theguardian--2020-01-23--Trump impeachment trial: Democrats press case for president's removal – live

Applicants will be denied tourist visas if they are determined by consular officers to be coming to the U.S. primarily @ @ @ @ @ to the rules in the Federal Register .
It is a bigger hurdle to overcome @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. because they have a medical need and not just because they want @ @ @ @ @ Those with medical needs will be treated like other foreigners coming to the U.S. for @ @ @ @ @ they have the money to pay for it — including transportation and living expenses .
@ @ @ @ @ the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal , although there are scattered cases of @ @ @ @ @ tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion .
And women are often honest about @ @ @ @ @ visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals .

Joan E Greve in Washington (now) and Adam Gabbatt in New York (earlier)

24 Jan 2020 04.30 GMT Summary Over the course of today, House Democrats detailed evidence supporting their first article of impeachment against Donald Trump. Catch up on The Guardian’s coverage: Read today’s key takeaways
Review what the Democrats said, and what the Republicans were up to behind the scenes. We are all — to paraphrase Senator Lisa Murkowski — ‘pooped puppies’. We’ll be back tomorrow with more live coverage of the impeachment trial.
24 Jan 2020 04.11 GMT Congress makes new appeal for court to quickly decide on Don McGahn subpoena In an ongoing case over whether or former White House attorney Don McGahn should be compelled to testify before House investigators, the House of Representatives’ top lawyer has made a new appeal to enforce their subpoena. NEW: The House has filed a letter with the Appeals Court arguing that Trump's impeachment lawyers have completely contradicted their arguments in the McGahn case. pic.twitter.com/uiS4l9mDnu — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 24, 2020 During the trial, Trump’s lawyers faulted House investigators for not trying harder to enforce subpoenas for key witness testimonies and documents during the impeachment inquiry and argued it was too late to bring in new witnesses and evidence.
That position contradicts the administration’s earlier argument that the courts should stay away from subpoena disputes between Congress and the White House, the House’s general counsel argued in a letter submitted tonight.
Updated at 04.16 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.53 GMT Worn out senators are heading home for the night. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator of Alaska, reportedly has plans to unwind and recuperate. “I am one pooped puppy,” @lisamurkowski says, declining to address the trial’s substance. She may take a bath and have a glass of wine. — Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) January 24, 2020 “I’m going to go home, maybe have a glass of wine, maybe even take a bath!” she told reporters.
Updated at 03.56 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.34 GMT In an emotional closing statement, Schiff concluded: “If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost.” The last part of Schiff's comments tonight are turning out to be quite an emotional plea to the Senate pic.twitter.com/FJlVvcXz67 — Salvador Hernandez (@SalHernandez) January 24, 2020 Directly appealing to Republican senators who may believe that Donald Trump behaved inappropriately, but aren’t willing to remove him from office, Schiff said: “If you find him guilty, you must find that he must be removed.”
Updated at 03.43 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.14 GMT Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, is now presenting a closing summary. Responding to Donald Trump’s calls to “read the transcript” of the 25 July call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Schiff is reviewing the memo of the phone call, and point out the bits that look suspicious. First on that list: The fact that Trump asked Zelenskiy to “call Rudy” the president’s personal lawyer. Trump also encouraged the Ukrainian president to speak with the attorney general, William Barr. “I think there’s no one who comes up more in this call record than Rudy Guiliani, which tells us something,” Schiff said. Later, he added: “Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies... that makes him dangerous to us, to our country.” Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president: read the full memorandum Read more
Updated at 03.56 GMT
24 Jan 2020 02.51 GMT A few more scenes from the trial chamber: Senators and 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar reportedly shared a laugh. On the floor, Bernie Sanders looked quite tired, ultimately got up, walked to the back of the chamber - and chatted briefly with Amy Klobuchar. She pointed to something in her binder. They both shared a laugh and Sanders retreated to the cloak room. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 24, 2020 Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican of North Carolina, sought a new vantage point. Sen. Tillis is not in his seat at the moment. He’s sitting watching from above in the visitor gallery, for some reason — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 24, 2020
24 Jan 2020 02.30 GMT Emphasizing that nearly $400m in congressionally-appropriated military aid to Ukraine was held up for no good reason, the impeachment manager Zoe Lofgren, with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sitting nearby, pointed out: “Even Senator McConnell has said ‘I was not given an explanation’ for the hold.” The evidence is clear that Donald Trump “knowingly, willfully violated the law when he withheld the aid to Ukraine”, Lofgren said. “It shows the great lengths the president was willing to go to in order to pressure Ukraine to do his dirty work.”
Updated at 02.46 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-23--Republicans push to weaken court that caught them rigging elections

Two years ago , Pennsylvania ’ s supreme court dealt a blow to state Republicans when it said they had unconstitutionally rigged congressional elections in the state .
Republicans fumed and threatened to impeach four of the justices , but the map was redrawn , and voters elected an even split of Democrats and Republicans to Congress in 2018 .
Now , Republicans are weaponizing a new tactic – a move that seems designed to increase their power on the state ’ s highest court .
The Republican proposal overhauls the way that court justices are elected in a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The justices on the court , where Democrats hold a 5-2 majority , are currently appointed through statewide elections , but the new plan would make it so the justices are elected from districts throughout the state .
The change would probably hurt Democratic candidates – four of the current justices are from the Pittsburgh area and one is from Philadelphia , both urban areas that tend to skew blue .
If the proposal is successful , it could offer a roadmap for Republicans elsewhere to undermine state courts .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supreme court decision that determined federal courts couldn ’ t stop gerrymandering – the partisan redistricting of state maps – but that nothing stopped state courts from acting .
State courts responded swiftly : a state court in North Carolina followed Pennsylvania and struck down electoral districts as unconstitutional gerrymanders there .
And a slew of gerrymandering lawsuits are expected when districts are next redrawn in 2021 .
“ With the Pennsylvania supreme court having struck down the general assembly ’ s gerrymandering , the general assembly is now clearly trying to gerrymander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Daniel Jacobson , an attorney who helped represent the plaintiffs in the gerrymandering case .
“ It only goes to show the lengths that the general assembly leaders will go when they feel that their grip on power is threatened.
” The Republican effort also comes as state lawmakers across the country have moved to weaken the independence of state courts , said Douglas Keith , who studies courts across the country at the Brennan Center for Justice .
Some states do elect supreme court justices by districts and there can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
But , unjustified efforts to change the composition of state courts can weaken public confidence in judges .
“ If the calls for geographic diversity are just a thin veil on an effort to make the court more political , or capture more seats for a political party or ideology , then there ’ s a problem and a misunderstanding of what judges ’ responsibility in our democracy are , ” Keith said .
The office of Representative Russ Diamond , the measure ’ s main sponsor in the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has previously said the change would ensure there was more “ geographic ” and “ ideological ” diversity on the court .
The change would require a constitutional amendment that voters in Pennsylvania need to approve through a ballot referendum .
Before it goes to the ballot , it needs to pass the state legislature in two consecutive sessions , so the earliest it could appear is 2021 .
The measure has already passed the Pennsylvania state house and is being considered in the Senate .

Two years ago, Pennsylvania’s supreme court dealt a blow to state Republicans when it said they had unconstitutionally rigged congressional elections in the state. Republicans fumed and threatened to impeach four of the justices, but the map was redrawn, and voters elected an even split of Democrats and Republicans to Congress in 2018. Now, Republicans are weaponizing a new tactic – a move that seems designed to increase their power on the state’s highest court.
The Republican proposal overhauls the way that court justices are elected in a state that can swing both red and blue. The justices on the court, where Democrats hold a 5-2 majority, are currently appointed through statewide elections, but the new plan would make it so the justices are elected from districts throughout the state. The change would probably hurt Democratic candidates – four of the current justices are from the Pittsburgh area and one is from Philadelphia, both urban areas that tend to skew blue.
If the proposal is successful, it could offer a roadmap for Republicans elsewhere to undermine state courts. That’s significant after last year’s supreme court decision that determined federal courts couldn’t stop gerrymandering – the partisan redistricting of state maps – but that nothing stopped state courts from acting. State courts responded swiftly: a state court in North Carolina followed Pennsylvania and struck down electoral districts as unconstitutional gerrymanders there. And a slew of gerrymandering lawsuits are expected when districts are next redrawn in 2021.
“With the Pennsylvania supreme court having struck down the general assembly’s gerrymandering, the general assembly is now clearly trying to gerrymander the Pennsylvania supreme court itself,” said Daniel Jacobson, an attorney who helped represent the plaintiffs in the gerrymandering case. “It only goes to show the lengths that the general assembly leaders will go when they feel that their grip on power is threatened.”
The Republican effort also comes as state lawmakers across the country have moved to weaken the independence of state courts, said Douglas Keith, who studies courts across the country at the Brennan Center for Justice. Some states do elect supreme court justices by districts and there can be good reasons for doing so, Keith said. But, unjustified efforts to change the composition of state courts can weaken public confidence in judges.
“If the calls for geographic diversity are just a thin veil on an effort to make the court more political, or capture more seats for a political party or ideology, then there’s a problem and a misunderstanding of what judges’ responsibility in our democracy are,” Keith said.
The office of Representative Russ Diamond, the measure’s main sponsor in the House, did not return a request for comment. He has previously said the change would ensure there was more “geographic” and “ideological” diversity on the court.
The change would require a constitutional amendment that voters in Pennsylvania need to approve through a ballot referendum. Before it goes to the ballot, it needs to pass the state legislature in two consecutive sessions, so the earliest it could appear is 2021. The measure has already passed the Pennsylvania state house and is being considered in the Senate.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Revealed: top official did special favors on guns for NRA at interior department

