shareblue--2020-01-30--Justice Gorsuch wants to strip power from lower courts to help Trump

On Monday , the conservative majority of the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling the Trump administration had requested in an emergency capacity , something it has done over 20 times already .
The Court rejected a lower court 's decision to block the administration 's `` public charge '' rule , meaning the administration is free to deny green cards to migrants who use might use public benefits , such as Medicaid .
The fact that yet another one of Trump 's xenophobic policies is now in effect is bad enough , but there 's more to the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — meaning the court just issued an order without saying who wrote it or explaining their reasoning — Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a concurrence , or agreement with the decision , joined by Justice Clarence Thomas , that expresses some very dangerous ideas about the role of lower federal courts .
In the concurrence , Gorsuch does n't have much to say about the actual public charge rule .
Instead , he uses it to complain about what he sees as the real problem : `` [ T ] he increasingly common practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cases before them . ''
What Gorsuch and Thomas are mad about are nationwide injunctions — where a lower court stops a federal law from going into effect across the entire country while litigation proceeds .
A nationwide injunction typically occurs when a plaintiff , the person bringing the case to court , sues to block the law before it starts .
Though a concurrence does n't have the force of law , Gorsuch is laying down a marker : He wants the Supreme Court to start restricting the ability of lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even for the time it takes to litigate the issue .
That way , the administration can continue to foist laws on the American people even while lower courts are still determining whether those rules are unconstitutional .
Gorsuch makes clear that the conservative-controlled court is interested in finding a way to stop national injunctions from happening .
That may very well be because many of Trump ’ s proposed laws and rules , such as the transgender military ban and the travel ban , faced nationwide injunctions .
Lower courts do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fun of it , or to overreach .
Rather , courts issue them when a case is a matter of national concern and having differing laws across the country will create a problem .
The trouble comes when you have federal laws that are meant to affect a large group of people , particularly when those federal laws take away a right or privilege .
That was the case with the travel ban and the transgender military ban .
Gorsuch laments in the concurrence that there were too many different rulings from lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the public charge law in a number of different locations .
He notes there were some rulings for the government , some against , and then there was a nationwide injunction against the rule issued in federal district court in New York .
In protesting this nationwide injunction , however , Gorsuch undercuts his own argument .
Had a nationwide injunction preventing the rule from taking effect been issued earlier , it would have avoided the patchwork of earlier rulings of which Gorsuch complains .
Take the military trans ban , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nothing , Trump tweeted out a policy barring transgender individuals from serving in the military .
A massive amount of litigation ensued , with several lower courts , including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California , issuing injunctions barring the transgender ban from taking effect .
In this instance , a nationwide injunction , requested by the transgender plaintiffs who were either current members of the military or wished to join the military , was absolutely critical .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgender people in Washington D.C. and California to enlist in the military while barring people from other states , for example , particularly as litigation was still continuing .
Imagine a situation where a transgender soldier was denied the right to enlist when they lived in Arizona , but upon moving to California was allowed to enlist .
Transgender people would be allowed to serve depending on what court 's ruling affected their state , even though laws and rules related to the military are federal in nature .
It also would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the ostensible reason for it was that the military as a whole would be compromised by the presence of transgender troops .
A nationwide injunction made sure this complicated situation did n't arise , simply leaving in place the pre-Trump status quo in which the military was preparing to allow open enlistment for transgender troop members .
The same is true of the public charge rule .
Without a nationwide injunction , a situation could arise where an immigrant who decided to enter the United States in California , where the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country there and be eligible for federal benefits like Medicaid .
But an immigrant who entered in Texas , where no injunction was sought , would be blocked from those same benefits .
In other words , people who were otherwise situated the same under the law — immigrants who may need federal benefits — would have been treated differently based on where they entered the country .
Gorsuch , however , writes that nationwide injunctions are `` patently unworkable '' because they `` [ sow ] chaos for litigants '' when both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preliminary injunction hearing to another . ''
His concern appears to be that both sides ca n't fully develop their arguments .
That argument might hold a little more weight if Gorsuch , along with the rest of the conservative wing of the Court , were n't so very eager to rush things along just so Trump gets his way .
The Trump administration and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court are mostly concerned with letting the administration do whatever it wants .
That 's why they have granted the administration what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` extraordinary '' relief a shocking number of times .
As University of Texas School of Law Professor Steven Vladeck has written , Trump 's repeated demands for extraordinary or emergency relief far outstrip his predecessors .
In 2018 alone , the Trump administration went to the Court and demanded extraordinary relief in cases related to the census , environmental rules , Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) , and the transgender military ban .
When George W. Bush was in office , his Justice Department of Justice did it only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , the DOJ did it only three times .
But the current administration has already requested stays on 20 occasions in the first three years of Trump 's term , and the public charge ruling marks the 10th time in three years the court has granted this administration extraordinary relief and stopped a lower court 's decision from taking effect .
This is supposed to be rare , but , as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted when she dissented from a stay of one of Trump 's asylum rules in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if the mechanism is a new normal .
Historically , the Government has made this kind of request rarely ; now it does so reflexively . ''
And why would n't it do so ?
It keeps winning .
The government has been granted extraordinary relief in the transgender military ban , the travel ban , and the rule requiring asylum-seekers to first apply for asylum in Mexico — and now , of course , the public charge rule .
And all these were instances where the administration wanted to take rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fully grapple with the issue .
The goals of the administration — counting fewer people in the Census , blocking more people from coming to the United States , stopping willing people from serving in the military , and harming the environment — fly in the face of existing laws and seek only to harm people .
That 's why lower courts keep stopping them from taking effect — to keep those who would be most harmed safe while the litigation proceeds .
But even that is too much for the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , they want to do it now , and they 've got a Court that is happy to help .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On Monday, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling the Trump administration had requested in an emergency capacity, something it has done over 20 times already. The Court rejected a lower court’s decision to block the administration’s “public charge” rule, meaning the administration is free to deny green cards to migrants who use might use public benefits, such as Medicaid.
The fact that yet another one of Trump’s xenophobic policies is now in effect is bad enough, but there’s more to the story. While the decision itself is unsigned — meaning the court just issued an order without saying who wrote it or explaining their reasoning — Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a concurrence, or agreement with the decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that expresses some very dangerous ideas about the role of lower federal courts.
In the concurrence, Gorsuch doesn’t have much to say about the actual public charge rule. Instead, he uses it to complain about what he sees as the real problem: “[T]he increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.”
What Gorsuch and Thomas are mad about are nationwide injunctions — where a lower court stops a federal law from going into effect across the entire country while litigation proceeds. A nationwide injunction typically occurs when a plaintiff, the person bringing the case to court, sues to block the law before it starts.
Though a concurrence doesn’t have the force of law, Gorsuch is laying down a marker: He wants the Supreme Court to start restricting the ability of lower courts to block Trump’s harmful agenda, even for the time it takes to litigate the issue. That way, the administration can continue to foist laws on the American people even while lower courts are still determining whether those rules are unconstitutional.
Gorsuch makes clear that the conservative-controlled court is interested in finding a way to stop national injunctions from happening. That may very well be because many of Trump’s proposed laws and rules, such as the transgender military ban and the travel ban, faced nationwide injunctions.
Lower courts don’t issue nationwide injunctions just for the fun of it, or to overreach. Rather, courts issue them when a case is a matter of national concern and having differing laws across the country will create a problem.
The trouble comes when you have federal laws that are meant to affect a large group of people, particularly when those federal laws take away a right or privilege.
That was the case with the travel ban and the transgender military ban.
Gorsuch laments in the concurrence that there were too many different rulings from lower courts, as plaintiffs sued the government over the public charge law in a number of different locations. He notes there were some rulings for the government, some against, and then there was a nationwide injunction against the rule issued in federal district court in New York.
In protesting this nationwide injunction, however, Gorsuch undercuts his own argument. Had a nationwide injunction preventing the rule from taking effect been issued earlier, it would have avoided the patchwork of earlier rulings of which Gorsuch complains.
Take the military trans ban, for example. In July 2017, apropos of nothing, Trump tweeted out a policy barring transgender individuals from serving in the military. A massive amount of litigation ensued, with several lower courts, including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, issuing injunctions barring the transgender ban from taking effect.
In this instance, a nationwide injunction, requested by the transgender plaintiffs who were either current members of the military or wished to join the military, was absolutely critical. It would have been unworkable to allow transgender people in Washington D.C. and California to enlist in the military while barring people from other states, for example, particularly as litigation was still continuing.
Imagine a situation where a transgender soldier was denied the right to enlist when they lived in Arizona, but upon moving to California was allowed to enlist. Transgender people would be allowed to serve depending on what court’s ruling affected their state, even though laws and rules related to the military are federal in nature.
It also would have defeated the purpose of the ban, as the ostensible reason for it was that the military as a whole would be compromised by the presence of transgender troops.
A nationwide injunction made sure this complicated situation didn’t arise, simply leaving in place the pre-Trump status quo in which the military was preparing to allow open enlistment for transgender troop members.
The same is true of the public charge rule. Without a nationwide injunction, a situation could arise where an immigrant who decided to enter the United States in California, where the rule was initially blocked, could enter the country there and be eligible for federal benefits like Medicaid. But an immigrant who entered in Texas, where no injunction was sought, would be blocked from those same benefits. In other words, people who were otherwise situated the same under the law — immigrants who may need federal benefits — would have been treated differently based on where they entered the country.
Gorsuch, however, writes that nationwide injunctions are “patently unworkable” because they “[sow] chaos for litigants” when both sides have to “rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another.” His concern appears to be that both sides can’t fully develop their arguments.
That argument might hold a little more weight if Gorsuch, along with the rest of the conservative wing of the Court, weren’t so very eager to rush things along just so Trump gets his way.
The Trump administration and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court are mostly concerned with letting the administration do whatever it wants. That’s why they have granted the administration what is known as “emergency” or “extraordinary” relief a shocking number of times.
As University of Texas School of Law Professor Steven Vladeck has written, Trump’s repeated demands for extraordinary or emergency relief far outstrip his predecessors. In 2018 alone, the Trump administration went to the Court and demanded extraordinary relief in cases related to the census, environmental rules, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and the transgender military ban.
When George W. Bush was in office, his Department of Justice did it only five times in eight years. Under Obama, the DOJ did it only three times. But the current administration has already requested stays on 20 occasions in the first three years of Trump’s term, and the public charge ruling marks the 10th time in three years the court has granted this administration extraordinary relief and stopped a lower court’s decision from taking effect.
This is supposed to be rare, but, as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted when she dissented from a stay of one of Trump’s asylum rules in 2019, “[I]t appears as if the mechanism is a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively.”
And why wouldn’t it do so? It keeps winning. The government has been granted extraordinary relief in the transgender military ban, the travel ban, and the rule requiring asylum-seekers to first apply for asylum in Mexico — and now, of course, the public charge rule. And all these were instances where the administration wanted to take rights away even before the courts have gotten to fully grapple with the issue.
The goals of the administration — counting fewer people in the Census, blocking more people from coming to the United States, stopping willing people from serving in the military, and harming the environment — fly in the face of existing laws and seek only to harm people. That’s why lower courts keep stopping them from taking effect — to keep those who would be most harmed safe while the litigation proceeds.
But even that is too much for the Trump administration. They want to take away rights, they want to do it now, and they’ve got a Court that is happy to help.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Vulnerable GOP senators quietly abandon attacks on Obamacare

