usatoday--2020-01-15--'OK, boomer': Chief Justice John Roberts asks if phrase counts as age discrimination

WASHINGTON – Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the phrase `` OK , boomer '' would qualify as age discrimination during oral arguments on Wednesday .
The justices were hearing a work discrimination case concerning a Department of Veteran Affairs employee , Norris Babb , who says her bosses `` discriminated against her based on her gender and age ” and “ subjected her to a hostile work environment.
” Babb , a clinical pharmacist working at the VA , sued the department over a series of decisions that affected her job duties , pay and opportunities for promotions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ millennials calling out boomers on TikTok ?
'OK , boomer , ' explained Robert 's asked Babb 's lawyer whether a younger hiring manager saying `` okay , boomer '' once to `` the applicant '' would be considered an “ actionable ” offense .
The use of the phrase in a hypothetical situation drew laughter in the courtroom .
`` OK , boomer '' has become a biting slogan younger generations have used on platforms like TikTok and Twitter to express resentment toward older people , invoking the name of the baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech in the workplace ... .calling someone 'boomer ' or saying unflattering things about them in age , when considering them for a position , then yes of course , '' Roman Martinez , the attorney delivering the oral arguments Babb , replied back .
`` So calling somebody a 'Boomer ' and considering them for a position would be actionable ? ''
Roberts , 64 , pressed .
`` If the decision-makers are sitting around the table and they say , 'we 've got Candidate A who 's 35 ' and 'we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is a Boomer ' -- and is probably tired and you know , does n't have a lot of computer skills , I think that absolutely would be actionable , '' Martinez continued .
The case revolves around whether federal workers can claim age bias under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 .
A final ruling will not be delivered until spring .
The chief justice was attempting to discuss whether this would limit free expression .
“ I 'm just wondering if your position is going to become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workplace , ” Roberts continued .

'OK, boomer': Chief Justice John Roberts asks if phrase counts as age discrimination
Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears "Bridgegate" case, skeptical of criminality A case surrounding the political retribution and corruption charges around 2013's "Bridgegate" is heard by SCOTUS. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the phrase "OK, boomer" would qualify as age discrimination during oral arguments on Wednesday.
The justices were hearing a work discrimination case concerning a Department of Veteran Affairs employee, Norris Babb, who says her bosses "discriminated against her based on her gender and age” and “subjected her to a hostile work environment.”
Babb, a clinical pharmacist working at the VA, sued the department over a series of decisions that affected her job duties, pay and opportunities for promotions.
More:Why are Gen Z and millennials calling out boomers on TikTok? 'OK, boomer,' explained
Robert's asked Babb's lawyer whether a younger hiring manager saying "okay, boomer" once to "the applicant" would be considered an “actionable” offense.
The use of the phrase in a hypothetical situation drew laughter in the courtroom.
"OK, boomer" has become a biting slogan younger generations have used on platforms like TikTok and Twitter to express resentment toward older people, invoking the name of the baby boom generation.
"Well if the speech in the workplace....calling someone 'boomer' or saying unflattering things about them in age, when considering them for a position, then yes of course," Roman Martinez, the attorney delivering the oral arguments Babb, replied back.
"So calling somebody a 'Boomer' and considering them for a position would be actionable?" Roberts, 64, pressed.
More: Supreme Court won't hear challenge to topless bathing ban
"If the decision-makers are sitting around the table and they say, 'we've got Candidate A who's 35' and 'we've got Candidate B who's 55 and is a Boomer' -- and is probably tired and you know, doesn't have a lot of computer skills, I think that absolutely would be actionable," Martinez continued.
The case revolves around whether federal workers can claim age bias under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. A final ruling will not be delivered until spring.
The chief justice was attempting to discuss whether this would limit free expression.
“I'm just wondering if your position is going to become a really just a regulation of speech in the workplace,” Roberts continued.
Contributing: Richard Wolf, Joshua Bote


usatoday--2020-01-15--U.S., China sign 'Phase One' trade agreement, signaling pause in trade war

WASHINGTON – The U.S. and China signed a limited trade deal Wednesday , signaling a pause in the nearly two-year trade war between the world 's two largest economies and setting the stage for talks for a broader agreement down the road .
The “ Phase One ” agreement , the product of months of negotiations between officials in Washington and Beijing , calls for China to purchase an additional $ 200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services over the next two years , including another $ 32 billion in agriculture products .
China also promised not to pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property for the right to do business there and to refrain from devaluing its currency to give its companies an advantage over foreign competitors .
“ Today we take a momentous step – one that has never been taken before with China – toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade , ” President Donald Trump said in a White House signing ceremony with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He .
The details : What 's in Trump 's 'Phase One ' trade deal between the U.S. and China ?
Speaking through a translator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Xi Jinping , who said the deal “ is good for China , for the U.S. and for the world . ''
Trump said he would travel to China soon as the two sides try to negotiate a broader agreement to deal with unresolved issues , such as complaints that China subsidizes its companies to give them an unfair advantage over foreign businesses .
A broader deal is not expected to be finalized until after the November election .
Meanwhile , the U.S. will keep in place most of the tariffs it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products as trade tensions between the two countries escalated over the past 18 months .
But Trump said those tariffs could be removed if a broader deal is reached .
The limited agreement signed Wednesday allows Trump to claim a political victory as he faces an impeachment trial in the Senate and gears up for the November election .
But analysts question how much the U.S. really got out of the deal .
“ This is largely a deal on Chinese terms , ” said Robert Daly , director of the Wilson Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , a non-profit research organization that seeks to promote better U.S.-China relations .
“ There is nothing we know about this deal that China wouldn ’ t like .
And there is nothing we know about this deal that China probably wouldn ’ t have been willing to do some time ago.
” U.S. consumers won ’ t get much of a financial reprieve from the deal , economists say , because while the truce helps consumers avoid the pain of further tariffs , it does n't erase all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ element of this deal is what did n't happen : further tariffs , '' says Gregory Daco , chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics .
`` The risk of more tariffs isn ’ t going to materialize , and that ’ s the biggest gain for Americans.
” Other critics said the deal is only an election-year placeholder designed to push the toughest trade issues beyond Trump 's reelection bid .
`` All the big trade issues between the U.S. and China remain unaddressed and punted into the future , '' said David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Bill Clinton 's administration .
`` It is a Potemkin Deal , a sham . ''
How will it affect you ?
: Americans won ’ t get a total reprieve after China trade deal as effects of lost factory jobs , pricier goods linger Trump , however , insisted the agreement is “ a transformative deal '' and said it would benefit American farmers , manufacturers and other workers who have been hurt by China 's unfair trade practices .
Trump and Chinese officials announced the agreement in mid-December , signaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade tensions that rattled financial markets across the globe .
For months , the two countries hit each other with punishing tariffs in a trade war triggered by U.S. accusations that Beijing steals technology from American companies and pressures them to hand over trade secrets so they can do business in China .
At the height of the dispute , Trump set tariffs on more than $ 360 billion in Chinese imports , including farm equipment , motorcycles , mopeds , electronics , plastics and washing machines .
China retaliated with tariffs on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. goods , including agriculture products , cars , auto parts , chemicals , whiskey , cigars , clothing and TVs .
As part of the Phase One deal , the U.S. agreed to shelve plans for tariffs on another $ 160 billion in Chinese goods that had been set to take effect Dec. 15 .
The U.S. also said it would cut by half the 15 % tariff rate it imposed on $ 120 billion of Chinese goods Sept. 1 .
China promised to buy an additional $ 200 billion in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Roughly $ 87 billion of that will be in U.S. manufactured goods , including industrial machinery , iron and steel and vehicles .
Another $ 32 billion of the Chinese purchases will be in agriculture products , such as oil seeds , meat , cereals and cotton ; $ 52 billion will be in U.S. energy goods , including liquefied natural gas , crude oil and other refined products ; and $ 38 billion will be in services such as business travel , financial services and insurance .
China also promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , address concerns about protecting the intellectual property of American companies doing business there and enact new guidelines for how it manages its currency .
Most of the agreement involves China making commitments to change its practices on matters such as forced technology transfers and intellectual property protection , but it 's unclear how the U.S. can make sure China follows through , said Chad Bown , a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics , a nonpartisan , nonprofit think tank in Washington , D.C .
There are enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one seems to know how they might be applied if the U.S. believes China is in violation , Bown said .
`` There are still a lot of open questions as to how this going to work in practice , '' he said .
Blame game : Senior China adviser : Trump to blame for delays in securing final trade deal , says China has been 'accommodating' China has a long history of failing to buy as many U.S. products as it has promised , Daly said , and even if the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there remain questions about whether U.S. farmers could produce enough crops to fill their orders .
What 's more , critics said , the issues still on the table will be difficult to resolve and raise questions about whether a broader agreement can be reached .
“ If we make significant progress , that would be a very good thing , ” said Craig Allen , president of the U.S.-China Business Council , a nonprofit group representing American companies that do business in China .
But `` these are very difficult issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a hard time getting along even with the Canadians .
How are we going to resolve all of these issues with the Chinese ?
” U.S. concessions : Trump administration drops designation of China as currency manipulator

