theguardian--2020-01-24--Democrats appeal to history, but senators struggle to sit through lesson

Like students in a high school history class , 100 US senators , confined to their desks for another long day of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump , squirmed , stretched and slumped in their seats as the minutes ticked down until the next break .
They passed notes back and forth , doodled on legal pads , stifled yawns and laughter , and at least one member twirled a fidget spinner – a gift from the North Carolina senator Richard Burr to his antsy colleagues .
The lesson on day three of the Senate trial began with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After methodically presenting the facts of the case against Trump , the managers – a team of seven House Democrats appointed by Nancy Pelosi to present the House ’ s case for conviction – dedicated Thursday to laying out the constitutional case for their first article of impeachment , abuse of power .
Over several hours , they parsed the framers ’ words with Trump ’ s actions , building their argument that the president abused his power by soliciting foreign interference to benefit his standing in the 2020 election by pressuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rivals - and then attempting to conceal the scheme from Congress .
“ This conduct is not America first , ” congressman Jerry Nadler , one of the House manager , declared .
“ It is Donald Trump first.
” His distinctive New York accent was the only sound in the chamber as he endeavored to convince his audience that the founding fathers sealed Trump ’ s fate when they determined in 1787 that the executive could be removed from office for “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” .
Impeachment , Nadler insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final answer to a president who mistakes himself for a king ” .
As he spoke , pages squeezed between the rows of mahogany desks to replenish empty glasses of water – and , on occasion , to deliver a glass of milk .
Meanwhile , Senator Rand Paul , a Republican from Kentucky , sketched an elaborate – and impressive – drawing of the US Capitol in blue ink .
Democrats , too , are taking notes .
Senator Mazie Hirono told reporters on Thursday that when the president ’ s defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his word ” she wrote in her notebook : “ Wow , what a whopper.
” Three days into the trial , some senators have grown restless and resentful of the managers , who appeared ready to exhaust the 24 hours they are allowed under Senate rules to make their case .
Trump ’ s legal team will have the same amount of time to respond , before senators have the opportunity to ask questions .
During a break for dinner , Senator Joni Ernst , an Iowa Republican , fumed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Senate chamber on their “ high horse ” and “ lecture ” them about Trump ’ s alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine .
She waved off mounting evidence and testimony that the president withheld military funding to Ukraine as part of a pressure campaign to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election , accusing the Democrats of “ hypocrisy ” and reminding reporters that it was Obama , not Trump , who refused to provide lethal assistance as Ukraine faced war with Russia .
It was Congressman Adam Schiff , the silver-tongued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sharply partisan tone that has shaped every aspect of impeachment since the House opened its investigation in September .
In a nod to the long-standing rivalry between the chambers , Schiff remarked playfully that it was “ extraordinary ” for House members to “ command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours , or even for minutes for that matter ” .
Of course , he conceded , the proceedings begin each morning with a warning from the sergeant at arms that senators are to keep silent “ on pain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate majority leader who has sat stone-faced during each session , laughed .
But the mood was short lived .
Many of the same Republicans , who for eight years accused Barack Obama of an imperial presidency , smirked and sneered dismissively as the managers outlined the House ’ s indictment of Trump for abuse of power .
They dramatized their case by showing video clips of testimony from the House ’ s impeachment investigation and repeatedly using Trump ’ s own words against him .
But so far they have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve heard the same story .
Rinse it .
Recycle it .
And repeat it , ” the South Carolina senator Tim Scott , a Republican , chimed in .
Senator James Lankford , a Republican from Oklahoma , agreed : “ The big challenge right now is how often we ’ re hearing the same story.
” He passed the hours by jotting down a list of the “ half truths ” he says the Democrats have repeated during their presentation .
Senator John Barrasso , a Republican from Wyoming , asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to summon additional witnesses and documents after spending two days telling them that the evidence against Trump is “ overwhelming ” .
Democrats believe there is more to the story – evidence and testimony that would further strengthen their case .
But the Trump administration stonewalled their investigation , withholding documents and refusing to allow key administration officials to testify , which is the basis for the second article of impeachment : obstruction of Congress .
All it would take is four Republican votes to break Trump ’ s blockade .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shortly after 10pm , Schiff rose to deliver the House ’ s closing remarks for the day , ending with an eloquent appeal that seemed directed at the few Republican senators in the chamber who are “ listening with an open mind ” , he said .
“ The framers couldn ’ t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don ’ t matter , ” Schiff said , the passion building in his voice .
“ No constitution can protect us if right doesn ’ t matter anymore , and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president to do what is right for this country .
You can trust that he will do what is right for Donald Trump.
” “ This is why , if you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed , ” he said .
“ Because right matters , and the truth matters .
Otherwise we are lost .
”

Like students in a high school history class, 100 US senators, confined to their desks for another long day of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, squirmed, stretched and slumped in their seats as the minutes ticked down until the next break. They passed notes back and forth, doodled on legal pads, stifled yawns and laughter, and at least one member twirled a fidget spinner – a gift from the North Carolina senator Richard Burr to his antsy colleagues.
The lesson on day three of the Senate trial began with a primer on America’s constitutional democracy. After methodically presenting the facts of the case against Trump, the managers – a team of seven House Democrats appointed by Nancy Pelosi to present the House’s case for conviction – dedicated Thursday to laying out the constitutional case for their first article of impeachment, abuse of power.
Over several hours, they parsed the framers’ words with Trump’s actions, building their argument that the president abused his power by soliciting foreign interference to benefit his standing in the 2020 election by pressuring Ukraine to open investigations into his political rivals - and then attempting to conceal the scheme from Congress.
“This conduct is not America first,” congressman Jerry Nadler, one of the House manager, declared. “It is Donald Trump first.”
His distinctive New York accent was the only sound in the chamber as he endeavored to convince his audience that the founding fathers sealed Trump’s fate when they determined in 1787 that the executive could be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Impeachment, Nadler insisted, is the “constitution’s final answer to a president who mistakes himself for a king”.
As he spoke, pages squeezed between the rows of mahogany desks to replenish empty glasses of water – and, on occasion, to deliver a glass of milk. Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, sketched an elaborate – and impressive – drawing of the US Capitol in blue ink. Democrats, too, are taking notes. Senator Mazie Hirono told reporters on Thursday that when the president’s defense team claimed Trump was a “man of his word” she wrote in her notebook: “Wow, what a whopper.”
Senator Mike Rounds plays with a fidget spinner handed out to Republican senators at lunch to keep them occupied during the Senate impeachment trial. Photograph: Susan Cornwell/Reuters
Three days into the trial, some senators have grown restless and resentful of the managers, who appeared ready to exhaust the 24 hours they are allowed under Senate rules to make their case. Trump’s legal team will have the same amount of time to respond, before senators have the opportunity to ask questions.
During a break for dinner, Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, fumed to reporters that the House managers had come to the Senate chamber on their “high horse” and “lecture” them about Trump’s alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine. She waved off mounting evidence and testimony that the president withheld military funding to Ukraine as part of a pressure campaign to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, accusing the Democrats of “hypocrisy” and reminding reporters that it was Obama, not Trump, who refused to provide lethal assistance as Ukraine faced war with Russia.
It was Congressman Adam Schiff, the silver-tongued lead House manager, who attempted to soften the sharply partisan tone that has shaped every aspect of impeachment since the House opened its investigation in September.
In a nod to the longstanding rivalry between the chambers, Schiff remarked playfully that it was “extraordinary” for House members to “command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours, or even for minutes for that matter”.
Of course, he conceded, the proceedings begin each morning with a warning from the sergeant at arms that senators are to keep silent “on pain of imprisonment”.
Even Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader who has sat stone-faced during each session, laughed.
But the mood was short-lived.
Many of the same Republicans, who for eight years accused Barack Obama of an imperial presidency, smirked and sneered dismissively as the managers outlined the House’s indictment of Trump for abuse of power.
02:55 Impeachment case against Trump continues into third day - video
They dramatized their case by showing video clips of testimony from the House’s impeachment investigation and repeatedly using Trump’s own words against him. But so far they have not won any converts.
“We’ve heard the same story. Rinse it. Recycle it. And repeat it,” the South Carolina senator Tim Scott, a Republican, chimed in.
Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, agreed: “The big challenge right now is how often we’re hearing the same story.” He passed the hours by jotting down a list of the “half truths” he says the Democrats have repeated during their presentation.
Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, asked why the managers are imploring the chamber to summon additional witnesses and documents after spending two days telling them that the evidence against Trump is “overwhelming”.
Democrats believe there is more to the story – evidence and testimony that would further strengthen their case. But the Trump administration stonewalled their investigation, withholding documents and refusing to allow key administration officials to testify, which is the basis for the second article of impeachment: obstruction of Congress.
All it would take is four Republican votes to break Trump’s blockade. But that fight is reserved for another day.
Shortly after 10pm, Schiff rose to deliver the House’s closing remarks for the day, ending with an eloquent appeal that seemed directed at the few Republican senators in the chamber who are “listening with an open mind”, he said.
“The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter,” Schiff said, the passion building in his voice. “No constitution can protect us if right doesn’t matter any more, and you know you can’t trust this president to do what is right for this country. You can trust that he will do what is right for Donald Trump.
“This is why, if you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed,” he said. “Because right matters, and the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.”


