thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--No, the Senate can't have a trial before the House sends articles of impeachment

President Trump ’ s Republican allies want the Senate to hold an impeachment trial to prove that the president is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors .
But Democrats in the House are standing in the way .
While the House articles of impeachment last December , its Democratic majority has not yet who will take those articles to the Senate and manage its case in the subsequent trial there .
Until the House takes these steps , the Senate can neither convict Trump nor acquit him , because its rules that the House must officially inform senators of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trial can begin .
According to House Speaker of California , the House will not complete its share of the impeachment process until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , a Republican from Kentucky , and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a Democrat from New York , agree on the ground rules that will govern a Senate trial .
Amid this , support among Republicans to hold a trial without waiting on the House has gained traction .
The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules to authorize a Senate-only trial .
Proponents of unilateral Senate action argue that it is permitted because the Constitution supersedes any internal rules prohibiting senators from holding a trial without the House .
Some proponents even assert that the Constitution compels the Senate to act unilaterally .
The Wall Street Journal that the Senate “ has a responsibility to fulfill its part of the Constitution ’ s impeachment duty as a check on the partisan excesses of the Pelosi House.
” Notwithstanding the partisan excesses of either chamber , senators risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they heed such advice .
By choosing to hold an impeachment trial without the House , senators are circumventing Congress ’ s bicameral structure and undermining the Constitution .
of the Constitution gives the House the `` sole Power of Impeachment.
” gives the Senate the “ sole Power to try all Impeachments.
” The Constitution , therefore , empowers the Senate to hold a trial to convict ( or acquit ) a government official only after he or she has been impeached by the House .
This raises the question of when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an impeachment trial .
The short answer is that the Senate can hold a trial only when the House completes its share of the impeachment process outlined in the Constitution .
The Constitution ’ s impeachment provisions were modeled on 18th century British practice .
Thomas Jefferson that in Great Britain , “ The general course is to pass a resolution [ in the House of Commons ] containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent , and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation , at the bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of the Commons.
” In other words , the House of Lords can not hold a trial to convict or acquit someone until the House of Commons has informed the Lords that it has impeached that person .
This is the fundamental problem with a Senate-only trial .
As a practical matter , the Senate does not know whether the House has impeached someone until it is told .
Telling the Senate that it has impeached someone requires the House to take formal action explicitly for the purpose of communicating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifying the high crimes and misdemeanors of which that person is guilty .
House Democrats are this fact of congressional life to pressure Senate Republicans to adopt more favorable trial rules .
Republicans portray Pelosi ’ s strategy as inappropriate and constitutionally suspect .
But both chambers attempt to influence each other ’ s internal proceedings on a routine basis .
It is an inherent ( and healthy ) aspect of intra-branch bargaining .
While the Constitution gives the House and Senate plenary power over the procedures that govern their proceedings , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial until the House informs the Senate that it has impeached someone .
The Senate ’ s own precedents that the House has adopted different procedures for impeaching someone , adopting articles of impeachment , and appointing managers to present those articles in the other chamber .
By deciding to convict ( or acquit ) government officials of high crimes and misdemeanors on their own initiative , senators would , in effect , be usurping the House ’ s sole power to impeach .
Republicans should also consider what happens after they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sends over articles of impeachment .
In that scenario , senators will be forced to either concede the irrelevancy of the prior trial , or ignore the articles of impeachment , thereby contradicting their own arguments that the Constitution , and the Senate ’ s rules , require the Senate to hold a trial when the House impeaches someone .
At best , a Senate-only trial is a mere messaging exercise with no legal effect .
At worst , it weakens Congress ’ s bicameral structure and undermines the Constitution .
As proponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ honor the Constitution by holding a trial.
” But they should hold a trial only when the Senate ’ s rules and the Constitution empower them to do so .
James Wallner ( @ jiwallner ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's Beltway Confidential blog .
He is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute .
Previously he was a Senate aide and a former group vice president for research at the Heritage Foundation .

President Trump’s Republican allies want the Senate to hold an impeachment trial to prove that the president is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. But Democrats in the House are standing in the way.
While the House approved articles of impeachment last December, its Democratic majority has not yet appointed the members who will take those articles to the Senate and manage its case in the subsequent trial there. Until the House takes these steps, the Senate can neither convict Trump nor acquit him, because its rules stipulate that the House must officially inform senators of its decision to impeach the president before a trial can begin.
According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, the House will not complete its share of the impeachment process until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, agree on the ground rules that will govern a Senate trial. Amid this impasse , support among Republicans to hold a trial without waiting on the House has gained traction. The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is now calling on his colleagues to change the rules to authorize a Senate-only trial.
Proponents of unilateral Senate action argue that it is permitted because the Constitution supersedes any internal rules prohibiting senators from holding a trial without the House. Some proponents even assert that the Constitution compels the Senate to act unilaterally. The Wall Street Journal contends that the Senate “has a responsibility to fulfill its part of the Constitution’s impeachment duty as a check on the partisan excesses of the Pelosi House.”
Notwithstanding the partisan excesses of either chamber, senators risk violating more than their own rules if they heed such advice. By choosing to hold an impeachment trial without the House, senators are circumventing Congress’s bicameral structure and undermining the Constitution.
Article I, section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution gives the House the "sole Power of Impeachment.” Article I, section 3, clause 6, gives the Senate the “sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The Constitution, therefore, empowers the Senate to hold a trial to convict (or acquit) a government official only after he or she has been impeached by the House.
This raises the question of when the Constitution authorizes the Senate to conduct an impeachment trial. The short answer is that the Senate can hold a trial only when the House completes its share of the impeachment process outlined in the Constitution.
The Constitution’s impeachment provisions were modeled on 18th century British practice. Thomas Jefferson notes that in Great Britain, “The general course is to pass a resolution [in the House of Commons] containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the Commons.” In other words, the House of Lords cannot hold a trial to convict or acquit someone until the House of Commons has informed the Lords that it has impeached that person.
This is the fundamental problem with a Senate-only trial. As a practical matter, the Senate does not know whether the House has impeached someone until it is told. Telling the Senate that it has impeached someone requires the House to take formal action explicitly for the purpose of communicating that fact and delivers the articles of impeachment specifying the high crimes and misdemeanors of which that person is guilty.
House Democrats are leveraging this fact of congressional life to pressure Senate Republicans to adopt more favorable trial rules. Republicans portray Pelosi’s strategy as inappropriate and constitutionally suspect. But both chambers attempt to influence each other’s internal proceedings on a routine basis. It is an inherent (and healthy) aspect of intra-branch bargaining.
While the Constitution gives the House and Senate plenary power over the procedures that govern their proceedings, the Senate is constitutionally barred from holding an impeachment trial until the House informs the Senate that it has impeached someone. The Senate’s own precedents concede that the House has adopted different procedures for impeaching someone, adopting articles of impeachment, and appointing managers to present those articles in the other chamber. By deciding to convict (or acquit) government officials of high crimes and misdemeanors on their own initiative, senators would, in effect, be usurping the House’s sole power to impeach.
Republicans should also consider what happens after they complete a Senate-only trial and the House sends over articles of impeachment. In that scenario, senators will be forced to either concede the irrelevancy of the prior trial, or ignore the articles of impeachment, thereby contradicting their own arguments that the Constitution, and the Senate’s rules, require the Senate to hold a trial when the House impeaches someone.
At best, a Senate-only trial is a mere messaging exercise with no legal effect. At worst, it weakens Congress’s bicameral structure and undermines the Constitution.
As proponents of unilateral action argue, senators should “honor the Constitution by holding a trial.” But they should hold a trial only when the Senate’s rules and the Constitution empower them to do so.
James Wallner (@jiwallner) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute. Previously he was a Senate aide and a former group vice president for research at the Heritage Foundation.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Justice, FBI pressed on Obama hacking allegations against Benghazi reporter

