shareblue--2020-01-08--Prescription drug costs go up as McConnell blocks bill that could lower them

Since the beginning of 2020 , the prices of almost 500 prescription drugs have increased , yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell still refuses to hold a vote on a House-passed bill that could drastically lower costs .
According to an analysis by GoodRx , the prices of 498 drugs have increased by an average of 5.2 % since Jan. 1 .
A drug to help with arthritis , Humira , has increased in cost by 7.4 % , for example .
And the price of Premarin , a drug to fight breast cancer , increased by 5 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed H.R .
3 , the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act , which would allow the federal government to negotiate the cost of certain prescription drugs and do more to limit drug price hikes .
Prior to a December vote , the House Ways and Means Committee released information about how the bill could lower the costs of certain prescription medications .
The American Independent reached out to the committee in light of the GoodRx analysis of new drug price increases .
In an email , the committee revealed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Humira by 81 % , from $ 34,411 per year to $ 8,276 per year .
For Premarin , the House-passed measure would drop the cost by 96 % , from $ 568 to just $ 21 per year .
The same analysis showed H.R .
3 could lower the cost of several other prescription drugs that increased in cost in 2020 , including medication dealing with diabetes , multiple sclerosis , and arthritis .
The costs of drugs provided by the committee would drop in prices ranging from a 73 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple sclerosis , to a 96 % drop for Premarin .
A committee spokesperson noted it is `` very possible '' that other drugs that saw a cost increase in 2020 would see a price reduction if H.R .
3 became law , but the committee did not include them in the list provided because they were not part of the 2019 Ways and Means analysis .
`` American families urgently need relief to afford their prescription drugs , and H.R .
3 could deliver them significant savings , '' Rep. Richard Neal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ways and Means Committee , said in an emailed statement .
`` It 's appalling that Leader McConnell is n't immediately putting this bill up for a vote in the Senate when lives are at stake . ''
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed the bill in September 2019 , stating at the time , `` of course we 're not going to be calling up a bill like that . ''
Thus far , McConnell has not made any moves to bring the bill forward for a vote .
McConnell 's office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment .
For some members of Congress , the issue is deeply personal .
`` As someone with Type 1 Diabetes , I have seen the cost of my insulin increase seven-fold in the last two decades , '' Rep. Kim Schrier ( D-WA ) , a medical doctor and co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition Health Care Task Force , wrote in an email .
`` And many other life-saving drugs have increased even more .
This is not sustainable . ''
Schrier is one of 6 in 10 Americans who take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Kaiser Family Foundation .
A November poll from the foundation showed that 79 % of Americans say the cost of prescription drugs is unreasonable .
For consumers who must pay some or all of the cost of prescription drugs , the rising costs of medication could be a substantial burden .
`` If you pay 10 % of a $ 4,000 drug and that drug goes up 5 % or 10 % that 's a meaningful increase , '' Thomas Goetz , head of research at GoodRx , told CBS News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judy Chu ( D-CA ) said the cost of prescription drugs `` is one of the top issues '' she hears about from her constituents .
When she is talking to folks in her district , one of their main concerns is `` whether they can afford these drugs . ''
According to KFF , 1 in 4 Americans has difficulty affording their prescription medication , and almost 30 % of Americans did not take medication as directed last year because of cost issues .
Chu noted that it is `` outrageous '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any justification , '' adding , `` That 's why we need H.R .
3 . ''
Schrier is hopeful that H.R .
3 could pass the Senate , since it has `` provisions that Republican Senators and our President both have said they would support . ''
In mid-September , Donald Trump praised H.R .
3 when Pelosi released the legislation , saying `` it 's great to see Speaker Pelosi 's bill today .
Let 's get it done in a bipartisan way ! ''
Since then , Trump changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Trump would veto the measure if it came to his desk .
When asked if she thought Trump could change his mind again , Chu noted that `` we can not tell what President Trump will decide from one moment to the next . ''
But she added that `` in an election year , he will hear from the American people '' about the cost of prescription medication .
Chu added that health care is going to continue to be a major political issue in this country , and prescription drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Since the beginning of 2020, the prices of almost 500 prescription drugs have increased, yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell still refuses to hold a vote on a House-passed bill that could drastically lower costs.
According to an analysis by GoodRx, the prices of 498 drugs have increased by an average of 5.2% since Jan. 1. A drug to help with arthritis, Humira, has increased in cost by 7.4%, for example. And the price of Premarin, a drug to fight breast cancer, increased by 5%.
In December, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which would allow the federal government to negotiate the cost of certain prescription drugs and do more to limit drug price hikes.
Prior to a December vote, the House Ways and Means Committee released information about how the bill could lower the costs of certain prescription medications. The American Independent reached out to the committee in light of the GoodRx analysis of new drug price increases.
In an email, the committee revealed that the House-passed bill would lower the cost of Humira by 81%, from $34,411 per year to $8,276 per year. For Premarin, the House-passed measure would drop the cost by 96%, from $568 to just $21 per year.
The same analysis showed H.R. 3 could lower the cost of several other prescription drugs that increased in cost in 2020, including medication dealing with diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. The costs of drugs provided by the committee would drop in prices ranging from a 73% drop for Gilenya, a medication for multiple sclerosis, to a 96% drop for Premarin.
A committee spokesperson noted it is “very possible” that other drugs that saw a cost increase in 2020 would see a price reduction if H.R. 3 became law, but the committee did not include them in the list provided because they were not part of the 2019 Ways and Means analysis.
“American families urgently need relief to afford their prescription drugs, and H.R. 3 could deliver them significant savings,” Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), chair of the Ways and Means Committee, said in an emailed statement. “It’s appalling that Leader McConnell isn’t immediately putting this bill up for a vote in the Senate when lives are at stake.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed the bill in September 2019, stating at the time, “of course we’re not going to be calling up a bill like that.” Thus far, McConnell has not made any moves to bring the bill forward for a vote. McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
For some members of Congress, the issue is deeply personal.
“As someone with Type 1 Diabetes, I have seen the cost of my insulin increase seven-fold in the last two decades,” Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA), a medical doctor and co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition Health Care Task Force, wrote in an email. “And many other life-saving drugs have increased even more. This is not sustainable.”
Schrier is one of 6 in 10 Americans who take at least one prescription drug, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A November poll from the foundation showed that 79% of Americans say the cost of prescription drugs is unreasonable.
For consumers who must pay some or all of the cost of prescription drugs, the rising costs of medication could be a substantial burden.
“If you pay 10% of a $4,000 drug and that drug goes up 5% or 10% that’s a meaningful increase,” Thomas Goetz, head of research at GoodRx, told CBS News.
In a phone interview, Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) said the cost of prescription drugs “is one of the top issues” she hears about from her constituents. When she is talking to folks in her district, one of their main concerns is “whether they can afford these drugs.”
According to KFF, 1 in 4 Americans has difficulty affording their prescription medication, and almost 30% of Americans did not take medication as directed last year because of cost issues.
Chu noted that it is “outrageous” that pharmaceutical companies “can increase prices without any justification,” adding, “That’s why we need H.R. 3.”
Schrier is hopeful that H.R. 3 could pass the Senate, since it has “provisions that Republican Senators and our President both have said they would support.”
In mid-September, Donald Trump praised H.R. 3 when Pelosi released the legislation, saying “it’s great to see Speaker Pelosi’s bill today. Let’s get it done in a bipartisan way!”
Since then, Trump changed his tune, and the White House said Trump would veto the measure if it came to his desk.
When asked if she thought Trump could change his mind again, Chu noted that “we cannot tell what President Trump will decide from one moment to the next.” But she added that “in an election year, he will hear from the American people” about the cost of prescription medication.
Chu added that health care is going to continue to be a major political issue in this country, and prescription drug prices are “a large part of this issue.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Tennessee bill would force schools to discriminate against trans athletes

