shareblue--2020-09-22--You might not be watching these GOP races — but they show Trump's in trouble

A spate of polls in a trio of suburban House seats come with bad news for Donald Trump and his chances at winning reelection in November .
Internal polls from Democratic candidates have Trump losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden in three seats Trump carried in 2016 , showing his standing with suburban voters is sliding and threatening to sink his bid .
`` I 'm confident in Biden 's current advantage because we 're seeing it on so many levels , '' Nathan Gonzales , a nonpartisan political handicapper with Inside Elections , said in an interview with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , Trump is underperforming at the national , state , and House district level .
It 's all pieces of the same puzzle . ''
First , a poll for the Democratic nominee in Texas ' 3rd District — a suburban Dallas seat which Donald Trump won by 14 points in 2016 — showed Biden leading by 3 points .
If that poll holds , it would amount to a 17-point swing in just four years .
`` When you look at how poorly Trump is performing in the competitive House districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race is close statewide , '' Gonzales said .
Another Democratic internal poll in Nebraska 's 2nd District showed Biden up 6 points .
If that polling holds , it would be another big swing from the 2 points Trump carried the district by in 2016 .
A loss in Nebraska 's 2nd District has even bigger ramifications for Trump , thanks to the way the Cornhusker State awards its Electoral College votes .
The statewide winner gets two Electoral College electors , while the state 's three other Electoral College votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins each of the state 's three House seats .
If Biden wins Nebraska 's 2nd District , he 'd pick up another Electoral College vote that Trump can not afford to lose .
And a third internal poll in Missouri 's 2nd District — located in the St. Louis suburbs — also showed Trump down 3 points to Biden .
Trump carried that seat by 10 points in 2016 ; a poll showing him losing there is yet another signal he 's hemorrhaging support .
Of course , internal polls for candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salt .
But CNN polling expert Harry Enten wrote earlier this year that `` when one party puts out a lot more internal polls than normal , it is good for their side . ''
And this cycle , Enten reported that Democrats have been releasing far more internal polling than Republicans .
Trump , for his part , has tried to appeal to suburban voters with racism , looking to scare suburban women into believing that minorities will `` invade '' their towns .
Experts say the polls show signs that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could spell doom for him come Nov. 3 .
`` College-educated white women are the key swing group , '' Stu Rothenberg , a nonpartisan political handicapper and columnist at the congressional newspaper Roll Call , said in an interview with the American Independent Foundation .
`` They were dramatically more Democratic in 2018 than they had been in 2016 , and all the evidence is they are going to be even more dramatically Democratic in 2020 .
And it 's a problem for Donald Trump . ''
Published with permission of The @ @ @ @

A spate of polls in a trio of suburban House seats come with bad news for Donald Trump and his chances at winning reelection in November.
Internal polls from Democratic candidates have Trump losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden in three seats Trump carried in 2016, showing his standing with suburban voters is sliding and threatening to sink his bid.
“I’m confident in Biden’s current advantage because we’re seeing it on so many levels,” Nathan Gonzales, a nonpartisan political handicapper with Inside Elections, said in an interview with the American Independent Foundation. “Compared to 2016, Trump is underperforming at the national, state, and House district level. It’s all pieces of the same puzzle.”
First, a poll for the Democratic nominee in Texas’ 3rd District — a suburban Dallas seat which Donald Trump won by 14 points in 2016 — showed Biden leading by 3 points. If that poll holds, it would amount to a 17-point swing in just four years.
“When you look at how poorly Trump is performing in the competitive House districts in Texas, it makes sense that the race is close statewide,” Gonzales said.
Another Democratic internal poll in Nebraska’s 2nd District showed Biden up 6 points. If that polling holds, it would be another big swing from the 2 points Trump carried the district by in 2016.
A loss in Nebraska’s 2nd District has even bigger ramifications for Trump, thanks to the way the Cornhusker State awards its Electoral College votes. The statewide winner gets two Electoral College electors, while the state’s three other Electoral College votes are given out based on which candidate wins each of the state’s three House seats. If Biden wins Nebraska’s 2nd District, he’d pick up another Electoral College vote that Trump cannot afford to lose.
And a third internal poll in Missouri’s 2nd District — located in the St. Louis suburbs — also showed Trump down 3 points to Biden. Trump carried that seat by 10 points in 2016; a poll showing him losing there is yet another signal he’s hemorrhaging support.
Of course, internal polls for candidates should be taken with a grain of salt.
But CNN polling expert Harry Enten wrote earlier this year that “when one party puts out a lot more internal polls than normal, it is good for their side.” And this cycle, Enten reported that Democrats have been releasing far more internal polling than Republicans.
Trump, for his part, has tried to appeal to suburban voters with racism, looking to scare suburban women into believing that minorities will “invade” their towns.
Experts say the polls show signs that Trump’s messaging is not working — which could spell doom for him come Nov. 3.
“College-educated white women are the key swing group,” Stu Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political handicapper and columnist at the congressional newspaper Roll Call, said in an interview with the American Independent Foundation. “They were dramatically more Democratic in 2018 than they had been in 2016, and all the evidence is they are going to be even more dramatically Democratic in 2020. And it’s a problem for Donald Trump.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--More than 1 million US citizens might never get virus relief checks

Millions of Americans have been left out to dry when it comes to obtaining coronavirus relief money , and among the hardest hit are U.S. citizens with undocumented spouses .
A Monday report by the United States Government Accountability Office indicated that 8.7 million or more Americans had not yet received their stimulus checks during the coronavirus pandemic .
At least 1.2 million Americans with undocumented spouses likely never will .
The report found that many of those bypassed by the CARES Act were low-income and `` outside of the tax system . ''
As a result , the GAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus checks this year were largely those in most need of them .
Disproportionately affected by the pandemic are U.S. citizens with undocumented spouses .
The CARES Act included a clause stating that in order for a couple filing joint taxes to receive a stimulus check , both spouses must have a Social Security number .
Taxpaying citizens married to individuals using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number — commonly issued to undocumented citizens who are ineligible for a SSN — were banned from receiving stimulus checks or bonus payments for citizen dependents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. , including 8.2 million U.S. citizens , live in a household with at least one undocumented family member .
Of these , 1.2 million are U.S. citizens married to an undocumented spouse .
The CARES Act restrictions have also affected 4.1 million U.S. citizen children with at least one undocumented parent .
`` Undocumented people are demanded as workers , but rejected as neighbors and citizens , '' Daniel Denvir , author of `` All-American Nativism : How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It , '' told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total mismatch between people who are subject to the American government and are workers in the American economy and create wealth for it , but who are denied any sort of membership in the political community . ''
He noted that American capitalism ca n't survive without undocumented labor .
`` ( The stimulus package exclusion ) is only more clearly absurd and unjust when we rely on low-wage workers , very much including undocumented workers , now more than ever , '' he added .
Michael Zona , a spokesperson for Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the authors of the CARES Act , has said that citizens with undocumented spouses may be eligible to receive a stimulus check if they file taxes individually rather than jointly .
But mixed-status families here face a catch-22 : Many file jointly as a matter of demonstrating their marriage legitimacy , in order to support the undocumented spouse eventually gaining citizenship .
The federal government will soon be sending letters reminding individuals with unclaimed stimulus checks to file their information with the IRS , although the letter is no guarantee of receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that California , Texas , Florida , New York , and Georgia are the states that will be receiving the highest number of letters from the IRS reminding them of unclaimed stimulus checks .
According to the National Immigration Forum , four of the five states with the highest number of taxpaying mixed-status families are California , Texas , New York , and Florida , and Pew Research estimates indicate that eight of the 10 metro areas with the highest numbers of undocumented individuals are located in California , Texas , Florida , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund sued the Trump administration on behalf of six plaintiffs arguing that the CARES Act discriminates against mixed-status couples and violates the constitutional right to equal protection and due process .
In May , Georgetown Law and Villanova Law advocates also filed a class-action lawsuit in Maryland federal court , similarly challenging the CARES Act on behalf of seven U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants .
While a bipartisan bill , the American Citizen Coronavirus Relief Act , was introduced in June to close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those with undocumented spouses , it remains in the first stage of the legislative process .
The policy-analysis company Skopos Labs predicts it has a 1 % chance of becoming law .
The HEROES Act , passed in May by the House of Representatives , would provide those with undocumented spouses a second stimulus check , and retroactively issue their first — but the Senate has failed to vote on the bill .
`` I would say this is a monumental injustice , '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked on the exclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are millions of American citizens ... and their children ... being denied the CARES Act relief check because they are part of a mixed-status family . ''
`` It 's hard to believe that people would be so cruel to say that American citizens , just because of who their parent was or who they marry should n't get the same rights as every other American citizen , '' he said .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Millions of Americans have been left out to dry when it comes to obtaining coronavirus relief money, and among the hardest hit are U.S. citizens with undocumented spouses.
A Monday report by the United States Government Accountability Office indicated that 8.7 million or more Americans had not yet received their stimulus checks during the coronavirus pandemic. At least 1.2 million Americans with undocumented spouses likely never will.
The report found that many of those bypassed by the CARES Act were low-income and “outside of the tax system.” As a result, the GAO noted, those who didn’t receive stimulus checks this year were largely those in most need of them.
Disproportionately affected by the pandemic are U.S. citizens with undocumented spouses.
The CARES Act included a clause stating that in order for a couple filing joint taxes to receive a stimulus check, both spouses must have a Social Security number. Taxpaying citizens married to individuals using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number — commonly issued to undocumented citizens who are ineligible for a SSN — were banned from receiving stimulus checks or bonus payments for citizen dependents.
More than 16.7 million people in the U.S., including 8.2 million U.S. citizens, live in a household with at least one undocumented family member. Of these, 1.2 million are U.S. citizens married to an undocumented spouse. The CARES Act restrictions have also affected 4.1 million U.S. citizen children with at least one undocumented parent.
“Undocumented people are demanded as workers, but rejected as neighbors and citizens,” Daniel Denvir, author of “All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It,” told Borderless Magazine. “It’s this total mismatch between people who are subject to the American government and are workers in the American economy and create wealth for it, but who are denied any sort of membership in the political community.”
He noted that American capitalism can’t survive without undocumented labor.
“(The stimulus package exclusion) is only more clearly absurd and unjust when we rely on low-wage workers, very much including undocumented workers, now more than ever,” he added.
Michael Zona, a spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), one of the authors of the CARES Act, has said that citizens with undocumented spouses may be eligible to receive a stimulus check if they file taxes individually rather than jointly.
But mixed-status families here face a catch-22: Many file jointly as a matter of demonstrating their marriage legitimacy, in order to support the undocumented spouse eventually gaining citizenship.
The federal government will soon be sending letters reminding individuals with unclaimed stimulus checks to file their information with the IRS, although the letter is no guarantee of receiving a check.
What’s telling is that California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Georgia are the states that will be receiving the highest number of letters from the IRS reminding them of unclaimed stimulus checks. According to the National Immigration Forum, four of the five states with the highest number of taxpaying mixed-status families are California, Texas, New York, and Florida, and Pew Research estimates indicate that eight of the 10 metro areas with the highest numbers of undocumented individuals are located in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Georgia.
In April, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund sued the Trump administration on behalf of six plaintiffs arguing that the CARES Act discriminates against mixed-status couples and violates the constitutional right to equal protection and due process.
In May, Georgetown Law and Villanova Law advocates also filed a class-action lawsuit in Maryland federal court, similarly challenging the CARES Act on behalf of seven U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants.
While a bipartisan bill, the American Citizen Coronavirus Relief Act, was introduced in June to close the loophole and retroactively send stimulus checks to those with undocumented spouses, it remains in the first stage of the legislative process. The policy-analysis company Skopos Labs predicts it has a 1% chance of becoming law.
The HEROES Act, passed in May by the House of Representatives, would provide those with undocumented spouses a second stimulus check, and retroactively issue their first — but the Senate has failed to vote on the bill.
“I would say this is a monumental injustice,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked on the exclusion clause in May. “Right now, there are millions of American citizens … and their children … being denied the CARES Act relief check because they are part of a mixed-status family.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed her disgust.
“It’s hard to believe that people would be so cruel to say that American citizens, just because of who their parent was or who they marry shouldn’t get the same rights as every other American citizen,” he said.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--McEnany says it's 'the truth' that coronavirus 'affects virtually nobody'