theguardian--2020-01-24--Hillary Clinton is still trying to sell herself as a feminist icon. Don't buy it | Jessa Crispin

I remember having an argument with the mother of a young girl during the 2016 election .
She thought even a symbolic victory would be an important victory , because it was important for her daughter to have a woman president to look up to .
“ I want her to see a woman president , ” she said , “ to help her believe that she could become a president herself.
” It ’ s an oft-touted argument for representation : children need role models – successful people of their own gender or race – in order to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same conversation we all had when the comic book movie Wonder Woman came out – starring a former member of the Israel Defense Forces who vocally supported Israeli soldiers as they committed war crimes in Gaza in 2014 .
It ’ s good for young girls to see strong women out in the world and on our movie screens , we ’ re told – even if we are mostly watching that woman commit acts of violence .
Wouldn ’ t it be better for your daughter , I asked , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be out in the world as compassionate and wise , rather than just powerful ?
I didn ’ t get an answer .
We have a lot of powerful women for ambitious little girls to look up to these days .
They are political leaders , captains of industry , writers , and politically conscious musicians and actors .
The one thing they have in common is their willingness to use the feminist label to get ahead , with no thought to the damage they might do to the movement as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell herself as a feminist icon – as a “ gutsy woman , ” as she puts it in an interview she did to support the new four-part documentary about her life and career , Hillary , soon to debut at Sundance .
She may have lost the election , but she is still trying to win the narrative by telling a story about a brave feminist leader who went up against a hopelessly misogynistic culture .
She may not have become leader of the free world , in this telling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .
It ’ s an easy story to tell because she has so many co-authors .
Many women drape themselves in the same feminist uniform , claiming to play solely for the women ’ s team , hiding any number of gender crimes underneath .
When it comes to actually doing what is best for women , they shrug and plead helplessness .
“ How could we have known ?
” Clinton asks , when questioned in the same interview about her longstanding friendship and political relationship with alleged sexual predator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Ronan Farrow has publicly accused Clinton ’ s publicist of trying to kill his first story about the accusations against Weinstein .
Or that Lena Dunham has said she discussed Weinstein with Clinton in private .
How could she have known ?
The interviewer didn ’ t even bother to ask about the Clintons ’ association with Jeffrey Epstein .
Neera Tanden – a close associate of Clinton and president of the liberal thinktank the Center for American Progress – has a similar history .
She has thrust herself into public life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , going on television and social media to decry the mistreatment of women in politics and culture , yet the organization she leads is rife with accusations of harassment , intimidation and censorship of its female employees .
The problem is not only in politics .
Facebook is still throwing women at the media to hide its detrimental effect on our culture – from mass surveillance to alliances with authoritarian governments to its involvement in the spread of propaganda during elections – by paying Teen Vogue , a publication often touted for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , to profile five of its female employees working “ to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election ” .
Its scandal-rocked COO , Sheryl Sandberg , is still giving interviews about the importance of gender equality in corporate culture .
While these women do find themselves criticized , occasionally “ canceled ” , they often find their way back into the centers of attention and power , rehabilitating their images by presenting themselves as some kind of feminist authority or cheerleader of women .
We have a mass media that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to champion any self-declared leader looking to build a career .
We have journalists too afraid of losing access to the ruling class to bother asking a follow-up question to an obvious lie .
We have columnists too invested in the fantasy of a powerful woman – because they dream of power themselves – to want to offend or challenge hypocrisy .
And too often , truly progressive and feminist voices find themselves shut out of the media discourse because their ideas and challenges would be inconvenient to the dominant corporate feminist narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were happy to champion Clinton ’ s “ record of service to children , women , and families ” during her 2016 campaign , ignoring , for example , prison abolitionist activists trying to draw attention to her terrible criminal justice record and her infamous remarks about “ super predators ” .
New York magazine was breathless in their support of a woman president .
Rebecca Traister , author of a book about Hillary Clinton ’ s 2008 campaign called Big Girls Don ’ t Cry : The Election that Changed Everything for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , “ I have wanted to pull a lever for a woman who is a strong Democrat since I was 9.
” And in order to continue supporting her woman candidate , she was happy to ignore Clinton ’ s hawkish , regime-change-eager approach to foreign policy .
The feminist thinkers and activists and writers who have been working on deeply un-photogenic subjects such as labor rights , abortion access , criminal justice reform , sex work legalization , homelessness and healthcare reform aren ’ t the ones penning op-eds and signing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important work they are doing to improve women ’ s lives .
It ’ s cute white girls .
The real issue of representation in our culture isn ’ t that there aren ’ t enough visible powerful women .
It ’ s that what is represented in our culture as feminism is actually corporatism .
A truly feminist leader – one who believes in fighting for all women and not just her rich friends , who is concerned with the dignity of all lives and not just her personal ambitions , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sell out to corporate interests in exchange for power – would be a genuine shock to the system .
• None Jessa Crispin is the host of the Public Intellectual podcast

I remember having an argument with the mother of a young girl during the 2016 election. She thought even a symbolic victory would be an important victory, because it was important for her daughter to have a woman president to look up to. “I want her to see a woman president,” she said, “to help her believe that she could become a president herself.”
It’s an oft-touted argument for representation: children need role models – successful people of their own gender or race – in order to become successful in adulthood.
It’s the same conversation we all had when the comic book movie Wonder Woman came out – starring a former member of the Israel Defense Forces who vocally supported Israeli soldiers as they committed war crimes in Gaza in 2014. It’s good for young girls to see strong women out in the world and on our movie screens, we’re told – even if we are mostly watching that woman commit acts of violence.
Wouldn’t it be better for your daughter, I asked, to see women acting with moral integrity? To be out in the world as compassionate and wise, rather than just powerful? I didn’t get an answer.
We have a lot of powerful women for ambitious little girls to look up to these days. They are political leaders, captains of industry, writers, and politically conscious musicians and actors. The one thing they have in common is their willingness to use the feminist label to get ahead, with no thought to the damage they might do to the movement as a result.
Hillary Clinton is still trying to sell herself as a feminist icon – as a “gutsy woman,” as she puts it in an interview she did to support the new four-part documentary about her life and career, Hillary, soon to debut at Sundance. She may have lost the election, but she is still trying to win the narrative by telling a story about a brave feminist leader who went up against a hopelessly misogynistic culture. She may not have become leader of the free world, in this telling, but she paved the way for generations to come.
It’s an easy story to tell because she has so many co-authors. Many women drape themselves in the same feminist uniform, claiming to play solely for the women’s team, hiding any number of gender crimes underneath.
When it comes to actually doing what is best for women, they shrug and plead helplessness. “How could we have known?” Clinton asks, when questioned in the same interview about her longstanding friendship and political relationship with alleged sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. Never mind the fact that Ronan Farrow has publicly accused Clinton’s publicist of trying to kill his first story about the accusations against Weinstein. Or that Lena Dunham has said she discussed Weinstein with Clinton in private. How could she have known? The interviewer didn’t even bother to ask about the Clintons’ association with Jeffrey Epstein.
Neera Tanden – a close associate of Clinton and president of the liberal thinktank the Center for American Progress – has a similar history. She has thrust herself into public life as an example of a feminist leader, going on television and social media to decry the mistreatment of women in politics and culture, yet the organization she leads is rife with accusations of harassment, intimidation and censorship of its female employees.
The problem is not only in politics. Facebook is still throwing women at the media to hide its detrimental effect on our culture – from mass surveillance to alliances with authoritarian governments to its involvement in the spread of propaganda during elections – by paying Teen Vogue, a publication often touted for its “progressive” coverage of feminism and politics, to profile five of its female employees working “to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election”. Its scandal-rocked COO, Sheryl Sandberg, is still giving interviews about the importance of gender equality in corporate culture. While these women do find themselves criticized, occasionally “canceled”, they often find their way back into the centers of attention and power, rehabilitating their images by presenting themselves as some kind of feminist authority or cheerleader of women.
We have a mass media that is complicit in these feminist imaginings, happy to champion any self-declared leader looking to build a career. We have journalists too afraid of losing access to the ruling class to bother asking a follow-up question to an obvious lie. We have columnists too invested in the fantasy of a powerful woman – because they dream of power themselves – to want to offend or challenge hypocrisy. And too often, truly progressive and feminist voices find themselves shut out of the media discourse because their ideas and challenges would be inconvenient to the dominant corporate feminist narrative.
Outlets like the New York Times were happy to champion Clinton’s “record of service to children, women, and families” during her 2016 campaign, ignoring, for example, prison abolitionist activists trying to draw attention to her terrible criminal justice record and her infamous remarks about “super predators”. New York magazine was breathless in their support of a woman president. Rebecca Traister, author of a book about Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign called Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women, wrote before the 2016 election, “I have wanted to pull a lever for a woman who is a strong Democrat since I was 9.” And in order to continue supporting her woman candidate, she was happy to ignore Clinton’s hawkish, regime-change-eager approach to foreign policy.
The feminist thinkers and activists and writers who have been working on deeply un-photogenic subjects such as labor rights, abortion access, criminal justice reform, sex work legalization, homelessness and healthcare reform aren’t the ones penning op-eds and signing six-figure book deals, despite the crucially important work they are doing to improve women’s lives. It’s cute white girls.
The real issue of representation in our culture isn’t that there aren’t enough visible powerful women. It’s that what is represented in our culture as feminism is actually corporatism. A truly feminist leader – one who believes in fighting for all women and not just her rich friends, who is concerned with the dignity of all lives and not just her personal ambitions, who is not swayed to lower her standards or sell out to corporate interests in exchange for power – would be a genuine shock to the system.