In the fall of 2017 , a National Rifle Association lobbyist named Benjamin Cassidy left his job at the influential gun group .
His next stop : a top position at the US interior department , which oversees hundreds of millions of acres of federal land across the country .
Once in office , it didn ’ t take Cassidy long to turn around and use his new government gig to provide his long-time NRA colleagues with special access to the powerful federal agency , as revealed by previously unreleased communications obtained by the Guardian .
The messages underscore the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations enjoy at a government agency where many key leaders are former lobbyists and conservative activists themselves .
The NRA has made the most of this dynamic during the Trump presidency , leveraging its connections to shape policy outcomes and personnel decisions at the interior department .
In 2017 , for instance , Susan LaPierre , a prominent NRA member and the wife of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre , was appointed by the head of the interior department to the board of the National Parks Foundation , a Congressionally-chartered organization that supports park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also made multiple appearances on NRA media channels in recent years , and in June he announced a proposal to open more than 1.4m acres of national wildlife refuge land to hunting and fishing activities .
The NRA celebrated the move , calling it a “ proposal supported and encouraged by the NRA ” .
Just this week , Bernhardt tweeted that “ Respecting our second amendment is fundamental to our constitutional republic .
We ’ re expanding opportunities to enjoy hunting and recreational shooting on our wonderful public lands.
” But Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA ’ s influence at the interior department .
Starting in October 2017 , and for months afterward , Cassidy served as a key contact for the gun group inside the interior department , helping the NRA translate its priorities into action from his perch at the agency ’ s external affairs office .
The NRA spent roughly $ 30m helping Donald Trump win the presidency in 2016 .
With assistance from its former lobbyist , Cassidy , it has since reaped rewards in the realm of federal public land and wildlife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , he sought to arrange a sitdown between Bernhardt , then the deputy secretary , and Chris Cox , a top NRA official .
( An interior department spokesperson said Bernhardt did not attend any such meeting . )
In another case , he appears to have helped an NRA official join the International Wildlife Conservation Council ( IWCC ) , an advisory body set up by the department to help shape policy regarding “ international recreational hunting ” .
In a December 2017 email , Erica Rhoad , the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cassidy : “ Ben , Attached please find two nominations for the IWCC.
” “ Thank you , ” Cassidy replied .
Rhoad , who was one of the nominees , eventually obtained the position she sought on the IWCC , which was stacked with pro-hunting advocates .
The IWCC would go on to promote big-game trophy hunting overseas , a long-time NRA priority .
In 2018 , conservationists sued to disband the council , and their case is ongoing .
Most significantly , Cassidy was in regular communication with NRA about recreational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately after joining DOI in October 2017 , for instance , Cassidy reached out to Susan Recce , director of the NRA ’ s Conservation , Wildlife and Natural Resources program , asking her to weigh in on an interior department plan to limit recreational shooting at the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona , a plan the NRA was keenly interested in .
“ Hi Susan !
Hope you are great !
” he wrote in an e-mail.
“ Do you have a quick moment to hop on the phone and discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have a [ deadline ] that is due today.
” Target shooting in the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona is controversial – it has damaged archeological artifacts , destroyed saguaro cacti , and harmed other natural and cultural resources .
Recce replied with an NRA plan to leave more of the monument open to target shooting .
In the weeks that followed , Cassidy kept Recce updated on the progress of that target-shooting plan and others , including a proposal to restrict target shooting on public lands in Utah , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Sonoran Desert national monument , the NRA got what it wanted .
In March 2018 , the department signed its final plan , which aligned almost perfectly with the NRA ’ s request , leaving roughly 90 % of the monument open to recreational shooting .
Susan Recce thanked Cassidy for his help in a note that testifies to their close ties.
“ I appreciate you riding herd over the agency plans affecting recreational shooting , ” she wrote to him in a January 2018 email , using a cowboy term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on target shooting issues .
In August 2019 , the Wilderness Society , the Sierra Club and other conservation groups sued the interior department over the issue , and their lawsuit is working its way through the courts .
Under federal ethics guidelines , government employees are prohibited from giving “ preferential treatment to any private organization or individual ” .
“ The fact that the Trump administration considered an anti-environment lobbyist like Ben Cassidy qualified to oversee our public lands speaks volumes about who it values and how it operates , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House natural resources committee , in a statement .
“ Mr Cassidy weakened endangered species rules , lobbied against the Antiquities Act from inside the government , almost certainly violated his ethics pledge , and generally treated public service as a chance to dispense political favors to his friends.
” Cassidy himself became uncomfortable with his ongoing relationship with the NRA .
In an October 2018 email to an NRA staffer , he informed the gun group that he could no longer work directly with it .
“ Unfortunately , due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to work with the NRA on issues for one more year , ” he wrote .
He suggested the NRA get in touch with other officials at the department instead .
But it was too late .
In April 2019 , the interior department ’ s inspector general opened an investigation into allegations that Cassidy ’ s conduct had violated federal ethics rules , including the White House ’ s own ethics pledge .
That investigation is currently active .
Not long afterward , Cassidy quietly stepped down from his post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new job : director of government affairs at Safari Club International , a powerful national organization that promotes trophy hunting in the United States and overseas .
In a statement , the interior department said it “ will not comment on Mr Cassidy ’ s motives or reasoning on leaving the department ” .
Neither the NRA nor Cassidy ’ s new employer responded to a request for comment .

In the fall of 2017, a National Rifle Association lobbyist named Benjamin Cassidy left his job at the influential gun group. His next stop: a top position at the US interior department, which oversees hundreds of millions of acres of federal land across the country.
Once in office, it didn’t take Cassidy long to use his new government gig to provide his longtime NRA colleagues with special access to the powerful federal agency, as revealed by previously unreleased communications obtained by the Guardian.
The messages underscore the potent influence that industry lobbyists and conservative organizations enjoy at a government agency where many key leaders are former lobbyists and conservative activists themselves. The NRA has made the most of this dynamic during the Trump presidency, leveraging its connections to shape policy outcomes and personnel decisions at the interior department.
In 2017, for instance, Susan LaPierre, a prominent NRA member and the wife of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, was appointed by the head of the interior department to the board of the National Parks Foundation, a congressionally chartered organization that supports park programs.
The interior secretary, David Bernhardt, has also made multiple appearances on NRA media channels in recent years, and in June he announced a proposal to open more than 1.4m acres of national wildlife refuge land to hunting and fishing activities. The NRA celebrated the move, calling it a “proposal supported and encouraged by the NRA”.
Just this week, Bernhardt tweeted that “Respecting our second amendment is fundamental to our constitutional republic. We’re expanding opportunities to enjoy hunting and recreational shooting on our wonderful public lands.”
But Benjamin Cassidy is the official that most embodies the NRA’s influence at the interior department.
Starting in October 2017, and for months afterward, Cassidy served as a key contact for the gun group inside the interior department, helping the NRA translate its priorities into action from his perch at the agency’s external affairs office. The NRA spent roughly $30m helping Donald Trump win the presidency in 2016. With assistance from its former lobbyist, Cassidy, it has since reaped rewards in the realm of federal public land and wildlife policy.
In one instance, emails show, he sought to arrange a sitdown between Bernhardt, then the deputy secretary, and Chris Cox, a top NRA official. (An interior department spokesperson said Bernhardt did not attend any such meeting.)
In another case, he appears to have helped an NRA official join the International Wildlife Conservation Council (IWCC), an advisory body set up by the department to help shape policy regarding “international recreational hunting”. In a December 2017 email, Erica Rhoad, the director of hunting policy at NRA, wrote to Cassidy: “Ben, Attached please find two nominations for the IWCC.”
“Thank you,” Cassidy replied. Rhoad, who was one of the nominees, eventually obtained the position she sought on the IWCC, which was stacked with pro-hunting advocates. The IWCC would go on to promote big-game trophy hunting overseas, a longtime NRA priority. In 2018, conservationists sued to disband the council, and their case is ongoing.
Most significantly, Cassidy was in regular communication with NRA about recreational shooting policy on federal lands. Almost immediately after joining DOI in October 2017, for instance, Cassidy reached out to Susan Recce, director of the NRA’s conservation, wildlife and natural resources program, asking her to weigh in on an interior department plan to limit recreational shooting at the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona, a plan the NRA was keenly interested in.
“Hi Susan! Hope you are great!” he wrote in an email.“Do you have a quick moment to hop on the phone and discuss recreational shooting in the sonoran desert? We have a [deadline] that is due today.”
Target shooting in the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona is controversial. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
Target shooting in the Sonoran Desert national monument in Arizona is controversial – it has damaged archeological artifacts, destroyed saguaro cacti, and harmed other natural and cultural resources.
Recce replied with an NRA plan to leave more of the monument open to target shooting.
In the weeks that followed, Cassidy kept Recce updated on the progress of that target-shooting plan and others, including a proposal to restrict target shooting on public lands in Utah, which the NRA opposed.
In the case of the Sonoran Desert national monument, the NRA got what it wanted. In March 2018, the department signed its final plan, which aligned almost perfectly with the NRA’s request, leaving roughly 90% of the monument open to recreational shooting.
Susan Recce thanked Cassidy for his help in a note that testifies to their close ties.“I appreciate you riding herd over the agency plans affecting recreational shooting,” she wrote to him in a January 2018 email, using a cowboy term to describe his role taking the lead on target shooting issues.
In August 2019, the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and other conservation groups sued the interior department over the issue, and their lawsuit is working its way through the courts.
Under federal ethics guidelines, government employees are prohibited from giving “preferential treatment to any private organization or individual”.
“The fact that the Trump administration considered an anti-environment lobbyist like Ben Cassidy qualified to oversee our public lands speaks volumes about who it values and how it operates,” said congressman Raúl Grijalva, the chairman of the House natural resources committee, in a statement. “Mr Cassidy weakened endangered species rules, lobbied against the Antiquities Act from inside the government, almost certainly violated his ethics pledge, and generally treated public service as a chance to dispense political favors to his friends.”Cassidy himself became uncomfortable with his ongoing relationship with the NRA. In an October 2018 email to an NRA staffer, he informed the gun group that he could no longer work directly with it.
“Unfortunately, due to the ethics ban, I am unable to work with the NRA on issues for one more year,” he wrote. He suggested the NRA get in touch with other officials at the department instead.
But it was too late. In April 2019, the interior department’s inspector general opened an investigation into allegations that Cassidy’s conduct had violated federal ethics rules, including the White House’s own ethics pledge. That investigation is currently active.
Not long afterward, Cassidy quietly stepped down from his post. In July 2019, he took a new job: director of government affairs at Safari Club International, a powerful national organization that promotes trophy hunting in the United States and overseas.
In a statement, the interior department said it “will not comment on Mr Cassidy’s motives or reasoning on leaving the department”. Neither the NRA nor Cassidy’s new employer responded to a request for comment.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Florida's swing voters shrug off Trump impeachment: 'I'm not driven by it'