In 2014 , Republican David Perdue ran for an open Senate seat in Georgia promising to `` Repeal ObamaCare '' and `` replace it with more affordable free market solutions . ''
Six years later , his campaign reelection site has removed all traces of that promise and says only that lawmakers must `` finally get after the real drivers of spiraling health care costs . ''
Perdue is not alone .
A comparison of 2014 and 2020 campaign sites for Republicans in competitive Senate races finds that seven have made their original 2014 anti-Obamacare language disappear .
As public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans have gone from making their opposition to Obamacare a major campaign thrust to being virtually silent on the issue .
Public opinion on health care policy could be one reason .
On Thursday , a Kaiser Family Foundation poll revealed that 53 % of Americans now support the the Affordable Care Act , commonly known as Obamacare , and just 37 % oppose it .
This is a significant increase since November 2014 , when Kaiser found 37 % support for the law , compared to 46 % opposition .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue in the years since .
Like Perdue , Sens .
Cory Gardner ( R-CO ) , Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) , Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) , Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , and Shelley Moore Capito ( R-WV ) each highlighted their desire to get rid of the Affordable Care Act on their 2014 websites .
`` Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law , '' Ernst said back then , noting that she backed immediate repeal and replacement with unspecified `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients first , and health care decisions back in the hands of each of us rather than Washington bureaucrats . ''
Her website today promises merely to identify `` solutions for affordable , quality health care for Iowans . ''
Graham bragged in 2014 that he had opposed Obamacare `` from Day One '' and `` has repeatedly voted to get rid of it .
Whether it is Repeal and Replace , Defund , Opt-Out or Delay , he has consistently opposed this massive new entitlement . ''
That section is no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no mention of healthcare and touts his `` long history of relentlessly pursuing solutions over partisan politics . ''
Capito 's 2014 site even included a special page for visitors to share their traumatic `` Obamacare stories . ''
`` If you support repealing and replacing Obamacare with healthcare reforms that will actually work , or have your own story about how Obamacare has affected you and your family , we want to hear from you , '' the site urged .
Today , she notes her work on juvenile cancer , pregnancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` and investing in research to explore innovative treatments and cures for diseases , '' but says nothing about `` repeal and replace . ''
Then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions ( who is now seeking his old seat against Democratic Sen. Doug Jones ) , then-Arizona Rep. Martha McSally ( who was appointed to fill the late John McCain 's senate seat days after losing a 2018 senate race ) , Montana Sen. Steve Daines , and Texas Sen. John Cornyn also had overt anti-Obamacare language on their 2014 pages .
Their current sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or any political issues .
GOP members notably shifted their focus following a failed attempt in 2017 to roll back the health care law .
House Republicans passed a bill that year that would have repealed Obamacare and increased the number of uninsured Americans by tens of millions .
It failed by one vote in the Republican controlled Senate .
In the wake of that vote , Republicans began circling around a spate of other topics .
In the 2018 midterms , an array of vulnerable House Republicans also removed any trace of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , choosing instead to promote their stances on subjects like immigration and their votes to pass the deficit busting GOP tax bill .
Many still lost their seats in the blue wave that handed control of the chamber to the Democrats .
As Americans have seen Obamacare implemented and considered Donald Trump 's unpopular alternative , approval for the 2010 law has significantly increased over time .
Still , the Trump administration and Republican state attorneys general are seeking to get the entire law struck down in federal courts .
Trump said earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the GOP regains the House this November , `` your healthcare , that I have now brought to the best place in many years , will become the best ever , by far . ''
Thursday 's Kaiser poll showed just 35 % of Americans approve of Trump 's handling of the Affordable Care Act , versus 54 % disapproval .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

In 2014, Republican David Perdue ran for an open Senate seat in Georgia promising to “Repeal ObamaCare” and “replace it with more affordable free market solutions.”
Six years later, his campaign reelection site has removed all traces of that promise and says only that lawmakers must “finally get after the real drivers of spiraling health care costs.”
Perdue is not alone. A comparison of 2014 and 2020 campaign sites for Republicans in competitive Senate races finds that seven have made their original 2014 anti-Obamacare language disappear.
As public support has grown for the law, Senate Republicans have gone from making their opposition to Obamacare a major campaign thrust to being virtually silent on the issue. Public opinion on health care policy could be one reason.
On Thursday, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll revealed that 53% of Americans now support the the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and just 37% oppose it.
This is a significant increase since November 2014, when Kaiser found 37% support for the law, compared to 46% opposition.
Other Senate Republicans have shifted their language on the issue in the years since.
Like Perdue, Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) each highlighted their desire to get rid of the Affordable Care Act on their 2014 websites.
“Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law,” Ernst said back then, noting that she backed immediate repeal and replacement with unspecified “common sense, free-market alternatives that put patients first, and health care decisions back in the hands of each of us rather than Washington bureaucrats.”
Her website today promises merely to identify “solutions for affordable, quality health care for Iowans.”
Graham bragged in 2014 that he had opposed Obamacare “from Day One” and “has repeatedly voted to get rid of it. Whether it is Repeal and Replace, Defund, Opt-Out or Delay, he has consistently opposed this massive new entitlement.”
That section is no longer linked from his homepage, which makes no mention of healthcare and touts his “long history of relentlessly pursuing solutions over partisan politics.”
Capito’s 2014 site even included a special page for visitors to share their traumatic “Obamacare stories.”
“If you support repealing and replacing Obamacare with healthcare reforms that will actually work, or have your own story about how Obamacare has affected you and your family, we want to hear from you,” the site urged.
Today, she notes her work on juvenile cancer, pregnancy and childbirth fatalities, Alzheimer’s, “and investing in research to explore innovative treatments and cures for diseases,” but says nothing about “repeal and replace.”
Then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (who is now seeking his old seat against Democratic Sen. Doug Jones), then-Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (who was appointed to fill the late John McCain’s senate seat days after losing a 2018 senate race), Montana Sen. Steve Daines, and Texas Sen. John Cornyn also had overt anti-Obamacare language on their 2014 pages. Their current sites do not yet appear to mention Obamacare or any political issues.
GOP members notably shifted their focus following a failed attempt in 2017 to roll back the health care law. House Republicans passed a bill that year that would have repealed Obamacare and increased the number of uninsured Americans by tens of millions. It failed by one vote in the Republican controlled Senate.
In the wake of that vote, Republicans began circling around a spate of other topics. In the 2018 midterms, an array of vulnerable House Republicans also removed any trace of their Obamacare opposition from their campaign websites, choosing instead to promote their stances on subjects like immigration and their votes to pass the deficit busting GOP tax bill. Many still lost their seats in the blue wave that handed control of the chamber to the Democrats.
As Americans have seen Obamacare implemented and considered Donald Trump’s unpopular alternative, approval for the 2010 law has significantly increased over time.
Still, the Trump administration and Republican state attorneys general are seeking to get the entire law struck down in federal courts. Trump said earlier this month that if the challenge prevails and the GOP regains the House this November, “your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far.”
Thursday’s Kaiser poll showed just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Affordable Care Act, versus 54% disapproval.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Trump administration disguises plan to cut poor people's health care

