talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-13--Pro-Gun Groups Brace For Showdown At Virginia State Capitol As Gun Control Bills Advance

Militia groups , gun hardliners , and far-right activists are set to converge on Virginia ’ s capital in Richmond next week as the state ’ s new Democratic majority considers legislation that would enact sweeping gun control measures .
The groups are headed for a Jan. 20 rally called Lobby Day , organized by an anti-gun control group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League .
Organizers picked Jan. 20 to coincide with an annual event at Virginia ’ s state capitol during which citizens make use of the Martin Luther King Day federal holiday to meet with state legislators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
VCDL President Philip Van Cleave , who appeared in Sacha Baron Cohen ’ s “ Who Is America ?
” advocating for arming kindergarteners , cautioned in an internal email that members of his group should not show up with rifles .
Their “ important messages , ” he wrote , would “ inevitably get lost as the press rushes to get pictures of anyone carrying an AR or AK.
” “ The stories then become about the rifle , not VCDL ’ s agenda , ” the email from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event organizers , the rally has attracted the attention of controversial groups like The Oath Keepers , Three Percenters , and Infowars , which sees Richmond ’ s legislative agenda as a prelude for the U.N. ’ s takeover of Old Dominion .
Three Percent Security Force founder Chris Hill described to TPM his plans to bring his group to the event as “ using the Second Amendment to defend the First Amendment.
” “ My rifle is not a weapon , ” he added .
“ It ’ s a sign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a piece of cardboard that says : shall not be infringed .
That rifle says I ’ m a free man.
” Hill said that the Virginia rally was enticing in part because it ’ s the “ one state that is standing up against these red flag laws.
” So-called “ red flag ” laws , which empower judges to order the confiscation of guns from those deemed an “ extreme risk , ” have been passed in several states in recent years , but none with Virginia ’ s history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One such measure was approved by a Virginia Senate ’ s Judiciary Committee on Monday .
Other gun control measures were also approved by the committee , including a limit on purchasing one handgun per month per person , as well as a mandatory background check law .
In response , anti-gun control activists in the state are also preparing to rally at the state ’ s capital on Jan. 20 .
Many worry the scene could get out of control .
The fight has been brewing for months .
After Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislature in November , dozens of counties and municipalities across the state have passed resolutions dubbing themselves “ Second Amendment sanctuary cities ” — that is , local governments that refuse to enforce the new gun laws headed their way from Richmond .
“ Virginia is the one state that ’ s making the stand , ” Hill said .
“ That ’ s why we ’ re going to be there to rally up.
” Some local governments have even promoted militia activity to enforce that “ sanctuary ” status , bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement that ’ s ballooned nationwide in recent years , but has mostly stayed out of official legislative minutes .
Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins , for example , vowed to “ deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms ” should the legislature approve the new gun measures .
And Tazewell County passed a militia resolution to accompany its “ Second Amendment Sanctuary ” status , which the county hopes says adds legal protection to local gun owners against new state laws .
Tazewell Sheriff Brian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some teeth to be able to act and do something if a law comes out dealing with firearms that we see is illegal.
” The Oath Keepers , a nationwide group largely comprised of former law enforcement officials and soldiers , said on New Year ’ s Eve that it was sending members to Virginia to “ train armed posses and militia ” and urged its members to lobby other Virginia counties to follow Tazewell ’ s example .
And in a militia community where tough talk is practically an art form , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work .
“ You better get in shape , and you better train , and you better coordinate , and you better plan , and you better link up , and you better do all these things , ” Bill “ K2 ” Hartwell , wearing a cap with the logo of the Three Percent militia movement , said in a Facebook video last month .
“ I pray it doesn ’ t come to this , but it ’ s looking like it ’ s going to , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a pivotal moment.
” Hartwell paused , dramatically , then informed his viewers that he ’ d heard projected attendance at the lobbying day was “ close to a million… people.
” Meanwhile , the VCDL told the state attendance could reach 50,000 to 100,000 , The Washington Post reported .
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes both the Oath Keepers and Hill ’ s Three Percenter group as radical anti-government extremists .
Hill disputed that characterization , calling the SPLC a “ scam ” while adding that , were the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ anarchy could ensue.
” “ You just made ninety percent of the law abiding citizens in the State of Virginia outlaws , nothing good is going to come from that , ” he said .
Hill told TPM that if the state ’ s proposed “ red flag ” law were to be passed , “ you have a redress to tell the government , ‘ you ’ re overstepping your constitutional authority.
’ If civil war or revolutionary war were to follow , the people would be justified in doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attendees has already made waves in the event ’ s planning .
One poster in the Facebook group for the event pleaded with organizers to ensure that attendees lobby for their “ right to bear arms in a RESPECTFUL and PEACEFUL way.
” “ Do not give them reason to label all of us as unevolved gun-waving morons , ” the commenter wrote .
The VCDL replied , saying that there would be “ THOUSANDS of law abiding , gun owning people from all walks of life at the Capitol on January 20th.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause trouble I can see it being shut down before it has a chance to start , ” organizers added .
The new activity on guns in Virginia reflects a new political reality , unheard of for the past generation : unified Democratic control .
Both chambers of Virginia ’ s legislature as well as the governor ’ s mansion are now controlled by Democrats , a first in 27 years .
And Democrats ran in large part on changing state policies on guns .
If they ’ re successful , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In July , after a mass shooting in Virginia left 12 victims dead , Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) called a special legislative session to push gun reform .
It ended after 90 minutes — Republicans weren ’ t willing to consider any proposed legislation .
At the time , members of various militias stood outside the Capitol Building , decked out in camouflage and holding assault rifles opposite volunteers from gun reform groups like Moms Demand Action .
When the state ’ s attorney general wrote later that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement , Hartwell , who ’ d attended the show of force , likened himself to a Jew in Nazi Germany .
Last week , a few days after their new majority was seated , Democrats banned guns inside the Capitol , and more new gun laws seem imminent .

