freebeacon--2020-03-02--Gun-Rights Activists Look to Supreme Court to Take Up AR-15 Bans, Confiscation Bills

Second Amendment advocates are pursuing multiple lawsuits against gun-control measures in an effort to trigger a Supreme Court challenge that could upend decades of legislation .
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed multiple gun-rights challenges in federal courts across the country .
Founder Alan Gottlieb said the muddled nature of state laws , on issues ranging from open carry to the possession of certain weapons , calls out for judicial review from the nation 's highest court .
`` Politicians making claims that the Second Amendment does n't apply to so-called assault weapons is exactly why the Supreme Court needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put this issue to rest , '' Gottlieb told the Washington Free Beacon .
The Supreme Court has never heard a legal challenge on either federal or state bans on `` assault weapons '' and has been largely silent on Second Amendment issues since its landmark rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller ( 2008 ) and McDonald v. Chicago ( 2010 ) —a pair of decisions that struck down strict gun-control laws in Washington , D.C. , and Illinois .
Gun-control activists have used the silence from the justices as approval for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegate Mark Levine ( D. ) told the state Senate Judiciary Committee in February that the constitutionality of his proposed `` assault weapons '' ban and magazine confiscation proposal was settled law .
`` I understand that some people might disagree with the policy here but there should be no question as to the constitutionality of this bill , '' Levine said .
The Virginia Senate ultimately voted against Levine 's legislation , but gun advocates say that his rhetoric demonstrates why the Supreme Court should weigh in .
If the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases—especially the legality of bans like Levine's—it could change the landscape of gun laws in the United States .
Any ruling expanding protections for what categories of guns Americans have a right to own , or where they have a right to take their guns , could strike down laws in heavily Democratic states such as California , New York , and Illinois .
In 2016 , the Supreme Court used Heller to toss out a Massachusetts woman 's conviction for possessing a stun gun banned in the state—the ban was later struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was the only major gun-rights case that the justices ruled on in the last decade .
Gun-rights advocates say the reluctance of the High Court to act has led to a confusing web of lower court decisions that leave the extent of Second Amendment protections an open question .
`` There 's confusion across the country on this because of different rulings on it , '' Philip Van Cleave , head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , said .
`` They absolutely should come in and get this straightened out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is protected . ''
Second Amendment activists are confident that they would prevail if state or local gun bans reach the Supreme Court .
The Court ruled in Heller that weapons `` in common use '' for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment .
The AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles are some of the most popular guns in the country with more than 17.7 million owned by civilians in the United States , according to a recent industry estimate .
`` Under the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s Second Amendment precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun ban is flat-out unconstitutional , '' NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said .
`` The highest court in the land has repeatedly ruled that banning commonly owned arms violates the Second Amendment . ''
Appellate courts have disagreed , but there has been no uniform legal reasoning between circuits affirming the constitutionality of gun bans .
The Seventh Circuit ruled AR-15s and similar firearms banned in Cook County , Illinois , do not have a `` reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia . ''
The Fourth Circuit ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ weapons that are most useful in military service ' — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment ’ s reach . ''
The D.C .
Circuit ruled there was a `` substantial relationship '' between the city 's AR-15 ban `` and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime . ''
The First Circuit ruled Massachusetts `` ( at most ) minimally burdens '' Second Amendment rights with its AR-15 ban .
Mark Oliva , a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Supreme Court to take up .
`` There are no grounds to say it 's settled law .
You have circuit courts of appeal that are at disagreement as to why those bans are constitutional , '' he told the Free Beacon .
`` When you have disagreement among the circuit courts that is a reason why the Supreme Court could be weighing in to come to an agreement on what that standard is . ''
Levine , the Virginia Democrat , argued that gun-control bans have received the blessing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court 's decision not to take up an appeal of the Fourth Circuit ruling upholding Maryland 's assault-weapons ban .
`` This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional , '' he told the state Senate in February .
`` The [ Maryland ] case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court .
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari .
That was n't the first time they 've declined to review such a case .
They 've done so in other cases . ''
Gun-rights advocates pointed out that the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not tantamount to endorsing the lower court 's decision .
There are many reasons the Court might decide not to take a case , from limited docket space to justices waiting for split rulings at the circuit level , or simply wanting a better test case on an issue .
`` I think Delegate Levine 's arguments are probably the best defense of his gun-confiscation legislation that he could make , but they do n't stand up to legal precedence on why the Supreme Court does or does not take a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least six separate gun-rights challenges from Maryland , Illinois , Massachusetts , California , and New Jersey—as well as one challenging a federal ban on interstate handgun sales—waiting for review by the High Court .
Not every gun-control advocate shares Levine 's optimism .
Ladd Everitt , former director of the gun-control group One Pulse for America , said pro-gun control policymakers should not give the Supreme Court leeway to set new precedents overturning gun-control laws .
`` The majority ’ s decision in Heller led to a torrent of litigation against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a 2019 op-ed .
`` Thankfully , federal courts have rejected most of those challenges .
It will become harder to do so in the future , however , if our increasingly pro-gun Supreme Court is allowed additional , unnecessary bites at the Second Amendment apple . ''
The District of Columbia declined to appeal a 2017 decision striking down its restrictive gun-carry permit law because city officials feared a Supreme Court decision would strike down similar laws in other states .
In 2019 , New York City officials attempted to withdraw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transportation of legally owned firearms after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case .
Local gun-control groups even lobbied for a state law loosening the travel restrictions out of fear of what the Court might rule .
Several Supreme Court justices have publicly spoken out in favor of the Court taking more gun-rights cases .
When the Court declined to hear a challenge to a California gun-carry law in 2017 , Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent , telling their colleagues not to `` stand by idly while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
`` The Court 's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend : the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right , '' Thomas said .
`` The Court has not heard [ an ] argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2 , 2010 , in McDonald… .
Since that time , we have heard argument [ s ] in , for example , roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fourth Amendment . ''
The make-up of the Court has changed drastically since McDonald , following the additions of President Trump 's appointees , Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch .
Kavanaugh has previously weighed in on the constitutionality of gun bans , notably dissenting when the D.C .
Circuit upheld the city 's assault-weapons ban in 2011 .
`` In my judgment , both D.C. 's ban on semiautomatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller , '' he wrote .
`` There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Semiautomatic rifles , like semiautomatic handguns , have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home , hunting , and other lawful uses . ''
Americans may soon get a preview of which direction the current Court will move on guns when it issues its decision in the New York City gun-transportation case .
In December , justices heard oral arguments in the New York City case and will decide whether to allow authorities to drop the case or rule on the merits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , both sides of the gun-control debate say the Supreme Court has the potential to shake up the entire course of legislative debates moving forward .