theguardian--2020-01-24--Millionaires like me should pay more taxes. Giving to charity is a fig leaf | Chuck Collins

World leaders , powerful corporate executives and influential activists will come together this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
At the top of the agenda is “ stakeholder capitalism ” – the idea that corporations should consider the interests of all stakeholders , including employees , customers and communities , not just those of their own shareholders .
To be sure , if there was ever a moment to recognize that we are all in it together – regardless of race , creed and class – it is now .
The ecological catastrophe fueled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by grotesque inequalities of wealth and power have the potential to destroy everything we care about .
Based on a mountain of inter-disciplinary evidence , it ’ s clear that extreme inequalities of income , wealth and opportunity undermine democratic institutions , destabilize healthy economic activity , fuel social unrest , and prevent us from nimbly responding to ecological threats .
Yet our global economy is on inequality autopilot , funneling wealth upwards at a dizzying pace .
A couple thousand billionaires now hold more than half the world ’ s wealth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change things – or to block change , as has been the case for decades .
So it would seem a positive sign that many of those billionaires will be joining policymakers and activists this week in Davos to discuss how best to go about changing things .
The problem ?
As last year ’ s Forum showed , the singular most impactful thing they could do is generally the last thing they want to talk about : that is , paying higher taxes .
In many countries , the wealthy pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest means .
Without this revenue , governments plead austerity or take on nihilistic levels of debt .
Meanwhile , a wealth-defense industry of tax lawyers and wealth planners spend their waking hours gaming tax laws and hiding trillions in wealth .
An estimated 10 to 12 % of the world ’ s wealth is hidden in a maze of offshore secrecy jurisdiction , trusts and shell companies .
A recent IMF study estimates that 40 % of foreign direct investment – about $ 15tn – passes through “ empty corporate shells ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This hidden wealth isn ’ t basking on a Caribbean island .
Billions are flowing into luxury real estate investments .
The cranes rising across our major cities , constructing luxury towers , are an affront to residents facing a crisis in affordable housing .
In many countries , we are seeing a breakdown in social cohesion and a rise in xenophobic nationalism and political extremism .
People understandably believe the system is rigged against them , fueling a sense of unfairness and diminished social trust .
This process of pulling apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will all but guarantee that the global community will further polarize and fail to adequately respond to the looming climate catastrophe .
This will be disastrous for everyone , including the planet ’ s billionaires and millionaires .
The choice is stark : do we want pitchforks or a working tax system ?
As a member of the US-based Patriotic Millionaires , which is composed of millionaires and billionaires from around the world advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy , I agree with Dutch historian Rutger Bregman , who said last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and start talking about taxes.
” The bloom has come off the charitable rose .
Perhaps the public has started to realize that billionaire philanthropy has become a taxpayer-subsidized extension of private power , another elaborate tax dodge .
The Patriotic Millionaires have convened an initial group of 123 millionaires and billionaires from eight countries with a global call to action .
We believe that taxes are the best and only appropriate way to ensure adequate investment in the things our societies need .
We agree with the IMF managing director , Kristalina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be raised without sacrificing economic growth.
” Unfortunately these are things that won ’ t get the attention they should this week .
The inconvenient truth is that the best solution to our most pressing problems may cause some discomfort for many of those invited to Davos .
Yet every solution to the global challenges we face requires higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires like us .
That ’ s why we urge others with wealth to accept this simple fact and help us get about the business of repairing our fractured world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax systems within our respective countries and internationally .
Our invitation , to our fellow global millionaires and billionaires , is nothing less than to rejoin humanity .
Park your private jet and root yourself in a community – not a wealthy enclave but a real community of people and relationships of reciprocity .
Bring your wealth home .
Bring it out from the shadows , the tax havens , the opaque trusts and secret accounts .
Shift capital out of the speculative financial sector and deploy it in service of humanity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprises that produce the food , goods and services that people depend on .
Share your wealth while recognizing that philanthropy is not a substitute for adequately funded governments at the local , state and federal level .
Pay your fair share of taxes .
Redeploy the professionals who have spent decades working to reduce your taxes down and hide your wealth .
Engage with your families and peers and invite them to join this effort and sign our Call to Action .
Encourage them to pay their taxes .
The hour is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to ask again .
• None Chuck Collins is a member of the Patriotic Millionaires and is the great-grandson of the US meatpacker Oscar Mayer .
He directs the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies and is the author of Born on Third Base

