "animus" toward him by Trump.
But Daniels in a tweet Wednesday lashed out at a Twitter user who suggested that Avenatti was "unjustifiably arrested" by Trump's "hired gunman because he helped reveal the @StormyDaniels story."
"Did they make him forge my name, steal my money and lie to me? F--- him!" Daniels tweeted.
Court documents filed by prosecutors in California this week allege that Avenatti last May fraudulently transferred most of a $1 million payment to his law firm to hide that payment from creditors who include a former law partner, a client, his second wife and Washington state tax officials.
Prosecutors also said he has "engaged in a number of other fraudulent transactions" to defraud his creditors "and conceal his assets."
Those transactions included using a portion of the payment to his firm to have his ex-wife buy a $50,000 Mercedes-Benz car in her name that Avenatti and his personal driver "repeatedly used to transport" Avenatti.
Prosecutors in court papers detailed how Avenatti, since his arrest last spring for the federal cases, has repeatedly withdrawn cash and cashed checks in amounts of thousands of dollars, but less than the $10,000 threshold that requires banks to report financial transactions to federal regulators.
In the pending criminal case in California that was the subject of the bail revocation, Avenatti last year was charged in a 36-count indictment accusing him of tax crimes, wire fraud and perjury, with Los Angeles federal prosecutors accusing him of swindling clients out of millions of dollars.
Prosecutors claimed at the time that Avenatti hid and then spent a $4 million legal settlement obtained in January 2015 in favor of a mentally ill paraplegic client, and hid a $2.75 million settlement for another client that Avenatti allegedly used to help pay for his share of the purchase of a private jet valued at up to $5 million.
Avenatti's trial in California is scheduled to begin in May.
Avenatti's bail terms for all his pending cases, which included a $300,000 personal recognizance bond, required him to limit his travel to certain parts of California, New York and Florida unless he received permission from pretrial services officials. He also was prohibited from committing crimes as a condition of his release.
Earlier Wednesday, Manhattan federal court Judge Gardephe denied Avenatti's motion to toss the Nike extortion case, seeming to pave the way for Avenatti's trial beginning next Tuesday, the same day that Trump's impeachment trial is expected to begin the Senate.
But Gardephe said later Wednesday that the plan for the trial has been "thrown into chaos" by Avenatti's arrest in California.
During a telephone conference after Avenatti's bail was revoked, his lawyer, Jose Manuel Quinon, told Gardephe, "We have some very difficult problems."
Quinon said he does not know if Avenatti has enough money to pay for trial expenses, leaving the defense team at a serious disadvantage.
"We may have to have an indigency hearing," Quinon said, referring to proceeding where a judge could decide that Avenatti had no money to pay for his defense, and was entitled to access to a special fund.
"We were dealing with very little resources, and now we have none," Quinon said. "We find out that the rug has been pulled out from under us, because this was totally unexpected."
Prosecutors in the case opposed a long delay for the trial, saying that Avenatti's assets had not been seized as part of his arrest in California.
Tweet
Gardephe, in his ruling earlier Wednesday rejecting a dismissal motion, noted that Avenatti has moved to throw out all three counts of the indictment on the grounds that "that he was targeted for prosecution in this case for unconstitutionally vindictive and selective reasons."
Gardephe said that prosecutors have "broad discretion" to enforce criminal laws.
The judge also wrote that "although Avenatti has proffered ample evidence of the animosity President Trump feels towards him, Avenatti has not offered any evidence suggesting that that animosity played any role in the U.S. Attorney's decision to prosecute him."
The judge added: "Avenatti is being prosecuted for activities wholly unrelated to the political arena."