The Trump administration on Thursday announced that it will allow states to accept fixed grant amounts to cover its poorest residents who obtain health care through Medicaid , a move experts say will ultimately lead to fewer insured Americans .
Republicans have long sought to implement what are known as `` block grants '' for Medicaid , which give states a fixed amount of funds to help cover the costs for residents enrolled in the program , rather than an open-ended funding stream .
In fact , block grants were a big part of Republicans ' failed effort to repeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many protested the GOP repeal effort because those very block grants would be responsible for kicking millions of people off their health insurance .
However , despite the fact that the public roundly rejected the GOP 's block grant proposal , Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma has been quietly working to offer block grants for more than a year , according to Politico .
Politico reported that Verma views the block grants as a way to stop the expansion of health care coverage to more Americans that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Obamacare .
Verma — who made headlines in December when she tried to force taxpayers to foot the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in jewelry that she said was stolen from her — is branding the block grant policy as the `` Healthy Adult Opportunity '' program .
And she announced it the same day the Trump administration took credit for an increase in life expectancy in the United States .
Residents in states with Democratic governors are unlikely to be impacted by the program , as Democratic governors would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant funding mechanism for their Medicaid population .
However conservative governors — some of whom have refused to take up the offer to expand Medicaid coverage granted by Obamacare — may well choose to take the block grants , which would impact the poorest residents of their states .
Tennessee 's Republican governor has been exploring the possibility of Medicaid block grants , as has Alaska 's GOP Gov .
Mike Dunleavy .
Politico reported that the plan is likely to face legal challenges , and could be blocked from implementation .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time one of Verma 's efforts to target poor Americans was rejected by a federal judge : Verma 's Medicaid work requirements were blocked by a federal judge last March and are still being challenged in court .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

The Trump administration on Thursday announced that it will allow states to accept fixed grant amounts to cover its poorest residents who obtain health care through Medicaid, a move experts say will ultimately lead to fewer insured Americans.
Republicans have long sought to implement what are known as “block grants” for Medicaid, which give states a fixed amount of funds to help cover the costs for residents enrolled in the program, rather than an open-ended funding stream.
In fact, block grants were a big part of Republicans’ failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act back in 2017. Many protested the GOP repeal effort because those very block grants would be responsible for kicking millions of people off their health insurance.
However, despite the fact that the public roundly rejected the GOP’s block grant proposal, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma has been quietly working to offer block grants for more than a year, according to Politico.
Politico reported that Verma views the block grants as a way to stop the expansion of health care coverage to more Americans that was granted by the ACA, better known as Obamacare.
Verma — who made headlines in December when she tried to force taxpayers to foot the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in jewelry that she said was stolen from her — is branding the block grant policy as the “Healthy Adult Opportunity” program. And she announced it the same day the Trump administration took credit for an increase in life expectancy in the United States.
Residents in states with Democratic governors are unlikely to be impacted by the program, as Democratic governors would be unlikely to switch to a block grant funding mechanism for their Medicaid population.
However conservative governors — some of whom have refused to take up the offer to expand Medicaid coverage granted by Obamacare — may well choose to take the block grants, which would impact the poorest residents of their states.
Tennessee’s Republican governor has been exploring the possibility of Medicaid block grants, as has Alaska’s GOP Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
Politico reported that the plan is likely to face legal challenges, and could be blocked from implementation.
If that happened, it wouldn’t be the first time one of Verma’s efforts to target poor Americans was rejected by a federal judge: Verma’s Medicaid work requirements were blocked by a federal judge last March and are still being challenged in court.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-30--World Health Organization declares global emergency as new China virus spreads

The World Health Organization declared the outbreak sparked by a new virus in China that has been exported to more than a dozen countries as a global emergency Thursday after the number of cases spiked tenfold in a week .
The U.N. health agency defines an international emergency as an `` extraordinary event '' that constitutes a risk to other countries and requires a coordinated international response .
China first informed WHO about cases of the new virus in late December .
To date , China has reported more than 7,800 cases including 170 deaths .
Eighteen other countries have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand how exactly the virus is spreading and how severe it is .
Experts say there is significant evidence the virus is transmitting among people in China and have noted with concern several instances in other countries — including Japan , Germany , Canada , and Vietnam — where there have also been isolated cases of human-to-human spread .
China first informed WHO about cases of the new virus in late December .
To date , China has reported more than 7,800 cases including 170 deaths .
Eighteen other countries have since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand how exactly the virus is spreading and how severe it is .
Experts say there is significant evidence the virus is spreading g among people in China and have noted with concern several instances in other countries where there have also been isolated cases of human-to-human transmission .
A declaration of a global emergency typically brings greater money and resources , but may also prompt nervous governments to restrict travel and trade to affected countries .
The announcement also imposes more disease reporting requirements on countries .
Chinese authorities raised the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more countries reported infections from the new virus , including some spread locally , as foreign evacuees from China 's worst-hit region returned home to medical tests and even isolation .
Russia announced it was closing its 2,600-mile border with China , joining Mongolia and North Korea in barring crossings to guard against a new viral outbreak .
It had been de facto closed because of the Lunar New Year holiday , but Russian authorities said the closure would be extended until March 1 .
Train traffic between the countries was halted except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but air traffic between the two countries continued , at least for now .
Russia has not confirmed any cases of the virus .
Meanwhile , the United States and South Korea confirmed their first cases of person-to-person spread of the virus .
The man in the United States is married to a 60-year-old Chicago woman who got sick from the virus after she returned from a trip to Wuhan , the Chinese city that is the epicenter of the outbreak .
There have been cases reported of the infectious virus spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China and elsewhere .
The case in South Korea was a 56-year-old man who had contact with a patient who was diagnosed with the new virus earlier .
Human-to-human spread of the virus outside China has also occurred in Germany , Japan , Canada and Vietnam , and was a major reason the World Health Organization has convened its committee of experts Thursday to assess whether the outbreak warrants being declared a global emergency .
The committee last week had advised the U.N. health agency it was too early to make that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected more people in China than were sickened there during the 2002-2003 outbreak of SARS , a cousin of the new virus .
The latest figures for mainland China show an increase of 38 deaths and 1,737 cases for a total of 7,736 confirmed cases .
Of the new deaths , 37 were in Hubei province , of which Wuhan is the capital , and one was in the southwestern province of Sichuan .
Outside China , there are 82 infections in 18 countries , according to WHO .
A second Japanese flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reports said nine of those aboard the flight showed signs of cough and fever .
Three of Japan 's confirmed cases were among a group of evacuees who had returned on a government-chartered flight the previous day .
A flight was also en route to China to bring back 350 Europeans .
The United States said additional flights were planned for early next week after it evacuated 195 Americans from Wuhan on Wednesday .
They are being tested and monitored at a Southern California military base .
South Korea , Britain , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries were also trying to get their citizens out .
Taiwan , the self-governing republic China considers its own territory , has also asked to be able to repatriate its passport holders from Wuhan , but it was awaiting approval from Beijing .
Israel 's El Al , Spain 's Iberia , Scandinavian Airlines , Egypt Air , and Korean Air joined the growing list of airlines suspending or reducing service to China .
In South Korea , residents in two cities where quarantine facilities were being prepared threw eggs and water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to isolate in their neighborhoods 700 South Koreans the government plans to evacuate from China .
Amid reports of shortages in food and daily necessities in hot-spot areas , Chinese authorities are `` stepping up efforts to ensure continuous supply and stable prices , '' the official Xinhua News Agency reported .
It cited Ministry of Commerce data showing current reserves in Wuhan can ensure a secure supply of rice and cooking oil for more than 15 days , pork and eggs for more than 10 days and vegetables for about five days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and home delivery businesses were important in ensuring those confined to home by choice or by order could get food and other essentials .
China extended its Lunar New Year holiday to Sunday to try to keep people home , but the wave of returning travelers could potentially cause the virus to spread further .
Transport ministry spokesman Wu Chungeng outlined a series of rigorous temperature checks and other `` severe measures '' to detect possibly infectious passengers .
Transport restrictions such as those isolating Wuhan and suspending inter-provincial bus services would remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's definitely very challenging , but we 're confident we can exert effective control , '' Wu told reporters at the briefing .
The WHO emergencies chief , Michael Ryan , speaking in Geneva Wednesday after returning from Beijing , said China was taking `` extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge '' posed by the outbreak .
To date , about 99 % of the cases are in China .
Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2 % , but said the figure was very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deaths , scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it 's likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed .
In comparison , the SARS virus killed about 10 % of people who caught it .
The new virus is from the coronavirus family , which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS .
Chinese authorities have demanded anyone who traveled from or through Wuhan report to health authorities and self-quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incubation period during which patients can be infectious even if they do n't show symptoms .
China has been largely praised for a swift and effective response to the outbreak , although questions have been raised about the police suppression of what were early on considered mere rumors — a reflection of the one-party Communist state 's determination to maintain a monopoly on information in spite of smart phones and social media .
That stands in stark contrast to the initial response to SARS , when medical reports were hidden as state secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing the disease to spread worldwide , killing around 800 people .
Associated Press writers Maria Cheng in London , Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul , South Korea , contributed to this report .

