thewashingtonexaminer--2020-12-31--In lame-duck fights, Trump may already have eye on 2024 election

President Trump ’ s last-minute fights against leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill may not add to his total of first-term legislative victories but could set him up to remain the GOP ’ s populist leader in a possible bid for a second term .
That is what one Republican strategist described as the “ method ” to Trump ’ s “ madness ” as the president pushes for an increase in individual economic relief payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 , says he will send a rescissions package to excise pork from a massive government funding bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat , and continues to hold up defense authorization legislation over Big Tech and military base names .
Trump appears unlikely to prevail on any of these initiatives , though he has put together a strange bedfellows coalition that ranges from Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley to socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the $ 2,000 payments .
But despite his refusal to concede this year ’ s presidential race , with the Electoral College results slated to be certified the day after the pivotal Georgia Senate runoffs , he could already be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever comes next for the reality TV star turned president .
“ I think the president has the right political instincts on this .
He wants to keep fighting for average Americans and realizes $ 600 is insufficient , ” said Matt Mackowiak , a Republican consultant .
“ He ’ s never cared about the deficit .
His position is giving Dems what they want and splitting the GOP , but that doesn ’ t matter much to him.
” A second consultant added , “ As I ’ ve said before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In some ways , it takes Trump back to the formula that helped him win in 2016 : an economic populism that differentiated him from both Democrats and his fellow Republicans .
In addition to railing against China and what he described as bad trade deals , candidate Trump said he wouldn ’ t touch entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security , despite their status as long-term drivers of U.S. debt .
In exchanges with Republican primary opponents like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , Trump said he would repeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that no one was “ dying in the streets.
” As a result , Trump won over even some Sanders voters in his successful race against Hillary Clinton .
“ He also outlined a wide-ranging , if inchoate , critique of the bipartisan policy consensus that had dominated American politics since the end of the cold war : a failed combination of ‘ neoliberal ’ economics at home and military adventurism abroad , ” American Affairs editor Julius Krein , a formerly pro-Trump intellectual who broke with the president after Charlottesville .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was based on national interests rather than the ( often treacly ) left-liberal moralism of progressive Democrats , thus scrambling ideological categories and establishing himself as a candidate with a unique appeal among key constituencies.
” Krein and his allies argue that Trump abandoned much of what set him apart from other Republicans after taking office , focusing instead on the agenda of tax cuts , judges , and Obamacare repeal he shared with GOP congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan .
In 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other conservative issues .
He remained competitive in the Rust Belt relative to other post-Ronald Reagan GOP presidential nominees , claiming he only fell short in these states due to widespread voter fraud , but President-elect Joe Biden narrowly moved them back into the Democratic column .
But many Republicans will want to move past Trump ’ s populist brand of politics after he exits the White House .
The president himself has publicly focused on his election challenges , intervening in the COVID-19 spending package only very late in the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues could signal he is losing his grip on the party rather than demonstrating his 2024 staying power , some Republican insiders say .
“ He may think supporting a $ 2,000 check now will help his unannounced 2024 presidential chances , but if he loses the Georgia Senate seats by continuing to trash Republican officials down there , the only thing he 'll be thinking about in 2024 is how he managed to lose Republican control of the presidency , the House , and the Senate in four short years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , D.C. “ Republicans wo n't be comparing him to Lincoln or Reagan .
They 'll be comparing him to Obama and Nixon .
”

President Trump’s last-minute fights against leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill may not add to his total of first-term legislative victories but could set him up to remain the GOP’s populist leader in a possible bid for a second term.
That is what one Republican strategist described as the “method” to Trump’s “madness” as the president pushes for an increase in individual economic relief payments from $600 to $2,000, says he will send a rescissions package to excise pork from a massive government funding bill he only reluctantly signed after a veto threat, and continues to hold up defense authorization legislation over Big Tech and military base names.
Trump appears unlikely to prevail on any of these initiatives, though he has put together a strange bedfellows coalition that ranges from Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley to socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the $2,000 payments. But despite his refusal to concede this year’s presidential race, with the Electoral College results slated to be certified the day after the pivotal Georgia Senate runoffs, he could already be turning his gaze toward 2024 — or whatever comes next for the reality TV star turned president.
“I think the president has the right political instincts on this. He wants to keep fighting for average Americans and realizes $600 is insufficient,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant. “He’s never cared about the deficit. His position is giving Dems what they want and splitting the GOP, but that doesn’t matter much to him.” A second consultant added, “As I’ve said before, Trump owes the free-market intelligentsia nothing.”
In some ways, it takes Trump back to the formula that helped him win in 2016: an economic populism that differentiated him from both Democrats and his fellow Republicans. In addition to railing against China and what he described as bad trade deals, candidate Trump said he wouldn’t touch entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, despite their status as long-term drivers of U.S. debt. In exchanges with Republican primary opponents like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Trump said he would repeal Obamacare but replace it with something generous so that no one was “dying in the streets.”
As a result, Trump won over even some Sanders voters in his successful race against Hillary Clinton. “He also outlined a wide-ranging, if inchoate, critique of the bipartisan policy consensus that had dominated American politics since the end of the cold war: a failed combination of ‘neoliberal’ economics at home and military adventurism abroad,” writes American Affairs editor Julius Krein, a formerly pro-Trump intellectual who broke with the president after Charlottesville. “Moreover, Trump’s critique was based on national interests rather than the (often treacly) left-liberal moralism of progressive Democrats, thus scrambling ideological categories and establishing himself as a candidate with a unique appeal among key constituencies.”
Krein and his allies argue that Trump abandoned much of what set him apart from other Republicans after taking office, focusing instead on the agenda of tax cuts, judges, and Obamacare repeal he shared with GOP congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan.
In 2020, Trump emphasized his opposition to socialism and other conservative issues. He remained competitive in the Rust Belt relative to other post-Ronald Reagan GOP presidential nominees, claiming he only fell short in these states due to widespread voter fraud, but President-elect Joe Biden narrowly moved them back into the Democratic column.
But many Republicans will want to move past Trump’s populist brand of politics after he exits the White House. The president himself has publicly focused on his election challenges, intervening in the COVID-19 spending package only very late in the process. His inability to sway GOP lawmakers on these issues could signal he is losing his grip on the party rather than demonstrating his 2024 staying power, some Republican insiders say.
“He may think supporting a $2,000 check now will help his unannounced 2024 presidential chances, but if he loses the Georgia Senate seats by continuing to trash Republican officials down there, the only thing he'll be thinking about in 2024 is how he managed to lose Republican control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate in four short years,” said a veteran GOP operative in Washington, D.C. “Republicans won't be comparing him to Lincoln or Reagan. They'll be comparing him to Obama and Nixon.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--New projections of deficits provoke no response from Congress

New projections show a deteriorating fiscal outlook for the federal government , but Congress is not debating changing course .
A year ago , the Congressional Budget Office projected that trillion-dollar deficits would not begin until 2022 .
As of Tuesday , the organization sees that type of loss beginning this year , fiscal 2020 .
A big reason for the change in estimates is that , late last year , Congress and the White House expedited lowering taxes while simultaneously increasing spending .
Government-funding legislation passed and signed into law last December boosted federal spending by $ 1.4 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenue-raising Obamacare taxes .
It also renewed expired tax breaks that alone will drain $ 22.3 billion from federal coffers in 2020 , according to the Joint Committee on Taxation , the congressional scorekeeper for taxation .
“ The [ CBO ] numbers make the case perfectly , which is we have big problems , and we are going to need big changes , ” said Maya MacGuineas , president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget , a group that advocates for deficit reduction .
`` Ideally , we would put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address this problem and would include new revenues … and a massive rethinking of our spending programs . ''
Bill Gale , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution , said that entitlement reform , such as for Medicare and Social Security , should take priority over adding a new revenue stream , such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax , which would bring more revenue to the federal government .
“ I think it makes sense to pursue those opportunities vigorously … I ’ m not in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , referring to the creation of an additional revenue stream .
Gale 's first choice would be entitlement reform .
Lawmakers from both political parties have indicated that the CBO ’ s projections are a clear sign that reforms are needed in how the federal government taxes and spends .
Rep. Steve Womack , a Republican from Arkansas and the top Republican on the Budget Committee , said that the agency ’ s deficit projections showed an “ unsustainable trajectory.
” The committee ’ s chairman , Rep. John Yarmuth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday hearing on the budget report that it `` once again confirms that , despite the economic expansion he inherited , the fiscal outlook has worsened since President Trump took office.
” Despite all the talk , a fix is unlikely in the current political environment .
“ Congress and the president seem pretty unable to get much of anything done these days , so I would take a small improvement .
It would be better than nothing , even just not making the situation worse , ” MacGuineas said .
Lawmakers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on deepening the situation by proposing ways to spend more and tax less .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Monday that efforts are underway to produce another round of tax cuts following President Trump 's comments in Davos recommending such legislation .
Democrats on the presidential campaign trail propose to expand entitlements , such as by implementing `` Medicare for all '' or by expanding Social Security .
They vow to pay for the increase by raising taxes , but enacting new tax measures on that scale would be far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past .
If both parties get their way , the deficit would likely grow , not shrink .
The lack of fiscal restraint on the deficit leads to an increase in the debt .
The debt held by the public will rise from $ 17.2 trillion to $ 31.4 trillion by 2030 , according to the CBO , from about 80 % of GDP to nearly 100 % .
Current low interest rates make it relatively cheap to service the debt , but rising rates would be a rude awakening .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painful wake-up call , but I hope we can start sensible budgeting without that kind of action-facing moment , but that may be what happens , ” MacGuineas said .
In 2011 , lawmakers approved a deficit reduction measure that created a bipartisan , bicameral “ super committee ” that sought to reduce the deficit by $ 1.5 trillion over a 10-year period .
The group , however , failed in its objective .
The legislation also allowed for across-the-board cuts , known as `` sequestration . ''
Long before then , President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four budgets in the 1990s , which led to surpluses between 1998 and 2001 .