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Tuesday that Donald Trump was `` telling people the truth '' when he claimed at a rally the night before that `` virtually nobody '' had been affected by coronavirus .
Trump made his remarks while discussing the effects of the virus on young people .
`` Below the age of 18 , '' he claimed , `` like , nobody '' had been lost to the virus , attributing this to possibly `` strong immune systems . ''
`` Take your hat off to the young , because they have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it affects virtually nobody , '' he added , before calling for schools to reopen .
As Politico noted earlier on Tuesday , of the 6.8 million COVID-19 cases in the United States , about 8.4 % — more than 513,000 children — have been Americans aged 0-17 .
The CDC reports that about 107 Americans between the ages of 0-18 have died from the disease .
Infected children , even if they survive the disease , can also face other negative long-term health effects and can pass the virus to others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States have died from the pandemic .
Pressed by CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta to defend Trump 's statement on Tuesday , which McEnany claimed was `` out of context , '' the press secretary said Trump 's comment about the effect on children was nonetheless `` factually true . ''
JIM ACOSTA , CNN : Last night , the president said at one of his rallies about the virus , and I think he was talking about younger Americans , he said it affects `` virtually nobody , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open your schools . ''
But he said to Bob Woodward , `` it 's not just old , it 's not just older people , it 's young people too . ''
At 200,000 deaths , shouldn ’ t the president be telling people the truth about this virus at his rallies ?
KAYLEIGH McENANY : The president is telling people the truth , and you 're right , Jim , that he was talking about — ACOSTA : But if he 's not if he 's saying it affects virtually nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , he 's not telling the truth .
McENANY : Jim , but you 're again taking the president out of context , I have his full quote here , and you 're right that he was referring to young people , he said this — ACOSTA : I 'm not taking it out of context , if I said he was talking about younger people , then I 'm not taking it out of context .
McENANY : You are taking it out of context , because you are making an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information when in fact he is , and I will underscore exactly what he said .
And he said this , `` You know , in some states , thousands of people , and they 've had nobody young , below the age of 18 , like nobody , they have a strong immune system . ''
That is factually true , you can go to the American Academy of Pediatrics website , the Children 's Hospital Association and they list out a number of states that have had zero pediatric deaths .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation .

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Tuesday that Donald Trump was “telling people the truth” when he claimed at a rally the night before that “virtually nobody” had been affected by coronavirus.
Trump made his remarks while discussing the effects of the virus on young people. “Below the age of 18,” he claimed, “like, nobody” had been lost to the virus, attributing this to possibly “strong immune systems.”
“Take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody,” he added, before calling for schools to reopen.
As Politico noted earlier on Tuesday, of the 6.8 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, about 8.4% — more than 513,000 children — have been Americans aged 0-17. The CDC reports that about 107 Americans between the ages of 0-18 have died from the disease.
Infected children, even if they survive the disease, can also face other negative long-term health effects and can pass the virus to others.
Overall, more than 200,000 people in the United States have died from the pandemic.
Pressed by CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta to defend Trump’s statement on Tuesday, which McEnany claimed was “out of context,” the press secretary said Trump’s comment about the effect on children was nonetheless “factually true.”
From a Sept. 22 White House press briefing:
JIM ACOSTA, CNN: Last night, the president said at one of his rallies about the virus, and I think he was talking about younger Americans, he said it affects “virtually nobody, by the way open your schools, everybody open your schools.” But he said to Bob Woodward, “it’s not just old, it’s not just older people, it’s young people too.” At 200,000 deaths, shouldn’t the president be telling people the truth about this virus at his rallies? KAYLEIGH McENANY: The president is telling people the truth, and you’re right, Jim, that he was talking about — ACOSTA: But if he’s not if he’s saying it affects virtually nobody and that it doesn’t affect young people, he’s not telling the truth. McENANY: Jim, but you’re again taking the president out of context, I have his full quote here, and you’re right that he was referring to young people, he said this — ACOSTA: I’m not taking it out of context, if I said he was talking about younger people, then I’m not taking it out of context. McENANY: You are taking it out of context, because you are making an assertion that he’s not getting critical information when in fact he is, and I will underscore exactly what he said. And he said this, “You know, in some states, thousands of people, and they’ve had nobody young, below the age of 18, like nobody, they have a strong immune system.” That is factually true, you can go to the American Academy of Pediatrics website, the Children’s Hospital Association and they list out a number of states that have had zero pediatric deaths.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--Trump is behind in nearly every poll in 3 major swing states