A key Republican Senate chairman is demanding answers from the Justice Department and FBI on whether Obama-era officials secretly accessed the phones and computers of a reporter probing the “ Fast and Furious ” scandal and debacle in Benghazi , Libya .
In going to bat for award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson , Sen. Ron Johnson is reopening a case that prompted a federal judge to hit the government for stalling .
In his letter to Justice and the FBI , the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said that “ documented abuse of the Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI in the Russia probe of President Trump raise new suspicions in the Attkisson case .
“ I am especially concerned about these unresolved questions regarding the alleged surveillance of Ms. Attkisson , ” said the Wisconsin lawmaker of the former CBS investigative reporter , now on Sinclair and host of the Full Measure show .
“ It is well past time that Ms. Attkisson , Congress , and the American public receive answers to questions that have remained outstanding for over 6 years , ” said Johnson .
According to Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist , Attkisson noticed “ anomalies ” with her work and personal electronic devices from 2011-2013 while she was probing the Fast and Furious gun scandal and the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that ensnared then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
Her suit was eventually dismissed after long delays by the Obama Justice Department , prompting dissenting Judge James Wynn Jr. to write that “ Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answers to suspicions that her devices were hacked by the government , but never succeeded .
Wrote Johnson in the letter shown below : “ In 2013 , as ranking member of this committee , Senator Tom Coburn sought answers from then-Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the government ’ s actions in the hacking and surveillance of Ms. Attkisson ’ s computers .
In 2014 , Senator Coburn sent a second letter noting that DOJ ’ s response answered none of his questions .
In 2015 , as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answers .
In March 2018 , I wrote to DOJ ’ s Office of the Inspector General ( DOJ OIG ) and received a copy of its Abbreviated Report of Investigation regarding its analysis of Ms. Attkisson ’ spersonal laptop .
To this day , however , other than DOJ OIG ’ s response , the government has successfully resisted providing any meaningful answers or insights into the matter .
“ In light of the recently documented abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court applications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about these unresolved questions regarding the alleged surveillance of Ms. Attkisson .
It is well past time that Ms. Attkisson , Congress , and the American public receive answers to questions that have remained outstanding for over 6 years .
”

A key Republican Senate chairman is demanding answers from the Justice Department and FBI on whether Obama-era officials secretly accessed the phones and computers of a reporter probing the “Fast and Furious” scandal and debacle in Benghazi, Libya.
In going to bat for award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, Sen. Ron Johnson is reopening a case that prompted a federal judge to hit the government for stalling.
In his letter to Justice and the FBI, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said that “documented abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court applications” by the FBI in the Russia probe of President Trump raise new suspicions in the Attkisson case.
“I am especially concerned about these unresolved questions regarding the alleged surveillance of Ms. Attkisson,” said the Wisconsin lawmaker of the former CBS investigative reporter, now on Sinclair and host of the Full Measure show.
“It is well past time that Ms. Attkisson, Congress, and the American public receive answers to questions that have remained outstanding for over 6 years,” said Johnson.
According to Johnson and a 2015 suit filed by the journalist, Attkisson noticed “anomalies” with her work and personal electronic devices from 2011-2013 while she was probing the Fast and Furious gun scandal and the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that ensnared then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Her suit was eventually dismissed after long delays by the Obama Justice Department, prompting dissenting Judge James Wynn Jr. to write that “Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock.”
Other lawmakers have also sought to get answers to suspicions that her devices were hacked by the government, but never succeeded.
Wrote Johnson in the letter shown below:
“In 2013, as ranking member of this committee, Senator Tom Coburn sought answers from then-Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the government’s actions in the hacking and surveillance of Ms. Attkisson’s computers. In 2014, Senator Coburn sent a second letter noting that DOJ’s response answered none of his questions. In 2015, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley also sought answers. In March 2018, I wrote to DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) and received a copy of its Abbreviated Report of Investigation regarding its analysis of Ms. Attkisson’spersonal laptop. To this day, however, other than DOJ OIG’s response, the government has successfully resisted providing any meaningful answers or insights into the matter.
“In light of the recently documented abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court applications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), I am especially concerned about these unresolved questions regarding the alleged surveillance of Ms. Attkisson. It is well past time that Ms. Attkisson, Congress, and the American public receive answers to questions that have remained outstanding for over 6 years.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Shock: US edges more 'center-right,' just 24% liberal