In Florida ’ s renowned I-4 corridor , as everywhere else across the country , the all-consuming spectacle of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial is playing out on every television station , on radio and online .
But in this place where millions of swing voters provide one of the nation ’ s most authentic barometers of any White House hopeful ’ s political standing , there is evidence that the impeachment proceedings are not resonating with the electorate in a way both sides might have hoped .
A Guardian study of a cross-section of central Florida voters – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; white , black and Hispanic ; US-born and immigrant – revealed attitudes ranging mostly from indifference to moderate engagement .
That matters here : the I-4 corridor is the “ swing state within a swing state ” and where the battle for Florida will be fought in 2020 ’ s election .
Even among those residents who say they are following developments closely , many believe the outcome is a foregone conclusion , or that the partisan and rancorous nature of events in the US Senate will switch people off to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m following it to a certain extent , I ’ d say it ’ s important but I ’ m certainly not overwhelmed by it , I ’ m not driven by it , ” said Mike Banks , 52 , a property manager from Orlando , which sits in the middle of the corridor which tracks the 132-mile east-west interstate 4 from Daytona Beach to St Petersburg .
Banks , who says he is an independent voter , backed Trump in the 2016 election , but is undecided who to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he insists , won ’ t be influenced by the impeachment trial .
“ At first I liked Trump because of the business thing , but I keep everything open , you know ?
” he said .
He said he was aware of the unpopularity of Trump for many , but also felt the Democrats couldn ’ t take his vote for granted .
“ I won ’ t vote for a Democrat [ merely ] because I ’ m black , I wouldn ’ t vote for Trump , because people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , we ’ ll see.
” Mark Kramer , a 41-year-old consulting engineer from Orlando , believes the trial is “ a black eye ” for the US .
“ Regardless of political views , we ’ ve consumed far too many taxpayer resources on these proceedings and speaking as someone who was privy to the Clinton proceedings back in the 90s , we can ’ t be so partisan that we just wait for a moment to strike , on both sides of the aisle , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foregone conclusion how the outcome will be .
In the Senate , just as in the Clinton years , it will not go forward , and as a political tactic I think this is actually going to give more rise to ‘ Trump Nation ’ either as almost martyrdom or as a victor.
” Such voices from the corridor have been prominent in every presidential election of modern times .
While Florida ’ s northern counties are staunchly Republican , and Democrats rely on solid support from the heavily populated metropolitan counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 million swing voters of the state ’ s central belt who determine the destination of Florida ’ s 29 electoral college votes .
For half a century , Florida has backed every election winner except Bill Clinton in 1992 , and in 2016 Trump won the state from Hillary Clinton by fewer than 113,000 from 9.4m cast .
“ The state barely was Republican in the last election and it ’ s a huge prize , ” said Jim Yarbrough , 73 , from Winter Park .
“ The people on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the polls in November and this referendum , the impeachment referendum , will be settled once and for all then .
[ The impeachment trial ] will absolutely have an impact in the context of turnout .
The liberal base and the conservative base are very invested in this coming election and they will show up.
” Jared Witt , a craft brewery manager from Baldwin Park , explains the perceived lack of interest in impeachment because “ it ’ s not going to go anywhere.
” “ Are people not excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to get shut down in the Senate ?
Impeachment is a theoretical , like , that ’ s great , that there was a sentiment in the House that went that direction , but functionally it doesn ’ t mean anything , ” he said .
“ The people who are pro-Trump have doubled down every step along the way where he ’ s done something you would think would shoot him in the foot .
He ’ s [ like ] a petulant two-year-old , just celebrating the negative.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immigrant from Chile and an undecided voter who lives in Longwood , healthcare and social security take precedence over impeachment in her decision-making process .
“ I voted for [ Trump ] hoping there would be some changes but it hasn ’ t been done , ” she said .
“ I want to see what comes .
I ’ m not really happy with what we have , but the economy is doing better .
“ I don ’ t watch TV very much and I haven ’ t been watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , the things we worry about are our wellbeing , Medicare and Medicaid.
” Zoila Sagadraca , a travel agent from Winter Park who immigrated to the US from Peru 19 years ago , is another more outraged by Trump ’ s record in office than his alleged misdeeds over Ukraine that led to his impeachment .
“ America is not getting great because of his ideas , ” she said .
“ His own persona is false , he ’ s a fraud .
People don ’ t see it because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But you don ’ t have to be a journalist , or a lawyer or a writer , you ’ ve just got to be interested in who is the president , who ’ s the person that will influence the country where you live.
” For Maggie O ’ Halloran , director of education at a Winter Park holistic school , impeachment is about accountability .
“ In terms of the media , I ’ m not sure it ’ s important for us to only focus on impeachment .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on as relevant to the future , but it is taking up a lot of bandwidth , ” she said.

Richard Luscombe in Winter Park, Florida

In Florida’s renowned I-4 corridor, as everywhere else across the country, the all-consuming spectacle of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is playing out on every television station, on radio and online.
But in this place where millions of swing voters provide one of the nation’s most authentic barometers of any White House hopeful’s political standing, there is evidence that the impeachment proceedings are not resonating with the electorate in a way both sides might have hoped.
A Guardian study of a cross-section of central Florida voters – Democratic and Republican; retired and working; white, black and Hispanic; US-born and immigrant – revealed attitudes ranging mostly from indifference to moderate engagement. That matters here: the I-4 corridor is the “swing state within a swing state” and where the battle for Florida will be fought in 2020’s election.
Even among those residents who say they are following developments closely, many believe the outcome is a foregone conclusion, or that the partisan and rancorous nature of events in the US Senate will switch people off to the significance of the occasion.
“I’m following it to a certain extent, I’d say it’s important but I’m certainly not overwhelmed by it, I’m not driven by it,” said Mike Banks, 52, a property manager from Orlando, which sits in the middle of the corridor which tracks the 132-mile east-west interstate 4 from Daytona Beach to St Petersburg.
Banks, who says he is an independent voter, backed Trump in the 2016 election, but is undecided who to vote for in November. His choice, he insists, won’t be influenced by the impeachment trial.
“At first I liked Trump because of the business thing, but I keep everything open, you know?” he said.
He said he was aware of the unpopularity of Trump for many, but also felt the Democrats couldn’t take his vote for granted.
“I won’t vote for a Democrat [merely] because I’m black, I wouldn’t vote for Trump, because people hate him. Whoever goes up against Trump, we’ll see.”
Mark Kramer, a 41-year-old consulting engineer from Orlando, believes the trial is “a black eye” for the US.
I think this is actually going to give more rise to ‘Trump Nation’ either as almost martyrdom or as a victor Mark Kramer
“Regardless of political views, we’ve consumed far too many taxpayer resources on these proceedings and speaking as someone who was privy to the Clinton proceedings back in the 90s, we can’t be so partisan that we just wait for a moment to strike, on both sides of the aisle,” he said.
“Fortunately or unfortunately, it’s a foregone conclusion how the outcome will be. In the Senate, just as in the Clinton years, it will not go forward, and as a political tactic I think this is actually going to give more rise to ‘Trump Nation’ either as almost martyrdom or as a victor.”
Such voices from the corridor have been prominent in every presidential election of modern times. While Florida’s northern counties are staunchly Republican, and Democrats rely on solid support from the heavily populated metropolitan counties of the south-east, it is the 6 million swing voters of the state’s central belt who determine the destination of Florida’s 29 electoral college votes.
For half a century, Florida has backed every election winner except Bill Clinton in 1992, and in 2016 Trump won the state from Hillary Clinton by fewer than 113,000 from 9.4m cast.
“The state barely was Republican in the last election and it’s a huge prize,” said Jim Yarbrough, 73, from Winter Park.
“The people on both sides of the fence will show up at the polls in November and this referendum, the impeachment referendum, will be settled once and for all then. [The impeachment trial] will absolutely have an impact in the context of turnout. The liberal base and the conservative base are very invested in this coming election and they will show up.”
Jared Witt, a craft brewery manager from Baldwin Park, explains the perceived lack of interest in impeachment because “it’s not going to go anywhere.”
“Are people not excited about it because they know it’s going to get shut down in the Senate? Impeachment is a theoretical, like, that’s great, that there was a sentiment in the House that went that direction, but functionally it doesn’t mean anything,” he said.
“The people who are pro-Trump have doubled down every step along the way where he’s done something you would think would shoot him in the foot. He’s [like] a petulant two-year-old, just celebrating the negative.”
For Margaret Dos Santos, 66, an immigrant from Chile and an undecided voter who lives in Longwood, healthcare and social security take precedence over impeachment in her decision-making process. “I voted for [Trump] hoping there would be some changes but it hasn’t been done,” she said. “I want to see what comes. I’m not really happy with what we have, but the economy is doing better.
“I don’t watch TV very much and I haven’t been watching the impeachment. For retired people like me, the things we worry about are our wellbeing, Medicare and Medicaid.”
Zoila Sagadraca, a travel agent from Winter Park who immigrated to the US from Peru 19 years ago, is another more outraged by Trump’s record in office than his alleged misdeeds over Ukraine that led to his impeachment.
“America is not getting great because of his ideas,” she said. “His own persona is false, he’s a fraud. People don’t see it because they don’t want to read. But you don’t have to be a journalist, or a lawyer or a writer, you’ve just got to be interested in who is the president, who’s the person that will influence the country where you live.”
For Maggie O’Halloran, director of education at a Winter Park holistic school, impeachment is about accountability.
“In terms of the media, I’m not sure it’s important for us to only focus on impeachment. There are a lot of other things going on as relevant to the future, but it is taking up a lot of bandwidth,” she said.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Trump weakened environmental laws after BP lobbying