Three states that narrowly swung from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 seem likely to swing back in 2020 .
Polling currently gives a consistent and solid lead to Democrat Joe Biden in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Should Biden carry all three of these swing states and keep all of the states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 , he will win an Electoral College majority and the presidency .
According to RealClear Politics ' polling average , Biden currently enjoys a 4-point lead in Pennsylvania , a 6.4-point lead in Michigan , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll averages are similar .
They put Biden ahead in Pennsylvania by 4.5 points , in Michigan by 7.5 points , and in Wisconsin by 6.4 points .
Trump has continually trailed in each of the three states ' polling averages since mid-April .
For months , virtually every major poll in these three states has shown Biden ahead .
Of the polls listed by RealClear Politics , only two GOP-leaning pollsters ( Rasmussen Reports and Trafalgar Group ) have shown anything but a Biden lead in more than three months .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 40 straight Michigan polls , 25 consecutive Pennsylvania polls , and 23 straight Wisconsin polls .
The polling averages in these three states are , of course , not a guarantee of victory in November .
Hillary Clinton had a lead in the polling averages in all three states in 2016 and still narrowly lost each .
But Biden does n't necessarily need to carry all three states to win .
He currently holds leads in polling averages of other places won by Trump in 2016 , including Arizona and Florida .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ national polling , which has also unfailingly shown Biden ahead over Trump since April , except for an occasional Rasmussen poll .
`` Biden up 8 % in new NBC/WSJ national poll ( 51 % to 43 % ) .
90 % say their minds are made up .
Pre- # RBG passing , '' University of Virginia Center for Politics director Larry Sabato tweeted on Sunday .
`` So far Biden 's lead in most surveys is fairly stable . ''
NBC News ' senior political editor , Mark Murray , agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden-versus-Trump race remains incredibly stable '' — though he noted that could change over the upcoming weeks .
And Evan Scrimshaw , managing editor of the forecasting site Lean Tossup , wrote last week that the Democratic ticket has `` a clear , present , persistent , and stable lead in states that add up to , at minimum , 270 votes .
And that 's the ballgame , guys . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Three states that narrowly swung from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 seem likely to swing back in 2020. Polling currently gives a consistent and solid lead to Democrat Joe Biden in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Should Biden carry all three of these swing states and keep all of the states Hillary Clinton won in 2016, he will win an Electoral College majority and the presidency.
According to RealClear Politics’ polling average, Biden currently enjoys a 4-point lead in Pennsylvania, a 6.4-point lead in Michigan, and a 6.7-point lead in Wisconsin.
FiveThirtyEight’s poll averages are similar. They put Biden ahead in Pennsylvania by 4.5 points, in Michigan by 7.5 points, and in Wisconsin by 6.4 points. Trump has continually trailed in each of the three states’ polling averages since mid-April.
For months, virtually every major poll in these three states has shown Biden ahead. Of the polls listed by RealClear Politics, only two GOP-leaning pollsters (Rasmussen Reports and Trafalgar Group) have shown anything but a Biden lead in more than three months.
Not counting those outliers, Biden has lead in 40 straight Michigan polls, 25 consecutive Pennsylvania polls, and 23 straight Wisconsin polls.
The polling averages in these three states are, of course, not a guarantee of victory in November. Hillary Clinton had a lead in the polling averages in all three states in 2016 and still narrowly lost each.
But Biden doesn’t necessarily need to carry all three states to win. He currently holds leads in polling averages of other places won by Trump in 2016, including Arizona and Florida.
The swing-state polling numbers are consistent with national polling, which has also unfailingly shown Biden ahead over Trump since April, except for an occasional Rasmussen poll.
“Biden up 8% in new NBC/WSJ national poll (51% to 43%). 90% say their minds are made up. Pre-#RBG passing,” University of Virginia Center for Politics director Larry Sabato tweeted on Sunday. “So far Biden’s lead in most surveys is fairly stable.”
NBC News’ senior political editor, Mark Murray, agreed, tweeting on Thursday: “The Biden-versus-Trump race remains incredibly stable” — though he noted that could change over the upcoming weeks.
And Evan Scrimshaw, managing editor of the forecasting site Lean Tossup, wrote last week that the Democratic ticket has “a clear, present, persistent, and stable lead in states that add up to, at minimum, 270 votes. And that’s the ballgame, guys.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--Trump's TikTok deal is about power, experts say — not national security

Trump 's threats against TikTok were never about national security , experts say .
It was always about power .
The outlook for TikTok and WeChat was bleak in the United States last week , as Trump 's threatened ban on the Chinese apps loomed .
Then Saturday , Trump unexpectedly signed off on the formation of TikTok Global , a new entity jointly operated by Oracle and Walmart and hosted in the United States , effectively brokering a deal to give the United States a financial stake in the wildly successful social media platform .
In this arrangement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury .
On Monday , Chinese company ByteDance said it would retain the majority share — 80 % — of the company until next year , throwing a wrench in the works .
Trump said Monday on Fox & Friends that `` the Chinese firm would have nothing to do with it , and if they do , we just won ’ t make the deal.
” He added that if the American companies do not retain control of the app and keep data in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the government has n't laid out any substantive evidence that these apps pose a serious security risk , and many foreign policy analysts consider the move to be simply a power play by the White House to wrest control from China in a global economy tug-of-war .
Trump 's hypocrisy is evident , as he showed little concern over the 2018 Facebook data breach scandal , which exposed Cambridge Analytica — a Trump-linked firm that worked with his campaign during the 2016 election and the U.K. Leave campaign — for harvesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users .
It is also worth noting that Trump only warmed up to the TikTok deal once Oracle , a tech giant with close ties to his administration , got on board .
Kirsten Martin , professor of technology ethics at the University of Notre Dame , told NPR that this deal does n't actually resolve any of Trump 's supposed national security concerns about the Chinese apps .
`` TikTok never had U.S. user data on Chinese soil , '' she said .
`` So this deal is moving the data from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't see how that materially changes anything . ''
Former Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos tweeted that `` a deal where Oracle takes over hosting '' without significant operational changes `` would not address any of the legitimate concerns about TikTok , and the White House accepting such a deal would demonstrate that this exercise was pure grift . ''
While national security may not be at stake , it 's clear that political expedience — and global power in a trade war — is .
As early as August , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP was casting China as public enemy no .
1 , with former U.N .
Ambassador Nikki Haley blaming the coronavirus crisis on `` Communist China '' and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promising that jobs would be `` coming home '' from China on the second day of the convention .
As Carl Tobias , a law professor at the University of Richmond , told the New York Times , `` There ’ s no there there .
Is this really about trade , or about the political benefit of trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration can be ? ''
Moreover , the TikTok ban appears to be part of a bigger Trump administration push against Chinese tech .
Trump has waged an ongoing battle with Chinese tech giant Huawei in the past , for instance , claiming it possesses a way to extract data and poses a national security threat .
The technology company 's founder has denied all claims of sharing secrets with the Chinese government .
Trump 's most recent export controls on Huawei mean that without a license , the company 's non-U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the product contains any American technology .
This crackdown is poised to cause major problems throughout the technology industry .
And a directive last spring from the White House restricted utilities companies from buying power-grid equipment from foreign adversaries like China and Russia , potentially causing mass upheaval since most of the United States 's electrical equipment is purchased overseas .
Andy Green , vice president of technology policy , told the American Independent Foundation that Trump 's motivations in the TikTok deal are suspect .
`` As with most things in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like security and privacy take a backseat to a corrupt and incoherent process that just happens to reward some of his biggest political supporters , '' Green said .
And , he noted , if TikTok posed a legitimate security threat to the American people , the administration badly botched its response .
`` Shakedowns are n't a serious way for presidents to address the threats posed by Chinese technology companies , '' Green added .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Trump’s threats against TikTok were never about national security, experts say. It was always about power.
The outlook for TikTok and WeChat was bleak in the United States last week, as Trump’s threatened ban on the Chinese apps loomed.
Then Saturday, Trump unexpectedly signed off on the formation of TikTok Global, a new entity jointly operated by Oracle and Walmart and hosted in the United States, effectively brokering a deal to give the United States a financial stake in the wildly successful social media platform.
In this arrangement, TikTok would pay $5 billion in tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury.
On Monday, Chinese company ByteDance said it would retain the majority share — 80% — of the company until next year, throwing a wrench in the works.
Trump said Monday on Fox & Friends that “the Chinese firm would have nothing to do with it, and if they do, we just won’t make the deal.”
He added that if the American companies do not retain control of the app and keep data in the United States, then he won’t approve it.
But the government hasn’t laid out any substantive evidence that these apps pose a serious security risk, and many foreign policy analysts consider the move to be simply a power play by the White House to wrest control from China in a global economy tug-of-war.
Trump’s hypocrisy is evident, as he showed little concern over the 2018 Facebook data breach scandal, which exposed Cambridge Analytica — a Trump-linked firm that worked with his campaign during the 2016 election and the U.K. Leave campaign — for harvesting data from more than 87 million Facebook users.
It is also worth noting that Trump only warmed up to the TikTok deal once Oracle, a tech giant with close ties to his administration, got on board.
Kirsten Martin, professor of technology ethics at the University of Notre Dame, told NPR that this deal doesn’t actually resolve any of Trump’s supposed national security concerns about the Chinese apps.
“TikTok never had U.S. user data on Chinese soil,” she said. “So this deal is moving the data from one U.S. company to another? I don’t see how that materially changes anything.”
Former Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos tweeted that “a deal where Oracle takes over hosting” without significant operational changes “would not address any of the legitimate concerns about TikTok, and the White House accepting such a deal would demonstrate that this exercise was pure grift.”
While national security may not be at stake, it’s clear that political expedience — and global power in a trade war — is.
As early as August, during the 2020 Republican National Convention, the GOP was casting China as public enemy no. 1, with former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley blaming the coronavirus crisis on “Communist China” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promising that jobs would be “coming home” from China on the second day of the convention.
As Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told the New York Times, “There’s no there there. Is this really about trade, or about the political benefit of trying to bash China and show how tough the administration can be?”
Moreover, the TikTok ban appears to be part of a bigger Trump administration push against Chinese tech. Trump has waged an ongoing battle with Chinese tech giant Huawei in the past, for instance, claiming it possesses a way to extract data and poses a national security threat. The technology company’s founder has denied all claims of sharing secrets with the Chinese government.
Trump’s most recent export controls on Huawei mean that without a license, the company’s non-U.S. suppliers cannot ship to Huawei if the product contains any American technology. This crackdown is poised to cause major problems throughout the technology industry.
And a directive last spring from the White House restricted utilities companies from buying power-grid equipment from foreign adversaries like China and Russia, potentially causing mass upheaval since most of the United States’s electrical equipment is purchased overseas.
Andy Green, vice president of technology policy, told the American Independent Foundation that Trump’s motivations in the TikTok deal are suspect.
“As with most things in the Trump administration, legitimate issues around TikTok like security and privacy take a backseat to a corrupt and incoherent process that just happens to reward some of his biggest political supporters,” Green said.
And, he noted, if TikTok posed a legitimate security threat to the American people, the administration badly botched its response.
“Shakedowns aren’t a serious way for presidents to address the threats posed by Chinese technology companies,” Green added.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--McConnell is blocking 400 bills Americans want — but he's rushing a Supreme Court pick

