shareblue--2020-01-16--Diplomats slam State Department for silence on threats to ambassador

Ukraine 's announcement on Thursday of an investigation into alleged surveillance of the U.S. ambassador has come as welcome relief to many in America 's diplomatic corps , but the State Department 's silence on the matter has alarmed a number of current and former diplomats .
They are demanding action from the Trump administration .
The department has declined repeated requests to offer any public defense of its envoy , the former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , two days after allegations arose that allies of Donald Trump had her under illegal surveillance while she was stationed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , are central to the impeachment inquiry into Trump , who faces a charge that he abused his presidential power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden , using military aid to the country as leverage .
Trump says the inquiry is a `` hoax . ''
At the time , Trump 's allies were trying to have Yovanovitch , who was seen as a roadblock , removed from her post .
She was recalled in May ahead of the end of her tour .
House Democrats this week published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an associate of Rudy Giuliani , the president 's personal lawyer , suggesting Yovanovitch was under surveillance .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who was traveling in California when the Parnas texts were released , has for months resisted calls for specific statements backing Yovanovitch .
One of Pompeo 's top aides , veteran career diplomat Michael McKinley , resigned in October after unsuccessfully pressing for an expression of support for Yovanovitch .
U.S. diplomats have reacted to the new revelations with dismay and to the lack of public support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen told the Associated Press that while surveillance by foreign intelligence and security services is expected and routine in many countries , such activity by Americans is of great concern , particularly if it 's done by purported agents of the president .
Although those officials all spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal , former diplomats and senior lawmakers were outspoken in their criticism , especially after Ukraine announced it would open its own probe into what happened .
`` U.S. diplomats serving in the post-Soviet space often expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under surveillance organized by an American with links to the president 's personal attorney , '' said Steven Pifer , a former American ambassador to Ukraine .
`` It would be ironic for Ukraine to be more interested in pursuing the security and what happened to a U.S. ambassador than the United States and the State Department is , '' said Sen. Robert Menendez ( D-NJ ) the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee .
`` I 'm looking for a vigorous investigation of what went on here , because Ambassador Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Eliot Engel , a New York Democrat who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee , said the Parnas messages `` suggest a possible risk '' to Yovanovitch 's security in Kyiv before she was recalled .
`` These threats occurred at the same time that the two men were also discussing President Trump 's efforts , through Rudy Giuliani , to smear the ambassador 's reputation , '' Engel said .
Engel referred to messages to Parnas from Robert F. Hyde , a Connecticut man , who claimed to be watching Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Her phone is off .
Her computer is off , '' Hyde allegedly texted to Parnas , adding that Yovanovitch was under heavy security .
`` We have a person inside , '' another text message read .
Another said : `` guess you can do anything in Ukraine with money ... is what I was told . ''
Yovanovitch returned to Washington after being told in a late-night phone call to get on the next plane home for her own safety by the director general of the Foreign Service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry .
The nature of any possible threat was not specified and remains unclear , although the Parnas documents suggest the surveillance was a prelude to some kind of action .
Because the State Department has refused to respond substantively to questions about the Yovanovitch surveillance , it 's unclear whether the Bureau of Diplomatic Security or another law enforcement agency is looking into the matter .
One official , who was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity , argued that the department had protected Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the lack of clarity and the department 's stonewalling of congressional demands for documents related to her recall have prompted an outcry .
`` This has to be a first in American history , '' said Nicolas Burns , a former career diplomat who rose to become the third-ranking official at the State Department before his retirement and is now a foreign policy adviser to Biden 's presidential campaign .
`` A foreign government rushing to the defense of a senior U.S. career ambassador to defend her from people deputized by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burns wrote on Twitter .
`` And the Secretary of State refuses to say one word in her defense . ''
Dana Smith , a former career diplomat who has been critical of the Trump administration , accused Pompeo of hypocrisy for staying mute about the possible threats to Yovanovitch after accusing the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of malfeasance in the deadly 2011 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi , Libya .
`` A threat on a U.S .
Ambassador that would be treated with the utmost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , '' she wrote in a tweet .
`` Where is Mr. Benghazi now ? ''
The response is also in stark contrast to the quick and vocal protests that U.S. officials from Pompeo on down have registered about similar revelations elsewhere .
As recently as this month , Pompeo and State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus have publicly condemned Iranian-backed militia for besieging the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and demanded that Iraqi authorities fulfill their obligations to protect U.S. facilities there .
`` Our first priority is the safety and security of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 31 .
`` The United States has acted quickly , prudently , and decisively , taking additional security measures to address threats to American diplomats and facilities in Baghdad . ''
Just last week , Ortagus used Twitter to denounce Iranian authorities for briefly detaining the British ambassador to Iran during anti-government protests in Tehran .
`` The Iranian regime arrested the British ambassador to Iran , '' she said on Jan. 11 .
`` This violates the Vienna Convention , which the regime has a notorious history of violating .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.K. for violating his rights and to respect the rights of all diplomats . ''
Potential violations of the Vienna Convention , the international treaty that governs diplomatic relations between states , was a reason cited by Ukrainian officials for opening their investigation .
`` The published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations , which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state , '' Ukraine 's Interior Ministry said in a statement .

Ukraine’s announcement on Thursday of an investigation into alleged surveillance of the U.S. ambassador has come as welcome relief to many in America’s diplomatic corps, but the State Department’s silence on the matter has alarmed a number of current and former diplomats. They are demanding action from the Trump administration.
The department has declined repeated requests to offer any public defense of its envoy, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, two days after allegations arose that allies of Donald Trump had her under illegal surveillance while she was stationed in Kyiv.
The allegations, if true, are central to the impeachment inquiry into Trump, who faces a charge that he abused his presidential power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, using military aid to the country as leverage. Trump says the inquiry is a “hoax.”
At the time, Trump’s allies were trying to have Yovanovitch, who was seen as a roadblock, removed from her post. She was recalled in May ahead of the end of her tour.
House Democrats this week published text messages to and from Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, suggesting Yovanovitch was under surveillance.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was traveling in California when the Parnas texts were released, has for months resisted calls for specific statements backing Yovanovitch. One of Pompeo’s top aides, veteran career diplomat Michael McKinley, resigned in October after unsuccessfully pressing for an expression of support for Yovanovitch.
U.S. diplomats have reacted to the new revelations with dismay and to the lack of public support for their colleague with disappointment. Nearly a dozen told the Associated Press that while surveillance by foreign intelligence and security services is expected and routine in many countries, such activity by Americans is of great concern, particularly if it’s done by purported agents of the president.
Although those officials all spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, former diplomats and senior lawmakers were outspoken in their criticism, especially after Ukraine announced it would open its own probe into what happened.
“U.S. diplomats serving in the post-Soviet space often expect to be under surveillance — just not under surveillance organized by an American with links to the president’s personal attorney,” said Steven Pifer, a former American ambassador to Ukraine.
“It would be ironic for Ukraine to be more interested in pursuing the security and what happened to a U.S. ambassador than the United States and the State Department is,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “I’m looking for a vigorous investigation of what went on here, because Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that she felt intimidated.”
Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the Parnas messages “suggest a possible risk” to Yovanovitch’s security in Kyiv before she was recalled.
“These threats occurred at the same time that the two men were also discussing President Trump’s efforts, through Rudy Giuliani, to smear the ambassador’s reputation,” Engel said.
Engel referred to messages to Parnas from Robert F. Hyde, a Connecticut man, who claimed to be watching Yovanovitch.
“She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Her computer is off,” Hyde allegedly texted to Parnas, adding that Yovanovitch was under heavy security. “We have a person inside,” another text message read. Another said: “guess you can do anything in Ukraine with money … is what I was told.”
Yovanovitch returned to Washington after being told in a late-night phone call to get on the next plane home for her own safety by the director general of the Foreign Service, according to witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry. The nature of any possible threat was not specified and remains unclear, although the Parnas documents suggest the surveillance was a prelude to some kind of action.
Because the State Department has refused to respond substantively to questions about the Yovanovitch surveillance, it’s unclear whether the Bureau of Diplomatic Security or another law enforcement agency is looking into the matter. One official, who was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, argued that the department had protected Yovanovitch by recalling her early from Kyiv.
But the lack of clarity and the department’s stonewalling of congressional demands for documents related to her recall have prompted an outcry.
“This has to be a first in American history,” said Nicolas Burns, a former career diplomat who rose to become the third-ranking official at the State Department before his retirement and is now a foreign policy adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign.
“A foreign government rushing to the defense of a senior U.S. career ambassador to defend her from people deputized by the President of the United States,” Burns wrote on Twitter. “And the Secretary of State refuses to say one word in her defense.”
Dana Smith, a former career diplomat who has been critical of the Trump administration, accused Pompeo of hypocrisy for staying mute about the possible threats to Yovanovitch after accusing the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of malfeasance in the deadly 2011 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
“A threat on a U.S. Ambassador that would be treated with the utmost urgency if it came from a foreign person,” she wrote in a tweet. “Where is Mr. Benghazi now?”
The response is also in stark contrast to the quick and vocal protests that U.S. officials from Pompeo on down have registered about similar revelations elsewhere.
As recently as this month, Pompeo and State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus have publicly condemned Iranian-backed militia for besieging the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and demanded that Iraqi authorities fulfill their obligations to protect U.S. facilities there.
“Our first priority is the safety and security of U.S. personnel,” Pompeo said on Dec. 31. “The United States has acted quickly, prudently, and decisively, taking additional security measures to address threats to American diplomats and facilities in Baghdad.”
Just last week, Ortagus used Twitter to denounce Iranian authorities for briefly detaining the British ambassador to Iran during anti-government protests in Tehran.
“The Iranian regime arrested the British ambassador to Iran,” she said on Jan. 11. “This violates the Vienna Convention, which the regime has a notorious history of violating. We call on the regime to formally apologize to the U.K. for violating his rights and to respect the rights of all diplomats.”
Potential violations of the Vienna Convention, the international treaty that governs diplomatic relations between states, was a reason cited by Ukrainian officials for opening their investigation.
“The published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state,” Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said in a statement.