BP has successfully lobbied US policymakers to weaken a landmark environmental law , clearing the way for major infrastructure projects to bypass checks .
US government documents show BP America lobbied in favour of Donald Trump ’ s decision to dilute legislation , which could make it easier for new projects , such as oil pipelines and power plants , to move forward with far less federal review of their impact on the environment .
Many green groups fear the changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act ( Nepa ) will increase greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump this month , would narrow the list of projects that require an environmental impact assessment and in some cases eliminate the need for federal agencies to consider the cumulative effects of projects , including the impact on the climate crisis .
BP said in a letter to the Council of Environmental Quality ( CEQ ) in August 2018 that streamlining the Nepa process would “ directly benefit BP ’ s operations in the US ” .
The letter was discovered by Greenpeace ’ s investigation unit .
BP is planning to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay $ 10.5bn ( £8bn ) to buy BHP Billiton ’ s shale business last year .
Mel Evans , a campaigner at Greenpeace UK , said BP ’ s support for weakening environmental checks was “ despicable , but not surprising ” .
The oil firm ’ s lobbying efforts have emerged amid reports that it plans to “ out-do ” the climate action of Royal Dutch Shell with a set of new emissions targets .
Bernard Looney , BP ’ s new chief executive , is preparing to announce plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions produced from the fuels and products it sells and not just from its own operations , according to Reuters .
The plans are likely to appear at odds with BP ’ s support for the American Petroleum Institute which it expresses in the CEQ letter .
The API , a trade body for oil and gas producers , told the CEQ that emissions from fossil fuel products “ should not be considered part of ‘ indirect ’ effects ” under future environmental checks .
Michael Sommers , who heads the API , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ endless and repetitive reviews ” required by Nepa , arguing that the laws had been “ misused to delay and derail development , which hurts job creation , reduces tax revenue and saps investments in communities across the country ” .
BP has also called for air quality checks to be scrapped and to limit the changes government agencies can demand to help mitigate the environmental impact of major projects .
It said companies should be allowed to pay for their own environmental assessments because the personnel constraints within some government agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to undertake the review “ in a timely manner ” .
In terms of air quality reviews , BP argued that third-party reviews were unnecessary and should be scrapped in favour of a review undertaken by the company which leveraged “ the project proponent ’ s expertise ” .
Its letter to the CEQ said BP supported more than 125,000 jobs in the US , and the company ’ s operations contributed $ 85bn to the American economy in 2017 alone .
A spokesman for BP said : “ Neither BP nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas impacts from Nepa analysis .
In fact , BP believes the Nepa analysis should include all direct and many indirect impacts.
” The company said it had worked alongside a US conservation group , The Nature Conservancy , to push only for changes which were “ consistent with our strong support for the Paris [ climate agreement ] ambitions ” .

BP has successfully lobbied US policymakers to weaken a landmark environmental law, clearing the way for major infrastructure projects to bypass checks.
US government documents show BP America lobbied in favour of Donald Trump’s decision to dilute legislation, which could make it easier for new projects, such as oil pipelines and power plants, to move forward with far less federal review of their impact on the environment.
Many green groups fear the changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) will increase greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the climate crisis.
The changes, unveiled by Trump this month, would narrow the list of projects that require an environmental impact assessment and in some cases eliminate the need for federal agencies to consider the cumulative effects of projects, including the impact on the climate crisis.
Quick Guide Books that exposed the inner workings of Donald Trump's White House Show Michael Wolff – Fire and Fury Wolff’s sensational White House exposé paints Donald Trump as a childlike nonentity. It alleges the self-styled "very stable genius” has been described as an idiot by Rupert Murdoch and a moron by Rex Tillerson. Wolff says the thing that interests the US president most is watching himself on television. “I consider it to be fiction,” said Trump of the book. Many others were not so sure. Read the review. Sean Spicer – The Briefing Sean Spicer's 182 days as press secretary yielded a book that tells of a White House where people would routinely bring in "burner phones" to avoid being caught leaking, He describes Trump as sometimes being his own worst enemy with his manic tweeting, and recalls his downfall essentially started on day one, when Spicer was responsible for attempts to spin the news on the president's dismal inauguration crowds. Perhaps, though, the highlight is when Spicer describes Trump as “a unicorn riding a unicorn over a rainbow'. Read the review. Omarosa Manigault Newman – Unhinged The most prominent African American in the Trump White House before she was abruptly dismissed, Newman spread her criticism liberally. Her description of the vice-president, Mike Pence, as the "Stepford veep" is one of the kinder sideswipes. Of the more jaw-dropping revelations, the suggestion Trump had initially asked to be sworn in over a copy of The Art of the Deal, instead of the Bible, is a hard image to shake. Read the review. Cliff Sims – Team of Vipers Cliff Sims' book suggested he had made enemies and alienated people throughout the administration. He was particularly scathing about Sarah Sanders, Trump’s former press secretary. Her “gymnastics with the truth", he said, "would tax even the nimblest of prevaricators, and Sanders was not that”. Read the review. Anonymous – A Warning From a senior official in the Trump administration – and so many have left and fallen out with the president – Trump is described as “like a 12-year-old in an air traffic control tower”. The unknown author adds: “It’s like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pants-less across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him” John Bolton - The Room Where It Happened John Bolton’s damning indictment of the Trump presidency soared up the chart despite withering reviews describing it as “bloated with self-importance”, after the Trump administration made a last-ditch attempt to prevent its publication. The book claimed that Trump pleaded with China to help win the 2020 election, he suggested he was open to serving more than two terms, offered favours to authoritarian leaders, praised Xi for China’s internment camps and thought Finland was part of Russia. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
BP said in a letter to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in August 2018 that streamlining the Nepa process would “directly benefit BP’s operations in the US”. The letter was discovered by Greenpeace’s investigation unit.
BP is planning to increase its business in the US after agreeing to pay $10.5bn (£8bn) to buy BHP Billiton’s shale business last year.
Mel Evans, a campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said BP’s support for weakening environmental checks was “despicable, but not surprising”.
The oil firm’s lobbying efforts have emerged amid reports that it plans to “out-do” the climate action of Royal Dutch Shell with a set of new emissions targets.
Bernard Looney, BP’s new chief executive, is preparing to announce plans to expand its climate targets to include emissions produced from the fuels and products it sells and not just from its own operations, according to Reuters.
The plans are likely to appear at odds with BP’s support for the American Petroleum Institute which it expresses in the CEQ letter. The API, a trade body for oil and gas producers, told the CEQ that emissions from fossil fuel products “should not be considered part of ‘indirect’ effects” under future environmental checks.
Michael Sommers, who heads the API, has taken the lead in criticising the “endless and repetitive reviews” required by Nepa, arguing that the laws had been “misused to delay and derail development, which hurts job creation, reduces tax revenue and saps investments in communities across the country”.
01:38 Trump decries climate 'prophets of doom' in Davos keynote speech - video
BP has also called for air quality checks to be scrapped and to limit the changes government agencies can demand to help mitigate the environmental impact of major projects.
It said companies should be allowed to pay for their own environmental assessments because the personnel constraints within some government agencies have had a significant impact on their ability to undertake the review “in a timely manner”.
In terms of air quality reviews, BP argued that third-party reviews were unnecessary and should be scrapped in favour of a review undertaken by the company which leveraged “the project proponent’s expertise”.
Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
Its letter to the CEQ said BP supported more than 125,000 jobs in the US, and the company’s operations contributed $85bn to the American economy in 2017 alone.
A spokesman for BP said: “Neither BP nor API advocated to exclude all indirect greenhouse gas impacts from Nepa analysis. In fact, BP believes the Nepa analysis should include all direct and many indirect impacts.”
The company said it had worked alongside a US conservation group, The Nature Conservancy, to push only for changes which were “consistent with our strong support for the Paris [climate agreement] ambitions”.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Trump impeachment: Schiff says Trump tried to 'cheat' way to re-election – as it happened