They have an outsized voice in the media , pop culture , and politics , especially the 2020 Democratic presidential contest , but only 24 % of the nation claims to be liberal , with the rest in the long-dominant “ center-right ” camp , according to a new survey .
In fact , Gallup today said that conservatives lead at 37 % , followed by moderates at 34 % , though more still identify as Democrat over Republican .
And , significantly , despite President Trump ’ s middling approval rating and the nearly second-to-second attacks on him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results from 29,000 interviews , showed that the conservative vs. liberal gap is growing .
“ The percentage identifying as conservative in 2019 was up two points from the 35 % measured in 2018 , while the percentage liberal was down two points from 26 % .
While these changes are statistically significant , some two-point changes in the past were short-lived , so it will be important to see whether these trends continue in 2020 , ” said the survey analysis .
The poll should cheer the Trump reelection campaign and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 battle because it shows that the president may have a larger base to tap .
Republicans , for example , are calling themselves conservative more and more while Democrats are taking the liberal label slightly less .
“ The large majority of Republicans have consistently labeled themselves conservative in Gallup polling over the life of this trend , although the proportion has inched up from about six in 10 during the early 1990s to over seven in 10 more recently , ” Gallup said .
Democrats are more politically diverse and overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change under Trump .
“ The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has about doubled in size over the past quarter century , rising from 25 % in 1994 to 51 % in 2018 .
The slip to 49 % in 2019 suggests that trend may be slowing or leveling off , at least temporarily , ” said Gallup .
And it warned that independents are growing as some Republicans and Democrats adopt that label .
Even though more voters call themselves Democrats , Gallup said that the fighting among Democrats raises questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter lead .
“ It 's the combination of Americans ' party and ideological preferences that injects variability into politics .
Even within the parties , there is dynamism , although perhaps less so among Republicans , given their general conformity around conservatism .
But the Democratic Party is more fractured .
And even though liberalism has been on the rise among Democrats , it is not yet the clear majority position , perhaps leading to the strong intraparty clashes seen over the past year on the Democratic debate stages and throughout social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together around a standard-bearer for 2020 , ” said the analysis .

They have an outsized voice in the media, pop culture, and politics, especially the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, but only 24% of the nation claims to be liberal, with the rest in the long-dominant “center-right” camp, according to a new survey.
In fact, Gallup today said that conservatives lead at 37%, followed by moderates at 34%, though more still identify as Democrat over Republican.
And, significantly, despite President Trump’s middling approval rating and the nearly second-to-second attacks on him and his team, the survey, which results from 29,000 interviews, showed that the conservative vs. liberal gap is growing.
“The percentage identifying as conservative in 2019 was up two points from the 35% measured in 2018, while the percentage liberal was down two points from 26%. While these changes are statistically significant, some two-point changes in the past were short-lived, so it will be important to see whether these trends continue in 2020,” said the survey analysis.
The poll should cheer the Trump reelection campaign and the White House as it readies for the 2020 battle because it shows that the president may have a larger base to tap.
Republicans, for example, are calling themselves conservative more and more while Democrats are taking the liberal label slightly less.
“The large majority of Republicans have consistently labeled themselves conservative in Gallup polling over the life of this trend, although the proportion has inched up from about six in 10 during the early 1990s to over seven in 10 more recently,” Gallup said.
Democrats are more politically diverse and overwhelmingly liberal, but that has seen a change under Trump. “The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has about doubled in size over the past quarter century, rising from 25% in 1994 to 51% in 2018. The slip to 49% in 2019 suggests that trend may be slowing or leveling off, at least temporarily,” said Gallup.
And it warned that independents are growing as some Republicans and Democrats adopt that label.
Even though more voters call themselves Democrats, Gallup said that the fighting among Democrats raises questions about their ability to capitalize on that voter lead.
“It's the combination of Americans' party and ideological preferences that injects variability into politics. Even within the parties, there is dynamism, although perhaps less so among Republicans, given their general conformity around conservatism. But the Democratic Party is more fractured. And even though liberalism has been on the rise among Democrats, it is not yet the clear majority position, perhaps leading to the strong intraparty clashes seen over the past year on the Democratic debate stages and throughout social media, as Democrats try to come together around a standard-bearer for 2020,” said the analysis.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--100,000 gun owners to fight new Virginia bans: 'We’re not the problem'

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

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


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Tom Steyer: From cash cow to party crasher?

Tom Steyer was supposed to be the cash cow for Democrats .
Now he may be crashing their party .
He was supposed to be the guy the Democrats would woo with loud but impotent displays of concern about climate change .
He was just supposed to cut the checks , bankroll the party leaders , and think he was somehow wielding clout .
Now he ’ s gotten too big for his billionaire britches and has edged out Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Pete Buttigieg to be the runner up in South Carolina according to a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading in South Carolina with 36 % in this poll .
Steyer is tied for second place with Sanders , with Steyer posting 15 % and Sanders at 14 % .
Warren is down at 10 % , and Buttigieg barely registers in South Carolina .
How has Steyer burst into the fray ?
By spending unprecedented amounts of his own cash on ads .
As of mid-December , Steyer had spent $ 89 million on ads .
By comparison , Pete Buttigieg had outspent Bernie , Biden , and Warren on ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 million .
That ’ s equal to Steyer ’ s spending on pro-Democrat groups in the entire 2016 election .
Imagine the shock to party leaders , whether presidential candidates like Biden and Warren , or congressional floor leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer .
Different people play different roles within the party .
Pelosi ’ s job is to bring about unity in the House .
Schumer ’ s job is to connect his candidates to donors and to set strategy .
And Steyer ’ s job is to bankroll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strayed way out of his lane , crowding out Warren , Sanders , and Buttigieg in South Carolina — and possibly down the line even challenging Biden in later states .
There are a lot of ifs here , of course .
This is just one poll and it may be an aberration .
After Iowa and New Hampshire , the other candidates might just overtake him .
In any event , a distant second in South Carolina is not enough to make one a serious candidate .
But still , Steyer might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He wasn ’ t supposed to .