The World Health Organization declared the outbreak sparked by a new virus in China that has been exported to more than a dozen countries as a global emergency Thursday after the number of cases spiked tenfold in a week.
The U.N. health agency defines an international emergency as an “extraordinary event” that constitutes a risk to other countries and requires a coordinated international response.
China first informed WHO about cases of the new virus in late December. To date, China has reported more than 7,800 cases including 170 deaths. Eighteen other countries have since reported cases, as scientists race to understand how exactly the virus is spreading and how severe it is.
Experts say there is significant evidence the virus is transmitting among people in China and have noted with concern several instances in other countries — including Japan, Germany, Canada, and Vietnam — where there have also been isolated cases of human-to-human spread.
China first informed WHO about cases of the new virus in late December. To date, China has reported more than 7,800 cases including 170 deaths. Eighteen other countries have since reported cases, as scientists race to understand how exactly the virus is spreading and how severe it is.
Experts say there is significant evidence the virus is spreading g among people in China and have noted with concern several instances in other countries where there have also been isolated cases of human-to-human transmission.
A declaration of a global emergency typically brings greater money and resources, but may also prompt nervous governments to restrict travel and trade to affected countries. The announcement also imposes more disease reporting requirements on countries.
Chinese authorities raised the death toll to 170 earlier on Thursday and more countries reported infections from the new virus, including some spread locally, as foreign evacuees from China’s worst-hit region returned home to medical tests and even isolation.
Russia announced it was closing its 2,600-mile border with China, joining Mongolia and North Korea in barring crossings to guard against a new viral outbreak. It had been de facto closed because of the Lunar New Year holiday, but Russian authorities said the closure would be extended until March 1.
Train traffic between the countries was halted except for one train connecting Moscow and Beijing, but air traffic between the two countries continued, at least for now. Russia has not confirmed any cases of the virus.
Meanwhile, the United States and South Korea confirmed their first cases of person-to-person spread of the virus. The man in the United States is married to a 60-year-old Chicago woman who got sick from the virus after she returned from a trip to Wuhan, the Chinese city that is the epicenter of the outbreak.
There have been cases reported of the infectious virus spreading to others in a household or workplace in China and elsewhere. The case in South Korea was a 56-year-old man who had contact with a patient who was diagnosed with the new virus earlier.
Human-to-human spread of the virus outside China has also occurred in Germany, Japan, Canada and Vietnam, and was a major reason the World Health Organization has convened its committee of experts Thursday to assess whether the outbreak warrants being declared a global emergency. The committee last week had advised the U.N. health agency it was too early to make that pronouncement.
The new virus has now infected more people in China than were sickened there during the 2002-2003 outbreak of SARS, a cousin of the new virus.
The latest figures for mainland China show an increase of 38 deaths and 1,737 cases for a total of 7,736 confirmed cases. Of the new deaths, 37 were in Hubei province, of which Wuhan is the capital, and one was in the southwestern province of Sichuan. Outside China, there are 82 infections in 18 countries, according to WHO.
A second Japanese flight carrying 210 evacuees landed in Tokyo. Reports said nine of those aboard the flight showed signs of cough and fever. Three of Japan’s confirmed cases were among a group of evacuees who had returned on a government-chartered flight the previous day.
A flight was also en route to China to bring back 350 Europeans. The United States said additional flights were planned for early next week after it evacuated 195 Americans from Wuhan on Wednesday. They are being tested and monitored at a Southern California military base.
South Korea, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, and other countries were also trying to get their citizens out. Taiwan, the self-governing republic China considers its own territory, has also asked to be able to repatriate its passport holders from Wuhan, but it was awaiting approval from Beijing.
Israel’s El Al, Spain’s Iberia, Scandinavian Airlines, Egypt Air, and Korean Air joined the growing list of airlines suspending or reducing service to China.
In South Korea, residents in two cities where quarantine facilities were being prepared threw eggs and water bottles at government officials to protest plans to isolate in their neighborhoods 700 South Koreans the government plans to evacuate from China.
Amid reports of shortages in food and daily necessities in hot-spot areas, Chinese authorities are “stepping up efforts to ensure continuous supply and stable prices,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
It cited Ministry of Commerce data showing current reserves in Wuhan can ensure a secure supply of rice and cooking oil for more than 15 days, pork and eggs for more than 10 days and vegetables for about five days.
China’s highly developed online shopping and home delivery businesses were important in ensuring those confined to home by choice or by order could get food and other essentials.
China extended its Lunar New Year holiday to Sunday to try to keep people home, but the wave of returning travelers could potentially cause the virus to spread further.
Transport ministry spokesman Wu Chungeng outlined a series of rigorous temperature checks and other “severe measures” to detect possibly infectious passengers. Transport restrictions such as those isolating Wuhan and suspending inter-provincial bus services would remain in place, Wu said.
“It’s definitely very challenging, but we’re confident we can exert effective control,” Wu told reporters at the briefing.
The WHO emergencies chief, Michael Ryan, speaking in Geneva Wednesday after returning from Beijing, said China was taking “extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge” posed by the outbreak.
To date, about 99% of the cases are in China. Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2%, but said the figure was very preliminary. With fluctuating numbers of cases and deaths, scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it’s likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed.
In comparison, the SARS virus killed about 10% of people who caught it. The new virus is from the coronavirus family, which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS.
Chinese authorities have demanded anyone who traveled from or through Wuhan report to health authorities and self-quarantine themselves for 14 days, the maximum incubation period during which patients can be infectious even if they don’t show symptoms.
China has been largely praised for a swift and effective response to the outbreak, although questions have been raised about the police suppression of what were early on considered mere rumors — a reflection of the one-party Communist state’s determination to maintain a monopoly on information in spite of smart phones and social media.
That stands in stark contrast to the initial response to SARS, when medical reports were hidden as state secrets. The delayed response was blamed for allowing the disease to spread worldwide, killing around 800 people.
___
Associated Press writers Maria Cheng in London, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, South Korea, contributed to this report.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Trump lawyer: 'God bless' Trump for acting for his own political gain

From the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump : ERIC HERSCHMANN : A Gallup poll from just three days ago @ @ @ @ @ upbeat view of the nation 's economy , military strength , economic opportunity , and @ @ @ @ @ likely resonate with Americans when he delivers the State of the Union address to Congress @ @ @ @ @ that is solely , solely in their words , for his personal and political gain @ @ @ @ @ best interests of the American people , then I say , God bless him , @ @ @ @ @ doing it , keep doing it !
Maybe if the House managers stop opposing him @ @ @ @ @ and harassing everyone associated with him , with the constant letters and the constant investigations @ @ @ @ @ get more done .
Let 's try something different now : Join us , join @ @ @ @ @ one nation , one people .
Enough is enough , stop all of this .
@ @ @

From the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump:
ERIC HERSCHMANN: A Gallup poll from just three days ago says that President Trump’s upbeat view of the nation’s economy, military strength, economic opportunity, and overall quality of life will likely resonate with Americans when he delivers the State of the Union address to Congress next week.
If all that is solely, solely in their words, for his personal and political gain, and not in the best interests of the American people, then I say, God bless him, keep doing it! Keep doing it, keep doing it!
Maybe if the House managers stop opposing him, and harassing him, and harassing everyone associated with him, with the constant letters and the constant investigations, maybe we can even get more done. Let’s try something different now: Join us, join us, one nation, one nation, one people.
Enough is enough, stop all of this. Thank you.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Graham: It's 'outrageous' to say we blocked witnesses after we blocked witnesses