A Republican lawmaker in Tennessee wants to bar transgender students from participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity , proposing to completely defund any school that does not comply with his wishes .
State Rep. Bruce Griffey ( R ) recently filed a bill that , if passed , would require schools that receive public funding to `` ensure that student athletes participate in school-sanctioned sports based on the student 's biological sex as indicated by the athlete 's original birth certificate issued at birth . ''
THe bill 's text explicitly prevents schools from accepting `` any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an athletic or sporting event that has been revised or amended with respect to the sex of an athlete . ''
Any school that violates Griffey 's anti-transgender policy would become `` immediately ineligible to continue receiving public funds of any type from this state or a local government . ''
The bill also allows civil actions against those who intentionally violate the rule , punishing them with a fine of up to $ 10,000 and a ban from public office and school administrative positions for five years .
Griffey told CNN the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' to `` maintain fairness , '' since `` males have a genetic advantage '' and `` larger hearts . ''
He acknowledged that he had no idea how to deal with transgender male students who wish to participate in sports .
Though first elected less than two years ago , Griffey has already amassed a starkly anti-LGBTQ record .
His campaign website issue page claims that `` Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and a part of existence recognized by the State . ''
`` Homosexual behavior ( be it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) has apparently existed as part of human behavior as our species developed , '' he explained , but , `` The State has a compelling interest in further and aiding Marriage for the betterment of the State and our Nation . ''
He added that he and other Americans `` do not want to know '' about gay sex .
Despite this apparent acknowledgment that sexuality is innate , Griffey voted for last year 's `` License to Discriminate '' bill , protecting business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people from punishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adoption agencies discriminate against LGBTQ Tennesseans if their `` religious or moral convictions '' so dictate .
While Griffey 's proposed punishments are more draconian , anti-LGBTQ state lawmakers have proposed similar legislation in other states to mandate anti-trans discrimination in school sports .
A bill filed in Georgia last month by state Rep. Philip Singleton ( R ) would prohibit use of public sports facilities if a transgender student athlete competed against those of a different sex assigned at birth in individual sports ( but not team sports ) .
A similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klippert ( R ) would prohibit transgender female athletes from competing `` with and against female students in athletic activities '' but would not impact transgender males .
Texas law currently requires transgender athletes to compete based on their sex-assigned at birth .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A Republican lawmaker in Tennessee wants to bar transgender students from participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity, proposing to completely defund any school that does not comply with his wishes.
State Rep. Bruce Griffey (R) recently filed a bill that, if passed, would require schools that receive public funding to “ensure that student athletes participate in school-sanctioned sports based on the student’s biological sex as indicated by the athlete’s original birth certificate issued at birth.”
THe bill’s text explicitly prevents schools from accepting “any birth certificate for purposes of participation in an athletic or sporting event that has been revised or amended with respect to the sex of an athlete.”
Any school that violates Griffey’s anti-transgender policy would become “immediately ineligible to continue receiving public funds of any type from this state or a local government.”
The bill also allows civil actions against those who intentionally violate the rule, punishing them with a fine of up to $10,000 and a ban from public office and school administrative positions for five years.
Griffey told CNN the proposed legislation was a “proactive measure” to “maintain fairness,” since “males have a genetic advantage” and “larger hearts.” He acknowledged that he had no idea how to deal with transgender male students who wish to participate in sports.
Though first elected less than two years ago, Griffey has already amassed a starkly anti-LGBTQ record. His campaign website issue page claims that “Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and a part of existence recognized by the State.”
“Homosexual behavior (be it man with man or woman with woman) has apparently existed as part of human behavior as our species developed,” he explained, but, “The State has a compelling interest in further and aiding Marriage for the betterment of the State and our Nation.” He added that he and other Americans “do not want to know” about gay sex.
Despite this apparent acknowledgment that sexuality is innate, Griffey voted for last year’s “License to Discriminate” bill, protecting business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people from punishment, and for a bill to allow adoption agencies discriminate against LGBTQ Tennesseans if their “religious or moral convictions” so dictate.
While Griffey’s proposed punishments are more draconian, anti-LGBTQ state lawmakers have proposed similar legislation in other states to mandate anti-trans discrimination in school sports. A bill filed in Georgia last month by state Rep. Philip Singleton (R) would prohibit use of public sports facilities if a transgender student athlete competed against those of a different sex assigned at birth in individual sports (but not team sports).
A similar bill in Washington by state Rep. Brad Klippert (R) would prohibit transgender female athletes from competing “with and against female students in athletic activities” but would not impact transgender males.
Texas law currently requires transgender athletes to compete based on their sex-assigned at birth.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--GOP senator says Iran briefing so 'insulting' he'll vote to curb Trump

Republican Sen. Mike Lee ( UT ) emerged Wednesday afternoon from an all-senators briefing on the targeted airstrike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani so irate that he is now willing to curb Donald Trump 's war powers .
Lee , who like most Republicans supports Trump on nearly every issue , said that the administration effectively told senators in that briefing not to question the rationale for the attack that killed Soleimani , which struck him as shocking .
`` It 's un-American , it 's unconstitutional , and it 's wrong , '' Lee said of the notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for such a military strike .
He said the message Trump administration officials sent to the lawmakers was to `` run along and be good little boys and girls and not debate . ''
Ultimately , Lee said the briefing was `` the worst briefing I 've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I 've served in the United States Senate , '' and that he now backs a resolution being introduced by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine ( VA ) that would curtail Trump 's war powers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar war powers resolution on Thursday .
Members of the House were also briefed this week on the airstrike , which targeted Soleimani 's convoy as it departed Baghdad International Airport in Iraq , and Democratic lawmakers emerged from the classified conversation similarly irate , saying that they did not see any justification for the strike , which threatened to incite further violent conflict in the region .
`` It was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing , '' Rep. Gerry Connolly ( D-VA ) told reporters afterward , adding , `` I believe more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect the Constitutional provisions about war and peace . ''
Others briefed this week were less incensed by the meeting .
Sen. Marco Rubio , the Florida Republican who previously opposed Trump but has since fallen in line , said the briefing was `` compelling . ''
`` Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now , '' Rubio tweeted .
`` They answered every important question .
Anyone who walks out & says they aren ’ t convinced action against # Soleimani was justified is either never going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump does . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah emerged Wednesday afternoon from an all-senators briefing on the targeted airstrike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani so irate that he is now willing to curb Donald Trump’s war powers.
Lee, who like most Republicans supports Trump on nearly every issue, said that the administration effectively told senators in that briefing not to question the rationale for the attack that killed Soleimani, which struck him as shocking.
“It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong,” Lee said of the notion that the Senate would not debate the rationale for such a military strike.
He said the message Trump administration officials sent to the lawmakers was to “run along and be good little boys and girls and not debate.”
“I find this insulting and demeaning,” he added. “Not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States to which we’ve all sworn an oath.”
Ultimately, Lee said the briefing was “the worst briefing I’ve seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate,” and that he now backs a resolution being introduced by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) that would curtail Trump’s war powers.
The House plans to vote on a similar war powers resolution on Thursday.
Members of the House were also briefed this week on the airstrike, which targeted Soleimani’s convoy as it departed Baghdad International Airport in Iraq, and Democratic lawmakers emerged from the classified conversation similarly irate, saying that they did not see any justification for the strike, which threatened to incite further violent conflict in the region.
“It was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) told reporters afterward, adding, “I believe more than ever that Congress needs to act to protect the Constitutional provisions about war and peace.”
Others briefed this week were less incensed by the meeting.
Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who previously opposed Trump but has since fallen in line, said the briefing was “compelling.”
“Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now,” Rubio tweeted. “They answered every important question. Anyone who walks out & says they aren’t convinced action against #Soleimani was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Former House Speaker Boehner asks judge to go easy on corrupt congressman 'friend'

Republican former House Speaker John Boehner , who once said that members of Congress `` should be held to the highest ethical standard , '' wrote to a federal judge to defend the integrity of a corrupt former colleague and political ally .
Boehner praised ex-Rep. Chris Collins ( R-NY ) — who resigned in disgrace last year as he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and to lying federal investigators — as a `` good man who loves his family and his country . ''
Facing an already unusually low recommended sentence of just over one year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid jail time all together for his insider-trading scandal .
On Tuesday , his defense team filed character testimonial letters from Boehner , Reps. Brian Babin ( R-TX ) , Richard Hudson ( R-NC ) , Peter King ( R-NY ) , and Tom Reed ( R-NY ) , other former colleagues , and family and friends .
In his letter , Boehner cited Collins ' political support for him as evidence of his `` loyalty '' and `` courage . ''
`` Chris was my friend at times when he did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ohio Republican wrote , `` and I 'm sure he took some political heat for supporting me as Speaker at a time when supporting me was n't popular . ''
Boehner resigned midway through his term in 2015 after members of the far-right Freedom Caucus threatened to oust him .
In his own letter , Rep. King wrote that while has not trying to minimize Collins ' `` error in judgment , '' he hoped the judge would `` take into account his many positive contributions in public life and the genuine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard in which he is held by those who have worked with him and know him well . ''
Collins and Rep. Duncan Hunter ( R-CA ) were famously the first two members of the House of Representatives to endorse Donald Trump in 2016 .
Hunter , who also pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges late last year , announced Tuesday that he too will resign his seat .
A judge is due to sentence Collins on Jan. 17 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republican former House Speaker John Boehner, who once said that members of Congress “should be held to the highest ethical standard,” wrote to a federal judge to defend the integrity of a corrupt former colleague and political ally. Boehner praised ex-Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) — who resigned in disgrace last year as he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and to lying federal investigators — as a “good man who loves his family and his country.”
Facing an already unusually low recommended sentence of just over one year in jail, Collins has sought to avoid jail time all together for his insider-trading scandal. On Tuesday, his defense team filed character testimonial letters from Boehner, Reps. Brian Babin (R-TX), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Peter King (R-NY), and Tom Reed (R-NY), other former colleagues, and family and friends.
In his letter, Boehner cited Collins’ political support for him as evidence of his “loyalty” and “courage.”
“Chris was my friend at times when he didn’t have to be my friend,” the Ohio Republican wrote, “and I’m sure he took some political heat for supporting me as Speaker at a time when supporting me wasn’t popular.”
Boehner resigned midway through his term in 2015 after members of the far-right Freedom Caucus threatened to oust him.
In his own letter, Rep. King wrote that while has not trying to minimize Collins’ “error in judgment,” he hoped the judge would “take into account his many positive contributions in public life and the genuine respect he has earned and the high regard in which he is held by those who have worked with him and know him well.”
Collins and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) were famously the first two members of the House of Representatives to endorse Donald Trump in 2016. Hunter, who also pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges late last year, announced Tuesday that he too will resign his seat.
A judge is due to sentence Collins on Jan. 17.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Court blocks Trump from denying green cards to people who use public benefits