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made pushing through Donald Trump 's judicial nominees almost his singular focus of the past two years , confirming Trump 's court picks at a rapid clip while blocking a slew of bills the Democratic-controlled House has passed .
Now , less than six weeks before the presidential election , McConnell has vowed to ram through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — prioritizing filling the seat over helping Americans struggling to find work in the midst of the coronavirus-fueled economic depression .
Back in February 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died , McConnell refused to give President Barack Obama 's nominee Judge Merrick Garland a hearing , let alone a vote on the Senate floor .
McConnell said a justice should not be confirmed in an election year , and that the next president should get to pick the nominee .
In 2020 , McConnell has abandoned that policy , now vowing to confirm Trump 's pick by a vote of senators whom voters may have rejected at the ballot box by the time they take a vote , possibly in a lame-duck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell 's quest to stack the courts with Trump picks that could block progressive policies for years to come rather than passing legislation that could help his constituents now .
In fact , McConnell has proudly called himself the `` grim reaper '' of the Senate .
`` As long as I 'm Majority Leader of the Senate , I get to set the agenda , that 's why I call myself the Grim Reaper , '' McConnell told Fox News ' Sean Hannity last year .
Here are the pressing issues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to put to a vote .
McConnell dragged his feet on passing any aid for laid-off workers struggling to make ends meet during the COVID-19 pandemic , nor would he help the cities and states facing massive budget shortfalls due to lost revenue .
House Democrats passed a bill on May 15 to extend a $ 600 weekly unemployment insurance payment to laid-off workers and provide another round of direct $ 1,200 payments to Americans under a certain income threshold .
McConnell refused to even negotiate on that bill until a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to lapse , ultimately letting it expire — even as millions of Americans remained out of work .
It was n't until mid-September , months after the unemployment payments expired , that Senate Republicans put a virus relief bill up for a vote — one that slashed weekly unemployment payments , did not include a new round of direct payments , and gave no aid to cities and states .
The bill also gutted protections for workers .
Now McConnell will prioritize a Supreme Court battle over continuing to negotiate on virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills House Democrats passed when their newly elected majority was sworn in in January 2019 was the For the People Act , a sweeping bill that `` addresses voter access , election integrity , election security , political spending , and ethics for the three branches of government , '' according to a summary of the legislation .
Among other things , it would block voter roll purges and would force candidates for president and vice president to release 10 years ' worth of tax returns .
But the legislation was dead on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell calling the legislation that makes it easier to vote and makes elections more secure a `` terrible proposal . ''
In May 2019 , the Democratic-controlled House passed a historic bill that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity , expanding legal protections against discrimination to LGBTQ people in the United States .
The bill also mandated that religious beliefs can not be used as a shield for such discrimination .
McConnell has not taken that bill up or allowed a vote on it , even though a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed showed that a majority of Americans thought a new law was needed to `` reduce discrimination against lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender people . ''
House Democrats passed a bill that would prohibit the removal of so-called Dreamers , undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as minors , as well as give them a path to citizenship .
But McConnell never put that bill up for a vote , leaving the Dreamers in limbo as Trump continues to try to cancel the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants .
Letting that class of immigrants remain in the United States is broadly popular .
A poll in June found that 74 % of Americans believe Dreamers should have the ability to receive permanent legal status in the United States .
In March 2019 , the House passed a bipartisan bill to end pay discrimination on the basis of sex .
McConnell has not put it up for a vote in the Senate .
In February 2019 , the House passed a bill that mandates universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time the House had passed a gun safety bill in 25 years .
Expanding background checks for gun sales has almost universal support in the United States .
Yet McConnell refused to take up the bill or put it up for a vote .
The House passed a bill in May 2019 that required Trump to `` develop and update annually a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement on climate change , '' according to a summary of the legislation .
The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate agreement , from which he has withdrawn the United States .
McConnell never put it up for a vote .
The Violence Against Women Act — the landmark 1994 law to protect victims of domestic violence and abuse and created the National Domestic Violence Hotline and other programs — has to be reauthorized every few years .
The act expired on Dec. 21 , 2018 , after the GOP-controlled House and Senate failed to renew it .
In April 2019 , after Democrats won control of the House , it passed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from buying guns .
However , McConnell has refused to put reauthorization up for a vote , meaning the law has been expired for nearly two years .
In July 2019 , the House passed a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage to $ 15 an hour , more than doubling its current rate of $ 7.25 .
McConnell never put it up for a vote .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made pushing through Donald Trump’s judicial nominees almost his singular focus of the past two years, confirming Trump’s court picks at a rapid clip while blocking a slew of bills the Democratic-controlled House has passed.
Now, less than six weeks before the presidential election, McConnell has vowed to ram through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — prioritizing filling the seat over helping Americans struggling to find work in the midst of the coronavirus-fueled economic depression.
Back in February 2016, when conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, McConnell refused to give President Barack Obama’s nominee Judge Merrick Garland a hearing, let alone a vote on the Senate floor. McConnell said a justice should not be confirmed in an election year, and that the next president should get to pick the nominee.
In 2020, McConnell has abandoned that policy, now vowing to confirm Trump’s pick by a vote of senators whom voters may have rejected at the ballot box by the time they take a vote, possibly in a lame-duck session.
That about-face is consistent with McConnell’s quest to stack the courts with Trump picks that could block progressive policies for years to come rather than passing legislation that could help his constituents now.
In fact, McConnell has proudly called himself the “grim reaper” of the Senate.
“As long as I’m Majority Leader of the Senate, I get to set the agenda, that’s why I call myself the Grim Reaper,” McConnell told Fox News’ Sean Hannity last year.
Here are the pressing issues and bills passed by the House McConnell has refused to put to a vote.
Coronavirus aid
McConnell dragged his feet on passing any aid for laid-off workers struggling to make ends meet during the COVID-19 pandemic, nor would he help the cities and states facing massive budget shortfalls due to lost revenue.
House Democrats passed a bill on May 15 to extend a $600 weekly unemployment insurance payment to laid-off workers and provide another round of direct $1,200 payments to Americans under a certain income threshold.
McConnell refused to even negotiate on that bill until a week before the $600 weekly payment was set to lapse, ultimately letting it expire — even as millions of Americans remained out of work.
It wasn’t until mid-September, months after the unemployment payments expired, that Senate Republicans put a virus relief bill up for a vote — one that slashed weekly unemployment payments, did not include a new round of direct payments, and gave no aid to cities and states. The bill also gutted protections for workers.
The GOP bill didn’t pass.
Now McConnell will prioritize a Supreme Court battle over continuing to negotiate on virus relief.
H.R.1, For the People Act
One of the first major bills House Democrats passed when their newly elected majority was sworn in in January 2019 was the For the People Act, a sweeping bill that “addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government,” according to a summary of the legislation.
Among other things, it would block voter roll purges and would force candidates for president and vice president to release 10 years’ worth of tax returns.
But the legislation was dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate, with McConnell calling the legislation that makes it easier to vote and makes elections more secure a “terrible proposal.”
H.R.5, Equality Act
In May 2019, the Democratic-controlled House passed a historic bill that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, expanding legal protections against discrimination to LGBTQ people in the United States.
The bill also mandated that religious beliefs cannot be used as a shield for such discrimination.
McConnell has not taken that bill up or allowed a vote on it, even though a poll taken a month after the bill passed showed that a majority of Americans thought a new law was needed to “reduce discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”
H.R.6, American Dream and Promise Act
House Democrats passed a bill that would prohibit the removal of so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as minors, as well as give them a path to citizenship.
But McConnell never put that bill up for a vote, leaving the Dreamers in limbo as Trump continues to try to cancel the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which could lead to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants.
Letting that class of immigrants remain in the United States is broadly popular. A poll in June found that 74% of Americans believe Dreamers should have the ability to receive permanent legal status in the United States.
H.R.7, Paycheck Fairness Act
In March 2019, the House passed a bipartisan bill to end pay discrimination on the basis of sex.
McConnell has not put it up for a vote in the Senate.
H.R.8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act
In February 2019, the House passed a bill that mandates universal background checks for gun sales — the first time the House had passed a gun safety bill in 25 years.
Expanding background checks for gun sales has almost universal support in the United States.
Yet McConnell refused to take up the bill or put it up for a vote.
H.R.9, Climate Action Now Act
The House passed a bill in May 2019 that required Trump to “develop and update annually a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement on climate change,” according to a summary of the legislation.
The bill would force Trump back into the Paris climate agreement, from which he has withdrawn the United States.
McConnell never put it up for a vote.
H.R.1585, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
The Violence Against Women Act — the landmark 1994 law to protect victims of domestic violence and abuse and created the National Domestic Violence Hotline and other programs — has to be reauthorized every few years.
The act expired on Dec. 21, 2018, after the GOP-controlled House and Senate failed to renew it.
In April 2019, after Democrats won control of the House, it passed a renewal that added new provisions, including banning those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from buying guns.
However, McConnell has refused to put reauthorization up for a vote, meaning the law has been expired for nearly two years.
H.R.582, Raise the Wage Act
In July 2019, the House passed a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, more than doubling its current rate of $7.25.
McConnell never put it up for a vote.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--Trump administration used virus relief money to buy jet parts and military uniforms