shareblue--2020-01-16--GOP senator attacks government watchdog for doing its job

Republican senators criticized a report from the Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) on Thursday which concluded the Trump administration broke the law by withholding military aid to Ukraine .
Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-AL ) went so far as to attack the employees of the GAO for doing their job .
`` I do n't think they [ the GAO ] should be deciding who broke the law , '' Shelby told Politico .
Part of GAO 's responsibility is to determine if administration officials broke the law .
According to the GAO 's mission statement , the nonpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people . ''
That includes `` conducting financial audits '' and issuing `` legal opinions . ''
The GAO recently investigated the Trump administration 's decision last summer to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine , even after Defense Department officials had certified the country had met all the anti-corruption requirements to receive the funds .
The GAO concluded that the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which requires the president to request permission from Congress in the event he or she wants to defer or cancel previously appropriated funding .
Requests are limited to a narrow range of instances , including financial contingencies or the cancellation of programs .
In its report , the GAO specifically stated that the White House was barred from withholding funds for policy reasons .
Donald Trump has long claimed that he withheld aid to Ukraine over corruption concerns , and his allies have defended the move by arguing that presidents are allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , '' the GAO wrote .
`` [ The Office of Management and Budget ] withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted . ''
The report added that `` unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise , the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability , '' noting , `` The Constitution grants the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligation . ''
The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump in December on two articles , abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The charges stemmed from Trump 's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and his attempts to withhold information and block witness testimony in the earlier House impeachment inquiry .
Other GOP senators similarly dismissed the GAO 's conclusions this week .
`` I think that the president has the right to move money around and all the presidents have worked within this realm , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that the administration 's activities did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) dismissed the legal conclusion from the GAO as just a `` guideline . ''
On the other side of Capitol Hill , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went even further during a Thursday press conference , describing the administration 's actions as `` the rightful thing to do . ''
Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) made a more legalistic argument to dismiss the findings , noting the GAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' in its report .
The head of the OMB , Mick Mulvaney , also serves as Trump 's chief of staff and was deeply involved in the decision to withhold the Ukraine funds .
In October , Mulvaney admitted publicly that the administration had blocked those funds in order to secure an investigation into Trump 's political rivals .
Prior to the House impeachment vote , many Republicans argued that Trump could not be impeached because he had not committed a crime .
`` The biggest difference in the Clinton impeachment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crime : perjury , '' Rep. Steve Chabot ( R-OH ) told the Washington Post in December .
Rep. James Sensenbrenner ( R-WI ) echoed the sentiment , telling the Post that the House impeached Clinton for `` lying to a grand jury , a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth .
This is not what is happening here .
Big difference . ''
With the GAO exposing a crime , Republican senators are either dismissing the conclusion or moving the goalposts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not to remove Trump from office , with many Republicans having already indicated they will not be impartial jurors .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republican senators criticized a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on Thursday which concluded the Trump administration broke the law by withholding military aid to Ukraine.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) went so far as to attack the employees of the GAO for doing their job.
“I don’t think they [the GAO] should be deciding who broke the law,” Shelby told Politico.
Part of GAO’s responsibility is to determine if administration officials broke the law.
According to the GAO’s mission statement, the nonpartisan body “exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.”
That includes “conducting financial audits” and issuing “legal opinions.”
The GAO recently investigated the Trump administration’s decision last summer to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, even after Defense Department officials had certified the country had met all the anti-corruption requirements to receive the funds.
The GAO concluded that the Trump administration specifically violated the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the president to request permission from Congress in the event he or she wants to defer or cancel previously appropriated funding. Requests are limited to a narrow range of instances, including financial contingencies or the cancellation of programs.
In its report, the GAO specifically stated that the White House was barred from withholding funds for policy reasons.
Donald Trump has long claimed that he withheld aid to Ukraine over corruption concerns, and his allies have defended the move by arguing that presidents are allowed to set their own foreign policy.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the GAO wrote. “[The Office of Management and Budget] withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted.”
The report added that “unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability,” noting, “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”
The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump in December on two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges stemmed from Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and his attempts to withhold information and block witness testimony in the earlier House impeachment inquiry.
Other GOP senators similarly dismissed the GAO’s conclusions this week.
“I think that the president has the right to move money around and all the presidents have worked within this realm,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said, adding that the administration’s activities did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) dismissed the legal conclusion from the GAO as just a “guideline.”
On the other side of Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went even further during a Thursday press conference, describing the administration’s actions as “the rightful thing to do.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) made a more legalistic argument to dismiss the findings, noting the GAO “identifies OMB, not the president” in its report.
The head of the OMB, Mick Mulvaney, also serves as Trump’s chief of staff and was deeply involved in the decision to withhold the Ukraine funds.
In October, Mulvaney admitted publicly that the administration had blocked those funds in order to secure an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.
Prior to the House impeachment vote, many Republicans argued that Trump could not be impeached because he had not committed a crime.
“The biggest difference in the Clinton impeachment and this one is that President Clinton committed a crime: perjury,” Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) told the Washington Post in December.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) echoed the sentiment, telling the Post that the House impeached Clinton for “lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference.”
With the GAO exposing a crime, Republican senators are either dismissing the conclusion or moving the goalposts.
Senators will soon hold a trial on whether or not to remove Trump from office, with many Republicans having already indicated they will not be impartial jurors.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-16--Trump uses school prayer event to brag about the damage he's doing to health care

At an event on Thursday billed by the White House as part of a campaign for `` protecting prayer in public schools , '' Donald Trump touted his administration 's efforts to limit access to abortion .
A release from the White House about the event said , `` President Donald J. Trump remains committed to protecting every student 's constitutional right to pray in school . ''
But when he was asked by a reporter how he planned to reach out to Catholic voters before the 2020 election , Trump turned to abortion , not prayer .
`` What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics in the United States ?
Why should they vote for you in the upcoming election ? ''
a reporter asked .
`` Well I have a great relationship with Catholics , I 've done so much for Catholics '' said Trump .
`` You take a look at the abortion issue , you take a look at many of these – Mexico City – you take a look at so many of the different issues .
My relationship with Catholics and the Catholic Church has been very , very good . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` great relationship '' with Catholics also does not stand up to scrutiny .
A December 2019 poll of Catholic voters found Trump losing in head-to-head matchups against key Democratic presidential candidates like Vice President Joe Biden , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , and Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
All of the Democratic candidates support a woman 's right to choose an abortion .
In 2016 , Trump lost among Catholic voters , who preferred Secretary Hillary Clinton by 48 % to 45 % .
During that campaign Trump was involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who criticized his plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border .
In response , Trump said the Pope was `` disgraceful '' and a `` pawn '' of the Mexican government .
Trump has liberally used his power to push an anti-abortion agenda .
The `` Mexico City '' policy , also known as the global gag rule , Trump cited was implemented early in his administration and prohibits the United States from giving international assistance to any organization that speaks to women about abortion as a health care option .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal courts , including at the highest level , through the appointments of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
He has also used his office , along with Mike Pence , to promote myths like the fraudulent claim that Democrats support `` post-birth '' abortion .
Extremists have in the past latched on to similar falsehoods as justification for acts of terrorism that have killed and wounded innocent people .
While Trump may have won over the anti-abortion camp , his recent remarks prove just how out of step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ordinary Americans and the voters he claims love him so much .