Second Amendment advocates are pursuing multiple lawsuits against gun-control measures in an effort to trigger a Supreme Court challenge that could upend decades of legislation.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed multiple gun-rights challenges in federal courts across the country. Founder Alan Gottlieb said the muddled nature of state laws, on issues ranging from open carry to the possession of certain weapons, calls out for judicial review from the nation's highest court.
"Politicians making claims that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to so-called assault weapons is exactly why the Supreme Court needs to take all of these cases and put this issue to rest," Gottlieb told the Washington Free Beacon.
The Supreme Court has never heard a legal challenge on either federal or state bans on "assault weapons" and has been largely silent on Second Amendment issues since its landmark rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010)—a pair of decisions that struck down strict gun-control laws in Washington, D.C., and Illinois. Gun-control activists have used the silence from the justices as approval for new bans and confiscation measures. Virginia delegate Mark Levine (D.) told the state Senate Judiciary Committee in February that the constitutionality of his proposed "assault weapons" ban and magazine confiscation proposal was settled law.
"I understand that some people might disagree with the policy here but there should be no question as to the constitutionality of this bill," Levine said.
The Virginia Senate ultimately voted against Levine's legislation, but gun advocates say that his rhetoric demonstrates why the Supreme Court should weigh in.
If the Supreme Court is moved to rule on new gun-rights cases—especially the legality of bans like Levine's—it could change the landscape of gun laws in the United States. Any ruling expanding protections for what categories of guns Americans have a right to own, or where they have a right to take their guns, could strike down laws in heavily Democratic states such as California, New York, and Illinois.
In 2016, the Supreme Court used Heller to toss out a Massachusetts woman's conviction for possessing a stun gun banned in the state—the ban was later struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. That was the only major gun-rights case that the justices ruled on in the last decade. Gun-rights advocates say the reluctance of the High Court to act has led to a confusing web of lower court decisions that leave the extent of Second Amendment protections an open question.
"There's confusion across the country on this because of different rulings on it," Philip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said. "They absolutely should come in and get this straightened out once and for all so this right is protected."
Second Amendment activists are confident that they would prevail if state or local gun bans reach the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in Heller that weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. The AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles are some of the most popular guns in the country with more than 17.7 million owned by civilians in the United States, according to a recent industry estimate.
"Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedent, Gov. Northam’s proposed gun ban is flat-out unconstitutional," NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said. "The highest court in the land has repeatedly ruled that banning commonly owned arms violates the Second Amendment."
Appellate courts have disagreed, but there has been no uniform legal reasoning between circuits affirming the constitutionality of gun bans.
The Seventh Circuit ruled AR-15s and similar firearms banned in Cook County, Illinois, do not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The Fourth Circuit ruled the AR-15s banned by Maryland are "'weapons that are most useful in military service' — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach." The D.C. Circuit ruled there was a "substantial relationship" between the city's AR-15 ban "and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime." The First Circuit ruled Massachusetts "(at most) minimally burdens" Second Amendment rights with its AR-15 ban.
Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the varied opinions make the issue ripe for the Supreme Court to take up.
"There are no grounds to say it's settled law. You have circuit courts of appeal that are at disagreement as to why those bans are constitutional," he told the Free Beacon. "When you have disagreement among the circuit courts that is a reason why the Supreme Court could be weighing in to come to an agreement on what that standard is."
Levine, the Virginia Democrat, argued that gun-control bans have received the blessing of the Roberts Court. He pointed to the Supreme Court's decision not to take up an appeal of the Fourth Circuit ruling upholding Maryland's assault-weapons ban.
"This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional," he told the state Senate in February. "The [Maryland] case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. That wasn't the first time they've declined to review such a case. They've done so in other cases."
Gun-rights advocates pointed out that the Supreme Court deciding not to hear an appeal is not tantamount to endorsing the lower court's decision. There are many reasons the Court might decide not to take a case, from limited docket space to justices waiting for split rulings at the circuit level, or simply wanting a better test case on an issue.
"I think Delegate Levine's arguments are probably the best defense of his gun-confiscation legislation that he could make, but they don't stand up to legal precedence on why the Supreme Court does or does not take a case," Gottlieb said.
There are at least six separate gun-rights challenges from Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey—as well as one challenging a federal ban on interstate handgun sales—waiting for review by the High Court. Not every gun-control advocate shares Levine's optimism. Ladd Everitt, former director of the gun-control group One Pulse for America, said pro-gun control policymakers should not give the Supreme Court leeway to set new precedents overturning gun-control laws.
"The majority’s decision in Heller led to a torrent of litigation against gun-control laws nationwide," Everitt said in a 2019 op-ed. "Thankfully, federal courts have rejected most of those challenges. It will become harder to do so in the future, however, if our increasingly pro-gun Supreme Court is allowed additional, unnecessary bites at the Second Amendment apple."
The District of Columbia declined to appeal a 2017 decision striking down its restrictive gun-carry permit law because city officials feared a Supreme Court decision would strike down similar laws in other states. In 2019, New York City officials attempted to withdraw a bid to defend a law limiting the transportation of legally owned firearms after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Local gun-control groups even lobbied for a state law loosening the travel restrictions out of fear of what the Court might rule.
Several Supreme Court justices have publicly spoken out in favor of the Court taking more gun-rights cases. When the Court declined to hear a challenge to a California gun-carry law in 2017, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent, telling their colleagues not to "stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right."
"The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," Thomas said. "The Court has not heard [an] argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald.... Since that time, we have heard argument[s] in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
The make-up of the Court has changed drastically since McDonald, following the additions of President Trump's appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh has previously weighed in on the constitutionality of gun bans, notably dissenting when the D.C. Circuit upheld the city's assault-weapons ban in 2011.
"In my judgment, both D.C.'s ban on semiautomatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller," he wrote. "There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles, like semiautomatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses."
Americans may soon get a preview of which direction the current Court will move on guns when it issues its decision in the New York City gun-transportation case. In December, justices heard oral arguments in the New York City case and will decide whether to allow authorities to drop the case or rule on the merits. No matter the outcome in that case, both sides of the gun-control debate say the Supreme Court has the potential to shake up the entire course of legislative debates moving forward.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Firm Asks Supreme Court to Declare CFPB Structure Unconstitutional

A California law firm is asking the Supreme Court to rein in a top financial regulator established by the Obama administration because of its lack of accountability to the president .
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) , the brainchild of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass . )
, has faced numerous legal challenges from businesses and lawmakers since it was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill .
On Tuesday , lawyers for Seila Law LLC will ask the Supreme Court to declare the agency 's structure unconstitutional .
Unlike many other executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not serve at the pleasure of the president .
Instead , the director can only be fired for cause , which the statute defines as `` inefficiency , neglect of duty , or malfeasance in office . ''
Critics of the restriction say it is unconstitutional because it vests a single person , who is not accountable to the president , with significant executive power .
`` If the president lacks the ability to remove an agency 's head , the agency is unaccountable and can not be ‘ entrusted with executive powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place here , '' Seila Law argued in a brief .
The dispute arose when the agency issued a civil investigative demand ( CID ) into Seila Law to determine whether the firm broke consumer protection laws by allegedly charging clients illegal upfront fees for debt-management services .
Seila Law refused to cooperate on the grounds that the agency 's structure is unconstitutional , making its investigative demand invalid .
The agency has prevailed against the firm in both a California federal court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CFPB in court .
The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Paul Clement to argue for the agency 's constitutionality .
In legal briefs to the Court , Clement presented a solution that allows the Court to dismiss the case on technical grounds , without weighing the merits of the removal provision .
Historically , the justices have only reviewed restrictions on the president 's removal powers when the president himself attempts to remove a subordinate officer , according to Clement 's briefs .
That hasn ’ t occurred here .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the CFPB in 2018 .
Clement argues the validity of the CID has nothing to do with the rules governing the removal of the director .
The agency would issue CIDs regardless of the removal standards for the directorship .
As such , Seila Law is not in a position to challenge the removal restrictions Dodd-Frank created .
`` The idea that either the CID or the effort to enforce it in court flowed from the director being emboldened by his tenure provisions was always highly artificial , '' Clement wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director is removable at-will or for inefficiency , neglect , or malfeasance , such CIDs and enforcement petitions would remain commonplace . ''
The firm argues that agencies exercise executive power on behalf of the president .
If the agency 's structure is unlawful , then it has no power to exercise executive authority and its actions—including the investigatory demands at issue—are void .
The brief also notes that the Supreme Court has set aside the actions of government bureaucrats `` laboring under structural constitutional defects . ''
Lawyers pointed to a 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission after determining that some of its officers were not validly appointed .
`` The CFPB exercised executive power by issuing and attempting to enforce a civil investigative demand to investigate potential violations of consumer-protection laws , '' the brief adds .
`` But the director lacked the presidential supervision necessary to exercise that power , rendering the CFPB without authority to do so . ''
Seila Law is not alone in questioning whether the agency 's structure passes constitutional muster .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit .
`` Other than the President , the Director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other official in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government , '' Kavanaugh said in a 2018 dissent .
`` That combination—power that is massive in scope , concentrated in a single person , and unaccountable to the President—triggers the important constitutional question at issue in this case . ''
The case has already attracted scrutiny from liberal judicial observers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding that Kavanaugh recuse himself from the case , citing his 2018 dissent , as well as another D.C .
Circuit case dating back to 2016 .
The Trump appointee has not responded to calls for his recusal .
Arguments in the case , No .
19-7 Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , are scheduled for Tuesday .