Michael Collins, David Jackson and John Fritze, USA TODAY

U.S., China sign 'Phase One' trade agreement, signaling pause in trade war
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's tariffs: the good, the bad and the ugly President Trump's 'America First' approach has relied on slapping tariffs on countries, such as China and Mexico, which have led to current trade wars. What is a tariff and how do they work? We explain. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The U.S. and China signed a limited trade deal Wednesday, signaling a pause in the nearly two-year trade war between the world's two largest economies and setting the stage for talks for a broader agreement down the road.
The “Phase One” agreement, the product of months of negotiations between officials in Washington and Beijing, calls for China to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services over the next two years, including another $32 billion in agriculture products.
China also promised not to pressure foreign companies to turn over their intellectual property for the right to do business there and to refrain from devaluing its currency to give its companies an advantage over foreign competitors.
“Today we take a momentous step – one that has never been taken before with China – toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade,” President Donald Trump said in a White House signing ceremony with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He.
The details: What's in Trump's 'Phase One' trade deal between the U.S. and China?
Speaking through a translator, Liu read a message from Chinese President Xi Jinping, who said the deal “is good for China, for the U.S. and for the world."
Trump said he would travel to China soon as the two sides try to negotiate a broader agreement to deal with unresolved issues, such as complaints that China subsidizes its companies to give them an unfair advantage over foreign businesses. A broader deal is not expected to be finalized until after the November election.
Meanwhile, the U.S. will keep in place most of the tariffs it imposed on $360 billion in Chinese products as trade tensions between the two countries escalated over the past 18 months. But Trump said those tariffs could be removed if a broader deal is reached.
The limited agreement signed Wednesday allows Trump to claim a political victory as he faces an impeachment trial in the Senate and gears up for the November election. But analysts question how much the U.S. really got out of the deal.
“This is largely a deal on Chinese terms,” said Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, a non-profit research organization that seeks to promote better U.S.-China relations. “There is nothing we know about this deal that China wouldn’t like. And there is nothing we know about this deal that China probably wouldn’t have been willing to do some time ago.”
U.S. consumers won’t get much of a financial reprieve from the deal, economists say, because while the truce helps consumers avoid the pain of further tariffs, it doesn't erase all the earlier ones.
“The most important element of this deal is what didn't happen: further tariffs," says Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. "The risk of more tariffs isn’t going to materialize, and that’s the biggest gain for Americans.”
Other critics said the deal is only an election-year placeholder designed to push the toughest trade issues beyond Trump's reelection bid.
"All the big trade issues between the U.S. and China remain unaddressed and punted into the future," said David Rothkopf, a senior trade official in President Bill Clinton's administration. "It is a Potemkin Deal, a sham."
How will it affect you?: Americans won’t get a total reprieve after China trade deal as effects of lost factory jobs, pricier goods linger
Trump, however, insisted the agreement is “a transformative deal" and said it would benefit American farmers, manufacturers and other workers who have been hurt by China's unfair trade practices.
Trade pact: Trump, China tout tentative 'Phase One' trade deal, including canceling upcoming tariffs
Trump and Chinese officials announced the agreement in mid-December, signaling the first signs of a pause in trade tensions that rattled financial markets across the globe.
For months, the two countries hit each other with punishing tariffs in a trade war triggered by U.S. accusations that Beijing steals technology from American companies and pressures them to hand over trade secrets so they can do business in China.
At the height of the dispute, Trump set tariffs on more than $360 billion in Chinese imports, including farm equipment, motorcycles, mopeds, electronics, plastics and washing machines. China retaliated with tariffs on more than $110 billion worth of U.S. goods, including agriculture products, cars, auto parts, chemicals, whiskey, cigars, clothing and TVs.
As part of the Phase One deal, the U.S. agreed to shelve plans for tariffs on another $160 billion in Chinese goods that had been set to take effect Dec. 15. The U.S. also said it would cut by half the 15% tariff rate it imposed on $120 billion of Chinese goods Sept. 1.
China promised to buy an additional $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. Roughly $87 billion of that will be in U.S. manufactured goods, including industrial machinery, iron and steel and vehicles.
Another $32 billion of the Chinese purchases will be in agriculture products, such as oil seeds, meat, cereals and cotton; $52 billion will be in U.S. energy goods, including liquefied natural gas, crude oil and other refined products; and $38 billion will be in services such as business travel, financial services and insurance.
China also promised to open its financial markets to U.S. companies, address concerns about protecting the intellectual property of American companies doing business there and enact new guidelines for how it manages its currency.
But analysts remain skeptical.
Most of the agreement involves China making commitments to change its practices on matters such as forced technology transfers and intellectual property protection, but it's unclear how the U.S. can make sure China follows through, said Chad Bown, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C.
There are enforcement mechanisms in the agreement, but no one seems to know how they might be applied if the U.S. believes China is in violation, Bown said.
"There are still a lot of open questions as to how this going to work in practice," he said.
Blame game: Senior China adviser: Trump to blame for delays in securing final trade deal, says China has been 'accommodating'
China has a long history of failing to buy as many U.S. products as it has promised, Daly said, and even if the Chinese live up to their commitments this time, there remain questions about whether U.S. farmers could produce enough crops to fill their orders.
What's more, critics said, the issues still on the table will be difficult to resolve and raise questions about whether a broader agreement can be reached.
“If we make significant progress, that would be a very good thing,” said Craig Allen, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, a nonprofit group representing American companies that do business in China.
But "these are very difficult issues," Allen said. "We have a hard time getting along even with the Canadians. How are we going to resolve all of these issues with the Chinese?”
Contributing: Jessica Menton
U.S. concessions: Trump administration drops designation of China as currency manipulator


usatoday--2020-01-15--What's in Trump's 'Phase One' trade deal between the U.S. and China?

WASHINGTON – After years of escalating trade tensions , U.S. and Chinese officials signed an initial deal Wednesday that calls on Beijing to buy more American products and takes a stab at addressing trade conflicts between the world 's two largest economies .
The `` Phase One '' agreement , which President Donald Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed at the White House , signaled a pause in the trade war and gave Trump a chance to claim victory months from the November presidential election .
White House officials released a 94-page agreement that details which U.S. industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will make to address global concerns about intellectual property theft and other controversial trade practices .
Here 's a look at some of the details in the agreement : The Trump administration had previously announced that China would boost its purchase of American goods and services by $ 200 billion over the next two years .
The agreement provides some additional detail about where those purchases will be made .
About $ 77 billion of those purchases will come from manufactured goods ( cars , airplanes , medical instruments ) while $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The energy sector , including liquefied natural gas and crude oil , would represent another $ 52.4 billion , according to the agreement .
The International Energy Agency has predicted that China will be the world 's largest customer for liquefied natural gas in the next five year .
Trump had previously announced that the U.S. was lowering tariffs – and the threat of tariffs – as part of the agreement .
Trump shelved plans to impose new tariffs on $ 160 billion of Chinese goods , including smartphones , electronics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take effect on Dec. 15 .
The Trump administration also previously cut the tariff to 7.5 % from 15 % on another $ 120 billion in Chinese products .
What does it mean for consumers ?
Effects of China tariffs on jobs , pricier good may linger The deal lowers non-tariff trade barriers imposed on several agricultural sectors , including for dairy , beef and poultry farmers .
For instance , China blocked U.S. poultry in 2015 after an outbreak of avian flu and maintained that ban until November of last year – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The agreement would allow for the importation of those goods in part by requiring China to recognize U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service inspections .
The agreement requires China to impose `` criminal procedures and penalties '' to address `` willful trade secret '' theft , an issue that has been central to the trade war .
Western companies have long complained that Beijing requires disclosure of technological secrets and then uses that information to aid Chinese-based competitors .
The Trump administration had sought penalties for that practice .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it 's short on specifics about their size and application .
The agreement also prohibits China from exerting pressure `` formally or informally '' on a company to disclose technology as a condition of securing a license or market access .
China will lift regulations on U.S.-owned financial firms , including securities and insurance companies , later this year .
Lifting those restrictions should allow U.S. companies greater access to China ’ s financial markets .
The agreement also calls on China to create an “ improved and timely licensing process ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services in China ’ s growing electronic payment sector .
Trump administration officials say that China has previously used the regulations to block U.S. financial companies from entering the market .
How will the deal be enforced ?
The agreement includes language that could offer China opportunities to wiggle out of its commitments .
For instance , in the section dealing with increased imports of U.S. goods , the agreement says that if China fails to meet the terms it would trigger only `` the consultations '' between the U.S. and China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on China to change its practices without offering concrete targets for doing so .
White House officials said the agreement includes a new enforcement mechanism in which U.S. and Chinese negotiators must meet for consultations before retaliating or lodging a complaint with the World Trade Organization .
The agreement allows for 90 days to resolve a dispute before taking either action .
In his remarks before signing the agreement , Trump described the provisions as having `` total and full enforceability . ''
But it 's not clear , based on the text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will monitor those commitments and enforce them .
Because the agreement breaks down the trade commitments over the calendar year , and because trade can be dependent on seasonal factors , it will make it impossible to assess whether the goals are being met before the U.S. election , said Phil Levy , a former White House official who is now chief economist of Flexport , a company that arranges and finances trade between 109 countries .