New projections show a deteriorating fiscal outlook for the federal government, but Congress is not debating changing course.
A year ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected that trillion-dollar deficits would not begin until 2022. As of Tuesday, the organization sees that type of loss beginning this year, fiscal 2020.
A big reason for the change in estimates is that, late last year, Congress and the White House expedited lowering taxes while simultaneously increasing spending.
Government-funding legislation passed and signed into law last December boosted federal spending by $1.4 trillion for military and nonmilitary programs and killed revenue-raising Obamacare taxes. It also renewed expired tax breaks that alone will drain $22.3 billion from federal coffers in 2020, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the congressional scorekeeper for taxation.
“The [CBO] numbers make the case perfectly, which is we have big problems, and we are going to need big changes,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates for deficit reduction. "Ideally, we would put together a plan that is big enough to address this problem and would include new revenues … and a massive rethinking of our spending programs."
Bill Gale, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that entitlement reform, such as for Medicare and Social Security, should take priority over adding a new revenue stream, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax, which would bring more revenue to the federal government.
“I think it makes sense to pursue those opportunities vigorously … I’m not in favor of enormous fiscal rectitude right now,” he said, referring to the creation of an additional revenue stream. Gale's first choice would be entitlement reform.
Lawmakers from both political parties have indicated that the CBO’s projections are a clear sign that reforms are needed in how the federal government taxes and spends. Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Arkansas and the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said that the agency’s deficit projections showed an “unsustainable trajectory.”
The committee’s chairman, Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, said during the panel's Wednesday hearing on the budget report that it "once again confirms that, despite the economic expansion he inherited, the fiscal outlook has worsened since President Trump took office.”
Despite all the talk, a fix is unlikely in the current political environment.
“Congress and the president seem pretty unable to get much of anything done these days, so I would take a small improvement. It would be better than nothing, even just not making the situation worse,” MacGuineas said.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, appear more focused on deepening the situation by proposing ways to spend more and tax less. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Monday that efforts are underway to produce another round of tax cuts following President Trump's comments in Davos recommending such legislation.
Democrats on the presidential campaign trail propose to expand entitlements, such as by implementing "Medicare for all" or by expanding Social Security. They vow to pay for the increase by raising taxes, but enacting new tax measures on that scale would be far beyond what has proved politically achievable in the past. If both parties get their way, the deficit would likely grow, not shrink.
The lack of fiscal restraint on the deficit leads to an increase in the debt. The debt held by the public will rise from $17.2 trillion to $31.4 trillion by 2030, according to the CBO, from about 80% of GDP to nearly 100%.
Current low interest rates make it relatively cheap to service the debt, but rising rates would be a rude awakening.
“An interest rate increase would be a painful wake-up call, but I hope we can start sensible budgeting without that kind of action-facing moment, but that may be what happens,” MacGuineas said.
In 2011, lawmakers approved a deficit reduction measure that created a bipartisan, bicameral “super committee” that sought to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period. The group, however, failed in its objective. The legislation also allowed for across-the-board cuts, known as "sequestration."
Long before then, President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress balanced four budgets in the 1990s, which led to surpluses between 1998 and 2001.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--A Babylon Bee in their bonnets

A Babylon Bee in their bonnets

In August 2019 , the New York Times published a warning .
“ The line between misinformation and satire can be thin , and real consequences can result when it is crossed , ” it cautioned .
“ On social media , parody can be misconstrued or misrepresented as it moves further and further from its source .
And humor has been weaponized to help spread falsehoods online.
” The subject of the New York Times article is not the satirical website the Onion .
It is not New Yorker humorist and inexplicable viral goldmine Andy Borowitz .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that dominate streaming services and late-night television .
The newspaper 's target is the Babylon Bee , a Christian satirical website that launched in 2016 amid little fanfare and boasts now roughly 15 million monthly page views .
For the New York Times and other newsrooms of equal size and influence , the success and reach of the conservative comedy group represent a real problem for the health of American democracy .
Satire , you see , is dangerous because people can not be trusted to know what is real and what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems .
Do not be fooled into thinking the news media 's newfound concerns for satire have anything to do with protecting the public from falsehoods .
The alarms that sound now for the Babylon Bee stem from transparent partisan politics .
The Babylon Bee launched the same year that Hillary Clinton lost a winnable election to Donald Trump .
Her defeat triggered a party-wide nervous breakdown , leaving both Democrats and their allies in the press in perpetual pursuit of ways to explain how Trump won the presidency .
They blame Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grave geopolitical foe .
They blame Facebook , which they previously credited with helping President Barack Obama win two terms in office .
They also blame “ fake news , ” a term that started out narrowly enough to mean disinformation cooked up by activist bloggers and trolls but now means anything that is disagreeable or can be misconstrued , including political commentary and even satire .
This means the Babylon Bee .
It 's equal parts amusing and infuriating for the Babylon Bee ’ s leadership .
“ When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing has been more illuminating for us than the recent attacks on our brand of humor by supposedly impartial fact-checkers like Snopes and news organizations like CNN , ” Babylon Bee Editor-in-Chief Kyle Mann told the Washington Examiner .
He adds , `` While we 'd always been ready and willing to give outlets like these the benefit of the doubt , it 's undeniable now that we are often singled out because we make fun of the ‘ wrong ’ targets.
” That the news media 's warnings about the Babylon Bee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and news commentators fawning over the likes of former Comedy Central host and faux newsman Jon Stewart has not been lost on the conservative group ’ s top brass .
“ The hypocrisy is blatant , ” said Mann .
“ When liberal late shows and satire sites fool people , they say it 's because the satire is hitting close to home .
When our satire is mistaken for real news , they say we 're a dangerous threat to democracy that must be silenced.
” Mann says his critics need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be under the same scrutiny we are , or they need to admit that we 're simply cutting too close to the bone for their comfort.
” Mann claims the Babylon Bee is being “ singled out ” by the press .
He 's not wrong .
Since its debut , reporters and news commentators have gone after the website with a seemingly relentless stream of criticism , fact checks , and analyses highlighting the perils of online humor .
An article from Harvard ’ s Nieman Lab , of the Nieman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Maybe you know that article is satire , but a lot of people can ’ t tell the difference.
” Snopes , which publishes copious “ fact checks ” of the Babylon Bee ’ s satirical work , including an article titled “ CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication , ” has gone so far as to promote a junk study “ proving ” the conservative comedy site poses a public risk .
Snopes ’ s bizarre crusade against the Babylon Bee goes well beyond mere criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July outright accused the conservative group of intentionally deceiving readers , an allegation that threatened the Babylon Bee ’ s standing on Facebook and all the web traffic that goes with it .
The “ fracas ” between the Babylon Bee and Snopes , Poynter argued in March 2018 , “ highlights the notoriously thin line between satire and misinformation.
” “ Even if a story ’ s intention is to entertain , ” Poynter cautioned , “ the effect could still be misinformation if the headline is believable enough.
” Then there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the alleged dangers of the Babylon Bee ’ s humor .
“ A post from a satirical website has been shared more than 500k times saying the DNC called for the flag to be at half-mast because of Soleimani , ” Daily Beast contributor Cindy Otis tweeted in January .
“ Some family members just called bc their Republican friends on [ Facebook ] are circulating it like it 's legit .
We have a lot of work to do , all.
” The article in question is titled : “ Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Half-Mast To Grieve Death Of Soleimani.
” It is clearly a joke .
Her fears were echoed elsewhere by CNN disinformation reporter Donie O ’ Sullivan , who tweeted , “ To put this in perspective , this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week .
A lot of people sharing this ‘ satirical ’ story on Facebook do n't know it is satire.
” O ’ Sullivan , who is himself a fan of the Onion , added , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your site that says it ’ s ‘ satire ’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation.
” His CNN colleague Brian Stelter said earlier that the Babylon Bee is a “ fake news site , ” adding derisively that “ they call it ‘ satire.
’ ” It is impossible to ignore that the press has never gone after the Onion or even Borowitz with anything near this level of intensity .
The press rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satire during the first decade of the war on terror , back when Stewart the media darling spoon-fed his viewers a steady diet of deceptively edited interviews .
Political satire was not as grave a threat to democracy when voters said they got their news from Stewart and the many copycat shows that cropped up around his critically acclaimed program .
Polls showing voters relied on the former Comedy Central host as a legitimate source of news information despite his obviously partisan lean did not inspire panic or anger in the press .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ adored Stewart , even as he gained a reputation for intentionally misrepresenting the facts .
The Newseum actually honored Stewart in 2019 with his own display , praising the `` news '' anchor for becoming the “ go-to source for information for a new generation of news consumers.
” Many “ viewers considered Stewart a more trusted source for news than actual broadcast journalists , ” the Newseum said in a press release that hailed him as an indispensable contributor to the core mission of the free press .
The conversations today about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the height of Stewart ’ s popularity .
What changed ?
It 's simple , says Babylon Bee senior writer Frank Fleming .
Donald Trump won the White House .
“ I think why we 're being targeted now is that after Trump was elected , a lot of the Left seem to be doing whatever they can to avoid self-reflection , ” Fleming told the Washington Examiner .
He added , `` It ’ s a tough pill to swallow that people have a rational reason to prefer Trump over them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to external explanations like ‘ people are getting tricked by Facebook ads ’ or ‘ people are getting tricked by the Babylon Bee.
’ But I feel like that ’ s getting cause and effect backwards.
” Fleming , who stresses that the website is not trying to trick anyone , notes that no one ever seems to cry “ fake news ” whenever one of its articles mocking Trump or his Cabinet goes viral .
“ No one loved the Democrats up until they saw an inaccurate meme , but when people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or group , they ’ re more likely to be credulous toward more negative information about that person or group , ” he said .
`` The real question the Left need to be asking is what about their behavior and policy proposals have turned people so strongly against them , but it ’ s a lot easier to pretend their problem is the Bee tricking lots of people.
” Mann has a blunter assessment of the matter .
“ The more zealous a movement is , the less that movement can abide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now a religion , its prophets and priests want to silence the heretics that mock their faith , ” he said .
Mann added , “ They 'd do well to learn how to laugh at themselves , as we Christians have had to do while being the butt of the joke for the last several decades.
” Becket Adams is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner .

In August 2019, the New York Times published a warning.
“The line between misinformation and satire can be thin, and real consequences can result when it is crossed,” it cautioned. “On social media, parody can be misconstrued or misrepresented as it moves further and further from its source. And humor has been weaponized to help spread falsehoods online.”
The subject of the New York Times article is not the satirical website the Onion. It is not New Yorker humorist and inexplicable viral goldmine Andy Borowitz. It is not the satirical “news” programs that dominate streaming services and late-night television.
The newspaper's target is the Babylon Bee, a Christian satirical website that launched in 2016 amid little fanfare and boasts now roughly 15 million monthly page views. For the New York Times and other newsrooms of equal size and influence, the success and reach of the conservative comedy group represent a real problem for the health of American democracy. Satire, you see, is dangerous because people cannot be trusted to know what is real and what is fiction.
Or some satire, it seems.
Do not be fooled into thinking the news media's newfound concerns for satire have anything to do with protecting the public from falsehoods. The alarms that sound now for the Babylon Bee stem from transparent partisan politics.
The Babylon Bee launched the same year that Hillary Clinton lost a winnable election to Donald Trump. Her defeat triggered a party-wide nervous breakdown, leaving both Democrats and their allies in the press in perpetual pursuit of ways to explain how Trump won the presidency.
They blame Russia, which they concede now is a grave geopolitical foe. They blame Facebook, which they previously credited with helping President Barack Obama win two terms in office. They also blame “fake news,” a term that started out narrowly enough to mean disinformation cooked up by activist bloggers and trolls but now means anything that is disagreeable or can be misconstrued, including political commentary and even satire. This means the Babylon Bee.
It's equal parts amusing and infuriating for the Babylon Bee’s leadership.
“When it comes to the bias of the corporate press, nothing has been more illuminating for us than the recent attacks on our brand of humor by supposedly impartial fact-checkers like Snopes and news organizations like CNN,” Babylon Bee Editor-in-Chief Kyle Mann told the Washington Examiner.
He adds, "While we'd always been ready and willing to give outlets like these the benefit of the doubt, it's undeniable now that we are often singled out because we make fun of the ‘wrong’ targets.”
That the news media's warnings about the Babylon Bee come after nearly two decades of reporters and news commentators fawning over the likes of former Comedy Central host and faux newsman Jon Stewart has not been lost on the conservative group’s top brass.
“The hypocrisy is blatant,” said Mann. “When liberal late shows and satire sites fool people, they say it's because the satire is hitting close to home. When our satire is mistaken for real news, they say we're a dangerous threat to democracy that must be silenced.”
Mann says his critics need to pick one: “Either progressive humor should be under the same scrutiny we are, or they need to admit that we're simply cutting too close to the bone for their comfort.”
Mann claims the Babylon Bee is being “singled out” by the press. He's not wrong.
Since its debut, reporters and news commentators have gone after the website with a seemingly relentless stream of criticism, fact checks, and analyses highlighting the perils of online humor.
An article from Harvard’s Nieman Lab, of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, cautioned in 2019, “Maybe you know that article is satire, but a lot of people can’t tell the difference.” Snopes, which publishes copious “fact checks” of the Babylon Bee’s satirical work, including an article titled “CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication,” has gone so far as to promote a junk study “proving” the conservative comedy site poses a public risk. Snopes’s bizarre crusade against the Babylon Bee goes well beyond mere criticism. A “fact check” last July outright accused the conservative group of intentionally deceiving readers, an allegation that threatened the Babylon Bee’s standing on Facebook and all the web traffic that goes with it. The “fracas” between the Babylon Bee and Snopes, Poynter argued in March 2018, “highlights the notoriously thin line between satire and misinformation.”
“Even if a story’s intention is to entertain,” Poynter cautioned, “the effect could still be misinformation if the headline is believable enough.”
Then there's all the online media commentary aimed at the alleged dangers of the Babylon Bee’s humor.
“A post from a satirical website has been shared more than 500k times saying the DNC called for the flag to be at half-mast because of Soleimani,” Daily Beast contributor Cindy Otis tweeted in January. “Some family members just called bc their Republican friends on [Facebook] are circulating it like it's legit. We have a lot of work to do, all.”
The article in question is titled: “Democrats Call For Flags To Be Flown At Half-Mast To Grieve Death Of Soleimani.”
It is clearly a joke.
Her fears were echoed elsewhere by CNN disinformation reporter Donie O’Sullivan, who tweeted, “To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week. A lot of people sharing this ‘satirical’ story on Facebook don't know it is satire.”
O’Sullivan, who is himself a fan of the Onion, added, “Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s ‘satire’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation.”
His CNN colleague Brian Stelter said earlier that the Babylon Bee is a “fake news site,” adding derisively that “they call it ‘satire.’”
It is impossible to ignore that the press has never gone after the Onion or even Borowitz with anything near this level of intensity. The press rarely, if ever, worried about political satire during the first decade of the war on terror, back when Stewart the media darling spoon-fed his viewers a steady diet of deceptively edited interviews. Political satire was not as grave a threat to democracy when voters said they got their news from Stewart and the many copycat shows that cropped up around his critically acclaimed program. Polls showing voters relied on the former Comedy Central host as a legitimate source of news information despite his obviously partisan lean did not inspire panic or anger in the press. On the contrary, the news media adored Stewart, even as he gained a reputation for intentionally misrepresenting the facts. The Newseum actually honored Stewart in 2019 with his own display, praising the "news" anchor for becoming the “go-to source for information for a new generation of news consumers.”
Many “viewers considered Stewart a more trusted source for news than actual broadcast journalists,” the Newseum said in a press release that hailed him as an indispensable contributor to the core mission of the free press.
The conversations today about the pitfalls of satire were conspicuously absent during the height of Stewart’s popularity. What changed?
It's simple, says Babylon Bee senior writer Frank Fleming. Donald Trump won the White House.
“I think why we're being targeted now is that after Trump was elected, a lot of the Left seem to be doing whatever they can to avoid self-reflection,” Fleming told the Washington Examiner.
He added, "It’s a tough pill to swallow that people have a rational reason to prefer Trump over them, so many of them are turning to external explanations like ‘people are getting tricked by Facebook ads’ or ‘people are getting tricked by the Babylon Bee.’ But I feel like that’s getting cause and effect backwards.”
Fleming, who stresses that the website is not trying to trick anyone, notes that no one ever seems to cry “fake news” whenever one of its articles mocking Trump or his Cabinet goes viral.
“No one loved the Democrats up until they saw an inaccurate meme, but when people have strong negative feelings toward a person or group, they’re more likely to be credulous toward more negative information about that person or group,” he said. "The real question the Left need to be asking is what about their behavior and policy proposals have turned people so strongly against them, but it’s a lot easier to pretend their problem is the Bee tricking lots of people.”
Mann has a blunter assessment of the matter.
“The more zealous a movement is, the less that movement can abide mockery and humor. Since the Left is now a religion, its prophets and priests want to silence the heretics that mock their faith,” he said.
Mann added, “They'd do well to learn how to laugh at themselves, as we Christians have had to do while being the butt of the joke for the last several decades.”
Becket Adams is a senior commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--Politics as pro wrestling