A California law firm is asking the Supreme Court to rein in a top financial regulator established by the Obama administration because of its lack of accountability to the president.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the brainchild of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), has faced numerous legal challenges from businesses and lawmakers since it was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill. On Tuesday, lawyers for Seila Law LLC will ask the Supreme Court to declare the agency's structure unconstitutional. Unlike many other executive branch officials, the CFPB director does not serve at the pleasure of the president. Instead, the director can only be fired for cause, which the statute defines as "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Critics of the restriction say it is unconstitutional because it vests a single person, who is not accountable to the president, with significant executive power.
"If the president lacks the ability to remove an agency's head, the agency is unaccountable and cannot be 'entrusted with executive powers.' That is precisely what took place here," Seila Law argued in a brief.
The dispute arose when the agency issued a civil investigative demand (CID) into Seila Law to determine whether the firm broke consumer protection laws by allegedly charging clients illegal upfront fees for debt-management services. Seila Law refused to cooperate on the grounds that the agency's structure is unconstitutional, making its investigative demand invalid.
The agency has prevailed against the firm in both a California federal court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration declined to defend the structure of the CFPB in court. The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Paul Clement to argue for the agency's constitutionality.
In legal briefs to the Court, Clement presented a solution that allows the Court to dismiss the case on technical grounds, without weighing the merits of the removal provision. Historically, the justices have only reviewed restrictions on the president's removal powers when the president himself attempts to remove a subordinate officer, according to Clement's briefs. That hasn’t occurred here. In fact, President Donald Trump appointed Kathy Kraninger as director of the CFPB in 2018.
Clement argues the validity of the CID has nothing to do with the rules governing the removal of the director. The agency would issue CIDs regardless of the removal standards for the directorship. As such, Seila Law is not in a position to challenge the removal restrictions Dodd-Frank created.
"The idea that either the CID or the effort to enforce it in court flowed from the director being emboldened by his tenure provisions was always highly artificial," Clement wrote in legal filings. "Whether the director is removable at-will or for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance, such CIDs and enforcement petitions would remain commonplace."
The firm argues that agencies exercise executive power on behalf of the president. If the agency's structure is unlawful, then it has no power to exercise executive authority and its actions—including the investigatory demands at issue—are void. The brief also notes that the Supreme Court has set aside the actions of government bureaucrats "laboring under structural constitutional defects." Lawyers pointed to a 2018 case in which the justices set aside decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission after determining that some of its officers were not validly appointed.
"The CFPB exercised executive power by issuing and attempting to enforce a civil investigative demand to investigate potential violations of consumer-protection laws," the brief adds. "But the director lacked the presidential supervision necessary to exercise that power, rendering the CFPB without authority to do so."
Seila Law is not alone in questioning whether the agency's structure passes constitutional muster. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also took issue with the removal standard when he served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"Other than the President, the Director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other official in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government," Kavanaugh said in a 2018 dissent. "That combination—power that is massive in scope, concentrated in a single person, and unaccountable to the President—triggers the important constitutional question at issue in this case."
The case has already attracted scrutiny from liberal judicial observers. In December, activists circulated a petition demanding that Kavanaugh recuse himself from the case, citing his 2018 dissent, as well as another D.C. Circuit case dating back to 2016. The Trump appointee has not responded to calls for his recusal.
Arguments in the case, No. 19-7 Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are scheduled for Tuesday.


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Dem Rep Engel Says Sanders’s Israel Stance Is Disqualifying

Rep. Eliot Engel ( D. , N.Y. ) effectively ruled out supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) for president on Monday , saying anyone who favored conditioning aid to Israel would not get his vote .
`` Conditioning aid to Israel has to be just about the stupidest thing I 've heard in the 33 years I 've been in Congress .
It 's absolutely outrageous , '' he said at a panel for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) conference .
`` I do n't care from what party .
Anybody who talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get my vote . ''
Sanders has repeatedly said he would use the billions in aid the United States gives Israel as leverage , threatening to withhold roll back settlements and negotiate more favorable peace terms with the Palestinians .
`` I would use the leverage of $ 3.8 billion , '' he told the anti-Israel group J Street in October .
`` It is a lot of money , and we can not give it carte blanche to the Israeli government , or for that matter to any government at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human rights and democracy . ''
He has frequently called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu `` racist '' and assailed Israel 's treatment of Palestinians .
Sanders has never attended AIPAC 's annual conference and called it a platform for bigotry last month ; AIPAC fired back , calling his attack `` odious '' and `` shameful . ''
Engel , the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , is facing a primary challenge from his left in 2020 , partly in response to his support for Israel .

NY congressman: Anybody who talks about conditioning aid to Israel 'doesn't get my vote'
Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) effectively ruled out supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) for president on Monday, saying anyone who favored conditioning aid to Israel would not get his vote.
"Conditioning aid to Israel has to be just about the stupidest thing I've heard in the 33 years I've been in Congress. It's absolutely outrageous," he said at a panel for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. "I don't care from what party. Anybody who talks about conditioning aid to Israel doesn't get my vote."
Sanders has repeatedly said he would use the billions in aid the United States gives Israel as leverage, urging it to roll back settlements and negotiate more favorable peace terms with the Palestinians.
"I would use the leverage of $3.8 billion," he told the anti-Israel group J Street in October. "It is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government, or for that matter to any government at all. We have a right to demand respect for human rights and democracy."
He has frequently called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu "racist" and assailed Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Sanders has never attended AIPAC's annual conference and called it a platform for bigotry last month; AIPAC fired back, calling his attack "odious" and "shameful."
Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is facing a primary challenge from his left in 2020, partly in response to his support for Israel.


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Trump Admin Strikes Back Against Chicoms After Ejection of U.S. Journalists

The State Department ordered Chinese state-media entities to cut their U.S. staff by nearly 40 percent after China expelled some U.S. journalists from its borders .
The new restrictions will affect the five major Chinese news agencies operating in the United States — Xinhua News Agency , China Global Television Network , China Radio International , China Daily , and People 's Daily .
The Trump administration said that the policy aims to compel the regime to respect press freedom for foreign journalists operating within China .
`` Our goal is reciprocity , '' Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done in other areas of the U.S.-China relationship , we seek to establish a long-overdue level playing field .
It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to U.S. and other foreign press in China . ''
The new restrictions will force the media companies to reduce their combined staff from 160 to 100 employees , according to a State Department official .
The outlets must announce their revised staffing arrangement by March 6 and fully comply with the rules by March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda outfits come on the heels of China 's decision to expel three Wall Street Journal reporters after the U.S. outlet published an opinion column that China said was offensive .
The expelled journalists , who had no role in their outlet 's decision to publish the column , wrote about the coronavirus outbreak and repression in Xinjiang .
Pompeo condemned the expulsions in February .
U.S. officials have long suspected such outlets have participated in spy programs in the United States .
For example , the United States-China Economic and Security Review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , found in 2017 that Xinhua News Agency `` serves some of the functions of an intelligence agency '' by ordering employees to compile classified reports on domestic and international events .
The State Department designated the outlets as `` foreign missions '' in February , a designation that requires the outlets to disclose `` basic information '' about their real estate holdings and employees to the federal government .
Many of these media outlets have blurred the lines between propaganda and news in their American operations .
The Washington Free Beacon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosure laws as the outlet bought hundreds of ad spaces to run propaganda articles in the New York Times and other mainstream outlets .
In response , 35 members of Congress asked the Justice Department to launch a probe into China Daily ‘ s compliance with federal disclosure requirements .
Pompeo stressed that the restrictions do not place any limits on what the state agencies choose to publish in the United States .
`` The decision to implement this personnel cap is not based on any content produced by these entities , nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the designated entities may publish in the United States , '' he said .
A State Department official added that Chinese citizens working for other outlets are not affected by the order .
`` The Chinese Communist Party kicked out real journalists because their publication reported the facts , '' Cotton said in a statement .
`` Today , the administration took justified , retaliatory action by restricting the number of Chinese propagandists in the United States . ''
`` This is a good start , but propaganda outlets like China Daily are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should be investigated for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act ( FARA ) , '' Cotton said .

The State Department ordered Chinese state-media entities to cut their U.S. staff by nearly 40 percent after China expelled some U.S. journalists from its borders.
The new restrictions will affect the five major Chinese news agencies operating in the United States — Xinhua News Agency, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, China Daily, and People's Daily. The Trump administration said that the policy aims to compel the regime to respect press freedom for foreign journalists operating within China.
"Our goal is reciprocity," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "As we have done in other areas of the U.S.-China relationship, we seek to establish a long-overdue level playing field. It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to U.S. and other foreign press in China."
The new restrictions will force the media companies to reduce their combined staff from 160 to 100 employees, according to a State Department official. The outlets must announce their revised staffing arrangement by March 6 and fully comply with the rules by March 13. The new rules for the propaganda outfits come on the heels of China's decision to expel three Wall Street Journal reporters after the U.S. outlet published an opinion column that China said was offensive. The expelled journalists, who had no role in their outlet's decision to publish the column, wrote about the coronavirus outbreak and repression in Xinjiang. Pompeo condemned the expulsions in February.
U.S. officials have long suspected such outlets have participated in spy programs in the United States. For example, the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan body sanctioned by Congress, found in 2017 that Xinhua News Agency "serves some of the functions of an intelligence agency" by ordering employees to compile classified reports on domestic and international events. The State Department designated the outlets as "foreign missions" in February, a designation that requires the outlets to disclose "basic information" about their real estate holdings and employees to the federal government.
Many of these media outlets have blurred the lines between propaganda and news in their American operations. The Washington Free Beacon found that China Daily repeatedly violated federal disclosure laws as the outlet bought hundreds of ad spaces to run propaganda articles in the New York Times and other mainstream outlets. In response, 35 members of Congress asked the Justice Department to launch a probe into China Daily's compliance with federal disclosure requirements.
Pompeo stressed that the restrictions do not place any limits on what the state agencies choose to publish in the United States. "The decision to implement this personnel cap is not based on any content produced by these entities, nor does it place any restrictions on what the designated entities may publish in the United States," he said. A State Department official added that Chinese citizens working for other outlets are not affected by the order.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) praised the order as a "good start," but called for further action against Chinese propaganda outlets.
"The Chinese Communist Party kicked out real journalists because their publication reported the facts," Cotton said in a statement. "Today, the administration took justified, retaliatory action by restricting the number of Chinese propagandists in the United States."
"This is a good start, but propaganda outlets like China Daily are political tools of the CCP, and they should be investigated for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)," Cotton said.
A spokeswoman for the Chinese embassy told the Free Beacon that the State Department’s decision is based on "Cold-War mentality and ideological biases." She said Chinese state outlets cover news in the United States based on the "principles of objectivity, impartiality, truthfulness, and accuracy."