Militia groups, gun hardliners, and far-right activists are set to converge on Virginia’s capital in Richmond next week as the state’s new Democratic majority considers legislation that would enact sweeping gun control measures.
The groups are headed for a Jan. 20 rally organized by an anti-gun control group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Organizers picked Jan. 20 to coincide with an annual event, called Lobby Day, at Virginia’s state capitol during which citizens make use of the Martin Luther King Day federal holiday to meet with state legislators and advocate for issues of importance to them.
VCDL President Philip Van Cleave, who appeared in Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Who Is America?” advocating for arming kindergarteners, cautioned in an internal email that members of his group should not show up with rifles. Their “important messages,” he wrote, would “inevitably get lost as the press rushes to get pictures of anyone carrying an AR or AK.”
“The stories then become about the rifle, not VCDL’s agenda,” the email from the group reads.
But despite warnings by event organizers, the rally has attracted the attention of controversial groups like The Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and Infowars, which sees Richmond’s legislative agenda as a prelude for the U.N.’s takeover of Old Dominion.
Three Percent Security Force founder Chris Hill described to TPM his plans to bring his group to the event as “using the Second Amendment to defend the First Amendment.”
“My rifle is not a weapon,” he added. “It’s a sign, it’s just like me holding up a piece of cardboard that says: shall not be infringed. That rifle says I’m a free man.”
Hill said that the Virginia rally was enticing in part because it’s the “one state that is standing up against these red flag laws.”
So-called “red flag” laws, which empower judges to order the confiscation of guns from those deemed an “extreme risk,” have been passed in several states in recent years, but none with Virginia’s history of gun ownership or red-tinged political map.
One such measure was approved by a Virginia Senate’s Judiciary Committee on Monday. Other gun control measures were also approved by the committee, including a limit on purchasing one handgun per month per person, as well as a mandatory background check law.
In response, anti-gun control activists in the state are also preparing to rally at the state’s capital on Jan. 20. Many worry the scene could get out of control.
Resisting Richmond
The fight has been brewing for months.
After Democrats won control of the state’s legislature in November, dozens of counties and municipalities across the state have passed resolutions dubbing themselves “Second Amendment sanctuary cities” — that is, local governments that refuse to enforce the new gun laws headed their way from Richmond.
“Virginia is the one state that’s making the stand,” Hill said. “That’s why we’re going to be there to rally up.”
Some local governments have even promoted militia activity to enforce that “sanctuary” status, bringing an unusual sheen of legitimacy to a movement that’s ballooned nationwide in recent years, but has mostly stayed out of official legislative minutes.
Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins, for example, vowed to “deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms” should the legislature approve the new gun measures.
And Tazewell County passed a militia resolution to accompany its “Second Amendment Sanctuary” status, which the county hopes says adds legal protection to local gun owners against new state laws.
Tazewell Sheriff Brian Hieatt said the resolution “gives us some teeth to be able to act and do something if a law comes out dealing with firearms that we see is illegal.”
The Oath Keepers, a nationwide group largely comprised of former law enforcement officials and soldiers, said on New Year’s Eve that it was sending members to Virginia to “train armed posses and militia” and urged its members to lobby other Virginia counties to follow Tazewell’s example.
And in a militia community where tough talk is practically an art form, the genre’s masters are hard at work.
“You better get in shape, and you better train, and you better coordinate, and you better plan, and you better link up, and you better do all these things,” Bill “K2” Hartwell, wearing a cap with the logo of the Three Percent militia movement, said in a Facebook video last month.
“I pray it doesn’t come to this, but it’s looking like it’s going to,” he said. “January 20th’s going to be a pivotal moment.”
Hartwell paused, dramatically, then informed his viewers that he’d heard projected attendance at the lobbying day was “close to a million… people.” Meanwhile, the VCDL told the state attendance could reach 50,000 to 100,000, The Washington Post reported.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes both the Oath Keepers and Hill’s Three Percenter group as radical anti-government extremists.
Hill disputed that characterization, calling the SPLC a “scam” while adding that, were the gun control legislation to pass in Virginia, “anarchy could ensue.”
“You just made ninety percent of the law abiding citizens in the State of Virginia outlaws, nothing good is going to come from that,” he said.
Hill told TPM that if the state’s proposed “red flag” law were to be passed, “you have a redress to tell the government, ‘you’re overstepping your constitutional authority.’ If civil war or revolutionary war were to follow, the people would be justified in doing that.”
But the radicalism of some attendees has already made waves in the event’s planning.
One poster in the Facebook group for the event pleaded with organizers to ensure that attendees lobby for their “right to bear arms in a RESPECTFUL and PEACEFUL way.”
“Do not give them reason to label all of us as unevolved gun-waving morons,” the commenter wrote.
The VCDL replied, saying that there would be “THOUSANDS of law abiding, gun owning people from all walks of life at the Capitol on January 20th.”
“If anybody does anything to cause trouble I can see it being shut down before it has a chance to start,” organizers added.
A Shift In Power
The new activity on guns in Virginia reflects a new political reality, unheard of for the past generation: unified Democratic control.
Both chambers of Virginia’s legislature as well as the governor’s mansion are now controlled by Democrats, a first in 27 years. And Democrats ran in large part on changing state policies on guns.
If they’re successful, it will represent a fundamental shift in Virginia politics. In July, after a mass shooting in Virginia left 12 victims dead, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) called a special legislative session to push gun reform. It ended after 90 minutes — Republicans weren’t willing to consider any proposed legislation.
At the time, members of various militias stood outside the Capitol Building, decked out in camouflage and holding assault rifles opposite volunteers from gun reform groups like Moms Demand Action. When the state’s attorney general wrote later that the militiamen may have been illegally impersonating law enforcement, Hartwell, who’d attended the show of force, likened himself to a Jew in Nazi Germany.
Last week, a few days after their new majority was seated, Democrats banned guns inside the Capitol, and more new gun laws seem imminent.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-13--Report: White House Braces For GOP Defections On Impeachment Witnesses

The White House is preparing for defections from Republican senators when it comes time to vote on calling witnesses to @ @ @ @ @ trial , according to a new report .
Per CBS News , senior White House @ @ @ @ @ Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , Mitt Romney ( @ @ @ @ @ ( R-CO ) as likely candidates , with Sens .
Rand Paul ( R-KY ) @ @ @ @ @ ) as additional possibilities in the mix .
Last week , the Bangor Daily News @ @ @ @ @ with a “ fairly small group ” of Republicans to come to an agreement that @ @ @ @ @ called .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) intends to begin the process @ @ @ @ @ question , leaving that vote until later .
Democrats would need four Republicans to join @ @ @ @ @ alter the rules to allow witness testimony .
This issue attracted more scrutiny after former @ @ @ @ @ said he would testify if subpoenaed .

The White House is preparing for defections from Republican senators when it comes time to vote on calling witnesses to testify in the Senate impeachment trial, according to a new report.
Per CBS News, senior White House officials have identified Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) as likely candidates, with Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) as additional possibilities in the mix.
Last week, the Bangor Daily News reported that Collins was coordinating with a “fairly small group” of Republicans to come to an agreement that would allow witnesses to be called.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) intends to begin the process without deciding on the witness question, leaving that vote until later.
Democrats would need four Republicans to join them on a vote to alter the rules to allow witness testimony. This issue attracted more scrutiny after former National Security Adviser John Bolton said he would testify if subpoenaed.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs  For Trump Impeachment

House committees investigating President Trump will release documents provided by Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas to the Senate for its upcoming impeachment trial , the panels said in a Tuesday release .
The panels will also provide the documents to House Republicans and the White House .
House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary , Intelligence , and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy , which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas ’ s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges .
The document dump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad .
“ Get Zalensky ( sic ) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated , ” the note reads .
Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas ’ engagement as an “ interpreter ” for Dmytro Firtash , the Ukrainian gas billionaire .
The note contemplates hiring a “ lobbiest , ” naming two lobbyists as possible options .
The release includes a number of previously unseen documents , including a May 10 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader as “ private counsel to President Donald J. Trump.
” In the letter , Giuliani asks that Zelensky meet with him and Victoria Toensing , an attorney for Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash and frequent defender of the President on TV .
Parnas ’ texts also show that Parnas restarted communication with Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky in September 2019 .
It ’ s not clear what the pair discussed ; the texts show Kolomoisky telling Parnas “ there ’ s news , ” while the Giuliani associated replies that he will call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of Kolomoisky ’ s associates while visiting Kyiv in December 2019 .
Parnas ’ s texts have not been corroborated by any other source .
Giuliani has declined to comply with House demands for relevant information .
The last page of the documents includes a letter from an attorney for Trump saying that the President “ consents ” to another former lawyer of his representing Parnas and Fruman .
The President , who has been photographed with the pair , has maintained that he doesn ’ t know the men .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman , ” reads an email in the document release , sent from Jay Sekulow , one of Trump ’ s lawyers , to John Dowd , who represented Trump during Robert Mueller ’ s investigation .
Parnas ’ then-attorney Edward MacMahon raised concerns about executive privilege in his first court appearance because Giuliani , who Parnas worked with , was also representing Trump .
Nothing ultimately came of that concern , but this new email suggests that the President may have personally approved his former lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fixers in Ukraine .
The texts also show communications between Parnas and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko .
In one March 22 message – sent after The Hill columnist John Solomon began publishing interviews with Lutsenko in which he disparaged Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the Bidens – Lutsenko tells Parnas “ it ’ s just that if you don ’ t make a decision about Madam , you ’ re bringing into doubt all of my allegations .
Including about B.
” Lutsenko has repeatedly referred to Yovanovitch as “ Madam Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Burisma ” and “ seneca ” in the same exchange – both of which are central to the conspiracy theories against the Bidens .
These documents were released en masse by the committees and have not been independently verified .
In one May 2 message , Parnas appeared to suggest to a Ukrainian minister that “ some people from Congress ” would accompany Giuliani on his then-scheduled May trip to Kyiv .
“ These documents—and those recently released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act—demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been concealed by the President himself , ” House Democrats said in a statement .
“ All of this new evidence confirms what we already know : the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically .
”

House committees investigating President Trump will release documents provided by Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas to the Senate for its upcoming impeachment trial, the panels said in a Tuesday release.
The panels will also provide the documents to House Republicans and the White House.
House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.
The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.
Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
The release includes a number of previously unseen documents, including a May 10 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, asking for a meeting with the then-incoming leader as “private counsel to President Donald J. Trump.”
In the letter, Giuliani asks that Zelensky meet with him and Victoria Toensing, an attorney for Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash and frequent defender of the President on TV.
Parnas’ texts also show that Parnas restarted communication with Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky in September 2019. It’s not clear what the pair discussed; the texts show Kolomoisky telling Parnas “there’s news,” while the Giuliani associated replies that he will call the oligarch later.
Giuliani later met with a series of Kolomoisky’s associates while visiting Kyiv in December 2019.
Parnas’s texts have not been corroborated by any other source. Giuliani has declined to comply with House demands for relevant information.
The last page of the documents includes a letter from an attorney for Trump saying that the President “consents” to another former lawyer of his representing Parnas and Fruman. The President, who has been photographed with the pair, has maintained that he doesn’t know the men.
“The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman,” reads an email in the document release, sent from Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers, to John Dowd, who represented Trump during Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Parnas’ then-attorney Edward MacMahon raised concerns about executive privilege in his first court appearance because Giuliani, who Parnas worked with, was also representing Trump.
Nothing ultimately came of that concern, but this new email suggests that the President may have personally approved his former lawyer signing on to represent Giuliani’s fixers in Ukraine.
The texts also show communications between Parnas and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. In one March 22 message – sent after The Hill columnist John Solomon began publishing interviews with Lutsenko in which he disparaged Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the Bidens – Lutsenko tells Parnas “it’s just that if you don’t make a decision about Madam, you’re bringing into doubt all of my allegations. Including about B.”
Lutsenko has repeatedly referred to Yovanovitch as “Madam Yovanovitch,” while Lutsenko references the companies “Burisma” and “seneca” in the same exchange – both of which are central to the conspiracy theories against the Bidens.
These documents were released en masse by the committees and have not been independently verified.
In one May 2 message, Parnas appeared to suggest to a Ukrainian minister that “some people from Congress” would accompany Giuliani on his then-scheduled May trip to Kyiv.
“These documents—and those recently released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act—demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the President’s scheme, but they have been concealed by the President himself,” House Democrats said in a statement. “All of this new evidence confirms what we already know: the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically.”
Read the documents here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Iowa Debate Preview: All Eyes On The Warren-Sanders Fight

Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) — along with four other candidates — will meet on the debate stage Tuesday as a contentious back-and-forth over an alleged sexist comment from Sanders has dominated the headlines .
Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s squabble started after Politico published a piece over the weekend on a script Sanders volunteers had been given to use while they canvassed .
The talking points paint Warren as the candidate of the elites , and imply that she ’ d be unable to unite multiple factions of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me , ” Warren said in response .
“ I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.
” Then , on Monday , CNN published a piece about a conversation the two had had in December 2018 about their prospective bids , including that Sanders told Warren he didn ’ t think a woman could win the election .
Sanders vociferously denied the report , accusing staff who weren ’ t in the room of “ lying about what happened.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can win in 2020 ?
Of course !
” he added .
In a rebuttal , Warren backed up the reporting in a statement after Sanders ’ denial : “ Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate .
I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
” That ’ s where things stand rolling into the Iowa debate , hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register newspaper .
Any political observer worth her salt could tell you that one of , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will concern the fight .
And Sanders is in a tough spot .
Warren backed him into a corner with her statement after he point-blank denied making the comment .
For Sanders to keep denying it at this point is akin to him calling Warren a liar – which the moderators will almost certainly make clear .
A straightforward mea culpa likely wouldn ’ t cut it — the comment is a politically toxic thing to own , and he ’ d have to admit that he also wasn ’ t truthful about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a combination of the two : some explanation about how he and Warren interpreted the conversation differently , that he was referring to the uphill battle a female nominee faces , before transitioning into some kind of vote of confidence that women — and Warren particularly — are of course qualified to hold the highest office .
BuzzFeed reporting shows that team Warren wants to deescalate the situation and to avoid implying that Sanders is sexist , foreshadowing that she will likely look to quell the contention as well .
Otherwise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the debate .
The impeachment trial looms , of course , but there is little sunlight between the candidates on that .
Iran will surely come up , a good topic for South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg to remind viewers of his military service and for former Vice President Joe Biden on his extensive foreign policy background .
Sanders will probably remind everyone that he voted against invading Iraq in 2003 and attack Biden on it .
The race in Iowa is extremely tight .
Polls published recently tell slightly different stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows Biden on top ; a CNN/Des Moines Register one from last week has Sanders in front .
The conclusion seems to be that Biden , Sanders , Warren and Buttigieg are all relatively clustered in the state and that the caucus is still anyone ’ s game .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) and billionaire Tom Steyer , also on the stage Tuesday night , are well behind and will be seeking breakout moments .
The debate will be shown on CNN and starts at 9 PM E.T .

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — along with four other candidates — will meet on the debate stage Tuesday as a contentious back-and-forth over an alleged sexist comment from Sanders has dominated the headlines.
Sanders’ and Warren’s squabble started after Politico published a piece over the weekend on a script Sanders volunteers had been given to use while they canvassed. The talking points paint Warren as the candidate of the elites, and imply that she’d be unable to unite multiple factions of the party.
“I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me,” Warren said in response. “I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.”
Then, on Monday, CNN published a piece about a conversation the two had had in December 2018 about their prospective bids, including that Sanders told Warren he didn’t think a woman could win the election.
Sanders vociferously denied the report, accusing staff who weren’t in the room of “lying about what happened.”
“Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!” he added.
In a rebuttal, Warren backed up the reporting in a statement after Sanders’ denial: “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
That’s where things stand rolling into the Iowa debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register newspaper. Any political observer worth her salt could tell you that one of, if not the first, questions from moderators will concern the fight. And Sanders is in a tough spot.
Warren backed him into a corner with her statement after he point-blank denied making the comment. For Sanders to keep denying it at this point is akin to him calling Warren a liar – which the moderators will almost certainly make clear.
A straightforward mea culpa likely wouldn’t cut it — the comment is a politically toxic thing to own, and he’d have to admit that he also wasn’t truthful about it afterward.
His most likely move is a combination of the two: some explanation about how he and Warren interpreted the conversation differently, that he was referring to the uphill battle a female nominee faces, before transitioning into some kind of vote of confidence that women — and Warren particularly — are of course qualified to hold the highest office.
BuzzFeed reporting shows that team Warren wants to deescalate the situation and to avoid implying that Sanders is sexist, foreshadowing that she will likely look to quell the contention as well.
Otherwise, there are fewer clear indicators of fodder for the debate. The impeachment trial looms, of course, but there is little sunlight between the candidates on that. Iran will surely come up, a good topic for South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg to remind viewers of his military service and for former Vice President Joe Biden on his extensive foreign policy background. Sanders will probably remind everyone that he voted against invading Iraq in 2003 and attack Biden on it.
The race in Iowa is extremely tight. Polls published recently tell slightly different stories: a Monmouth University poll released Monday shows Biden on top; a CNN/Des Moines Register one from last week has Sanders in front. The conclusion seems to be that Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg are all relatively clustered in the state and that the caucus is still anyone’s game. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and billionaire Tom Steyer, also on the stage Tuesday night, are well behind and will be seeking breakout moments.
The debate will be shown on CNN and starts at 9 PM E.T.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Warren Camp Says Sanders Wasn’t Being Sexist: ‘That’s Not What This Is About’

A campaign official for Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s ( D-MA ) presidential campaign has been advising supporters against accusing Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) of sexism over his comment about whether a woman could win the 2020 race .
According to screenshots of a private Twitter group chat obtained by BuzzFeed News , the unnamed staffer told supporters on Monday night that the campaign ’ s goal was “ de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals ” after Warren released her statement on her conversation with Sanders .
Then , on Tuesday morning , the official advised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ sexism ’ angle ” because “ that ’ s not what this is about and I think it ’ ll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about ( i.e .
press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist ) .
” “ Is that what this is about broadly ?
Absolutely , ” the staffer wrote .
“ But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist ( regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic ) .
” “ Claiming you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t win/flagging that she ’ ll receive sexist attacks is something many , many people feel , ” the staffer also wrote , echoing Sanders ’ explanation of his comment .
“ What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could , ” Sanders had said in his response to CNN ’ s report on the conversation .
“ Do I believe a woman can win in 2020 ?
Of course !
After all , Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
”

A campaign official for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) presidential campaign has been advising supporters against accusing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) of sexism over his comment about whether a woman could win the 2020 race.
According to screenshots of a private Twitter group chat obtained by BuzzFeed News, the unnamed staffer told supporters on Monday night that the campaign’s goal was “de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals” after Warren released her statement on her conversation with Sanders.
Then, on Tuesday morning, the official advised the group to “be careful with the ‘sexism’ angle” because “that’s not what this is about and I think it’ll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about (i.e. press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist).”
“Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely,” the staffer wrote. “But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic).”
“Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the staffer also wrote, echoing Sanders’ explanation of his comment.
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders had said in his response to CNN’s report on the conversation. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Off-Duty Secret Service Agent Fatally Shoots Dog On Leash In Brooklyn

An off-duty Secret Service agent fatally shot a dog that he says charged at him while walking through a Brooklyn neighborhood Monday night .
According to reports by the New York Daily News and the New York Times , police sources and witnesses said that the agent , whose name has not been released , was walking in the Windsor Terrace neighborhood around 9:45 p.m. Monday night when he encountered a man and his girlfriend walking with a female Belgian Shepherd .
Police sources told the Daily News that the dog started barking and the agents pulled out his gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cop who was walking home , ” the dog ’ s owner told the Daily News .
“ He shot her and she ’ s dead.
” Sgt .
Mary Frances O ’ Donnell , a police spokeswoman , told the Times that “ the dog charged him ” and “ he let one round go ” before “ he killed the dog.
” O ’ Donnell added that the off-duty Secret Service agent reported the shooting to the police and remained at the scene , according to the Times .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement that the “ canine was wearing a leash but unsecured from its owner who was not present.
” “ An off duty Secret Service employee was involved in the shooting of an unrestrained and aggressive canine in Brooklyn , NY yesterday , ” the statement obtained by TPM said .
“ As this is an ongoing investigation , the Secret Service will not have further comment.
” Walter Blankinship , the manager of nearby Kensington Stables , told the Daily News and the New York Times that he was outside the stables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I heard the gunshot , and then I heard a guy arguing , cursing and carrying on , ” Blankinship told the Times .
“ I just thought it was local people having an argument.
” Blankinship described the dog as a small or medium-sized brown dog and that he did not know its owners personally , according to the Times .
Blankinship also told the Daily News that “ a gunshot went off , just one ” and that “ the ( dog ’ s owner ) was cursing and ranting at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t f—ing believe you let the gun go off.
’ ” Adelaide Gaughran-Bedell , whose family lives in the area , told the Times that she was “ a bit confused ” when she saw the dog lying lifeless on the sidewalk and later saw it covered with a white cloth .
“ I was a bit confused , because there were tons of policemen on our block but no one was getting arrested or questioned , ” Gaughran-Bedell told the Times .
“ Instead , they all seemed to be looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owner .
”