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--Virginia Gun Owners See a Registry and Confiscation Looming

Despite the expansion of “ gun sanctuaries ” to a record 130 Virginia towns and counties Wednesday , covering most of the state , foes of gun control legislation speeding through Richmond are raising new fears they will be forced to register weapons , a move that could lead to “ confiscation.
” Second Amendment lobbyists and advocates reviewing the initial gun control moves by a state Senate committee credit the exploding sanctuary movement for forcing Democrats to accept some compromises , including a less strict universal background check and delay in introducing a ban on “ assault weapons.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down gun control legislation will eventually lead to broader restrictions and bans .
“ There ’ s no doubt that the sanctuary movement has the Democrats concerned .
Just too soon to know where things are going , ” said Philip Van Cleave , who runs the grassroots advocacy group Virginia Citizens Defense League .
“ We are very glad to hear that the sanctuary efforts are sending a big signal .
But we were very disappointed to see what passed out of committee on Monday , ” said Erich Pratt , senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , The sanctuary movement collected its 130th endorsement on Tuesday .
It reaches nearly every suburban and rural area of the state .
Gun advocates are planning to flood the state capital on Monday , traditionally citizen lobbying day .
They are eager to turn back bills OK ’ d so far , though Democrats have said they plan to stand firm , claiming that gun control promises helped them take control of the legislature in the 2019 elections .
The National Rifle Association conducted its lobbying day Monday when the Senate Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universal background check , a limit on handgun purchases , and other regulations alien to the formerly-gun friendly state and home to the NRA .
[ Read more : Trump could be ‘ big beneficiary ' in Virginia gun control battle , urged to get involved ] “ The NRA is focused on encouraging our members and supporters to be active and engaged with their legislators from the first day of session to the last .
Indeed , the NRA will have a strong presence at the Capitol throughout the legislative session .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of our members that carry the most weight with lawmakers , ” said Catherine Mortensen , NRA spokesperson .
While some gun advocates saw promise in changes made to gun control legislation , Pratt told Secrets that he is worried that once approved , lawmakers in the future will tighten rules on gun owners .
“ Among other things , the Universal Background Checks bill would ensure that every gun sale in Virginia had a Form 4473 attached to it , ” he said referring to a “ Firearms Transaction Record ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Virginia could be sucked up into this de facto national gun registry , ” he said .
He also hit a plan to require that semi-automatic rifles , like ARs , be registered but not banned .
“ This would also mean that , if semi-automatics are ever made unlawful in Virginia , Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s SWAT teams would have a handy list of homes to raid .
This is exactly what they ’ re doing in New Zealand .
And it ’ s exactly what has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — gun confiscation was preceded by registration , ” he added .

Despite the expansion of “gun sanctuaries” to a record 130 Virginia towns and counties Wednesday, covering most of the state, foes of gun control legislation speeding through Richmond are raising new fears they will be forced to register weapons, a move that could lead to “confiscation.”
Second Amendment lobbyists and advocates reviewing the initial gun control moves by a state Senate committee credit the exploding sanctuary movement for forcing Democrats to accept some compromises, including a less strict universal background check and delay in introducing a ban on “assault weapons.”
But they are concerned that even watered down gun control legislation will eventually lead to broader restrictions and bans.
Berryville just became sanctuary #130! — Phil Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) January 15, 2020
“There’s no doubt that the sanctuary movement has the Democrats concerned. Just too soon to know where things are going,” said Philip Van Cleave, who runs the grassroots advocacy group Virginia Citizens Defense League.
“We are very glad to hear that the sanctuary efforts are sending a big signal. But we were very disappointed to see what passed out of committee on Monday,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America,
The sanctuary movement collected its 130th endorsement on Tuesday. It reaches nearly every suburban and rural area of the state.
Gun advocates are planning to flood the state capital on Monday, traditionally citizen lobbying day. They are eager to turn back bills OK’d so far, though Democrats have said they plan to stand firm, claiming that gun control promises helped them take control of the legislature in the 2019 elections.
The National Rifle Association conducted its lobbying day Monday when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved several new restrictions including a universal background check, a limit on handgun purchases, and other regulations alien to the formerly-gun friendly state and home to the NRA.
[Read more: Trump could be ‘big beneficiary' in Virginia gun control battle, urged to get involved]
What The Heck Is Happening In VA? https://t.co/uqDZNk6AKH — GOA (@GunOwners) January 15, 2020
“The NRA is focused on encouraging our members and supporters to be active and engaged with their legislators from the first day of session to the last. Indeed, the NRA will have a strong presence at the Capitol throughout the legislative session. But it’s the voice and presence of our members that carry the most weight with lawmakers,” said Catherine Mortensen, NRA spokesperson.
While some gun advocates saw promise in changes made to gun control legislation, Pratt told Secrets that he is worried that once approved, lawmakers in the future will tighten rules on gun owners.
“Among other things, the Universal Background Checks bill would ensure that every gun sale in Virginia had a Form 4473 attached to it,” he said referring to a “Firearms Transaction Record” that gives information to the federal government.
“Virginia could be sucked up into this de facto national gun registry,” he said.
He also hit a plan to require that semi-automatic rifles, like ARs, be registered but not banned. “This would also mean that, if semi-automatics are ever made unlawful in Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam’s SWAT teams would have a handy list of homes to raid. This is exactly what they’re doing in New Zealand. And it’s exactly what has already been done in California and New York — gun confiscation was preceded by registration,” he added.