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Dow Has Biggest Daily Jump Since 2009

Dow Has Biggest Daily Jump Since 2009

( Reuters ) – The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged over 5 % on Monday while the S & P 500 and Nasdaq each jumped more than 4 % in a major rebound following last week ’ s steep sell-off sparked by fears about the coronavirus .
After the stock market extended gains in the session ’ s final minutes , the Dow wrapped up its strongest one-day gain since 2009 , while the S & P 500 and Nasdaq each had their strongest one-day rise since December 2018 .
That rally followed the U.S. stock market ’ s worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinking into correction territory on Thursday due to fears of a recession resulting from the epidemic .
The S & P 500 remains down 8.7 % from its Feb. 19 record high close .
Many investors will consider the index to remain in a correction until it reclaims its high .
Apple jumped 9.3 % in its largest one-session leap since 2008 .
The iPhone maker is still down nearly 9 % from its record high close on Feb. 12 .
Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda said on Monday that Japan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stabilize financial markets .
That followed a similar move by Fed Chair Jerome Powell last Friday .
`` We can shrug off an economic downturn , but if it starts to spill into companies ’ capacity to pay their debts , then that creates deeper problems .
But it seems to me like the central banks are linking arms to find a way to insulate the credit markets from economic uncertainty , '' said Jack Ablin , chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors in Chicago .
Traders see a 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut at the Fed ’ s March meeting , according to CME Group ’ s FedWatch tool .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 5.09 % to end at 26,703.32 points , while the S & P 500 surged 4.60 % to 3,090.23 .
Trading was very busy on U.S. exchanges , with 14 billion shares changing hands compared with a 9.5 billion-share average for the last 20 days .
The S & P 500 information technology index jumped 5.7 % in its strongest session since December 2018 .
The Institute for Supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month due to supply issues stemming from the virus outbreak .
`` The Fed can cut rates all it wants , that is not going to put a person in a factory producing a product if that person is quarantined , '' said Randy Frederick , vice president of trading and derivatives for Charles Schwab in Austin , Texas .
`` I don ’ t think ( monetary policy ) solves the problem … This particular one is both supply and demand , it will help but it won ’ t fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forty Seven Inc soared 62 % after larger peer Gilead Sciences made a $ 4.9 billion offer for the firm .
Gilead jumped 8.71 % .
Surgical mask maker Alpha Pro Tech Ltd tumbled 22 % but remains up over 350 % year-to-date .
Advancing issues outnumbered declining ones on the NYSE by a 4.32-to-1 ratio ; on Nasdaq , a 2.69-to-1 ratio favored advancers .
The S & P 500 posted no new 52-week highs and 18 new lows ; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 27 new highs and 149 new lows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shivdas in Bengaluru ; Editing by Nick Zieminski , Chizu Nomiyama and Lisa Shumaker

By Noel Randewich
(Reuters) - The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged over 5% on Monday while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq each jumped more than 4% in a major rebound following last week’s steep sell-off sparked by fears about the coronavirus.
After the stock market extended gains in the session’s final minutes, the Dow wrapped up its strongest one-day gain since 2009, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq each had their strongest one-day rise since December 2018.
That rally followed the U.S. stock market’s worst week since the 2008 financial crisis, sinking into correction territory on Thursday due to fears of a recession resulting from the epidemic.
The S&P 500 remains down 8.7% from its Feb. 19 record high close. Many investors will consider the index to remain in a correction until it reclaims its high.
Apple jumped 9.3% in its largest one-session leap since 2008. The iPhone maker is still down nearly 9% from its record high close on Feb. 12.
Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda said on Monday that Japan’s central bank would take necessary steps to stabilize financial markets. That followed a similar move by Fed Chair Jerome Powell last Friday.
"We can shrug off an economic downturn, but if it starts to spill into companies’ capacity to pay their debts, then that creates deeper problems. But it seems to me like the central banks are linking arms to find a way to insulate the credit markets from economic uncertainty," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors in Chicago.
Traders see a 100% chance of a 50 basis point rate cut at the Fed’s March meeting, according to CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 5.09% to end at 26,703.32 points, while the S&P 500 surged 4.60% to 3,090.23.
The Nasdaq Composite added 4.49% to 8,952.17.
Trading was very busy on U.S. exchanges, with 14 billion shares changing hands compared with a 9.5 billion-share average for the last 20 days.
The S&P 500 information technology index jumped 5.7% in its strongest session since December 2018.
The Institute for Supply Management said domestic manufacturing activity barely expanded last month due to supply issues stemming from the virus outbreak.
"The Fed can cut rates all it wants, that is not going to put a person in a factory producing a product if that person is quarantined," said Randy Frederick, vice president of trading and derivatives for Charles Schwab in Austin, Texas.
"I don’t think (monetary policy) solves the problem ... This particular one is both supply and demand, it will help but it won’t fix the problem."
Cancer drug developer Forty Seven Inc soared 62% after larger peer Gilead Sciences made a $4.9 billion offer for the firm. Gilead jumped 8.71%.
Surgical mask maker Alpha Pro Tech Ltd tumbled 22% but remains up over 350% year-to-date.
Advancing issues outnumbered declining ones on the NYSE by a 4.32-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 2.69-to-1 ratio favored advancers.
The S&P 500 posted no new 52-week highs and 18 new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 27 new highs and 149 new lows.
Additional reporting by Ambar Warrick and Sanjana Shivdas in Bengaluru; Editing by Nick Zieminski, Chizu Nomiyama and Lisa Shumaker


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Good Riddance, Mayor Pete

Good Riddance, Mayor Pete

Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg , in what is undoubtedly the most laudable achievement of his political career , ended his superfluous presidential campaign on Sunday .
Good riddance , and congratulations… to Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D. , Minn. ) for barely outlasting her nemesis , the entitled twerp who reminded her so much of all the staffers she 's terrorized over the years .
Buttigieg 's exit was sudden , like the first kid in class to raise his hand after the teacher asks for volunteers .
His endorsement of former vice president Joe Biden embodied everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg 's personal ambition ) , as well as everything it stood against ( older candidates with more Washington experience than Pete Buttigieg ) .
The 38-year-old Harvard grad , Rhodes Scholar , and McKinsey consultant will angle for a Biden cabinet position to put on his resume before running for office again .
That run is inevitable .
It just wo n't be in Indiana , where he ran for state treasurer at age 28 and lost to a generic Republican by 25 points .
Northern Virginia , here he comes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Democratic primary .
The same can not be said for several candidates the professional pundit class once anointed as frontrunners—Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D. , Calif. ) , for example .
Buttigieg 's rivals , including Biden , could hardly contain their disdain for the guy .
Who , after all , did he think he was ?
Before anyone knew his name , Buttigieg was being hailed in the New York Times as `` the first gay president '' and running ( unsuccessfully ) for chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his opponents , everything about Buttigieg 's persona was extremely annoying : his inexperience , his sociopathic levels of ambition , his consultant-grade talking points , his `` white Obama '' affectation , his refusal to shut up about the time he studied abroad in Afghanistan , his campaign theme song .
Buttigieg 's success in early primary states was driven by his ability to appeal to several powerful , if overlapping , constituencies within the Democratic Party : boat-shoe dads , Montessori moms , Panic !
at the Disco dilettantes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hippies with 401ks , millionaires who self-identify as `` middle class , '' liberals too `` woke '' to support a straight man but too sexist to support a woman , journalists , white people .
Unfortunately , Buttigieg 's efforts to cast himself as the candidate who could `` bring people together '' fell flat in South Carolina , where he won just 2 percent of the black vote .
The decision to drop out now , at the direction of party elders , is being praised as `` selfless , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg 's insane vow to keep running until `` the bitter end . ''
It 's also an act of self-preservation by a candidate who did n't want to be embarrassed any further in the diverse slate of states holding primaries on March 3 , aka Super Tuesday .
Pete Buttigieg wo n't be missed , but he 'll be back in our lives soon enough .
He can finally leave Indiana without looking like a total carpetbagger and will soon be able to afford a top-notch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his image in whatever state he tries to run in next .
On the bright side , at least we already know how to pronounce his name .

Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, in what is undoubtedly the most laudable achievement of his political career, ended his superfluous presidential campaign on Sunday. Good riddance, and congratulations... to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) for barely outlasting her nemesis, the entitled twerp who reminded her so much of all the staffers she's terrorized over the years.
Buttigieg's exit was sudden, like the first kid in class to raise his hand after the teacher asks for volunteers. His endorsement of former vice president Joe Biden embodied everything the Pete campaign stood for (Pete Buttigieg's personal ambition), as well as everything it stood against (older candidates with more Washington experience than Pete Buttigieg).
The 38-year-old Harvard grad, Rhodes Scholar, and McKinsey consultant will angle for a Biden cabinet position to put on his resume before running for office again. That run is inevitable. It just won't be in Indiana, where he ran for state treasurer at age 28 and lost to a generic Republican by 25 points. Northern Virginia, here he comes.
Buttigieg exceeded expectations simply by receiving votes in a Democratic primary. The same cannot be said for several candidates the professional pundit class once anointed as frontrunners—Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), for example.
Buttigieg's rivals, including Biden, could hardly contain their disdain for the guy. Who, after all, did he think he was? Before anyone knew his name, Buttigieg was being hailed in the New York Times as "the first gay president" and running (unsuccessfully) for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
In fairness to his opponents, everything about Buttigieg's persona was extremely annoying: his inexperience, his sociopathic levels of ambition, his consultant-grade talking points, his "white Obama" affectation, his refusal to shut up about the time he studied abroad in Afghanistan, his campaign theme song.
Buttigieg's success in early primary states was driven by his ability to appeal to several powerful, if overlapping, constituencies within the Democratic Party: boat-shoe dads, Montessori moms, Panic! at the Disco dilettantes, West Wing enthusiasts, nursing-home DJs, hippies with 401ks, millionaires who self-identify as "middle class," liberals too "woke" to support a straight man but too sexist to support a woman, journalists, white people.
Unfortunately, Buttigieg's efforts to cast himself as the candidate who could "bring people together" fell flat in South Carolina, where he won just 2 percent of the black vote. The decision to drop out now, at the direction of party elders, is being praised as "selfless," which is only true when compared with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's insane vow to keep running until "the bitter end."
It's also an act of self-preservation by a candidate who didn't want to be embarrassed any further in the diverse slate of states holding primaries on March 3, aka Super Tuesday.
Pete Buttigieg won't be missed, but he'll be back in our lives soon enough. He can finally leave Indiana without looking like a total carpetbagger and will soon be able to afford a top-notch team of consultants and pollsters to rebrand his image in whatever state he tries to run in next. On the bright side, at least we already know how to pronounce his name.


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Elizabeth Warren Prepares to Be a Spoiler

No 2020 contender has fallen as hard or as fast as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
Once poised to break out of the pack and overtake frontrunner Joe Biden , Warren has seen her support collapse , dropping 12 percentage points from its peak in the RealClearPolitics polling average .
She is now behind Michael Bloomberg and was all-but-tied with Pete Buttigieg before the former mayor departed from the race on Sunday .
Warren has had an anemic showing in the early primaries , coming in third , fourth , fourth , and finally fifth place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just eight delegates , a bit more than 5 percent of the total thus far allocated .
With the departure of both Buttigieg and , on Monday , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D. , Minn. ) , two questions are left hanging over Warren 's head in advance of the Super Tuesday slate of primaries .
What happened to her campaign ?
And why is she still running it ?
The answer to both is that Warren has positioned herself as a unity candidate—a posture that not only tanked her chances but will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come the convention in Milwaukee .
There is a chance that Warren will pull out a win in her home state of Massachusetts on Tuesday , but that 's far from certain .
The latest polling has her tied with national frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) , who has led by a razor-thin margin in five of the last six polls of the state .
Perhaps recognizing his chance to oust his progressive-lane opposition , Sanders made a show of force in the Bay State over the weekend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13,000 to the Boston Common on Saturday .
Reflecting this , Warren is planning to spend Tuesday night—when a hypothetical victory party would occur—outside of her state .
She will be voting in Cambridge Tuesday morning but is scheduled to give a speech in Detroit that evening , a week ahead of Michigan 's own `` Super Tuesday II . ''
Warren 's campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment as to where the candidate expects to be on Tuesday .
Warren 's Tuesday travel schedule not only confirms her doubts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she does not expect to drop out .
Unlike Buttigieg or Klobuchar , Warren 's campaign has indicated that she intends to go the distance , banking on a contested convention in Milwaukee ( which FiveThirtyEight indicates has a two-in-three chance of happening ) .
In a memo released Sunday , Warren campaign manager Roger Lau described Milwaukee as the `` final play , '' saying that Warren expects to scoop up a sizable share of delegates on Tuesday—support that could then be used as bargaining chips come July .
That partially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race despite a winnowing field .
Her presence will likely draw voters from Sanders—the plurality of her supporters name him as their second choice and vice-versa .
Staying in allows Warren to build her own delegate count while keeping Sanders under the magical 1,991 threshold , giving her the conditions and the leverage to negotiate for concessions on a second-round ballot .
At the same time , Warren might be aiming bigger , hoping to emerge Harding-like as a consensus alternative after the convention fails to settle on either Sanders or likely runner-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a feature of Warren 's campaign since the beginning .
Although a vocal progressive and one of the Senate 's furthest-left members , Warren has always carefully positioned herself as moderate compared with Sanders .
Where he is a proud socialist , she is a `` capitalist to my bones '' ; where he eschews Democratic Party membership and blasts its `` establishment , '' she has remained a stalwart party member who backed insider Hillary Clinton over Sanders 's insurgent campaign in 2016 .
For a time , it seemed as though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one brief moment in October of last year , Warren was the Democratic frontrunner .
Early that month , she very briefly surpassed Biden in the RealClearPolitics average .
With the former veep flailing on stage during debates , and Sanders suffering from second-run malaise , the comparatively energetic Warren looked like the clear choice .
This position was , no doubt , bolstered by her status as a media darling .
Reporters and commentators gushed over her `` plans for everything , '' never mind her prowess with a selfie-stick .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren clinched a much-coveted endorsement from the New York Times , albeit one shared with Klobuchar .
Although she would come in a distant third in Iowa , the Des Moines Register , the state 's premier newspaper , endorsed her just before the caucus .
( That media have so lauded Buttigieg , a Biden competitor , for dropping out , but have not called for a similar departure from Sanders-competitor Warren , bears recognition . )
That her candidacy was so media-backed may explain Warren 's sudden drop in the polls—voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media but decided they did not like what they saw .
Her collapse was also almost certainly precipitated by her disastrous Medicare for All plan roll-out , which satisfied neither the party 's radical wing nor more moderate voters skeptical of plans to abolish private insurance .
What all of this suggests is that Warren 's attempt at bridging the Democratic Party 's divide only showed how vast that gap is—trying to please everyone meant pleasing no one .
Now , bloodied and beaten , Warren 's campaign limps on , pinning its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

No 2020 contender has fallen as hard or as fast as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).
Once poised to break out of the pack and overtake frontrunner Joe Biden, Warren has seen her support collapse, dropping 12 percentage points from its peak in the RealClearPolitics polling average. She is now behind Michael Bloomberg and was all-but-tied with Pete Buttigieg before the former mayor departed from the race on Sunday. Warren has had an anemic showing in the early primaries, coming in third, fourth, fourth, and finally fifth place in each contest. She currently has just eight delegates, a bit more than 5 percent of the total thus far allocated.
With the departure of both Buttigieg and, on Monday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), two questions are left hanging over Warren's head in advance of the Super Tuesday slate of primaries. What happened to her campaign? And why is she still running it? The answer to both is that Warren has positioned herself as a unity candidate—a posture that not only tanked her chances but will likely drive the Democratic Party further apart come the convention in Milwaukee.
There is a chance that Warren will pull out a win in her home state of Massachusetts on Tuesday, but that's far from certain. The latest polling has her tied with national frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who has led by a razor-thin margin in five of the last six polls of the state. Perhaps recognizing his chance to oust his progressive-lane opposition, Sanders made a show of force in the Bay State over the weekend, rallying first in Springfield and then drawing 13,000 to the Boston Common on Saturday.
Reflecting this, Warren is planning to spend Tuesday night—when a hypothetical victory party would occur—outside of her state. She will be voting in Cambridge Tuesday morning but is scheduled to give a speech in Detroit that evening, a week ahead of Michigan's own "Super Tuesday II." Warren's campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment as to where the candidate expects to be on Tuesday.
Warren's Tuesday travel schedule not only confirms her doubts about victory in Massachusetts but also shows that she does not expect to drop out. Unlike Buttigieg or Klobuchar, Warren's campaign has indicated that she intends to go the distance, banking on a contested convention in Milwaukee (which FiveThirtyEight indicates has a two-in-three chance of happening). In a memo released Sunday, Warren campaign manager Roger Lau described Milwaukee as the "final play," saying that Warren expects to scoop up a sizable share of delegates on Tuesday—support that could then be used as bargaining chips come July.
That partially explains why Warren is still in the race despite a winnowing field. Her presence will likely draw voters from Sanders—the plurality of her supporters name him as their second choice and vice-versa. Staying in allows Warren to build her own delegate count while keeping Sanders under the magical 1,991 threshold, giving her the conditions and the leverage to negotiate for concessions on a second-round ballot. At the same time, Warren might be aiming bigger, hoping to emerge Harding-like as a consensus alternative after the convention fails to settle on either Sanders or likely runner-up Biden.
Such compromise positioning has been a feature of Warren's campaign since the beginning. Although a vocal progressive and one of the Senate's furthest-left members, Warren has always carefully positioned herself as moderate compared with Sanders. Where he is a proud socialist, she is a "capitalist to my bones"; where he eschews Democratic Party membership and blasts its "establishment," she has remained a stalwart party member who backed insider Hillary Clinton over Sanders's insurgent campaign in 2016.
For a time, it seemed as though this middle-of-the-road strategy might work. For one brief moment in October of last year, Warren was the Democratic frontrunner. Early that month, she very briefly surpassed Biden in the RealClearPolitics average. With the former veep flailing on stage during debates, and Sanders suffering from second-run malaise, the comparatively energetic Warren looked like the clear choice.
This position was, no doubt, bolstered by her status as a media darling. Reporters and commentators gushed over her "plans for everything," never mind her prowess with a selfie-stick. Even as she slipped in the polls, Warren clinched a much-coveted endorsement from the New York Times, albeit one shared with Klobuchar. Although she would come in a distant third in Iowa, the Des Moines Register, the state's premier newspaper, endorsed her just before the caucus. (That media have so lauded Buttigieg, a Biden competitor, for dropping out, but have not called for a similar departure from Sanders-competitor Warren, bears recognition.)
That her candidacy was so media-backed may explain Warren's sudden drop in the polls—voters got to know her through an adoring media but decided they did not like what they saw. Her collapse was also almost certainly precipitated by her disastrous Medicare for All plan roll-out, which satisfied neither the party's radical wing nor more moderate voters skeptical of plans to abolish private insurance.
What all of this suggests is that Warren's attempt at bridging the Democratic Party's divide only showed how vast that gap is—trying to please everyone meant pleasing no one. Now, bloodied and beaten, Warren's campaign limps on, pinning its hopes on sowing further division in Milwaukee.