World leaders, powerful corporate executives and influential activists will come together this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. At the top of the agenda is “stakeholder capitalism” – the idea that corporations should consider the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers and communities, not just those of their own shareholders.
To be sure, if there was ever a moment to recognize that we are all in it together – regardless of race, creed and class – it is now.
The ecological catastrophe fueled by climate change and the socio-economic upheaval threatened by grotesque inequalities of wealth and power have the potential to destroy everything we care about.
Based on a mountain of inter-disciplinary evidence, it’s clear that extreme inequalities of income, wealth and opportunity undermine democratic institutions, destabilize healthy economic activity, fuel social unrest, and prevent us from nimbly responding to ecological threats.
If there was ever a moment to recognize that we are all in it together – regardless of race, creed and class – it is now
Yet our global economy is on inequality autopilot, funneling wealth upwards at a dizzying pace. A couple thousand billionaires now hold more than half the world’s wealth and with it, much of the power to change things – or to block change, as has been the case for decades.
So it would seem a positive sign that many of those billionaires will be joining policymakers and activists this week in Davos to discuss how best to go about changing things. The problem? As last year’s Forum showed, the singular most impactful thing they could do is generally the last thing they want to talk about: that is, paying higher taxes.
In many countries, the wealthy pay lower effective tax rates than those with modest means. Without this revenue, governments plead austerity or take on nihilistic levels of debt.
Meanwhile, a wealth-defense industry of tax lawyers and wealth planners spend their waking hours gaming tax laws and hiding trillions in wealth. An estimated 10 to 12% of the world’s wealth is hidden in a maze of offshore secrecy jurisdiction, trusts and shell companies. A recent IMF study estimates that 40% of foreign direct investment – about $15tn – passes through “empty corporate shells” with “no real business activities”.
This hidden wealth isn’t basking on a Caribbean island. Billions are flowing into luxury real estate investments. The cranes rising across our major cities, constructing luxury towers, are an affront to residents facing a crisis in affordable housing.
In many countries, we are seeing a breakdown in social cohesion and a rise in xenophobic nationalism and political extremism. People understandably believe the system is rigged against them, fueling a sense of unfairness and diminished social trust.
This process of pulling apart, both within countries and between nations, will all but guarantee that the global community will further polarize and fail to adequately respond to the looming climate catastrophe. This will be disastrous for everyone, including the planet’s billionaires and millionaires.
The choice is stark: do we want pitchforks or a working tax system?
As a member of the US-based Patriotic Millionaires, which is composed of millionaires and billionaires from around the world advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy, I agree with Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, who said last year, “Stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes.”
The bloom has come off the charitable rose. Perhaps the public has started to realize that billionaire philanthropy has become a taxpayer-subsidized extension of private power, another elaborate tax dodge.
The Patriotic Millionaires have convened an initial group of 123 millionaires and billionaires from eight countries with a global call to action.
We believe that taxes are the best and only appropriate way to ensure adequate investment in the things our societies need. We agree with the IMF managing director, Kristalina Georgieva: “Marginal tax rates can be raised without sacrificing economic growth.”
The choice is stark: do we want pitchforks or a working tax system?
Unfortunately these are things that won’t get the attention they should this week. The inconvenient truth is that the best solution to our most pressing problems may cause some discomfort for many of those invited to Davos.
Yet every solution to the global challenges we face requires higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires like us. That’s why we urge others with wealth to accept this simple fact and help us get about the business of repairing our fractured world – including working together to advance effective tax systems within our respective countries and internationally.
Our invitation, to our fellow global millionaires and billionaires, is nothing less than to rejoin humanity. Park your private jet and root yourself in a community – not a wealthy enclave but a real community of people and relationships of reciprocity.
Bring your wealth home. Bring it out from the shadows, the tax havens, the opaque trusts and secret accounts. Shift capital out of the speculative financial sector and deploy it in service of humanity. Invest in places and in the rooted enterprises that produce the food, goods and services that people depend on.
Share your wealth while recognizing that philanthropy is not a substitute for adequately funded governments at the local, state and federal level. Pay your fair share of taxes. Redeploy the professionals who have spent decades working to reduce your taxes down and hide your wealth.
Engage with your families and peers and invite them to join this effort and sign our Call to Action. Encourage them to pay their taxes. The hour is getting late and we may not be able to ask again.


theguardian--2020-01-24--Trump unveils logo for Starfleet ... er, Space Force ... and Trekkers take to Twitter

As the impeachment trial of Donald Trump continued in earnest on Friday , the president was boldly unveiling his new logo for the US Space Force .
The massive defense spending bill Trump signed last month created the Space Force , a new branch of the military for which he has been pushing since early 2018 .
Almost immediately after the design ’ s unveiling , people began pointing out the many similarities it bore to the logo for a certain fictional space fleet .
George Takei , one of the stars of Star Trek , jumped into the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast “ royalties ” .
Takei also took a dig at the first lady , who appeared to plagiarize lines directly from a Michelle Obama speech for her own address as the 2016 Republican National convention .
Space Force , the first new military service since the creation of the Air Force in 1947 , is part of Trump ’ s efforts to shore up American dominance in space .
“ Space is the world ’ s new war-fighting domain , ” Trump said during a signing ceremony in December , at Joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grave threats to our national security , American superiority in space is absolutely vital .
And we ’ re leading , but we ’ re not leading by enough , and very shortly we ’ ll be leading by a lot.
” Amid the hullabaloo , some pointed out that the United States has been all about that “ live long and prosper ” life for a while now .
And the central feature of the logo wasn ’ t the only part of the design that looked … familiar .

As the impeachment trial of Donald Trump continued in earnest on Friday, the president was boldly unveiling his new logo for the US Space Force.
After consultation with our Great Military Leaders, designers, and others, I am pleased to present the new logo for the United States Space Force, the Sixth Branch of our Magnificent Military! pic.twitter.com/TC8pT4yHFT — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020
The massive defense spending bill Trump signed last month created the Space Force, a new branch of the military for which he has been pushing since early 2018.
Almost immediately after the design’s unveiling, people began pointing out the many similarities it bore to the logo for a certain fictional space fleet.
Trump just announced the new logo for the Space Force. The other is Star Trek Starfleet Command. pic.twitter.com/S7NeYdjR4C — Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 24, 2020
George Takei, one of the stars of Star Trek, jumped into the conversation to suggest the Trump administration pay the cast “royalties”.
Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this... https://t.co/msYcJMlqjh — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 24, 2020
Takei also took a dig at the first lady, who appeared to plagiarize lines directly from a Michelle Obama speech for her own address as the 2016 Republican National convention.
I feel like Melania must have had a hand in copyi--I mean, designing this. — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 24, 2020
Space Force, the first new military service since the creation of the Air Force in 1947, is part of Trump’s efforts to shore up American dominance in space.
“Space is the world’s new war-fighting domain,” Trump said during a signing ceremony in December, at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington. “Among grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital. And we’re leading, but we’re not leading by enough, and very shortly we’ll be leading by a lot.”
Amid the hullabaloo, some pointed out that the United States has been all about that “live long and prosper” life for a while now.
For those excitedly tweeting that Trump stole the Star Trek logo!!!!, the patch on the left was the existing Air Force Command logo.
The same one I wore as a Lieutenant in 2005. pic.twitter.com/mYb60YioBP — John Noonan (@noonanjo) January 24, 2020
And the central feature of the logo wasn’t the only part of the design that looked … familiar.


theguardian--2020-01-24--'Take her out': tape appears to catch Trump demanding removal of Ukraine ambassador – live

I just want to give you another opportunity to answer this , because as you know , people who work for you in your department , people who have resigned from this department under your leadership , saying you should stand up for the diplomats who work here .
[ crosstalk ] I don ’ t know who these unnamed sources are you ’ re referring to .
I can tell you this , when I talked to my team here -- These are not unnamed sources .
[ crosstalk ] This is your senior adviser Michael McKinley , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , who testified under oath that he resigned in part due to the failure of the state department to offer support to foreign service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine .
I ’ m not going to comment on things that Mr McKinley may have said .
I ’ ll say only this .
I have defended every state department official .
We ’ ve built a great team .
The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world .
Sir , respectfully [ crosstalk ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve defended every single person on this team .
I ’ ve done what ’ s right for every single person on this team .
[ crosstalk ] Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch ?
I ’ ve said all I ’ m going to say today .
Thank you .
Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so .
I appreciate that .

Vivian Ho in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (previously)