Tom Steyer was supposed to be the cash cow for Democrats. Now he may be crashing their party.
He was supposed to be the guy the Democrats would woo with loud but impotent displays of concern about climate change. He was just supposed to cut the checks, bankroll the party leaders, and think he was somehow wielding clout.
Now he’s gotten too big for his billionaire britches and has edged out Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg to be the runner up in South Carolina according to a new Fox News poll.
Joe Biden is leading in South Carolina with 36% in this poll. Steyer is tied for second place with Sanders, with Steyer posting 15% and Sanders at 14%. Warren is down at 10%, and Buttigieg barely registers in South Carolina.
How has Steyer burst into the fray? By spending unprecedented amounts of his own cash on ads.
As of mid-December, Steyer had spent $89 million on ads. By comparison, Pete Buttigieg had outspent Bernie, Biden, and Warren on ads, and he had spent only $19 million.
That’s equal to Steyer’s spending on pro-Democrat groups in the entire 2016 election.
Imagine the shock to party leaders, whether presidential candidates like Biden and Warren, or congressional floor leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Different people play different roles within the party. Pelosi’s job is to bring about unity in the House. Schumer’s job is to connect his candidates to donors and to set strategy. And Steyer’s job is to bankroll all of it.
Now Steyer has strayed way out of his lane, crowding out Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg in South Carolina — and possibly down the line even challenging Biden in later states.
There are a lot of ifs here, of course. This is just one poll and it may be an aberration. After Iowa and New Hampshire, the other candidates might just overtake him. In any event, a distant second in South Carolina is not enough to make one a serious candidate.
But still, Steyer might be a real player in this race. He wasn’t supposed to.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Andrew Yang campaign members in two states join union

Andrew Yang 's presidential campaign is the latest to show it 's a friend of organized labor , with an announcement Thursday that some of the White House hopeful 's staffers will enter a union .
`` Today marks a victory not only for our workers , but for campaign staff across the country asking for improved labor provisions , asking for appreciation as a collective whole and asking for a chance to be recognized as more than simply an employee , '' read a statement from Yang field organizer Chad Young .
`` I am excited to join together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guild members . ''
As of Thursday , only members of Yang 's Iowa and Nevada campaigns would be admitted into the union .
Typically , those who work in state offices are those most vulnerable to layoffs after the states ' respective caucuses .
The campaigns for every front-runner , including former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , former Vice President Joe Biden , Sens .
Bernie Sanders of Vermont , and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , feature some form of organized labor within their organizations .
The range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign varies greatly .
Sanders 's campaign , for example , offers the broadest membership and most generous benefits of the field , which include 57 days of paid leave .
A number of political strategists have questioned the wisdom of a unionized campaign , pointing to the necessity of such operations to be nimble and cost-effective .
Other campaigns , such as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar 's , Biden 's , and Buttigieg 's , offer union membership only to field organizers .
The specifics of those contracts have n't been released @ @ @ @

Andrew Yang's presidential campaign is the latest to show it's a friend of organized labor, with an announcement Thursday that some of the White House hopeful's staffers will enter a union.
"Today marks a victory not only for our workers, but for campaign staff across the country asking for improved labor provisions, asking for appreciation as a collective whole and asking for a chance to be recognized as more than simply an employee," read a statement from Yang field organizer Chad Young. "I am excited to join together with my coworkers in becoming Campaign Workers Guild members."
As of Thursday, only members of Yang's Iowa and Nevada campaigns would be admitted into the union. Typically, those who work in state offices are those most vulnerable to layoffs after the states' respective caucuses.
The campaigns for every front-runner, including former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, feature some form of organized labor within their organizations. The range and generosity of contracts negotiated by each campaign varies greatly.
Sanders's campaign, for example, offers the broadest membership and most generous benefits of the field, which include 57 days of paid leave. A number of political strategists have questioned the wisdom of a unionized campaign, pointing to the necessity of such operations to be nimble and cost-effective.
Other campaigns, such as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar's, Biden's, and Buttigieg's, offer union membership only to field organizers. The specifics of those contracts haven't been released to the public.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Buttigieg says Iran missile that struck Ukrainian plane result of ‘unwanted military tit for tat’

Responding to reports that an Iranian missile downed a Ukrainian plane with 176 people on board , presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed the attack was the result of `` unwanted military tit for tat . ''
`` Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat , '' the former South Bend mayor tweeted .
A British diplomat told the Washington Examiner that an Iranian anti-aircraft missile system inadvertently shot down the Boeing 737-800 after taking off from Tehran 's Imam Khomeini International Airport .
The passengers killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 Ukrainians , 10 Swedes , four Afghans , three Germans , and three British nationals .
At a press conference Thursday , President Trump said the jet was flying through a `` rough neighborhood '' and that he had `` suspicions '' about the reason why the plane crashed and videos published to social media show the jet on fire as it fell from the sky .
Buttigieg has become a late-favorite in the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination , passing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire as the favorite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support in a Thursday Monmouth poll .

Responding to reports that an Iranian missile downed a Ukrainian plane with 176 people on board, presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed the attack was the result of "unwanted military tit for tat."
"Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat," the former South Bend mayor tweeted.
A British diplomat told the Washington Examiner that an Iranian anti-aircraft missile system inadvertently shot down the Boeing 737-800 after taking off from Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport.
The passengers killed included 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians, 10 Swedes, four Afghans, three Germans, and three British nationals.
At a press conference Thursday, President Trump said the jet was flying through a "rough neighborhood" and that he had "suspicions" about the reason why the plane crashed and videos published to social media show the jet on fire as it fell from the sky.
Buttigieg has become a late-favorite in the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination, passing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire as the favorite to win the state with 20% support in a Thursday Monmouth poll.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Elizabeth Warren is not your bestie