Politics as pro wrestling

For decades , audiences of millions have cheered and booed at professional wrestling .
The triumph of the heroes , the malice of the baddies , and the tension and athleticism of the wrestling have kept viewers hooked .
Fewer people are watching pro wrestling now , but we are still cheering and booing .
Ironically , the decline of professional wrestling has accompanied the pro-wrestlification of politics .
More than urging on sporting superheroes in the mold of Hulk Hogan or John Cena , people have been cheering their political heroes in the form of the Obamas or President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as Yokozuna and JBL , people have focused their outrage on politicians such as the Clintons or , well , President Trump .
Just as professional wrestling has “ babyfaces ” and “ heels , ” or good guys and bad guys , we project all of our hopes and all of our bitterness onto Trump , Mitt Romney , Bernie Sanders , Nancy Pelosi , and the rest , as if their individual personalities are more powerful than the internal logic of the system .
Trump knows the power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a longtime friend of WWE CEO Vince McMahon .
He starred in the 2007 WrestleMania and is a member of the WWE Hall of Fame .
Like any good wrestler , Trump knows he has to charm his supporters and smear his opponents .
Like great antiheroes , such as “ Stone Cold ” Steve Austin , he knows that his admirers will applaud rudeness and cruelty if they are targeted at people they find dangerous and pathetic .
But people , in arguably even greater numbers , are still getting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
This is what I call “ pro wrestlification.
” There is nothing a pro-wrestling fan hates more , for example , than to be viewed as a “ mark ” : someone who believes that pro wrestling is organic .
People speculate excitedly about what is a “ work , ” or fake , and what is a “ shoot , ” or real , and create elaborate interpretations of what is happening behind the scenes .
What could be more appropriate to compare to our hot take-heavy sweatbox of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is true , what is false , and what is the overall plan — for we always assume there is one — behind events .
Sometimes , the intensity of such discourse appears to be out of proportion with the significance of events .
The Russia inquiry generated millions upon millions of feverish words despite having little more substance than most pro-wrestling storylines .
Sometimes , events point to really curious and disturbing phenomena “ behind the scenes , ” such as the inspector general ’ s investigation into the FBI , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conflicted way that it is hard to discern a coherent narrative .
Wrestling fans are still debating the facts behind the notorious “ Montreal Screwjob ” ( where a wrestler was genuinely conned out of his title ) .
No doubt , people will debate the facts behind the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein for years to come .
Trump has not been alone in taking on the appeal of a pro wrestling character .
While the pro wrestling industry has struggled to build stars , the news has more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A feature of the Trump era has been the astonishing turnover in ubiquitous public figures .
The likes of Steve Bannon , Michael Avenatti , Robert Mueller , and Anthony Scaramucci are all but forgotten now .
Yet when they were on the scene , they existed at the center of brief , intense controversies that made them either the savior or arch-enemy of Democrats and Republicans .
Indeed , the pro wrestlifying power of the modern media was evident in the fact that someone as bland and private as Robert “ Robot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heated and hotly divided opinions .
And after he ’ d given his report , the news cycle continued to spin ; new events threw up new characters , which we met with no less furious intensity .
But pro wrestlification is not just a product of the media .
It is an absence of anything else .
The phenomenon has developed as people have become both more emotionally invested in politics and less active as participants .
Twenty-four-hour news , pioneered , incidentally , by Ted Turner , who owned World Championship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media have made us entranced by the drama of political events , even as the decline of civic associations , labor unions , and community ties has made us more passive observers .
We watch from the sidelines , cheering , hooting , and remarking on events that we rarely choose to analyze critically in our efforts to be the smartest mark around .
I think the pro wrestlification of political discourse helps to explain why we are all so angry about it .
Professional wrestling offers something politics does not : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theorist Roland Barthes wrote in an essay in his classic book , Mythologies : '' What wrestling is above all meant to portray is a purely moral concept : that of justice ...
The baser the actions of the [ heel ] , the more delighted the public is by the blow he justly receives in return . ''
Politics offers no such catharsis .
Achievements are incremental and reversible .
Our opponents always seem to live to fight another day .
Thus , we sound revolutionary yet remain observers , hoping that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we feel is due .
It never happens .
Frankly , this bizarre political culture makes one feel almost nostalgic for the days when pro wrestling reigned supreme .
It has to have been healthier than this .

For decades, audiences of millions have cheered and booed at professional wrestling. The triumph of the heroes, the malice of the baddies, and the tension and athleticism of the wrestling have kept viewers hooked. Fewer people are watching pro wrestling now, but we are still cheering and booing. Ironically, the decline of professional wrestling has accompanied the pro-wrestlification of politics.
More than urging on sporting superheroes in the mold of Hulk Hogan or John Cena, people have been cheering their political heroes in the form of the Obamas or President Trump. More than booing villainous wrestlers, such as Yokozuna and JBL, people have focused their outrage on politicians such as the Clintons or, well, President Trump.
Just as professional wrestling has “babyfaces” and “heels,” or good guys and bad guys, we project all of our hopes and all of our bitterness onto Trump, Mitt Romney, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest, as if their individual personalities are more powerful than the internal logic of the system. Trump knows the power of this, of course. The president is a longtime friend of WWE CEO Vince McMahon. He starred in the 2007 WrestleMania and is a member of the WWE Hall of Fame. Like any good wrestler, Trump knows he has to charm his supporters and smear his opponents. Like great antiheroes, such as “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, he knows that his admirers will applaud rudeness and cruelty if they are targeted at people they find dangerous and pathetic.
But people, in arguably even greater numbers, are still getting their fix. It's just coming from politics. This is what I call “pro wrestlification.” There is nothing a pro-wrestling fan hates more, for example, than to be viewed as a “mark”: someone who believes that pro wrestling is organic. People speculate excitedly about what is a “work,” or fake, and what is a “shoot,” or real, and create elaborate interpretations of what is happening behind the scenes. What could be more appropriate to compare to our hot take-heavy sweatbox of political discourse, where people feverishly speculate about what is true, what is false, and what is the overall plan — for we always assume there is one — behind events.
Sometimes, the intensity of such discourse appears to be out of proportion with the significance of events. The Russia inquiry generated millions upon millions of feverish words despite having little more substance than most pro-wrestling storylines. Sometimes, events point to really curious and disturbing phenomena “behind the scenes,” such as the inspector general’s investigation into the FBI, but are reported in such a fragmentary, conflicted way that it is hard to discern a coherent narrative. Wrestling fans are still debating the facts behind the notorious “Montreal Screwjob” (where a wrestler was genuinely conned out of his title). No doubt, people will debate the facts behind the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein for years to come.
Trump has not been alone in taking on the appeal of a pro wrestling character. While the pro wrestling industry has struggled to build stars, the news has more than satisfied our appetite for colorful characters. A feature of the Trump era has been the astonishing turnover in ubiquitous public figures. The likes of Steve Bannon, Michael Avenatti, Robert Mueller, and Anthony Scaramucci are all but forgotten now. Yet when they were on the scene, they existed at the center of brief, intense controversies that made them either the savior or arch-enemy of Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, the pro wrestlifying power of the modern media was evident in the fact that someone as bland and private as Robert “Robot” Mueller was the focus of such heated and hotly divided opinions. And after he’d given his report, the news cycle continued to spin; new events threw up new characters, which we met with no less furious intensity.
But pro wrestlification is not just a product of the media. It is an absence of anything else. The phenomenon has developed as people have become both more emotionally invested in politics and less active as participants. Twenty-four-hour news, pioneered, incidentally, by Ted Turner, who owned World Championship Wrestling as well as CNN, and social media have made us entranced by the drama of political events, even as the decline of civic associations, labor unions, and community ties has made us more passive observers. We watch from the sidelines, cheering, hooting, and remarking on events that we rarely choose to analyze critically in our efforts to be the smartest mark around.
I think the pro wrestlification of political discourse helps to explain why we are all so angry about it. Professional wrestling offers something politics does not: satisfying resolutions. As the French cultural theorist Roland Barthes wrote in an essay in his classic book, Mythologies:
"What wrestling is above all meant to portray is a purely moral concept: that of justice ... The baser the actions of the [heel], the more delighted the public is by the blow he justly receives in return."
Politics offers no such catharsis. Achievements are incremental and reversible. Our opponents always seem to live to fight another day. Thus, we sound revolutionary yet remain observers, hoping that our heroes will inflict the justice that we feel is due. It never happens. Frankly, this bizarre political culture makes one feel almost nostalgic for the days when pro wrestling reigned supreme. It has to have been healthier than this.
Ben Sixsmith is a writer living in Poland.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--People outside the Beltway are not transfixed by impeachment