25 Jan 2020 03.43 GMT With the eyes on Washington on the impeachment trial, Tulsi Gabbard goes on Fox. Tulsi Gabbard just appeared on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News. Chyron read, “Gabbard: Voters don’t care about impeachment.” — Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) January 25, 2020
25 Jan 2020 03.11 GMT ABC News has posted audio from the recording in which Donald Trump purportedly talks about firing then-US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch a year before she was recalled from Kyiv. “Get rid of her!” said a voice that appears to be Trump’s voice. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.” Yovanovitch was recalled from Kyiv over what she called “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives”.
25 Jan 2020 02.30 GMT In non-impeachment news, if you were wondering what Marianne Williamson was up to these days since dropping out of the presidential race, well, here she is with Andrew Yang: Marianne Williamson at a @AndrewYang event in Fairfield, Iowa tonight. Not officially endorsing in for president, but in her words helping him continue to “be a voice” past Iowa. https://t.co/ZbUb3Z91L0 — James Pindell (@JamesPindell) January 25, 2020
25 Jan 2020 02.20 GMT Here’s some more reaction to Schiff’s allusion to the alleged “head on a pike” comment: When Chairman Schiff mentioned the CBS report (Republican senators told their heads ‘will be on a pike’ if they vote against Trump) Collins said “that’s not true” fairly loudly multiple times and shook her head vigorously — Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotnbc) January 25, 2020 Murkowski is PISSED
“He was going fine with moral courage until he got to head on a pike. That’s where he lost me” — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 25, 2020 Just leaving the chamber, it seemed like Adam Schiff commanded the room, and had senators on both sides of the aisle considering his words... until he read a quote from a CBS. Republicans really reacted negatively to that comment. — Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) January 25, 2020 Republicans are INCENSED about Adam Schiff’s comment about the CBS report that senators had been warned they’d have their “head on a pike” if they convict.
“He lost me there,” Lisa Murkowski said.
John Barrasso blasted Schiff for “spread falsehoods ... on the Senate floor.” — Griffin Connolly (@GriffinConnolly) January 25, 2020 “That’s not true,” Susan Collins said several times on the floor, shaking her head when Schiff cited a news report saying WH warned senators that a vote against Trump means “your head will be on a pike.” Risch also said aloud: “That’s not true.” Cotton laughed when Schiff said it — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 25, 2020
Updated at 02.20 GMT
25 Jan 2020 02.15 GMT CBS News reported last night that Republican senators were very threateningly warned: “Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.” Wow.
WATCH/LISTEN:
"One Trump confidant tells CBS news that GOP Senators have been warned: "Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike." via @CBSEveningNews pic.twitter.com/PRfv5oLuSt — Justin Goodman (@JustinPGoodman) January 24, 2020 Impeachment manager Adam Schiff alluded to this in his closing remarks.
“I don’t know if that’s true, but when I read that I was struck by the irony,” he said. “I hope it’s not true. But I was struck by the irony of the idea that when we’re talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever it was that said that would use a penalty that was posed by a monarch.” Outside Senate chambers, the Republican Senator James Lankford told reporters that the president never told Republican senators that their heads would be on a pike if they voted against him (note: CBS News never outright states if the warning came from the president himself). “None of us have been told that by the president,” Lankford said. “I was visibly upset by it, the whole room was visibly upset by it.” The Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown thought the reaction from the Republican senators spoke of something else. “The fact when Adam Schiff said that about the head on a pike, that was the only time I heard a loud audible reaction from the Republican side,” Brown told reporters. “Methinks thou doth protest too much.” “They’re afraid to do the right thing here,” Brown said.
Updated at 02.24 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-24--Impeachment: Democrats focus on cover-up of alleged Ukraine aid scheme

Democrats shifted the focus of their prosecution of Donald Trump on Friday , from the president ’ s conduct to his attempted cover-up of an alleged scheme to withhold military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine in pursuit of a political favor .
The White House tried to hide records of a call Trump had with the Ukrainian president and tried to stop a whistleblower complaint reaching Congress , before Trump demanded federal agencies and employees stonewall the impeachment inquiry , Democrats said .
“ He tried to cheat , he got caught and then he worked hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York congressman Hakeem Jeffries , one of the House “ managers ” prosecuting the case .
In the fourth full day of Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial , Democrats completed their presentation of evidence in support of the first article of impeachment , charging Trump with abuse of power , and moved to the second and final article , charging Trump with obstruction of Congress .
In October , the White House issued a letter ordering federal agencies and employees to defy congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to testify publicly , many individuals avoided testifying and no agency turned over documents .
“ No other president facing impeachment has taken the extreme step of prohibiting executive branch witnesses from testifying before Congress , ” said Zoe Lofgren , the only manager to work on all three recent presidential impeachment cases .
“ Even President Richard Nixon – not only did Nixon allow staff to testify before Congress , he publicly asked them to testify , and without a subpoena.
” Republicans told reporters the Democratic case was failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aisle , but the party ’ s message shifted palpably from recent days , when a half-dozen senators had demanded that Hunter Biden be called as a witness .
Biden once worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma .
He and his father , the former vice-president Joe Biden , a Trump rival in the 2020 election , would have been the targets of an investigation Trump tried to force Ukraine to announce , according to the Democratic case .
“ End this trial with no witnesses for either side , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close Trump ally , told reporters during a break .
A separate investigation of Hunter Biden should be undertaken , he said .
The call for no witnesses flew in the face of growing public demand .
A Reuters-Ipsos poll published on Friday found 72 % of respondents agreed the trial “ should allow witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify ” .
A Washington Post poll found 66 % support for witnesses .
With the hours allotted to make their case dwindling , Democrats were expected to conclude on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reconvene with an opening presentation by Trump ’ s legal team on Saturday morning at 10am .
Trump ’ s team will make a “ straightforward ” defense , a source working on the team said on condition of anonymity : “ The president didn ’ t do anything wrong.
” Trump ’ s lawyers have indicated that they may take fewer than the 24 hours allotted under the rules .
Following their presentation , 16 hours of trial time have been set aside for questioning by senators , after which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of whether to call additional witnesses .
Trump ’ s “ unprecedented and dangerous power grab … will constitute a playbook for ignoring oversight ” for future presidents , the House manager Jerry Nadler warned .
“ Imagine what future presidents will do when we attempt to conduct routine oversight , ” he said .
“ Historians will mark the day that this Senate will allow this president to break one of strongest barriers against tyranny.
” In one surprise appearance in the chamber , the lead impeachment manager , Adam Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator John McCain , a strong supporter of Ukrainian autonomy from Russia , arguing on cable TV that US support was essential to confronting Russian aggression .
As he has for days , Schiff strived to appeal to Republican senators in a way that would circumvent the cold political calculus of the moment .
A two-thirds majority of voting senators would be required to remove Trump from office .
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority .
Schiff has warned that Trump threatens the constitution and America ’ s standing in the world .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider something else Trump could threaten : themselves .
“ I don ’ t care how close you are to this president , ” Schiff said .
“ Do you think for a moment that he wouldn ’ t investigate you if it was in his political interests ?
” Graham replied to the statement with another call to investigate the Bidens .
“ I want to echo what Mr Schiff said today , ” Graham said .
“ I want every American to put themselves in the shoes of the Bidens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the most corrupt entity in the Ukraine , Burisma .
Would you expect the American people to give you a pass ?
”

Democrats concluded the presentation of their case against Donald Trump at his impeachment trial on Friday, with the lead prosecutor Adam Schiff calling on Republicans to exercise “moral courage” and vote in favor of calling witnesses at the trial next week.
“Give America a fair trial,” Schiff concluded after three marathon days of argument. “She’s worth it.”
Schiff’s finishing flourish came as Democrats pivoted earlier Friday from the president’s conduct to his attempted cover-up of an alleged scheme to withhold military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine in pursuit of a political favor.
The White House, Democrats said, tried to hide records of a call Trump had with the Ukrainian president and tried to stop a whistleblower complaint reaching Congress, before Trump demanded federal agencies and employees stonewall the impeachment inquiry.
“He tried to cheat, he got caught and then he worked hard to cover it up,” said the New Yorker Hakeem Jeffries, one of the House “managers” prosecuting the case.
In the fourth full day of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, Democrats completed their presentation of evidence in support of the first article of impeachment, charging Trump with abuse of power, and moved to the second and final article, charging Trump with obstruction of Congress.
In October, the White House issued a letter ordering federal agencies and employees to defy congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents. A dozen career public servants defied the order but many individuals avoided testifying and no agency turned over documents.
“No other president facing impeachment has taken the extreme step of prohibiting executive branch witnesses from testifying before Congress,” said Zoe Lofgren, the only manager to work on all three recent presidential impeachment cases.
“Even President Richard Nixon – not only did Nixon allow staff to testify before Congress, he publicly asked them to testify, and without a subpoena.”
Republicans told reporters the Democratic case was failing to gain traction on their side of the aisle. But the party’s message shifted perceptibly from recent days, with the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, urging the Senate to “end this trial with no witnesses for either side.” The call for no witnesses flew in the face of growing public demand. A Reuters-Ipsos poll published on Friday found 72% of respondents agreed the trial “should allow witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify”. A Washington Post poll found 66% support for witnesses.
In a 90-minute closing statement that seemed to arrest the chamber, Schiff struck a rhythm as he summarized the Democrats’ case – and then launched a preemptive attack on Trump’s defense.
Reading from the articles of impeachment laying out accusations against Trump, Schiff repeatedly toned, “That has been proved.”
“The facts have been proven. Those facts are not contested,” he said.
Adam Schiff delivered a rousing 90-minute statement to close out Friday’s arguments. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
Schiff then skippingly previewed more than a dozen lines of defense mooted by Trump’s team and the president himself – from “read the transcript” to “[Joe] Biden is corrupt” to “Obama did it” – and deftly eviscerated each one.
Schiff drew laughter from the Senate when he described how Trump’s legal team would brandish in the president’s defense his statement that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine – “no quid pro quo.” That line of argument, Schiff japed, would be based on “the well known principle of criminal defense” that when someone denies a crime they didn’t do it.
The trial was scheduled to reconvene with an opening presentation by Trump’s legal team on Saturday at 10am.
Trump’s team will make a “straightforward” defense, a source working on the team said, on condition of anonymity: “The president didn’t do anything wrong.”
Trump’s lawyers have indicated that they may take fewer than the 24 hours allotted under the rules. Following their presentation, 16 hours have been set aside for questioning by senators, after which the body will debate and vote on whether to call additional witnesses.
Emerging for a dinner break, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “The president’s lawyers will have their work cut out for them.
“The House managers did an amazing job and set a very, very high bar, which will be difficult for the president’s lawyers to overcome.”
Asked to address an ABC News report that an audio recording from 2018 had surfaced in which Trump can be heard to order the dismissal of the then ambassador Marie Yovanovitch – “take her out”, the president appears to say – Schumer said the president was “vicious”.
Yovanovitch was recalled in April 2019 following a smear campaign requested by corrupt Ukrainian elements and spearheaded by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
“He is vicious to her,” Schumer said of Trump. “Regardless of everything having to do with impeachment, no president should be like that.”
In the Senate chamber, House manager Jerry Nadler warned that Trump’s “unprecedented and dangerous power grab … will constitute a playbook for ignoring oversight” for future presidents.
“Imagine what future presidents will do when we attempt to conduct routine oversight,” Nadler said. “Historians will mark the day that this Senate will allow this president to break one of strongest barriers against tyranny.”
In one surprise, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff used archival footage of the late senator John McCain, a strong supporter of Ukrainian autonomy from Russia, arguing on cable TV that US support was essential to confronting Russian aggression.
As he has for days, Schiff strived to appeal to Republican senators in a way that would circumvent the cold political calculus of the moment. A two-thirds majority of voting senators would be required to remove Trump from office. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.
Schiff has warned that Trump threatens the constitution and America’s standing in the world. But on Friday he asked the senators to consider something else Trump could threaten: themselves.
“I don’t care how close you are to this president,” Schiff said. “Do you think for a moment that he wouldn’t investigate you if it was in his political interests?”
Graham replied with another call to investigate the Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who once worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
“I want to echo what Mr Schiff said today,” Graham said. “I want every American to put themselves in the shoes of the Bidens. Your son winds up getting $3m from the most corrupt entity in the Ukraine, Burisma. Would you expect the American people to give you a pass?”