Elizabeth Warren is not your bestie

Politicians , they ’ re just like us !
“ Elizabeth Warren Wants You To Ditch That Guy , Get A Dog , And Vote To Tax The Wealthy , ” proclaims a headline in Elle this week .
In a video for the women 's magazine , Warren turns her “ I have a plan for that ” campaign into a refrain you might hear from your mom after you complain about boy problems .
Meet Elizabeth Warren , the relationship guru .
To be fair , she gives some good advice .
But then again , if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , the only appropriate response is , “ Dump his ass.
” ( Warren says as much without the language . )
Warren , a dog-owner , also knows that the best way to turn someone else into a dog-lover is to introduce them to a bundle of cuteness so that they ’ re not just saying no to dogs , they ’ re saying no to the adorable one right in front of them .
But of course , Warren moves into her political zone when a reader asks a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I have a plan for that .
And that is : We need to cancel student loan debt , ” Warren proclaims .
“ We ’ re crushing an entire generation with student loan debt.
” One person even submits a question about how to take good selfies , which is ironic since Warren thinks of a selfie as any photo of yourself .
For the uninitiated : It ’ s only a selfie if you take it yourself .
Warren is a big fan of selfies , or photos of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently touted her as the reason she ’ s succeeding in the 2020 race .
Womp womp .
Warren 's worst answer arrives later in the video , when someone asks , “ I ’ ve been increasingly worried about access to abortion in the United States .
Should I go ahead and get an IUD as soon as possible ?
” Instead of reminding this confused woman that you should not use abortion as birth control , Warren pivots , of course , to her pro-choice talking points .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then there 's more of the 70-year-old trying to act some 30 years younger , telling a reader to give “ chocolate , brittle whatever stuff ” to an upset best friend .
To understate the matter , listening to Warren repeatedly say “ BFF ” with a straight face is not my happy place .
“ Elizabeth Warren is Like that Awkward cringy Mom who tries to be cool around her teenager son or daughters friends , ” said one comment on Twitter , which attracted nearly 4,000 likes .
Warren may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` just chillin ' in Cedar Rapids , '' but women 's magazines ca n't get enough of her , even if that means turning her into a woke grandma , a role that awkwardly embraces .
Elle has been in love with Warren for years , and dubbing her a “ viral sensation ” in 2017 .
“ Women ’ s rights , ” Warren back then , “ are all up for grabs.
” At the end of the day , Warren is just another politician trying to act like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not talking about dogs and loser guys , she actually gives some pretty terrible advice .

Politicians, they’re just like us!
“Elizabeth Warren Wants You To Ditch That Guy, Get A Dog, And Vote To Tax The Wealthy,” proclaims a headline in Elle this week.
In a video for the women's magazine, Warren turns her “I have a plan for that” campaign into a refrain you might hear from your mom after you complain about boy problems. Meet Elizabeth Warren, the relationship guru.
To be fair, she gives some good advice. But then again, if a guy stops talking to you after three months, the only appropriate response is, “Dump his ass.” (Warren says as much without the language.)
Warren, a dog-owner, also knows that the best way to turn someone else into a dog-lover is to introduce them to a bundle of cuteness so that they’re not just saying no to dogs, they’re saying no to the adorable one right in front of them.
But of course, Warren moves into her political zone when a reader asks a question about paying off her student loan debt.
“I have a plan for that. And that is: We need to cancel student loan debt,” Warren proclaims. “We’re crushing an entire generation with student loan debt.”
One person even submits a question about how to take good selfies, which is ironic since Warren thinks of a selfie as any photo of yourself. For the uninitiated: It’s only a selfie if you take it yourself. Warren is a big fan of selfies, or photos of herself, or whatever. She has recently touted her selfie count as the reason she’s succeeding in the 2020 race. Womp womp.
Warren's worst answer arrives later in the video, when someone asks, “I’ve been increasingly worried about access to abortion in the United States. Should I go ahead and get an IUD as soon as possible?”
Instead of reminding this confused woman that you should not use abortion as birth control, Warren pivots, of course, to her pro-choice talking points. It’s time to codify Roe v. Wade!
Then there's more of the 70-year-old trying to act some 30 years younger, telling a reader to give “chocolate, brittle whatever stuff” to an upset best friend. To understate the matter, listening to Warren repeatedly say “BFF” with a straight face is not my happy place.
“Elizabeth Warren is Like that Awkward cringy Mom who tries to be cool around her teenager son or daughters friends,” said one comment on Twitter, which attracted nearly 4,000 likes.
Elizabeth Warren is Like that Awkward cringy Mom who tries to be cool around her teenager son or daughters friends. — Louis Carman (@louiscarman23) January 9, 2020
Warren may be about as relatable as Hillary Clinton "just chillin' in Cedar Rapids," but women's magazines can't get enough of her, even if that means turning her into a woke grandma, a role that awkwardly embraces. Elle has been in love with Warren for years, repping her merch and dubbing her a “viral sensation” in 2017. “Women’s rights,” Warren warned readers back then, “are all up for grabs.”
At the end of the day, Warren is just another politician trying to act like a normal human being. But when she’s not talking about dogs and loser guys, she actually gives some pretty terrible advice.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Biden or Bloomberg could top Trump in Michigan

Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg are the biggest threats to President Trump in Michigan , with the former vice president and billionaire businessman showing the largest leads of Democratic presidential hopefuls in head-to-head general election match-ups against the president in the crucial swing state .
A Glengariff Group poll of 600 likely Michigan voters found that Biden bested Trump by 7 points , 50 % to 43 % .
Bloomberg had a 6-point lead over Trump , 47 % to 41 % , with much of his support coming from male and independent voters .
The poll has a margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
Bloomberg entered the race late and is not competing in the first four nominating contests in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina , instead pursuing an unconventional strategy to court voters nationwide and in delegate-rich states .
He spent more than $ 100 million on advertisements during the first month of his self-funded bid and will spend $ 10 million on a Super Bowl ad .
He sits in fifth place in RealClearPolitics 's average of national primary polls with 5.8 % support .
Other Democratic candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margins .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders led by 4 points , 49 % to 45 % , while both Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg led Trump by 2 points — Warren 46 % to 44 % , and Buttigieg 45 % to 43 % .
Glengariff Group founder Richard Czuba warned that Warren has `` particularly weak '' support from male voters .
`` She has real problems with the independents who are going to decide the election , '' Czuba said .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton by a razor-thin margin of 10,704 votes , less than a quarter of a percent of the total vote .

Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg are the biggest threats to President Trump in Michigan, with the former vice president and billionaire businessman showing the largest leads of Democratic presidential hopefuls in head-to-head general election match-ups against the president in the crucial swing state.
A Glengariff Group poll of 600 likely Michigan voters found that Biden bested Trump by 7 points, 50% to 43%. Bloomberg had a 6-point lead over Trump, 47% to 41%, with much of his support coming from male and independent voters. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.
Bloomberg entered the race late and is not competing in the first four nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, instead pursuing an unconventional strategy to court voters nationwide and in delegate-rich states. He spent more than $100 million on advertisements during the first month of his self-funded bid and will spend $10 million on a Super Bowl ad. He sits in fifth place in RealClearPolitics's average of national primary polls with 5.8% support.
Other Democratic candidates beat Trump in the match-ups by narrower margins. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders led by 4 points, 49% to 45%, while both Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg led Trump by 2 points — Warren 46% to 44%, and Buttigieg 45% to 43%.
Glengariff Group founder Richard Czuba warned that Warren has "particularly weak" support from male voters.
"She has real problems with the independents who are going to decide the election," Czuba said.
Trump won Michigan in 2016 over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by a razor-thin margin of 10,704 votes, less than a quarter of a percent of the total vote.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--'Avoid being Iran's lawyer': Democratic insiders warn party's 2020 contenders to frame the right app

'Avoid being Iran's lawyer': Democratic insiders warn party's 2020 contenders to frame the right approach

Democratic insiders are warning the party ’ s top 2020 contenders to avoid blaming the United States and sympathizing with Iran as they stake out opposition to President Trump ’ s evolving Middle East policy .
Political strategists and foreign policy thinkers on the Left are sharply critical of Trump for ordering a military strike to kill senior Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , fretting it could draw the U.S. into another major war in the Middle East that the president is ill-equipped to manage .
But some Democratic insiders are nevertheless uncomfortable with objections that are emanating from a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his strategy to contain Iran .
“ They want to avoid any sense that they ’ re being Iran ’ s lawyer .
That ’ s the main thing , and some are better than others at doing that , ” said Brian Katulis , a national security analyst with the Center for American Progress , a liberal think tank .
“ Then , they need to [ explain ] what they would do differently , and it can ’ t just simply be rejoin '' the Iran deal .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home America , ’ ” he added .
“ ’ Come home America ’ wasn ’ t a great theme for [ George ] McGovern in 1972 , and it ’ s not likely to work any better in 2020.
” The leading candidates — Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Pete Buttigieg — immediately and aggressively denounced Trump for his decision to target Soleimani , who led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps .
This elite Iranian military force is responsible for the death of hundreds of American soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international terrorism .
Republicans are accusing Democrats of “ Trump Derangement Syndrome.
” In refusing to rally around the commander in chief and applaud him for eliminating an enemy of the U.S. with American blood on his hands , they are breaking with political precedent .
Democrats are doing so just because they hate the president , and it will cost them in the November election , Republicans argue .
Democratic insiders with an eye toward winning the White House disagree .
Trump has politicized national security and made Iran into a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charging Trump with aimless recklessness toward a bellicose Iran and offering a strategically sound alternative could pay huge dividends in the general election .
But to avoid squandering this opportunity , party strategists say , Democratic contenders have to frame the argument properly and prevent Trump from painting them as unwilling to act to keep Americans safe .
“ Everyone can agree it ’ s better off that [ Soleimani ] is not around , '' Democratic strategist Joe Trippi said .
`` Is it something that gets us into another long war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think there are a whole lot of Americans anxious for that.
” Warren perhaps has absorbed the most criticism .
After initially calling Soleimani a “ murderer ” but questioning Trump ’ s decision to take him out on strategic grounds — the critique many Democrats would like to see from their candidates — the Massachusetts senator shifted her criticism .
She began describing Soleimani as a “ senior foreign military official ” who was assassinated .
Sanders has used similar rhetoric , with Biden and Buttigieg sounding like Warren did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy who deserved his fate , but saying the move could backfire .
Still , some Democrats offered kudos to Warren and Sanders , saying that preventing another needless war transcends politics .
“ I want to see these contenders do everything possible to stop us from getting into a war of choice with Iran , ” said Democrat Dan Helmer , a Virginia state legislator and military veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq .

Democratic insiders are warning the party’s top 2020 contenders to avoid blaming the United States and sympathizing with Iran as they stake out opposition to President Trump’s evolving Middle East policy.
Political strategists and foreign policy thinkers on the Left are sharply critical of Trump for ordering a military strike to kill senior Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, fretting it could draw the U.S. into another major war in the Middle East that the president is ill-equipped to manage. But some Democratic insiders are nevertheless uncomfortable with objections that are emanating from a few of their White House front-runners regarding Trump and his strategy to contain Iran.
“They want to avoid any sense that they’re being Iran’s lawyer. That’s the main thing, and some are better than others at doing that,” said Brian Katulis, a national security analyst with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “Then, they need to [explain] what they would do differently, and it can’t just simply be rejoin" the Iran deal.
“It can’t just be: 'Come home America,’” he added. “’Come home America’ wasn’t a great theme for [George] McGovern in 1972, and it’s not likely to work any better in 2020.”
The leading candidates — Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg — immediately and aggressively denounced Trump for his decision to target Soleimani, who led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This elite Iranian military force is responsible for the death of hundreds of American soldiers in the Middle East and for fomenting international terrorism.
Republicans are accusing Democrats of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” In refusing to rally around the commander in chief and applaud him for eliminating an enemy of the U.S. with American blood on his hands, they are breaking with political precedent. Democrats are doing so just because they hate the president, and it will cost them in the November election, Republicans argue.
Democratic insiders with an eye toward winning the White House disagree.
Trump has politicized national security and made Iran into a “wedge issue,” they say. Charging Trump with aimless recklessness toward a bellicose Iran and offering a strategically sound alternative could pay huge dividends in the general election. But to avoid squandering this opportunity, party strategists say, Democratic contenders have to frame the argument properly and prevent Trump from painting them as unwilling to act to keep Americans safe.
“Everyone can agree it’s better off that [Soleimani] is not around," Democratic strategist Joe Trippi said. "Is it something that gets us into another long war in the Middle East? I don’t think there are a whole lot of Americans anxious for that.”
Warren perhaps has absorbed the most criticism.
After initially calling Soleimani a “murderer” but questioning Trump’s decision to take him out on strategic grounds — the critique many Democrats would like to see from their candidates — the Massachusetts senator shifted her criticism. She began describing Soleimani as a “senior foreign military official” who was assassinated. Sanders has used similar rhetoric, with Biden and Buttigieg sounding like Warren did originally, casting Soleimani as a bad guy who deserved his fate, but saying the move could backfire.
Still, some Democrats offered kudos to Warren and Sanders, saying that preventing another needless war transcends politics.
“I want to see these contenders do everything possible to stop us from getting into a war of choice with Iran,” said Democrat Dan Helmer, a Virginia state legislator and military veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Ricky Gervais got it right: Enough politics in Hollywood