The Trump administration reportedly siphoned hundreds of millions intended for pandemic medical supplies to pay for unrelated defense spending .
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Defense Department took most of a $ 1 billion fund appropriated by Congress in March to help `` prevent , prepare for , and respond to coronavirus '' and repurposed it .
The bulk of the money went to defense contractors and bought items unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic , such as parts for jet engines and military formalwear .
Bill Greenwalt , a former George W. Bush administration official , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opportunity for the Department to take what is almost a windfall and use it to try and fill what are some very critical industrial base needs '' that are `` only tangentially related to COVID . ''
This included $ 22 million to Rolls-Royce for Naval shipbuilding , $ 75 million to GE Aviation , and $ 2 million to the American Woolen Company for Army dress uniforms .
This is not the first time the administration has essentially stolen money appropriated by Congress for its pet projects .
Last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and then took billions of taxpayer dollars intended for military families to pay for his proposed wall along the nation 's southern border .
Trump had previously promised repeatedly that the wall would be entirely funded by Mexico .
While bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to terminate the so-called emergency , Trump vetoed their resolution .
Due in large part to Trump 's botched response to the coronavirus , more than 6.7 million Americans have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and about 200,000 have died .
From early on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to curb the virus ' spread as unnecessary .
In February , his administration asked Congress for just $ 2.5 billion total to protect the nation from the pandemic .
Rep. Nita Lowey ( D-NY ) , the House Appropriations chair , called the request `` woefully insufficient to protect Americans from the deadly coronavirus outbreak . ''
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it `` indicative of [ Trump 's ] towering incompetence . ''
Trump tweeted on Feb. 25 : `` Cryin ' Chuck Schumer is complaining , for publicity purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more money than $ 2.5 Billion to prepare for Coronavirus .
If I asked for more he would say it is too much . ''
Instead , Congress passed an $ 8.3 billion appropriation , which Trump signed in March .
He said at the time , `` I asked for $ 2.5 and I got $ 8.3 , and I 'll take it , '' adding .
`` We 're doing well , but it 's an unforeseen problem . ''
Though Congress subsequently passed trillions more for pandemic relief and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still not being met by the Trump administration .
The Post reported on Monday the emergency responders are still facing shortages of N95 respirator masks , one of the most vital pieces of personal protective equipment to protect them from the virus .
Due to the shortage , the masks are unavailable for other essential workers around the country .
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story .
But Ellen Lord , defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment , told the Post `` We are thankful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabled the [ Trump administration ] to invest in domestic production of critical medical resources and protect key defense capabilities from the consequences of COVID .
We need to always remember that economic security and national security are very tightly interrelated and our industrial base is really the nexus of the two . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

The Trump administration reportedly siphoned hundreds of millions intended for pandemic medical supplies to pay for unrelated defense spending.
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Defense Department took most of a $1 billion fund appropriated by Congress in March to help “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus” and repurposed it. The bulk of the money went to defense contractors and bought items unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as parts for jet engines and military formalwear.
Bill Greenwalt, a former George W. Bush administration official, told the Post that the money “became an opportunity for the Department to take what is almost a windfall and use it to try and fill what are some very critical industrial base needs” that are “only tangentially related to COVID.”
This included $22 million to Rolls-Royce for Naval shipbuilding, $75 million to GE Aviation, and $2 million to the American Woolen Company for Army dress uniforms.
In an emailed statement on Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesperson claimed the money had been used appropriately and consistent with Congressional intent, and said the Washington Post “left out” context “leading some to misconstrue the expenditures.”
But this would not be the first time the administration has essentially stolen money appropriated by Congress for its pet projects.
Last year, Donald Trump declared a “national emergency” and then took billions of taxpayer dollars intended for military families to pay for his proposed wall along the nation’s southern border.
Trump had previously promised repeatedly that the wall would be entirely funded by Mexico. While bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to terminate the so-called emergency, Trump vetoed their resolution.
Due in large part to Trump’s botched response to the coronavirus, more than 6.7 million Americans have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and about 200,000 have died.
From early on, Trump dismissed Congressional efforts to provide funding to curb the virus’ spread as unnecessary. In February, his administration asked Congress for just $2.5 billion total to protect the nation from the pandemic. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the House Appropriations chair, called the request “woefully insufficient to protect Americans from the deadly coronavirus outbreak.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “indicative of [Trump’s] towering incompetence.”
Trump tweeted on Feb. 25: “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer is complaining, for publicity purposes only, that I should be asking for more money than $2.5 Billion to prepare for Coronavirus. If I asked for more he would say it is too much.”
Instead, Congress passed an $8.3 billion appropriation, which Trump signed in March. He said at the time, “I asked for $2.5 and I got $8.3, and I’ll take it,” adding. “We’re doing well, but it’s an unforeseen problem.”
Though Congress subsequently passed trillions more for pandemic relief and economic stabilization, the most basic needs are still not being met by the Trump administration.
The Post reported on Monday the emergency responders are still facing shortages of N95 respirator masks, one of the most vital pieces of personal protective equipment to protect them from the virus. Due to the shortage, the masks are unavailable for other essential workers around the country.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story. But Ellen Lord, defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, told the Post “We are thankful the Congress provided authorities and resources that enabled the [Trump administration] to invest in domestic production of critical medical resources and protect key defense capabilities from the consequences of COVID. We need to always remember that economic security and national security are very tightly interrelated and our industrial base is really the nexus of the two.”
Updated to include a response from the Pentagon.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--Here's why Justice Ginsburg's death means Obamacare is probably toast

One week after Election Day , the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare — and with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's death on Friday , the fate of the Affordable Care Act is at stake .
Donald Trump is hastily working overtime to install a new Supreme Court justice in the weeks before the election , and some of Trump 's leading contenders for the spot , such as Amy Coney Barrett , have openly expressed hostility toward Obamacare .
In a 2017 paper , Barrett discussed her opposition to the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has also publicly disagreed with contraceptives being covered under Obamacare , signing a 2015 statement of protest calling it an attack on religious liberty .
Another potential pick , Barbara Lagoa , a federal judge on the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit , has close ties with the Federalist Society , which has long been connected to Obamacare opposition .
Alison Jones Rushing , a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit also shortlisted by Trump , began her career as an intern for the anti-LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's platform is staunchly opposed to Obamacare .
The group is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center .
The challenge to the ACA began in February 2018 , when a group of 20 states , represented by two Republican governors and 18 Republican attorneys general , sued the federal government to strike down the Affordable Care Act .
Two self-employed individuals from Texas joined the lawsuit in April 2018 , claiming that the ACA required them to purchase health care coverage they would not ordinarily buy .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional .
The federal government has asked the Supreme Court only to strike down any provisions found to be individually harmful to the plaintiff , and to leave intact the rest of the ACA , sending the case back to lower courts to determine which provisions apply .
`` Ginsburg 's death is the nightmare scenario for the Affordable Care Act , '' University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley told the Washington Post .
`` If the suit had a trivial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new lease on life . ''
Colin Seeberger , a health care spokesperson for the Center for American Progress , echoed Bagley 's concerns in an interview with the American Independent Foundation .
`` A lot of ( people ) are asking themselves , 'How could ( Donald Trump 's ) mismanagement of the pandemic get any worse ? '
'' said Seeberger .
`` I think the answer to that question is suing to take health care away from 23 million people . ''
He noted that legal experts across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurd on the merits , but that the 5th Circuit 's ruling `` puts those ... assumptions under a microscope . ''
`` We do n't know what could happen , '' said Seeberger , `` especially if Donald Trump is able to install another rubber stamp for his agenda on the Supreme Court . ''
Ginsburg 's death is significant in that , historically , Chief Justice John Roberts has often sided with the Supreme Court 's more liberal wing in previous ACA-related legislation , noted Seeberger .
`` With Ginsburg 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court fracturing in a tied vote , 4-4 , which would sustain the ruling from the most conservative circuit court in America , that being the 5th Circuit , '' Seeberger said .
Wendell Potter , president of the Center for Health and Democracy , a nonprofit advocating for health care reform , said Ginsburg 's death certainly adds more uncertainty to the future of the ACA .
`` There are various scenarios as to what could happen after ( oral arguments on Nov. 10 ) , but it clearly puts the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Potter said .
If a new Supreme Court justice is confirmed before Nov. 10 , it would mean only three Democratic appointees would remain on the Supreme Court , he added — diminishing the chances of the ACA surviving .
He said the best-case scenario would be if Justice Roberts or Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted to preserve the ACA , ruling that the mandates deemed unconstitutional were severable from the ACA as a whole .
With the the ACA gone , insurance companies could once again base premiums on health status , gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away with protection for preexisting conditions .
The Medicaid expansion could also go away .
`` There could be great harm to many millions of Americans if the law is declared entirely unconstitutional , '' Potter said .
Dr .
Rob Davidson , executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare , said Ginsburg was a steadfast supporter of the constitutionality of the ACA .
`` If ... her replacement is someone who who finds the ACA ... to be unconstitutional , I think that is a massive crisis in health care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions losing insurance , particularly during a pandemic , it could be disastrous if so-called COVID long-haulers suffering catastrophic health repercussions were priced out of obtaining health insurance , noted Davidson .
`` I do n't think it can be overstated the calamity this would create , '' he said .
`` With ( Ginsburg 's ) passing and with an uncertainty about what comes next on the court , '' there are a lot of nervous people .
With outcomes uncertain after Ginsburg 's death , the health coverage of tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