Travel out of Washington to find out what everyday people with everyday jobs and practical problems , not the people in TV studios , are saying about impeachment , and there ’ s an immediate snag .
“ You could try Granville , ” said the waitress at Franks & Sammies in Newark , Ohio , between slinging hot dogs loaded with pulled pork , bacon , or pretty much any other animal-based product imaginable during weekday lunchtime .
“ It ’ s got the college , there .
They might be political , but I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to about it.
” Certainly not her regulars , who looked blank when asked what they thought about the Senate trial , nor the assistant at the county information bureau in the city square around the corner , who also recommended driving up the road to the college town .
“ The people who care about it care about it a lot , ” he said .
Otherwise , not so much , is the message .
That will be a blow to the Democrats who opened their case to senators with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their deliberations .
Even if they knew they would struggle to get the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump , at least they could lay out the evidence against Trump and remind voters of the big decision looming in November ’ s election .
But , if the prosperous small city of Newark is any guide , then not many people have been paying attention .
“ I can count on zero fingers how many people have talked to me about it , ” is how one local business leader put it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers bit tells much the same story , the story of a nation going about its daily business without worrying too much about the political battle unfolding in Washington .
Just under 12 million people tuned in to the six major networks to watch the first day of the Senate trial , according to Nielsen Media Research , when lawmakers began the business of settling the rules .
That dipped to less than 9 million people on the second day , when House managers began their opening statements and setting out their case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a drop from the almost 14 million who watched the opening of the House impeachment hearings in the fall and represent less than 3 % of the population .
This was much to the delight of the Trump campaign , whose Brad Parscale said he could barely bring himself to watch it — and it is his job to follow proceedings .
“ It ’ s like watching paint dry , ” he told Fox News .
Online data , collected by web tracking and digital advertising company Taboola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company found that interest in online news stories about impeachment dropped from an average of 19 million page views per day during December ’ s impeachment vote to about 13 million last week for the Senate trial .
Sometimes it is tempting to ask why so many people are still interested , given that the outcome in a Republican-controlled Senate is all but assured and given that the trial so far has comprised evidence already aired in the House .
This is not how TV courtroom dramas work , with their sudden revelations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as disputes over whether to permit witnesses or the leaked details of former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s manuscript , which reportedly implicates the president in a plan to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it announced an investigation into Joe Biden , don ’ t have people scrambling for the remote control in most of the country , according to Jeanne Zaino , professor of political studies at Iona College .
Most people suspect he is guilty as charged , but most people know that a Republican-controlled Senate won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People know what ’ s going to happen in the end , ” she said .
“ They see it as just politics as normal : a lot of back and forth for no real purpose .
”

Travel out of Washington to find out what everyday people with everyday jobs and practical problems, not the people in TV studios, are saying about impeachment, and there’s an immediate snag.
“You could try Granville,” said the waitress at Franks & Sammies in Newark, Ohio, between slinging hot dogs loaded with pulled pork, bacon, or pretty much any other animal-based product imaginable during weekday lunchtime. “It’s got the college, there. They might be political, but I don’t think you’ll find anyone here to talk to about it.”
Certainly not her regulars, who looked blank when asked what they thought about the Senate trial, nor the assistant at the county information bureau in the city square around the corner, who also recommended driving up the road to the college town.
“The people who care about it care about it a lot,” he said. Otherwise, not so much, is the message.
That will be a blow to the Democrats who opened their case to senators with a warning that the world was watching their deliberations. Even if they knew they would struggle to get the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump, at least they could lay out the evidence against Trump and remind voters of the big decision looming in November’s election. But, if the prosperous small city of Newark is any guide, then not many people have been paying attention.
“I can count on zero fingers how many people have talked to me about it,” is how one local business leader put it.
That is the anecdote bit. The numbers bit tells much the same story, the story of a nation going about its daily business without worrying too much about the political battle unfolding in Washington.
Just under 12 million people tuned in to the six major networks to watch the first day of the Senate trial, according to Nielsen Media Research, when lawmakers began the business of settling the rules. That dipped to less than 9 million people on the second day, when House managers began their opening statements and setting out their case that Trump should be removed from office.
That’s a drop from the almost 14 million who watched the opening of the House impeachment hearings in the fall and represent less than 3% of the population.
This was much to the delight of the Trump campaign, whose Brad Parscale said he could barely bring himself to watch it — and it is his job to follow proceedings. “It’s like watching paint dry,” he told Fox News.
Online data, collected by web tracking and digital advertising company Taboola, paint a similar picture. The company found that interest in online news stories about impeachment dropped from an average of 19 million page views per day during December’s impeachment vote to about 13 million last week for the Senate trial.
Sometimes it is tempting to ask why so many people are still interested, given that the outcome in a Republican-controlled Senate is all but assured and given that the trial so far has comprised evidence already aired in the House. This is not how TV courtroom dramas work, with their sudden revelations and surprise twists.
Even last-minute events, such as disputes over whether to permit witnesses or the leaked details of former national security adviser John Bolton’s manuscript, which reportedly implicates the president in a plan to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it announced an investigation into Joe Biden, don’t have people scrambling for the remote control in most of the country, according to Jeanne Zaino, professor of political studies at Iona College.
Most people suspect he is guilty as charged, but most people know that a Republican-controlled Senate won’t remove him from power.
“People know what’s going to happen in the end,” she said. “They see it as just politics as normal: a lot of back and forth for no real purpose.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--Word of the Week: 'Milk'

Word of the Week: 'Milk'

When we say , “ The Milky Way galaxy , ” we are being redundant .
The word `` galaxy '' itself means `` milky way . ''
It comes via French and Latin from a modified Greek word for milk used to refer to the white band across the night sky .
We ’ re mammals , which means we define ourselves by having mammary glands and nursing .
It should perhaps not be surprising , then , that `` galaxy '' hardly exhausts the cultural history of milk as a metaphor in our language .
Among the many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the modern tongue is Lady Macbeth ’ s “ the milk of human kindness.
” In her psychopathic ambition , she meant it as a bad thing ; her husband ’ s nature “ is too full o ’ th ’ milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way ” ( of murdering the man who stands in between him and the throne ) .
And then , there are all sorts of not so metaphorical , natural white liquid “ milks ” that don ’ t come from animals , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the white stuff milkweed or milk thistle produce and are named for , and so on .
I mention all of this because two dairy-state senators , Republican Jim Risch of Idaho and Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin , are leading an effort to ban nondairy products made from soy , oat , et cetera from being “ mislabeled with dairy terms such as milk , yogurt or cheese.
” Milking an obviously dishonest concern for consumers who might be confused about whether soy milk came from a cow ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the Food and Drug Administration to ban these words from labels with a bill called the DAIRY PRIDE Act .
Milk products are not the only area where there is an effort to get the government into the word-policing of food .
The United States Cattlemen ’ s Association was pleased about the introduction of 2019 ’ s Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully Act , introduced in the House by New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi and Kansas Republican Roger Marshall .
Isn ’ t it coincidental how it ’ s the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce legislators with an interest in making sure consumers are treated to precise use of language on product labeling ?
The world of 2020 is beset by so much language policing , often based so much more in a petty desire to police than in any real interest in precise and careful language .
In this space , I often decry one or the other insane yet trendy claim about how some perfectly ordinary phrase is rendered anathema because it ’ s now deemed exclusive , or traumatizing , or culturally appropriative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s important to remember that the very worst language policing is the sort that comes from the actual government , which can regulate the way business operates , confiscate property , and control the literal police .
These state efforts to make sure we use words the way the dairy and meat industries prefer seek to solve a problem that doesn ’ t exist .
Nobody is buying the Impossible Burger thinking it ’ s beef , and Impossible Foods has a clear market interest in making sure consumers have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made of animals .
Nobody puts almond milk in coffee thinking it contains lactose and came from a Holstein .
These bipartisan regulations , then , combine rent-seeking with censoriousness and coercion .
They should garner bipartisan opposition .