After Hollywood ’ s left-wing allies in the media launched a full-fledged attack on Ricky Gervais for daring to mock celebrities at the Golden Globes , I joked that the Los Angeles sun must create thin skin .
Based on how The Independent ’ s Jo Murch responded to Gervais , it ’ s clear that my diagnosis was inaccurate , for skin is even thinner in gloomy London .
In case you missed it — and I hope you did — Murch wrote : “ Ricky Gervais cheapened the Golden Globes – but worse he overshadowed vital political statements.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , amusingly , genuinely outraged that the awards show didn ’ t take a break from honoring high-brow fare like Disney ’ s Frozen 2 to focus on advancing her radical left-wing ideology .
It ’ s almost as if Murch doesn ’ t realize she wasn ’ t attending the Democratic National Convention and was instead viewing an event focused on cinematic achievements .
Unfortunately , she ’ s part of a larger movement of people who take their views far to seriously and seek to politicize literally everything .
Sporting events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pageants , the label on your coffee cup ... these folks won ’ t rest until every waking moment of our life is obsessed with their ideology .
Don ’ t they realize that many of us turn to Hollywood as a form of escapism ?
In these serious times , we ’ d actually like a break from politics .
And surely all of us would like a break from their condescending progressive lectures .
Murch thinks the problem with our society is that we don ’ t have enough politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , one of her previous columns was titled , “ Why Amber winning Love Island was a feminist act.
” Only a radical leftist could take a trashy British reality show and find such a political angle within it .
The ultimate irony is that people like Murch have no tolerance for anyone who tires of their lectures and , of course , for anyone who disagrees with them .
Remember when the Left encouraged us to “ question authority ” ?
That stopped as soon as they deemed themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all encouraged to shut up and follow their rules .
The Independent ’ s writer goes on to attack Gervais for acting “ like a teenager acting up to shock his parents.
” Perhaps , but would n't that make Murch the annoying classmate who reminds the teacher that he forgot to assign homework ?
Let ’ s be honest — had Gervais made disgustingly crude jokes about President Trump , I ’ m pretty confident Murch would applaud him for “ acting up.
” She would laud his bravery — as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of us actually enjoy celebrating achievement in cinema .
If that ’ s not the primary purpose of an awards show such as the Golden Globes , when can we have our moment ?
The only humorous moment of Murch 's column came unintentionally — when she attacked Gervais for being nasty ... and in the very next sentence called the host an “ idiotic clapping monkey.
” Murch sounds like she 'd be a lot of fun at parties .
Adam Guillette is the president of Accuracy in Media , @ @

After Hollywood’s left-wing allies in the media launched a full-fledged attack on Ricky Gervais for daring to mock celebrities at the Golden Globes, I joked that the Los Angeles sun must create thin skin. Based on how the Independent’s Jo Murch responded to Gervais, it’s clear that my diagnosis was inaccurate, for skin is even thinner in gloomy London.
In case you missed it — and I hope you did — Murch wrote: “Ricky Gervais cheapened the Golden Globes — but worse he overshadowed vital political statements.”
The Independent’s writer was, amusingly, genuinely outraged that the awards show didn’t take a break from honoring highbrow fare such as Disney’s Frozen 2 to focus on advancing her radical left-wing ideology. It’s almost as if Murch doesn’t realize she wasn’t attending the Democratic National Convention and was instead viewing an event focused on cinematic achievements.
Unfortunately, she’s part of a larger movement of people who take its views far too seriously and seek to politicize everything. Sporting events, movies, popular music, beauty pageants, the label on your coffee cup ... these folks won’t rest until every waking moment of our lives is obsessed with their ideology.
Don’t they realize that many of us turn to Hollywood as a form of escapism? In these serious times, we’d actually like a break from politics. And surely all of us would like a break from their condescending progressive lectures.
Murch thinks the problem with our society is that we don’t have enough politics. She bemoans the lack of progressive lectures. In fact, one of her previous columns was titled, “Why Amber winning Love Island was a feminist act.” Only a radical leftist could take a trashy British reality show and find such a political angle within it.
The ultimate irony is that people like Murch have no tolerance for anyone who tires of their lectures and, of course, for anyone who disagrees with them.
Remember when the Left encouraged us to “question authority”? That stopped as soon as they deemed themselves the authority. Now we’re all encouraged to shut up and follow their rules.
The Independent’s writer goes on to attack Gervais for acting “like a teenager acting up to shock his parents.” Perhaps, but wouldn't that make Murch the annoying classmate who reminds the teacher that he forgot to assign homework?
Let’s be honest — had Gervais made disgustingly crude jokes about President Trump, I’m pretty confident Murch would applaud him for “acting up.” She would laud his bravery — as if attacking Trump in Hollywood is somehow courageous.
Some of us actually enjoy celebrating achievement in cinema. If that’s not the primary purpose of an awards show such as the Golden Globes, when can we have our moment?
The only humorous moment of Murch's column came unintentionally — when she attacked Gervais for being nasty ... and in the very next sentence called the host an “idiotic clapping monkey.” Murch sounds like she'd be a lot of fun at parties.
Adam Guillette is the president of Accuracy in Media, www.aim.org.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Mistrustful Democrats seek to rein in Trump’s military authority