At an event on Thursday billed by the White House as part of a campaign for “protecting prayer in public schools,” Donald Trump touted his administration’s efforts to limit access to abortion.
A release from the White House about the event said, “President Donald J. Trump remains committed to protecting every student’s constitutional right to pray in school.”
But when he was asked by a reporter how he planned to reach out to Catholic voters before the 2020 election, Trump turned to abortion, not prayer.
“What’s your message to the millions of Catholics in the United States? Why should they vote for you in the upcoming election?” a reporter asked.
“Well I have a great relationship with Catholics, I’ve done so much for Catholics” said Trump. “You take a look at the abortion issue, you take a look at many of these – Mexico City – you take a look at so many of the different issues. My relationship with Catholics and the Catholic Church has been very, very good.”
However, Trump’s claims of a “great relationship” with Catholics also does not stand up to scrutiny.
A December 2019 poll of Catholic voters found Trump losing in head-to-head matchups against key Democratic presidential candidates like Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. All of the Democratic candidates support a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
In 2016, Trump lost among Catholic voters, who preferred Secretary Hillary Clinton by 48% to 45%.
During that campaign Trump was involved in a feud with Pope Francis, who criticized his plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In response, Trump said the Pope was “disgraceful” and a “pawn” of the Mexican government.
Trump has liberally used his power to push an anti-abortion agenda. The “Mexico City” policy, also known as the global gag rule, Trump cited was implemented early in his administration and prohibits the United States from giving international assistance to any organization that speaks to women about abortion as a health care option.
Trump has also installed anti-choice judges in the federal courts, including at the highest level, through the appointments of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
He has also used his office, along with Mike Pence, to promote myths like the fraudulent claim that Democrats support “post-birth” abortion. Extremists have in the past latched on to similar falsehoods as justification for acts of terrorism that have killed and wounded innocent people.
While Trump may have won over the anti-abortion camp, his recent remarks prove just how out of step of step he is when it comes to ordinary Americans and the voters he claims love him so much.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-16--Susan Collins caught lying about donations from opioid industry

Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) claimed earlier this month that she had never taken money from the Sackler family , which owns the pharmaceutical company that produces the opioid pain medication OxyContin .
Collins campaign finance records , however , show that she did .
In a video encounter , posted Thursday by the Maine Beacon , Collins was urged by a constituent to return contributions from Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies that make affordable products .
Collins responded by noting that federal officials can not accept money directly from corporations ( though she has received tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action committees ) .
`` I 'm not influenced by the contributions that my campaign receives , '' she told the constituent , who appeared to be sitting across from Collins on board an airplane .
Collins said she would not return those donations because `` it does n't influence how I vote . ''
The constituent then said she had read that Collins had taken money specifically from the Sacklers , the controversial family that owns Purdue Pharma .
The company 's OxyContin painkillers have been blamed for much of the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacklers ? ''
Collins replied .
`` No I have not .
Never . ''
But campaign finance records show that Collins did receive $ 2,300 — the legal maximum at the time — from Jonathan Sackler in 2007 .
Her campaign 's disclosure form identified him as an `` executive '' at Purdue Pharma .
She also received $ 1,000 in 2002 directly from Purdue Pharma 's corporate PAC .
Collins did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the contradiction .
In 2007 , Purdue Pharma was forced to pay out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty to misleading consumers about OxyContin 's addiction risks .
That same year , the company was sued by state officials in Kentucky over widespread abuse of the drug in their state .
In 2018 , several other states filed their own lawsuit over the drug , alleging Purdue Pharma had engaged in a `` deceptive sales campaign . ''
Dozens of other states followed suit , taking the company to court and specifically accusing the Sackler family of being `` personally responsible '' for the ongoing opioid epidemic .
In December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdrawn `` more than $ 10 billion from the company , distributing it among trusts and overseas holding companies '' as legal troubles for Purdue Pharma began to mount .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , between 1999 and 2017 , opioids were responsible for nearly 400,000 deaths , or approximately 56.8 % of all fatal drug overdoses .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) claimed earlier this month that she had never taken money from the Sackler family, which owns the pharmaceutical company that produces the opioid pain medication OxyContin.
Collins campaign finance records, however, show that she did.
In a video encounter, posted Thursday by the Maine Beacon, Collins was urged by a constituent to return contributions from Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies that make affordable products.
Collins responded by noting that federal officials cannot accept money directly from corporations (though she has received tens of thousands from pharma companies’ official political action committees).
“I’m not influenced by the contributions that my campaign receives,” she told the constituent, who appeared to be sitting across from Collins on board an airplane.
Collins said she would not return those donations because “it doesn’t influence how I vote.”
The constituent then said she had read that Collins had taken money specifically from the Sacklers, the controversial family that owns Purdue Pharma. The company’s OxyContin painkillers have been blamed for much of the nation’s opioid crisis.
“From the Sacklers?” Collins replied. “No I have not. Never.”
But campaign finance records show that Collins did receive $2,300 — the legal maximum at the time — from Jonathan Sackler in 2007. Her campaign’s disclosure form identified him as an “executive” at Purdue Pharma.
She also received $1,000 in 2002 directly from Purdue Pharma’s corporate PAC.
Collins did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the contradiction.
In 2007, Purdue Pharma was forced to pay out a $600 million fine after pleading guilty to misleading consumers about OxyContin’s addiction risks. That same year, the company was sued by state officials in Kentucky over widespread abuse of the drug in their state.
In 2018, several other states filed their own lawsuit over the drug, alleging Purdue Pharma had engaged in a “deceptive sales campaign.” Dozens of other states followed suit, taking the company to court and specifically accusing the Sackler family of being “personally responsible” for the ongoing opioid epidemic.
In December, an internal audit found the Sacklers had withdrawn “more than $10 billion from the company, distributing it among trusts and overseas holding companies” as legal troubles for Purdue Pharma began to mount.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 1999 and 2017, opioids were responsible for nearly 400,000 deaths, or approximately 56.8% of all fatal drug overdoses.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--This week in wins: Equal Rights Amendment passes major hurdle

The Virginia legislature made history this week by becoming the 38th state to approve the Equal Rights Amendment , but that was not the only news progressives celebrated .
There were voting rights victories in Missouri , Texas , and Wisconsin , and New Jersey 's governor signed laws protecting residents with preexisting conditions .
Read on to catch up on this week 's wins .
The Virginia House of Delegates and Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday , making Virginia the 38th state to do so .
`` For the women of Virginia and the women of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Speaker of the House Eileen Filler-Corn said just before she announced the result of the House vote .
Those gathered in the chamber erupted in applause .
The amendment , which would ban discrimination based on sex , has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states , the threshold necessary for amending the U.S. Constitution .
However , when Congress passed the ERA in 1972 , it set a deadline of 1979 for state ratification .
Opponents of the ERA maintain the deadline has passed , but proponents argue the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Washington Post .
New Jersey governor signs bills to protect people with preexisting conditions On Thursday , New Jersey 's Democratic Gov .
Phil Murphy signed into law a package of health care legislation protecting state residents should federal courts side with Republicans and overturn the Affordable Care Act .
The bills would protect people with preexisting conditions from being charged more by health insurance companies and allow adults up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents ' health care plans , according to Bloomberg Law .
`` At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is under siege by the Trump Administration and being challenged in the courts , New Jersey has a responsibility to protect and provide access to high-quality , affordable health care for all of our residents , '' Murphy said in a statement , applauding legislators for making `` the health of our residents a top priority . ''
A group of Republican-led states , backed by the Trump administration , are challenging the ACA in federal court , seeking to overturn the landmark health care law and remove all the protections it guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions .
With its eye on both a marquee Senate race and the presidential election in November , the Texas Democratic Party launched a massive voter registration effort , ABC News reported on Monday .
The effort includes deploying 1,000 field organizers and canvassers as well as mailing voter registration forms to hundreds of thousands of unregistered voters , with the goal of registering as many as 2.6 million voters .
In addition , the state party will work with Fair Fight , the pro-voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is poised for `` historic Democratic gains at the ballot box , '' Cliff Walker , deputy executive director of the state party , said in a statement .
`` Texas is the biggest battleground state in the country .
We know that our democracy works better when more people vote , not less . ''
In the statement , Walker also noted that the party has a permanent voter protection hotline ( 844-TX-VOTES ) to assist voters across the state who have questions or problems .
Residents in Michigan will soon have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanks to legislation recently passed by both chambers of the state Legislature , the Associated Press reported on Tuesday .
The legislation would create a telephone hotline available 24 hours a day , seven days a week , to help anyone in the state experiencing a mental health emergency .
Those calling the hotline , expected to cost roughly $ 3 million to create , operate , and maintain , would be referred to a mental health provider .
A hotline could `` make people more willing to talk about '' suicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. John , a program supervisor at Pathways Community Mental Health , told a Michigan NBC affiliate .
Michigan 's Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer is expected to sign the measure .
On Tuesday , the Missouri Supreme Court struck down key provisions of a 2016 voter ID law , saying the law required `` misleading '' and `` contradictory '' statements from citizens attempting to vote without a photo ID , the Associated Press reported .
The Republican-backed voter ID law would have forced residents to affirm that they both did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require those voters to present an appropriate non-photo ID in order to cast a provisional ballot .
`` Although the State has an interest in combating voter fraud , requiring individuals ... to sign a contradictory , misleading affidavit is not a reasonable means to accomplish that goal , '' Judge Mary Russell wrote in court 's opinion .
`` The best part of today 's Missouri Supreme Court opinion is that the opportunities to vote in Missouri are actually more expansive now than they were prior to the GOP 's bungled attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a prominent voting rights attorney , wrote on social media about the decision .
An appeals court handed a victory to more than 200,000 Wisconsin residents on Tuesday , halting a conservative-led effort to purge voters from the state 's rolls , the Associated Press reported .
Wisconsin 's bipartisan election commission wanted to wait until after the 2020 election before altering the state 's voter rolls , but a conservative group sued , demanding the state purge 209,000 names .
The appeals court overruled a lower court decision demanding the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for not doing so .
Instead , the commission can wait with a lawsuit on the issue makes its way through the courts .
In the 2016 election , Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by less than 23,000 votes .
Check back next week for more good news .