From Day 1 of his administration , President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama ’ s “ Waters of @ @ @ @ @ , which had frustrated rural landowners ... “ I terminated one of the most ridiculous @ @ @ @ @ last administration ’ s disastrous Waters of the United States rule , ” Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ Federation ’ s annual convention in Texas on Sunday , to rousing applause .
He @ @ @ @ @ a rule that basically took your property away from you.
” His administration had completed @ @ @ @ @ demise in September with the rule ’ s repeal .
His replacement on Thursday will @ @ @ @ @ only rolling back 2015 rules that guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to @ @ @ @ @ run intermittently or run temporarily underground , but also relieves landowners of the need to @ @ @ @ @ Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule .

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier)

23 Jan 2020 03.32 GMT Report: Tomorrow, the Trump administration is expected to finalize a rule to strip away environmental protections for streams, rivers, and wetlands. Under the new regulations, for the first time in decades, landlords and businesses will be allowed to dump pollutants and pesticides directly into bodies of water. Per the New York Times, which broke the story: From Day 1 of his administration, President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama’s “Waters of the United States” regulation, which had frustrated rural landowners... “I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule,” Mr. Trump told the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention in Texas on Sunday, to rousing applause. He added, “That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.” His administration had completed the first step of its demise in September with the rule’s repeal. His replacement on Thursday will complete the process, not only rolling back 2015 rules that guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to certain wetlands and streams that run intermittently or run temporarily underground, but also relieves landowners of the need to seek permits that the Environmental Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule. 'Our future is not assured': Schiff issues stark warning at impeachment trial Read more
23 Jan 2020 03.21 GMT Lindsey Graham to Adam Schiff: ‘Good job’ Reporters spotted an unexpected exchange between Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch defender of Donald Trump, and Congressman Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager advocating for removing the president from office. Sen Graham walking out of the Capitol encounters Schiff, shakes his hand and says, “Good job, you’re very well spoken.” pic.twitter.com/Ne1f8TB7Qz — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) January 23, 2020 Unexpected moment just now as Lindsey Graham was leaving the Senate and walked by Adam Schiff. He patted Schiff on the shoulder and said "good job today. Very well spoken." — Paul McLeod (@pdmcleod) January 23, 2020 Graham served as an impeachment manager during Bill Clinton’s trial.
Updated at 03.24 GMT
23 Jan 2020 03.16 GMT Senator Dianne Feinstein’s reportedly left early because she was feeling under the weather. Update: Feinstein’s spokesman said she was feeling under the weather and will be back tomorrow. — Jennifer Haberkorn (@jenhab) January 23, 2020 Feinstein is far from the only senator to bend the rules. The Guardian’s Tom McCarthy and Lauren Gambino report that several lawmakers, “visibly frustrated at the long hours of the trial, appeared at times to be on the verge of mild mutiny, openly flouting rules requiring them to remain at their desks and instead circulating in a cloakroom off the Senate floor” Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly spent up to 30 minutes away from his seat, and at one point 15 Republican seats and 12 Democratic seats were empty, according to CNN. Lawmakers stood to stretch their legs, or headed into the cloakroom to check their phones.
23 Jan 2020 03.05 GMT Before the trial ended, Democrats asked for a classified piece of evidence to be made available for Senators to review. The classified document that will be made available to all senators is supplemental testimony from VP aide Jennifer Williams. Schiff has been calling for the records to be declassified, something Pence has ignored — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 23, 2020
23 Jan 2020 02.47 GMT Senate trial ends for the day Senate leader Mitch McConnell said the trial will resume at 1pm ET tomorrow. He and minority leader Chuck Schumer also thanked the Senate pages on the penultimate day of their term. Senators gave the pages a standing ovation.
23 Jan 2020 02.42 GMT Winding down today’s arguments, Schiff said the impeachment managers will be back tomorrow to present their first article of impeachment against Donald Trump: abuse of power. The asked senators to consider the risks that Trump administration officials took in testifying in the impeachment inquiry. “They risked everything — their careers,” Schiff said. “If they could show the courage, so can we,” he told lawmakers.
Updated at 02.45 GMT
23 Jan 2020 02.33 GMT Adam Schiff holds redacted documents as he speaks during the impeachment trial against Donald Trump. Photograph: AP Referring to heavily redacted documents obtained by a FOIA yesterday, Adam Schiff said: “I’m sure if you could read under those redactions, it would be a very perfect email.” The documents, which Schiff held up before the Senate, were released by the White House Office of Management and Budget after the watchdog group American Oversight made a “request for directives and communications that may relate to any effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate one of President Trump’s political opponents as part of an effort to give the president an electoral advantage.” Senate Democrats brought an amendment yesterday to subpoena the OMB, but it was voted down along party lines — as was every other efffort to subpoena evidence.
Updated at 02.49 GMT
23 Jan 2020 02.21 GMT Schiff once again played a clip of Donald Trump publicly calling for Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. “Give him credit for being so obvious,” Schiff said of the president. This is the second time Schiff has played that clip today, emphasizing that Trump’s own words are part of the case House Democrats have built against Trump. Trump calls on China to investigate Biden in extraordinary demand Read more
23 Jan 2020 02.16 GMT One senator bowed out early: 86-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has reportedly left the Capitol. Senators are expected to remain for the entirety of arguments, but as the oldest member of the Senate Feinstein may get a pass for seeing herself home an hour the presentations are scheduled to end. It’s unclear the extent to which the hours of presentations. Yesterday, an average of 11m viewers tuned in during afternoon hours, and more than 7.5m watched during prime time, according to Nielsen Media Research. The Washington Post adds context: For further perspective: the first day of the House impeachment hearings in November drew an average of 13.1 million viewers on the six networks. special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony before Congress in July attracted 12.97 million. The big TV winner was Fox News, which led all networks during late afternoon and prime time on Tuesday. Its audience peaked at 3.8 million between 9 and 10 p.m. The relatively strong audience interest belied comments from some Trump supporters that the coverage — which relied primarily on static cameras controlled by the Senate — was “boring.”
Updated at 02.24 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-23--Hillary Clinton is done trying to be liked | Moira Donegan