A federal appeals court in New York on Wednesday rejected a motion from the Trump administration that would have allowed it to implement a policy connecting the use of public benefits with whether immigrants could become permanent residents .
The ruling from the 2nd U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration 's motion to lift a temporary national injunction that had been issued by a New York district court in October after lawsuits had been filed against the new policy .
The new rule would potentially deny green cards to immigrants over their use of public benefits including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vouchers , as well as other factors .
The New York injunction was one of several that were issued around the time the rule had been scheduled to go into effect in October .
But a regional injunction issued in California and another national injunction issued in Washington have already been lifted by other federal appeals courts .
That left New York 's as the only nationwide bar to the Trump administration putting the new rule into practice .
An injunction in Illinois also is in effect , but applies only to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2nd Circuit had heard arguments over the motion to lift the injunction on Tuesday .
Judges questioned the government 's attorney on the timing — why the injunction needed to be lifted at this point when the lawsuit itself would be heard by a judge in coming months .
Immigrants applying for permanent residency must show they would n't be public charges , or burdens to the country .
The new policy significantly expands what factors would be considered to make that determination , and if it is decided that immigrants could potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future , that legal residency could be denied .
Roughly 544,000 people apply for green cards annually .
According to the government , 382,000 are in categories that would make them subject to the new review .
Immigrants make up a small portion of those getting public benefits , since many are ineligible to get them because of their immigration status .

A federal appeals court in New York on Wednesday rejected a motion from the Trump administration that would have allowed it to implement a policy connecting the use of public benefits with whether immigrants could become permanent residents.
The ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s motion to lift a temporary national injunction that had been issued by a New York district court in October after lawsuits had been filed against the new policy.
The new rule would potentially deny green cards to immigrants over their use of public benefits including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers, as well as other factors.
The New York injunction was one of several that were issued around the time the rule had been scheduled to go into effect in October.
But a regional injunction issued in California and another national injunction issued in Washington have already been lifted by other federal appeals courts. That left New York’s as the only nationwide bar to the Trump administration putting the new rule into practice. An injunction in Illinois also is in effect, but applies only to that state.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit had heard arguments over the motion to lift the injunction on Tuesday.
Judges questioned the government’s attorney on the timing — why the injunction needed to be lifted at this point when the lawsuit itself would be heard by a judge in coming months.
Immigrants applying for permanent residency must show they wouldn’t be public charges, or burdens to the country.
The new policy significantly expands what factors would be considered to make that determination, and if it is decided that immigrants could potentially become public charges at any point in the future, that legal residency could be denied.
Roughly 544,000 people apply for green cards annually. According to the government, 382,000 are in categories that would make them subject to the new review.
Immigrants make up a small portion of those getting public benefits, since many are ineligible to get them because of their immigration status.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Ivanka Trump claims her dad wants to help immigrants

Ivanka Trump told attendees of the Consumer Electronics Show ( CES ) in Las Vegas that her father Donald Trump was pro-immigrant , ignoring his administration 's consistent advocacy of anti-immigrant policies and his use of demagogic language against migrants more broadly .
Trump 's comments in support of her father come little more than a week after she evaded answering questions about his policy of separating migrant families during an interview with CBS News .
At that time , she claimed that immigration was `` not part of my portfolio . ''
Trump was participating in a question and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technology Association Keynote event with Gary Shapiro , CTA 's president and CEO when she made her most recent remarks .
`` The president said that he thinks that it 's absolutely insane that we educate immigrants from across the world and as they 're about to start their business , open their business , become employers , we throw them out of our country , '' she said .
`` It does n't make sense .
Our immigration system is totally flawed . ''
Trump currently serves as a senior adviser to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has put in place policies intended to force out immigrants both legal and undocumented .
Earlier in his tenure , Donald Trump tried to cut down on H1B visas , which often go to immigrant employees with degrees in science , tech , engineering , and other related high skill fields .
CEOs from major companies like Apple , American Airlines , Coca-Cola , Visa , and IBM banded together to protest the changes , citing the negative impact it would have on their thousands of employees .
Changes to the visa process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced additional requirements one immigration attorney called a `` nightmare , '' have also cut down on the number of student and work visas .
Lawyers in the sector said that many of those applicants have instead chosen to go to Canada rather than the United States .
The elder Trump has been openly hostile to immigrants in general throughout his presidency , echoing terrorists by calling migrants part of an `` invasion '' and indulging in conspiracy theories about `` caravans '' of migrants purportedly headed to the United States to commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a border wall to prevent immigration and deployed the military to the U.S.-Mexico border to address what he claimed was a `` national emergency '' but was in fact part of a larger attempt to siphon congressionally approved funding from military projects for his long-promised wall project .
One week prior to her appearance at CES , Ivanka Trump was interviewed on CBS ' `` Face the Nation '' and tried to sidestep the thorny issue .
`` Immigration is not part of my portfolio , obviously , '' she told host Margaret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with migrant families who 'd been forcibly separated at the border under her father 's `` zero tolerance '' immigration policy .
`` I think everyone should be engaged , and the full force of the U.S. government is committed to this effort to border security — to protecting the most vulnerable , '' she continued .
`` That includes those being trafficked across our border , which this president has committed to countering and combating human trafficking in an incredibly comprehensive , aggressive way .
So the full United States government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the president . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Ivanka Trump told attendees of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas that her father Donald Trump was pro-immigrant, ignoring his administration’s consistent advocacy of anti-immigrant policies and his use of demagogic language against migrants more broadly.
Trump’s comments in support of her father come little more than a week after she evaded answering questions about his policy of separating migrant families during an interview with CBS News. At that time, she claimed that immigration was “not part of my portfolio.”
Trump was participating in a question and answer session on Tuesday at the Consumer Technology Association Keynote event with Gary Shapiro, CTA’s president and CEO when she made her most recent remarks.
“The president said that he thinks that it’s absolutely insane that we educate immigrants from across the world and as they’re about to start their business, open their business, become employers, we throw them out of our country,” she said.
“It doesn’t make sense. Our immigration system is totally flawed.”
Trump currently serves as a senior adviser to the her father’s administration, which has put in place policies intended to force out immigrants both legal and undocumented.
Earlier in his tenure, Donald Trump tried to cut down on H1B visas, which often go to immigrant employees with degrees in science, tech, engineering, and other related high skill fields. CEOs from major companies like Apple, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Visa, and IBM banded together to protest the changes, citing the negative impact it would have on their thousands of employees.
Changes to the visa process implemented by the elder Trump, which introduced additional requirements one immigration attorney called a “nightmare,” have also cut down on the number of student and work visas. Lawyers in the sector said that many of those applicants have instead chosen to go to Canada rather than the United States.
The elder Trump has been openly hostile to immigrants in general throughout his presidency, echoing terrorists by calling migrants part of an “invasion” and indulging in conspiracy theories about “caravans” of migrants purportedly headed to the United States to commit crimes.
He has famously pushed for a border wall to prevent immigration and deployed the military to the U.S.-Mexico border to address what he claimed was a “national emergency” but was in fact part of a larger attempt to siphon congressionally approved funding from military projects for his long-promised wall project.
One week prior to her appearance at CES, Ivanka Trump was interviewed on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and tried to sidestep the thorny issue.
“Immigration is not part of my portfolio, obviously,” she told host Margaret Brennan, when asked whether she sympathized with migrant families who’d been forcibly separated at the border under her father’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.
“I think everyone should be engaged, and the full force of the U.S. government is committed to this effort to border security — to protecting the most vulnerable,” she continued. “That includes those being trafficked across our border, which this president has committed to countering and combating human trafficking in an incredibly comprehensive, aggressive way. So the full United States government has been focused on this issue, starting with the president.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Lawmakers say briefing on reason for Iran strike 'utterly unconvincing'