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , who voted to block subpoenas for witness testimony in Donald Trump 's impeachment trial , said on Thursday that he considers it `` insane , '' ridiculous , '' and `` outrageous '' to accuse Republicans of blocking witnesses .
`` Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle — and there is a lot to choose from — one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are 'Blocking Witnesses , ' '' Graham wrote on Twitter Thursday morning .
`` This is an outrageous claim . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican colleagues in the Senate to vote 11 times to reject an attempt by Democratic senators to allow witnesses and documents to be a part of the impeachment trial .
Graham voted against subpoenaing testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton , among others .
On Thursday , Graham blamed the House of Representatives , `` who refused to pursue the testimony of the witnesses , '' for his refusal to hear from additional witnesses .
Graham alleged House members rushed the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christmas 2019 , insinuating it was their responsibility to hear from witnesses like Bolton .
In fact , House of Representatives invited Bolton to testify during the impeachment investigation in November , but Bolton refused to do so voluntarily .
In January , Bolton changed his tune , offering to testify before the Senate impeachment trial if he was asked to do so .
After Graham 's initial vote to block subpoenas for witness testimony , portions of Bolton 's upcoming book were leaked to the press .
Those leaks contained explosive details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withholding military aid to Ukraine unless that government opened investigations into Trump 's political rivals , a key aspect related to Trump 's impeachment .
Senators are planning to vote again on Friday on the issue of calling witnesses .
On Wednesday , days after the leaks of Bolton 's book were published , Graham indicated he still has no intention of seeking additional witness testimony .
`` It is my opinion , based on the law and facts , that additional testimony is unnecessary in this case , '' Graham wrote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness testimony is diametrically opposed to his position in President Bill Clinton 's 1999 Senate impeachment trial .
At that time , Graham said , `` in every trial that there 's ever been in the Senate , regarding impeachment , witnesses were called . ''
He also said , `` You 're basically changing impeachment '' if witnesses are n't called .
If Graham and his Republican colleagues succeed in blocking all witnesses , it would be the first Senate impeachment trial in U.S. history without witnesses .
Published with permission of @ @ @ @ @

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who voted to block subpoenas for witness testimony in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, said on Thursday that he considers it “insane,” ridiculous,” and “outrageous” to accuse Republicans of blocking witnesses.
“Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle — and there is a lot to choose from — one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are ‘Blocking Witnesses,'” Graham wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. “This is an outrageous claim.”
On Jan. 22, Graham joined his Republican colleagues in the Senate to vote 11 times to reject an attempt by Democratic senators to allow witnesses and documents to be a part of the impeachment trial. Graham voted against subpoenaing testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, among others.
On Thursday, Graham blamed the House of Representatives, “who refused to pursue the testimony of the witnesses,” for his refusal to hear from additional witnesses. Graham alleged House members rushed the impeachment process in order to impeach Trump before Christmas 2019, insinuating it was their responsibility to hear from witnesses like Bolton.
In fact, House of Representatives invited Bolton to testify during the impeachment investigation in November, but Bolton refused to do so voluntarily. In January, Bolton changed his tune, offering to testify before the Senate impeachment trial if he was asked to do so.
After Graham’s initial vote to block subpoenas for witness testimony, portions of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the press. Those leaks contained explosive details, alleging Trump told Bolton he was withholding military aid to Ukraine unless that government opened investigations into Trump’s political rivals, a key aspect related to Trump’s impeachment.
Senators are planning to vote again on Friday on the issue of calling witnesses. On Wednesday, days after the leaks of Bolton’s book were published, Graham indicated he still has no intention of seeking additional witness testimony.
“It is my opinion, based on the law and facts, that additional testimony is unnecessary in this case,” Graham wrote on Twitter.
Graham’s current position against witness testimony is diametrically opposed to his position in President Bill Clinton’s 1999 Senate impeachment trial.
At that time, Graham said, “in every trial that there’s ever been in the Senate, regarding impeachment, witnesses were called.” He also said, “You’re basically changing impeachment” if witnesses aren’t called.
If Graham and his Republican colleagues succeed in blocking all witnesses, it would be the first Senate impeachment trial in U.S. history without witnesses.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Columnist who says Trump raped her in a dressing room seeks his DNA

Lawyers for a woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample , seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter .
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll ’ s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for `` analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress . ''
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after he denied her allegation .
Her lawyer , Roberta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coat-style dress tested .
A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people , at least one of them male .
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix , according to the lab report , which was obtained by The Associated Press .
Their names are redacted .
While the notice is a demand , such demands often spur court fights requiring a judge to weigh in on whether they will be enforced .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's attorney seeking comment .
Carroll accused Trump last summer of raping her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s .
In a New York magazine piece in June and a book published the next month , Carroll said she and Trump met by chance , chatted and went to the lingerie department for Trump to pick out a gift for an unidentified woman .
She said joking banter about trying on a bodysuit ended in a dressing room , where she said Trump reached under her black wool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raped her as she tried to fight him off , eventually escaping .
`` The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door , unworn and unlaundered since that evening , '' she wrote .
She donned it for a photo accompanying the magazine piece .
Trump said in June that Carroll was `` totally lying '' and he had `` never met this person in my life . ''
While a 1987 photo shows them and their then-spouses at a social event , Trump dismissed it as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my coat on in a line . ''
`` She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation , '' he said in one of various statements on the matter , adding that the book `` should be sold in the fiction section . ''
Carroll sued Trump in November , saying he smeared her and hurt her career as a longtime Elle magazine advice columnist by calling her a liar .
She is seeking unspecified damages and a retraction of Trump ’ s statements .
`` Unidentified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Donald Trump not only knows who I am , but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character , '' Carroll said in a statement Thursday .
Her lawyer , Kaplan , said it was `` standard operating procedure '' in a sexual assault investigation to request a DNA sample from the accused .
`` As a result , we 've requested a simple saliva sample from Mr. Trump to test his DNA , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to object , '' she said .
Trump 's lawyer has tried to get the case thrown out .
A Manhattan judge declined to do so earlier this month , saying the attorney had n't properly backed up his arguments that the case did n't belong in a New York court .
The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted , unless they come forward publicly .
Carroll said she did n't do so for decades because she feared legal retribution from Trump and damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But when the # MeToo movement spurred reader requests for advice about sexual assault , she said , she decided she had to disclose her own account .
Trump , a Republican , is n't the first president to face the prospect of a DNA test related to a woman 's dress .
Former President Bill Clinton , a Democrat , underwent such a test during an independent counsel investigation into whether he had a sexual relationship with onetime White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then lied in denying it under oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the dress , he acknowledged an `` inappropriate intimate relationship '' with Lewinsky .
Clinton was impeached by the House in December 1998 and later acquitted by the Senate .

Lawyers for a woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after he denied her allegation. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted.
While the notice is a demand, such demands often spur court fights requiring a judge to weigh in on whether they will be enforced.
The Associated Press sent a message to Trump’s attorney seeking comment.
Carroll accused Trump last summer of raping her in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.
In a New York magazine piece in June and a book published the next month, Carroll said she and Trump met by chance, chatted and went to the lingerie department for Trump to pick out a gift for an unidentified woman. She said joking banter about trying on a bodysuit ended in a dressing room, where she said Trump reached under her black wool dress, pulled down her tights and raped her as she tried to fight him off, eventually escaping.
“The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening,” she wrote. She donned it for a photo accompanying the magazine piece.
Trump said in June that Carroll was “totally lying” and he had “never met this person in my life.” While a 1987 photo shows them and their then-spouses at a social event, Trump dismissed it as a moment when he was “standing with my coat on in a line.”
“She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation,” he said in one of various statements on the matter, adding that the book “should be sold in the fiction section.”
Carroll sued Trump in November, saying he smeared her and hurt her career as a longtime Elle magazine advice columnist by calling her a liar. She is seeking unspecified damages and a retraction of Trump’s statements.
“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.
Her lawyer, Kaplan, said it was “standard operating procedure” in a sexual assault investigation to request a DNA sample from the accused.
“As a result, we’ve requested a simple saliva sample from Mr. Trump to test his DNA, and there really is no valid basis for him to object,” she said.
Trump’s lawyer has tried to get the case thrown out. A Manhattan judge declined to do so earlier this month, saying the attorney hadn’t properly backed up his arguments that the case didn’t belong in a New York court.
The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they come forward publicly.
Carroll said she didn’t do so for decades because she feared legal retribution from Trump and damage to her reputation, among other reasons. But when the #MeToo movement spurred reader requests for advice about sexual assault, she said, she decided she had to disclose her own account.
Trump, a Republican, isn’t the first president to face the prospect of a DNA test related to a woman’s dress.
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, underwent such a test during an independent counsel investigation into whether he had a sexual relationship with onetime White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then lied in denying it under oath.
After Clinton’s DNA was found on the dress, he acknowledged an “inappropriate intimate relationship” with Lewinsky.
Clinton was impeached by the House in December 1998 and later acquitted by the Senate.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Chief justice shuts down Rand Paul's attempt to out whistleblower