Michael Collins, John Fritze and David Jackson, USA TODAY

What's in Trump's 'Phase One' trade deal between the U.S. and China?
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's tariffs: the good, the bad and the ugly President Trump's 'America First' approach has relied on slapping tariffs on countries, such as China and Mexico, which have led to current trade wars. What is a tariff and how do they work? We explain. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – After years of escalating trade tensions, U.S. and Chinese officials signed an initial deal Wednesday that calls on Beijing to buy more American products and takes a stab at addressing trade conflicts between the world's two largest economies.
The "Phase One" agreement, which President Donald Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed at the White House, signaled a pause in the trade war and gave Trump a chance to claim victory months from the November presidential election.
White House officials released a 94-page agreement that details which U.S. industries China will buy from and potential changes it will make to address global concerns about intellectual property theft and other controversial trade practices.
Here's a look at some of the details in the agreement:
$200 billion in imports
The Trump administration had previously announced that China would boost its purchase of American goods and services by $200 billion over the next two years. The agreement provides some additional detail about where those purchases will be made. About $77 billion of those purchases will come from manufactured goods (cars, airplanes, medical instruments) while $32 billion would come from agricultural products.
The energy sector, including liquefied natural gas and crude oil, would represent another $52.4 billion, according to the agreement. The International Energy Agency has predicted that China will be the world's largest customer for liquefied natural gas in the next five year.
Deal signed: U.S., China sign 'Phase One' trade deal, signaling pause in trade war
Tariffs coming down
Trump had previously announced that the U.S. was lowering tariffs – and the threat of tariffs – as part of the agreement. Trump shelved plans to impose new tariffs on $160 billion of Chinese goods, including smartphones, electronics and other products that had been expected to take effect on Dec. 15. The Trump administration also previously cut the tariff to 7.5% from 15% on another $120 billion in Chinese products.
What does it mean for consumers? Effects of China tariffs on jobs, pricier good may linger
Opening agriculture markets
The deal lowers non-tariff trade barriers imposed on several agricultural sectors, including for dairy, beef and poultry farmers. For instance, China blocked U.S. poultry in 2015 after an outbreak of avian flu and maintained that ban until November of last year – long after the outbreak was over. The agreement would allow for the importation of those goods in part by requiring China to recognize U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service inspections.
Trade secrets
The agreement requires China to impose "criminal procedures and penalties" to address "willful trade secret" theft, an issue that has been central to the trade war. Western companies have long complained that Beijing requires disclosure of technological secrets and then uses that information to aid Chinese-based competitors. The Trump administration had sought penalties for that practice. While the agreement requires China to impose penalties, it's short on specifics about their size and application.
The agreement also prohibits China from exerting pressure "formally or informally" on a company to disclose technology as a condition of securing a license or market access.
Opening financial markets
China will lift regulations on U.S.-owned financial firms, including securities and insurance companies, later this year. Lifting those restrictions should allow U.S. companies greater access to China’s financial markets. The agreement also calls on China to create an “improved and timely licensing process” to allow U.S. companies to sell their services in China’s growing electronic payment sector. Trump administration officials say that China has previously used the regulations to block U.S. financial companies from entering the market.
How will the deal be enforced?
The agreement includes language that could offer China opportunities to wiggle out of its commitments. For instance, in the section dealing with increased imports of U.S. goods, the agreement says that if China fails to meet the terms it would trigger only "the consultations" between the U.S. and China. In other sections, the agreement calls on China to change its practices without offering concrete targets for doing so.
White House officials said the agreement includes a new enforcement mechanism in which U.S. and Chinese negotiators must meet for consultations before retaliating or lodging a complaint with the World Trade Organization. The agreement allows for 90 days to resolve a dispute before taking either action.
In his remarks before signing the agreement, Trump described the provisions as having "total and full enforceability."
But it's not clear, based on the text of the agreement, how both sides will monitor those commitments and enforce them. Because the agreement breaks down the trade commitments over the calendar year, and because trade can be dependent on seasonal factors, it will make it impossible to assess whether the goals are being met before the U.S. election, said Phil Levy, a former White House official who is now chief economist of Flexport, a company that arranges and finances trade between 109 countries.


usatoday--2020-01-15--Impeachment managers to send the articles of impeachment to Senate

Impeachment managers voted on by House to send articles of impeachment The House of Rep. voted on a formal resolution @ @ @ @ @ appropriate funds for the trial .

Impeachment managers voted on by House to send articles of impeachment
The House of Rep. voted on a formal resolution to appoint impeachment managers to appropriate funds for the trial.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-15--Explaining Pelosi's choices, roles of 'impeachment managers' in Trump's Senate trial

Impeachment 101 : Who and what are the 'impeachment managers ' ?
The managers ' presentations before the Senate are @ @ @ @ @ to persuade Republicans and the American public on the merits of impeachment .

Impeachment 101: Who and what are the 'impeachment managers'?
The managers' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats' last chances to persuade Republicans and the American public on the merits of impeachment.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-15--DOJ says it has authority to carry out federal executions regardless of state rules