One week after Election Day, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare — and with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday, the fate of the Affordable Care Act is at stake.
Donald Trump is hastily working overtime to install a new Supreme Court justice in the weeks before the election, and some of Trump’s leading contenders for the spot, such as Amy Coney Barrett, have openly expressed hostility toward Obamacare.
In a 2017 paper, Barrett discussed her opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA. She has also publicly disagreed with contraceptives being covered under Obamacare, signing a 2015 statement of protest calling it an attack on religious liberty.
Another potential pick, Barbara Lagoa, a federal judge on the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, has close ties with the Federalist Society, which has long been connected to Obamacare opposition.
Alison Jones Rushing, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit also shortlisted by Trump, began her career as an intern for the anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Alliance’s platform is staunchly opposed to Obamacare. The group is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The challenge to the ACA began in February 2018, when a group of 20 states, represented by two Republican governors and 18 Republican attorneys general, sued the federal government to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
Two self-employed individuals from Texas joined the lawsuit in April 2018, claiming that the ACA required them to purchase health care coverage they would not ordinarily buy.
In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. The federal government has asked the Supreme Court only to strike down any provisions found to be individually harmful to the plaintiff, and to leave intact the rest of the ACA, sending the case back to lower courts to determine which provisions apply.
“Ginsburg’s death is the nightmare scenario for the Affordable Care Act,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley told the Washington Post. “If the suit had a trivial chance of success yesterday, it has a new lease on life.”
Colin Seeberger, a health care spokesperson for the Center for American Progress, echoed Bagley’s concerns in an interview with the American Independent Foundation.
“A lot of (people) are asking themselves, ‘How could (Donald Trump’s) mismanagement of the pandemic get any worse?'” said Seeberger. “I think the answer to that question is suing to take health care away from 23 million people.”
He noted that legal experts across the ideological spectrum have called the lawsuit is absurd on the merits, but that the 5th Circuit’s ruling “puts those … assumptions under a microscope.”
“We don’t know what could happen,” said Seeberger, “especially if Donald Trump is able to install another rubber stamp for his agenda on the Supreme Court.”
Ginsburg’s death is significant in that, historically, Chief Justice John Roberts has often sided with the Supreme Court’s more liberal wing in previous ACA-related legislation, noted Seeberger.
“With Ginsburg’s departure, that puts at risk the court fracturing in a tied vote, 4-4, which would sustain the ruling from the most conservative circuit court in America, that being the 5th Circuit,” Seeberger said.
Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, a nonprofit advocating for health care reform, said Ginsburg’s death certainly adds more uncertainty to the future of the ACA.
“There are various scenarios as to what could happen after (oral arguments on Nov. 10), but it clearly puts the law in its entirety in jeopardy,” Potter said.
If a new Supreme Court justice is confirmed before Nov. 10, it would mean only three Democratic appointees would remain on the Supreme Court, he added — diminishing the chances of the ACA surviving.
He said the best-case scenario would be if Justice Roberts or Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted to preserve the ACA, ruling that the mandates deemed unconstitutional were severable from the ACA as a whole.
With the the ACA gone, insurance companies could once again base premiums on health status, gender, and other factors, effectively doing away with protection for preexisting conditions. The Medicaid expansion could also go away.
“There could be great harm to many millions of Americans if the law is declared entirely unconstitutional,” Potter said.
Dr. Rob Davidson, executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare, said Ginsburg was a steadfast supporter of the constitutionality of the ACA.
“If … her replacement is someone who who finds the ACA … to be unconstitutional, I think that is a massive crisis in health care,” Davidson said.
With tens of millions losing insurance, particularly during a pandemic, it could be disastrous if so-called COVID long-haulers suffering catastrophic health repercussions were priced out of obtaining health insurance, noted Davidson.
“I don’t think it can be overstated the calamity this would create,” he said. “With (Ginsburg’s) passing and with an uncertainty about what comes next on the court,” there are a lot of nervous people.
With outcomes uncertain after Ginsburg’s death, the health coverage of tens of millions hangs in the balance.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-22--Senate GOP says they'll ram through Supreme Court pick no matter who it is

Nearly every single vulnerable Republican senator up for reelection this fall came out to say they will vote for Donald Trump 's nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — even though the senators do not know who the nominee is nor what the eventual pick 's positions are .
Sens .
Cory Gardner of Colorado , Martha McSally or Arizona , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Joni Ernst of Iowa , Thom Tillis of North Carolina , David Perdue of Georgia , and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia all said they will vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Graham said on Fox News Monday night that the GOP has a majority and will move forward with the confirmation before the election .
`` We 've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg 's replacement before the election , '' Graham told Sean Hannity Monday , adding that he will move the nominee — whoever it may be — to the floor `` so we can vote before the election . ''
The GOP senators will vote for Trump 's pick even though almost every one of those lawmakers refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing , let alone a vote , in 2016 , saying a president should not get to pick a nominee in a presidential election year .
Loeffler and McSally are the only ones who did not say that , as they were not in the Senate in 2016 .
The announcement by the senators that they will vote for Trump 's pick means it 's almost impossible for Democrats to get the four votes they need to block a replacement for Ginsburg until after a new president takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish .
Republicans are planning to vote on Trump 's nominee , who will then receive a lifetime seat on the highest court in the United States , even though voters are set to reject them in November .
Nonpartisan political handicappers predict both Gardner and McSally will lose — with polling showing the Democratic challengers in those races ahead .
McSally is trailing her Democratic challenger , Mark Kelly , by 6.7 % , according to the RealClearPolitics average .
Tillis and Ernst are both in toss-up contests .
Polling shows Tillis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cal Cunningham , while Ernst trails her Democratic opponent , Theresa Greenfield , by a slim 0.4 % .
Graham , Perdue , and Loeffler all face competitive elections as well .
It 's unclear how the Supreme Court nomination fight will impact each individual race .
However , polling shows voters do not want a replacement to be selected before the election , with a majority saying that the winner of the presidential race should get to choose the nominee .
Currently , polling shows Democratic nominee Joe Biden is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Nearly every single vulnerable Republican senator up for reelection this fall came out to say they will vote for Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — even though the senators do not know who the nominee is nor what the eventual pick’s positions are.
Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, David Perdue of Georgia, and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia all said they will vote for Trump’s pick.
With those votes, Graham said on Fox News Monday night that the GOP has a majority and will move forward with the confirmation before the election.
“We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” Graham told Sean Hannity Monday, adding that he will move the nominee — whoever it may be — to the floor “so we can vote before the election.”
The GOP senators will vote for Trump’s pick even though almost every one of those lawmakers refused to give former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing, let alone a vote, in 2016, saying a president should not get to pick a nominee in a presidential election year.
Loeffler and McSally are the only ones who did not say that, as they were not in the Senate in 2016.
The announcement by the senators that they will vote for Trump’s pick means it’s almost impossible for Democrats to get the four votes they need to block a replacement for Ginsburg until after a new president takes office — which was Ginsburg’s dying wish.
Republicans are planning to vote on Trump’s nominee, who will then receive a lifetime seat on the highest court in the United States, even though voters are set to reject them in November.
Nonpartisan political handicappers predict both Gardner and McSally will lose — with polling showing the Democratic challengers in those races ahead. McSally is trailing her Democratic challenger, Mark Kelly, by 6.7%, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
Tillis and Ernst are both in toss-up contests. Polling shows Tillis behind his Democratic opponent by 3.9%, Cal Cunningham, while Ernst trails her Democratic opponent, Theresa Greenfield, by a slim 0.4%.
Graham, Perdue, and Loeffler all face competitive elections as well.
It’s unclear how the Supreme Court nomination fight will impact each individual race.
However, polling shows voters do not want a replacement to be selected before the election, with a majority saying that the winner of the presidential race should get to choose the nominee.
Currently, polling shows Democratic nominee Joe Biden is the favorite to win in November.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-23--Trump's plan to stay in power: 'Get rid of the ballots'