When we say, “The Milky Way galaxy,” we are being redundant. The word "galaxy" itself means "milky way." It comes via French and Latin from a modified Greek word for milk used to refer to the white band across the night sky.
We’re mammals, which means we define ourselves by having mammary glands and nursing. It should perhaps not be surprising, then, that "galaxy" hardly exhausts the cultural history of milk as a metaphor in our language. Among the many Shakespearean phrases that have become stock to the modern tongue is Lady Macbeth’s “the milk of human kindness.” In her psychopathic ambition, she meant it as a bad thing; her husband’s nature “is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way” (of murdering the man who stands in between him and the throne). And then, there are all sorts of not so metaphorical, natural white liquid “milks” that don’t come from animals, such as coconut milk, milk of magnesia, or the white stuff milkweed or milk thistle produce and are named for, and so on.
I mention all of this because two dairy-state senators, Republican Jim Risch of Idaho and Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, are leading an effort to ban nondairy products made from soy, oat, et cetera from being “mislabeled with dairy terms such as milk, yogurt or cheese.” Milking an obviously dishonest concern for consumers who might be confused about whether soy milk came from a cow’s udder, they are also trying to get the Food and Drug Administration to ban these words from labels with a bill called the DAIRY PRIDE Act.
Milk products are not the only area where there is an effort to get the government into the word-policing of food. The United States Cattlemen’s Association was pleased about the introduction of 2019’s Real Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully Act, introduced in the House by New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi and Kansas Republican Roger Marshall. Isn’t it coincidental how it’s the states with big cattle industries that seem to produce legislators with an interest in making sure consumers are treated to precise use of language on product labeling?
The world of 2020 is beset by so much language policing, often based so much more in a petty desire to police than in any real interest in precise and careful language. In this space, I often decry one or the other insane yet trendy claim about how some perfectly ordinary phrase is rendered anathema because it’s now deemed exclusive, or traumatizing, or culturally appropriative, or whatever breed of problematic. But it’s important to remember that the very worst language policing is the sort that comes from the actual government, which can regulate the way business operates, confiscate property, and control the literal police.
These state efforts to make sure we use words the way the dairy and meat industries prefer seek to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Nobody is buying the Impossible Burger thinking it’s beef, and Impossible Foods has a clear market interest in making sure consumers have an accurate impression about whether its product is made of animals. Nobody puts almond milk in coffee thinking it contains lactose and came from a Holstein. These bipartisan regulations, then, combine rent-seeking with censoriousness and coercion. They should garner bipartisan opposition.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--New bill would end phone records surveillance program

A group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that would permanently end a surveillance program that allows the National Security Agency to collect U.S. telephone and business records .
On Jan. 24 , a group of three Democrats and three Republicans introduced the Safeguarding Americans ' Private Records Act in the House of Representatives , and a companion Senate bill was introduced a few days later .
The bill would end a controversial surveillance program , authorized in the 2001 Patriot Act , that had allowed the NSA to collect millions of U.S. call records before the agency reportedly suspended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised concerns that the NSA could resurrect the call records collection unless Congress kills the program .
Several lawmakers and privacy groups have called for changes in the Patriot Act surveillance in recent months , but in November , Congress extended expiring surveillance programs from Dec. 15 to March 15 .
The bill protects civil liberties and stops `` the federal government from encroaching into our lives , '' Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana , one of its sponsors , said in a statement .
The bill would otherwise extend the business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , it would exclude cell site location , GPS information , web browsing history , and internet search history from the collection .
Section 215 of the Patriot Act currently allows the FBI to ask for a court order to obtain `` any tangible things , '' including books , records , papers , and documents related to a terrorism investigation .
That section of the law allowed for the NSA 's massive collection of telephone records for several years .
The Trump administration and several Republicans in Congress have voiced support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Supporters argue the surveillance programs are necessary to keep the United States safe from terrorism .
The current program `` provides us with the necessary tools to keep Americans safe , '' Joseph Maguire , the acting director of national intelligence , said in September .
Further amendments to the Patriot Act are n't needed because the 2015 USA Freedom Act , which prohibited bulk collection of records , `` preserves significant national security authorities , enhances privacy and civil liberties protections , and increases transparency , '' he said then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intelligence did n't have an immediate comment on the bill .
Privacy and digital rights advocates praised the bill .
The legislation includes many significant reforms to surveillance programs to `` strengthen protections for Americans ' civil liberties , '' the Center for Democracy and Technology said in an emailed statement .
`` These reforms are long overdue . ''
The bill is a `` major step forward in protecting people from warrantless and discriminatory surveillance by government authorities , '' added Sandra Fulton , government relations director at Free Press Action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of these laws on the nation 's most vulnerable communities and should seize this moment to curtail the dragnet-surveillance powers that were granted under the deeply problematic and outdated Patriot Act , '' she said .
Last October , 20 Democrats sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee calling for changes in the Patriot Act surveillance programs .
`` While we do not believe that any administration should have the broad and unchecked surveillance powers permitted [ in parts of the law ] , certainly , the Trump administration should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote the Democrats , led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan .
Last March , 39 digital rights and privacy groups also called for limits on surveillance and the permanent end to the phone records collection program .
Sponsors of the House version of the Safeguarding Americans ' Private Records Act include Reps. Zoe Lofgren , a California Democrat ; Warren Davidson , an Ohio Republican ; Pramila Jayapal , a Washington Democrat ; and Matt Gaetz , a Florida Republican .
In addition to Daines , Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate version .

A group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that would permanently end a surveillance program that allows the National Security Agency to collect U.S. telephone and business records.
On Jan. 24, a group of three Democrats and three Republicans introduced the Safeguarding Americans' Private Records Act in the House of Representatives, and a companion Senate bill was introduced a few days later.
The bill would end a controversial surveillance program, authorized in the 2001 Patriot Act, that had allowed the NSA to collect millions of U.S. call records before the agency reportedly suspended the program in 2018. Privacy advocates have raised concerns that the NSA could resurrect the call records collection unless Congress kills the program.
Several lawmakers and privacy groups have called for changes in the Patriot Act surveillance in recent months, but in November, Congress extended expiring surveillance programs from Dec. 15 to March 15.
The bill protects civil liberties and stops "the federal government from encroaching into our lives," Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, one of its sponsors, said in a statement.
The bill would otherwise extend the business records collection program for four years. Still, it would exclude cell site location, GPS information, web browsing history, and internet search history from the collection.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act currently allows the FBI to ask for a court order to obtain "any tangible things," including books, records, papers, and documents related to a terrorism investigation. That section of the law allowed for the NSA's massive collection of telephone records for several years.
The Trump administration and several Republicans in Congress have voiced support for the current Patriot Act surveillance provisions. Supporters argue the surveillance programs are necessary to keep the United States safe from terrorism.
The current program "provides us with the necessary tools to keep Americans safe," Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, said in September.
Further amendments to the Patriot Act aren't needed because the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which prohibited bulk collection of records, "preserves significant national security authorities, enhances privacy and civil liberties protections, and increases transparency," he said then.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence didn't have an immediate comment on the bill.
Privacy and digital rights advocates praised the bill. The legislation includes many significant reforms to surveillance programs to "strengthen protections for Americans' civil liberties," the Center for Democracy and Technology said in an emailed statement. "These reforms are long overdue."
The bill is a "major step forward in protecting people from warrantless and discriminatory surveillance by government authorities," added Sandra Fulton, government relations director at Free Press Action.
"Members of Congress should understand the impact of these laws on the nation's most vulnerable communities and should seize this moment to curtail the dragnet-surveillance powers that were granted under the deeply problematic and outdated Patriot Act," she said.
Last October, 20 Democrats sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee calling for changes in the Patriot Act surveillance programs.
"While we do not believe that any administration should have the broad and unchecked surveillance powers permitted [in parts of the law], certainly, the Trump administration should not be entrusted with these powers," wrote the Democrats, led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
Last March, 39 digital rights and privacy groups also called for limits on surveillance and the permanent end to the phone records collection program.
Sponsors of the House version of the Safeguarding Americans' Private Records Act include Reps. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat; Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican; Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat; and Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican. In addition to Daines, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon is sponsoring the Senate version.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--Trump warns Iowans 'your farms are going to hell' if he loses in 2020

President Trump warned during a campaign rally that Democrats would hurt the agriculture sector if he is not reelected .
`` They don ’ t care about the farmers , '' the president said Friday to a crowd in Des Moines .
`` You should love Trump , with what I 've done .
We 're going to win the great state of Iowa , and it 's going to be a historic landslide , and , if we do n't win , your farms are going to hell , I can tell you right now .
'Sell , sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'Sell ! '
'' Trump , 73 , touted his ability to help farmers , ranchers , and manufactures a day after he signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade .
The deal worked to stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to Mexico while also attempting to open Canada up to more U.S. farm goods .
The International Trade Commission did a study that projected the deal would raise the GDP by $ 68 billion .
`` This is something we really put our hearts into .
It is probably the main reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , '' the president said about the deal .
In August , a farmer expressed concern to Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren about her policies affecting the ranching industry .
`` The Green New Deal says we need to get rid of cows , '' the farmer said .
Warren responded , `` Ehhhh . ''

President Trump warned during a campaign rally that Democrats would hurt the agriculture sector if he is not reelected.
"They don’t care about the farmers," the president said Friday to a crowd in Des Moines. "You should love Trump, with what I've done. We're going to win the great state of Iowa, and it's going to be a historic landslide, and, if we don't win, your farms are going to hell, I can tell you right now. 'Sell, sell,' they'll be saying. 'Sell!'"
Trump, 73, touted his ability to help farmers, ranchers, and manufactures a day after he signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. The deal worked to stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to Mexico while also attempting to open Canada up to more U.S. farm goods.
The International Trade Commission did a study that projected the deal would raise the GDP by $68 billion. "This is something we really put our hearts into. It is probably the main reason why I chose to live this crazy life," the president said about the deal.
In August, a farmer expressed concern to Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren about her policies affecting the ranching industry. "The Green New Deal says we need to get rid of cows," the farmer said. Warren responded, "Ehhhh."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--‘Not a registered Democrat’: Biden attacks Bernie Sanders on party loyalty