In the months after the 2016 election , Hillary Clinton went into the woods .
They became almost comic , the sightings of her that would pop up on social media , as the woman who had exercised uncommon influence over American political life , who had in fact won the popular vote and nearly became president , reduced to a soul-searching wanderer in the wilderness , wearing fleece and wondering what went wrong .
People asked her for selfies in public locales whose mundanity stood in contrast to her former power .
Here she was , the woman who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real time , who had led one of the first major fights for healthcare reform , who had sat with presidents and prime ministers and extracted from them commitments to do things that they did not want to do .
Here she was , once one of the world ’ s most powerful people , walking on a low-altitude beginners ’ hiking trail .
Here she was , the former senator and secretary of state and very nearly the first female president , in a supermarket outside her tony suburb , posing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of organic apples .
There was a degree of schadenfreude in the sharing of these pictures of Clinton during the months following the 2016 presidential election .
Even those most alert to the coming dangers and needless suffering that would be imposed by a Donald Trump presidency seemed a bit giddy at how far she had fallen , relieved to see her knocked from her perch of power .
Much of the hate , of course , came from Republicans , people who resented the moments of her political career , fleeting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at reducing the suffering of working people , or inching the nation towards justice .
The rest of the hate came from liberals and leftists , people who had voted for Clinton in 2016 begrudgingly or with reserve , who considered their support of her against Trump as a kind of harm reduction .
Some of the left ’ s hostility to her was revived this week when an excerpt from an interview she conducted for a new Netflix documentary series , Hillary , was released by the Hollywood Reporter .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the one person in American political life it is most dangerous for her to comment on : her 2016 Democratic primary rival , the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders .
She said that “ nobody likes him ” in Washington .
She said he has accomplished little in his career .
She said that other politicians are disinclined to work with him .
All of this may or may not be true , but it ’ s not clear why Clinton would say it .
If these comments were meant to harm Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are more likely to do the opposite .
Sanders ’ own pitch to voters relies heavily on his outsider status in Washington , and tends to aestheticize his grumpy temperament as a sign of integrity .
Many voters , alienated by Washington , will hear that a candidate is disliked there and think : good .
Disapproval from Clinton may itself be seen as a virtue from a certain class of liberal voters , among whom her reputation is not good .
Because though she is hated passionately and without reserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those roughly aligned with it rightly have at best a very ambivalent relationship toward Hillary .
Ambivalence might be the most that she deserves .
Her political career was long , and over her three decades of activity in national politics she was frequently on the wrong side of history .
Many of her positions seemed motivated more by political convenience than by principle .
She was too cozy with corporate interests as a senator , and she was too comfortable with military intervention as secretary of state .
She seemed inscrutable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she really thought , perhaps because so many people who interpreted her career as pundits and commentators insisted that what she said was never what she really meant .
Over these decades , Clinton became an avatar of the Democratic party ’ s worst impulses : its frightened run to the center during the 90s and 2000s , its comfort with compromise and acquiescence , its elites ’ preoccupation with convention and procedure at the expense of taking important moral stands or being accountable to its base .
Hillary became a symbol of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , she really deserved it .
At other times , she didn ’ t .
It is impossible to deny the reality that Clinton , as an uncommonly powerful woman , was also the object of tremendous sexist vitriol , a passionate fixation on her that animated even the legitimate grievances against her with an intensity unseen in critiques of similar male politicians .
The media fixated on her thick ankles , and then they fixated on her masculine pantsuits .
It became a common party joke to make strange and morbid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal virtues were interpreted as suspicious : intelligence morphed into cunning , determination became ambition , resolve morphed into stubbornness , care and studiousness became dishonesty and scheming .
Among the most fixated and rancorous of her critics , even valid complaints about her seem undergirded with a passion that is more psychological than moral .
This is what is so maddening about Hillary Clinton : she makes it clear that sexism can happen to women who are also bad people , or who have made bad choices .
She makes it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contempt .
She makes it clear that sexist double standards often mean not only that good women are held unfairly responsible , but that bad women are held responsible where bad men are not .
The role of sexism in our reactions to Clinton is complex , as complex as the messy reality that all of us who have been wronged have in fact done wrong ourselves .
But complexity is something our political media , in particular , are ill-equipped to describe .
Clinton ’ s example requires us to hold multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time : that sexism can be unjust even when it is directed at women who are themselves perpetrators of injustice ; that sometimes bigotry is wielded even against people who are not impeccable or particularly deserving of sympathy .
But even when its targets are unlikable , sexism , still , is wrong .
For her part , Clinton has turned into another kind of figure that our culture has difficulty parsing : a woman who is not just old , but old and angry .
Her long career was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her healthcare reform effort , her husband ’ s public affairs , her loss of the 2008 presidential primary .
And it was capped with the greatest humiliation of all : her loss , on a constitutional technicality , to a racist , sexist , boorish man , who outmatched even her in cynicism but possessed none of her intellect .
She is angry at these humiliations , and she seems committed to her anger , directing it unhelpfully at some of the wrong people , uselessly at some of the right ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this version of Hillary , even as she kicks dirt bitterly at an old rival , and throws destructive bombs into the political conversation .
The woman who has given interviews since the 2016 election is vulnerable , angry , resentful and tired , nothing at all like the consultant-polished entity she was before , speaking in vague , noncommittal terms that were so rigorously inoffensive that they hardly had any content .
Now that her political career is over and she is no longer seeking power , the aura of suspicion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people no longer reflexively disbelieve her .
Her statements are unvarnished , sometimes even frankly resentful .
She says the kind of thing that would be disastrous if she were actually in power .
To the voters who hate her , she seems comfortable letting them know that she hates them , too .
For better and frequently for worse , Clinton has shed the pretense of trying to be liked .
Finally , we feel sure she ’ s saying what she means .

In the months after the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton went into the woods. They became almost comic, the sightings of her that would pop up on social media, as the woman who had exercised uncommon influence over American political life, who had in fact won the popular vote and nearly became president, reduced to a soul-searching wanderer in the wilderness, wearing fleece and wondering what went wrong. People asked her for selfies in public locales whose mundanity stood in contrast to her former power. Here she was, the woman who had watched Osama bin Laden die in real time, who had led one of the first major fights for healthcare reform, who had sat with presidents and prime ministers and extracted from them commitments to do things that they did not want to do. Here she was, once one of the world’s most powerful people, walking on a low-altitude beginners’ hiking trail. Here she was, the former senator and secretary of state and very nearly the first female president, in a supermarket outside her tony suburb, posing with a fan in front of a stack of organic apples.
There was a degree of schadenfreude in the sharing of these pictures of Clinton during the months following the 2016 presidential election. Even those most alert to the coming dangers and needless suffering that would be imposed by a Donald Trump presidency seemed a bit giddy at how far she had fallen, relieved to see her knocked from her perch of power. Much of the hate, of course, came from Republicans, people who resented the moments of her political career, fleeting and sporadic as they were, that seemed aimed at reducing the suffering of working people, or inching the nation towards justice. The rest of the hate came from liberals and leftists, people who had voted for Clinton in 2016 begrudgingly or with reserve, who considered their support of her against Trump as a kind of harm reduction.
Some of the left’s hostility to her was revived this week when an excerpt from an interview she conducted for a new Netflix documentary series, Hillary, was released by the Hollywood Reporter. In the interview, Clinton offers commentary on perhaps the one person in American political life it is most dangerous for her to comment on: her 2016 Democratic primary rival, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. She said that “nobody likes him” in Washington. She said he has accomplished little in his career. She said that other politicians are disinclined to work with him.
All of this may or may not be true, but it’s not clear why Clinton would say it. If these comments were meant to harm Sanders’ chances of winning the Democratic primary, they are more likely to do the opposite. Sanders’ own pitch to voters relies heavily on his outsider status in Washington, and tends to aestheticize his grumpy temperament as a sign of integrity. Many voters, alienated by Washington, will hear that a candidate is disliked there and think: good. Disapproval from Clinton may itself be seen as a virtue from a certain class of liberal voters, among whom her reputation is not good.
Because though she is hated passionately and without reserve on the right, the Democratic party and those roughly aligned with it rightly have at best a very ambivalent relationship toward Hillary. Ambivalence might be the most that she deserves. Her political career was long, and over her three decades of activity in national politics she was frequently on the wrong side of history. Many of her positions seemed motivated more by political convenience than by principle. She was too cozy with corporate interests as a senator, and she was too comfortable with military intervention as secretary of state. She seemed inscrutable; it was difficult to know what she really thought, perhaps because so many people who interpreted her career as pundits and commentators insisted that what she said was never what she really meant.
Over these decades, Clinton became an avatar of the Democratic party’s worst impulses: its frightened run to the center during the 90s and 2000s, its comfort with compromise and acquiescence, its elites’ preoccupation with convention and procedure at the expense of taking important moral stands or being accountable to its base. Hillary became a symbol of corruption, centrism and cynicism. At times, she really deserved it.
This is what is so maddening: she makes it clear sexism can happen to women who are also bad people, or who have made bad choices
At other times, she didn’t. It is impossible to deny the reality that Clinton, as an uncommonly powerful woman, was also the object of tremendous sexist vitriol, a passionate fixation on her that animated even the legitimate grievances against her with an intensity unseen in critiques of similar male politicians. The media fixated on her thick ankles, and then they fixated on her masculine pantsuits. It became a common party joke to make strange and morbid speculations about her sex life. Her personal virtues were interpreted as suspicious: intelligence morphed into cunning, determination became ambition, resolve morphed into stubbornness, care and studiousness became dishonesty and scheming. Among the most fixated and rancorous of her critics, even valid complaints about her seem undergirded with a passion that is more psychological than moral.
This is what is so maddening about Hillary Clinton: she makes it clear that sexism can happen to women who are also bad people, or who have made bad choices. She makes it clear that righteous anger can also contain misogynist contempt. She makes it clear that sexist double standards often mean not only that good women are held unfairly responsible, but that bad women are held responsible where bad men are not. The role of sexism in our reactions to Clinton is complex, as complex as the messy reality that all of us who have been wronged have in fact done wrong ourselves. But complexity is something our political media, in particular, are ill-equipped to describe. Clinton’s example requires us to hold multiple inconvenient, contradictory thoughts in our minds at the same time: that sexism can be unjust even when it is directed at women who are themselves perpetrators of injustice; that sometimes bigotry is wielded even against people who are not impeccable or particularly deserving of sympathy. But even when its targets are unlikable, sexism, still, is wrong.
For her part, Clinton has turned into another kind of figure that our culture has difficulty parsing: a woman who is not just old, but old and angry. Her long career was punctuated with humiliations: the defeat of her healthcare reform effort, her husband’s public affairs, her loss of the 2008 presidential primary. And it was capped with the greatest humiliation of all: her loss, on a constitutional technicality, to a racist, sexist, boorish man, who outmatched even her in cynicism but possessed none of her intellect. She is angry at these humiliations, and she seems committed to her anger, directing it unhelpfully at some of the wrong people, uselessly at some of the right ones.
Still, there is something disarming about this version of Hillary, even as she kicks dirt bitterly at an old rival, and throws destructive bombs into the political conversation. The woman who has given interviews since the 2016 election is vulnerable, angry, resentful and tired, nothing at all like the consultant-polished entity she was before, speaking in vague, noncommittal terms that were so rigorously inoffensive that they hardly had any content. Now that her political career is over and she is no longer seeking power, the aura of suspicion and dishonesty about her has dissipated, and people no longer reflexively disbelieve her. Her statements are unvarnished, sometimes even frankly resentful. She says the kind of thing that would be disastrous if she were actually in power. To the voters who hate her, she seems comfortable letting them know that she hates them, too. For better and frequently for worse, Clinton has shed the pretense of trying to be liked. Finally, we feel sure she’s saying what she means.