theguardian--2020-01-24--Why are California's mayors lining up to endorse Mike Bloomberg?

There ’ s nothing surprising about a billionaire winning the support of the mayor of San Francisco , a city flush with tech wealth and new money .
But when the billionaire is Mike Bloomberg – and the endorsement is the latest from a string of California mayors he mentored and supported – the vow of support raises some eyebrows .
Bloomberg announced on Thursday that London Breed , San Francisco ’ s first black female mayor , would serve as his campaign ’ s chair of African Americans .
“ Voters re-elected London Breed by a wide margin because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toughest issues – and she puts progress over politics , ” the former New York mayor said in a statement .
“ I ’ m honored to have her support and look forward to working with her not only to win this election , but to help make San Francisco and all of California stronger , fairer , and greener – with more affordable housing , more good jobs , and healthcare for all.
” Breed , who previously supported the California Senator Kamala Harris in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing Bloomberg because he “ is the only candidate for president with a real plan for African Americans ” , touting his Greenwood Initiative to increase black home ownership and the number of black-owned businesses .
She acknowledged his harmful legacy of stop-and-frisk , the policing strategy that led to widescale racial profiling in New York City when Bloomberg was mayor , saying Bloomberg “ owned up ” to his “ mistake ” when he apologized for the 12 years he allowed the policy to flourish .
“ Of course I was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , ” said Lateefah Simon , president of the Bay Area Rapid Transit board and longtime friend of Breed .
“ But herein lies the power of the individual .
It ’ s not San Francisco endorsing Mayor Bloomberg .
It ’ s Mayor Breed.
” For some in San Francisco , that ’ s the problem .
“ I haven ’ t met many Bloomberg supporters in San Francisco , ” local lawmaker Matt Haney told the Guardian .
“ In fact , I don ’ t think I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem reflective of where the residents of San Francisco are .
I don ’ t think her endorsement is reflective of how residents feel.
” A recent UC Berkeley poll found that 85 % of Californians have either a negative opinion of Bloomberg or no opinion at all .
Yet since entering the race late in November , Bloomberg has secured the endorsements of the mayors of three major cities in the state – San Francisco , Stockton and San Jose .
“ I haven ’ t met any Bloomberg supporters who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haney said .
Bloomberg , one of the richest people in the United States , has for years invested in developing political and support network for local leaders , providing them access to both money and expertise .
All three California mayors who recently announced endorsements went through Bloomberg ’ s Harvard City Leadership Initiative , a training program for city mayors – Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs and San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo in 2018 , and Breed in 2019 .
Tubbs attended the CityLab Summit in Paris in 2017 , another Bloomberg-sponsored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s support included a $ 275,000 donation to support a soda tax and $ 7.1m to defeat an initiative to reverse a ban on e-cigarette sales – both measures supported by Breed .
In 2018 , San Jose received up to $ 2.5m from Bloomberg Philanthropies to tackle climate change .
In June , Bloomberg Philanthropies donated $ 500,000 to a Stockton-based education reform group .
“ Mike has made significant investments in San Francisco , in cities throughout California , and indeed across the nation , ” Breed said on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been able to win the endorsements of black trailblazing mayors like Tubbs and Breed .
At his first campaign stop in Stockton , California , in December 2019 Bloomberg stood next to Tubbs and apologized again for stop-and-frisk , but never acknowledged why the policy was harmful , or who it harmed .
“ There isn ’ t a politician alive who hasn ’ t made a mistake , ” Breed said of stop-and-frisk .
“ The difference with Mike Bloomberg is he owned up to his.
” “ I think there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching out to black leaders and black communities in transactional ways , ” Alicia Garza , founder of the Black Lives Matter movement , told the Guardian .
“ It really represents a lot of what ’ s wrong with politics in this country and I think it ’ s hard to believe that change will happen when these same kinds of dynamics are at play .
“ With that being said , ” she continued , “ there are decisions that leaders are having to make and they ’ re doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that.
” Garza ’ s group , Black to the Future Action Fund , will be announcing its endorsement in February .
While she demurred on her thoughts on Bloomberg and stop-and-frisk , she made a point to say that the group will consider “ not just [ the candidates ’ ] future plans , but interrogating their records since they ’ ve been in power ” .