bonginoreport--2020-01-15--Watchdog: America’s Leading Newspapers Are Helping China Spread Propaganda

America ’ s leading newspapers are aiding China ’ s communist regime by running the oppressive government ’ s propaganda , respected watchdog organization Freedom House reported .
The Washington Post , Wall Street Journal and New York Times have all run paid supplements from China Daily , the Chinese government ’ s state media arm .
The paid supplements , dubbed “ China Watch , ” are designed to look like real news articles .
The paid supplements are a way in which Chinese state media “ exploit foreign media outlets , ” Freedom House warned in its report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ In the case of the Washington Post and some other publications , China Watch also appears as an online feature , further blurring the lines between Chinese state media content and the host outlet ’ s own reporting , ” the report noted .
The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to all three newspapers to ask if they would commit to cease running the paid supplements , given the Chinese regime ’ s persecution of ethnic and religious minorities , and whether they would disclose how much revenue they received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYT nor the WSJ committed to either measure .
WaPo did not return the DCNF ’ s inquiry .
( RELATED : Elite American Institutions Keep Bowing To Communist China ) “ The New York Times covers China thoroughly and aggressively , and at no time has advertising influenced our coverage .
In fact , the publication of this story in 2012 on the hidden wealth of the family of China ’ s prime minister resulted in The Times being blocked on all platforms in mainland China , which continues to this day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the DCNF .
“ We ’ re committed to reporting on China , and fund our Chinese-language site and bureaus in Beijing and Shanghai ( as well as Hong Kong ) at a significant cost , ” she added .
“ We also continue to cover China fearlessly .
Our recent investigation based on more than 400 pages of leaked internal Chinese documents provided an unprecedented look into the government ’ s crackdown on ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region , ” said Murphy .
Murphy added that this type of journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek the truth and help people understand the world.
” “ We accept a wide range of advertisements , including those with provocative viewpoints , ” DOW Jones spokesman Steve Severinghaus , a spokesman for WSJ parent company DOW Jones , told the DCNF in a statement .
“ We require all ads to be clearly and properly identified as such , and , if an ad is advertorial , we add additional labeling to make clear the newsroom was not involved in its content or creation .
The varied and divergent views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Severinghaus added .
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 .