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Journalist Who Defended Katie Hill Failed to Disclose He Dated Her

A Playboy journalist who went to bat for disgraced former representative Katie Hill ( D. , Calif. ) after her resignation failed to disclose that they were dating at the time her scandal became public .
The New York Post reported Saturday that Playboy Washington correspondent Alex Thomas was seen at a book party with Hill , who resigned in October after photos of her nude with a campaign staffer emerged .
Leaked text messages seemed to indicate that she was in a relationship with a congressional staffer in violation of House rules .
On Monday , Hill confirmed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dated Thomas beginning in `` mid-2019 '' and that `` in August , they went on a beach vacation together . ''
In October , Thomas defended Hill on Twitter , reporting that the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for the RedState story that first published Hill 's nude photos .
Without disclosing his relationship with Hill , Thomas tweeted out a screenshot of what he claimed was a story `` backed up with multiple sources and audio '' that would `` show that the NRCC was shopping around the Katie Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's tweets at the time , saying in a statement : `` We never shopped , possessed or circulated photos of Congresswoman Hill .
We did n't see the photos until they were published , just like everyone else . ''
Thomas then walked back his claims , saying that the NRCC 's denial `` checks out actually '' and that the organization `` never had their hands on the photos . ''
Thomas never disclosed that he was in a relationship with Hill from the beginning of the controversy .
New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 24 , Hill `` woke up to news that the British tabloid the Daily Mail , one of the most-read news outlets in the world , had published a story featuring additional explicit photographs .
Hill turned to Thomas and said , ‘ It 's over . '
'' Playboy never ran Thomas 's promised story on the Hill controversy , which instead ran on Thomas 's personal newsletter .
Both the newsletter and the tweets about Hill have since been deleted .
Thomas , Hill , and Playboy did not respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Van Laar told the Washington Free Beacon that Thomas also sent RedState emails about the story without mentioning his romantic involvement with the disgraced congresswoman .
Van Laar , who broke the story in October , declined to share Thomas 's messages because she is currently consulting with her attorney while working on a story of her own .
The NRCC said it was a `` sad day '' for journalistic ethics in a statement to the Free Beacon .
`` It 's baffling that someone who has sex with the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now-retracted accusations against our organization is a credentialed member of the press , '' an NRCC spokesman said .
`` This is a sad day for proponents of journalistic ethics along with those who read Playboy for the articles . ''
The current relationship between Hill and Thomas is unclear .
Thomas told the Post that they were `` just pals , '' while the famously polyamorous Hill told New York magazine both that she has a new girlfriend and that `` I 'm new at being single , and I 'm seeing @ @ @ @ @

A Playboy journalist who went to bat for disgraced former representative Katie Hill (D., Calif.) after her resignation failed to disclose that they were dating at the time her scandal became public.
The New York Post reported Saturday that Playboy Washington correspondent Alex Thomas was seen at a book party with Hill, who resigned in October after photos of her nude with a campaign staffer emerged. Leaked text messages seemed to indicate that she was in a relationship with a congressional staffer in violation of House rules. On Monday, Hill confirmed in a New York magazine profile that she dated Thomas beginning in "mid-2019" and that "in August, they went on a beach vacation together."
In October, Thomas defended Hill on Twitter, reporting that the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for the RedState story that first published Hill's nude photos. Without disclosing his relationship with Hill, Thomas tweeted out a screenshot of what he claimed was a story "backed up with multiple sources and audio" that would "show that the NRCC was shopping around the Katie Hill images."
The NRCC disputed Thomas's tweets at the time, saying in a statement: "We never shopped, possessed or circulated photos of Congresswoman Hill. We didn't see the photos until they were published, just like everyone else." Thomas then walked back his claims, saying that the NRCC's denial "checks out actually" and that the organization "never had their hands on the photos."
Thomas never disclosed that he was in a relationship with Hill from the beginning of the controversy. New York magazine reported that on the morning of October 24, Hill "woke up to news that the British tabloid the Daily Mail, one of the most-read news outlets in the world, had published a story featuring additional explicit photographs. Hill turned to Thomas and said, 'It's over.'"
Playboy never ran Thomas's promised story on the Hill controversy, which instead ran on Thomas's personal newsletter. Both the newsletter and the tweets about Hill have since been deleted. Thomas, Hill, and Playboy did not respond to requests for comment.
RedState reporter Jennifer Van Laar told the Washington Free Beacon that Thomas also sent RedState emails about the story without mentioning his romantic involvement with the disgraced congresswoman. Van Laar, who broke the story in October, declined to share Thomas's messages because she is currently consulting with her attorney while working on a story of her own.
The NRCC said it was a "sad day" for journalistic ethics in a statement to the Free Beacon.
"It's baffling that someone who has sex with the subject of his glowing puff piece articles making now-retracted accusations against our organization is a credentialed member of the press," an NRCC spokesman said. "This is a sad day for proponents of journalistic ethics along with those who read Playboy for the articles."
The current relationship between Hill and Thomas is unclear. Thomas told the Post that they were "just pals," while the famously polyamorous Hill told New York magazine both that she has a new girlfriend and that "I'm new at being single, and I'm seeing a few people."


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Klobuchar and Buttigieg Backing Biden After Dropping Out

HOUSTON ( Reuters ) – Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s Democratic presidential bid picked up steam on Monday as he was set to pick up the endorsements of two former 2020 rivals : Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg .
Klobuchar , a U.S. senator from Minnesota , will become the third 2020 candidate in as many days to drop out of the race when she announces the suspension of her campaign in Dallas , where she will also publicly back Biden , a Klobuchar aide said .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Buttigieg , who ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also plans to endorse Biden in Dallas , a top adviser said .
Biden is fresh off a resounding victory in Saturday ’ s South Carolina primary and aiming for a strong showing on Super Tuesday against U.S .
Senator Bernie Sanders , the national front-runner and a democratic socialist from Vermont .
The Super Tuesday contests offer the biggest one-day haul of the 1,991 delegates needed to win the party ’ s nomination at its national convention in July , with about 1,357 delegates , or nearly one-third of the total number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – California , Texas , Virginia , Massachusetts , Tennessee , Alabama , Arkansas , Oklahoma , Minnesota , Vermont , Colorado , Utah , North Carolina and Maine – as well as American Samoa and Democrats living abroad cast ballots on Tuesday .
( The primary for expatriate Americans is scheduled to run through March 10 . )
Billionaire former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg will make his ballot-box debut , betting that the hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money he has poured into his campaign will allow him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first four early-voting states .
Five candidates – Biden , Bloomberg , Sanders , U.S .
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii – remain for the nomination to take on Republican President Donald Trump in November ’ s election , down from more than 20 earlier in the race .
Bloomberg and Biden have emerged as the main contenders for the votes of moderate Democrats while Sanders is the progressive front-runner nationally .
Biden ’ s high-stakes triumph in South Carolina , where his campaign had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propel him to victory after early disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire , helped winnow the field .
In addition to Klobuchar and Buttigieg , billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer also gave up his campaign on Saturday night after a third-place finish in the Southern state in which he had invested most heavily .
But it was not immediately clear who would immediately benefit from their departures .
A Morning Consult poll taken Feb. 23-27 , for example , before Buttigieg exited the race , showed that 21 % of his supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 % picked Biden , another 19 % chose Warren and 17 % favored Bloomberg .
Biden still lags his rivals in spending and organization in Super Tuesday states and beyond , but his campaign said on Sunday it had raised more than $ 10 million over the preceding two days .
Biden ’ s campaign has also touted endorsements from more than 70 elected officials and community leaders since South Carolina ’ s primary that could lead to a boost in attention for Biden ahead of Super Tuesday .
In Virginia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , along with state House Majority Leader Charniele Herring .
In Colorado , Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has backed Biden .
In California , U.S. Representative Gil Cisneros is supporting the former vice president .
Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt in Houston and Jarrett Renshaw in Philadelphia , additional reporting by Amanda Becker , Michael Martina , Tim Reid and Sharon Bernstein ; writing by Amanda Becker ; Editing by Scott Malone and Jonathan Oatis