Members of Congress were briefed Wednesday morning about the intelligence behind the decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani — which Trump administration officials say was necessary due to Soleimani 's plans for an `` imminent attack '' on Americans .
However , Democratic lawmakers who emerged from the classified briefing saying they saw no evidence of an imminent strike and questioned the attack that some worry will start yet another violent conflict in the Middle East , while at the same time hurting other military efforts in the region , such as the fight against ISIS .
`` No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Gerry Connolly ( D-VA ) told reporters .
`` It was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing . ''
Rep. Marcia Fudge ( D-OH ) echoed Connolly 's comments , telling Politico editor John Bresnahan that she , too , did not see any evidence of an imminent threat .
`` I do n't know if they know the rationale , '' Fudge told Bresnahan , referencing the strike that killed Soleimani .
`` They certainly didn ’ t tell me what it was . ''
The Trump administration has shifted its justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drone strike that took the Iranian leader out , first saying that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack , then saying attacking Soleimani would deter Iran from launching future attacks .
However , Donald Trump finally addressed the nation Wednesday morning about the Soleimani operation , claiming , `` In recent days , he was planning new attacks on American targets , but we stopped him . ''
Yet Democrats were not convinced of this in their Wednesday briefing , with Connolly telling reporters that he thinks Congress needs to act to curtail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are mulling .
`` I believe more than ever that Congress needs to act to protect the Constitutional provisions about war and peace , '' Connolly told reporters .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Members of Congress were briefed Wednesday morning about the intelligence behind the decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani — which Trump administration officials say was necessary due to Soleimani’s plans for an “imminent attack” on Americans.
However, Democratic lawmakers who emerged from the classified briefing saying they saw no evidence of an imminent strike and questioned the attack that some worry will start yet another violent conflict in the Middle East, while at the same time hurting other military efforts in the region, such as the fight against ISIS.
“No case was made for imminence,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) told reporters. “It was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing.”
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) echoed Connolly’s comments, telling Politico editor John Bresnahan that she, too, did not see any evidence of an imminent threat.
“I don’t know if they know the rationale,” Fudge told Bresnahan, referencing the strike that killed Soleimani. “They certainly didn’t tell me what it was.”
The Trump administration has shifted its justification for killing Soleimani in the days following the drone strike that took the Iranian leader out, first saying that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack, then saying attacking Soleimani would deter Iran from launching future attacks.
However, Donald Trump finally addressed the nation Wednesday morning about the Soleimani operation, claiming, “In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.”
Yet Democrats were not convinced of this in their Wednesday briefing, with Connolly telling reporters that he thinks Congress needs to act to curtail Trump’s war powers — as House Democrats are mulling.
“I believe more than ever that Congress needs to act to protect the Constitutional provisions about war and peace,” Connolly told reporters.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Trump's order to kill Iranian general risks US gains against ISIS

Donald Trump 's national security team knew that killing Iran 's most powerful general could hurt efforts to mop up and head off any revival of the Islamic State militant group — and that is just what has happened .
Days after Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad , the U.S. troops in Iraq to fight ISIS were focused on their own defense , guarding American bases and the U.S. Embassy from the expected Iranian response .
Iran struck back at the United States early Wednesday , shooting ballistic missiles at two military bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. fight against the militants is now on hold , and a Trump-proclaimed foreign policy achievement is in doubt .
“ When we looked at this operation we knew there would be consequences , ” said Gen. Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .
“ We knew there 'd be risk . ''
But he said the threat of attack on U.S. interests was too great to not act .
ISIS evolved in Syria after U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011 ; its fighters swept back across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of western and northern Iraq , and imposed brutal rule over a self-declared “ caliphate.
” A U.S.-led coalition finally ousted the group from the last of its territory in Syria in March 2019 , but thousands of fighters scattered throughout the region and continue to pose a threat .
Defense Secretary Mark Esper agreed on Tuesday that “ the suspension of activities in Iraq ” against ISIS was foreseen as a possible outcome of the killing of Soleimani .
Two days after a missile launched from a U.S. drone killed the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he arrived , the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq announced a pause in its years-long partnership with Iraqi forces against IS remnants .
The focus shifted to protecting coalition troops and the U.S. Embassy , in anticipation that Iran would try to avenge Soleimani 's death by attacking .
Iran 's attack with ballistic missiles on Wednesday was its most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizing of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran , and Iranian state TV said it was in revenge for the killing of Soleimani .
U.S. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports of casualties , though buildings were still being searched .
Ketti Davison , a retired Army intelligence officer with experience in Iraq , said there is no doubt that the fight against the militants has been undercut .
“ The counter-ISIS campaign was already strained , ” said Davison , an intelligence expert at the Institute for the Study of War .
The effort in Syria has been hampered since Turkey invaded northern Syria in October , complicating U.S. cooperation with Kurdish fighters and giving the Russian military a wider role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Vladimir Putin showed up in Damascus for a meeting with President Bashar Assad .
Official statements during the previously unannounced visit made no mention Soleimani , but the timing was conspicuous .
The Iraq campaign also has been sidetracked by recent civil unrest that diverted the attention of Iraqi security forces previously focused on ISIS .
“ The counter-ISIS mission is truly at risk , not just in the short term , ” Davison said , adding , “ It 's hard to see how we can stay on the offensive with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this kind of circumstance.
” To complicate matters further , the U.S. military presence in Iraq forms the logistical support foundation for U.S. efforts in neighboring Syria .
The U.S. has 650-750 troops in eastern Syria working with a local group known as the Syrian Democratic Forces to continue the fight against ISIS .
It was unclear Tuesday the extent to which the suspension of U.S. and coalition support operations in Iraq will limit operations in Syria .
Esper said he has received no indication from commanders of a “ material impact ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani “ a monster ” who deserved to be killed , adding that Soleimani was planning “ a very big attack.
” He and others have said U.S. intelligence showed that danger clearly , but they have not provided details .
And in the aftermath , the durability of the defeat of ISIS is in doubt , and the extremist group has new breathing room .
Although the U.S. military during the Obama administration developed and began executing the strategy that eventually eliminated the group 's hold on large portions of eastern Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has insisted he deserves full credit for the territorial defeat .
He has made it a feature of his reelection campaign , but national security experts say the group 's remnants in Syria as well as Iraq are still a threat and could stage a comeback .
That is why the U.S. and its coalition partners have remained in Iraq .
Iran 's longtime goal has been to force the U.S. out , giving it a freer hand there .
Rep. Elissa Slotkin , a Michigan Democrat and a former Pentagon and CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that Iranian strategy .
If the Iraqi government ends up expelling U.S. troops , Soleimani will have achieved his goal , she said .
`` If we do indeed get officially asked to leave Iraq , we will need robust diplomacy to outline a plan with the Iraqi government that maximizes pressure on ISIS and allows us time to safely withdraw in a way that doesn ’ t cost the U.S. in blood and treasure , ” Slotkin said Monday .
Germany , Canada , and some other U.S. allies have moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , citing an increased security risk , but Esper said he is pleased by the commitments of allied governments to remaining in the counter-ISIS coalition .
He took to Twitter to thank Italy for keeping forces in Baghdad , where tensions are running high .
The United States had about 5,200 troops in Iraq before the Soleimani killing , mostly to train and advise Iraqi security forces in their campaign against ISIS fighters who are attempting to reconstitute .
The U.S. troop total is now in flux as some trainers are flown out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come in .
Those movements led to an international incident Monday when a U.S. officer seemed to announce that U.S. forces were withdrawing , prompting Milley and Esper to address reporters at the Pentagon to deny there was any withdrawal plan .
The Iraqi Parliament on Sunday passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the expulsion of all foreign forces .
On Tuesday , Iraq 's outgoing prime minister , Adel Abdul-Mahdi , said the United States has no choice but to pull its troops out of the country .
Trump , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has no intention of withdrawing yet .