For years , Democrats and a handful of Republicans have pushed to increase congressional control over U.S. military action in the Middle East .
Their efforts accelerated last week following President Trump 's decision to kill Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iran 's retaliatory missile strikes against the U.S. military in Iraq .
`` Last week , in our view , the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans and did so without consulting Congress , '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , a California Democrat , told reporters at her weekly press conference on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a resolution directing Trump `` to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran '' unless authorized by Congress .
The measure passed easily with the support of the Democratic majority , but it 's nonbinding , meaning it will never become law .
Pelosi told reporters she wanted to send Trump a message without providing him with the chance to veto it , as he would have done if Congress sent a binding measure curbing his authority over the use of military force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't much Congress can do to constrain Trump 's actions in the Middle East without broad bipartisan support in both chambers , which does n't exist at this point .
It takes a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber to override a presidential veto , and few Republicans are ready to back new limitations on Trump 's use of the military .
Trump 's allies questioned the political motives of the Democrats , who impeached Trump in the House last month .
Republicans pointed out Democrats rarely questioned President Barack Obama 's use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including among other operations , the intervention in Libya against dictator Moammar Gadhafi .
`` Why did n't we hear anything from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about Libya when President Barack Obama took action that led to the death of Moammar Gadhafi , '' Rep. Austin Scott , a Georgia Republican , said .
Rep. Mark Meadows , a North Carolina Republican and friend of the president , pointed out that Obama conducted 542 drone strikes outside of war zones that killed dozens of civilians .
`` President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria .
Pelosi was silent , '' Meadows said last week .
`` No calls for 'congressional authorization . '
The feigned , hypocritical outrage you 're seeing from Democrats now is because a Republican is in the White House . ''
Democrats did seek more authority over military use during the Obama administration .
Still , Congress gave up after Obama sent over a draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force to deal with the Islamic State in the Middle East .
But neither party could agree on the plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers never voted to require Obama to seek new authorization .
Obama continued to operate under military authorization measures passed in 2001 and 2002 to authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Both the House and Senate last year advanced measures limiting Trump 's authority to conduct military operations in the Middle East , but none has ever garnered enough support to override a veto .
Trump administration officials said they used the 2002 authorization , along with Trump 's executive authority to defend U.S. interests , to conduct the strikes against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as Soleimani .
Capitol Hill lawmakers in both parties were relieved when it appeared an initial escalation between the United States and Iran had calmed down by the end of the week .
But Democrats believe Iran is likely to strike again at U.S. interests in the Middle East , and they want to try to control how Trump responds .
Many Democrats said Trump administration officials , including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , failed to provide an adequate justification for killing Soleimani .
They complained the officials did n't provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do next if aggressions escalate .
`` It 's clear he has no clue , none at all , about what could come next , '' House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern , a Massachusetts Democrat , said of the president .
Pelosi said she might bring a measure to the floor that would end the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq .
Across the Capitol , Sen. Tim Kaine , a Virginia Democrat , is drafting a resolution that would cut off Trump 's authority to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further military action would require Trump to get congressional approval .
Kaine is likely to get at least two GOP votes .
Sens .
Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah , both longtime advocates of increasing congressional authority over military action abroad , said they would support it .
Only four Republicans would be needed to pass the measure in the Senate with 51 votes , assuming all Democrats vote for it .
Kaine said he 's `` talking to people and seeing are there changes I can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
That measure would also face a veto from the president that Congress lacks the votes to override .

For years, Democrats and a handful of Republicans have pushed to increase congressional control over U.S. military action in the Middle East.
Their efforts accelerated last week following President Trump's decision to kill Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iran's retaliatory missile strikes against the U.S. military in Iraq.
"Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans and did so without consulting Congress," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters at her weekly press conference on Thursday.
The House voted that day on a resolution directing Trump "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran" unless authorized by Congress.
The measure passed easily with the support of the Democratic majority, but it's nonbinding, meaning it will never become law.
Pelosi told reporters she wanted to send Trump a message without providing him with the chance to veto it, as he would have done if Congress sent a binding measure curbing his authority over the use of military force abroad.
In reality, there isn't much Congress can do to constrain Trump's actions in the Middle East without broad bipartisan support in both chambers, which doesn't exist at this point.
It takes a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber to override a presidential veto, and few Republicans are ready to back new limitations on Trump's use of the military.
Trump's allies questioned the political motives of the Democrats, who impeached Trump in the House last month.
Republicans pointed out Democrats rarely questioned President Barack Obama's use of military force in the Middle East, including among other operations, the intervention in Libya against dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
"Why didn't we hear anything from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about Libya when President Barack Obama took action that led to the death of Moammar Gadhafi," Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican, said.
Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican and friend of the president, pointed out that Obama conducted 542 drone strikes outside of war zones that killed dozens of civilians.
"President Obama's administration frequently conducted airstrikes in Syria. Pelosi was silent," Meadows said last week. "No calls for 'congressional authorization.' The feigned, hypocritical outrage you're seeing from Democrats now is because a Republican is in the White House."
Democrats did seek more authority over military use during the Obama administration. Still, Congress gave up after Obama sent over a draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force to deal with the Islamic State in the Middle East. But neither party could agree on the plan, and it was never approved, and lawmakers never voted to require Obama to seek new authorization.
Obama continued to operate under military authorization measures passed in 2001 and 2002 to authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both the House and Senate last year advanced measures limiting Trump's authority to conduct military operations in the Middle East, but none has ever garnered enough support to override a veto.
Trump administration officials said they used the 2002 authorization, along with Trump's executive authority to defend U.S. interests, to conduct the strikes against Iran that killed several military officials as well as Soleimani.
Capitol Hill lawmakers in both parties were relieved when it appeared an initial escalation between the United States and Iran had calmed down by the end of the week.
But Democrats believe Iran is likely to strike again at U.S. interests in the Middle East, and they want to try to control how Trump responds.
Many Democrats said Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, failed to provide an adequate justification for killing Soleimani. They complained the officials didn't provide a plan showing what the administration would do next if aggressions escalate.
"It's clear he has no clue, none at all, about what could come next," House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, said of the president.
Pelosi said she might bring a measure to the floor that would end the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.
Across the Capitol, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, is drafting a resolution that would cut off Trump's authority to use military force against Iran after 30 days. Further military action would require Trump to get congressional approval.
Kaine is likely to get at least two GOP votes. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, both longtime advocates of increasing congressional authority over military action abroad, said they would support it.
Only four Republicans would be needed to pass the measure in the Senate with 51 votes, assuming all Democrats vote for it.
Kaine said he's "talking to people and seeing are there changes I can make that would get more folks on board?"
That measure would also face a veto from the president that Congress lacks the votes to override.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--WATCH: Trump hosts 'Make America Great Again' rally in Ohio

President Trump is set to appear at a `` Make America Great Again '' rally in Toledo , Ohio , @ @ @ @ @ Thursday night .
This will be his first campaign rally since the escalating tensions with @ @ @ @ @ top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .

President Trump is set to appear at a "Make America Great Again" rally in Toledo, Ohio, at 7 p.m. EST on Thursday night. This will be his first campaign rally since the escalating tensions with Iran and the killing of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.