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Former Vice President Joe Biden’s Democratic presidential bid picked up steam on Monday as he was set to pick up the endorsements of two former 2020 rivals: Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.
Klobuchar, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, will become the third 2020 candidate in as many days to drop out of the race when she announces the suspension of her campaign in Dallas, where she will also publicly back Biden, a Klobuchar aide said.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Buttigieg, who ended his White House bid on Sunday, also plans to endorse Biden in Dallas, a top adviser said.
Biden is fresh off a resounding victory in Saturday’s South Carolina primary and aiming for a strong showing on Super Tuesday against U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, the national front-runner and a democratic socialist from Vermont.
The Super Tuesday contests offer the biggest one-day haul of the 1,991 delegates needed to win the party’s nomination at its national convention in July, with about 1,357 delegates, or nearly one-third of the total number, up for grabs.
Fourteen states - California, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina and Maine - as well as American Samoa and Democrats living abroad cast ballots on Tuesday. (The primary for expatriate Americans is scheduled to run through March 10.)
Billionaire former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg will make his ballot-box debut, betting that the hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money he has poured into his campaign will allow him to make up for not competing in the first four early-voting states.
Five candidates - Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii - remain for the nomination to take on Republican President Donald Trump in November’s election, down from more than 20 earlier in the race.
Bloomberg and Biden have emerged as the main contenders for the votes of moderate Democrats while Sanders is the progressive front-runner nationally.
BIDEN’S MOMENTUM
Biden’s high-stakes triumph in South Carolina, where his campaign had said his popularity with black voters would propel him to victory after early disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, helped winnow the field.
In addition to Klobuchar and Buttigieg, billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer also gave up his campaign on Saturday night after a third-place finish in the Southern state in which he had invested most heavily.
But it was not immediately clear who would immediately benefit from their departures. A Morning Consult poll taken Feb. 23-27, for example, before Buttigieg exited the race, showed that 21% of his supporters named Sanders as their second choice, 19% picked Biden, another 19% chose Warren and 17% favored Bloomberg.
Biden still lags his rivals in spending and organization in Super Tuesday states and beyond, but his campaign said on Sunday it had raised more than $10 million over the preceding two days.
Biden’s campaign has also touted endorsements from more than 70 elected officials and community leaders since South Carolina’s primary that could lead to a boost in attention for Biden ahead of Super Tuesday.
In Virginia, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine has endorsed him, along with state House Majority Leader Charniele Herring. In Colorado, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has backed Biden. In California, U.S. Representative Gil Cisneros is supporting the former vice president.
Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt in Houston and Jarrett Renshaw in Philadelphia, additional reporting by Amanda Becker, Michael Martina, Tim Reid and Sharon Bernstein; writing by Amanda Becker; Editing by Scott Malone and Jonathan Oatis


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Pittsburgh County Sued Over Dead, Duplicate Registrants on Voter Rolls

Allegheny County , home to the city of Pittsburgh , has been hit with a lawsuit over irregularities on its voter rolls , including dead voters , duplicate registrants , and one registered voter marked as being born in June 1800 .
The Public Interest Legal Foundation ( PILF ) , an election integrity group , filed suit last week against Allegheny County 's manager of elections and three members of its board of elections .
The group says election officials failed to reasonably maintain the county 's voter rolls in accord with federal and state law .
The suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead registrants and 7,500 registrants with erroneous information , among thousands of other discrepancies and illegal registrations .
The lawsuit , which comes less than eight months before the 2020 elections , concerns a heavily Democratic county in an important battleground state .
Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes out of the 5.9 million votes cast in the state ( less than 1 point ) during the 2016 election .
Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders have attributed high-profile Democratic losses to `` voter suppression , '' but PILF has found tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
`` We want two things for the citizens of Allegheny County , '' said Logan Churchwell , communications director for PILF .
`` First , the cited flaws within the voter registration list need to be addressed head-on .
Second , we need the federal court to help establish guardrails so these types of problems do not arise again .
If our intelligence services are correct , we must always be vigilant against outside intrusion and sabotage attacks in these systems .
Energetic voter list maintenance efforts are frontline protections against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a problem with cleaning up duplicated voter registrations is no longer allowed to proclaim they stand for the tenet of ‘ one person , one vote , ' '' Churchwell said .
Dave Voye , the Allegheny County elections division manager , said it 's county policy to not comment on litigation matters .
However , because `` this case concerns the conduct of elections , '' he would address the matter publicly .
`` The first and foremost concern of Allegheny County is to protect the voting rights of all citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen registered to vote gets one vote should they choose to exercise that right .
There are no allegations that anything to the contrary has occurred .
The allegations in this lawsuit will be reviewed and addressed as necessary consistent with all applicable federal and state laws .
As is always the case with voter registration list maintenance , the utmost care will be taken to ensure that no one is disenfranchised . ''
Using voter data from Pennsylvania secretary of state 's office , PILF compared registration lists against federal death records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registrants who `` managed to become registered to vote two and even up to seven times with matching or substantially similar names and other biographical information with the same addresses . ''
The group also flagged voters with `` impossibly old dates of birth , '' including 1,523 registrants who aged 100 or above ( with 49 born in the 1800s ) .
One registrant was stated as being born in June 1800 .
The group also says 1,178 registrations are missing dates of birth , 193 registrants are missing dates of registration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-state addresses .
The Pittsburgh lawsuit comes shortly after the group filed a similar one in Detroit , a predominantly Democratic city in the swing state of Michigan .
PILF found that Detroit 's voter rolls contained 2,500 deceased individuals , nearly 5,000 voters who appeared more than once on the voter rolls , and 511,786 registered voters in a city where only 479,267 individuals are eligible to vote .
A number of New York lawyers and liberal groups swarmed Detroit to help its election officials fight the litigation .

Allegheny County, home to the city of Pittsburgh, has been hit with a lawsuit over irregularities on its voter rolls, including dead voters, duplicate registrants, and one registered voter marked as being born in June 1800.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an election integrity group, filed suit last week against Allegheny County's manager of elections and three members of its board of elections. The group says election officials failed to reasonably maintain the county's voter rolls in accord with federal and state law. The suit alleges that the rolls contain nearly 1,600 dead registrants and 7,500 registrants with erroneous information, among thousands of other discrepancies and illegal registrations.
The lawsuit, which comes less than eight months before the 2020 elections, concerns a heavily Democratic county in an important battleground state. Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes out of the 5.9 million votes cast in the state (less than 1 point) during the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders have attributed high-profile Democratic losses to "voter suppression," but PILF has found tens of thousands of ineligible registrations in battleground states.
"We want two things for the citizens of Allegheny County," said Logan Churchwell, communications director for PILF. "First, the cited flaws within the voter registration list need to be addressed head-on. Second, we need the federal court to help establish guardrails so these types of problems do not arise again. If our intelligence services are correct, we must always be vigilant against outside intrusion and sabotage attacks in these systems. Energetic voter list maintenance efforts are frontline protections against that threat."
"Anyone who has a problem with cleaning up duplicated voter registrations is no longer allowed to proclaim they stand for the tenet of 'one person, one vote,'" Churchwell said.
Dave Voye, the Allegheny County elections division manager, said it's county policy to not comment on litigation matters. However, because "this case concerns the conduct of elections," he would address the matter publicly.
"The first and foremost concern of Allegheny County is to protect the voting rights of all citizens," Voye said. "Each citizen registered to vote gets one vote should they choose to exercise that right. There are no allegations that anything to the contrary has occurred. The allegations in this lawsuit will be reviewed and addressed as necessary consistent with all applicable federal and state laws. As is always the case with voter registration list maintenance, the utmost care will be taken to ensure that no one is disenfranchised."
Using voter data from Pennsylvania secretary of state's office, PILF compared registration lists against federal death records and other sources. The group examined registrants who "managed to become registered to vote two and even up to seven times with matching or substantially similar names and other biographical information with the same addresses." The group also flagged voters with "impossibly old dates of birth," including 1,523 registrants who aged 100 or above (with 49 born in the 1800s). One registrant was stated as being born in June 1800. The group also says 1,178 registrations are missing dates of birth, 193 registrants are missing dates of registration, and 35 registrants have corrupted or out-of-state addresses.
The Pittsburgh lawsuit comes shortly after the group filed a similar one in Detroit, a predominantly Democratic city in the swing state of Michigan.
PILF found that Detroit's voter rolls contained 2,500 deceased individuals, nearly 5,000 voters who appeared more than once on the voter rolls, and 511,786 registered voters in a city where only 479,267 individuals are eligible to vote. A number of New York lawyers and liberal groups swarmed Detroit to help its election officials fight the litigation.