The Virginia legislature made history this week by becoming the 38th state to approve the Equal Rights Amendment, but that was not the only news progressives celebrated. There were voting rights victories in Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin, and New Jersey’s governor signed laws protecting residents with preexisting conditions.
Read on to catch up on this week’s wins.
The Virginia House of Delegates and Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday, making Virginia the 38th state to do so.
“For the women of Virginia and the women of America, the resolution has finally passed,” Speaker of the House Eileen Filler-Corn said just before she announced the result of the House vote. Those gathered in the chamber erupted in applause.
The amendment, which would ban discrimination based on sex, has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states, the threshold necessary for amending the U.S. Constitution. However, when Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it set a deadline of 1979 for state ratification. Opponents of the ERA maintain the deadline has passed, but proponents argue the deadline itself is unconstitutional, according to the Washington Post.
On Thursday, New Jersey’s Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law a package of health care legislation protecting state residents should federal courts side with Republicans and overturn the Affordable Care Act.
The bills would protect people with preexisting conditions from being charged more by health insurance companies and allow adults up to the age of 26 to remain on their parents’ health care plans, according to Bloomberg Law.
“At a time when the Affordable Care Act is under siege by the Trump Administration and being challenged in the courts, New Jersey has a responsibility to protect and provide access to high-quality, affordable health care for all of our residents,” Murphy said in a statement, applauding legislators for making “the health of our residents a top priority.”
A group of Republican-led states, backed by the Trump administration, are challenging the ACA in federal court, seeking to overturn the landmark health care law and remove all the protections it guaranteed, including protections for people with preexisting conditions.
With its eye on both a marquee Senate race and the presidential election in November, the Texas Democratic Party launched a massive voter registration effort, ABC News reported on Monday.
The effort includes deploying 1,000 field organizers and canvassers as well as mailing voter registration forms to hundreds of thousands of unregistered voters, with the goal of registering as many as 2.6 million voters. In addition, the state party will work with Fair Fight, the pro-voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams, to fight against voter suppression efforts.
Texas is poised for “historic Democratic gains at the ballot box,” Cliff Walker, deputy executive director of the state party, said in a statement. “Texas is the biggest battleground state in the country. We know that our democracy works better when more people vote, not less.”
In the statement, Walker also noted that the party has a permanent voter protection hotline (844-TX-VOTES) to assist voters across the state who have questions or problems.
Residents in Michigan will soon have access to a statewide mental health hotline, thanks to legislation recently passed by both chambers of the state Legislature, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
The legislation would create a telephone hotline available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to help anyone in the state experiencing a mental health emergency. Those calling the hotline, expected to cost roughly $3 million to create, operate, and maintain, would be referred to a mental health provider.
A hotline could “make people more willing to talk about” suicide or other mental health issues, Michael St. John, a program supervisor at Pathways Community Mental Health, told a Michigan NBC affiliate.
Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is expected to sign the measure.
On Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down key provisions of a 2016 voter ID law, saying the law required “misleading” and “contradictory” statements from citizens attempting to vote without a photo ID, the Associated Press reported.
The Republican-backed voter ID law would have forced residents to affirm that they both did not have an appropriate ID, but also require those voters to present an appropriate non-photo ID in order to cast a provisional ballot.
“Although the State has an interest in combating voter fraud, requiring individuals … to sign a contradictory, misleading affidavit is not a reasonable means to accomplish that goal,” Judge Mary Russell wrote in court’s opinion.
“The best part of today’s Missouri Supreme Court opinion is that the opportunities to vote in Missouri are actually more expansive now than they were prior to the GOP’s bungled attempt at voter suppression,” Marc Elias, a prominent voting rights attorney, wrote on social media about the decision.
An appeals court handed a victory to more than 200,000 Wisconsin residents on Tuesday, halting a conservative-led effort to purge voters from the state’s rolls, the Associated Press reported.
Wisconsin’s bipartisan election commission wanted to wait until after the 2020 election before altering the state’s voter rolls, but a conservative group sued, demanding the state purge 209,000 names.
The appeals court overruled a lower court decision demanding the election commission begin purging voters or face fines for not doing so. Instead, the commission can wait with a lawsuit on the issue makes its way through the courts.
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by less than 23,000 votes.
Check back next week for more good news.


shareblue--2020-01-17--Big banks kill jobs while pocketing $32 billion from the GOP tax law

Donald Trump promised the 2017 Republican tax law would create jobs and support the middle class .
Instead , six big banks have pocketed an additional $ 32 billion in savings — while cutting more than 1,000 jobs — over the past couple of years as a result of that law , Bloomberg reported Thursday .
Bloomberg calculated the additional savings from the GOP tax law by looking at the tax rates banks paid before the 2017 law ( 30 % ) to the rates the banks paid after the law went into effect ( between 18 % and 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional $ 14 billion in profits in 2018 , then another $ 18 billion in additional profits in 2019 .
In the meantime , the banks also cut their workforce by a combined 1,200 jobs by the end of 2019 .
The six banks include JPMorgan Chase , Bank of America , Citigroup , Wells Fargo , Goldman Sachs , and Morgan Stanley .
Much of the savings come on the backs of consumers through credit card debt , according to Ken Leon , director of equity research at CFRA Research .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leading growth driver for the consumer bank , '' he told the Washington Post .
`` Even though consumers are confident , people are still carrying significant debt , '' Ted Rossman , an analyst for CreditCards.com , told the Post .
`` From a bank 's perspective , that is a big moneymaker .
From a consumer 's perspective , I would encourage everyone to pay that down . ''
While big banks are soaking up excess savings and slashing jobs , many families throughout America have not seen the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two years after the tax bill sailed through Congress without a single vote from Democrats , NPR declared that the law has `` failed to deliver on GOP promises . ''
The outlet reported that more than 60 % of the tax savings went to the wealthiest 20 % of Americans , leaving 80 % of Americans behind .
Rather than the `` rocket fuel '' Trump promised for the economy , NPR reported that the U.S. economy grew at 2.9 % in 2019 in the wake of the tax bill 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 , during President Obama 's penultimate year in office .
Further , rather than `` pay [ ing ] for itself , '' as Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin once claimed , NPR reported that the tax law is responsible for massive increases in the federal deficit .
Last year , the deficit topped $ 1 trillion dollars — exactly as experts had predicted it would as a result of the GOP bill .
Big banks and other major companies have tried to play off the tax law 's benefits as a boon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immediate aftermath of the bill becoming law , many private companies issued press releases touting bonuses for their workers .
However , the total bonuses workers received in 2018 , compared to the year before , was just one cent more , according to the Economic Policy Institute .
In 2019 , the Wall Street Journal reported that additional bonuses for workers `` appear to largely have been a one-time windfall , '' with companies no longer handing out similar bonuses in the second year the law was in effect .
Published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Donald Trump promised the 2017 Republican tax law would create jobs and support the middle class. Instead, six big banks have pocketed an additional $32 billion in savings — while cutting more than 1,000 jobs — over the past couple of years as a result of that law, Bloomberg reported Thursday.
Bloomberg calculated the additional savings from the GOP tax law by looking at the tax rates banks paid before the 2017 law (30%) to the rates the banks paid after the law went into effect (between 18% and 20%). The banks saw an additional $14 billion in profits in 2018, then another $18 billion in additional profits in 2019.
In the meantime, the banks also cut their workforce by a combined 1,200 jobs by the end of 2019.
The six banks include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
Much of the savings come on the backs of consumers through credit card debt, according to Ken Leon, director of equity research at CFRA Research. The consumer credit card market is “still a leading growth driver for the consumer bank,” he told the Washington Post.
“Even though consumers are confident, people are still carrying significant debt,” Ted Rossman, an analyst for CreditCards.com, told the Post. “From a bank’s perspective, that is a big moneymaker. From a consumer’s perspective, I would encourage everyone to pay that down.”
While big banks are soaking up excess savings and slashing jobs, many families throughout America have not seen the same types of benefits from the 2017 law.
Two years after the tax bill sailed through Congress without a single vote from Democrats, NPR declared that the law has “failed to deliver on GOP promises.” The outlet reported that more than 60% of the tax savings went to the wealthiest 20% of Americans, leaving 80% of Americans behind.
Rather than the “rocket fuel” Trump promised for the economy, NPR reported that the U.S. economy grew at 2.9% in 2019 in the wake of the tax bill’s passage — the same growth as in 2015, during President Obama’s penultimate year in office.
Further, rather than “pay[ing] for itself,” as Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin once claimed, NPR reported that the tax law is responsible for massive increases in the federal deficit. Last year, the deficit topped $1 trillion dollars — exactly as experts had predicted it would as a result of the GOP bill.
Big banks and other major companies have tried to play off the tax law’s benefits as a boon to the American worker regardless. In the immediate aftermath of the bill becoming law, many private companies issued press releases touting bonuses for their workers. However, the total bonuses workers received in 2018, compared to the year before, was just one cent more, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
In 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that additional bonuses for workers “appear to largely have been a one-time windfall,” with companies no longer handing out similar bonuses in the second year the law was in effect.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--GOP senator who calls impeachment a 'hoax' says Democrats are too biased

Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-TN ) has dismissed the impeachment of Donald Trump as a `` hoax '' and said her colleagues should not trust anything the House managers present in the impending trial .
But on Friday , she accused four Democratic colleagues of not being `` impartial '' because they are seeking the presidency .
Blackburn , appearing on Fox Business Network , argued that Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , and Michael Bennet ( D-CO ) are each campaigning for the Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him removed from office .
`` When you look at the fact that these four candidates are spending hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to defeat Donald Trump and they take an oath to provide impartial justice , '' she said , `` I think that is a difficult standard for them to meet . ''
She noted that she thinks they should `` step aside '' from the trial . ''
`` They got sworn in yesterday to be a juror , to provide impartial justice and they 're going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , '' Blackburn continued .
But Blackburn has made little effort to present herself as impartial .
On Wednesday , she said , `` Democrats ' political ploy failed and proved that impeachment is a hoax . ''
The same day she asked , `` How can we trust anything in the House Democrats ' impeachment* report '' after House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff paraphrased a conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine during a hearing at the beginning of the impeachment investigation .
Even in the Fox Business interview on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no intention of considering the House of Representatives ' evidence that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress .
`` Tennesseans are ready to get this over with , '' she said .
`` They feel like that this has drug [ sic ] on for three years .
They 've been hearing this tell of 'we 're doing to impeach him ' and they 're saying 'we 're done with this story .
Let 's get on with the nation 's business . '
'' Published with permission of The American @ @ @

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has dismissed the impeachment of Donald Trump as a “hoax” and said her colleagues should not trust anything the House managers present in the impending trial. But on Friday, she accused four Democratic colleagues of not being “impartial” because they are seeking the presidency.
Blackburn, appearing on Fox Business Network, argued that Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) are each campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination and thus must want to see him removed from office.
“When you look at the fact that these four candidates are spending hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to defeat Donald Trump and they take an oath to provide impartial justice,” she said, “I think that is a difficult standard for them to meet.” She noted that she thinks they should “step aside” from the trial.”
“They got sworn in yesterday to be a juror, to provide impartial justice and they’re going to be campaigning against him this weekend in Iowa,” Blackburn continued.
On Thursday, @SenSanders, @SenWarren, @SenAmyKlobuchar, and @SenatorBennet swore to do impartial justice according to the Constitution.
This weekend, they are all campaigning to replace @realDonaldTrump. Doesn’t sound impartial to me. pic.twitter.com/FlmCE47CbJ — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) January 17, 2020
But Blackburn has made little effort to present herself as impartial. On Wednesday, she said, “Democrats’ political ploy failed and proved that impeachment is a hoax.”
The same day she asked, “How can we trust anything in the House Democrats’ impeachment* report” after House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff paraphrased a conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine during a hearing at the beginning of the impeachment investigation.
Even in the Fox Business interview on Friday, Blackburn made it clear she had no intention of considering the House of Representatives’ evidence that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress.
“Tennesseans are ready to get this over with,” she said. “They feel like that this has drug [sic] on for three years. They’ve been hearing this tell of ‘we’re doing to impeach him’ and they’re saying ‘we’re done with this story. Let’s get on with the nation’s business.'”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--Dark money ads show same phony constituent complaining about 11 different Democrats

A new ad being run by the pro-GOP dark-money American Action Network features a woman named `` Stacy , '' billed as mom , wife , and teacher who is disappointed that her congresswoman , Rep. Xochitl Torres Small ( D-NM ) , voted to impeach Donald Trump .
Virtually identical ads being run in at least 10 other congressional districts feature the exact same woman presented as a constituent of other House Democrats .
In each of the spots , `` Stacy '' implies that she is a disappointed citizen from that lawmaker 's House district .
`` Around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' she says , adding , `` I just wish that [ lawmaker 's name ] would let us decide the elections and get to work on the issues that matter . ''
The spots are part of the group 's $ 2.5 million ad campaign aimed at punishing Democratic lawmakers who represent districts that voted for Trump in 2016 and voted to impeach him last month .
The ads target Reps. Torres Small , Anthony Brindisi ( D-NY ) , Matt Cartwright ( D-PA ) , Abby Finkenauer ( D-IA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andy Kim ( D-NJ ) , Susie Lee ( D-NV ) , Elaine Luria ( D-VA ) , Ben McAdams ( D-UT ) , Max Rose ( D-NY ) , and Abigail Spanberger ( D-VA ) .
Each is alleged to have promised `` to be different '' and urged to `` get to work on the issues that matter . ''
An American Action Network spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry asking in which district , if any , `` Stacy '' resides .
The organization claims it will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airwaves in 30 districts with broadcast and cable television as well as digital and online media '' as part of its anti-impeachment efforts .
The tax-exempt group was founded in 2010 by former Sen .
Norm Coleman ( R-MN ) and the late Fred Malek , former President Richard Nixon 's so-called `` Jew counter . ''
It works to `` promote center-right policies based on the principles of freedom , limited government , American exceptionalism , and strong national security , '' mostly by running ads attacking Democratic candidates and praising Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for strict voter photo identification laws , falsely claiming widespread voter fraud must be stopped as people are voting in multiple states .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A new ad being run by the pro-GOP dark-money American Action Network features a woman named “Stacy,” billed as mom, wife, and teacher who is disappointed that her congresswoman, Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM), voted to impeach Donald Trump. Virtually identical ads being run in at least 10 other congressional districts feature the exact same woman presented as a constituent of other House Democrats.
In each of the spots, “Stacy” implies that she is a disappointed citizen from that lawmaker’s House district. “Around here, we focus on what matters,” she says, adding, “I just wish that [lawmaker’s name] would let us decide the elections and get to work on the issues that matter.”
The spots are part of the group’s $2.5 million ad campaign aimed at punishing Democratic lawmakers who represent districts that voted for Trump in 2016 and voted to impeach him last month.
The ads target Reps. Torres Small, Anthony Brindisi (D-NY), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Abby Finkenauer (D-IA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Susie Lee (D-NV), Elaine Luria (D-VA), Ben McAdams (D-UT), Max Rose (D-NY), and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Each is alleged to have promised “to be different” and urged to “get to work on the issues that matter.”
An American Action Network spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry asking in which district, if any, “Stacy” resides. The organization claims it will have spent $11 million “blanketing the airwaves in 30 districts with broadcast and cable television as well as digital and online media” as part of its anti-impeachment efforts.
The tax-exempt group was founded in 2010 by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and the late Fred Malek, former President Richard Nixon’s so-called “Jew counter.” It works to “promote center-right policies based on the principles of freedom, limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong national security,” mostly by running ads attacking Democratic candidates and praising Republicans.
Ironically, Republicans have pushed nationally for strict voter photo identification laws, falsely claiming widespread voter fraud must be stopped as people are voting in multiple states.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--Missouri court permanently blocks key part of voter suppression law