theguardian--2020-01-22--Republicans have turned the impeachment trial into a dangerous sham | Andrew Gawthorpe

It is overly generous to refer to what is unfolding in the US Senate this week as a “ trial ” .
There are not many trials in which it is clear at the outset that the defendant is guilty but that he will nevertheless be cleared of all charges .
And while we might be tempted to say that it is not Donald Trump but America ’ s system of checks and balances that is on trial in the Senate this week , that isn ’ t true either .
That trial was likewise already over before the action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result just as horrific .
If this isn ’ t a trial , then what is it ?
Far from being an honest attempt to litigate the past , the impeachment proceedings in the Senate are actually about the future .
The outcome of the Republican majority ’ s actions will be to tear up restraints on presidential abuses of power .
These proceedings are a ratification of Donald Trump ’ s conduct in particular and of the use of illegal and corrupt actions in pursuit of partisan gain in general .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come .
That this is not about much more than rubber-stamping the abuse of power is clear from watching the president ’ s defenders and enablers .
Their mouths move , and words come out , but no effort at rational persuasion or even plausibility is attempted .
They behave like the functionaries of an authoritarian political system in which words have no meaning and actions have no consequences , at least for the powerful .
In this sense they are the perfect products of the Trump era .
Foremost among them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose Republican majority sets the parameters of how exactly this abasement of the Senate will unfold .
In any actual trial , the defendant ’ s advocates would be keen to bring to light evidence which might clear their client .
Instead , McConnell is attempting to limit the information available to the Senate , rejecting Democratic amendments which would have subpoenaed additional documents and the testimony of key figures like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney .
By refusing to bring damaging evidence to light , McConnell has created a permissive environment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose sole aim is to distract the public from the factual record .
In the defense brief which they filed at the outset of the proceedings , the lawyers claim that a president can only be impeached if he is accused of violating a specific federal law .
Because the House of Representatives did not make such an accusation , the lawyers argue that the entire process is a sham which should be dismissed without further discussion .
This argument is wrong on multiple levels .
Impeachment has never been understood to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal statute , and any such understanding would allow American presidents to exercise the powers of a dictator .
A president would technically break no laws if he encouraged the police to brutalize suspects – as Trump has in fact done – and then used his pardon power to protect them from prosecution whenever they did .
Impeachment is supposed to guard against precisely this abuse of presidential power , even if it breaks no laws .
A second problem with this defense of the president is that according to the Government Accountability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law when he withheld aid to Ukraine .
Under a Nixon-era law , the president can not decide not to spend money appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose on his own whim , because doing so violates his constitutional duty to “ take care that the laws be faithfully executed ” .
With the complicity of the Republican Senate majority , Trump is hence claiming the right to violate even this most basic requirement of his office , and to vastly expand what constitutes acceptable presidential conduct .
While previous presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in service of what they believed , rightly or wrongly , to be the common good , Trump does the exact opposite .
He seeks not just one particular new power but complete freedom from scrutiny for his conduct , and he does so in service not of any plausible national interest but rather purely to shield himself from the consequences of his abuses of power .
Trump appears to give little thought to his actions , but McConnell does .
Just as he decided that refusing to consider the nomination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the supreme court , now he has decided that the political survival of Donald Trump is worth creating the precedent that future presidents do not have to “ take care that the laws be faithfully executed ” .
The only remedy is to channel public anger into a Democratic seizure of the Senate , and remake a broken institution as an instrument of the public good rather than a rubber-stamp legislature for the would-be authoritarian in the White House .
If you want to see the consequences of failing to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
• None Andrew J Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University in the Netherlands

It is overly generous to refer to what is unfolding in the US Senate this week as a “trial”. There are not many trials in which it is clear at the outset that the defendant is guilty but that he will nevertheless be cleared of all charges. And while we might be tempted to say that it is not Donald Trump but America’s system of checks and balances that is on trial in the Senate this week, that isn’t true either. That trial was likewise already over before the action in the Senate even began, the result just as horrific.
If this isn’t a trial, then what is it? Far from being an honest attempt to litigate the past, the impeachment proceedings in the Senate are actually about the future. The outcome of the Republican majority’s actions will be to tear up restraints on presidential abuses of power. These proceedings are a ratification of Donald Trump’s conduct in particular and of the use of illegal and corrupt actions in pursuit of partisan gain in general. They are a warning of much worse to come.
That this is not about much more than rubber-stamping the abuse of power is clear from watching the president’s defenders and enablers. Their mouths move, and words come out, but no effort at rational persuasion or even plausibility is attempted. They behave like the functionaries of an authoritarian political system in which words have no meaning and actions have no consequences, at least for the powerful. In this sense they are the perfect products of the Trump era.
Trump seeks not just one particular new power but complete freedom from scrutiny for his conduct
Foremost among them, of course, is Mitch McConnell, whose Republican majority sets the parameters of how exactly this abasement of the Senate will unfold. In any actual trial, the defendant’s advocates would be keen to bring to light evidence which might clear their client. Instead, McConnell is attempting to limit the information available to the Senate, rejecting Democratic amendments which would have subpoenaed additional documents and the testimony of key figures like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney.
By refusing to bring damaging evidence to light, McConnell has created a permissive environment for the shenanigans of Trump’s lawyers, whose sole aim is to distract the public from the factual record. In the defense brief which they filed at the outset of the proceedings, the lawyers claim that a president can only be impeached if he is accused of violating a specific federal law. Because the House of Representatives did not make such an accusation, the lawyers argue that the entire process is a sham which should be dismissed without further discussion.
This argument is wrong on multiple levels. Impeachment has never been understood to depend on the violation of a specific criminal statute, and any such understanding would allow American presidents to exercise the powers of a dictator. A president would technically break no laws if he encouraged the police to brutalize suspects – as Trump has in fact done – and then used his pardon power to protect them from prosecution whenever they did. Impeachment is supposed to guard against precisely this abuse of presidential power, even if it breaks no laws.
A second problem with this defense of the president is that according to the Government Accountability Office, Trump did in fact violate the law when he withheld aid to Ukraine. Under a Nixon-era law, the president cannot decide not to spend money appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose on his own whim, because doing so violates his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
With the complicity of the Republican Senate majority, Trump is hence claiming the right to violate even this most basic requirement of his office, and to vastly expand what constitutes acceptable presidential conduct. While previous presidents tended to seek incremental increases in presidential power in service of what they believed, rightly or wrongly, to be the common good, Trump does the exact opposite. He seeks not just one particular new power but complete freedom from scrutiny for his conduct, and he does so in service not of any plausible national interest but rather purely to shield himself from the consequences of his abuses of power.
Trump appears to give little thought to his actions, but McConnell does. Just as he decided that refusing to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland was worth imperiling the legitimacy of the supreme court, now he has decided that the political survival of Donald Trump is worth creating the precedent that future presidents do not have to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. The only remedy is to channel public anger into a Democratic seizure of the Senate, and remake a broken institution as an instrument of the public good rather than a rubber-stamp legislature for the would-be authoritarian in the White House. If you want to see the consequences of failing to do so, just tune into the “trial”.


theguardian--2020-01-22--Relax, Democrats: your nominee will beat Trump in the midwest | Art Cullen