America’s leading newspapers are aiding China’s communist regime by running the oppressive government’s propaganda, respected watchdog organization Freedom House reported.
The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times have all run paid supplements from China Daily, the Chinese government’s state media arm. The paid supplements, dubbed “China Watch,” are designed to look like real news articles.
The paid supplements are a way in which Chinese state media “exploit foreign media outlets,” Freedom House warned in its report, “Beijing’s Global Megaphone.”
“In the case of the Washington Post and some other publications, China Watch also appears as an online feature, further blurring the lines between Chinese state media content and the host outlet’s own reporting,” the report noted.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to all three newspapers to ask if they would commit to cease running the paid supplements, given the Chinese regime’s persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and whether they would disclose how much revenue they received from the Chinese advertisements.
Neither the NYT nor the WSJ committed to either measure. WaPo did not return the DCNF’s inquiry. (RELATED: Elite American Institutions Keep Bowing To Communist China)
“The New York Times covers China thoroughly and aggressively, and at no time has advertising influenced our coverage. In fact, the publication of this story in 2012 on the hidden wealth of the family of China’s prime minister resulted in The Times being blocked on all platforms in mainland China, which continues to this day,” NYT vice president Eileen Murphy told the DCNF.
“We’re committed to reporting on China, and fund our Chinese-language site and bureaus in Beijing and Shanghai (as well as Hong Kong) at a significant cost,” she added.
“We also continue to cover China fearlessly. Our recent investigation based on more than 400 pages of leaked internal Chinese documents provided an unprecedented look into the government’s crackdown on ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region,” said Murphy.
Murphy added that this type of journalism is “core to our mission to seek the truth and help people understand the world.”
“We accept a wide range of advertisements, including those with provocative viewpoints,” DOW Jones spokesman Steve Severinghaus, a spokesman for WSJ parent company DOW Jones, told the DCNF in a statement.
“We require all ads to be clearly and properly identified as such, and, if an ad is advertorial, we add additional labeling to make clear the newsroom was not involved in its content or creation. The varied and divergent views expressed belong to the advertisers,” Severinghaus added.
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--2020-01-15--Oops? Pelosi Defends Impeaching Trump… Over Russia

Despite an investigation from the FBI that later morphed into Robert Mueller ’ s special council finding nothing , the Russia narrative lives on .
Last month the House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Columbia Circuit that they wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify , because he “ could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.
” The House Intel Committee , meanwhile , says they ’ ll revisit the Russia investigation after impeachment .
There isn ’ t anything to revisit – but they know very well that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed “ bombshell ” they produce ( that always end up fizzling within 24-hours ) .
As the cliche goes – Their lies will get halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed .
Even Pelosi is in agreement – or at least had a Freudian slip that indicated as much .
At her news conference today announcing the impeachment trail ’ s managers , she said “ This is about the Constitution of the United States and it ’ s important for the president to know , and Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should decide who our president is , not Putin and Russia.
” What does Putin have to do with the current impeachment saga ?
Absolutely nothing – but it ’ s clearly on Pelosi ’ s mind .
Watch below : As for the impeachment trail ’ s managers , Pelosi picked seven , all of whom are Democrats .
If the impeachment of President Donald Trump looks like a witch hunt – that ’ s because it is .
As I noted last month , the evidence proves that this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s history .
When the House voted on two articles of impeachment , the results of which were essentially a party line vote with minor exceptions .
Every single Republican voted against impeachment ( including one who accidentally voted yes , then corrected his vote ) , while Democrats had three defectors .
New Jersey Democrat Jeff Van Drew ( who is switching to Republican ) voted no on both articles of impeachment , as did Minnesota ’ s Collin Peterson .
Maine ’ s Jared Golden voted yes on the “ abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ obstruction.
” Democrat Tulsi Gabbard voted “ present , ” while Republican turned Independent Justin Amash voted for impeachment .
In stark contrast , during the Clinton impeachment five Democrats voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment , and it was thanks to dozens of Republicans that two of them died .
In the end two articles passed – the perjury charge was approved 228-206 , and the obstruction of justice charge 221-212 .
The abuse of power article was shot down because 81 Republicans voted against it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perjury charge .
During the impeachment of Richard Nixon , over a third of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee joined the Democrats to approve three articles of impeachment .
That all aside , Democrats are still going to lose in the Senate regardless .