An off-duty Secret Service agent fatally shot a dog that he says charged at him while walking through a Brooklyn neighborhood Monday night.
According to reports by the New York Daily News and the New York Times, police sources and witnesses said that the agent, whose name has not been released, was walking in the Windsor Terrace neighborhood around 9:45 p.m. Monday night when he encountered a man and his girlfriend walking with a female Belgian Shepherd.
Police sources told the Daily News that the dog started barking and the agents pulled out his gun and shot her.
“She scared a cop who was walking home,” the dog’s owner told the Daily News. “He shot her and she’s dead.”
Sgt. Mary Frances O’Donnell, a police spokeswoman, told the Times that “the dog charged him” and “he let one round go” before “he killed the dog.” O’Donnell added that the off-duty Secret Service agent reported the shooting to the police and remained at the scene, according to the Times.
A Secret Service spokesperson told TPM in a statement that the “canine was wearing a leash but unsecured from its owner who was not present.”
“An off duty Secret Service employee was involved in the shooting of an unrestrained and aggressive canine in Brooklyn, NY yesterday,” the statement obtained by TPM said. “As this is an ongoing investigation, the Secret Service will not have further comment.”
Walter Blankinship, the manager of nearby Kensington Stables, told the Daily News and the New York Times that he was outside the stables when he heard the shot.
“I heard the gunshot, and then I heard a guy arguing, cursing and carrying on,” Blankinship told the Times. “I just thought it was local people having an argument.”
Blankinship described the dog as a small or medium-sized brown dog and that he did not know its owners personally, according to the Times.
Blankinship also told the Daily News that “a gunshot went off, just one” and that “the (dog’s owner) was cursing and ranting at the other man, ‘I can’t f—ing believe you let the gun go off.’”
Adelaide Gaughran-Bedell, whose family lives in the area, told the Times that she was “a bit confused” when she saw the dog lying lifeless on the sidewalk and later saw it covered with a white cloth.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Stephen Miller Echoes White Nationalist ‘Great Replacement’ Theory In Newly Leaked Emails

A new trove of emails from White House senior aide Stephen Miller shows yet again how one of President Donald Trump ’ s most influential policy advisers trafficked in white nationalist ideology prior to joining the Trump administration .
Hatewatch , a blog run by the Southern Poverty Law Center , published on Tuesday Miller ’ s emails to ex-Breitbart editor Katie McHugh that span from March 2015 to June 2016 , when he served as former Sen. Jeff Sessions ’ ( R-AL ) congressional aide .
In the emails , Miller railed against Republicans like former House Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush , who supported granting citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children , aka DREAMers or recipients of the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program .
“ Demanding DREAMers be given citizenship because they ‘ know no other home.
’ That principle is an endorsement of perpetual birthright citizenship for the foreign-born , ” he wrote to McHugh on March 10 , 2015 .
“ Not only will the U.S.-born children of future illegal immigrants and guest workers be made automatic U.S. citizens , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Cantor said , ‘ Our country was founded on the principle . '
” Miller also wrote that Bush , who was rumored to run for president at the time , “ has mastered the art of using immigration rhetoric to sound ‘ moderate ’ while pushing the most extremist policies.
” He then accused Bush of using “ immigration to replace existing demographics , ” rhetoric that mirrors the white nationalist “ Great Replacement ” conspiracy theory that posits white populations are being replaced by non-white ones .
In another email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article penned by Jason Richwine , who has claimed that Hispanic immigrants have a lower IQ than white Americans , in response to Rupert Murdoch ’ s tweet saying that Mexican immigrants have a lower crime rate than non-immigrants .
The White House did not respond to TPM ’ s request for comment .
Hatewatch first published several of Miller ’ s emails to McHugh in November , which revealed the future White House adviser ’ s affinity for white nationalist propaganda , particularly as it relates to immigrant crime rates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , the White House threw its support behind Miller and attacked the SPLC as an “ utterly-discredited , long-debunked far-left smear organization .
”

A new trove of emails from White House senior aide Stephen Miller shows yet again how one of President Donald Trump’s most influential policy advisers trafficked in white nationalist ideology prior to joining the Trump administration.
Hatewatch, a blog run by the Southern Poverty Law Center, published on Tuesday Miller’s emails to ex-Breitbart editor Katie McHugh that span from March 2015 to June 2016, when he served as former Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-AL) congressional aide.
In the emails, Miller railed against Republicans like former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Jeb Bush, who supported granting citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, aka DREAMers or recipients of the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
“Demanding DREAMers be given citizenship because they ‘know no other home.’ That principle is an endorsement of perpetual birthright citizenship for the foreign-born,” he wrote to McHugh on March 10, 2015. “Not only will the U.S.-born children of future illegal immigrants and guest workers be made automatic U.S. citizens, but their foreign-born children will too because, as Cantor said, ‘Our country was founded on the principle.'”
Miller also wrote that Bush, who was rumored to run for president at the time, “has mastered the art of using immigration rhetoric to sound ‘moderate’ while pushing the most extremist policies.”
He then accused Bush of using “immigration to replace existing demographics,” rhetoric that mirrors the white nationalist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that posits white populations are being replaced by non-white ones.
In another email dated July 2015, Miller sent McHugh an article penned by Jason Richwine, who has claimed that Hispanic immigrants have a lower IQ than white Americans, in response to Rupert Murdoch’s tweet saying that Mexican immigrants have a lower crime rate than non-immigrants.
“Actually, no,” Miller wrote with the Richwine article attached.
The White House did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.
Hatewatch first published several of Miller’s emails to McHugh in November, which revealed the future White House adviser’s affinity for white nationalist propaganda, particularly as it relates to immigrant crime rates.
In response to Hatewatch’s report at the time, the White House threw its support behind Miller and attacked the SPLC as an “utterly-discredited, long-debunked far-left smear organization.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--McConnell Previews Tuesday Start For Senate Impeachment Trial

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) said Tuesday that the Senate impeachment impeachment trial was on track to start in earnest early next week , after Monday ’ s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday .
McConnell said that he was hopeful the Senate could complete some impeachment trial “ housekeeping measures ” by the end of this week , “ which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday.
” McConnell later added that the main resolution laying out the procedures for the first few phases of the trial would not be voted on until Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text of the resolution itself would be unveiled .
After McConnell ’ s announcement , Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) — a member of the GOP leadership team and chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration — went into more detail about the expected timeline , which will kick into gear once the House votes Wednesday on a resolution approving the impeachment managers that Speaker Nancy Pelosi selects .
After that vote , Blunt said , the House will inform the secretary of the Senate that it ’ s ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Senate will then consider a resolution dealing with floor access and mechanical details , such as the placement of the furniture , for the Senate trial .
All of that is likely to happen on Wednesday , Blunt said .
On Thursday , according to this expected timeline , the Senate would receive the House managers , who will announce the articles of impeachment from the Senate floor .
After that , the president pro tempore of the Senate will swear in Chief Justice John Roberts , and then Roberts will swear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that ’ s sort of the end of this week , ” Blunt said .
In his remarks , McConnell confirmed the trial procedures resolution the Senate is slated to vote on next week had the support of all 53 Republicans .
He also suggested that the resolution will not include a provision setting up a motion to dismiss early in the trial , as was included in the Clinton impeachment rules package .
The White House was pushing for such a measure , but Republicans lack the votes to dismiss the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is heard .
“ There is little or no sentiment in the Republican conference for a motion to dismiss , ” McConnell said .
Other Republicans suggested this week that individual senators or the President ’ s legal team could still offer on their own a motion to dismiss the case .