A weekend blizzard and a sub-zero deep freeze helped cool tempers that were reaching boiling point among Democrats .
Chill , everyone .
Whoever wins the nomination will beat Trump across the struggling midwest .
The Sanders crowd suggested Warren was an elitist .
Warren elbowed back with a gender argument .
Sanders attacked Biden over social security ; Biden countered that he was lying .
The snake emojis are out .
Old resentments over issues that can ’ t even be recalled are fed .
The result of it all ?
Nobody knows .
JD Scholten , running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ames on Saturday when the temperature was -4F .
Hundreds came out for the Story County Democrats ’ soup supper in the hometown of Iowa State University , a key territory .
He asked how many were undecided .
Half raised their hands .
A poll one week shows Sanders on top in Iowa .
A week later , another poll finds Biden leading , with Amy Klobuchar in the double digits .
Warren , Sanders and Klobuchar are confined to the Senate with two weekends left to campaign ahead of the 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg is everywhere all at once , working like a beaver .
Any one of them can beat Trump .
The president knows it .
That ’ s why he sent his daughter-in-law Lara Trump to Iowa to make fun of Biden ’ s stuttering , which endeared him even more to Iowans .
Vice-President Mike Pence was dispatched to Iowa this week to shore up the evangelical vote for this philanderer of a president .
The Donald himself is expected to invade Iowa just days before the caucus in hopes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will only serve to remind us that he was impeached for being a liar .
Midwesterners cling to quaint notions of honesty .
The president ’ s approval rating is underwater in Iowa , Wisconsin and Michigan .
Senator Joni Ernst , the Republican senator , has gone from being very popular to being the third most unpopular senator in the country , with an approval rating of just 37 % , behind only Senator Susan Collins , of Maine , and the Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All because of Trump .
Since Trump was inaugurated , corn and soybean markets have tanked .
Ethanol production is stunted by Trump ’ s Environmental Protection Agency .
Trade wars with the world , especially China , caused layoffs at John Deere in Iowa and slack sales of Harley Davidsons from Wisconsin .
It will take years for export markets to recover .
Some won ’ t .
New research from the Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson reports that Iowa trailed the nation in new job creation , and that non-metro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade .
There is a palpable economic anxiety across the midwest that explains why Bernie Sanders surged to first place in the latest Iowa Poll , considered one of the best .
Most of us recognize that 50 years of trickle-down economics is , as Tom Steyer might say , a fraud and a failure .
That poll showing Sanders with a lead was over a week ago , a lifetime in primary politics .
The voters I talk to are not paying that much attention to the intramural elbows .
They expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some sort of reckoning .
The spat died down as quickly as it blew up .
It does not appear that Sanders has landed any real body blows on Biden .
Klobuchar keeps plugging along and gaining support .
Anybody who thinks they know who will win the Iowa caucuses is full of themselves .
The nominee is unlikely to be identified until spring , if then , after New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada and the SEC Super Tuesday primaries , and California .
Unless , of course , these good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves them all walking wounded .
African American voters will flood the polls in Flint , Michigan , to vote for Pete Buttigieg if he somehow can run the gauntlet .
Bernie Sanders will do fine in Wisconsin , the land of famed progressive LaFollette .
Elizabeth Warren has shown that she can take a punch and land a roundhouse on any man , especially a lunkhead like Trump .
Amy Klobuchar will thump Trump in Iowa , and knows how to speak to a union member in Ohio wondering where the auto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right up to Joe Biden .
Even Michael Bloomberg could beat Trump in Colorado .
So chill .
Iowa has thinned a huge field and will vault four or five campaigns down the trail .
The process has exposed weaknesses and identified strengths .
The point is to beat the worst president in history , and the conditions are ripe to do so .
Just don ’ t blow it .
That is the main sentiment in Iowa .
• None Art Cullen is editor of the Storm Lake Times in north-west Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for editorial writing .
He is a Guardian US columnist and author of the book Storm Lake : Change , Resilience , and Hope in America ’ s Heartland , just released in paperback

A weekend blizzard and a sub-zero deep freeze helped cool tempers that were reaching boiling point among Democrats. Chill, everyone. Whoever wins the nomination will beat Trump across the struggling midwest.
The Sanders crowd suggested Warren was an elitist. Warren elbowed back with a gender argument. Sanders attacked Biden over social security; Biden countered that he was lying. The snake emojis are out. Old resentments over issues that can’t even be recalled are fed.
The result of it all? Nobody knows.
JD Scholten, running for US congress in Iowa, was in Ames on Saturday when the temperature was -4F. Hundreds came out for the Story County Democrats’ soup supper in the hometown of Iowa State University, a key territory. He asked how many were undecided. Half raised their hands.
A poll one week shows Sanders on top in Iowa. A week later, another poll finds Biden leading, with Amy Klobuchar in the double digits.
Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar are confined to the Senate with two weekends left to campaign ahead of the 3 February caucuses. In their absence, Pete Buttigieg is everywhere all at once, working like a beaver.
Any one of them can beat Trump. The president knows it. That’s why he sent his daughter-in-law Lara Trump to Iowa to make fun of Biden’s stuttering, which endeared him even more to Iowans. Vice-President Mike Pence was dispatched to Iowa this week to shore up the evangelical vote for this philanderer of a president. The Donald himself is expected to invade Iowa just days before the caucus in hopes of changing the subject from his dismal performance. It will only serve to remind us that he was impeached for being a liar. Midwesterners cling to quaint notions of honesty.
The president’s approval rating is underwater in Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Senator Joni Ernst, the Republican senator, has gone from being very popular to being the third most unpopular senator in the country, with an approval rating of just 37%, behind only Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, according to Morning Consult. All because of Trump.
Since Trump was inaugurated, corn and soybean markets have tanked. Ethanol production is stunted by Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency. Trade wars with the world, especially China, caused layoffs at John Deere in Iowa and slack sales of Harley Davidsons from Wisconsin. It will take years for export markets to recover. Some won’t. New research from the Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson reports that Iowa trailed the nation in new job creation, and that non-metro areas have lost jobs over the past decade.
There is a palpable economic anxiety across the midwest that explains why Bernie Sanders surged to first place in the latest Iowa Poll, considered one of the best. Most of us recognize that 50 years of trickle-down economics is, as Tom Steyer might say, a fraud and a failure.
The voters I talk to are not paying that much attention to the intramural elbows
That poll showing Sanders with a lead was over a week ago, a lifetime in primary politics. The voters I talk to are not paying that much attention to the intramural elbows. They expected that Sanders and Warren had to have some sort of reckoning. The spat died down as quickly as it blew up. It does not appear that Sanders has landed any real body blows on Biden. Klobuchar keeps plugging along and gaining support.
Anybody who thinks they know who will win the Iowa caucuses is full of themselves. The nominee is unlikely to be identified until spring, if then, after New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada and the SEC Super Tuesday primaries, and California.
Unless, of course, these good shooters form a circular firing squad that leaves them all walking wounded.
African American voters will flood the polls in Flint, Michigan, to vote for Pete Buttigieg if he somehow can run the gauntlet. Bernie Sanders will do fine in Wisconsin, the land of famed progressive LaFollette. Elizabeth Warren has shown that she can take a punch and land a roundhouse on any man, especially a lunkhead like Trump. Amy Klobuchar will thump Trump in Iowa, and knows how to speak to a union member in Ohio wondering where the auto plant went. Pennsylvania voters will warm right up to Joe Biden. Even Michael Bloomberg could beat Trump in Colorado.
So chill. Iowa has thinned a huge field and will vault four or five campaigns down the trail. The process has exposed weaknesses and identified strengths. The point is to beat the worst president in history, and the conditions are ripe to do so. Just don’t blow it. That is the main sentiment in Iowa.


theguardian--2020-01-22--'Loose with the truth': Chuck Schumer on the gravity of Donald Trump's alleged offences  – video

Chuck Schumer , the US Senate minority leader , said Donald Trump ’ s defence team appeared 'unprepared , confused @ @ @ @ @ first day of debate at the president ’ s impeachment trial on Tuesday .
All @ @ @ @ @ the amendments offered by Democrats , which was approved by the Senate on a party @ @ @ @ @ hours of Wednesday morning • Trump impeachment : McConnell and Senate Republicans don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ Schumer – live

Chuck Schumer, the US Senate minority leader, said Donald Trump’s defence team appeared 'unprepared, confused and unconvincing' during the first day of debate at the president’s impeachment trial on Tuesday.
All but one Republican voted against the amendments offered by Democrats, which was approved by the Senate on a party line vote in the early hours of Wednesday morning


theguardian--2020-01-22--Donald Trump on Greta Thunberg: 'She beat me out on Time magazine' – video

Responding to a question on what he thought of climate activist Greta Thunberg 's criticism of his administration 's climate @ @ @ @ @ replied by asking how old she was and adding : 'She beat me out on @ @ @ @ @ to the fact the 17-year-old Swede was named Person of the Year in 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ final press conference at Davos 2020 , the US president said Thunberg should focus more @ @ @ @

Responding to a question on what he thought of climate activist Greta Thunberg's criticism of his administration's climate track record, Donald Trump replied by asking how old she was and adding: 'She beat me out on Time magazine', referring to the fact the 17-year-old Swede was named Person of the Year in 2019. Speaking on Wednesday during his final press conference at Davos 2020, the US president said Thunberg should focus more on 'other countries'


theguardian--2020-01-24--Trump's impeachment lawyers 'tending toward conspiracy theories' says Schumer – live trial updates

The Senate trial is paused for a 30-minute dinner break .
Speaking to reporters outside the chamber , Republican senators continued to complain about a lack of “ new ” information — despite voting down every effort by Democrats to bring in new testimony and documents .
“ We ’ ve seen this before , ” said Mike Braun , a Republican senator from Indiana .
“ I think that they believe that by repackaging it and remarketing it , we ’ ll find something different .
And I haven ’ t seen it.
” “ It seems like Groundhog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” echoed John Barrasso , a Republican senator from Wyoming .
“ It ’ s the same thing day after day after day .
Senator Tim Scott , a Republican from South Carolina , described the Democrats ’ argument as : “ Rinse it , recycle it and repeat it ” .
“ It ’ s the same stories , same videos all over again , ” said James Lankford , a Republican from Oklahoma .
“ Apparently we ’ re going to hear it all over again tomorrow.
” Other Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration weighed his own political career over national policy .
Commenting “ as a veteran and as someone who has a special interest in Ukraine , ” Senator Joni Ernst , a Republican from Iowa , Ernst said she was more concerned with how the Obama administration responded to Russian aggression in Ukraine .
“ They sent blankets , ” Ernst said .
“ This president has done more.
” Ernst also accused House managers of being hypocritical by “ lecturing ” senators on Trump ’ s hold on Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense bill , which included aid to Ukraine .
She held up a paper with hand-written notes on how they voted .
Asked why Trump held up aid , Ernst said it was to give other countries the opportunity to contribute more .

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now), Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier) and Adam Gabbatt in New York (earlier)