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday permanently blocked a central portion of a 2016 voter identification law that it said had required a `` misleading '' and `` contradictory '' sworn statement from people lacking a photo ID .
The 5-2 ruling upholds a decision by a lower court judge , who had blocked the affidavit requirement from being used in the 2018 general election .
It had remained on hold since then .
Missouri is one of several states where Republican-led legislatures have passed voter photo ID laws touted as a means of preventing election fraud .
In Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accompanied by a constitutional amendment , approved by 63 % of voters in November 2016 , that authorized the implementation of a photo ID law .
Voter photo ID laws have been opposed by Democrats , who contend they can disenfranchise poor , elderly , disabled , and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs .
Missouri 's law allowed voters lacking a valid government-issued photo identification to cast a regular ballot if they presented another form of ID — such as utility bill , bank statement or paycheck containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sworn statement affirming their identity .
The sworn statement also included a section acknowledging that they did n't have `` a form of personal identification approved for voting '' but were aware they could get a free ID card from the state .
The law said voters lacking a photo ID also could cast a provisional ballot , which would count if they later returned with a photo ID or their signatures matched the ones on file with election authorities .
The Supreme Court said the sworn statement was inaccurate because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possess a valid form of identification for voting while simultaneously requiring them to show a non-photo identification that would allow them to vote .
`` Although the State has an interest in combating voter fraud , requiring individuals ... to sign a contradictory , misleading affidavit is not a reasonable means to accomplish that goal , '' Judge Mary Russell wrote in the majority opinion .
The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court 's decision to block the secretary of state 's office from disseminating any materials indicating that a photo ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State Jay Ashcroft 's office said in a statement Tuesday that the court ruling `` eviscerated the state 's voter ID law . ''
`` The people of Missouri made it clear in November of 2016 that it is reasonable to require a photo ID to vote , '' Ashcroft said .
Priorities USA , a Washington-based liberal advocacy group , challenged the law on behalf of some Missouri voters .
`` Missouri ’ s voter ID restrictions are an example of the countless laws that lead to unnecessary and burdensome barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Priorities USA Chairman Guy Cecil said in a statement Tuesday .
In a dissenting opinion , Judge Brent Powell wrote that instead of striking down the entire affidavit requirement , the court could have struck only the contradictory wording while leaving in place a requirement that voters without a valid photo ID swear to their identity and acknowledge their eligibility for a free photo ID .
Alternatively , Powell said the court could have struck any option to cast a regular ballot by showing a non-photo ID and instead left the only recourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority opinion `` eliminates the intended distinction between voter identification options , '' Powell wrote in a dissent that was joined by Judge Zel Fischer , `` and prevents the legislation from having any effect on voting identification procedures . ''

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday permanently blocked a central portion of a 2016 voter identification law that it said had required a “misleading” and “contradictory” sworn statement from people lacking a photo ID.
The 5-2 ruling upholds a decision by a lower court judge, who had blocked the affidavit requirement from being used in the 2018 general election. It had remained on hold since then.
Missouri is one of several states where Republican-led legislatures have passed voter photo ID laws touted as a means of preventing election fraud. In Missouri’s case, the state law was accompanied by a constitutional amendment, approved by 63% of voters in November 2016, that authorized the implementation of a photo ID law.
Voter photo ID laws have been opposed by Democrats, who contend they can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.
Missouri’s law allowed voters lacking a valid government-issued photo identification to cast a regular ballot if they presented another form of ID — such as utility bill, bank statement or paycheck containing their name and address — and signed a sworn statement affirming their identity. The sworn statement also included a section acknowledging that they didn’t have “a form of personal identification approved for voting” but were aware they could get a free ID card from the state.
The law said voters lacking a photo ID also could cast a provisional ballot, which would count if they later returned with a photo ID or their signatures matched the ones on file with election authorities.
The Supreme Court said the sworn statement was inaccurate because it required people to say they didn’t possess a valid form of identification for voting while simultaneously requiring them to show a non-photo identification that would allow them to vote.
“Although the State has an interest in combating voter fraud, requiring individuals … to sign a contradictory, misleading affidavit is not a reasonable means to accomplish that goal,” Judge Mary Russell wrote in the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court’s decision to block the secretary of state’s office from disseminating any materials indicating that a photo ID is required to vote.
Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office said in a statement Tuesday that the court ruling “eviscerated the state’s voter ID law.”
“The people of Missouri made it clear in November of 2016 that it is reasonable to require a photo ID to vote,” Ashcroft said.
Priorities USA, a Washington-based liberal advocacy group, challenged the law on behalf of some Missouri voters.
“Missouri’s voter ID restrictions are an example of the countless laws that lead to unnecessary and burdensome barriers to voting across the country,” Priorities USA Chairman Guy Cecil said in a statement Tuesday.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Brent Powell wrote that instead of striking down the entire affidavit requirement, the court could have struck only the contradictory wording while leaving in place a requirement that voters without a valid photo ID swear to their identity and acknowledge their eligibility for a free photo ID.
Alternatively, Powell said the court could have struck any option to cast a regular ballot by showing a non-photo ID and instead left the only recourse as casting a provisional ballot.
The majority opinion “eliminates the intended distinction between voter identification options,” Powell wrote in a dissent that was joined by Judge Zel Fischer, “and prevents the legislation from having any effect on voting identification procedures.”


shareblue--2020-01-17--Virginia AG urges justices to prevent tragic rally violence

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring urged the state Supreme Court on Friday to reject an effort by pro-gun groups to overturn a gun ban at a rally that 's expected to draw tens of thousands of activists to Richmond next week , amid fears of violence .
The legal arguments have unfolded as the FBI helped police arrest six men linked to a violent white supremacist group known as The Base .
At least three of them were believed to be planning to attend the rally in Richmond , according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an active investigation .
Herring argued that an executive order by Gov .
Ralph Northam banning guns from the state Capitol grounds for Monday 's rally is necessary to prevent the kind of violence seen during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 .
One woman was killed and more than 30 other people were hurt when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters .
`` Determined to prevent another tragedy , the Governor issued a carefully limited Executive Order .
The Order does not prevent anyone from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Instead , it temporarily precludes private possession of firearms in a sensitive public place during a specified time to protect public safety and safeguard the rights of all citizens to peacefully speak , assemble , and petition their government , '' the legal brief says .
Herring also argued that the gun rights groups are asking the Supreme Court to `` simply disregard the judgment of the Governor and the advice of seasoned law-enforcement officials . ''
Northam said they found credible threats that the rally could include `` armed militia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban does not violate the rallygoers ' Second Amendment rights , and any restriction is justified by the interests in protecting public safety and safeguarding everyone 's constitutional rights , he argued .
It was not immediately clear when the Supreme Court would rule .
The Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America filed an emergency appeal after Judge Joi Taylor ruled Thursday that the governor has the authority under state law to take action related to `` the safety and welfare '' of the state .
`` Without relief from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other rally participants will be irreparably denied their right to bear arms , '' the groups ' attorneys argued .
In her written decision , Taylor cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that found the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited .
Because of that , she wrote , the gun-rights groups would not `` suffer an irreparable harm '' sufficient to justify the injunction .
The three men arrested in Maryland and Delaware were believed to be planning to attend the rally in Richmond , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss an active investigation .
One of the men had discussed traveling to Ukraine to fight alongside `` nationalists '' and compared the white supremacist group to al-Qaida , a prosecutor said during the defendants ' initial court hearing .
A criminal complaint charges former Canadian Armed Forces reservist Patrik Jordan Mathews , 27 , and Brian Mark Lemley Jr. , 33 , of Elkton , Maryland , with transporting a firearm and ammunition with intent to commit a felony .
William Garfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Maryland , is charged with `` transporting and harboring aliens . ''
FBI spokesman Kevin Rowson said Friday that agents also assisted in the arrests of three Georgia men linked to The Base , on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and participating in a criminal street gang .
Details of their cases have been sealed by a judge , Floyd County police Sgt .
Chris Fincher told the AP on Friday .
Fincher identified them as Luke Austin Lane of Floyd County , Michael Helterbrand of Dalton , and Jacob Kaderli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Toby Heytens , argued at Thursday 's hearing that the governor was well within his authority to declare the state of emergency and ban weapons after law enforcement identified `` credible evidence '' that armed out-of-state groups planned to come to Virginia with the possible intention of participating in a `` violent insurrection . ''
David Browne , an attorney for the gun-rights groups , argued that prohibiting rallygoers from carrying guns would violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms and their First Amendment right to free speech .
Browne said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech .
Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League — the gun-rights group sponsoring Monday 's rally — called the judge 's ruling `` mind-boggling . ''
`` I took this action to protect Virginians from credible threats of violence , '' he said .
`` These threats are real — as evidenced by reports of neo-Nazis arrested this morning after discussing plans to head to Richmond with firearms . ''
A package of gun-control bills has been moving meanwhile through the legislature , which is now in Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once a month , requiring universal background checks on gun purchases , and allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings , parks , and other areas passed the Senate along partisan lines and will now go to the House for consideration .