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department engaged in a deep-dive vocabulary discussion as it tried to convince appeals court judges Wednesday that it has the authority to decide how to execute prisoners on federal death row , regardless of the rules in the states where inmates were convicted .
The key question , said Justice Department appellate attorney Melissa Patterson , is what the term `` manner '' means .
At issue is what Congress meant when it declared 80 years ago that federal executions must be carried out `` in the manner prescribed by the state '' where inmates were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to the type of execution , whether it 's lethal injection , the primary method used in the country , or other alternatives allowed in some states , such as gas chamber or hanging .
This means , Patterson argued , that as long as the Justice Department follows the general method of execution allowed in states , it has authority to decide everything else , including what drugs to use .
A `` much more natural interpretation of the statute '' is that Congress empowered the Justice Department to decide how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The hearing , which lasted about two hours in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit , comes about six months after Attorney General William Barr announced he is resuming executions after a nearly two-decade hiatus .
Barr also announced the federal government is changing its execution protocols , from a three-drug cocktail to just one drug : pentobarbital , which is used to anesthesize and euthanize animals .
The decision , which comes as states are moving away from the death penalty , promptly met resistance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose executions Barr scheduled within months .
Death penalty : Justice Department resumes capital punishment after nearly two decades , orders executions of five inmates In November , a federal district judge temporarily blocked the execution of four inmates who were supposed to die in December and this month , allowing the prisoners to challenge the legality of the new lethal injection protocols .
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the protocols violate the Federal Death Penalty Act , which allows the states where inmates are convicted – not the federal government – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing Wednesday , the three-judge panel pressed attorneys on the meaning of `` manner . ''
Judge David Tatel wondered whether the discussion should focus on what one word means .
`` The word 'manner ' is just one word in the statute ... Maybe the debate about 'manner ' is n't the right debate , '' Tatel said , adding that if Congress has already vested authority to states to decide how to execute prisoners , then the word is n't that important .
Patterson said she believes Congress does not want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And federal officials , in this case the attorney general , have the power to decide on procedures , particularly when protocols in some states have become antiquated , she said .
Cate Stetson , who represents the prisoners , argued that the word 's meaning is n't just about the general type of execution , but how it is implemented .
She said it should be done so in a humane way and with regard to what the prisoner is experiencing .
`` That 's the core of what we talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' '' said Stetson , an attorney at the Washington D.C. firm Hogan Lovells .
Death penalty on the decline : There will be fewer than 30 executions for the 5th straight year , a new report says She also said executions should not be carried out through a `` categorical one-size-fits-all protocol '' by the federal government , which has n't executed anyone since 2003 .
`` The people who know what they 're doing are the states that carry out the death penalty , '' Stetson said .
Barr scheduled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee , Lezmond Mitchell , Wesley Ira Purkey , Alfred Bourgeois and Dustin Lee Honken .
Four of the five – Lee , Purkey , Bourgeois and Honken – asked for the executions to be postponed .
A separate court has already postponed Mitchell 's execution .
Mitchell , unlike the others , is a Native American whose case raises unique issues related to tribal sovereignty .
The crime of which Mitchell was convicted happened on Navajo land , and the Navajo Nation opposes the death penalty .
About two dozen states have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal injection , according to the Death Penalty Information Center .
The federal government 's one-drug protocol is similar to the one used by a few states , including Georgia , Missouri and Texas .
Barr 's decision comes amid a nationwide drop in the number of executions in the past 20 years .
Several states imposed moratoriums on lethal injections because of problems such as botched executions , in which prisoners gasped and groaned before dying .
Companies also have been unwilling to supply drugs .
Lundbeck , a Danish pharmaceutical company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of the drug in capital punishment and denied distribution of the product to U.S. prisons that carry out executions .
Another company , Akorn , acquired the product and kept the restrictions in place .

DOJ says it has authority to carry out federal executions regardless of state rules
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department engaged in a deep-dive vocabulary discussion as it tried to convince appeals court judges Wednesday that it has the authority to decide how to execute prisoners on federal death row, regardless of the rules in the states where inmates were convicted.
The key question, said Justice Department appellate attorney Melissa Patterson, is what the term "manner" means. At issue is what Congress meant when it declared 80 years ago that federal executions must be carried out "in the manner prescribed by the state" where inmates were convicted.
Patterson said Congress is simply referring to the type of execution, whether it's lethal injection, the primary method used in the country, or other alternatives allowed in some states, such as gas chamber or hanging. This means, Patterson argued, that as long as the Justice Department follows the general method of execution allowed in states, it has authority to decide everything else, including what drugs to use.
A "much more natural interpretation of the statute" is that Congress empowered the Justice Department to decide how to execute its own inmates, Patterson said.
The hearing, which lasted about two hours in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes about six months after Attorney General William Barr announced he is resuming executions after a nearly two-decade hiatus. Barr also announced the federal government is changing its execution protocols, from a three-drug cocktail to just one drug: pentobarbital, which is used to anesthesize and euthanize animals.
The decision, which comes as states are moving away from the death penalty, promptly met resistance from anti-death penalty advocates and death row prisoners whose executions Barr scheduled within months.
Death penalty:Justice Department resumes capital punishment after nearly two decades, orders executions of five inmates
In November, a federal district judge temporarily blocked the execution of four inmates who were supposed to die in December and this month, allowing the prisoners to challenge the legality of the new lethal injection protocols. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the protocols violate the Federal Death Penalty Act, which allows the states where inmates are convicted – not the federal government – to decide on procedures.
The Justice Department appealed the ruling.
During the hearing Wednesday, the three-judge panel pressed attorneys on the meaning of "manner." Judge David Tatel wondered whether the discussion should focus on what one word means.
"The word 'manner' is just one word in the statute ... Maybe the debate about 'manner' isn't the right debate," Tatel said, adding that if Congress has already vested authority to states to decide how to execute prisoners, then the word isn't that important.
Patterson said she believes Congress does not want to hamstring the federal government's ability. And federal officials, in this case the attorney general, have the power to decide on procedures, particularly when protocols in some states have become antiquated, she said.
Cate Stetson, who represents the prisoners, argued that the word's meaning isn't just about the general type of execution, but how it is implemented. She said it should be done so in a humane way and with regard to what the prisoner is experiencing.
"That's the core of what we talk about when we talk about 'manner,'" said Stetson, an attorney at the Washington D.C. firm Hogan Lovells.
Death penalty on the decline: There will be fewer than 30 executions for the 5th straight year, a new report says
She also said executions should not be carried out through a "categorical one-size-fits-all protocol" by the federal government, which hasn't executed anyone since 2003.
"The people who know what they're doing are the states that carry out the death penalty," Stetson said.
Barr scheduled the executions of five inmates: Daniel Lewis Lee, Lezmond Mitchell, Wesley Ira Purkey, Alfred Bourgeois and Dustin Lee Honken.
Four of the five – Lee, Purkey, Bourgeois and Honken – asked for the executions to be postponed.
A separate court has already postponed Mitchell's execution. Mitchell, unlike the others, is a Native American whose case raises unique issues related to tribal sovereignty. The crime of which Mitchell was convicted happened on Navajo land, and the Navajo Nation opposes the death penalty.
About two dozen states have adopted a three-drug method in carrying out lethal injection, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The federal government's one-drug protocol is similar to the one used by a few states, including Georgia, Missouri and Texas.
Barr's decision comes amid a nationwide drop in the number of executions in the past 20 years. Several states imposed moratoriums on lethal injections because of problems such as botched executions, in which prisoners gasped and groaned before dying.
Companies also have been unwilling to supply drugs. Lundbeck, a Danish pharmaceutical company that manufactured pentobarbital, has adamantly opposed the use of the drug in capital punishment and denied distribution of the product to U.S. prisons that carry out executions. Another company, Akorn, acquired the product and kept the restrictions in place.


usatoday--2020-01-15--Echoing controversial comment about John Dingell, Trump implies LBJ may be in hell

Echoing a controversial comment he made about the late Rep. John Dingell , President Donald Trump implied another deceased Democrat might be looking up from hell : this time former President Lyndon Johnson .
Trump made the remark at a rally in Milwaukee on Tuesday while discussing his upcoming impeachment trial .
Trump is accused of using military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his own political benefit .
Trump claimed a readout from a phone call with Zelensky on July 25 shows he did nothing wrong , though Democrats point out the rough transcript shows he asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ukrainian leader said he hoped to acquire more Javelin missiles from the United States .
`` This is based on a perfect phone call , '' Trump said of the impeachment , which he called a `` hoax . ''
`` Did anybody read the transcript ?
It 's a perfect call .
In fact , if you go back and look at Lyndon Johnson – all of them – Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy .
Can you imagine his phone calls ? ''
Trump asked the crowd of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down – or looking up – and he 's probably saying , 'These people have gone crazy .
That 's the nicest call I 've ever tracked . '
`` Trump made a similar quip last month about Dingell , who died in February , at a rally in Dingell 's home state of Michigan .
His widow , Rep. Debbie Dingell , said Trump 's comment made the first holiday without her husband more difficult , and she called for more civility in politics .
When Trump spoke to an evangelical group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to the late Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , who was among the Republicans who opposed Trump 's proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act .
`` Fortunately , they 're gone now .
They 've gone on to greener pastures .
Or perhaps far less green , but they 're gone , '' Trump said .
`` Very happy they 're gone . ''
Trump might have been referring to retired senators Jeff Flake or Bob Corker , but McCain was the only one of the three who voted against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to Trump that Johnson recorded his White House phone calls and that they are public record .
`` We can listen to recordings of many of LBJ 's calls and , hard as many of them can be to listen to now for many reasons , he did n't ask foreign governments to intervene in our elections in exchange for congressionally authorized military aid , '' tweeted Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi , D-Ill. '' FACT : You don ’ t have to imagine LBJ ’ s phone calls .
He installed the Oval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and improved under Nixon .
Many of his phone calls were recorded , '' tweeted Independent political reporter Andrew Feinberg .
Conservative lawyer and Trump critic George Conway , who is married to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway , suggested Trump also might be heading for `` less pastures . ''