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Bloomberg: Sanders ‘Dead Wrong’ on AIPAC

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg ripped Sen. Bernie Sanders 's ( I. , Vt. ) criticism of AIPAC on Monday , saying the Vermont socialist is `` dead wrong '' to say the pro-Israel group fosters racism .
`` Unfortunately , not all of my fellow Democrats in this race have attended an AIPAC conference , '' Bloomberg told the crowd at the group 's annual policy conference in Washington , D.C. `` One of them , Senator Sanders , has spent 30 years boycotting this event and , as you 've heard by now , he called AIPAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me tell you , he 's dead wrong . ''
`` This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination , ethnicity , faith , color , sexual identity and political party , '' Bloomberg added .
`` Calling it a racist platform is an attempt to discredit those voices , intimidate people from coming here , and weaken the U.S.-Israel relationship . ''
Sanders called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a `` reactionary racist '' at the Democratic debate in South Carolina .
He also said the pro-Israel lobby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and `` a lot of power . ''
Sanders took to Twitter last month to accuse AIPAC of providing a platform `` for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights . ''
AIPAC hit back at Sanders 's accusation of bigotry , saying it was `` shameful '' and `` odious . ''
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon sharply criticized Sanders .
`` We do n't want Sanders at AIPAC .
We do n't want him in Israel .
Anyone who calls our prime minister a ‘ racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorant fool , or both , '' the ambassador said .
Sanders defended his attacks on the pro-Israel lobby , saying he was both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian .
The presidential frontrunner has floated the possibility of leveraging U.S. aid to Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government .
`` $ 3.8 billion is a lot of money , and we can not give it carte blanche to the Israeli government or for that matter to any government at all , '' he said .
`` We have a right to demand respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg ripped Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) criticism of AIPAC on Monday, saying the Vermont socialist is "dead wrong" to say the pro-Israel group fosters racism.
"Unfortunately, not all of my fellow Democrats in this race have attended an AIPAC conference," Bloomberg told the crowd at the group's annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. "One of them, Senator Sanders, has spent 30 years boycotting this event and, as you've heard by now, he called AIPAC a racist platform. Well, let me tell you, he's dead wrong."
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination, ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party," Bloomberg added. "Calling it a racist platform is an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the U.S.-Israel relationship."
Sanders called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "reactionary racist" at the Democratic debate in South Carolina. He also said the pro-Israel lobby has a "lot of money" and "a lot of power."
Sanders took to Twitter last month to accuse AIPAC of providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights."
As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region. 2/2 — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 23, 2020
AIPAC hit back at Sanders's accusation of bigotry, saying it was "shameful" and "odious." Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon sharply criticized Sanders.
"We don't want Sanders at AIPAC. We don't want him in Israel. Anyone who calls our prime minister a 'racist' is either a liar, an ignorant fool, or both," the ambassador said.
Sanders defended his attacks on the pro-Israel lobby, saying he was both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
The presidential frontrunner has floated the possibility of leveraging U.S. aid to Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government.
"$3.8 billion is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government or for that matter to any government at all," he said. "We have a right to demand respect for human rights and democracy."


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Wipe Out Obamacare

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a Democratic bid to protect the Affordable Care Act 's ( ACA ) individual mandate , teeing up a major dispute over the landmark health care law in the midst of the 2020 campaign .
A coalition of blue states and congressional Democrats filed petitions with the Court after the Fifth U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the individual mandate in December 2019 .
The Trump administration is not defending Obamacare in the courts , leading congressional and state Democrats to intervene and take up the law 's defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate on tax grounds in 2012 , the Fifth Circuit said that rationale is no longer justifiable because of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act .
The Trump administration 's tax cuts set the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance at zero .
Judge Jennifer Elrod said in the 2-1 decision that the mandate can not be treated as a tax if it is not raising any money for the government .
Another question in the case is what should happen to the rest of the Obama administration 's signature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is invalidated—a question of `` severability , '' in legal parlance .
After striking down the mandate , the Fifth Circuit returned the case to a federal trial judge to determine whether other provisions of the ACA , or the statute in its entirety , should be struck down if the mandate is no longer operative .
Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court immediately , rather than wait for the outcome of those proceedings .
They asked justices to resolve the dispute by summer , arguing that prolonged litigation would create profound uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients .
`` Postponing review would accomplish little beyond prolonging uncertainty about the future of the ACA , with accompanying harm to patients , doctors , businesses , and the Nation as a whole , '' one filing reads .
The justices generally finalize their docket for a given term in the middle of January .
Cases granted thereafter are heard the following term , which begins in October , which the Democratic states argue would be too late .
The Court rejected a Democratic motion to accelerate proceedings , a strong signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case in the near term .
The Trump administration said the Court 's intervention was not necessary at this stage .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the Fifth Circuit 's decision had no practical consequence .
`` The court 's determination that the individual mandate is no longer valid presents no real-world exigency that might warrant immediate review because , as all parties agree , the elimination of the monetary penalty renders the mandate either invalid ( as the Fifth Circuit held ) or precatory ( as petitioners argue ) , '' the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal filing .
Francisco also urged the justices to let the lower courts fully review the severability question before getting involved .
If the Court took the case at this stage , he warned , the justices would have to conduct a detailed analysis of a 900-page statute without the guidance of a lower court opinion .
`` This Court ordinarily does not consider in the first instance questions the court below has not decided , '' he wrote .
`` That general rule applies with full force here . ''
The Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full , meaning arguments in the Obamacare cases will likely be heard in the fall .
The cases are No .
19-840 California v. Texas and No .
19-1019 Texas v. California .

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a Democratic bid to protect the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate, teeing up a major dispute over the landmark health care law in the midst of the 2020 campaign.
A coalition of blue states and congressional Democrats filed petitions with the Court after the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the individual mandate in December 2019. The Trump administration is not defending Obamacare in the courts, leading congressional and state Democrats to intervene and take up the law's defense.
Though the Supreme Court sustained the individual mandate on tax grounds in 2012, the Fifth Circuit said that rationale is no longer justifiable because of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Trump administration's tax cuts set the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance at zero. Judge Jennifer Elrod said in the 2-1 decision that the mandate cannot be treated as a tax if it is not raising any money for the government.
Another question in the case is what should happen to the rest of the Obama administration's signature health care law if the individual mandate is invalidated—a question of "severability," in legal parlance. After striking down the mandate, the Fifth Circuit returned the case to a federal trial judge to determine whether other provisions of the ACA, or the statute in its entirety, should be struck down if the mandate is no longer operative.
Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court immediately, rather than wait for the outcome of those proceedings. They asked justices to resolve the dispute by summer, arguing that prolonged litigation would create profound uncertainty and harm the health care industry and patients.
"Postponing review would accomplish little beyond prolonging uncertainty about the future of the ACA, with accompanying harm to patients, doctors, businesses, and the Nation as a whole," one filing reads.
The justices generally finalize their docket for a given term in the middle of January. Cases granted thereafter are heard the following term, which begins in October, which the Democratic states argue would be too late. The Court rejected a Democratic motion to accelerate proceedings, a strong signal it was not interested in hearing the case in the near term.
The Trump administration said the Court's intervention was not necessary at this stage. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the Fifth Circuit's decision had no practical consequence.
"The court's determination that the individual mandate is no longer valid presents no real-world exigency that might warrant immediate review because, as all parties agree, the elimination of the monetary penalty renders the mandate either invalid (as the Fifth Circuit held) or precatory (as petitioners argue)," the Trump administration told the Court in a legal filing.
Francisco also urged the justices to let the lower courts fully review the severability question before getting involved. If the Court took the case at this stage, he warned, the justices would have to conduct a detailed analysis of a 900-page statute without the guidance of a lower court opinion.
"This Court ordinarily does not consider in the first instance questions the court below has not decided," he wrote. "That general rule applies with full force here."
The Court's docket for the current term is full, meaning arguments in the Obamacare cases will likely be heard in the fall. The cases are No. 19-840 California v. Texas and No. 19-1019 Texas v. California.