Donald Trump’s national security team knew that killing Iran’s most powerful general could hurt efforts to mop up and head off any revival of the Islamic State militant group — and that is just what has happened.
Days after Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad, the U.S. troops in Iraq to fight ISIS were focused on their own defense, guarding American bases and the U.S. Embassy from the expected Iranian response. Iran struck back at the United States early Wednesday, shooting ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq housing American troops. The U.S. fight against the militants is now on hold, and a Trump-proclaimed foreign policy achievement is in doubt.
“When we looked at this operation we knew there would be consequences,” said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We knew there’d be risk.” But he said the threat of attack on U.S. interests was too great to not act.
ISIS evolved in Syria after U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011; its fighters swept back across the border in 2014, captured wide swaths of western and northern Iraq, and imposed brutal rule over a self-declared “caliphate.”
A U.S.-led coalition finally ousted the group from the last of its territory in Syria in March 2019, but thousands of fighters scattered throughout the region and continue to pose a threat.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper agreed on Tuesday that “the suspension of activities in Iraq” against ISIS was foreseen as a possible outcome of the killing of Soleimani.
Two days after a missile launched from a U.S. drone killed the general in Baghdad on Jan. 3, shortly after he arrived, the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq announced a pause in its years-long partnership with Iraqi forces against IS remnants. The focus shifted to protecting coalition troops and the U.S. Embassy, in anticipation that Iran would try to avenge Soleimani’s death by attacking.
Iran’s attack with ballistic missiles on Wednesday was its most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizing of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and Iranian state TV said it was in revenge for the killing of Soleimani. U.S. and Iraqi officials said there were no immediate reports of casualties, though buildings were still being searched.
Ketti Davison, a retired Army intelligence officer with experience in Iraq, said there is no doubt that the fight against the militants has been undercut.
“The counter-ISIS campaign was already strained,” said Davison, an intelligence expert at the Institute for the Study of War. The effort in Syria has been hampered since Turkey invaded northern Syria in October, complicating U.S. cooperation with Kurdish fighters and giving the Russian military a wider role in the country.
Just Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin showed up in Damascus for a meeting with President Bashar Assad. Official statements during the previously unannounced visit made no mention Soleimani, but the timing was conspicuous.
The Iraq campaign also has been sidetracked by recent civil unrest that diverted the attention of Iraqi security forces previously focused on ISIS.
“The counter-ISIS mission is truly at risk, not just in the short term,” Davison said, adding, “It’s hard to see how we can stay on the offensive with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIS in this kind of circumstance.” To complicate matters further, the U.S. military presence in Iraq forms the logistical support foundation for U.S. efforts in neighboring Syria.
The U.S. has 650-750 troops in eastern Syria working with a local group known as the Syrian Democratic Forces to continue the fight against ISIS. It was unclear Tuesday the extent to which the suspension of U.S. and coalition support operations in Iraq will limit operations in Syria. Esper said he has received no indication from commanders of a “material impact” in Syria.
Trump on Tuesday called Soleimani “a monster” who deserved to be killed, adding that Soleimani was planning “a very big attack.” He and others have said U.S. intelligence showed that danger clearly, but they have not provided details.
And in the aftermath, the durability of the defeat of ISIS is in doubt, and the extremist group has new breathing room.
Although the U.S. military during the Obama administration developed and began executing the strategy that eventually eliminated the group’s hold on large portions of eastern Syria and northern and western Iraq, Trump has insisted he deserves full credit for the territorial defeat. He has made it a feature of his reelection campaign, but national security experts say the group’s remnants in Syria as well as Iraq are still a threat and could stage a comeback.
That is why the U.S. and its coalition partners have remained in Iraq. Iran’s longtime goal has been to force the U.S. out, giving it a freer hand there.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat and a former Pentagon and CIA official, said Soleimani was the architect of that Iranian strategy. If the Iraqi government ends up expelling U.S. troops, Soleimani will have achieved his goal, she said.
“If we do indeed get officially asked to leave Iraq, we will need robust diplomacy to outline a plan with the Iraqi government that maximizes pressure on ISIS and allows us time to safely withdraw in a way that doesn’t cost the U.S. in blood and treasure,” Slotkin said Monday.
Germany, Canada, and some other U.S. allies have moved some of their troops out of Iraq, citing an increased security risk, but Esper said he is pleased by the commitments of allied governments to remaining in the counter-ISIS coalition. He took to Twitter to thank Italy for keeping forces in Baghdad, where tensions are running high.
The United States had about 5,200 troops in Iraq before the Soleimani killing, mostly to train and advise Iraqi security forces in their campaign against ISIS fighters who are attempting to reconstitute. The U.S. troop total is now in flux as some trainers are flown out of the country and additional security forces come in. Those movements led to an international incident Monday when a U.S. officer seemed to announce that U.S. forces were withdrawing, prompting Milley and Esper to address reporters at the Pentagon to deny there was any withdrawal plan.
The Iraqi Parliament on Sunday passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the expulsion of all foreign forces. On Tuesday, Iraq’s outgoing prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, said the United States has no choice but to pull its troops out of the country. Trump, however, told reporters in the Oval Office that he has no intention of withdrawing yet.


shareblue--2020-01-08--Less than a third of Americans think Trump's Iran strike made them safer

Donald Trump 's decision to order an airstrike killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , less than a month after the House of Representatives impeached him , makes America less safe and war with Iran more likely , according to a Morning Consult poll released Wednesday .
While the White House claimed `` Americans are safer '' after Soleimani was killed , half of Americans ( 50 % ) disagree , responding that Trump 's decision makes the country less safe .
Less than a third ( 32 % ) of those polled said it made the country safer .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Trump 's decision makes war with Iran more likely , while only 15 % of respondents said war is now less likely .
Late Tuesday night , after the poll was completed , Iran launched missiles targeting American military bases in Iraq .
The poll also showed that less than half the country , or 47 % , approved of the airstrike , while 40 % disapproved of the measure .
The Morning Consult poll mirrors other polls taken since Trump 's early January decision to order the killing of Soleimani .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 54 % of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling issues with Iran , with only 37 % approving .
A HuffPost/YouGov poll released Monday , nearly half the respondents ( 46 % ) disapproved Trump 's handling of Iran , with only 40 % approving .
The same poll showed less than half the country ( 43 % ) approved of the airstrike that killed Soleimani , with 38 % disapproving .
And like the Morning Consult poll , a majority of HuffPost/YouGov respondents ( 57 % ) believe Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while just 8 % think it makes war less likely .
U.S. officials defended the killing of Soleimani , which Israel described as an `` assassination , '' by claiming the administration had intelligence of an imminent threat .
However , the administration has not publicly released any information regarding the threat and some congressional leaders who have reviewed it question the Trump administration 's conclusion .
After the initial airstrike , Trump vowed to commit war crimes against the Iranian people if Iran retaliated .
Trump threatened to destroy Iranian cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hague Convention , before eventually backing down from his threat .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump’s decision to order an airstrike killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, less than a month after the House of Representatives impeached him, makes America less safe and war with Iran more likely, according to a Morning Consult poll released Wednesday.
While the White House claimed “Americans are safer” after Soleimani was killed, half of Americans (50%) disagree, responding that Trump’s decision makes the country less safe. Less than a third (32%) of those polled said it made the country safer.
A much larger majority, 69%, said Trump’s decision makes war with Iran more likely, while only 15% of respondents said war is now less likely. Late Tuesday night, after the poll was completed, Iran launched missiles targeting American military bases in Iraq.
The poll also showed that less than half the country, or 47%, approved of the airstrike, while 40% disapproved of the measure.
The Morning Consult poll mirrors other polls taken since Trump’s early January decision to order the killing of Soleimani.
A Reuters poll released on Tuesday shows 54% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling issues with Iran, with only 37% approving.
A HuffPost/YouGov poll released Monday, nearly half the respondents (46%) disapproved Trump’s handling of Iran, with only 40% approving. The same poll showed less than half the country (43%) approved of the airstrike that killed Soleimani, with 38% disapproving.
And like the Morning Consult poll, a majority of HuffPost/YouGov respondents (57%) believe Trump’s action makes war with Iran more likely, while just 8% think it makes war less likely.
U.S. officials defended the killing of Soleimani, which Israel described as an “assassination,” by claiming the administration had intelligence of an imminent threat. However, the administration has not publicly released any information regarding the threat and some congressional leaders who have reviewed it question the Trump administration’s conclusion.
After the initial airstrike, Trump vowed to commit war crimes against the Iranian people if Iran retaliated. Trump threatened to destroy Iranian cultural sites, which would violate the 1954 Hague Convention, before eventually backing down from his threat.
In late 2019, Trump pardoned a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-09--House votes to rein in Trump's war powers over Iran strike

The House of Representatives voted 224 to 194 on Thursday to limit the Trump administration 's ability to carry out military attacks on Iran without congressional authorization .
It was a mostly party-lines vote .
The resolution directed Trump to `` terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in and against Iran . ''
It noted that while Iran is a `` leading state sponsor of terrorism '' and Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was `` lead architect of much of Iran 's destabilizing activities throughout the world , '' the war powers resolution `` requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every possible instance ' before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities . ''
It also reminded Trump that `` Congress has not authorized military force against Iran . ''
Trump did not notify Democratic members of Congress prior to killing Soleimani , later suggesting they could not be trusted .
Under the resolution , Trump could continue to use the military against Iran if given congressional authorization or it was needed to prevent an `` imminent armed attack '' on the nation , its lands , or its military .
The administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent attack , but has offered little evidence beyond telling Congress to trust them .
The resolution 's lead sponsor , Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) , explained that her measure aims to `` make it clear that if the President wants to take us to war , he must get authorization from Congress . ''
`` If our loved ones are going to fight any protracted war , the President owes the American people a public conversation , '' she said Thursday .
Rep. Will Hurd ( R-TX ) told his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely `` a partisan exercise that can be used as propagand '' by Iran .
Like hundreds of other pieces of House-passed legislation , the resolution faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Senate .
Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) is sponsoring a similar resolution , but it would require significant Republican support to pass .
Unlike bills , this resolution would not require Trump 's signature if it passed both chambers , but the courts have not determined whether such a war powers resolution would be binding .
Published with permission @ @ @ @ @ @