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring urged the state Supreme Court on Friday to reject an effort by pro-gun groups to overturn a gun ban at a rally that’s expected to draw tens of thousands of activists to Richmond next week, amid fears of violence.
The legal arguments have unfolded as the FBI helped police arrest six men linked to a violent white supremacist group known as The Base. At least three of them were believed to be planning to attend the rally in Richmond, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss an active investigation.
Herring argued that an executive order by Gov. Ralph Northam banning guns from the state Capitol grounds for Monday’s rally is necessary to prevent the kind of violence seen during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017. One woman was killed and more than 30 other people were hurt when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters.
“Determined to prevent another tragedy, the Governor issued a carefully limited Executive Order. The Order does not prevent anyone from speaking, assembling, or petitioning the government. Instead, it temporarily precludes private possession of firearms in a sensitive public place during a specified time to protect public safety and safeguard the rights of all citizens to peacefully speak, assemble, and petition their government,” the legal brief says.
Herring also argued that the gun rights groups are asking the Supreme Court to “simply disregard the judgment of the Governor and the advice of seasoned law-enforcement officials.” Northam said they found credible threats that the rally could include “armed militia groups storming our Capitol.”
The ban does not violate the rallygoers’ Second Amendment rights, and any restriction is justified by the interests in protecting public safety and safeguarding everyone’s constitutional rights, he argued.
It was not immediately clear when the Supreme Court would rule.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America filed an emergency appeal after Judge Joi Taylor ruled Thursday that the governor has the authority under state law to take action related to “the safety and welfare” of the state.
“Without relief from this court, petitioners and thousands of other rally participants will be irreparably denied their right to bear arms,” the groups’ attorneys argued.
In her written decision, Taylor cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that found the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited. Because of that, she wrote, the gun-rights groups would not “suffer an irreparable harm” sufficient to justify the injunction.
The three men arrested in Maryland and Delaware were believed to be planning to attend the rally in Richmond, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss an active investigation.
One of the men had discussed traveling to Ukraine to fight alongside “nationalists” and compared the white supremacist group to al-Qaida, a prosecutor said during the defendants’ initial court hearing.
A criminal complaint charges former Canadian Armed Forces reservist Patrik Jordan Mathews, 27, and Brian Mark Lemley Jr., 33, of Elkton, Maryland, with transporting a firearm and ammunition with intent to commit a felony. William Garfield Bilbrough IV, 19, of Denton, Maryland, is charged with “transporting and harboring aliens.”
FBI spokesman Kevin Rowson said Friday that agents also assisted in the arrests of three Georgia men linked to The Base, on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and participating in a criminal street gang. Details of their cases have been sealed by a judge, Floyd County police Sgt. Chris Fincher told the AP on Friday. Fincher identified them as Luke Austin Lane of Floyd County, Michael Helterbrand of Dalton, and Jacob Kaderli of Dacula.
Virginia’s solicitor general, Toby Heytens, argued at Thursday’s hearing that the governor was well within his authority to declare the state of emergency and ban weapons after law enforcement identified “credible evidence” that armed out-of-state groups planned to come to Virginia with the possible intention of participating in a “violent insurrection.”
David Browne, an attorney for the gun-rights groups, argued that prohibiting rallygoers from carrying guns would violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms and their First Amendment right to free speech. Browne said carrying guns is a form of symbolic speech.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League — the gun-rights group sponsoring Monday’s rally — called the judge’s ruling “mind-boggling.”
Northam applauded the judge’s ruling.
“I took this action to protect Virginians from credible threats of violence,” he said. “These threats are real — as evidenced by reports of neo-Nazis arrested this morning after discussing plans to head to Richmond with firearms.”
A package of gun-control bills has been moving meanwhile through the legislature, which is now in Democratic control. Legislation limiting handgun purchases to once a month, requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, and allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks, and other areas passed the Senate along partisan lines and will now go to the House for consideration.


shareblue--2020-01-17--Over 80% of black Americans say Trump has made racism worse

Donald Trump is racist and has made racism in the United States worse , according to the overwhelming majority of African Americans in a Washington Post poll released on Friday .
When asked directly whether Trump is a racist , 83 % of black Americans said yes , with just 13 % saying no .
Another 4 % had no opinion .
Asked if Trump had made racism a bigger or smaller problem in the United States since taking office , 83 % said Trump had made it a bigger problem , 2 % said he 'd made it smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made no difference or did n't share an opinion .
The poll comes just ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day , which celebrates the life and accomplishments of the iconic Civil Rights hero .
Since the beginning of his tenure , Trump has struggled to gain the approval of the black community .
His decision to hire a white supremacist as a top White House adviser and his referral to neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville as `` very fine people '' did nothing to help his cause .
Trump has `` taken hatred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the closet to the front porch , '' one respondent told pollsters this week .
Another respondent said Trump had `` created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years . ''
In 2018 , Trump referred to Haiti , El Salvador , and several African nations as `` shithole countries , '' saying the United States should instead `` bring more [ immigrants ] from countries such as Norway , '' according to the Washington Post .
In 2019 he repeatedly attacked black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-MN ) , who was born in Somalia and who Trump suggested should `` go back '' to her home country , a common racist trope .
In rallies and statements , Trump often points to historically low African American unemployment as a key reason black voters should support him .
`` The African American people have been calling the White House , '' Trump said in July 2019 .
`` They have never been so happy at what a president has done .
Not only the lowest unemployment in history for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for really the biggest beneficiary , the inner cities , and not only criminal justice reform , but they 're so happy that I pointed out the corrupt politics of Baltimore .
It 's filthy dirty , it 's so horrible , they are happy as hell . ''
Trump was referring to his racist attacks on the late Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings , whose home district Trump claimed was a `` disgusting , rat and rodent-infested mess . ''
According to this week 's Post poll , only 1 in 5 respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number , while 77 % say he deserves less credit .
`` I do n't think [ Trump ] has anything to do with unemployment among African Americans , '' Ethel Smith , a 72-year-old nanny from Georgia , told the Post .
`` I 've always been a working poor person .
That 's just who I am . ''
The lack of Trump support from black Americans has is echoed in previous polling .
In a September CNN poll , just 3 % of African American women approved of Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed Trump 's approval rating among African Americans at just 13 % .
The Post poll also looked at potential 2020 matchups , showing African Americans overwhelmingly supporting any potential Democratic nominee over Trump .
Former Vice President Joe Biden came out on top , defeating Trump by a 82 % to 4 % margin among African American voters if the election were held today .
Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) came in second and third , respectively , followed by South Bend Mayor Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump never received more than 4 % support .
When asked about President Obama , 73 % of Post poll respondents said he was good for African Americans , with only 5 % saying he was bad .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump is racist and has made racism in the United States worse, according to the overwhelming majority of African Americans in a Washington Post poll released on Friday.
When asked directly whether Trump is a racist, 83% of black Americans said yes, with just 13% saying no. Another 4% had no opinion.
Asked if Trump had made racism a bigger or smaller problem in the United States since taking office, 83% said Trump had made it a bigger problem, 2% said he’d made it smaller, and 15% said Trump had made no difference or didn’t share an opinion.
The poll comes just ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which celebrates the life and accomplishments of the iconic Civil Rights hero.
Since the beginning of his tenure, Trump has struggled to gain the approval of the black community. His decision to hire a white supremacist as a top White House adviser and his referral to neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville as “very fine people” did nothing to help his cause.
Trump has “taken hatred against people of color, in general, from the closet to the front porch,” one respondent told pollsters this week. Another respondent said Trump had “created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years.”
In 2018, Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and several African nations as “shithole countries,” saying the United States should instead “bring more [immigrants] from countries such as Norway,” according to the Washington Post. In 2019 he repeatedly attacked black Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who was born in Somalia and who Trump suggested should “go back” to her home country, a common racist trope.
In rallies and statements, Trump often points to historically low African American unemployment as a key reason black voters should support him.
“The African American people have been calling the White House,” Trump said in July 2019. “They have never been so happy at what a president has done. Not only the lowest unemployment in history for African Americans, not only opportunity zones for really the biggest beneficiary, the inner cities, and not only criminal justice reform, but they’re so happy that I pointed out the corrupt politics of Baltimore. It’s filthy dirty, it’s so horrible, they are happy as hell.”
Trump was referring to his racist attacks on the late Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, whose home district Trump claimed was a “disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess.”
According to this week’s Post poll, only 1 in 5 respondents believe Trump deserves credit for the unemployment number, while 77% say he deserves less credit.
“I don’t think [Trump] has anything to do with unemployment among African Americans,” Ethel Smith, a 72-year-old nanny from Georgia, told the Post. “I’ve always been a working poor person. That’s just who I am.”
The lack of Trump support from black Americans has is echoed in previous polling. In a September CNN poll, just 3% of African American women approved of Trump’s job performance. A July Hill-Harris poll showed Trump’s approval rating among African Americans at just 13%.
The Post poll also looked at potential 2020 matchups, showing African Americans overwhelmingly supporting any potential Democratic nominee over Trump.
Former Vice President Joe Biden came out on top, defeating Trump by a 82% to 4% margin among African American voters if the election were held today. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) came in second and third, respectively, followed by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
In each of those matchups, Trump never received more than 4% support.
When asked about President Obama, 73% of Post poll respondents said he was good for African Americans, with only 5% saying he was bad.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--GOP lawmaker wants to make it illegal for drag queens to read to kids at libraries