First there was Russiagate, and then Ukrainegate, and then….. Russiagate?
Despite an investigation from the FBI that later morphed into Robert Mueller’s special council finding nothing, the Russia narrative lives on. Last month the House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Columbia Circuit that they wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, because he “could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.” The House Intel Committee, meanwhile, says they’ll revisit the Russia investigation after impeachment.
There isn’t anything to revisit – but they know very well that the mainstream media will eat up any supposed “bombshell” they produce (that always end up fizzling within 24-hours). As the cliche goes – Their lies will get halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed.
Even Pelosi is in agreement – or at least had a Freudian slip that indicated as much. At her news conference today announcing the impeachment trail’s managers, she said “This is about the Constitution of the United States and it’s important for the president to know, and Putin to know, that voters in America should decide who our president is, not Putin and Russia.”
What does Putin have to do with the current impeachment saga? Absolutely nothing – but it’s clearly on Pelosi’s mind. Watch below:
Speaker Pelosi: "This is about the Constitution of the United States and it's important for the president to know, and Putin to know, that voters in America should decide who our president is, not Putin and Russia." pic.twitter.com/10epi07gQi — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 15, 2020
As for the impeachment trail’s managers, Pelosi picked seven, all of whom are Democrats.
JUST IN: Speaker Nancy Pelosi names impeachment managers –>
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)
Rep. Val Demings (D-FL)
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)https://t.co/tp3RkGu1gb pic.twitter.com/U8arQwYmk7 — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 15, 2020
If the impeachment of President Donald Trump looks like a witch hunt – that’s because it is.
As I noted last month, the evidence proves that this is the most partisan impeachment inquiry in America’s history. When the House voted on two articles of impeachment, the results of which were essentially a party line vote with minor exceptions. Every single Republican voted against impeachment (including one who accidentally voted yes, then corrected his vote), while Democrats had three defectors. New Jersey Democrat Jeff Van Drew (who is switching to Republican) voted no on both articles of impeachment, as did Minnesota’s Collin Peterson. Maine’s Jared Golden voted yes on the “abuse of power” article but no on “obstruction.” Democrat Tulsi Gabbard voted “present,” while Republican turned Independent Justin Amash voted for impeachment.
In stark contrast, during the Clinton impeachment five Democrats voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, and it was thanks to dozens of Republicans that two of them died. In the end two articles passed – the perjury charge was approved 228-206, and the obstruction of justice charge 221-212. The abuse of power article was shot down because 81 Republicans voted against it, and 28 voted against the civil perjury charge. During the impeachment of Richard Nixon, over a third of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee joined the Democrats to approve three articles of impeachment.
That all aside, Democrats are still going to lose in the Senate regardless.


bonginoreport--2020-01-17--What’s in the USMCA Deal?

What’s in the USMCA Deal?

President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders agreed on a deal to pass a new trade agreement between the U.S. , Mexico and Canada that will update NAFTA .
Passing the new trade accord , known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement , would be a substantial win for both Trump – given it ’ s one of his campaign promises – and Democrats , who want to show they ’ re legislating even as they prepare to impeach the president .
So how is the USMCA different from the North American Free Trade Agreement , and why should you care ?
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not yet been released , the deal as detailed in May contains numerous tweaks from its predecessor , both big and small .
As an agriculture economist who studies trade , I believe three changes are especially noteworthy .
Since 1994 , the U.S. and Canada have dropped tariffs and other trade restrictions on most agricultural products .
But there were a few exceptions , most notably dairy .
Dairy was a particularly problematic sticking point in year-long negotiations between the three countries .
The U.S. and Canada both have long histories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dairy farmers and setting import quotas on milk .
Canadian tariffs on some products can be as high as 300 % .
The new USMCA begins to change that , representing a small but important win for both countries , especially the U.S .
Under the new accord , Canada will curb some of the ways it protects its dairy industry , such as allowing more American milk , butter , cheese and other dairy products to enter Canada duty-free , with reciprocal treatment for Canadian dairy exports to the U.S .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auto manufacturers in hopes of ensuring more vehicles and parts are made in North America .
Starting as early as 2020 , to qualify for zero tariffs when crossing borders , a car or truck must have 75 % of its components manufactured in Canada , the U.S. or Mexico , up from 62.5 % currently .
Even more noteworthy , negotiators agreed to a new requirement that 40 % to 45 % of a vehicle ’ s components must be made by workers earning at least US $ 16 per hour , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the average wage currently earned by Mexican auto workers .
This change is huge , particularly for low-paid workers in Mexico .
But it may lead to challenges over the enforcement of labor laws and increase the cost of cars made in all three countries .
Keeping up with the times Society has experienced significant technological changes since NAFTA was implemented in 1994 .
Back then , the internet was still in its infancy , while smartphones and self-driving cars were barely imaginable .
That ’ s why modernization – updating rules and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – is a critical and positive update to the trade deal tying the North American continent together .
While NAFTA was the first trade treaty to include intellectual property protections , the high pace of innovation has made modernization of its provisions imperative .
The new agreement includes stronger protections for patents and trademarks in areas such as biotech , financial services and domain names – all of which have advanced considerably over the past quarter-century .
It also contains new provisions governing the expansion of digital trade and investment in innovative products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to update labor and environmental standards , which were not central to the 1994 accord and are now typical in modern trade agreements .
Examples include enforcing a minimum wage for autoworkers , stricter environmental standards for Mexican trucks and new rules on fishing to protect marine life .
Apart from the changes , there is one important thing about the original NAFTA that will stay , thanks to the insistence of Canada .
Chapter 19 is the dispute settlement mechanism that allows countries to seek remedies for breaking the rules .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and makes it much easier to challenge another country ’ s policies .
Although Mexico ’ s Senate ratified the USMCA earlier this year , the deal still needed approval from Canada and the U.S. Congress .
Democrats and labor unions insisted on revisions to the text to address enforcement of labor and environmental provisions and intellectual property protection .
The newly revised text agreed to by Trump and the Democrats addresses these issues and is now ready for approval by all three countries .
All in all , I believe the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of its important predecessor , which the U.S. Department of Agriculture characterized as one of the most successful trade agreements in history .
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Oct. 2 , 2018 .
[ Like what you ’ ve read ?
Want more ?
Sign up for The Conversation ’ s daily newsletter . ]