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts thwarted an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) to out the alleged whistleblower , refusing to read a question Paul submitted that contained the person 's name .
`` The presiding officer declines the question as submitted , '' Roberts said , after first reading Paul 's question .
Paul submitted the question even though Roberts warned senators he would not read any questions that included the name of the person Republicans purport to be the whistleblower .
He also submitted the question minutes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell assured Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not submit questions that contained the alleged whistleblower 's name .
Paul then turned his attempt to out the purported whistleblower into an even bigger stunt by leaving the Senate chamber and the impeachment proceedings to hold a news conference in the Senate Radio and Television Gallery , which is a long walk from the Senate floor .
There , even reporters questioned why Paul was conducting such a stunt .
`` With all due respect , should n't you be at the impeachment hearing right now ? ''
one reporter asked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul also tweeted the question Roberts refused to read , including the name .
However , Paul said that the person he named might not be the whistleblower and that he has `` no independent information on his identity . ''
This is the second time Paul tried to get Roberts to read the alleged whistleblower 's name out loud .
On Wednesday , Paul attempted to submit a question with the whistleblower 's name , which was blocked because Roberts prescreened questions .
Republicans have tried for months to out the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaint that led to Donald Trump 's impeachment .
One Trump campaign official tweeted the alleged name on Wednesday .
And House Republicans attempted to out the alleged whistleblower during the impeachment inquiry , but they were warned by Rep. Adam Schiff ( R-CA ) , who led the inquiry , that they would face ethics investigations if they said the name .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts thwarted an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to out the alleged whistleblower, refusing to read a question Paul submitted that contained the person’s name.
“The presiding officer declines the question as submitted,” Roberts said, after first reading Paul’s question.
Paul submitted the question even though Roberts warned senators he would not read any questions that included the name of the person Republicans purport to be the whistleblower.
He also submitted the question minutes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell assured Roberts that senators would respect his rules and not submit questions that contained the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Paul then turned his attempt to out the purported whistleblower into an even bigger stunt by leaving the Senate chamber and the impeachment proceedings to hold a news conference in the Senate Radio and Television Gallery, which is a long walk from the Senate floor.
There, even reporters questioned why Paul was conducting such a stunt.
“With all due respect, shouldn’t you be at the impeachment hearing right now?” one reporter asked, according to McClatchy’s Emma Dumain.
Paul also tweeted the question Roberts refused to read, including the name.
However, Paul said that the person he named might not be the whistleblower and that he has “no independent information on his identity.”
This is the second time Paul tried to get Roberts to read the alleged whistleblower’s name out loud. On Wednesday, Paul attempted to submit a question with the whistleblower’s name, which was blocked because Roberts prescreened questions.
Republicans have tried for months to out the name of the person who they say issued the complaint that led to Donald Trump’s impeachment.
One Trump campaign official tweeted the alleged name on Wednesday.
And House Republicans attempted to out the alleged whistleblower during the impeachment inquiry, but they were warned by Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA), who led the inquiry, that they would face ethics investigations if they said the name.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-30--House issues warning on fake images after Republican shared doctored image of Obama

The House Ethics Committee is warning lawmakers not to share doctored images or videos that could “ erode public trust , effect public discourse , or sway an election , '' guidance that comes during a proliferation of online misinformation in the run-up to the 2020 elections .
In a memo sent to House members Tuesday , the committee said lawmakers or staffers could be found in violation of House ethics rules and subject to disciplinary proceedings for posting content intended to mislead the public .
“ Members have a duty , and a First Amendment right , to contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors of the memo wrote .
“ However , manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House.
” It 's the first time the committee has admonished members of Congress on the use of fake images and audio on social media , though the new guidelines may be difficult to enforce because of a loophole allowing fake images when used for satire or parody .
The warning comes three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a doctored photo of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Hassan Rouhani .
In a caption , he wrote that “ The world is a better place without these guys in power.
” The original , unaltered photo featured Obama and now-former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011 .
In the doctored image tweeted by the Arizona Republican , Singh is replaced by Rouhani , who remains in power .
Obama and Rouhani never met in person .
It was n't the first time a member of Congress had shared a misleading image , or even the first time that particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action committee used the same picture in a 2015 television ad supporting Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis. Gosar 's tweet of the doctored image was retweeted more than 6,000 times and liked more than 22,000 times .
Gosar later said he never intended the tweet to be taken seriously and ridiculed the journalists who wrote about it as “ dim witted.
” “ No one said this wasn ’ t photoshopped , ” he wrote in a subsequent tweet , which was retweeted far less — 420 times .
“ No one said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No one said Obama met with Rouhani in person.
” A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to discuss the memo , or say whether it was prompted by a specific incident .
The guidelines are a good step and an indication that Congress is taking the spread of misinformation seriously , according to David Schultz , a political scientist at Hamline University in St. Paul , Minnesota .
But he said lawmakers who post a fake video could always claim they did n't realize it was fake , or that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the internet have made it easier than ever to spread manipulated video , photography and audio .
Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned about the emergence of “ deepfakes , ” fake videos created using artificial intelligence and machine learning to make it appear something happened that did n't .
“ Cheapfakes ” like the doctored photo retweeted by Gosar are much easier to create by editing or cropping an image with readily available computer software .
“ As much as we 're worried about foreign governments using social media to infiltrate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse , ” Schultz said Wednesday , predicting that Americans will only see more fake photos and videos of politicians in the months to come .
“ It 's going to be one of the big stories from the 2020 election.
” Jason Roe , a spokesman for Gosar 's reelection campaign , said the congressman would abide by the new guidelines .
They are “ perfectly reasonable and make good sense , '' he said .

The House Ethics Committee is warning lawmakers not to share doctored images or videos that could “erode public trust, effect public discourse, or sway an election,” guidance that comes during a proliferation of online misinformation in the run-up to the 2020 elections.
In a memo sent to House members Tuesday, the committee said lawmakers or staffers could be found in violation of House ethics rules and subject to disciplinary proceedings for posting content intended to mislead the public.
“Members have a duty, and a First Amendment right, to contribute to the public discourse,” the authors of the memo wrote. “However, manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House.”
It’s the first time the committee has admonished members of Congress on the use of fake images and audio on social media, though the new guidelines may be difficult to enforce because of a loophole allowing fake images when used for satire or parody.
The warning comes three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a doctored photo of President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. In a caption, he wrote that “The world is a better place without these guys in power.”
The original, unaltered photo featured Obama and now-former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011. In the doctored image tweeted by the Arizona Republican, Singh is replaced by Rouhani, who remains in power. Obama and Rouhani never met in person.
It wasn’t the first time a member of Congress had shared a misleading image, or even the first time that particular fake photo had circulated. A political action committee used the same picture in a 2015 television ad supporting Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
Gosar’s tweet of the doctored image was retweeted more than 6,000 times and liked more than 22,000 times. Gosar later said he never intended the tweet to be taken seriously and ridiculed the journalists who wrote about it as “dim witted.”
“No one said this wasn’t photoshopped,” he wrote in a subsequent tweet, which was retweeted far less — 420 times. “No one said the president of Iran was dead. No one said Obama met with Rouhani in person.”
A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to discuss the memo, or say whether it was prompted by a specific incident.
The guidelines are a good step and an indication that Congress is taking the spread of misinformation seriously, according to David Schultz, a political scientist at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. But he said lawmakers who post a fake video could always claim they didn’t realize it was fake, or that they intended it as a parody.
Technology and the internet have made it easier than ever to spread manipulated video, photography and audio. Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned about the emergence of “deepfakes,” fake videos created using artificial intelligence and machine learning to make it appear something happened that didn’t.
“Cheapfakes” like the doctored photo retweeted by Gosar are much easier to create by editing or cropping an image with readily available computer software.
“As much as we’re worried about foreign governments using social media to infiltrate and influence our elections, this could be even worse,” Schultz said Wednesday, predicting that Americans will only see more fake photos and videos of politicians in the months to come. “It’s going to be one of the big stories from the 2020 election.”
Jason Roe, a spokesman for Gosar’s reelection campaign, said the congressman would abide by the new guidelines. They are “perfectly reasonable and make good sense,” he said.