Echoing controversial comment about John Dingell, Trump implies LBJ may be in hell
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rallies supporters as Dems debate in Iowa President Donald Trump defended his decision to kill a top Iranian general and slammed Democrats as weak on national security. The president held a rally in Milwaukee as Democratic presidential candidates debated in Iowa. (Jan. 15) AP
Echoing a controversial comment he made about the late Rep. John Dingell, President Donald Trump implied another deceased Democrat might be looking up from hell: this time former President Lyndon Johnson.
Trump made the remark at a rally in Milwaukee on Tuesday while discussing his upcoming impeachment trial.
Trump is accused of using military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his own political benefit. Trump claimed a readout from a phone call with Zelensky on July 25 shows he did nothing wrong, though Democrats point out the rough transcript shows he asked Zelensky for a "favor" after the Ukrainian leader said he hoped to acquire more Javelin missiles from the United States.
"This is based on a perfect phone call," Trump said of the impeachment, which he called a "hoax."
"Did anybody read the transcript? It's a perfect call. In fact, if you go back and look at Lyndon Johnson – all of them – Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy. Can you imagine his phone calls?" Trump asked the crowd of supporters. "He's probably looking down – or looking up – and he's probably saying, 'These people have gone crazy. That's the nicest call I've ever tracked.' "
Trump made a similar quip last month about Dingell, who died in February, at a rally in Dingell's home state of Michigan. His widow, Rep. Debbie Dingell, said Trump's comment made the first holiday without her husband more difficult, and she called for more civility in politics.
When Trump spoke to an evangelical group in June, he made a possible reference to the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was among the Republicans who opposed Trump's proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
"Fortunately, they're gone now. They've gone on to greener pastures. Or perhaps far less green, but they're gone," Trump said. "Very happy they're gone." Trump might have been referring to retired senators Jeff Flake or Bob Corker, but McCain was the only one of the three who voted against the repeal.
Some on social media pointed out to Trump that Johnson recorded his White House phone calls and that they are public record.
"We can listen to recordings of many of LBJ's calls and, hard as many of them can be to listen to now for many reasons, he didn't ask foreign governments to intervene in our elections in exchange for congressionally authorized military aid," tweeted Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill.
We can listen to recordings of many of LBJ's calls and, hard as many of them can be to listen to now for many reasons, he didn't ask foreign governments to intervene in our elections in exchange for congressionally authorized military aid. https://t.co/6Dnqepk462 https://t.co/uAJmUZRQ1A — Raja Krishnamoorthi (@CongressmanRaja) January 15, 2020
"FACT: You don’t have to imagine LBJ’s phone calls. He installed the Oval Office taping system which was later expanded and improved under Nixon. Many of his phone calls were recorded," tweeted Independent political reporter Andrew Feinberg.
Conservative lawyer and Trump critic George Conway, who is married to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, suggested Trump also might be heading for "less pastures."
"Trump is hoping to meet LBJ I guess," Conway wrote.


usatoday--2020-01-15--What is an impeachment manager, and what do they do?

The lawmakers chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as managers during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will get a distinction earned by only a few people in history .
The managers ' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats ' last chances to persuade Republicans – and the American public – on the merits of impeachment .
Congressional rules specify that managers , members of the House whose roles are similar to prosecutors , are tasked with presenting the case for impeachment to the Senate .
The trial will determine whether Trump should be convicted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-thirds majority vote , or 67 votes .
The House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump on Dec. 18 , alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The charges stem from allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to open politically motivated investigations and that he stonewalled the investigation .
McConnell : GOP will move on without Democrats to set rules for Senate impeachment trial of Trump John Bolton : Says he will testify in Trump 's impeachment trial if Senate subpoenas him Manager vote : House to vote Wednesday to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been only two other impeachment trials in the nation 's history , so the historical precedent for the process and managers ' roles is sparse .
Trump impeachment : Trump says he has been denied due process .
But the Constitution does not afford him that .
Question : Who are the managers ?
Answer : All impeachment managers have been from the same party because they generally all supported the impeachment of the president .
Almost all Democrats voted for the articles of impeachment against Trump in the House , and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal choice of manager , Democratic strategist Michael Gordon said , would be a `` credible , least-partisan-seeming '' member , rather than an `` overly partisan '' member who would `` not really be open to the facts . ''
One risk in choosing managers , noted Joe Lockhart , a spokesman for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment , is that congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers .
`` You could go , for example , with committee chairs and you could go by seniority , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't necessarily give you the most effective prosecution . ''
A : Under the rules passed for Trump 's impeachment , a resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives to appoint managers for the Senate trial .
Historically , managers were picked for their legal experience or for their skills of argumentation .
They were traditionally all members of the House Judiciary Committee because it led impeachments .
`` A number of those , and I 'm not one of those , were former U.S. attorneys and had fairly recently become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Judiciary Committee , '' said Bill McCollum , a former congressman from Florida and a Clinton impeachment manager .
McCollum was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee .
Impeachment : Republicans , Democrats in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump Q : How many managers are there ?
A : The number of managers varies depending on the trial .
There were seven managers for President Andrew Johnson 's impeachment in 1868 and 13 managers for Clinton 's impeachment .
James Rogan , a former Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment manager , said he suggested four managers for Clinton 's impeachment , each of whom would present an article of impeachment .
The Judiciary Committee drafted four articles of impeachment against Clinton , though the full House passed only two .
Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde , R-Ill. , picked 13 managers .
Rogan recalled Hyde telling him after all the managers were picked , `` Everybody on the committee that asked if they could be the House manager , I told him I could n't say no . ''
More : Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on articles of impeachment against Trump Q : What responsibilities do impeachment managers have ?
A : A manager 's role is similar to a prosecutor 's in a criminal trial .
The managers will present the case for impeachment while members of the Senate serve as jurors .
The chief justice of the Supreme Court , John Roberts , will preside over the trial , and the president 's lawyers will serve as his defense attorneys .
Rogan said managers in the Clinton trial all adopted separate roles in presenting the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presentation on perjury .
( Rep. Asa ) Hutchinson handled the presentation on obstruction of justice , '' Rogan recalled .
Rogan said he gave a two-hour opening statement on Clinton 's alleged crime of perjury for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky .
Rogan was responsible for cross-examining Clinton , but he never testified before the Senate .
If precedent is any prediction of the Trump trial , managers are unlikely to change senators ' minds about impeachment .
`` You know beforehand that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them have either come to a conclusion before the thing even starts or certainly are biased in one direction or another , '' Rep. Steve Chabot , R-Ohio , a Clinton impeachment manager , told USA TODAY .
Q : How long do managers get to present ?
A : During the Clinton trial , the impeachment managers and the president 's lawyers had 24 hours each to present .
Senators were given 16 hours to question either side .
The amount of time for the Trump trial has not been specified .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans report being detained at US border crossing Q : Do managers control the format of a trial ?
A : Impeachment managers do not control how a trial runs .
The format and rules for a trial are left to the Senate , which can introduce and pass motions by a simple majority of 51 votes , as opposed to the two-thirds majority required to convict and remove a president from office .
Democrats want to call witnesses during the trial , but in past impeachments , the Senate voted against calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think she can name managers that can make the case through the power of fair presentation that we need the witnesses , '' Lockhart said .
He said the managers ' presentation at the beginning of Clinton 's impeachment trial helped ensure Republicans had the votes to call witnesses , albeit as videotaped depositions rather than live testimony .
Q : What happens to the managers after the trial ?
A : For some members of Congress , being selected as an impeachment manager can be a good opportunity because of the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 13 managers from Clinton 's impeachment are still in Congress : Chabot , Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner , R-Wis. , and Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. Chabot said Democrats brought Hillary and Bill Clinton to his Cincinnati-area district to raise money for his opponents .
He has won every election since then .
That said , `` it 's certainly hurt the congressional career of at least one member that I can think of , '' Chabot said .
That member was Rogan , who lost to then-California state Sen. Adam Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a prominent figure in Trump 's impeachment as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee .

What is an impeachment manager, and what do they do?
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment 101: Who and what are the 'impeachment managers'? The managers' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats' last chances to persuade Republicans and the American public on the merits of impeachment. USA TODAY
The lawmakers chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as managers during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will get a distinction earned by only a few people in history.
The managers' presentations before the Senate are among Democrats' last chances to persuade Republicans – and the American public – on the merits of impeachment.
Pelosi named as managers: Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla.; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas.
Congressional rules specify that managers, members of the House whose roles are similar to prosecutors, are tasked with presenting the case for impeachment to the Senate. The trial will determine whether Trump should be convicted and removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote, or 67 votes.
The House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump on Dec. 18, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges stem from allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to open politically motivated investigations and that he stonewalled the investigation.
McConnell: GOP will move on without Democrats to set rules for Senate impeachment trial of Trump
John Bolton: Says he will testify in Trump's impeachment trial if Senate subpoenas him
Manager vote: House to vote Wednesday to send Trump impeachment articles to Senate
There have been only two other impeachment trials in the nation's history, so the historical precedent for the process and managers' roles is sparse.
Trump impeachment: Trump says he has been denied due process. But the Constitution does not afford him that.
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Question: Who are the managers?
Answer: All impeachment managers have been from the same party because they generally all supported the impeachment of the president. Almost all Democrats voted for the articles of impeachment against Trump in the House, and all Republicans voted against the articles.
An ideal choice of manager, Democratic strategist Michael Gordon said, would be a "credible, least-partisan-seeming" member, rather than an "overly partisan" member who would "not really be open to the facts."
One risk in choosing managers, noted Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, is that congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers.
"You could go, for example, with committee chairs and you could go by seniority," he explained. "And that doesn't necessarily give you the most effective prosecution."
Q: How are managers picked?
A: Under the rules passed for Trump's impeachment, a resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives to appoint managers for the Senate trial.
Historically, managers were picked for their legal experience or for their skills of argumentation. They were traditionally all members of the House Judiciary Committee because it led impeachments.
"A number of those, and I'm not one of those, were former U.S. attorneys and had fairly recently become members of the Congress and then of the House Judiciary Committee," said Bill McCollum, a former congressman from Florida and a Clinton impeachment manager. McCollum was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Impeachment: Republicans, Democrats in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump
Q: How many managers are there?
A: The number of managers varies depending on the trial.
There were seven managers for President Andrew Johnson's impeachment in 1868 and 13 managers for Clinton's impeachment.
James Rogan, a former Republican congressman from California who served as an impeachment manager, said he suggested four managers for Clinton's impeachment, each of whom would present an article of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee drafted four articles of impeachment against Clinton, though the full House passed only two. Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., picked 13 managers.
Rogan recalled Hyde telling him after all the managers were picked, "Everybody on the committee that asked if they could be the House manager, I told him I couldn't say no."
More: Republicans, Democrats in Congress remain at impasse on articles of impeachment against Trump
Q: What responsibilities do impeachment managers have?
A: A manager's role is similar to a prosecutor's in a criminal trial.
The managers will present the case for impeachment while members of the Senate serve as jurors. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, will preside over the trial, and the president's lawyers will serve as his defense attorneys.
Rogan said managers in the Clinton trial all adopted separate roles in presenting the evidence.
"I ended up basically making the presentation on perjury. (Rep. Asa) Hutchinson handled the presentation on obstruction of justice," Rogan recalled. Rogan said he gave a two-hour opening statement on Clinton's alleged crime of perjury for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Rogan was responsible for cross-examining Clinton, but he never testified before the Senate.
If precedent is any prediction of the Trump trial, managers are unlikely to change senators' minds about impeachment.
"You know beforehand that a fair number, if not all of them have either come to a conclusion before the thing even starts or certainly are biased in one direction or another," Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a Clinton impeachment manager, told USA TODAY.
Q: How long do managers get to present?
A: During the Clinton trial, the impeachment managers and the president's lawyers had 24 hours each to present. Senators were given 16 hours to question either side.
The amount of time for the Trump trial has not been specified.
More: Dozens of Iranians and Iranian Americans report being detained at US border crossing
Q: Do managers control the format of a trial?
A: Impeachment managers do not control how a trial runs. The format and rules for a trial are left to the Senate, which can introduce and pass motions by a simple majority of 51 votes, as opposed to the two-thirds majority required to convict and remove a president from office.
Democrats want to call witnesses during the trial, but in past impeachments, the Senate voted against calling witnesses to testify directly.
"I think she can name managers that can make the case through the power of fair presentation that we need the witnesses," Lockhart said. He said the managers' presentation at the beginning of Clinton's impeachment trial helped ensure Republicans had the votes to call witnesses, albeit as videotaped depositions rather than live testimony.
Q: What happens to the managers after the trial?
A: For some members of Congress, being selected as an impeachment manager can be a good opportunity because of the high visibility of the position.
Only three of the 13 managers from Clinton's impeachment are still in Congress: Chabot, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Chabot said Democrats brought Hillary and Bill Clinton to his Cincinnati-area district to raise money for his opponents. He has won every election since then.
That said, "it's certainly hurt the congressional career of at least one member that I can think of," Chabot said.
That member was Rogan, who lost to then-California state Sen. Adam Schiff in the 2000 election. Schiff has been a prominent figure in Trump's impeachment as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.


usatoday--2020-01-15--Who are the 7 impeachment managers selected for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven impeachment managers Wednesday , shortly before a draft resolution appointing them will be introduced to the House of Representatives .
`` It is their responsibility to present the very strong case for the president ’ s impeachment and removal , '' Pelosi said .
`` The impeachment managers represent the patriotism , pluralism and vibrancy of America . ''
The managers , all members of the House , will serve in a role similar to prosecutors once the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins in the Senate on Tuesday .
They are tasked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial , which will determine whether Trump should be convicted and removed from office .
Removal requires a two-thirds majority , or 67 votes in the GOP-majority Senate .
Unlike the group of 13 Republicans who managed their case against President Bill Clinton , who were all white men , this group of seven managers consists of three women and four men .
Two are members of the Congressional Black Caucus , and one is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus .
The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power and obstruction of Congress .
Democrats say Trump abused his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to open politically motivated investigations and obstructed Congress during its investigation by withholding witnesses and documents .
Senate : Trump impeachment focus to shift to Senate as House prepares to send articles New impeachment evidence : Lev Parnas , associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani , pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden The articles : Read the full text of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump Here are the managers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , ushered the articles of impeachment through his committee and onto the House floor for the historic vote .
All of the managers for Clinton 's impeachment were members of the Judiciary Committee , but Pelosi opted for a different approach for Trump .
Nadler said there was a `` mountain of evidence '' that Trump had `` betrayed his country by trying to extort Ukraine . ''
Schiff , who chairs the House Intelligence Committee , played a key role during the House 's impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His panel led the inquiry , conducting closed-door depositions and public testimonies with more than a dozen people involved in the Ukraine controversy .
Schiff , who Pelosi named as lead manager of the impeachment trial , has experience as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney 's Office in Los Angeles , where he worked as a federal prosecutor for six years .
Schiff called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday to permit witnesses and documents to be admitted during the Senate trial , especially in light of the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Additional evidence continues to come to light that not only bolsters an overwhelming case but has put additional pressure on the Senate to conduct a fair trial , '' Schiff said .
Crow , a first-term lawmaker from an Aurora , Colo.-area district , is an Army veteran and lawyer .
He sits on the House Armed Services Committee .
Crow was part of a group of seven House Democrats with national security backgrounds who said in a Washington Post op-ed in September 2019 that they would support an impeachment inquiry if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were true .
Crow was a litigator in private practice before he ran for office .
Garcia , a member of the House Judiciary Committee , played a public role during the committee 's impeachment hearings .
She represents a Houston-area district and became one of the first Latinas to represent a Texas district when she was elected in 2018 .
Garcia was a judge in the Houston Municipal System before her tenure in Congress .
Demings , who is a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees , played a public role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also a former law enforcement officer , serving as the first female Orlando chief of police , and could bring her police experience to the proceedings .
As a Floridian , she could help counter Republican criticism of impeachment as being led by members of Congress from only blue areas .
Jeffries , who was a litigator in private practice before he ran for office , sits on the Judiciary Committee and chairs the House Democratic Caucus , which has helped shape Democrats ' messaging on impeachment.His position in House Democratic leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group who will prosecute the case against Trump .
Jeffries said Wednesday that his role was to `` present the truth to the American people . ''
Lofgren , who is on the Judiciary Committee , offers a unique perspective as a member who served in Congress during Clinton 's impeachment and as a staff member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon .

Who are the 7 impeachment managers selected for the Senate trial of President Donald Trump?
Show Caption Hide Caption Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven impeachment managers Wednesday, shortly before a draft resolution appointing them will be introduced to the House of Representatives.
"It is their responsibility to present the very strong case for the president’s impeachment and removal," Pelosi said. "The impeachment managers represent the patriotism, pluralism and vibrancy of America."
The managers, all members of the House, will serve in a role similar to prosecutors once the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins in the Senate on Tuesday. They are tasked with presenting House Democrats' case in the trial, which will determine whether Trump should be convicted and removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes in the GOP-majority Senate.
Unlike the group of 13 Republicans who managed their case against President Bill Clinton, who were all white men, this group of seven managers consists of three women and four men. Two are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and one is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats say Trump abused his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to open politically motivated investigations and obstructed Congress during its investigation by withholding witnesses and documents.
Senate: Trump impeachment focus to shift to Senate as House prepares to send articles
New impeachment evidence: Lev Parnas, associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden
The articles: Read the full text of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump
Here are the managers for Trump's impeachment trial:
Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
Nadler, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, ushered the articles of impeachment through his committee and onto the House floor for the historic vote. All of the managers for Clinton's impeachment were members of the Judiciary Committee, but Pelosi opted for a different approach for Trump.
Nadler said there was a "mountain of evidence" that Trump had "betrayed his country by trying to extort Ukraine."
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, played a key role during the House's impeachment inquiry into Trump's actions in Ukraine. His panel led the inquiry, conducting closed-door depositions and public testimonies with more than a dozen people involved in the Ukraine controversy.
Schiff, who Pelosi named as lead manager of the impeachment trial, has experience as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, where he worked as a federal prosecutor for six years.
Schiff called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday to permit witnesses and documents to be admitted during the Senate trial, especially in light of the documents released Tuesday by congressional investigators.
"Additional evidence continues to come to light that not only bolsters an overwhelming case but has put additional pressure on the Senate to conduct a fair trial," Schiff said.
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.
Crow, a first-term lawmaker from an Aurora, Colo.-area district, is an Army veteran and lawyer. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Crow was part of a group of seven House Democrats with national security backgrounds who said in a Washington Post op-ed in September 2019 that they would support an impeachment inquiry if the allegations about Trump's conduct on Ukraine were true.
Crow was a litigator in private practice before he ran for office.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas
Garcia, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, played a public role during the committee's impeachment hearings. She represents a Houston-area district and became one of the first Latinas to represent a Texas district when she was elected in 2018.
Garcia was a judge in the Houston Municipal System before her tenure in Congress.
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla.
Demings, who is a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, played a public role during both committees impeachment hearings. Demings is also a former law enforcement officer, serving as the first female Orlando chief of police, and could bring her police experience to the proceedings.
As a Floridian, she could help counter Republican criticism of impeachment as being led by members of Congress from only blue areas.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Jeffries, who was a litigator in private practice before he ran for office, sits on the Judiciary Committee and chairs the House Democratic Caucus, which has helped shape Democrats' messaging on impeachment. His position in House Democratic leadership makes him the highest-ranking lawmaker in the group who will prosecute the case against Trump.
Jeffries said Wednesday that his role was to "present the truth to the American people."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
Lofgren, who is on the Judiciary Committee, offers a unique perspective as a member who served in Congress during Clinton's impeachment and as a staff member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon.


usatoday--2020-01-15--'Democrats have to do better': Van Jones says no one in 'dispiriting' debate looked ready to beat Tr

WASHINGTON – Author and liberal commentator Van Jones had `` high expectations '' for the seventh Democratic debate , but he said what he saw on the stage in Des Moines , Iowa , was `` dispiriting '' because none of the candidates appeared capable of defeating President Donald Trump .
`` Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight .
There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out .
And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible , '' Jones said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former adviser to President Barack Obama said that after watching the six candidates square off , he wondered whether `` any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going to do to us . ''
`` I missed Andrew Yang tonight , '' Jones said .
He added that he also missed Sens .
Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California – as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro – on the debate stage , which was racially homogenous without them .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when Democrats need to inspire voters .
'We ca n't change the rules midstream ' : DNC Chair Tom Perez defends commitment to diversity despite lack of it in Iowa debate Jones ' comments were widely shared by conservatives on social media , including the Republican National Committee , which posted a clip of the remarks on Twitter from its @ RNCResearch account .
And Trump retweeted a post from the conservative Daily Caller news site that included a clip of Jones ' dire diagnosis for Democrats .
Liberals on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' take .
`` Van Jones figured out awhile ago that he ’ s pretty bad at this whole TV political analyst thing , so he ’ s decided to keep himself employed by saying stupid controversial nonsense aimed at getting people to hate-watch him .
Sad , '' tweeted Bill Palmer , founder of the anti-Trump Palmer Report .
`` To be clear , I ’ m referring to Van Jones ’ laughable assertion that none of these Democrats can beat Trump , when they ’ re all polling ahead of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Van Jones with the perfectly executed gaslighting of voters , '' said writer and marketer Frederick Joseph .
`` Van has been praising Donald Trump and that family for years ; nothing he says should matter . ''
Jones said he was also disheartened to see `` further division '' among Democrats after witnessing the apparent animosity between Sens .
Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts .
A day before the debate , Warren said Sanders told her in 2018 that he did n't think a woman could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied ever saying that when asked about it during the debate , but Warren stood by her statement .
Who can beat Trump in 2020 ?
: Warren , Sanders clash over 'woman ' comment during Democratic debate More : Candidates continue off-stage conflicts , and other top moments from the January Democratic debate in Iowa '' As a progressive , to see those two have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting , '' he said .
Jones thought Warren benefited from the exchange , however .
And , despite his bleak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiastic about her performance .
`` This was Elizabeth Warren 's night , '' he said .
`` Here was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came to his comments about women .
I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around .
She knocked that moment out of the park . ''
When asked about the quote she attributed to Sanders , Warren used the moment to point to female candidates ' strengths and recent successes .
`` She never stops being the educator in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She made the case that women have been winning in the Trump era and have been leading this movement . ''
But his enthusiasm for Warren did n't temper his overall disappointment .
`` I came away feeling worried for the Democratic Party , '' Jones said .
`` I felt like tonight was the night they were going to all put the fireworks out there , you 're going to see the best of the best , and it just felt like a big bowl of cold oatmeal . ''
The incumbent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ' can not protect your family '