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Tuesday that the Senate impeachment impeachment trial was on track to start in earnest early next week, after Monday’s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
McConnell said that he was hopeful the Senate could complete some impeachment trial “housekeeping measures” by the end of this week, “which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday.”
McConnell later added that the main resolution laying out the procedures for the first few phases of the trial would not be voted on until Tuesday. He did not say when the text of the resolution itself would be unveiled.
After McConnell’s announcement, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — a member of the GOP leadership team and chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration — went into more detail about the expected timeline, which will kick into gear once the House votes Wednesday on a resolution approving the impeachment managers that Speaker Nancy Pelosi selects.
After that vote, Blunt said, the House will inform the secretary of the Senate that it’s ready to send its impeachment managers over. The Senate will then consider a resolution dealing with floor access and mechanical details, such as the placement of the furniture, for the Senate trial. All of that is likely to happen on Wednesday, Blunt said.
On Thursday, according to this expected timeline, the Senate would receive the House managers, who will announce the articles of impeachment from the Senate floor. After that, the president pro tempore of the Senate will swear in Chief Justice John Roberts, and then Roberts will swear in the senators.
“And we believe that’s sort of the end of this week,” Blunt said.
In his remarks, McConnell confirmed the trial procedures resolution the Senate is slated to vote on next week had the support of all 53 Republicans.
He also suggested that the resolution will not include a provision setting up a motion to dismiss early in the trial, as was included in the Clinton impeachment rules package. The White House was pushing for such a measure, but Republicans lack the votes to dismiss the case before the evidence from both sides is heard.
“There is little or no sentiment in the Republican conference for a motion to dismiss,” McConnell said.
Other Republicans suggested this week that individual senators or the President’s legal team could still offer on their own a motion to dismiss the case.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Did Mar-a-Lago Members Trade On Advance Knowledge Of Soleimani Attack?

Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Chris Van Hollen ( D-MD ) want to know whether any Mar-a-Lago members had advanced knowledge that the Trump administration would kill a top Iranian general — and whether they used that knowledge to game the stock market .
The American killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by a drone strike outside Baghdad International Airport rocked the region and has led to Trump administration dissembling over the reason for the strike .
The killing took members of Congress and American allies overseas by surprise , but , according to the Daily Beast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attack , some people had hints it was coming : members of the President ’ s pricey private South Florida club , Mar-a-Lago .
Unnamed sources who ’ d been at the club in the days leading up to the strike told the Daily Beast that Trump told people at the club that there would be a “ big ” response to Iran ’ s recent actions in the region “ soon.
” Trump reportedly mentioned talking to his military advisers about impending action against Iran .
For Warren and Van Hollen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Individuals who were guests at President Trump ’ s resort may have obtained confidential market-moving information and had the opportunity to trade defense industry stocks or commodities or make other trades based on this information , ” they wrote to the chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodities Futures Trading Commission .
In the hours after the attack , the senators pointed out , stock prices for military contractors Northrop Grumman , Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased over 5 % , 3.6 % and 1.5 % , respectively .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 % .
Warren and Van Hollen asked the SEC and CFTC to find out who Trump spoke to about the attack in the days prior , what specific knowledge those people had , and whether they used the information to illegally invest in the stock market .
The senators also asked for a staff briefing on the the matter by Feb. 13 .

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) want to know whether any Mar-a-Lago members had advanced knowledge that the Trump administration would kill a top Iranian general — and whether they used that knowledge to game the stock market.
The American killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by a drone strike outside Baghdad International Airport rocked the region and has led to Trump administration dissembling over the reason for the strike. The killing took members of Congress and American allies overseas by surprise, but, according to the Daily Beast’s reporting on the day of the attack, some people had hints it was coming: members of the President’s pricey private South Florida club, Mar-a-Lago.
Unnamed sources who’d been at the club in the days leading up to the strike told the Daily Beast that Trump told people at the club that there would be a “big” response to Iran’s recent actions in the region “soon.” Trump reportedly mentioned talking to his military advisers about impending action against Iran.
For Warren and Van Hollen, that rang insider trading alarm bells.
“Individuals who were guests at President Trump’s resort may have obtained confidential market-moving information and had the opportunity to trade defense industry stocks or commodities or make other trades based on this information,” they wrote to the chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
In the hours after the attack, the senators pointed out, stock prices for military contractors Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased over 5%, 3.6% and 1.5%, respectively. Crude oil prices also jumped more than 4%.
Warren and Van Hollen asked the SEC and CFTC to find out who Trump spoke to about the attack in the days prior, what specific knowledge those people had, and whether they used the information to illegally invest in the stock market. The senators also asked for a staff briefing on the the matter by Feb. 13.
Read the senators’ letter below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Schumer Defends Pelosi’s Decision To Keep Impeachment Articles Close To The Chest

Shortly after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) announced Tuesday morning that the House will vote on an impeachment managers resolution Wednesday , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) defended her decision to hold back the impeachment articles for three weeks .
During an interview on ABC News Tuesday morning , Schumer argued that Pelosi ’ s delay in sending the articles to the Senate has allowed Democrats to focus on getting witnesses and documents .
“ The bottom line is this : we Democrats — three weeks ago I sent a letter to Mitch McConnell saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this trial , we wanted witnesses , we wanted documents — who ’ s ever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents ?
” Schumer said .
After saying that the House “ requested a limited number of witnesses — all of whom were eyewitnesses to what President Trump is alleged to have done ” with his Ukraine pressure campaign — Schumer asked if “ Americans want foreign powers interfering in our elections.
” “ It should be the American people who decide , ” Schumer said .
“ So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last three weeks , we have been able to focus on getting witnesses , documents.
” Schumer then pointed out that “ these witnesses , by the way , are not what Republicans say– ( that ) they ’ re ‘ Democratic plants ’ — they ’ re the people appointed by President Trump : Mulvaney and Bolton and Blair and Duffy.
” After saying that he doesn ’ t know what the Trump-appointed witnesses will say at the trial , Schumer said that “ some of the Republicans are now beginning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents ” as he doubled down in defense of Pelosi ’ s impeachment articles delay .
“ Had Nancy sent the stuff right over and McConnell moved to dismiss , who knows what would have happened ?
” Schumer said .
Earlier Tuesday , the White House appeared to changed its tune on the allowance of additional witnesses in the trial when deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told “ Fox and Friends ” : “ The President is not afraid of a fight and if you or anyone within the sound of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime , with no proof , and no evidence , for more than three years , you ’ d want every witness to come forward too and say , ‘ this man did nothing wrong , ’ ”

Shortly after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Tuesday morning that the House will vote on an impeachment managers resolution Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) defended her decision to hold back the impeachment articles for three weeks.
During an interview on ABC News Tuesday morning, Schumer argued that Pelosi’s delay in sending the articles to the Senate has allowed Democrats to focus on getting witnesses and documents.
“The bottom line is this: we Democrats — three weeks ago I sent a letter to Mitch McConnell saying we wanted the truth to come out in this trial, we wanted witnesses, we wanted documents — who’s ever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents?” Schumer said.
After saying that the House “requested a limited number of witnesses — all of whom were eyewitnesses to what President Trump is alleged to have done” with his Ukraine pressure campaign — Schumer asked if “Americans want foreign powers interfering in our elections.”
“It should be the American people who decide,” Schumer said. “So it’s serious stuff and over the last three weeks, we have been able to focus on getting witnesses, documents.”
Schumer then pointed out that “these witnesses, by the way, are not what Republicans say– (that) they’re ‘Democratic plants’ — they’re the people appointed by President Trump: Mulvaney and Bolton and Blair and Duffy.”
After saying that he doesn’t know what the Trump-appointed witnesses will say at the trial, Schumer said that “some of the Republicans are now beginning to say, maybe we need witnesses and documents” as he doubled down in defense of Pelosi’s impeachment articles delay.
“Had Nancy sent the stuff right over and McConnell moved to dismiss, who knows what would have happened?” Schumer said.
Earlier Tuesday, the White House appeared to changed its tune on the allowance of additional witnesses in the trial when deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told “Fox and Friends”: “The President is not afraid of a fight and if you or anyone within the sound of our voices had been falsely accused of a crime, with no proof, and no evidence, for more than three years, you’d want every witness to come forward too and say, ‘this man did nothing wrong,’”
Watch Schumer’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Appeals Court Puts Brakes On Immediate Voter Purge In Wisconsin

An appeals court ordered a freeze Tuesday on a purge of more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls in Wisconsin , contradicting a circuit court judge who held the Elections Commission in contempt Monday for not removing the voters immediately .
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , a judge in a separate order also blocked Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy ’ s contempt finding , saving the commission and particularly three of its Democratic members from having to pay daily fines .
The Commission , consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans , also met in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The group has been deadlocked over the purge .
The state Supreme Court is also at an impasse over the issue , leaving the appeals court to hand down a decision .
The fight started in October when the Commission notified over 200,000 people to ask if they ’ d changed addresses .
Voters who failed to respond would be removed from the rolls in 2021 .
The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a lawsuit demanding that the nonresponsive voters be removed before the 2020 election .
Malloy agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters be purged .
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul asked the District 4 Court of Appeals in Madison to review the case after Malloy ’ s ruling .
The voting advocacy group League of Women Voters also filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to keep voters on the rolls .
The situation has attracted close scrutiny , as President Donald Trump won the state in 2016 by fewer than 23,000 votes .
If voters are ultimately removed from the polls , they can re-register at https : //myvote.wi.gov/en-us/ , at their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls on Election Day .

