buzzfeed--2020-01-14--Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Is Telling Key Supporters To De-Escalate The Fight With Bernie Sanders

CLIVE , Iowa — Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign is telling key online supporters that their “ goal is de-escalation ” and warning backers not to accuse Bernie Sanders of sexism , signaling a desire to move on from a story that has driven a rift between two longtime allies , and within the progressive community , over questions of gender and electability .
On Monday night , about five minutes after Warren issued a statement confirming that she remembers Sanders telling her in a private meeting he didn ’ t believe a woman could win in 2020 , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters in a large pro-Warren group chat on Twitter that their next step would be to dial back the confrontation .
“ Re : where we go from here — our goal is de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals , ” the staffer wrote to the group , according to screenshots of the chat .
The next morning , hours before Warren and Sanders were expected to address the conflict in Des Moines at Tuesday ’ s Democratic debate , the campaign official followed up to caution supporters against accusing Sanders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioning would be “ really bad news for us.
” “ I would be careful with the ‘ sexism ’ angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually — 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 ) , ” the staffer told the group .
“ Is that what this is about broadly ?
Absolutely .
But no one here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic ) .
” Warren characterized the private December 2018 meeting in her statement as a simple exchange : “ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
” Sanders and his advisers have repeatedly said this account is false and that he only pointed out Trump would use gender against a woman candidate .
“ What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist , and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first reported by CNN , and before Warren confirmed it herself .
At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning , the Warren staffer ’ s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders ’ s description than Warren ’ s .
“ Claiming you ’ re worried a woman can ’ t win/flagging that she ’ ll receive sexist attacks is something many , many people feel , ” the campaign official wrote .
The distinction has become a knotty point of conflict in a controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters about sexism , a general election against a candidate like Donald Trump , and whether the country is ready to elect a woman president .
Jeff Weaver , a top adviser for Sanders ' campaign , also suggested the Sanders campaign did not want to continue the fight .
“ We ’ re not going to get into this tit-for-tat , '' he said on CNN on Monday night .
Sanders and Warren , he said , `` have great respect for one another , they ’ re fighting for a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were some wires crossed apparently about this story.
” Asked to comment on the move to de-escalate , Warren 's communications director , Kristen Orthman , pointed to the candidate ’ s statement on Monday night calling Sanders a friend and longtime ally .
“ Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry , ” Warren said .
There are other signals Warren wants to move on from the story .
Former housing secretary Julián Castro , a Warren surrogate who was one of the most aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did everything he could to avoid conflict when he stepped in front of cameras Tuesday at a canvass kickoff here in Clive , Iowa .
Castro said he believed Warren — but he had no criticism for Sanders .
“ I don ’ t think there ’ s an attack that ’ s happening , ” Castro told reporters .
“ I didn ’ t see it that way at all.
” “ Sen .
Warren and Sen. Sanders have been friends for a long time ; they know each other well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns , ” he said .
“ I believe Elizabeth , and I know that she ’ s running a campaign that ’ s inspiring a lot of people .
Both of them are.
” In Washington , progressive leaders who admire both Warren and Sanders as icons in their movement made public appeals for the two to stop fighting .
“ @ BernieSanders and @ ewarren , ” one left-wing group , Democracy for America , tweeted , “ you both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not attack each other.
” At the canvassing event in Clive , some of Warren ’ s most dedicated supporters also said they had no desire to see a conflict between the two candidates .
“ It ’ s not something that we want to talk about , ” said Taylor Larich , a 21-year-old Warren volunteer from nearby Waukee .
Some doubted the exchange had taken place exactly as described .
“ I have trouble believing that — that he would say that , ” said Devon McClurken , a church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Warren was her “ number one choice ” in the election .
“ I do appreciate [ Sanders ’ ] policies .
I appreciate all he ’ s done through his entire career.
” “ That ’ s such a distraction , ” said Heidi Baker , a Warren supporter from Clive .
“ While those two are fighting , you ’ re going to have people like Biden , who ’ s already ahead in the polls — those two need to knock it off and focus on their campaign.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost don ’ t want to believe it , ” Baker said .