President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders agreed on a deal to pass a new trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada that will update NAFTA.
Passing the new trade accord, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, would be a substantial win for both Trump – given it’s one of his campaign promises – and Democrats, who want to show they’re legislating even as they prepare to impeach the president.
So how is the USMCA different from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and why should you care?
Although the final revised text of the USMCA has not yet been released, the deal as detailed in May contains numerous tweaks from its predecessor, both big and small. As an agriculture economist who studies trade, I believe three changes are especially noteworthy.
Please pass the butter
Since 1994, the U.S. and Canada have dropped tariffs and other trade restrictions on most agricultural products. But there were a few exceptions, most notably dairy.
Dairy was a particularly problematic sticking point in year-long negotiations between the three countries. The U.S. and Canada both have long histories of protectionist policies, such as subsidizing dairy farmers and setting import quotas on milk. Canadian tariffs on some products can be as high as 300%.
The new USMCA begins to change that, representing a small but important win for both countries, especially the U.S.
Under the new accord, Canada will curb some of the ways it protects its dairy industry, such as allowing more American milk, butter, cheese and other dairy products to enter Canada duty-free, with reciprocal treatment for Canadian dairy exports to the U.S.
Made in North America
The new agreement also made big changes for auto manufacturers in hopes of ensuring more vehicles and parts are made in North America.
Starting as early as 2020, to qualify for zero tariffs when crossing borders, a car or truck must have 75% of its components manufactured in Canada, the U.S. or Mexico, up from 62.5% currently.
Even more noteworthy, negotiators agreed to a new requirement that 40% to 45% of a vehicle’s components must be made by workers earning at least US$16 per hour, which is about three times more than the average wage currently earned by Mexican auto workers.
This change is huge, particularly for low-paid workers in Mexico. But it may lead to challenges over the enforcement of labor laws and increase the cost of cars made in all three countries.
Keeping up with the times
Society has experienced significant technological changes since NAFTA was implemented in 1994. Back then, the internet was still in its infancy, while smartphones and self-driving cars were barely imaginable.
That’s why modernization – updating rules and standards to keep up with the times – is a critical and positive update to the trade deal tying the North American continent together.
While NAFTA was the first trade treaty to include intellectual property protections, the high pace of innovation has made modernization of its provisions imperative.
The new agreement includes stronger protections for patents and trademarks in areas such as biotech, financial services and domain names – all of which have advanced considerably over the past quarter-century. It also contains new provisions governing the expansion of digital trade and investment in innovative products and services.
Separately, negotiators agreed to update labor and environmental standards, which were not central to the 1994 accord and are now typical in modern trade agreements. Examples include enforcing a minimum wage for autoworkers, stricter environmental standards for Mexican trucks and new rules on fishing to protect marine life.
Apart from the changes, there is one important thing about the original NAFTA that will stay, thanks to the insistence of Canada. Chapter 19 is the dispute settlement mechanism that allows countries to seek remedies for breaking the rules. It’s like “trade court” and makes it much easier to challenge another country’s policies.
Although Mexico’s Senate ratified the USMCA earlier this year, the deal still needed approval from Canada and the U.S. Congress. Democrats and labor unions insisted on revisions to the text to address enforcement of labor and environmental provisions and intellectual property protection. The newly revised text agreed to by Trump and the Democrats addresses these issues and is now ready for approval by all three countries.
All in all, I believe the new NAFTA is definitely a modern and updated version of its important predecessor, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture characterized as one of the most successful trade agreements in history.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Oct. 2, 2018.
[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]