Donald Trump has been escalating his attacks on voting ahead of the November election , but at Wednesday 's press conference , he called for getting `` rid of the ballots '' altogether .
`` Win , lose , or draw in this election , will you commit here , today , for a peaceful transferral of power after the election ? ''
a reporter in the White House press corps asked .
`` Well , we 'll have to see what happens , you know that , '' he said .
`` I 've been complaining very strongly about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disaster . ''
The reporter noted that `` people are rioting '' and again asked Trump whether he would commit to a `` peaceful transferral of power . ''
Again , Trump would make no such commitment .
Instead , he called for essentially eliminating the election .
`` We want to have — get rid of the ballots , and we 'll have a very peaceful — there wo n't be a transfer , frankly , '' Trump said .
`` There will be a continuation . ''
Earlier on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved '' in a massive but vague scheme to do something nefarious with mail-in ballots .
And for months , he and his campaign have been filing lawsuits in states around the country to try to prevent people from being able to vote by mail .
As part of his increasingly threatening rhetoric about the election , Trump insisted Tuesday that he needs to have nine justices on the Supreme Court before the election because of the `` tens of millions of ballots '' being sent to voters , suggesting he will challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not win it and wants to ensure a strong conservative majority on the highest court .
His call Wednesday night to essentially abandon voting altogether and assure there is no transfer of power , peaceful of otherwise , is his strongest threat yet .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump has been escalating his attacks on voting ahead of the November election, but at Wednesday’s press conference, he called for getting “rid of the ballots” altogether.
“Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here, today, for a peaceful transferral of power after the election?” a reporter in the White House press corps asked.
Trump refused to make such a commitment.
“Well, we’ll have to see what happens, you know that,” he said. “I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”
The reporter noted that “people are rioting” and again asked Trump whether he would commit to a “peaceful transferral of power.”
Again, Trump would make no such commitment. Instead, he called for essentially eliminating the election.
“We want to have — get rid of the ballots, and we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly,” Trump said. “There will be a continuation.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump casually suggested mailmen are “involved” in a massive but vague scheme to do something nefarious with mail-in ballots. And for months, he and his campaign have been filing lawsuits in states around the country to try to prevent people from being able to vote by mail.
As part of his increasingly threatening rhetoric about the election, Trump insisted Tuesday that he needs to have nine justices on the Supreme Court before the election because of the “tens of millions of ballots” being sent to voters, suggesting he will challenge the results of the election if he does not win it and wants to ensure a strong conservative majority on the highest court.
His call Wednesday night to essentially abandon voting altogether and assure there is no transfer of power, peaceful of otherwise, is his strongest threat yet.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-23--Trump casually asks 'are mailmen involved' in imaginary ballot fraud

Donald Trump on Wednesday implicated `` mailmen '' as part of a conspiracy regarding the integrity of mail-in voting in the upcoming election .
While discussing the repeatedly debunked claims he has made about mail-in ballots leading to fraud , Trump rhetorically asked , `` Are mailmen involved ?
Who 's delivering it ? ''
Trump has attempted to impugn voting by mail for months now as states across the country have sought to expand access to a safe way to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic , which has now killed over 200,000 Americans .
In contrast to Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail is possibly less susceptible to fraud than in-person voting .
DONALD TRUMP : The Democrats know it .
They know what 's going on .
They know how it 's going on .
Who 's getting it , who 's sending it , where is it going , where is it coming back , where is it coming from ?
It 's a very , very — and they know it 's going to be .
And all you have to do is look at — as in the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would say every single case in the last number of years where they 've done this .
And this is a tiny scale , compared to millions and millions of ballots that are being sent .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump on Wednesday implicated “mailmen” as part of a conspiracy regarding the integrity of mail-in voting in the upcoming election.
While discussing the repeatedly debunked claims he has made about mail-in ballots leading to fraud, Trump rhetorically asked, “Are mailmen involved? Who’s delivering it?”
Trump has attempted to impugn voting by mail for months now as states across the country have sought to expand access to a safe way to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has now killed over 200,000 Americans.
In contrast to Trump’s attacks, election experts have said voting by mail is possibly less susceptible to fraud than in-person voting.
From a Sept. 16 White House media availability:
DONALD TRUMP: The Democrats know it. They know what’s going on. They know how it’s going on. Who’s getting it, who’s sending it, where is it going, where is it coming back, where is it coming from? Are mailmen involved? Who’s delivering it? It’s a very, very — and they know it’s going to be. And all you have to do is look at — as in the case in West Virginia, but many cases — I would say every single case in the last number of years where they’ve done this. And this is a tiny scale, compared to millions and millions of ballots that are being sent.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-23--Judge says Eric Trump can't use his dad's election to avoid testifying in tax fraud case

Judge Arthur Engoron of the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Eric Trump must testify in the New York Attorney General 's investigation of potential civil fraud by the Trump Organization — before the presidential election .
Last week , the younger Trump agreed to be deposed in the case , which seeks to determine whether the Trump Organization inflated or skewed its assets for tax reasons , or to obtain business loans .
But his lawyers argued that the deposition should be delayed until after the election Nov. 3 , citing his `` extreme travel schedule '' on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid the use of his deposition attendance for political purposes . ''
In Wednesday 's ruling , Engoron rejected this argument , noting that `` Mr. Trump cites no authority in support of his request , and at any event , neither petitioner nor this court is bound by timelines of the national election . ''
The ruling mandates that Trump appear for an interview under oath with the office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James no later than Oct. 7 .
James opened the probe last year after Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and `` fixer , '' testified to Congress that the elder Trump had allegedly overstated assets in order to get tax benefits and loans .
Eric Trump skirted seven different subpoenas to testify about the allegations under oath , prompting James to request in late August that a judge require the president 's son to stop stalling the investigation and comply .
That same day , the younger Trump tweeted that `` without any basis ... [ James ] has pledged to take my father down from the moment she ran for office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused the state attorney general of prosecutorial misconduct and claimed that the fraud accusations were `` purposely dropped on the eve of the Republican Convention for political points . ''
`` Sad that this is her focus as New York burns , '' he concluded .
Donald Trump and the Trump Organization are currently facing other legal woes .
Cy Vance Jr. , Manhattan 's district attorney , continues to fight in federal court for Trump 's tax returns , and Vance 's office announced in August it would also be conducting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential bank and insurance fraud .
After Engoron 's Wednesday ruling , James said in a public statement that `` justice and the rule of law prevailed today , '' and added that her office would at once move forward to ensure that Eric Trump complied with the court 's ruling .
`` The court 's order today makes clear that no one is above the law , not even an organization or an individual with the name Trump , '' James said .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Judge Arthur Engoron of the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Eric Trump must testify in the New York Attorney General’s investigation of potential civil fraud by the Trump Organization — before the presidential election.
Last week, the younger Trump agreed to be deposed in the case, which seeks to determine whether the Trump Organization inflated or skewed its assets for tax reasons, or to obtain business loans. But his lawyers argued that the deposition should be delayed until after the election Nov. 3, citing his “extreme travel schedule” on the campaign trail and a desire to “to avoid the use of his deposition attendance for political purposes.”
In Wednesday’s ruling, Engoron rejected this argument, noting that “Mr. Trump cites no authority in support of his request, and at any event, neither petitioner nor this court is bound by timelines of the national election.”
The ruling mandates that Trump appear for an interview under oath with the office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James no later than Oct. 7.
James opened the probe last year after Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s longtime lawyer and “fixer,” testified to Congress that the elder Trump had allegedly overstated assets in order to get tax benefits and loans.
Eric Trump skirted seven different subpoenas to testify about the allegations under oath, prompting James to request in late August that a judge require the president’s son to stop stalling the investigation and comply.
That same day, the younger Trump tweeted that “without any basis … [James] has pledged to take my father down from the moment she ran for office.” In his tweet, he accused the state attorney general of prosecutorial misconduct and claimed that the fraud accusations were “purposely dropped on the eve of the Republican Convention for political points.”
“Sad that this is her focus as New York burns,” he concluded.
Donald Trump and the Trump Organization are currently facing other legal woes. Cy Vance Jr., Manhattan’s district attorney, continues to fight in federal court for Trump’s tax returns, and Vance’s office announced in August it would also be conducting a broad probe into the Trump Organization for potential bank and insurance fraud.
After Engoron’s Wednesday ruling, James said in a public statement that “justice and the rule of law prevailed today,” and added that her office would at once move forward to ensure that Eric Trump complied with the court’s ruling.
“The court’s order today makes clear that no one is above the law, not even an organization or an individual with the name Trump,” James said.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-09-23--7 times Lindsey Graham completely flip-flopped for Donald Trump