Missouri state Rep. Ben Baker , a Republican serving his first term in the legislature , has filed a bill aimed at prohibiting local libraries from hosting drag queen story hours for kids .
Although the wording of his `` Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act '' focuses mostly on `` age-inappropriate sexual materials '' does not spell out his actual objection , Baker told the Kansas City Star this week that he drafted the bill in response to the drag queen reading events at libraries .
If enacted , it would block state aid to any library that did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — St. Louis , Kansas City and I think St. [ Joseph ] — they 've had these drag queen story hours and that ’ s something that I take objection to and I think a lot of parents do , '' he told the paper .
`` That 's where in a public space , our kids could be exposed to something that 's age-inappropriate .
That 's what I 'm trying to tackle . ''
Baker did not respond to an inquiry about whether he knew of any studies showing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whether any kids had taken objection .
In 2015 , a group of drag queens in San Francisco began reading books to children in libraries .
Their aim was to inspire kids to read and provide `` glamorous , positive , and unabashedly queer role models . ''
The idea spread nationally and today children can attend these events in libraries , schools , museums and cultural centers in at least 30 cities .
Baker ran for office claiming to be a vigilant defender of personal liberties and a strong supporter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting government , it is important to move decisions and control back to the local level whenever possible , '' he said on his campaign issues page .
The bill comes as Republican-controlled legislatures are beginning 2020 with a rash of anti-LGBTQ legislation on their dockets .
Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill this week to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ people .
Florida legislators filed four anti-LGBTQ bills this week , including one that would eliminate local laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers are seeking to bar transgender kids from getting gender-transition health care .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Missouri state Rep. Ben Baker, a Republican serving his first term in the legislature, has filed a bill aimed at prohibiting local libraries from hosting drag queen story hours for kids.
Although the wording of his “Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act” focuses mostly on “age-inappropriate sexual materials” does not spell out his actual objection, Baker told the Kansas City Star this week that he drafted the bill in response to the drag queen reading events at libraries. If enacted, it would block state aid to any library that did not comply.
“In some places — St. Louis, Kansas City and I think St. [Joseph] — they’ve had these drag queen story hours and that’s something that I take objection to and I think a lot of parents do,” he told the paper. “That’s where in a public space, our kids could be exposed to something that’s age-inappropriate. That’s what I’m trying to tackle.”
Baker did not respond to an inquiry about whether he knew of any studies showing that drag queen story hours are be harmful and whether any kids had taken objection.
In 2015, a group of drag queens in San Francisco began reading books to children in libraries. Their aim was to inspire kids to read and provide “glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.” The idea spread nationally and today children can attend these events in libraries, schools, museums and cultural centers in at least 30 cities.
Baker ran for office claiming to be a vigilant defender of personal liberties and a strong supporter of limited government. “In addition to limiting government, it is important to move decisions and control back to the local level whenever possible,” he said on his campaign issues page.
The bill comes as Republican-controlled legislatures are beginning 2020 with a rash of anti-LGBTQ legislation on their dockets. Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill this week to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Florida legislators filed four anti-LGBTQ bills this week, including one that would eliminate local laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And in South Dakota and elsewhere, lawmakers are seeking to bar transgender kids from getting gender-transition health care.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-17--Sen. Martha McSally turns her meltdown at a reporter into fundraising stunt

Hours after Arizona Republican Sen. Martha McSally berated a CNN reporter on live TV , her campaign was already attempting to raise money off of the exchange .
For $ 35 , McSally supporters can now buy tee shirts emblazoned with her comment .
McSally , who lost her 2018 Senate race to Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema , but was later appointed to fill the late Sen. John McCain 's ( R-AZ ) vacant seat by Republican Gov .
Doug Ducey , was asked by CNN 's Manu Raju on Thursday if the Senate should consider new evidence in Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're a liberal hack , '' she responded .
`` I ’ m not talking to you .
You ’ re a liberal hack . ''
McSally 's team was there to record the moment and , 30 minutes after Raju tweeted her quote , McSally responded by doubling down on her smear and posting her staff 's footage .
By Thursday afternoon , McSally 's campaign had obtained the domain LiberalHack.com , which now forwards to a fundraising page .
Hours later , it announced the fundraiser in a tweet .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read , linking to the website .
`` I ’ m in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans , not play politics and games with the liberal hacks of the left-wing media ! ''
The site states that McSally is `` in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans not to play games with the left-wing media .
Contribute $ 35 or more to help her fight back against liberal hacks and get this shirt . ''
The white tee shirt pictured contains the words , `` You 're a liberal hack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is running to keep her seat in 2020 , has struggled to keep fundraising pace with Democratic challenger and retired astronaut Mark Kelly .
Earlier this week , Kelly announced that he had raised $ 6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2019 and had $ 13.6 million in the bank .
McSally said she raised just $ 4 million in the same period and had $ 6 million less cash-on-hand .
Much of the money she raised came from employees of a company she attacked as `` slumlords . ''
Earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have `` the resources to fight '' for her seat and asked that `` conservative outside groups '' spend money on her behalf to `` start muddying up the landscape a little bit . ''
She has also refused to say she would n't accept foreign support .
Last October , she ran Facebook ads touting the fact that Kelly has massively outraised her and asking supporters to chip in a $ 5 donation .
McSally went on Fox News on Thursday night to brag about her comments to Raju .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chase Republicans and ask trapping questions , '' she said .
`` I 'm a fighter pilot , I call it like it is . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Hours after Arizona Republican Sen. Martha McSally berated a CNN reporter on live TV, her campaign was already attempting to raise money off of the exchange.
For $35, McSally supporters can now buy tee shirts emblazoned with her comment.
McSally, who lost her 2018 Senate race to Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, but was later appointed to fill the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) vacant seat by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, was asked by CNN’s Manu Raju on Thursday if the Senate should consider new evidence in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
“You’re a liberal hack,” she responded. “I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.”
McSally’s team was there to record the moment and, 30 minutes after Raju tweeted her quote, McSally responded by doubling down on her smear and posting her staff’s footage.
By Thursday afternoon, McSally’s campaign had obtained the domain LiberalHack.com, which now forwards to a fundraising page. Hours later, it announced the fundraiser in a tweet.
“NEW SHIRT!!” the tweet read, linking to the website. “I’m in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans, not play politics and games with the liberal hacks of the left-wing media!”
The site states that McSally is “in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans not to play games with the left-wing media. Contribute $35 or more to help her fight back against liberal hacks and get this shirt.”
The white tee shirt pictured contains the words, “You’re a liberal hack, buddy.”
[media-credit name=”McSally for Senate screenshot” align=”aligncenter” width=”291″] [/media-credit]
McSally, who is running to keep her seat in 2020, has struggled to keep fundraising pace with Democratic challenger and retired astronaut Mark Kelly. Earlier this week, Kelly announced that he had raised $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2019 and had $13.6 million in the bank.
McSally said she raised just $4 million in the same period and had $6 million less cash-on-hand. Much of the money she raised came from employees of a company she attacked as “slumlords.”
Earlier this month, McSally complained that she does not have “the resources to fight” for her seat and asked that “conservative outside groups” spend money on her behalf to “start muddying up the landscape a little bit.” She has also refused to say she wouldn’t accept foreign support.
Last October, she ran Facebook ads touting the fact that Kelly has massively outraised her and asking supporters to chip in a $5 donation.
McSally went on Fox News on Thursday night to brag about her comments to Raju. “[Reporters] run around trying to chase Republicans and ask trapping questions,” she said. “I’m a fighter pilot, I call it like it is.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.