An appeals court ordered a freeze Tuesday on a purge of more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls in Wisconsin, contradicting a circuit court judge who held the Elections Commission in contempt Monday for not removing the voters immediately.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a judge in a separate order also blocked Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy’s contempt finding, saving the commission and particularly three of its Democratic members from having to pay daily fines.
The Commission, consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans, also met in a private session Tuesday to discuss next steps. The group has been deadlocked over the purge.
The state Supreme Court is also at an impasse over the issue, leaving the appeals court to hand down a decision.
The fight started in October when the Commission notified over 200,000 people to ask if they’d changed addresses. Voters who failed to respond would be removed from the rolls in 2021.
The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a lawsuit demanding that the nonresponsive voters be removed before the 2020 election. Malloy agreed with the lawsuit and ordered that the voters be purged. Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul asked the District 4 Court of Appeals in Madison to review the case after Malloy’s ruling.
The voting advocacy group League of Women Voters also filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to keep voters on the rolls.
The situation has attracted close scrutiny, as President Donald Trump won the state in 2016 by fewer than 23,000 votes. If voters are ultimately removed from the polls, they can re-register at https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/, at their clerk’s office or at the polls on Election Day.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Murdoch Under Fire From His Own Son Over His Media Outlets’ Climate Change Denialism

Rupert Murdoch , owner of media giant News Corp , is getting heat from his son James over the climate change denialism that ’ s being churned out by the mogul ’ s right-wing news outlets .
The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday that James and his wife Kathyrn , both outspoken advocates of climate action , are upset by how the news organizations controlled by News Corp , such as Fox News and especially newspapers in Australia , have cast doubt on the existence of the climate crisis as bushfires ravage Murdoch ’ s native Australia .
“ Kathryn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known , ” a spokesperson for the couple told the Daily Beast .
“ They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.
” An unnamed News Corp executive told the Daily Beast that the couple is “ pissing inside the tent.
” “ It ’ s evidence of how high tensions are within the family over climate change , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a majority of New Corp employees “ agree with James ” on the issue .
“ We are hoping this may be the tipping point , ” he told the Daily Beast .
Murdoch has denied that News Corp employees do not believe in climate change .
“ There are no climate-change deniers around , I can assure you , ” he said at the company ’ s annual shareholder meeting in November .
Yet Fox News has infamously invited numerous guests who have spread misinformation about climate change and attacked climate action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as calling 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg “ mentally ill. ” Additionally , Fox ’ s own hosts have disparaged the scientifically proven phenomenon .

Rupert Murdoch, owner of media giant News Corp, is getting heat from his son James over the climate change denialism that’s being churned out by the mogul’s right-wing news outlets.
The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday that James and his wife Kathyrn, both outspoken advocates of climate action, are upset by how the news organizations controlled by News Corp, such as Fox News and especially newspapers in Australia, have cast doubt on the existence of the climate crisis as bushfires ravage Murdoch’s native Australia.
“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” a spokesperson for the couple told the Daily Beast. “They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”
An unnamed News Corp executive told the Daily Beast that the couple is “pissing inside the tent.”
“It’s evidence of how high tensions are within the family over climate change,” he said.
The executive also asserted that a majority of News Corp employees “agree with James” on the issue.
“We are hoping this may be the tipping point,” he told the Daily Beast.
Murdoch has denied that News Corp employees do not believe in climate change.
“There are no climate-change deniers around, I can assure you,” he said at the company’s annual shareholder meeting in November.
Yet Fox News has infamously invited numerous guests who have spread misinformation about climate change and attacked climate action advocates, with one guest going as far as calling 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg “mentally ill.” Additionally, Fox’s own hosts have disparaged the scientifically proven phenomenon.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-15--The Candidates’ Best And Worst Moments Of The Iowa Debate

Iowa ’ s debate featured a small group of candidates just weeks before the caucus and in the midst of some real campaign drama .
Despite all of that , it felt like a fairly run-of-the-mill night .
The candidates were generally fine and the energy a bit low .
Still , here are the biggest successes and failures of the night for each of the six presidential hopefuls : High : Biden is best when he conveys his empathy , comfort with emotion and survival in the face of tragedy .
He had such a moment when funding daycare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of raising his two young sons on $ 42,000 by himself after his wife and daughter were killed in a car crash .
He remembered traveling “ 250 miles ” on the train daily to care for the boys while also serving as senator .
Low : Biden is still struggling with his yes vote on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
He said it was a mistake , then reminded everyone for the umpteenth time that Barack Obama chose him as vice president .
He needs to find a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right about in regards to wartime to blunt the impact of that vote .
High : Warren quickly dispensed with the bait to fight with Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) about his alleged comment to her in 2018 that a woman couldn ’ t be elected president ( he denied saying it ) .
She said that she “ disagreed ” with him at the time , then quickly pivoted to a triumphant line about the electoral success of the women on the stage .
The audience erupted into applause .
Low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fight with Sanders was odd .
She watched him essentially call her a liar right there on stage , saying that he never said that a woman could not be elected , and then she moved on .
Though she is clearly trying to avoid a fight with Sanders , there is some evident lingering anger that came through in all of their interactions .
High : Sanders adeptly dispatched with the ever-present question about whether his democratic socialist identity hurts him with voters .
He ’ s familiar with the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transforming it into a chance to juxtapose his belief in things like a Green New Deal and raising the minimum wage to Trump ’ s corporate tax cuts .
Low : Sanders ’ worst moment came after Warren ’ s best .
His hairsplitting about his defeat of a Republican incumbent in 1990 was ineffective , and just let an incredulous-looking Warren hammer home that that success is now 30 years old .
High : “ I won every race , every place every time.
” Klobuchar squeezed in lots of mentions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument for someone running as a unity candidate with enough moderate appeal to beat Trump .
Low : Klobuchar fumbled on the names of the Kansas governor at one point , which blunted the effect of her declaration of female power .
It was a trend throughout the night — she used her notes as a crutch overmuch and delivered lengthy answers shouted over the moderators that scuttled some of her punchlines .
High : Buttigieg ’ s speech towards the end of the night about his qualities in comparison to Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s bone spurs defense to get out of serving in Vietnam .
His passion enlivened the answer , and avoided the pitfall of over-rehearsal he often falls victim to .
Low : Buttigieg ’ s first question on his readiness to be commander in chief with a backdrop of the conflict with Iran should have been a gift .
As the only veteran on the stage , Buttigieg has a special authority on the topic .
And yet , he batted it away , giving a broad answer on the many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ High : Steyer deftly handled a question on his past investments in coal and oil and whether they disqualify him from campaigning on climate change .
He outlined his personal pivot on the issue , divestment from fossil fuels and commitment to fighting the climate crisis .
He turned a real weakness into a compelling redemption story .
Low : Steyer sometimes seems out of his depth on policy .
Outside of climate change , his passion project , he was mostly absent from wonky debates about health care and education .