Joe Biden took a swipe at Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders for being an independent through his 29-year congressional career instead of a Democrat .
`` I ’ m a Democrat , '' Biden , 77 , told reporters during a campaign stop at a Dairy Queen in Pella , Iowa , on Thursday when asked about his biggest contrast with Sanders .
`` He says he ’ s not .
He ’ s not a registered Democrat , to the best of my knowledge . ''
The Vermont senator has been elected as an independent since first joining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his Democratic colleagues .
Last year , Sanders signed a loyalty pledge to the party that read , `` I am a member of the Democratic Party . ''
Biden then criticized the liberal Vermont senator 's plan to create a Medicare for All healthcare system .
`` Bernie has a different view .
I mean , everything I ’ ve suggested to you that I want to do , I ’ ve figured how to pay for it .
He 's acknowledged he does n't even know what his Medicare for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it .
How do you get something done that way ?
” Sanders , 78 , said in an interview on Saturday that it is `` impossible to predict '' the total price tag for his sweeping policy proposals .
Biden declined , however , to criticize Sanders 's evolution on gun control .
For much of his career , Sanders tiptoed around firearm issues and did not take as strong as a stance as some Democrats .
`` I think Bernie has made his verbal amends for his record on guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thinks Sanders regrets voting in favor of a measure that shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits .
`` He was in a campaign in Vermont for a tough race for the Senate , '' Biden said , discussing Sanders 's `` voting against the Brady Bill five times .
I think he regretted that and has changed his mind . ''
Sanders 's 2016 Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton also criticized Sanders for voting five times against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act , which requires a waiting period and background checks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders 's votes took place before the act was signed into law in 1994 .

Joe Biden took a swipe at Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders for being an independent through his 29-year congressional career instead of a Democrat.
"I’m a Democrat," Biden, 77, told reporters during a campaign stop at a Dairy Queen in Pella, Iowa, on Thursday when asked about his biggest contrast with Sanders. "He says he’s not. He’s not a registered Democrat, to the best of my knowledge."
The Vermont senator has been elected as an independent since first joining the House in 1991, though he caucuses with his Democratic colleagues. Last year, Sanders signed a loyalty pledge to the party that read, "I am a member of the Democratic Party."
Biden then criticized the liberal Vermont senator's plan to create a Medicare for All healthcare system.
"Bernie has a different view. I mean, everything I’ve suggested to you that I want to do, I’ve figured how to pay for it. He's acknowledged he doesn't even know what his Medicare for All — how he's going to do it. How do you get something done that way? ”
Sanders, 78, said in an interview on Saturday that it is "impossible to predict" the total price tag for his sweeping policy proposals.
Biden declined, however, to criticize Sanders's evolution on gun control. For much of his career, Sanders tiptoed around firearm issues and did not take as strong as a stance as some Democrats.
"I think Bernie has made his verbal amends for his record on guns," Biden said, mentioning that he thinks Sanders regrets voting in favor of a measure that shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits. "He was in a campaign in Vermont for a tough race for the Senate," Biden said, discussing Sanders's "voting against the Brady Bill five times. I think he regretted that and has changed his mind."
Sanders's 2016 Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton also criticized Sanders for voting five times against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires a waiting period and background checks on the federal level for handgun purchases. Sanders's votes took place before the act was signed into law in 1994.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--WATCH: Trump rallies in Des Moines, Iowa

President Trump will hold a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines , Iowa , at 7 p.m. EST .
The @ @ @ @ @ team for the president answered questions in the Senate for his impeachment trial .

President Trump will hold a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa, at 7 p.m. EST. The rally comes as the legal team for the president answered questions in the Senate for his impeachment trial.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-30--Bernie Sanders praised segregationist George Wallace as 'sensitive' in 1972

Seven years after Martin Luther King , Jr. referred to George Wallace as `` perhaps the most dangerous racist in America today , '' a young Bernie Sanders praised the segregationist Alabama governor .
In an interview with the Brattleboro Reformer in 1972 , Sanders , then 31 , said Wallace `` advocates some outrageous approaches to our problems , but at least he is sensitive to what people feel they need . ''
Sanders , now a Vermont senator and 2020 Democrat , said , `` What we need are more active politicians working for the people . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time , who wrote that `` even though [ Sanders ] has been labeled a 'leftist radical ' by some persons , Sanders had some praise for [ Wallace ] . ''
On other occasions , Sanders was more critical of Wallace and warned about the allure of white identity politics .
At the time , Sanders was in the midst of his first political bid , as a gubernatorial candidate for the socialist Liberty Union Party .
During that race , Sanders garnered only single-digit support — the first in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , before winning the Burlington mayor 's office , Vermont 's single House seat in 1990 , and his current Senate seat in 2006 .
Wallace was among the most well-known segregationists of his era .
Wallace declared in his 1963 inaugural address as governor — he served three different non-consecutive terms — that he stood for `` segregation now , segregation tomorrow , segregation forever . ''
Wallace won further infamy for standing in the front of the entrance of the University of Alabama , blocking the paths of black students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after becoming a born-again Christian and apologizing to black Americans for his previous policies .
The resurfacing of Sanders 's comments come after many Democrats begin fearing his rise in the presidential primary .
For nearly a year , most of Sanders 's rivals have refrained from directly targeting his long paper trail of controversial statements and positions .
While there was a bipartisan consensus in the 1970s and 1980s against the totalitarian policies of the Soviet Union and Cuba , Sanders regularly touted what he saw as positive aspects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Examiner reported on Sanders 's history campaigning for the Marxist Socialist Workers party in 1980 and 1984 .
At one point , Sanders 's involvement with the SWP led to an FBI investigation when he was mayor of Burlington , Vermont .
Never an official member of the Democratic Party until his presidential bids in 2016 and 2020 , many primary voters view his presidential bids with suspicion .
Sanders never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate until 1988 , when he first had his eyes on federal office .
That year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first elected to Congress as an independent in 1990 after a failed House bid two years earlier .
In other writings , Sanders expressed concern about the racist fervor of Wallace ’ s supporters .
`` I came away from these Wallace interviews with two basic feelings .
First , that democracy in America ( in any sense of the word ) just might not make it , '' Sanders wrote in 1972 .
`` My mind flashed to scenes of Germany in the late 1920 's .
Confusion , rebellion , frustration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pride , ineffectual political leadership -- and the desire for a strong man who would do something , who would bring order out of the chaos . ''
The interview and subsequent writings demonstrate the balancing act many on the left faced when dealing with segregationists .
Despite his rivals attempting to capitalize on Sanders 's past , other Democratic White House hopefuls have their own racial-tinged history to grapple with .
In 1975 , then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden told the Philadelphia Enquirer that `` the Democratic Party could stand a liberal George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , Biden vowed not to back Wallace should he win the Democratic Party 's nomination .
`` If Wallace got the [ Democratic nomination ] , I would support the Republican nominee , if it were Gerald Ford , '' said Biden , then 34 and in the fourth year of his 36-year Senate career , which preceded two terms as President Barack Obama 's vice president .
In 1974 , Biden also pledged to stop Wallace from winning the nomination in the next presidential race .
`` Over my dead political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , '' Biden said .
Editor 's note : This story has been updated to include other comments Sanders made about Wallace .