There’s nothing surprising about a billionaire winning the support of the mayor of San Francisco, a city flush with tech wealth and new money.
But when the billionaire is Mike Bloomberg – and the endorsement is the latest from a string of California mayors he mentored and supported – the vow of support raises some eyebrows.
Bloomberg announced on Thursday that London Breed, San Francisco’s first black female mayor, would serve as his campaign’s chair of African Americans.
London Breed. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP
“Voters re-elected London Breed by a wide margin because she is taking on the biggest and toughest issues – and she puts progress over politics,” the former New York mayor said in a statement. “I’m honored to have her support and look forward to working with her not only to win this election, but to help make San Francisco and all of California stronger, fairer, and greener – with more affordable housing, more good jobs, and healthcare for all.”
Breed, who previously supported the California Senator Kamala Harris in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, said on Facebook that she is backing Bloomberg because he “is the only candidate for president with a real plan for African Americans”, touting his Greenwood Initiative to increase black home ownership and the number of black-owned businesses.
She acknowledged his harmful legacy of stop-and-frisk, the policing strategy that led to widescale racial profiling in New York City when Bloomberg was mayor, saying Bloomberg “owned up” to his “mistake” when he apologized for the 12 years he allowed the policy to flourish.
“Of course I was a bit surprised to see the mayor endorsed Bloomberg,” said Lateefah Simon, president of the Bay Area Rapid Transit board and longtime friend of Breed. “But herein lies the power of the individual. It’s not San Francisco endorsing Mayor Bloomberg. It’s Mayor Breed.”
For some in San Francisco, that’s the problem. “I haven’t met many Bloomberg supporters in San Francisco,” local lawmaker Matt Haney told the Guardian. “In fact, I don’t think I’ve met any. It doesn’t seem reflective of where the residents of San Francisco are. I don’t think her endorsement is reflective of how residents feel.”
A recent UC Berkeley poll found that 85% of Californians have either a negative opinion of Bloomberg or no opinion at all. Yet since entering the race late in November, Bloomberg has secured the endorsements of the mayors of three major cities in the state – San Francisco, Stockton and San Jose. “I haven’t met any Bloomberg supporters who were not elected officials, period,” Haney said.
Bloomberg, one of the richest people in the United States, has for years invested in developing political and support network for local leaders, providing them access to both money and expertise. All three California mayors who recently announced endorsements went through Bloomberg’s Harvard City Leadership Initiative, a training program for city mayors – Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs and San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo in 2018, and Breed in 2019. Tubbs attended the CityLab Summit in Paris in 2017, another Bloomberg-sponsored conference.
In San Francisco, Bloomberg’s support included a $275,000 donation to support a soda tax and $7.1m to defeat an initiative to reverse a ban on e-cigarette sales – both measures supported by Breed. In 2018, San Jose received up to $2.5m from Bloomberg Philanthropies to tackle climate change. In June, Bloomberg Philanthropies donated $500,000 to a Stockton-based education reform group.
“Mike has made significant investments in San Francisco, in cities throughout California, and indeed across the nation,” Breed said on Facebook.
It’s significant that Bloomberg has been able to win the endorsements of black trailblazing mayors like Tubbs and Breed.
At his first campaign stop in Stockton, California, in December 2019 Bloomberg stood next to Tubbs and apologized again for stop-and-frisk, but never acknowledged why the policy was harmful, or who it harmed.
“There isn’t a politician alive who hasn’t made a mistake,” Breed said of stop-and-frisk. “The difference with Mike Bloomberg is he owned up to his.”
“I think there is a long track record of people reaching out to black leaders and black communities in transactional ways,” Alicia Garza, founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, told the Guardian. “It really represents a lot of what’s wrong with politics in this country and I think it’s hard to believe that change will happen when these same kinds of dynamics are at play.
“With that being said,” she continued, “there are decisions that leaders are having to make and they’re doing the calculus. Every leader has a right to do that.”
Garza’s group, Black to the Future Action Fund, will be announcing its endorsement in February. While she demurred on her thoughts on Bloomberg and stop-and-frisk, she made a point to say that the group will consider “not just [the candidates’] future plans, but interrogating their records since they’ve been in power”.


theguardian--2020-01-24--'Trump tried to cheat, he got caught': Hakeem Jeffries on the president's alleged offences – video

On the fourth day of Trump 's trial for impeachment in the US senate , impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries warned @ @ @ @ @ toward Ukraine had put the country in jeopardy .
The New York Democrat also warned @ @ @ @ @ emanating from the White House , that 'is our collective job on behalf of the @ @ @ @ @ up ' .

On the fourth day of Trump's trial for impeachment in the US senate, impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries warned that the president's actions toward Ukraine had put the country in jeopardy.
The New York Democrat also warned of a 'toxic mess' emanating from the White House, that 'is our collective job on behalf of the people to try and clean up'.


theguardian--2020-01-25--Could Joe Biden lose Iowa but win the Democratic nomination?

Arriving more than an hour later than scheduled , Joe Biden wandered into his Iowa campaign office and offered “ Joe 2020 ” cookies to a couple of dozen volunteers who had been busy making calls to voters to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate .
Surrounded by signs reading “ We ’ re Ridin ’ with Biden ” and “ Biden Time 20:20 ” , the former vice-president spent 15 minutes in the drab Des Moines office and made exactly one call – to an Iowa voter named Rosie – before thanking the phone bankers , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pictures .
“ Half of winning is showing up , so thank you for showing up for me , ” Biden told them .
And on that note , and without taking any questions from reporters , the current frontrunner in the race to be the Democrat to take on Donald Trump in November ’ s general election took off .
If half of winning is indeed showing up , then one could argue that Biden should already be losing in Iowa , where the first caucuses of the Democratic presidential primary race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is chosen – kicks off on 3 February .
Caucus-goers in the crucial state expect to meet the candidate they are being asked to support , and late last year , Biden was criticized by senior Iowa Democrats for not putting in enough face time there .
Biden ’ s Iowa organizers , who are critical to building supporter networks , were also dismissed as sluggish “ duds ” .
Those missteps in Iowa have been compounded by his gaffes on the national stage .
Biden ’ s campaign launch in April was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he has since made a habit of attracting controversy with his comments on the campaign trail , particularly regarding race and gender .
Perhaps most memorably , Biden recalled his past work with senators who viscerally opposed the civil rights movement to reminisce about the former “ civility ” of the Senate , sparking immediate outrage from his rival candidates and many Democratic voters .
And yet , with less than two weeks to go , Biden arguably remains in the most enviable position of any Democratic presidential candidate .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa with the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders , the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and the former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg , though a state poll released this week showed him slightly pulling ahead of the pack .
Unlike Warren and Sanders , he has not been prevented from campaigning in Iowa this week due to the Senate impeachment trial against the president .
He also just had his strongest fundraising quarter to date , and he has more congressional endorsements than his three closest competitors combined .
If Biden were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong showing , he could be difficult to catch , considering the importance of building momentum in Iowa and the three other early voting states – New Hampshire , Nevada and South Carolina .
Since 2000 , every Democratic winner of the Iowa caucuses has gone on to win the party ’ s nomination .
Biden , who is on his third attempt to win the nomination after failed runs in 1988 and 2008 , is also considered a heavy favorite to win the early voting state of South Carolina , largely thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who make up a key component of the Democratic base .
That advantage , along with his name recognition , has enabled him to consistently lead national polls since entering the race and could propel him to multiple victories on Super Tuesday in early March , when voters in 14 states will head to the polls .
“ We feel really good , ” Biden said as he spoke to the phone bankers , dressed in an overcoat to protect himself against the Iowa cold .
“ I think we represent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any one segment of the party.
” While a disproportionate amount of national news coverage has focused on the political preferences of white , college-educated Democrats , who tend to lean left , Biden has cobbled together a coalition of older voters , African Americans and more conservative members of the party , that his opponents have had difficulty matching .
“ One could argue the real reason he ’ s still in first is because nobody else managed to put together yet a winning coalition , ” one longtime Democratic pollster said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad thing for Biden .
That ’ s the way presidential nominations get decided sometimes .
Sometimes , the rest of the field just isn ’ t good enough.
” However , the same pollster noted that Biden could easily lose his steady footing in the race if he finishes third or fourth an Iowa , a very real possibility given the notorious indecisiveness of the state ’ s voters .
In the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll , more than half of likely caucus-goers said they had not yet landed on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support someone else .
One Iowa attendee of a Biden campaign event this month praised his experience and ability to repair America ’ s global reputation , but said he had not yet decided who to support .
“ I ’ m probably not going to make my firm commitment until the day that I walk into my caucus site , ” said Jim Kelehan , 64 .
Howard Dean , the former Vermont governor who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 , has learned from experience to take any discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a grain of salt .
Speaking to the Guardian , Dean emphasized that he was also considered the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses before ultimately losing to John Kerry by 20 points .
“ None of the national polls mean anything because it ’ s all about name recognition , ” Dean said .
“ For any of the candidates , not just Joe.
” Dean ’ s 2004 campaign has sparked comparisons to Warren ’ s current White House bid .
Both New England Democrats , Dean and Warren each appealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party but saw their polling numbers slide as they took attacks from the right and the left .
In 2004 , Democrats ultimately nominated Kerry , a longtime senator who seemed more likely to defeat George W Bush – an incumbent Republican president reviled by the party ’ s base .
Dean said this year ’ s nominating contest would ultimately come down to a similar question of whether voters will focus on the fear of defeat or the hope for change .
“ I think it ’ s the same debate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Do you want the guy who ’ s going to really excite people but maybe polarize them , or do you want the safe choice ?
” Progressive groups who oppose Biden have picked up on this “ electability ” issue and have taken pains to depict the longtime senator as a political insider who would allow Trump to sail to re-election .
“ He will get outflanked on our issues by Donald Trump if he ’ s the nominee , ” said Adam Green , the co-founder of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed Warren .
Green pointed to Biden ’ s past support for the Iraq war and for freezing retirees ’ social security benefits , which Sanders has highlighted in recent days , as two issues where the frontrunner is vulnerable .
“ Trump would be able to play the outsider card as the most corrupt incumbent president ever , ” Green said .
Sanders has recently escalated his attacks against Biden , and has simultaneously seen his support rise .
A CNN poll released this week showed Sanders and Biden essentially tied nationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time that Biden has not held a solo lead in the outlet ’ s national polling .
Sanders also raised an eye-popping $ 34.5m last quarter , the most of any Democratic candidate , and the unexpected strength of his ultimately unsuccessful 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton made clear that he should not be underestimated .
But Biden ’ s allies are expressing confidence going into the final weeks before the caucuses .
“ He has certainly had the scrutiny and a lot of negative press coverage , and yet he is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , ” said Harold Schaitberger , the general president of the International Association of Firefighters , a prominent union that endorsed him almost immediately after he launched his campaign .
Working to cement Biden ’ s position , Schaitberger has visited the union ’ s local chapters across Iowa to encourage members – even Republicans – to support him .
“ I think his campaign is trending and closing just as you want it to , ” Schaitberger said .
But Dean offered a lesson that he learned 16 years ago : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the difficulty in winning over the state ’ s fickle voters , Dean said Iowa serves as a useful indication for who has the discipline to serve as president .
“ We ’ ll see who has the capacity to do that , ” Dean said .
“ But whoever does have the capacity to do it has the capacity to win the whole thing .
”