shareblue--2020-01-30--Border wall built by GOP donors blows over in high winds and falls into Mexico

A section of the border wall in southern California was blown over by high winds on Wednesday , causing the structure to fall into Mexico , CNN reported .
Mexican officials were forced to divert traffic from the area .
In an email Thursday , Ralph DeSio , a Customs and Border Protection official , said high winds `` impacted a handful of panels , '' adding that there were no injuries or property damage .
DeSio said that the 30-foot high wall tipped into Mexico while the concrete holding the wall in place was still drying , confirming CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` an uncommon event , '' noting winds reached speeds well over 30 miles per hour on Wednesday .
DeSio also confirmed that the construction company SLSCO Ltd was under contract for that particular section of the border wall .
In a June 2019 press release , CPB said SLSCO had been awarded an $ 88 million contract to replace an 11-mile section of dilapidated border wall in Calexico .
According to a 2019 Forbes report , SLSCO has received contracts for border wall projects totaling almost half a billion dollars since Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SLSCO was founded by three brothers , John , Billy , and Todd Sullivan .
According to MarketWatch , the brothers donated a total of $ 68,000 to Republican groups or candidates in the 2018 election cycle .
The only donation to a Democrat came from Johnny , who gave $ 2,700 to Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee .
In an email , SLSCO did not provide any comment about the Calexico incident , instead referring all media inquiries to CBP .
In addition to Calexico , Forbes reported that SLSCO 's other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the Texas-Mexico border .
In one spot , the SLSCO 's construction will reportedly run straight through the National Butterfly Center , a private nature preserve .
The center 's executive director , Marianna Wright , told Forbes that `` big monarchs can soar over the wall to fulfill their migration instincts '' but `` some species like the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly ... prefer to flit closer to the ground and will not be able to get over the wall . ''
The Catholic Church in Hidalgo County is also upset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to La Lomita Chapel , a small historic structure dating back to 1865 when it was built by French missionaries .
Building a border wall was one of Trump 's signature campaign promises during the 2016 election .
At the time , he promised Mexico would pay for it .
But when the Mexican government refused to do so , and Congress refused to provide $ 5 billion in taxpayer funds to do so , Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border .
He then reallocated $ 3.6 billion meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings for children of active service members , to fund additional sections of the wall .
According to CBP , the Calexico border wall that was blown over was funded using 2018 appropriations , not funding from Trump 's emergency declaration .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A section of the border wall in southern California was blown over by high winds on Wednesday, causing the structure to fall into Mexico, CNN reported.
Mexican officials were forced to divert traffic from the area.
In an email Thursday, Ralph DeSio, a Customs and Border Protection official, said high winds “impacted a handful of panels,” adding that there were no injuries or property damage.
DeSio said that the 30-foot high wall tipped into Mexico while the concrete holding the wall in place was still drying, confirming CNN’s report. DeSio called the incident “an uncommon event,” noting winds reached speeds well over 30 miles per hour on Wednesday.
DeSio also confirmed that the construction company SLSCO Ltd was under contract for that particular section of the border wall.
In a June 2019 press release, CPB said SLSCO had been awarded an $88 million contract to replace an 11-mile section of dilapidated border wall in Calexico. According to a 2019 Forbes report, SLSCO has received contracts for border wall projects totaling almost half a billion dollars since Trump took office.
A Texas-based company, SLSCO was founded by three brothers, John, Billy, and Todd Sullivan. According to MarketWatch, the brothers donated a total of $68,000 to Republican groups or candidates in the 2018 election cycle. The only donation to a Democrat came from Johnny, who gave $2,700 to Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
In an email, SLSCO did not provide any comment about the Calexico incident, instead referring all media inquiries to CBP.
In addition to Calexico, Forbes reported that SLSCO’s other border wall projects include several controversial stretches along the Texas-Mexico border.
In one spot, the SLSCO’s construction will reportedly run straight through the National Butterfly Center, a private nature preserve. The center’s executive director, Marianna Wright, told Forbes that “big monarchs can soar over the wall to fulfill their migration instincts” but “some species like the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly … prefer to flit closer to the ground and will not be able to get over the wall.”
The Catholic Church in Hidalgo County is also upset that the border wall will cut off access to La Lomita Chapel, a small historic structure dating back to 1865 when it was built by French missionaries.
Building a border wall was one of Trump’s signature campaign promises during the 2016 election. At the time, he promised Mexico would pay for it. But when the Mexican government refused to do so, and Congress refused to provide $5 billion in taxpayer funds to do so, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border.
He then reallocated $3.6 billion meant for the military, such as school buildings for children of active service members, to fund additional sections of the wall.
According to CBP, the Calexico border wall that was blown over was funded using 2018 appropriations, not funding from Trump’s emergency declaration.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-02-05--Trump claims to 'cherish religion' days after expanding his Muslim ban

Donald Trump praised himself for protecting religious freedom during his State of the Union address Tuesday night , days after adding several more countries to his highly criticized Muslim travel ban .
`` My administration is ... defending religious liberty , and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools , '' he said .
He continued , `` In America , we do n't punish prayer , we do n't tear down crosses , we do n't ban symbols of faith , we do n't muzzle preachers and pastors .
In America , we celebrate faith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices in prayer , and we raise our sights to the glory of god . ''
On Friday , just days before his third annual address , Trump added six new countries to his controversial travel ban , which targets travelers from several predominantly Muslim nations .
The additions were made almost three years to the day after Trump first signed his initial order implementing the ban .
That ban , which affected some 135 million people , supposedly aimed to prevent `` radical Islamic terrorists '' from entering the country , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges before being upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018 by a vote of 5-4 , with the conservatives justices in the majority .
As the New York Times noted Sunday , With the new expansion , the ban will affect nearly a quarter of the 1.2 billion people on the African continent , according to W. Gyude Moore , a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development , a research group , potentially taking a heavy toll on African economies — and on America ’ s image in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions varies depending on country , but the White House announcement said that most of the six countries added to the list did not comply with identity-verification and information-sharing rules .
Trump 's Muslim ban `` has always been about keeping us divided , '' Reps. Judy Chu ( D-CA ) , Pramila Jayapal ( D-WA ) , and Max Rose ( D-NY ) wrote in an op-ed in late January .
`` That is why it must be repealed . ''
Adding more countries to the ban means `` more grandchildren who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandparents , '' they said .
`` More loved ones unable to say goodbye at a funeral .
More graduations where the proud student has no beaming parents cheering for them in the crowd .
And more families forced to make impossible decisions under the most trying circumstances . ''
The three members support legislation — the No Ban Act — to end Trump 's Muslim ban , calling it `` wrong and inimical to our values . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump praised himself for protecting religious freedom during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, days after adding several more countries to his highly criticized Muslim travel ban.
“My administration is … defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools,” he said.
He continued, “In America, we don’t punish prayer, we don’t tear down crosses, we don’t ban symbols of faith, we don’t muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of god.”
On Friday, just days before his third annual address, Trump added six new countries to his controversial travel ban, which targets travelers from several predominantly Muslim nations. The additions were made almost three years to the day after Trump first signed his initial order implementing the ban.
That ban, which affected some 135 million people, supposedly aimed to prevent “radical Islamic terrorists” from entering the country, according to Trump. It faced several court challenges before being upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018 by a vote of 5-4, with the conservatives justices in the majority.
As the New York Times noted Sunday,
With the new expansion, the ban will affect nearly a quarter of the 1.2 billion people on the African continent, according to W. Gyude Moore, a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development, a research group, potentially taking a heavy toll on African economies — and on America’s image in the region. …The rationale for the new restrictions varies depending on country, but the White House announcement said that most of the six countries added to the list did not comply with identity-verification and information-sharing rules.
Trump’s Muslim ban “has always been about keeping us divided,” Reps. Judy Chu (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Max Rose (D-NY) wrote in an op-ed in late January. “That is why it must be repealed.”
Adding more countries to the ban means “more grandchildren who will never be able to kiss their grandparents,” they said. “More loved ones unable to say goodbye at a funeral. More graduations where the proud student has no beaming parents cheering for them in the crowd. And more families forced to make impossible decisions under the most trying circumstances.”
The three members support legislation — the No Ban Act — to end Trump’s Muslim ban, calling it “wrong and inimical to our values.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-02-05--Trump gives Medal of Freedom to notoriously racist, sexist Rush Limbaugh