bonginoreport--2020-01-17--Reuters Poll Has Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders Tied Among Registered Voters

NEW YORK ( Reuters ) - U.S .
Senator Bernie Sanders has been steadily climbing in popularity this year and is now tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination among registered voters , according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll .
The online poll , released Thursday , shows that 20 % of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump , an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week .
Another 19 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren , 9 % backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6 % said they would support Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana .
Sanders and Bloomberg have increased their level of support in each of the last three Reuters/Ipsos polls starting in mid-December , while support for Biden , Warren and Buttigieg has remained flat .
The poll also shows that about one in five potential primary voters remain undecided .
And among those who have picked , nearly two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to changing their minds .
Sanders , an independent who built a national network of fervent supporters while running for the party ’ s nomination in 2016 , has consistently ranked among the most popular candidates since he entered the race .
The poll shows that standing does not appear to have been hurt by his recent confrontation with Warren over Sanders ’ views of women and politics .
Warren , who is aligned with Sanders on a variety of issues , has accused him of telling her in 2018 that a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputes that claim , and the two sniped at each other after this week ’ s presidential debate about how they were framing the conversation in public .
The dispute has the potential to reconfigure a Democratic nomination race that has stagnated for months with no single candidate emerging as the clear front-runner .
According to Reuters/Ipsos polling from December to January , women are the party ’ s biggest swing group : they are more than twice as likely as men to say they are undecided about which candidate to support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate , nearly two out of three say they are open to changing their minds .
So far , Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s support remains unchanged among women , with about 15 % supporting Sanders and 11 % supporting Warren .
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted in English throughout the United States from Jan. 15-16 .
It gathered responses from 681 Democrats and independents , including 552 who were registered to vote .
The poll has a credibility interval , a measure of precision , of about 5 percentage points .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been steadily climbing in popularity this year and is now tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination among registered voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll.
The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.
Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
Sanders and Bloomberg have increased their level of support in each of the last three Reuters/Ipsos polls starting in mid-December, while support for Biden, Warren and Buttigieg has remained flat.
The poll also shows that about one in five potential primary voters remain undecided. And among those who have picked, nearly two out of three say they are open to changing their minds.
Sanders, an independent who built a national network of fervent supporters while running for the party’s nomination in 2016, has consistently ranked among the most popular candidates since he entered the race.
The poll shows that standing does not appear to have been hurt by his recent confrontation with Warren over Sanders’ views of women and politics.
Warren, who is aligned with Sanders on a variety of issues, has accused him of telling her in 2018 that a woman could not be elected president. Sanders disputes that claim, and the two sniped at each other after this week’s presidential debate about how they were framing the conversation in public.
The dispute has the potential to reconfigure a Democratic nomination race that has stagnated for months with no single candidate emerging as the clear front-runner.
According to Reuters/Ipsos polling from December to January, women are the party’s biggest swing group: they are more than twice as likely as men to say they are undecided about which candidate to support. Among those women who have picked a candidate, nearly two out of three say they are open to changing their minds.
So far, Sanders’ and Warren’s support remains unchanged among women, with about 15% supporting Sanders and 11% supporting Warren.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted in English throughout the United States from Jan. 15-16. It gathered responses from 681 Democrats and independents, including 552 who were registered to vote. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points.