Iowa’s debate featured a small group of candidates just weeks before the caucus and in the midst of some real campaign drama.
Despite all of that, it felt like a fairly run-of-the-mill night. The candidates were generally fine and the energy a bit low.
Still, here are the biggest successes and failures of the night for each of the six presidential hopefuls:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
High: Biden is best when he conveys his empathy, comfort with emotion and survival in the face of tragedy. He had such a moment when funding daycare came up and he recalled the hardship of raising his two young sons on $42,000 by himself after his wife and daughter were killed in a car crash. He remembered traveling “250 miles” on the train daily to care for the boys while also serving as senator.
Low: Biden is still struggling with his yes vote on the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He said it was a mistake, then reminded everyone for the umpteenth time that Barack Obama chose him as vice president. He needs to find a way to weave in things he’s been right about in regards to wartime to blunt the impact of that vote.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
High: Warren quickly dispensed with the bait to fight with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) about his alleged comment to her in 2018 that a woman couldn’t be elected president (he denied saying it). She said that she “disagreed” with him at the time, then quickly pivoted to a triumphant line about the electoral success of the women on the stage. The audience erupted into applause.
Low: Still, her total avoidance of a fight with Sanders was odd. She watched him essentially call her a liar right there on stage, saying that he never said that a woman could not be elected, and then she moved on. Though she is clearly trying to avoid a fight with Sanders, there is some evident lingering anger that came through in all of their interactions.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
High: Sanders adeptly dispatched with the ever-present question about whether his democratic socialist identity hurts him with voters. He’s familiar with the question, and he’s good at transforming it into a chance to juxtapose his belief in things like a Green New Deal and raising the minimum wage to Trump’s corporate tax cuts.
Low: Sanders’ worst moment came after Warren’s best. His hairsplitting about his defeat of a Republican incumbent in 1990 was ineffective, and just let an incredulous-looking Warren hammer home that that success is now 30 years old.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
High: “I won every race, every place every time.” Klobuchar squeezed in lots of mentions of her winning electoral record — a strong argument for someone running as a unity candidate with enough moderate appeal to beat Trump.
Low: Klobuchar fumbled on the names of the Kansas governor at one point, which blunted the effect of her declaration of female power. It was a trend throughout the night — she used her notes as a crutch overmuch and delivered lengthy answers shouted over the moderators that scuttled some of her punchlines.
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg
High: Buttigieg’s speech towards the end of the night about his qualities in comparison to Trump was particularly strong, especially his quip about Trump’s bone spurs defense to get out of serving in Vietnam. His passion enlivened the answer, and avoided the pitfall of over-rehearsal he often falls victim to.
Low: Buttigieg’s first question on his readiness to be commander in chief with a backdrop of the conflict with Iran should have been a gift. As the only veteran on the stage, Buttigieg has a special authority on the topic. And yet, he batted it away, giving a broad answer on the many kinds of challenges a president faces.
Billionaire Tom Steyer
High: Steyer deftly handled a question on his past investments in coal and oil and whether they disqualify him from campaigning on climate change. He outlined his personal pivot on the issue, divestment from fossil fuels and commitment to fighting the climate crisis. He turned a real weakness into a compelling redemption story.
Low: Steyer sometimes seems out of his depth on policy. Outside of climate change, his passion project, he was mostly absent from wonky debates about health care and education.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-15--Sanders And Warren Largely Avoid Intra-Progressive Fight In Last Debate Before Iowa

Despite some murmurings to the contrary from their campaigns in recent days , the two Democratic presidential contenders on the left of the spectrum , Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , largely avoided a public scrap during the last debate before the Iowa caucuses .
In the days leading up to Tuesday ’ s debate , all signs pointed to an impending clash .
A volunteer script from Sanders ’ campaign published by Politico criticized Warren , who in turn criticized Bernie for “ trashing ” her .
Then , CNN reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Warren , said a female candidate couldn ’ t win the presidency .
Sanders denied the report , Warren affirmed it .
The stage was set .
And yet , the debate largely glided past the scuffle , and Sanders and Warren mostly spoke past each other when they had a chance to go on the attack .
Still , it ’ s not like CNN didn ’ t try to light the flame .
“ Senator Sanders , I do want to be clear here , you ’ re saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman could not win the election ?
” Abby Phillip asked .
“ That is correct , ” he said .
Phillip turned to Warren : “ What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election ?
” she asked , to laughter .
Warren said she “ disagreed ” with Sanders , then said , as she had before , that the pair were friends and they weren ’ t in the race to fight each other .
She moved on , making the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on stage , she said Sen. Klobuchar , hadn ’ t ever lost an election .
There was a bit of awkwardness a few minutes later in the debate — Sanders took issue with Warren ’ s claim that she was the only person on stage to beat a Republican incumbent in 30 years , pointing out that he beat such an incumbent… in 1990 .
But , before long , the pair were back to what they ’ ve done in debates past : Making a case for a leftward shift within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truce was clear during the debate ’ s discussion of Medicare for All , as Biden , Buttigieg and Klobuchar argued that Democratic voters didn ’ t want the kinds of policies Sanders and Warren have pitched .
“ Every other major country on Earth is guaranteeing healthcare for all , ” Sanders said .
“ The time is long overdue for us to do the same.
” Warren made the case a few minutes later .
“ We can let people experience what health care is like when it ’ s you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional , your nurse practitioner with no insurance company standing in the middle , ” she said .

Despite some murmurings to the contrary from their campaigns in recent days, the two Democratic presidential contenders on the left of the spectrum, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), largely avoided a public scrap during the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.
In the days leading up to Tuesday’s debate, all signs pointed to an impending clash. A volunteer script from Sanders’ campaign published by Politico criticized Warren, who in turn criticized Bernie for “trashing” her. Then, CNN reported that Sanders, in a 2018 conversation with Warren, said a female candidate couldn’t win the presidency. Sanders denied the report, Warren affirmed it. The stage was set.
And yet, the debate largely glided past the scuffle, and Sanders and Warren mostly spoke past each other when they had a chance to go on the attack.
Still, it’s not like CNN didn’t try to light the flame.
“Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Abby Phillip asked.
“That is correct,” he said.
Phillip turned to Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” she asked, to laughter.
Warren said she “disagreed” with Sanders, then said, as she had before, that the pair were friends and they weren’t in the race to fight each other.
She moved on, making the broader, winning argument that the two women on stage, she said Sen. Klobuchar, hadn’t ever lost an election.
There was a bit of awkwardness a few minutes later in the debate — Sanders took issue with Warren’s claim that she was the only person on stage to beat a Republican incumbent in 30 years, pointing out that he beat such an incumbent… in 1990.
But, before long, the pair were back to what they’ve done in debates past: Making a case for a leftward shift within the party.
Their usual, informal truce was clear during the debate’s discussion of Medicare for All, as Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar argued that Democratic voters didn’t want the kinds of policies Sanders and Warren have pitched.
“Every other major country on Earth is guaranteeing healthcare for all,” Sanders said. “The time is long overdue for us to do the same.”
Warren made the case a few minutes later.
“We can let people experience what health care is like when it’s you and your doctor, your mental health professional, your nurse practitioner with no insurance company standing in the middle,” she said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-15--At Debate, Dems Slam Trump On Iran, Call For Scaling Back US Presence In Middle East

The Democratic presidential contenders on stage Tuesday night agreed generally on the need to end “ endless war ” in the Middle East , but their answers on strategy in the region revealed some differences in approach .
Still , most on stage said they ’ d want at least some presence in the region .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , who called for a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces , spelled out the debate .
“ Everyone on this stage talks about ‘ nobody wants endless war , ’ but the question is , when and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
” she said.
” You know , on the Senate Armed Services Committee , we have one general after another in Afghanistan who comes in and says , you know , we ’ ve just turned the corner .
And now it ’ s all going to be different .
And then what happens ?
It ’ s all the same for another year.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , and Pete Buttigieg said they ’ d maintain a footprint in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between combat troops and leaving special forces in a position , ” Biden said at one point , arguing for the latter .
He later made a more direct case for America ’ s heavy presence in the region : “ You have to be able to form coalitions to be able to defeat them or contain them .
If you don ’ t , we end up being the world ’ s policeman again .
They ’ re going to come to us.
” Klobuchar said she would leave forces in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Donald Trump is taking us right now , ” and Buttigieg similarly said “ we can continue to remain engaged ” but criticized Trump ’ s new deployments .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , for his part , mostly pointed at his vote against the Iraq war .
Looking forward , he articulated views broadly shared by the Democratic field : “ We have got to undo what Trump did , bring that [ international ] coalition together , and make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly where he stood on America ’ s involvement in the region .
But he did outline potentially broad grounds for the justification of force : “ I would take military action to protect the lives and safety of American citizens , ” he said .

The Democratic presidential contenders on stage Tuesday night agreed generally on the need to end “endless war” in the Middle East, but their answers on strategy in the region revealed some differences in approach. Still, most on stage said they’d want at least some presence in the region.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who called for a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, spelled out the debate.
“Everyone on this stage talks about ‘nobody wants endless war,’ but the question is, when and how do you plan to get out of it?” she said.”You know, on the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have one general after another in Afghanistan who comes in and says, you know, we’ve just turned the corner. And now it’s all going to be different. And then what happens? It’s all the same for another year.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Pete Buttigieg said they’d maintain a footprint in the region.
“There’s a difference between combat troops and leaving special forces in a position,” Biden said at one point, arguing for the latter.
He later made a more direct case for America’s heavy presence in the region: “You have to be able to form coalitions to be able to defeat them or contain them. If you don’t, we end up being the world’s policeman again. They’re going to come to us.”
Klobuchar said she would leave forces in the region “but not in the level that Donald Trump is taking us right now,” and Buttigieg similarly said “we can continue to remain engaged” but criticized Trump’s new deployments.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), for his part, mostly pointed at his vote against the Iraq war. Looking forward, he articulated views broadly shared by the Democratic field: “We have got to undo what Trump did, bring that [international] coalition together, and make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.”
And Tom Steyer didn’t say directly where he stood on America’s involvement in the region. But he did outline potentially broad grounds for the justification of force: “I would take military action to protect the lives and safety of American citizens,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-15--Michael Flynn Seeks To Withdraw His Guilty Plea One Week Before Sentencing