During his State of the Union speech , Donald Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh .
Limbaugh has called a college activist a `` slut , '' referred to President Barack Obama as a `` magic negro , '' and referred to a then-12-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a dog .
`` He is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet .
Rush Limbaugh , thank you for decades of tireless devotion to our country , '' said Trump .
`` In recognition of all that you have done for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day that you speak to and inspire and all of the incredible work that you have done for charity , I am proud to announce tonight that you will be receiving our country 's highest civilian honor , the Presidential Medal of Freedom . ''
Melania Trump then put the medal around Limbaugh 's neck .
In 2012 , after Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified before a House committee on health care regulations and contraception , Limbaugh called her a `` slut . ''
`` What does it say about the college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex ?
What does that make her ?
It makes her a slut , right ? ''
said Limbaugh .
`` It makes her a prostitute .
She wants to be paid to have sex .
She 's having so much sex she ca n't afford the contraception . ''
In 2007 , Limbaugh played a song referring to then-Sen. Barack Obama as a `` magic negro . ''
`` Singing a song in my head here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magic Negro , doo doo do doo , ' '' he said , referring to singing along with the recording .
Years after , in 2011 , when Obama was then president , Limbaugh was unapologetic .
`` I 'm not going to apologize for the Magic Negro … we 're going to freaking play it again today , '' said Limbaugh .
In a November 1992 of his short-lived television show , Limbaugh referred to the then 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a dog .
`` Could — could we see the cute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at — see who is the cute kid in the White House , '' said Limbaugh , and then he showed a picture Millie , President George H.W .
Bush 's dog .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

During his State of the Union speech, Donald Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh has called a college activist a “slut,” referred to President Barack Obama as a “magic negro,” and referred to a then-12-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a dog.
“He is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet. Rush Limbaugh, thank you for decades of tireless devotion to our country,” said Trump. “In recognition of all that you have done for our nation, the millions of people a day that you speak to and inspire and all of the incredible work that you have done for charity, I am proud to announce tonight that you will be receiving our country’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”
Melania Trump then put the medal around Limbaugh’s neck.
In 2012, after Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified before a House committee on health care regulations and contraception, Limbaugh called her a “slut.”
“What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?” said Limbaugh. “It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”
In 2007, Limbaugh played a song referring to then-Sen. Barack Obama as a “magic negro.”
“Singing a song in my head here during the break: ‘Barack, the Magic Negro, doo doo do doo,'” he said, referring to singing along with the recording.
Years after, in 2011, when Obama was then president, Limbaugh was unapologetic.
“I’m not going to apologize for the Magic Negro … we’re going to freaking play it again today,” said Limbaugh.
In a November 1992 of his short-lived television show, Limbaugh referred to the then 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton as a dog.
“Could — could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at — see who is the cute kid in the White House,” said Limbaugh, and then he showed a picture Millie, President George H.W. Bush’s dog.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-02-05--Trump claims he's protecting preexisting conditions — as he sues to get rid of them

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday , Donald Trump claimed he would guarantee that Americans with preexisting conditions would have access to health care .
His administration is currently pushing to do the exact opposite .
`` A good life for American families also requires the most affordable , innovative , and high-quality health care system on earth , '' Trump told Congress .
`` I 've also made an ironclad pledge to American families .
We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions , '' Trump added .
But last March , Trump endorsed a lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every word of Obamacare — with no replacement currently in place .
Should the suit prevail , all of the preexisting condition protections from the Affordable Care Act end .
This is not the first time Trump has undermined these protections .
He has embraced permitting states to sell junk health insurance plans that exclude those with preexisting conditions as well .
Trump also pushed Obamacare repeal legislation — the unsuccessful 2017 Trumpcare proposal .
Had it become law , it would have mandated that insurers offer some form of insurance to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have prevented discrimination against them , nor would it have included any system to make such coverage affordable for patients or insurers .
Though Trump boasted in the speech that he keeps his promises , he has failed in his pledge to quickly replace Obamacare with `` something terrific '' that would cover everyone .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Donald Trump claimed he would guarantee that Americans with preexisting conditions would have access to health care. His administration is currently pushing to do the exact opposite.
“A good life for American families also requires the most affordable, innovative, and high-quality health care system on earth,” Trump told Congress.
“I’ve also made an ironclad pledge to American families. We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions,” Trump added.
But last March, Trump endorsed a lawsuit by Republican state officials seeking to eliminate every word of Obamacare — with no replacement currently in place. Should the suit prevail, all of the preexisting condition protections from the Affordable Care Act end.
This is not the first time Trump has undermined these protections. He has embraced permitting states to sell junk health insurance plans that exclude those with preexisting conditions as well.
Trump also pushed Obamacare repeal legislation — the unsuccessful 2017 Trumpcare proposal. Had it become law, it would have mandated that insurers offer some form of insurance to people with preexisting conditions, but it would not have prevented discrimination against them, nor would it have included any system to make such coverage affordable for patients or insurers.
Though Trump boasted in the speech that he keeps his promises, he has failed in his pledge to quickly replace Obamacare with “something terrific” that would cover everyone.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-02-05--Trump brags about manufacturing even though he's killing jobs

Donald Trump made several false claims about the manufacturing sector during Tuesday 's State of the Union address , ignoring the fact that the manufacturing industry has been hurt by his trade war with China .
`` We are restoring our nation 's manufacturing might , even though predictions were that this could never be done , '' Trump said , in prepared remarks .
`` After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations , America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration . ''
Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin alone in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 2019 , primarily because of Trump 's trade war with China .
According to the Federal Reserve 's Divisions of Research & Statistics , the months-long tariff spat has been `` a drag on employment and have failed to increase output . ''
In 2019 , new orders received by American manufacturers also dropped to a 10-year low and export sales `` tanked to the lowest level since August 2009 , '' according to CNBC .
`` This is a classic example of Trump 's broken promises , '' David Bergstein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said in August .
`` On issue after issue , he 's broken his promises to the American people .
Under his leadership , Americans are seeing increased health care costs , job losses , and [ Trump ] is only looking out for his wealthy and well-connected friends . ''
Despite Trump 's insistence that his policies will instead prompt job growth and fuel the economy , several banks have warned that the trade war will likely hamper job prospects for months to come .
Bank of America , Morgan Stanley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all said the decision to impose a 25 % import tax on all goods from China could even force the country into a deep recession .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump made several false claims about the manufacturing sector during Tuesday’s State of the Union address, ignoring the fact that the manufacturing industry has been hurt by his trade war with China.
“We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done,” Trump said, in prepared remarks. “After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”
Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin alone in fact lost 27,000 manufacturing jobs from January through September 2019, primarily because of Trump’s trade war with China.
According to the Federal Reserve’s Divisions of Research & Statistics, the months-long tariff spat has been “a drag on employment and have failed to increase output.”
In 2019, new orders received by American manufacturers also dropped to a 10-year low and export sales “tanked to the lowest level since August 2009,” according to CNBC.
“This is a classic example of Trump’s broken promises,” David Bergstein, the DNC’s battleground state communications director, said in August. “On issue after issue, he’s broken his promises to the American people. Under his leadership, Americans are seeing increased health care costs, job losses, and [Trump] is only looking out for his wealthy and well-connected friends.”
Despite Trump’s insistence that his policies will instead prompt job growth and fuel the economy, several banks have warned that the trade war will likely hamper job prospects for months to come. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and UBS have all said the decision to impose a 25% import tax on all goods from China could even force the country into a deep recession.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-02-05--Watch: GOP tries to turn the State of the Union into a Trump rally

As Donald Trump started his State of the Union address Tuesday night , the Republicans in the room seemed determined to turn what is supposed to be an official and bipartisan moment for the United States government into one of Trump 's MAGA rally , breaking into the decidedly not bipartisan chant : `` Four more years ! ''
Earlier in the evening , Trump 's former ambassador to the United Nations , Nikki Haley , chastised Democratic lawmakers who announced they would be boycotting the address .
`` .
@ AOC & the Dems who chose to boycott the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your job is not to just do the things you like .
It is to rep ALL people , '' Haley tweeted .
`` Listening to the issues by the Pres is your job .
Maybe someone else should step in who is willing to do the job that you aren ’ t . ''
For the Republicans in the Capitol , however , the moment meant something else : a moment to represent their party , not `` ALL people '' they are supposed to represent .
Published with permission of The @ @ @ @

As Donald Trump started his State of the Union address Tuesday night, the Republicans in the room seemed determined to turn what is supposed to be an official and bipartisan moment for the United States government into one of Trump’s MAGA rally, breaking into the decidedly not bipartisan chant: “Four more years!”
Earlier in the evening, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, chastised Democratic lawmakers who announced they would be boycotting the address.
“.@AOC & the Dems who chose to boycott the SOTU. When you represent people, your job is not to just do the things you like. It is to rep ALL people,” Haley tweeted. “Listening to the issues by the Pres is your job. Maybe someone else should step in who is willing to do the job that you aren’t.”
For the Republicans in the Capitol, however, the moment meant something else: a moment to represent their party, not “ALL people” they are supposed to represent.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.