Seven years after Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to George Wallace as "perhaps the most dangerous racist in America today," a young Bernie Sanders praised the segregationist Alabama governor.
In an interview with the Brattleboro Reformer in 1972, Sanders, then 31, said Wallace "advocates some outrageous approaches to our problems, but at least he is sensitive to what people feel they need."
Sanders, now a Vermont senator and 2020 Democrat, said, "What we need are more active politicians working for the people."
The 1972 remarks surprised the interviewer at the time, who wrote that "even though [Sanders] has been labeled a 'leftist radical' by some persons, Sanders had some praise for [Wallace]."
On other occasions, Sanders was more critical of Wallace and warned about the allure of white identity politics.
At the time, Sanders was in the midst of his first political bid, as a gubernatorial candidate for the socialist Liberty Union Party. During that race, Sanders garnered only single-digit support — the first in a series of losses in bids for political office, before winning the Burlington mayor's office, Vermont's single House seat in 1990, and his current Senate seat in 2006.
Wallace was among the most well-known segregationists of his era. Wallace declared in his 1963 inaugural address as governor — he served three different non-consecutive terms — that he stood for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Wallace won further infamy for standing in the front of the entrance of the University of Alabama, blocking the paths of black students.
He died in 1998 at 79, after becoming a born-again Christian and apologizing to black Americans for his previous policies.
The resurfacing of Sanders's comments come after many Democrats begin fearing his rise in the presidential primary. For nearly a year, most of Sanders's rivals have refrained from directly targeting his long paper trail of controversial statements and positions.
While there was a bipartisan consensus in the 1970s and 1980s against the totalitarian policies of the Soviet Union and Cuba, Sanders regularly touted what he saw as positive aspects of the regimes.
And last year, the Washington Examiner reported on Sanders's history campaigning for the Marxist Socialist Workers party in 1980 and 1984. At one point, Sanders's involvement with the SWP led to an FBI investigation when he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
Never an official member of the Democratic Party until his presidential bids in 2016 and 2020, many primary voters view his presidential bids with suspicion.
Sanders never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate until 1988, when he first had his eyes on federal office. That year, he backed Jesse Jackson. Sanders was first elected to Congress as an independent in 1990 after a failed House bid two years earlier.
In other writings, Sanders expressed concern about the racist fervor of Wallace’s supporters.
"I came away from these Wallace interviews with two basic feelings. First, that democracy in America (in any sense of the word) just might not make it," Sanders wrote in 1972. "My mind flashed to scenes of Germany in the late 1920's. Confusion, rebellion, frustration, economic instability, a wounded national pride, ineffectual political leadership -- and the desire for a strong man who would do something, who would bring order out of the chaos."
The interview and subsequent writings demonstrate the balancing act many on the left faced when dealing with segregationists.
Despite his rivals attempting to capitalize on Sanders's past, other Democratic White House hopefuls have their own racial-tinged history to grapple with.
In 1975, then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden told the Philadelphia Enquirer that "the Democratic Party could stand a liberal George Wallace."
The following year, however, Biden vowed not to back Wallace should he win the Democratic Party's nomination.
"If Wallace got the [Democratic nomination], I would support the Republican nominee, if it were Gerald Ford," said Biden, then 34 and in the fourth year of his 36-year Senate career, which preceded two terms as President Barack Obama's vice president.
In 1974, Biden also pledged to stop Wallace from winning the nomination in the next presidential race.
"Over my dead political body is George Wallace going to get it," Biden said.
Editor's note: This story has been updated to include other comments Sanders made about Wallace.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-31--Not-governor Stacey Abrams is already planning a bid to be not-president

Ambition is a fine quality in anyone , but somebody needs to tell former state Rep. Stacey Abrams that she 's trying way too hard and is starting to look like the next Beto O'Rourke .
Abrams , whose most significant act in politics to date remains losing a race for Georgia governor and refusing to concede , said in a new interview that not only will she be elected president someday , but that it will certainly happen by 2040 .
“ That ’ s my plan , '' she told FiveThirtyEight .
`` And I ’ m very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Abrams 's `` plan '' is .
It 's not even clear that she knows what `` pragmatic '' means .
To be fair , the woman interviewing Abrams kind of pushed her in that direction by asking if she thought a black woman would win the presidency within 20 years and then asking with a charmed smile whether that black woman would be Abrams .
Abrams , of course , has n't run for any federal office .
And she lost her most recent race for governor of Georgia .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her for the presidency , and she 's even inviting Democrats running for the nomination to pick her as their running mate .
`` I ’ m a very accomplished person who has experience on a realm of issues and has the capacity to do this job , '' she said in the interview .
And without a flicker of self-awareness , she added , `` I ’ m not in the conversation just because I ’ m a black woman . ''
Why , then , does she think she 's in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data somewhere that Democratic voters are clamoring to elect election losers for president ?
I suspect that her experience as a cheesy women 's fiction novelist is n't a major selling point for a President Stacey .
Abrams really is following the same path as Beto O'Rourke .
Like him , she failed in her latest race , but because liberal journalists love her , she believes she was `` just born to be in it . ''

Ambition is a fine quality in anyone, but somebody needs to tell former state Rep. Stacey Abrams that she's trying way too hard and is starting to look like the next Beto O'Rourke.
Abrams, whose most significant act in politics to date remains losing a race for Georgia governor and refusing to concede, said in a new interview that not only will she be elected president someday, but that it will certainly happen by 2040.
“That’s my plan," she told FiveThirtyEight. "And I’m very pragmatic.”
It's not readily obvious what Abrams's "plan" is. It's not even clear that she knows what "pragmatic" means.
To be fair, the woman interviewing Abrams kind of pushed her in that direction by asking if she thought a black woman would win the presidency within 20 years and then asking with a charmed smile whether that black woman would be Abrams.
Abrams, of course, hasn't run for any federal office. And she lost her most recent race for governor of Georgia. She's under the impression that that qualifies her for the presidency, and she's even inviting Democrats running for the nomination to pick her as their running mate.
"I’m a very accomplished person who has experience on a realm of issues and has the capacity to do this job," she said in the interview. And without a flicker of self-awareness, she added, "I’m not in the conversation just because I’m a black woman."
Why, then, does she think she's in the "conversation"? Is there data somewhere that Democratic voters are clamoring to elect election losers for president? I suspect that her experience as a cheesy women's fiction novelist isn't a major selling point for a President Stacey.
Abrams really is following the same path as Beto O'Rourke. Like him, she failed in her latest race, but because liberal journalists love her, she believes she was "just born to be in it."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-02--Schumer decries impeachment 'cover-up' after DOJ reveals 24 Trump-Ukraine emails being withheld

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused his Republican colleagues who voted to reject a motion for additional witnesses and documents in President Trump 's impeachment trial of being involved in a `` cover-up . ''
The New York Democrat lashed out on Saturday after the Trump administration acknowledged it is blocking the release of two dozen emails related to Trump 's involvement in the delay of military aid for Ukraine .
“ Every single Republican senator voted to endorse the White House cover-up of these potentially important truth-revealing emails .
Make no mistake , the full truth will eventually come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer for why they were so determined to enable the president to hide it , '' Schumer said in a statement .
In a court filing late Friday , the Justice Department responded to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking those records hours after the Senate witness vote .
Heather Walsh , a lawyer for the Office of Management and Budget , wrote to the U.S. District Court for D.C. that these 24 emails sent between June and September 2019 can not be unredacted because they are covered by presidential privilege .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ category are emails that reflect communications by either the President , the Vice President , or the President ’ s immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope , duration , and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine , ” Walsh said .
Impeachment proceedings began last fall with Democrats accusing Trump of improperly leveraging a White House meeting and nearly $ 400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine into helping investigate his political rivals , including former Vice President Joe Biden , who is running for president this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power and obstruction of Congress — the latter a result of the Trump administration withholding some witnesses and documents during the House impeachment investigation .
In the Senate trial , as impeachment managers pressed for additional evidence , particularly testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton , Trump 's legal team argued that the Democrats could not prove a motive and the president may have had `` mixed motives '' for his actions , involving both personal and public interest .
Two Senate Republicans joined 47 Democrats on Friday to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence .
The motion fell short by two votes , ending the case House impeachment managers have been presenting for the past two weeks and paving the way for an acquittal of the charges next week .
The Justice Department filed its motion Friday just before the midnight deadline , asking the court to deny the Center for Public Integrity 's request for unredacted copies of records of communications between the Department of Defense and the White House Office of Management and Budget about the security aid .
A federal judge ordered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ batches in December .
They were heavily blacked out , but some groups and journalists say they have viewed the unredacted copies .

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused his Republican colleagues who voted to reject a motion for additional witnesses and documents in President Trump's impeachment trial of being involved in a "cover-up."
The New York Democrat lashed out on Saturday after the Trump administration acknowledged it is blocking the release of two dozen emails related to Trump's involvement in the delay of military aid for Ukraine.
“Every single Republican senator voted to endorse the White House cover-up of these potentially important truth-revealing emails. Make no mistake, the full truth will eventually come out, and Republicans will have to answer for why they were so determined to enable the president to hide it," Schumer said in a statement.
In a court filing late Friday, the Justice Department responded to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking those records hours after the Senate witness vote. Heather Walsh, a lawyer for the Office of Management and Budget, wrote to the U.S. District Court for D.C. that these 24 emails sent between June and September 2019 cannot be unredacted because they are covered by presidential privilege.
“Specifically, the documents in this category are emails that reflect communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President’s immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine,” Walsh said.
Impeachment proceedings began last fall with Democrats accusing Trump of improperly leveraging a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine into helping investigate his political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for president this year.
Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — the latter a result of the Trump administration withholding some witnesses and documents during the House impeachment investigation.
In the Senate trial, as impeachment managers pressed for additional evidence, particularly testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, Trump's legal team argued that the Democrats could not prove a motive and the president may have had "mixed motives" for his actions, involving both personal and public interest.
Two Senate Republicans joined 47 Democrats on Friday to vote in favor of calling for the additional evidence. The motion fell short by two votes, ending the case House impeachment managers have been presenting for the past two weeks and paving the way for an acquittal of the charges next week.
The Justice Department filed its motion Friday just before the midnight deadline, asking the court to deny the Center for Public Integrity's request for unredacted copies of records of communications between the Department of Defense and the White House Office of Management and Budget about the security aid. A federal judge ordered the Justice Department to release the documents in batches in December. They were heavily blacked out, but some groups and journalists say they have viewed the unredacted copies.