The House of Representatives voted 224 to 194 on Thursday to limit the Trump administration’s ability to carry out military attacks on Iran without congressional authorization. It was a mostly party-lines vote.
The resolution directed Trump to “terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in and against Iran.” It noted that while Iran is a “leading state sponsor of terrorism” and Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “lead architect of much of Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the world,” the war powers resolution “requires the President to consult with Congress ‘in every possible instance’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”
It also reminded Trump that “Congress has not authorized military force against Iran.” Trump did not notify Democratic members of Congress prior to killing Soleimani, later suggesting they could not be trusted.
Under the resolution, Trump could continue to use the military against Iran if given congressional authorization or it was needed to prevent an “imminent armed attack” on the nation, its lands, or its military. The administration has claimed it acted to prevent an imminent attack, but has offered little evidence beyond telling Congress to trust them.
The resolution’s lead sponsor, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), explained that her measure aims to “make it clear that if the President wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress.”
“If our loved ones are going to fight any protracted war, the President owes the American people a public conversation,” she said Thursday.
Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) told his colleagues during floor debate that it was merely “a partisan exercise that can be used as propagand” by Iran.
Like hundreds of other pieces of House-passed legislation, the resolution faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Senate. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is sponsoring a similar resolution, but it would require significant Republican support to pass.
Unlike bills, this resolution would not require Trump’s signature if it passed both chambers, but the courts have not determined whether such a war powers resolution would be binding.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-09--Federal judge says crews can begin construction on private border wall

Crews could start building a private border wall in South Texas within the coming days following a federal judge 's ruling Thursday that lifted a restraining order against the project .
U.S. District Judge Randy Crane 's order was the second federal ruling in two days in favor of border barriers .
On Wednesday , the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court 's stay that had prevented Donald Trump 's administration from diverting $ 3.6 billion from military construction projects to fund 175 miles ( 280 kilometers ) of border wall .
While the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's ruling , saying it rightfully lifted an `` illegitimate nationwide injunction , '' Crane 's ruling actually went against the U.S. government 's position .
Fisher Industries , a North Dakota-based construction firm , wants to install 3 miles ( 4.8 kilometers ) of steel posts about 35 feet ( 10 meters ) from the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande , the river that forms the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas .
The company ’ s president , Tommy Fisher , wants to spend $ 40 million on the private border wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising group — to prove that his company can build barriers more effectively .
The U.S. government sued to stop Fisher on the grounds that building so close to the Rio Grande risked changing the flow of the river and potentially pushing floodwaters into Mexico , in violation of treaty obligations .
The U.S. attorney ’ s office argued the project could shift the river and the international boundary , which violated Trump 's authority `` to conduct the foreign relations of the United States . ''
Existing segments of fencing and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building typically run along the Rio Grande levee or through property a significant distance away from the river .
The U.S. is currently working to seize private land to build more sections of wall in Texas .
Crane issued a restraining order in December , but lifted that order Thursday .
He also declined to grant a restraining order at the request of the National Butterfly Center , a nonprofit located next to the South Texas construction site .
The butterfly center and environmentalists warn building a border barrier so close to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other land .
Fisher Industries has submitted documents to the government that argue installing fence posts and clearing and grading the land will reduce flooding , though environmentalists disagree with that claim .
Speaking after the hearing Thursday , Fisher said his work crews were ready to start working Sunday and could install all of the steel posts in a week .
“ We look forward to showing the whole entire world that you can have border protection where you need it , ” Fisher said .
The butterfly center had been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years until Congress effectively exempted it and several other environmentally sensitive areas and cultural sites .
Marianna Trevino Wright , the center ’ s executive director , said Thursday ’ s ruling “ makes you wonder when it ’ s going to end and how many more of these proxies are there.
” At the 5th Circuit , the 2-1 ruling announced Wednesday allows the government to move forward with 11 projects in California , Arizona , New Mexico and Texas .
The longest and most expensive by far would span 52 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Texas , at an estimated cost of $ 1.27 billion .
The court noted that the Supreme Court in July had stayed a similar injunction , clearing the way for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of border wall .
“ The Government is entitled to the same relief here , ” the three-judge panel wrote .
Trump tweeted about the ruling and wrote that the “ Entire Wall is under construction or getting ready to start !
” White House press secretary Stephanie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had lifted an “ illegitimate nationwide injunction ” and in doing so had allowed work on the border wall to continue with military construction money .
“ We will finish the wall , ” she said in a statement .
Opponents of the Trump administration ’ s actions had welcomed the earlier district court ruling that had put the work on hold , calling Trump 's actions an “ outrageous power grab.
” They noted that Trump had promised repeatedly during the 2016 presidential campaign that Mexico would pay for the wall .

Crews could start building a private border wall in South Texas within the coming days following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that lifted a restraining order against the project.
U.S. District Judge Randy Crane’s order was the second federal ruling in two days in favor of border barriers. On Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court’s stay that had prevented Donald Trump’s administration from diverting $3.6 billion from military construction projects to fund 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall.
While the White House on Thursday celebrated the appeals court’s ruling, saying it rightfully lifted an “illegitimate nationwide injunction,” Crane’s ruling actually went against the U.S. government’s position.
Fisher Industries, a North Dakota-based construction firm, wants to install 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) of steel posts about 35 feet (10 meters) from the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande, the river that forms the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas. The company’s president, Tommy Fisher, wants to spend $40 million on the private border wall — originally promoted by a pro-Trump online fundraising group — to prove that his company can build barriers more effectively.
The U.S. government sued to stop Fisher on the grounds that building so close to the Rio Grande risked changing the flow of the river and potentially pushing floodwaters into Mexico, in violation of treaty obligations. The U.S. attorney’s office argued the project could shift the river and the international boundary, which violated Trump’s authority “to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.”
Existing segments of fencing and the small sections that the government is currently building typically run along the Rio Grande levee or through property a significant distance away from the river. The U.S. is currently working to seize private land to build more sections of wall in Texas.
Crane issued a restraining order in December, but lifted that order Thursday. He also declined to grant a restraining order at the request of the National Butterfly Center, a nonprofit located next to the South Texas construction site. The butterfly center and environmentalists warn building a border barrier so close to the river could worsen erosion and potentially damage other land.
Fisher Industries has submitted documents to the government that argue installing fence posts and clearing and grading the land will reduce flooding, though environmentalists disagree with that claim.
Speaking after the hearing Thursday, Fisher said his work crews were ready to start working Sunday and could install all of the steel posts in a week.
“We look forward to showing the whole entire world that you can have border protection where you need it,” Fisher said.
The butterfly center had been in the path of a potential border wall for years until Congress effectively exempted it and several other environmentally sensitive areas and cultural sites.
Marianna Trevino Wright, the center’s executive director, said Thursday’s ruling “makes you wonder when it’s going to end and how many more of these proxies are there.”
At the 5th Circuit, the 2-1 ruling announced Wednesday allows the government to move forward with 11 projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The longest and most expensive by far would span 52 miles (83 kilometers) in Laredo, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1.27 billion.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in July had stayed a similar injunction, clearing the way for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of border wall.
“The Government is entitled to the same relief here,” the three-judge panel wrote.
Trump tweeted about the ruling and wrote that the “Entire Wall is under construction or getting ready to start!”
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said on Thursday that the court had lifted an “illegitimate nationwide injunction” and in doing so had allowed work on the border wall to continue with military construction money.
“We will finish the wall,” she said in a statement.
Opponents of the Trump administration’s actions had welcomed the earlier district court ruling that had put the work on hold, calling Trump’s actions an “outrageous power grab.” They noted that Trump had promised repeatedly during the 2016 presidential campaign that Mexico would pay for the wall.


shareblue--2020-01-09--Trudeau says Ukraine plane may have been mistakenly shot down by Iranian missile

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday said there is credible evidence to show that Iran was responsible for the crash of a Ukrainian passenger flight that killed more than 170 people — including dozens of Canadian citizens .
`` Intelligence from multiple sources indicates the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile , '' Trudeau said Thursday at a news conference , adding that the incident `` may well have been unintentional.
” Sixty-three Canadians were onboard the Boeing 737 , which crashed Wednesday , shortly after taking off from Tehran en route to Kyiv .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours after Iran fired missiles at military bases in Iraq that housed American troops .
The attack was carried out in retaliation for a drone strike last week that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as his convoy departed Baghdad International Airport .
Iran has claimed that a `` technical '' error was responsible for the plane crash .
However , aviation experts said the evidence pointed more toward the plane being shot down .
Video obtained and verified by the New York Times this week and published on Thursday also showed the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said appeared to be a missile `` above Parand , near Tehran ’ s airport , '' in the area where its signal stopped transmitting on Wednesday .
`` A small explosion occurred when a missile hit the plane , but the plane did not explode , the video showed .
The jet continued flying for several minutes and turned back toward the airport , '' the Times reported .
Earlier on Thursday , Donald Trump suggested that Iran was behind the plane crash , and that the country might have fired at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` It 's a tragic thing when I see that , it 's a tragic thing .
But somebody could 've made a mistake on the other side , '' Trump said .
`` It was flying ... in a pretty rough neighborhood .
...
Some people say it was mechanical .
Personally , I do n't think that 's even a question . ''