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) has been under fire this week for a major flip-flop after he reneged on a 2016 pledge to oppose any Supreme Court nomination in an election year , backing Donald Trump 's push to rush through a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
But this is hardly the first time he has abandoned his stated principles to appease Trump .
`` I want you to use my words against me , '' Graham said during a Senate hearing in March 2016 .
`` If there 's a Republican president in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year of the first term , you can say Lindsey Graham said let 's let the next president , whoever it might be , make that nomination . ''
He reiterated that view in 2018 .
Now that he is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vacancy has opened up on the court , Graham has completely reversed his position .
He tweeted Saturday — less than a day after Ginsburg 's death — that because Democrats were mean to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during hearings , he would now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg . ''
During the 2016 campaign , Graham ran against Trump for the GOP nomination and attacked him as a `` kook '' who was `` unfit for office '' and a `` complete idiot . ''
But since Trump 's inauguration , he and Trump have become golfing buddies , and he has become one of Trump 's most loyal supporters , voting with him more than 87 % of the time .
Here are six other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated principles : In the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , then-Rep. Graham served as a House impeachment manager , prosecuting the case before the Senate .
`` What I 'm saying about witnesses is that if you take them off the table in the Senate , the next Judiciary Committee , the next independent counsel ought to do everything , because they may lose the chance to present their case , '' Graham said at the time .
`` That would be bad for impeachment law .
That would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't happen here.
” Last December , after Trump was impeached , Graham took the exact opposite view , opposing even hearing from Trump 's own witnesses .
`` I 'm going to tell the president , 'no , ' to his witnesses request because I think what is best for the country is to get this behind us as soon as possible , '' he told reporters .
Though he took an oath to hear the impeachment case against Trump as an impartial juror , he refused even to read transcripts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives based on his view that it was all `` a bunch of B.S . ''
In December 1998 , Graham argued that obstruction of a congressional investigation was an impeachable offense .
`` The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress , and he became the judge and jury , '' he said , as part of his argument for impeaching Clinton .
He repeatedly argued that Clinton 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
After Trump was impeached for obstruction , Graham argued that this made Trump the victim .
`` They impeached him for obstructing Congress .
They tried to put Trump below the law .
Abuse of power is so poorly defined here , I do n't know how presidents in the future can conform their conduct , '' he told Fox News .
`` It 's the first impeachment in history where there 's no allegation of a crime by the president . ''
Graham suggested during the Clinton impeachment that sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sexual harassment cases are uncomfortable , '' he told reporters in January 1999 .
`` That 's why the behavior is illegal .
What went on in the Oval Office is uncomfortable , but it 's important to know if it occurred in a way that makes the President a liar . ''
But though Trump — who admitted to `` Access Hollywood '' in 2005 that he likes to sexually assault women — has been accused by more than 40 different women who say he sexually assaulted them , Graham has dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied it , '' he told reporters after one claim surfaced in June 2019 .
`` He 's denied it and that 's all I needed to hear . ''
`` You know how to make America great again ?
Tell Donald Trump to go to hell , '' Graham told CNN .
Although since Graham said that , Trump has pushed for a ban on Muslims entering the United States , told Democratic congresswomen of color to leave the country , mocked developing nations as `` shithole countries , '' and defended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Graham now claims that Trump is `` absolutely not '' racist , but just very sensitive to people who do n't like him .
`` He 's a street fighter .
It 's not the color of your skin that matters .
It 's not the content of your character , '' Graham told CNN in January 2018 .
`` It 's whether or not you show him respect and like him .
And if he feels you 're off script and do n't like him , he punches back.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate colleague Joe Biden was `` as good a man as God ever created . ''
The following year , he told HuffPo , `` If you ca n't admire Joe Biden as a person , there 's probably , you got a problem .
You need to do some self-evaluation , because what 's not to like ? '
'' This did not stop Graham from acceding to Trump 's desire for an investigation into the Bidens last November .
And it did not stop him from warning in February on Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming for congressional and Senate oversight of Joe Biden . ''
For years , Graham demanded America use its military to protect Kurds in Syria from genocide .
When Trump initially decided to pull U.S. troops out of Syria last October , leaving the Kurds vulnerable to attack by invading Turkish military , Graham denounced the move as `` a stain on America 's honor . ''
He told Fox News that it was an `` impulsive decision by the president '' and `` short-sighted and irresponsible . ''
Weeks later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump , Graham said he was `` increasingly optimistic that we can have some historic solutions in Syria that have eluded us for years , if we play our cards right . ''
`` President Trump is thinking outside the box , '' he told Fox News .
`` I was so impressed with his thinking about the oil . ''
Graham is facing a tough reelection race against Democratic nominee Jaime Harrison .
A Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters released last week found the two tied at 48 % each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday put Graham ahead by just a single point .
Graham 's campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been under fire this week for a major flip-flop after he reneged on a 2016 pledge to oppose any Supreme Court nomination in an election year, backing Donald Trump’s push to rush through a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But this is hardly the first time he has abandoned his stated principles to appease Trump.
“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said during a Senate hearing in March 2016. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” He reiterated that view in 2018.
Now that he is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vacancy has opened up on the court, Graham has completely reversed his position. He tweeted Saturday — less than a day after Ginsburg’s death — that because Democrats were mean to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during hearings, he would now “support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”
During the 2016 campaign, Graham ran against Trump for the GOP nomination and attacked him as a “kook” who was “unfit for office” and a “complete idiot.” But since Trump’s inauguration, he and Trump have become golfing buddies, and he has become one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, voting with him more than 87% of the time.
Here are six other times Graham has put Trump over his stated principles:
Impeachment trial witnesses
In the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, then-Rep. Graham served as a House impeachment manager, prosecuting the case before the Senate.
“What I’m saying about witnesses is that if you take them off the table in the Senate, the next Judiciary Committee, the next independent counsel ought to do everything, because they may lose the chance to present their case,” Graham said at the time. “That would be bad for impeachment law. That would be against precedent, and I hope that doesn’t happen here.”
Last December, after Trump was impeached, Graham took the exact opposite view, opposing even hearing from Trump’s own witnesses.
“I’m going to tell the president, ‘no,’ to his witnesses request because I think what is best for the country is to get this behind us as soon as possible,” he told reporters.
Though he took an oath to hear the impeachment case against Trump as an impartial juror, he refused even to read transcripts of witness testimony from the House of Representatives based on his view that it was all “a bunch of B.S.”
Obstruction of justice
In December 1998, Graham argued that obstruction of a congressional investigation was an impeachable offense. “The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury,” he said, as part of his argument for impeaching Clinton. He repeatedly argued that Clinton’s attempts to obstruct justice merited removal from office.
After Trump was impeached for obstruction, Graham argued that this made Trump the victim. “They impeached him for obstructing Congress. They tried to put Trump below the law. Abuse of power is so poorly defined here, I don’t know how presidents in the future can conform their conduct,” he told Fox News. “It’s the first impeachment in history where there’s no allegation of a crime by the president.”
Sexual predation
Graham suggested during the Clinton impeachment that sexual harassment too might be impeachable. “Sexual harassment cases are uncomfortable,” he told reporters in January 1999. “That’s why the behavior is illegal. What went on in the Oval Office is uncomfortable, but it’s important to know if it occurred in a way that makes the President a liar.”
But though Trump — who admitted to “Access Hollywood” in 2005 that he likes to sexually assault women — has been accused by more than 40 different women who say he sexually assaulted them, Graham has dismissed their claims. “The president has denied it,” he told reporters after one claim surfaced in June 2019. “He’s denied it and that’s all I needed to hear.”
Trump’s racism
In December 2015, Graham called Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot.”
“You know how to make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell,” Graham told CNN.
Although since Graham said that, Trump has pushed for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, told Democratic congresswomen of color to leave the country, mocked developing nations as “shithole countries,” and defended white nationalists as “very fine people,” Graham now claims that Trump is “absolutely not” racist, but just very sensitive to people who don’t like him.
“He’s a street fighter. It’s not the color of your skin that matters. It’s not the content of your character,” Graham told CNN in January 2018. “It’s whether or not you show him respect and like him. And if he feels you’re off script and don’t like him, he punches back.”
Joe Biden
Graham said in 2015 that his former Senate colleague Joe Biden was “as good a man as God ever created.” The following year, he told HuffPo, “If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, there’s probably, you got a problem. You need to do some self-evaluation, because what’s not to like?'”
This did not stop Graham from acceding to Trump’s desire for an investigation into the Bidens last November. And it did not stop him from warning in February on Fox News, “The day of reckoning is coming for congressional and Senate oversight of Joe Biden.”
Syria
For years, Graham demanded America use its military to protect Kurds in Syria from genocide. When Trump initially decided to pull U.S. troops out of Syria last October, leaving the Kurds vulnerable to attack by invading Turkish military, Graham denounced the move as “a stain on America’s honor.” He told Fox News that it was an “impulsive decision by the president” and “short-sighted and irresponsible.”
Weeks later, he changed his mind. After meeting with Trump, Graham said he was “increasingly optimistic that we can have some historic solutions in Syria that have eluded us for years, if we play our cards right.”
“President Trump is thinking outside the box,” he told Fox News. “I was so impressed with his thinking about the oil.”
Graham is facing a tough reelection race against Democratic nominee Jaime Harrison. A Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters released last week found the two tied at 48% each, while a Morning Consult poll released Tuesday put Graham ahead by just a single point.
Graham’s campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.