'Democrats have to do better': Van Jones says no one in 'dispiriting' debate looked ready to beat Trump
Show Caption Hide Caption Democratic debate: Sanders and Warren on whether a woman can win Senators Sanders and Warren are given an opportunity to clarify what was reported as a disagreement over whether a woman can win. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Author and liberal commentator Van Jones had "high expectations" for the seventh Democratic debate, but he said what he saw on the stage in Des Moines, Iowa, was "dispiriting" because none of the candidates appeared capable of defeating President Donald Trump.
"Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out. And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible," Jones said in a post-debate analysis on CNN Tuesday.
The former adviser to President Barack Obama said that after watching the six candidates square off, he wondered whether "any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going to do to us."
"I missed Andrew Yang tonight," Jones said. He added that he also missed Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California – as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro – on the debate stage, which was racially homogenous without them.
He described the debate as "drudgery" at a time when Democrats need to inspire voters.
'We can't change the rules midstream': DNC Chair Tom Perez defends commitment to diversity despite lack of it in Iowa debate
I had high expectations for the candidates during tonight’s #DemDebate, but there was a spark missing on stage. It felt like cold oatmeal to me. Do you agree? @CNN — Van Jones (@VanJones68) January 15, 2020
Jones' comments were widely shared by conservatives on social media, including the Republican National Committee, which posted a clip of the remarks on Twitter from its @RNCResearch account. And Trump retweeted a post from the conservative Daily Caller news site that included a clip of Jones' dire diagnosis for Democrats.
"Van Jones with the real truth," tweeted far-right provocateur Mike Cernovih.
Liberals on social media were more critical of Jones' take.
"Van Jones figured out awhile ago that he’s pretty bad at this whole TV political analyst thing, so he’s decided to keep himself employed by saying stupid controversial nonsense aimed at getting people to hate-watch him. Sad," tweeted Bill Palmer, founder of the anti-Trump Palmer Report.
Van Jones figured out awhile ago that he’s pretty bad at this whole TV political analyst thing, so he’s decided to keep himself employed by saying stupid controversial nonsense aimed at getting people to hate-watch him. Sad. — Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) January 15, 2020
"To be clear, I’m referring to Van Jones’ laughable assertion that none of these Democrats can beat Trump, when they’re all polling ahead of him," Palmer added in another tweet.
"Van Jones with the perfectly executed gaslighting of voters," said writer and marketer Frederick Joseph. "Van has been praising Donald Trump and that family for years; nothing he says should matter."
Jones said he was also disheartened to see "further division" among Democrats after witnessing the apparent animosity between Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
A day before the debate, Warren said Sanders told her in 2018 that he didn't think a woman could win a presidential election. Sanders strongly denied ever saying that when asked about it during the debate, but Warren stood by her statement.
Who can beat Trump in 2020?: Warren, Sanders clash over 'woman' comment during Democratic debate
More: Candidates continue off-stage conflicts, and other top moments from the January Democratic debate in Iowa
.@ewarren had breakout moments tonight, but did anyone on that stage really seem ready to take on Trump in a debate? If we want a Democrat to win the White House (which I certainly do) we need our candidates to start showing up a lot stronger. #DemDebate @CNN pic.twitter.com/TO88Bn0ipv — Van Jones (@VanJones68) January 15, 2020
"As a progressive, to see those two have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting," he said.
Jones thought Warren benefited from the exchange, however. And, despite his bleak take on the night, he was enthusiastic about her performance.
"This was Elizabeth Warren's night," he said. "Here was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that moment out of the park."
Electoral College vs. the popular vote, explained President Trump and President George W. Bush won the electoral vote during the election, but not the popular vote. How does the electoral college work? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
When asked about the quote she attributed to Sanders, Warren used the moment to point to female candidates' strengths and recent successes.
"She never stops being the educator in chief," Jones said. "She made the case that women have been winning in the Trump era and have been leading this movement."
But his enthusiasm for Warren didn't temper his overall disappointment.
"I came away feeling worried for the Democratic Party," Jones said. "I felt like tonight was the night they were going to all put the fireworks out there, you're going to see the best of the best, and it just felt like a big bowl of cold oatmeal."
The incumbent: Trump tells supporters in Wisconsin that Democrats 'cannot protect your family'


usatoday--2020-01-16--Mike Bloomberg acknowledges he has made 'bawdy' jokes in response to allegations about sexist work e

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate , is addressing growing concerns over reported allegations that he fostered a hostile work environment for women at his company .
Appearing on `` The View '' Wednesday , Bloomberg acknowledged he has made inappropriate jokes in the past that he regrets , but maintained that his company has been a `` great place to work '' for women .
`` Did I ever tell a bawdy joke ?
Yeah , sure I did , '' Bloomberg said .
`` Do I regret it ?
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that 's the way I grew up . ''
ABC News has reported there are several women who filed lawsuits against Bloomberg or his company based on claims of a hostile and sexist work environment in the past 30 years .
Some of them ended with financial settlements and nondisclosure agreements .
ABC also reported on three ongoing lawsuits .
Bloomberg said he will not release them from the agreements .
`` We could n't do it if we wanted to , '' Bloomberg said Wednesday , arguing that the nondisclosures were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one woman who filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg in the 1990s , which was reported on at the time , who said Bloomberg pressured her to get an abortion to keep her job after she informed him she was pregnant .
`` She thought he would be pleased , '' Sakai 's former lawyer Bonnie Josephs told ABC .
`` And he said to her : 'Kill it . '
'' Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , a 2020 competitor , told reporters at a campaign stop in response to some of the alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to answer for them . ''
`` When women raise concerns like this , we have to pay attention .
We have to listen to them , and if Michael Bloomberg has made comments like this , then he has to answer for them , '' Warren said .
She also said that the women should be released from their nondisclosure agreements so they could speak out about their experiences .
`` I think NDAs are a way for people to hide bad things they 've done , '' she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims reported by saying that his company has an `` enviable record '' of treatment of his employees .
`` The View '' co-host Abby Huntsman asked him to respond to Warren : If your company has an enviable record , what do you have to hide ?
`` We do n't have anything to hide , but we made legal agreements , which both sides wanted to keep certain things from coming out , they have a right to do that , '' Bloomberg said .
`` I think you talk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would say equal pay , equal promotion , equal opportunity , it 's a great place to work , '' Bloomberg said .
Bloomberg 's comments come ahead of his campaign rolling out a # WomenforMike movement .
The candidate posted the hashtag multiple times on his Twitter account Tuesday with examples of women supporters like Judge Judy Sheindlin .
Just before his official entrance into the race , Bloomberg apologized for the `` stop-and-frisk '' policy he oversaw as mayor that disproportionately targeted communities of color in New York City .
Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into campaign advertising since announcing his bid , and currently polls nationally at 6.6 % , according to data compiled by RealClearPolitics , putting him in fifth place .

Mike Bloomberg acknowledges he has made 'bawdy' jokes in response to allegations about sexist work environment
Show Caption Hide Caption Bloomberg news barred from Trump campaign rallies for how it will cover 2020 Democrats The Trump campaign said it will no longer give media credentials to Bloomberg News for 2020 events after the news outlet announced how it will cover the presidential race going forward. Buzz60
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, is addressing growing concerns over reported allegations that he fostered a hostile work environment for women at his company.
Appearing on "The View" Wednesday, Bloomberg acknowledged he has made inappropriate jokes in the past that he regrets, but maintained that his company has been a "great place to work" for women.
"Did I ever tell a bawdy joke? Yeah, sure I did," Bloomberg said. "Do I regret it? Yes, it's embarrassing, but you know, that's the way I grew up."
ABC News has reported there are several women who filed lawsuits against Bloomberg or his company based on claims of a hostile and sexist work environment in the past 30 years. Some of them ended with financial settlements and nondisclosure agreements. ABC also reported on three ongoing lawsuits. Bloomberg said he will not release them from the agreements.
"We couldn't do it if we wanted to," Bloomberg said Wednesday, arguing that the nondisclosures were mutual legal agreements.
Sekiko Sakai is one woman who filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg in the 1990s, which was reported on at the time, who said Bloomberg pressured her to get an abortion to keep her job after she informed him she was pregnant.
“We don’t have anything to hide but we made legal agreements,” Michael Bloomberg tells the co-hosts when asked about his refusal to release women who’ve worked at his company from confidentiality agreements after some alleged hostile work environments. https://t.co/f8u2wbJuik pic.twitter.com/pdUegqf18M — The View (@TheView) January 15, 2020
"She thought he would be pleased," Sakai's former lawyer Bonnie Josephs told ABC. "And he said to her: 'Kill it.'"
Bloomberg has denied the allegation.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 competitor, told reporters at a campaign stop in response to some of the alleged comments made by Bloomberg that "he has to answer for them."
"When women raise concerns like this, we have to pay attention. We have to listen to them, and if Michael Bloomberg has made comments like this, then he has to answer for them," Warren said.
She also said that the women should be released from their nondisclosure agreements so they could speak out about their experiences. "I think NDAs are a way for people to hide bad things they've done," she said.
Bloomberg has previously responded to the various claims reported by saying that his company has an "enviable record" of treatment of his employees. "The View" co-host Abby Huntsman asked him to respond to Warren: If your company has an enviable record, what do you have to hide?
"We don't have anything to hide, but we made legal agreements, which both sides wanted to keep certain things from coming out, they have a right to do that," Bloomberg said.
America loves her, and she loves America. That’s why I’m happy and humbled to have Judge Judy Sheindlin’s support. Thank you, Judy. #WomenforMike pic.twitter.com/OfRpASZ66E — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) January 15, 2020
"I think you talk to most women in the company, they would say equal pay, equal promotion, equal opportunity, it's a great place to work," Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg's comments come ahead of his campaign rolling out a #WomenforMike movement. The candidate posted the hashtag multiple times on his Twitter account Tuesday with examples of women supporters like Judge Judy Sheindlin.
Just before his official entrance into the race, Bloomberg apologized for the "stop-and-frisk" policy he oversaw as mayor that disproportionately targeted communities of color in New York City.
Bloomberg has funneled more than $100 million into campaign advertising since announcing his bid, and currently polls nationally at 6.6%, according to data compiled by RealClearPolitics, putting him in fifth place.


usatoday--2020-01-16--What's in Trump's 'Phase One' trade deal between the U.S. and China?