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday said there is credible evidence to show that Iran was responsible for the crash of a Ukrainian passenger flight that killed more than 170 people — including dozens of Canadian citizens.
“Intelligence from multiple sources indicates the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile,” Trudeau said Thursday at a news conference, adding that the incident “may well have been unintentional.”
Sixty-three Canadians were onboard the Boeing 737, which crashed Wednesday, shortly after taking off from Tehran en route to Kyiv. There were no survivors.
The plane crashed hours after Iran fired missiles at military bases in Iraq that housed American troops. The attack was carried out in retaliation for a drone strike last week that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as his convoy departed Baghdad International Airport.
Iran has claimed that a “technical” error was responsible for the plane crash. However, aviation experts said the evidence pointed more toward the plane being shot down.
Video obtained and verified by the New York Times this week and published on Thursday also showed the Ukrainian jetliner being struck by what the outlet said appeared to be a missile “above Parand, near Tehran’s airport,” in the area where its signal stopped transmitting on Wednesday.
“A small explosion occurred when a missile hit the plane, but the plane did not explode, the video showed. The jet continued flying for several minutes and turned back toward the airport,” the Times reported.
Earlier on Thursday, Donald Trump suggested that Iran was behind the plane crash, and that the country might have fired at the plane by “mistake.”
“It’s a tragic thing when I see that, it’s a tragic thing. But somebody could’ve made a mistake on the other side,” Trump said. “It was flying … in a pretty rough neighborhood. … Some people say it was mechanical. Personally, I don’t think that’s even a question.”


shareblue--2020-01-09--Facebook again says it's fine with political ads that lie

Despite escalating pressure ahead of the 2020 presidential election , Facebook reaffirmed its freewheeling policy on political ads Thursday , saying it won ’ t ban them , won ’ t fact-check them , and won ’ t limit how they can be targeted to specific groups of people .
Instead , Facebook said it will offer users slightly more control over how many political ads they see and make its online library of political ads easier to browse .
These steps appear unlikely to assuage critics — including politicians , activists , tech competitors and some of the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Facebook has too much power and that social media is warping democracy and undermining elections .
And Facebook 's stance stands in contrast to what its rivals are doing .
Google has decided to limit targeting of political ads , while Twitter is banning them outright .
`` Today 's announcement is more window dressing around their decision to allow paid misinformation , '' said Bill Russo , a campaign spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Social media companies have been trying to tackle misinformation since it was learned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the 2016 elections to sow discord among Americans .
The fears go beyond foreign interference .
In recent months , Facebook , Twitter , and Google refused to remove a misleading video ad from Donald Trump ’ s campaign that targeted Biden .
Facebook has repeatedly insisted it wo n't fact-check political ads .
CEO Mark Zuckerberg has argued that `` political speech is important '' and that Facebook does n't want to interfere with it .
Critics say that stance gives politicians a license to lie .
TV stations and networks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but social media gives candidates a certain advantage : the ability to `` microtarget '' their ads .
For instance , they can use information gleaned from voter rolls , such as political affiliation , and try to reach just those people .
Or they can narrow the target audience to those who have shown interest in guns , abortion or immigration , based on what the user has read or talked about on Facebook .
Candidates might even show one ad to young Democratic women interested in both gun control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to everyone else .
Google , the digital ads leader , decided in November to limit political-ad targeting to just three broad categories — sex , age , and location , such as ZIP code .
Under Google 's policy , candidates would be free to show immigration ads next to immigration-related stories only ; they would n't be able to show ads to just Democrats or Republicans , or target people specifically interested in immigration when they 're reading about baseball or Beyonce .
Google said that approach aligns its policies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TV , and radio .
Jason Kint , CEO of Digital Content Next , a trade group that represents digital publishers , said Google 's ban on microtargeting is much better than Facebook 's permissive stance .
Making sure ads reach more people can enable the public and the press to see , debate , and correct claims in them , he said .
`` Sunlight is the best disinfectant , '' he said .
Facebook said in a blog post Thursday that it considered limiting microtargeting for political ads .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such practices for reaching `` key audiences '' after talking with political campaigns from both major parties in the United States , political groups and nonprofits .
The company said it was guided by the principle that `` people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them , warts and all , and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public . ''
Facebook does plan to let users choose to see fewer political and social-issue ads , although it wo n't let people exclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let people choose whether or not to see ads , political or otherwise , from advertisers that target them using their contact details , such as email address or phone number .
The company is also tweaking its ad library so people can search for exact phrases and limit results using filters such as dates and regions reached .
Facebook 's ad library currently lets anyone find out how much was spent on an ad , how many times it was seen , and the age , gender , and location of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also called for government regulation of political ads , saying private companies should not be the ones to make rules about them .
Experts say one of the big problems with political advertising online is the lack of a federal standard about what is and is n't allowed .
`` Facebook and Twitter should not be making these decisions themselves , '' said Daniel Kreiss , a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina .
`` In the absence of any standards , you get the mess we 're seeing now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Targets Me , an advocacy group researching political advertising , also said individual companies should n't be deciding whether to allow political ads and what limits to set .
`` It should n't be up to Facebook to decide what a lie is or is n't , '' he said .
`` It should be up to journalism and other forms of accountability . ''

Despite escalating pressure ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Facebook reaffirmed its freewheeling policy on political ads Thursday, saying it won’t ban them, won’t fact-check them, and won’t limit how they can be targeted to specific groups of people.
Instead, Facebook said it will offer users slightly more control over how many political ads they see and make its online library of political ads easier to browse.
These steps appear unlikely to assuage critics — including politicians, activists, tech competitors and some of the company’s own rank-and-file employees — who say that Facebook has too much power and that social media is warping democracy and undermining elections.
And Facebook’s stance stands in contrast to what its rivals are doing. Google has decided to limit targeting of political ads, while Twitter is banning them outright.
“Today’s announcement is more window dressing around their decision to allow paid misinformation,” said Bill Russo, a campaign spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Social media companies have been trying to tackle misinformation since it was learned that Russians bankrolled thousands of fake political ads during the 2016 elections to sow discord among Americans.
The fears go beyond foreign interference. In recent months, Facebook, Twitter, and Google refused to remove a misleading video ad from Donald Trump’s campaign that targeted Biden.
Facebook has repeatedly insisted it won’t fact-check political ads. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has argued that “political speech is important” and that Facebook doesn’t want to interfere with it. Critics say that stance gives politicians a license to lie.
TV stations and networks aren’t required to fact-check ads either, but social media gives candidates a certain advantage: the ability to “microtarget” their ads.
For instance, they can use information gleaned from voter rolls, such as political affiliation, and try to reach just those people. Or they can narrow the target audience to those who have shown interest in guns, abortion or immigration, based on what the user has read or talked about on Facebook. Candidates might even show one ad to young Democratic women interested in both gun control and climate change, and a different ad to everyone else.
Google, the digital ads leader, decided in November to limit political-ad targeting to just three broad categories — sex, age, and location, such as ZIP code.
Under Google’s policy, candidates would be free to show immigration ads next to immigration-related stories only; they wouldn’t be able to show ads to just Democrats or Republicans, or target people specifically interested in immigration when they’re reading about baseball or Beyonce.
Google said that approach aligns its policies with those of other media such as print, TV, and radio.
Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade group that represents digital publishers, said Google’s ban on microtargeting is much better than Facebook’s permissive stance. Making sure ads reach more people can enable the public and the press to see, debate, and correct claims in them, he said.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said.
Facebook said in a blog post Thursday that it considered limiting microtargeting for political ads. But it said it learned about the importance of such practices for reaching “key audiences” after talking with political campaigns from both major parties in the United States, political groups and nonprofits.
The company said it was guided by the principle that “people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”
Facebook does plan to let users choose to see fewer political and social-issue ads, although it won’t let people exclude them entirely. It’s also going to let people choose whether or not to see ads, political or otherwise, from advertisers that target them using their contact details, such as email address or phone number.
The company is also tweaking its ad library so people can search for exact phrases and limit results using filters such as dates and regions reached. Facebook’s ad library currently lets anyone find out how much was spent on an ad, how many times it was seen, and the age, gender, and location of the people who saw it.
Facebook also called for government regulation of political ads, saying private companies should not be the ones to make rules about them. Experts say one of the big problems with political advertising online is the lack of a federal standard about what is and isn’t allowed.
“Facebook and Twitter should not be making these decisions themselves,” said Daniel Kreiss, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina. “In the absence of any standards, you get the mess we’re seeing now.”
Sam Jeffers, co-founder of Who Targets Me, an advocacy group researching political advertising, also said individual companies shouldn’t be deciding whether to allow political ads and what limits to set.
“It shouldn’t be up to Facebook to decide what a lie is or isn’t,” he said. “It should be up to journalism and other forms of accountability.”


shareblue--2020-01-09--Lindsey Graham's challenger breaks fundraising record to flip Senate seat