Days before he is scheduled to be sentenced , National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is seeking to withdrew his guilty plea .
“ Michael T. Flynn ( “ Mr .
Flynn ” ) hereby moves to withdraw his plea because of the government ’ s bad faith , vindictiveness , and breach of the plea agreement , ” Flynn ’ s lawyers said in a court document filed Tuesday .
Flynn originally pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts .
As part of the plea , he cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on track for a light sentence until he filed a sentencing memo downplaying his guilt that clearly perturbed the judge in the case , prompting his original lawyers to seek a delay in sentencing .
Since then , he hired a new set of attorneys , led by a prominent Mueller critic , who took an increasingly hostile posture towards the Justice Department that has now culminated in Tuesday ’ s request to withdraw his guilty plea .
While much of Tuesday ’ s filing focuses on a previously-known disagreement between Flynn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Turkey , the court document includes plenty of fire and scorn towards the Justice Department at large that echoed President Trump ’ s own DOJ bashing .
“ It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn , virtually bankrupted him , and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years , ” the plea withdrawal request said .
It repeatedly called out by name a prosecutor who served on Mueller ’ s team who went on to lead the prosecution of Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel , ” the filing said .
The filing also alluded to claims that the 2016 Russia probe was bogus and corrupt from the start .
“ [ Flynn ] endured massive , unnecessary , and frankly counterproductive demands on his time , his family , his scarce resources , and his life , ” the filing said .
“ The same can not be said for the prosecution which has operated in bad faith from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continues relentlessly through this specious prosecution.
” Specifically , Tuesday ’ s filing alleged that the prosecutors had tried to force Flynn to lie on the stand at the summer trial of his former business associate .
Those allegations had previously come to the surface when prosecutors reversed their plans to call Flynn to testify at the trial .
It came up again in the sentencing memo prosecutors filed earlier this month , in which they provided evidence that suggested Flynn was changing his story on his unregistered lobbying for Turkey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about at the trial .
“ Not only was that demanded testimony a lie , but also , the prosecutors knew it was false , and would induce a breach [ in Flynn ’ s plea deal ] , ” Flynn ’ s lawyers claimed in Tuesday ’ s filing , while denying that Flynn had changed the testimony he planned to provide for the trial .
“ The only thing that changed in Mr. Flynn ’ s case was the appearance of new , unconflicted counsel on Mr. Flynn ’ s behalf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lie for the prosecution of Rafiekian with the representation , protection , and advocacy of his new defense team , ” Flynn ’ s lawyers claimed .
With Flynn ’ s request to withdraw , he is also asking for his sentencing hearing — which is scheduled for next Tuesday — to be delayed for at least a month .
Flynn claimed the postponement would allow the government to respond to these latest claims and that his lawyers needed more time to process the “ significant developments and new information that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The filing also previewed that there “ were many alternate reasons ” that Flynn should be allowed to withdraw his plea that his lawyers “ will present in a supplemental filing.
” “ We are a small team working on a shoe-string budget funded by thousands of hard-working patriots across the country who are making non-tax-deductible contributions primarily in amounts from $ 1 to $ 100 to www.MikeFlynnDefenseFund.com , ” the filing said in a footnote .

Days before he is scheduled to be sentenced, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is seeking to withdrew his guilty plea.
“Michael T. Flynn (“Mr. Flynn”) hereby moves to withdraw his plea because of the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement,” Flynn’s lawyers said in a court document filed Tuesday.
Flynn originally pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts. As part of the plea, he cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller.
In December 2018, he appeared on track for a light sentence until he filed a sentencing memo downplaying his guilt that clearly perturbed the judge in the case, prompting his original lawyers to seek a delay in sentencing.
Since then, he hired a new set of attorneys, led by a prominent Mueller critic, who took an increasingly hostile posture towards the Justice Department that has now culminated in Tuesday’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.
While much of Tuesday’s filing focuses on a previously-known disagreement between Flynn and prosecutors about the nature of his lobbying for Turkey, the court document includes plenty of fire and scorn towards the Justice Department at large that echoed President Trump’s own DOJ bashing.
“It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn, virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years,” the plea withdrawal request said.
It repeatedly called out by name a prosecutor who served on Mueller’s team who went on to lead the prosecution of Flynn’s former business partner Bijan Rafiekian.
“The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel,” the filing said.
The filing also alluded to claims that the 2016 Russia probe was bogus and corrupt from the start.
“[Flynn] endured massive, unnecessary, and frankly counterproductive demands on his time, his family, his scarce resources, and his life,” the filing said. “The same cannot be said for the prosecution which has operated in bad faith from the inception of the ‘investigation’ and continues relentlessly through this specious prosecution.”
Specifically, Tuesday’s filing alleged that the prosecutors had tried to force Flynn to lie on the stand at the summer trial of his former business associate. Those allegations had previously come to the surface when prosecutors reversed their plans to call Flynn to testify at the trial.
It came up again in the sentencing memo prosecutors filed earlier this month, in which they provided evidence that suggested Flynn was changing his story on his unregistered lobbying for Turkey, the conduct he was expected to testify about at the trial.
“Not only was that demanded testimony a lie, but also, the prosecutors knew it was false, and would induce a breach [in Flynn’s plea deal],” Flynn’s lawyers claimed in Tuesday’s filing, while denying that Flynn had changed the testimony he planned to provide for the trial.
“The only thing that changed in Mr. Flynn’s case was the appearance of new, unconflicted counsel on Mr. Flynn’s behalf, and Mr. Flynn’s refusal to lie for the prosecution of Rafiekian with the representation, protection, and advocacy of his new defense team,” Flynn’s lawyers claimed.
With Flynn’s request to withdraw, he is also asking for his sentencing hearing — which is scheduled for next Tuesday — to be delayed for at least a month. Flynn claimed the postponement would allow the government to respond to these latest claims and that his lawyers needed more time to process the “significant developments and new information that has been disclosed in the last thirty days.”
The filing also previewed that there “were many alternate reasons” that Flynn should be allowed to withdraw his plea that his lawyers “will present in a supplemental filing.”
“We are a small team working on a shoe-string budget funded by thousands of hard-working patriots across the country who are making non-tax-deductible contributions primarily in amounts from $1 to $100 to www.MikeFlynnDefenseFund.com,” the filing said in a footnote.
Read the filing below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Sanders Official Says Script Fueling Feud With Warren Was Killed For Being ‘Sloppily Worded’

The Bernie Sanders campaign script at the center of the Vermont senator ’ s feud with Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) was reportedly distributed to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday before being killed the next day .
Controversy has emerged between the two Democratic presidential candidates in the past couple days following Politico ’ s report regarding a Sanders campaign script that instructs volunteers to tell voters who are leaning toward voting for Warren that “ she ’ s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.
” Warren initially reacted to the script @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that she was “ disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.
” The unexpected drama between Sanders and Warren only escalated when CNN reported Monday that Sanders told the Massachusetts Democrat in December 2018 that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency , which Sanders would later deny and call “ ludicrous.
” According to a Politico report Tuesday , three Sanders campaign officials said that volunteers and staffers used the script critical of Warren while canvassing for votes on Saturday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to blame for the controversy .
Sanders ’ campaign reportedly pulled back the script Saturday after Politico published its report on it “ because it was sloppily worded.
” “ The language was pulled because it was sloppily worded , ” a Sanders official told Politico , which confirmed that the script was an official campaign document .
After pulling the script that was initially distributed to Sanders campaign volunteers , two Sanders officials told Politico that the campaign provided a new script on Sunday and directed officials in early voting states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Politico , a Warren aide said that her campaign appreciated Sanders ’ withdrawal of the initial script and they hoped to move on from the controversy .

The Bernie Sanders campaign script at the center of the Vermont senator’s feud with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was reportedly distributed to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday before being killed the next day.
Controversy has emerged between the two Democratic presidential candidates in the past couple days following Politico’s report regarding a Sanders campaign script that instructs volunteers to tell voters who are leaning toward voting for Warren that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” Warren initially reacted to the script while speaking to reporters in Iowa Sunday, saying that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
The unexpected drama between Sanders and Warren only escalated when CNN reported Monday that Sanders told the Massachusetts Democrat in December 2018 that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency, which Sanders would later deny and call “ludicrous.”
According to a Politico report Tuesday, three Sanders campaign officials said that volunteers and staffers used the script critical of Warren while canvassing for votes on Saturday. Sanders initially suggested that rogue employees were to blame for the controversy.
Sanders’ campaign reportedly pulled back the script Saturday after Politico published its report on it “because it was sloppily worded.”
“The language was pulled because it was sloppily worded,” a Sanders official told Politico, which confirmed that the script was an official campaign document.
After pulling the script that was initially distributed to Sanders campaign volunteers, two Sanders officials told Politico that the campaign provided a new script on Sunday and directed officials in early voting states to stop handing volunteers the old one.
According to Politico, a Warren aide said that her campaign appreciated Sanders’ withdrawal of the initial script and they hoped to move on from the controversy.
Read Politico’s report here.