Arriving more than an hour later than scheduled, Joe Biden wandered into his Iowa campaign office and offered “Joe 2020” cookies to a couple of dozen volunteers who had been busy making calls to voters to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Surrounded by signs reading “We’re Ridin’ with Biden” and “Biden Time 20:20”, the former vice-president spent 15 minutes in the drab Des Moines office and made exactly one call – to an Iowa voter named Rosie – before thanking the phone bankers, who appeared to be outnumbered by journalists snapping pictures.
“Half of winning is showing up, so thank you for showing up for me,” Biden told them.
And on that note, and without taking any questions from reporters, the current frontrunner in the race to be the Democrat to take on Donald Trump in November’s general election took off.
If half of winning is indeed showing up, then one could argue that Biden should already be losing in Iowa, where the first caucuses of the Democratic presidential primary race – the process by which the nominee is chosen – kicks off on 3 February.
Caucus-goers in the crucial state expect to meet the candidate they are being asked to support, and late last year, Biden was criticized by senior Iowa Democrats for not putting in enough face time there. Biden’s Iowa organizers, who are critical to building supporter networks, were also dismissed as sluggish “duds”.
Those missteps in Iowa have been compounded by his gaffes on the national stage. Biden’s campaign launch in April was hobbled by multiple allegations of inappropriate touching, and he has since made a habit of attracting controversy with his comments on the campaign trail, particularly regarding race and gender.
Joe Biden greets volunteers at state campaign headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, on 13 January. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Perhaps most memorably, Biden recalled his past work with senators who viscerally opposed the civil rights movement to reminisce about the former “civility” of the Senate, sparking immediate outrage from his rival candidates and many Democratic voters.
And yet, with less than two weeks to go, Biden arguably remains in the most enviable position of any Democratic presidential candidate.
He is caught in a close four-way race in Iowa with the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and the former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, though a state poll released this week showed him slightly pulling ahead of the pack. Unlike Warren and Sanders, he has not been prevented from campaigning in Iowa this week due to the Senate impeachment trial against the president. He also just had his strongest fundraising quarter to date, and he has more congressional endorsements than his three closest competitors combined.
If Biden were to win Iowa, or even manage a strong showing, he could be difficult to catch, considering the importance of building momentum in Iowa and the three other early voting states – New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Since 2000, every Democratic winner of the Iowa caucuses has gone on to win the party’s nomination.
Biden, who is on his third attempt to win the nomination after failed runs in 1988 and 2008, is also considered a heavy favorite to win the early voting state of South Carolina, largely thanks to his popularity with African American voters, who make up a key component of the Democratic base.
That advantage, along with his name recognition, has enabled him to consistently lead national polls since entering the race and could propel him to multiple victories on Super Tuesday in early March, when voters in 14 states will head to the polls.
Supporters watch Joe Biden deliver remarks in his campaign office in Iowa City, Iowa, on 7 August 2019. Photograph: Tom Brenner/Getty Images
“We feel really good,” Biden said as he spoke to the phone bankers, dressed in an overcoat to protect himself against the Iowa cold. “I think we represent the broadest coalition of people, not just any one segment of the party.”
While a disproportionate amount of national news coverage has focused on the political preferences of white, college-educated Democrats, who tend to lean left, Biden has cobbled together a coalition of older voters, African Americans and more conservative members of the party, that his opponents have had difficulty matching.
“One could argue the real reason he’s still in first is because nobody else managed to put together yet a winning coalition,” one longtime Democratic pollster said. “It’s not a bad thing for Biden. That’s the way presidential nominations get decided sometimes. Sometimes, the rest of the field just isn’t good enough.”
However, the same pollster noted that Biden could easily lose his steady footing in the race if he finishes third or fourth an Iowa, a very real possibility given the notorious indecisiveness of the state’s voters. In the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll, more than half of likely caucus-goers said they had not yet landed on a preferred candidate or could still be persuaded to support someone else.
One Iowa attendee of a Biden campaign event this month praised his experience and ability to repair America’s global reputation, but said he had not yet decided who to support. “I’m probably not going to make my firm commitment until the day that I walk into my caucus site,” said Jim Kelehan, 64.
None of the national polls mean anything because it’s all about name recognition Howard Dean
Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, has learned from experience to take any discussion of a primary “frontrunner” with a grain of salt. Speaking to the Guardian, Dean emphasized that he was also considered the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses before ultimately losing to John Kerry by 20 points.
“None of the national polls mean anything because it’s all about name recognition,” Dean said. “For any of the candidates, not just Joe.”
Dean’s 2004 campaign has sparked comparisons to Warren’s current White House bid. Both New England Democrats, Dean and Warren each appealed to the more liberal wing of the party but saw their polling numbers slide as they took attacks from the right and the left. In 2004, Democrats ultimately nominated Kerry, a longtime senator who seemed more likely to defeat George W Bush – an incumbent Republican president reviled by the party’s base.
Dean said this year’s nominating contest would ultimately come down to a similar question of whether voters will focus on the fear of defeat or the hope for change.
“I think it’s the same debate that we had in 2004,” Dean said. “Do you want the guy who’s going to really excite people but maybe polarize them, or do you want the safe choice?”
Joe Biden listens to a question from an audience member during a forum on gun safety in Des Moines, Iowa, on 10 August 2019. Photograph: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Progressive groups who oppose Biden have picked up on this “electability” issue and have taken pains to depict the longtime senator as a political insider who would allow Trump to sail to re-election.
“He will get outflanked on our issues by Donald Trump if he’s the nominee,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has endorsed Warren. Green pointed to Biden’s past support for the Iraq war and for freezing retirees’ social security benefits, which Sanders has highlighted in recent days, as two issues where the frontrunner is vulnerable. “Trump would be able to play the outsider card as the most corrupt incumbent president ever,” Green said.
He has certainly had the scrutiny and a lot of negative press coverage, and yet he is exactly where I like to see us right now Harold Schaitberger
Sanders has recently escalated his attacks against Biden, and has simultaneously seen his support rise. A CNN poll released this week showed Sanders and Biden essentially tied nationally for first place, marking the first time that Biden has not held a solo lead in the outlet’s national polling. Sanders also raised an eye-popping $34.5m last quarter, the most of any Democratic candidate, and the unexpected strength of his ultimately unsuccessful 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton made clear that he should not be underestimated.
But Biden’s allies are expressing confidence going into the final weeks before the caucuses. “He has certainly had the scrutiny and a lot of negative press coverage, and yet he is exactly where I like to see us right now,” said Harold Schaitberger, the general president of the International Association of Firefighters, a prominent union that endorsed him almost immediately after he launched his campaign.
Working to cement Biden’s position, Schaitberger has visited the union’s local chapters across Iowa to encourage members – even Republicans – to support him. “I think his campaign is trending and closing just as you want it to,” Schaitberger said.
But Dean offered a lesson that he learned 16 years ago: nothing matters until Iowa votes. Given the difficulty in winning over the state’s fickle voters, Dean said Iowa serves as a useful indication for who has the discipline to serve as president.
“We’ll see who has the capacity to do that,” Dean said. “But whoever does have the capacity to do it has the capacity to win the whole thing.”