Jaime Harrison , a Democratic candidate looking to oust Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , raised more than $ 3.5 million in the last three months of 2019 , the State reported on Monday .
Harrison 's haul is the most a Democratic challenger has ever raised in South Carolina history .
Harrison topped his previous fundraising totals from earlier in 2019 , heading in to 2020 with $ 4.6 million in the bank .
Graham has not released his fundraising total from the end of 2019 , but brought in just $ 3.3 million in the third quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State .
`` Sen. Graham thinks he will ease his way to reelection , but he 's about to face his greatest challenger and that is Jaime Harrison , '' Guy King , a Harrison campaign spokesman , told the State .
A mid-December poll showed Graham with a narrow 2-point lead over Harrison , a potentially worrying sign in a state Donald Trump carried by 14 points in 2016 .
`` Senator Lindsey Graham 's favorability is exceptionally low among Independent voters , '' the poll noted at the time , adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contender Jaime Harrison . ''
Like Harrison , other Democratic candidates in GOP-leaning states are raising an eye-popping amount of cash to take on Republican incumbents .
In Iowa , Theresa Greenfield raised more than $ 1.6 million in her effort to oust Sen. Joni Ernst .
Ernst did not release her fundraising totals for the end of the year , but Greenfield outraised her in the previous quarter by more than $ 150,000 .
In Kentucky , Amy McGrath raised $ 6.2 million in an effort to replace Senate Majority Leader Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 million the previous quarter .
In Georgia , Democrat Jon Ossoff raised more than $ 1 million in the last three months of 2019 in his challenge to replace Republican Sen. David Perdue .
Other candidates in that race have not released their fundraising totals .
Also in Georgia , Matt Lieberman , son of former Sen. Joe Lieberman ( D-CT ) , raised $ 700,000 in his campaign to fill the seat of the retired Sen. Johnny Isakson .
In December , Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp selected Republican donor Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November election .
The fundraising numbers were released the same week that the progressive fundraising platform ActBlue announced more than $ 1 billion in campaign contributions in 2019 for Democratic candidates and causes .
Republicans currently hold a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate , meaning Democrats need to flip three seats and win the White House to gain a majority , or flip four seats outright to guarantee a majority .
In early November , before the latest South Carolina poll and fundraising numbers were released , the Cook Political Report listed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina as the most likely pick-up opportunities .
Among Democratic incumbents , Alabama 's Sen. Doug Jones is the most vulnerable , with Cook Political Report labeling the race a toss-up .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Jaime Harrison, a Democratic candidate looking to oust Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), raised more than $3.5 million in the last three months of 2019, the State reported on Monday.
Harrison’s haul is the most a Democratic challenger has ever raised in South Carolina history.
Harrison topped his previous fundraising totals from earlier in 2019, heading in to 2020 with $4.6 million in the bank.
Graham has not released his fundraising total from the end of 2019, but brought in just $3.3 million in the third quarter of the year, according to the State.
“Sen. Graham thinks he will ease his way to reelection, but he’s about to face his greatest challenger and that is Jaime Harrison,” Guy King, a Harrison campaign spokesman, told the State.
A mid-December poll showed Graham with a narrow 2-point lead over Harrison, a potentially worrying sign in a state Donald Trump carried by 14 points in 2016.
“Senator Lindsey Graham’s favorability is exceptionally low among Independent voters,” the poll noted at the time, adding Graham “looks extremely vulnerable against Democratic contender Jaime Harrison.”
Like Harrison, other Democratic candidates in GOP-leaning states are raising an eye-popping amount of cash to take on Republican incumbents.
In Iowa, Theresa Greenfield raised more than $1.6 million in her effort to oust Sen. Joni Ernst. Ernst did not release her fundraising totals for the end of the year, but Greenfield outraised her in the previous quarter by more than $150,000.
In Kentucky, Amy McGrath raised $6.2 million in an effort to replace Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, after raising more than $10 million the previous quarter.
In Georgia, Democrat Jon Ossoff raised more than $1 million in the last three months of 2019 in his challenge to replace Republican Sen. David Perdue. Other candidates in that race have not released their fundraising totals.
Also in Georgia, Matt Lieberman, son of former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), raised $700,000 in his campaign to fill the seat of the retired Sen. Johnny Isakson. In December, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp selected Republican donor Kelly Loeffler to represent the state until the November election.
The fundraising numbers were released the same week that the progressive fundraising platform ActBlue announced more than $1 billion in campaign contributions in 2019 for Democratic candidates and causes.
Republicans currently hold a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats need to flip three seats and win the White House to gain a majority, or flip four seats outright to guarantee a majority.
In early November, before the latest South Carolina poll and fundraising numbers were released, the Cook Political Report listed Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina as the most likely pick-up opportunities.
Among Democratic incumbents, Alabama’s Sen. Doug Jones is the most vulnerable, with Cook Political Report labeling the race a toss-up.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-01-09--Duncan Hunter's late resignation will leave district unrepresented nearly all year

Voters in outgoing Rep. Duncan Hunter 's ( R-CA ) district will be left without representation for virtually all of 2020 due to the disgraced lawmaker 's decision not to step down from his post earlier in December .
Hunter , who pleaded guilty to felony misuse of campaign funds more than a month ago , will vacate his seat on Jan. 13 .
Hunter informed California Democratic Gov .
Gavin Newsom on Tuesday that he was resigning from his House seat .
Newsom 's office said on Wednesday , `` Based on the timing of the resignation , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Had Hunter resigned by the Dec. 6 filing deadline , it would have guaranteed a special election to select his replacement .
He agreed to a plea deal on Dec. 3 and was told by the House Ethics Committee to `` refrain from voting '' on Dec. 5 , but without explanation opted not to resign until `` after the holidays . ''
But because he waited so long , as the Los Angles Times noted , he made a special election much more difficult .
San Diego County 's Registrar of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the March primary and overseas military ballots must go out next week for that election .
By state law , the timing of any special election would have likely necessitated a March primary which , the paper noted , `` could cause confusion '' given mail ballots for the existing state primary would have been distributed at around the same time .
Hunter was indicted in August 2018 on multiple federal corruption charges , including using hundreds of thousands in campaign funds for personal purposes .
Prosecutors later alleged some of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs with five women .
In a plea deal , Hunter admitted to one count of misusing campaign funds .
He is currently awaiting sentencing .
Hunter 's office did not respond to questions about why he delayed his resignation for so long and whether he now regrets it .
After his guilty plea was announced last month , one Republican candidate seeking his seat encouraged him to resign quickly to ensure a special election could be held .
Carl DiMaio , a former San Diego City Council member , put out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By intentionally delaying his resignation past the deadline for the calling of a Special Election , Congressman Duncan Hunter is silencing the voice of the voters of the 50th District for a full year in Congress . ''
Though DeMaio urged Hunter `` to reconsider the timing of his resignation to provide a better and more expeditious transition of his office , '' this request went unheeded .
Now , California 's 50th District congressional seat will remain vacant until after the November 2020 elections .
The House Clerk will take over supervision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all constituent assistance casework , but no one will be able to cast a vote on behalf of the more than 335,000 registered voters in the district until a successor is elected .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Voters in outgoing Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) district will be left without representation for virtually all of 2020 due to the disgraced lawmaker’s decision not to step down from his post earlier in December. Hunter, who pleaded guilty to felony misuse of campaign funds more than a month ago, will vacate his seat on Jan. 13.
Hunter informed California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday that he was resigning from his House seat. Newsom’s office said on Wednesday, “Based on the timing of the resignation, a special election will not be called.”
Had Hunter resigned by the Dec. 6 filing deadline, it would have guaranteed a special election to select his replacement. He agreed to a plea deal on Dec. 3 and was told by the House Ethics Committee to “refrain from voting” on Dec. 5, but without explanation opted not to resign until “after the holidays.”
But because he waited so long, as the Los Angles Times noted, he made a special election much more difficult. San Diego County’s Registrar of Voters has already begun finalizing the ballot for the March primary and overseas military ballots must go out next week for that election. By state law, the timing of any special election would have likely necessitated a March primary which, the paper noted, “could cause confusion” given mail ballots for the existing state primary would have been distributed at around the same time.
Hunter was indicted in August 2018 on multiple federal corruption charges, including using hundreds of thousands in campaign funds for personal purposes. Prosecutors later alleged some of that money went to pay for his extramarital affairs with five women. In a plea deal, Hunter admitted to one count of misusing campaign funds. He is currently awaiting sentencing.
Hunter’s office did not respond to questions about why he delayed his resignation for so long and whether he now regrets it.
After his guilty plea was announced last month, one Republican candidate seeking his seat encouraged him to resign quickly to ensure a special election could be held. Carl DiMaio, a former San Diego City Council member, put out a statement on Dec. 6 saying, “By intentionally delaying his resignation past the deadline for the calling of a Special Election, Congressman Duncan Hunter is silencing the voice of the voters of the 50th District for a full year in Congress.” Though DeMaio urged Hunter “to reconsider the timing of his resignation to provide a better and more expeditious transition of his office,” this request went unheeded.
Now, California’s 50th District congressional seat will remain vacant until after the November 2020 elections. The House Clerk will take over supervision of Hunter’s staff to ensure handling of all constituent assistance casework, but no one will be able to cast a vote on behalf of the more than 335,000 registered voters in the district until a successor is elected.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.