CLIVE, Iowa — Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is telling key online supporters that their “goal is de-escalation” and warning backers not to accuse Bernie Sanders of sexism, signaling a desire to move on from a story that has driven a rift between two longtime allies, and within the progressive community, over questions of gender and electability.
On Monday night, about five minutes after Warren issued a statement confirming that she remembers Sanders telling her in a private meeting he didn’t believe a woman could win in 2020, one of Warren’s campaign officials advised supporters in a large pro-Warren group chat on Twitter that their next step would be to dial back the confrontation. “Re: where we go from here — our goal is de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals,” the staffer wrote to the group, according to screenshots of the chat.
The next morning, hours before Warren and Sanders were expected to address the conflict in Des Moines at Tuesday’s Democratic debate, the campaign official followed up to caution supporters against accusing Sanders of sexism, saying that the line of questioning would be “really bad news for us.”
“I would be careful with the ‘sexism’ angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually — 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),” the staffer told the group. “Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely. But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic).”
Warren characterized the private December 2018 meeting in her statement as a simple exchange: “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.” Sanders and his advisers have repeatedly said this account is false and that he only pointed out Trump would use gender against a woman candidate. “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 said when the story was first reported by CNN, and before Warren confirmed it herself.
At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning, the Warren staffer’s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders’s description than Warren’s. “Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the campaign official wrote.
The distinction has become a knotty point of conflict in a controversy that touches on real concerns among Iowa voters about sexism, a general election against a candidate like Donald Trump, and whether the country is ready to elect a woman president.
Jeff Weaver, a top adviser for Sanders' campaign, also suggested the Sanders campaign did not want to continue the fight. “We’re not going to get into this tit-for-tat," he said on CNN on Monday night.
Sanders and Warren, he said, "have great respect for one another, they’re fighting for a lot of the same goals, again, there were some wires crossed apparently about this story.”
Asked to comment on the move to de-escalate, Warren's communications director, Kristen Orthman, pointed to the candidate’s statement on Monday night calling Sanders a friend and longtime ally. “Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” Warren said.
There are other signals Warren wants to move on from the story.
Former housing secretary Julián Castro, a Warren surrogate who was one of the most aggressive attack dogs of the 2020 Democratic primary, did everything he could to avoid conflict when he stepped in front of cameras Tuesday at a canvass kickoff here in Clive, Iowa.
Castro said he believed Warren — but he had no criticism for Sanders.
“I don’t think there’s an attack that’s happening,” Castro told reporters. “I didn’t see it that way at all.”
“Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders have been friends for a long time; they know each other well; they’ve both run respectful campaigns,” he said. “I believe Elizabeth, and I know that she’s running a campaign that’s inspiring a lot of people. Both of them are.”
In Washington, progressive leaders who admire both Warren and Sanders as icons in their movement made public appeals for the two to stop fighting. “@BernieSanders and @ewarren,” one left-wing group, Democracy for America, tweeted, “you both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working together to defeat your corporate Dem opponents — not attack each other.”
At the canvassing event in Clive, some of Warren’s most dedicated supporters also said they had no desire to see a conflict between the two candidates. “It’s not something that we want to talk about,” said Taylor Larich, a 21-year-old Warren volunteer from nearby Waukee.
Some doubted the exchange had taken place exactly as described.
“I have trouble believing that — that he would say that,” said Devon McClurken, a church faith director in West Des Moines who said Warren was her “number one choice” in the election. “I do appreciate [Sanders’] policies. I appreciate all he’s done through his entire career.”
“That’s such a distraction,” said Heidi Baker, a Warren supporter from Clive. “While those two are fighting, you’re going to have people like Biden, who’s already ahead in the polls — those two need to knock it off and focus on their campaign.”
“That’s ludicrous. I almost don’t want to believe it,” Baker said.


buzzfeed--2020-01-14--Elizabeth Warren Said She Would Start Canceling Student Loan Debt On Her First Day As President

Sen. Elizabeth Warren will start to cancel student loan debt from the first day she takes office if she 's elected president , she said Tuesday , arguing that existing law would give her administration the power to wipe out student debt — without the need to pass a broad loan forgiveness bill in Congress .
Warren , who was the first major presidential candidate to call for mass student loan forgiveness , said she would direct her Secretary of Education to `` begin to compromise and modify federal student loans , '' using a so-called safety valve in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would cancel up to $ 50,000 in student debt for middle-class Americans .
She cited experts at Harvard Law School 's Project on Predatory Student Lending , a group that has long advocated for student loan forgiveness , who argue that debt cancellation would be `` lawful and permissible . ''
Her plan echoed a fight she waged during the Obama administration , when Warren helped identify a loophole of sorts — already encoded in the law — that enabled speedy debt forgiveness for thousands of students scammed by for-profit colleges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she saw a similar path forward for broader-scale forgiveness .
`` We could have a much more expansive student loan cancellation program under the current law , '' she said .
Any attempt at mass student debt forgiveness without the passage of a new law would likely be met with legal challenges from those who see it as an overreach of federal government authority .
And it would represent a huge logistical challenge for the Department of Education , a federal agency that has so far struggled to implement much smaller-scale student loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But any student loan forgiveness bill would also face steep opposition in Congress , where many Democrats do not yet back such a measure , and all Republicans are sharply opposed .
The Trump administration , under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos , has brought student loan forgiveness measures for defrauded for-profit college students to a standstill , a move that is being challenged in court .
Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed an even more sweeping student loan forgiveness bill — one that would wipe out every single dollar of student debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt burden .
Warren 's campaign provided few new details of how it would carry out or prioritize mass debt forgiveness .
`` I 'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $ 50,000 in debt for 95 % of student loan borrowers ( about 42 million people ) , '' Warren 's statement said .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren will start to cancel student loan debt from the first day she takes office if she's elected president, she said Tuesday, arguing that existing law would give her administration the power to wipe out student debt — without the need to pass a broad loan forgiveness bill in Congress.
Warren, who was the first major presidential candidate to call for mass student loan forgiveness, said she would direct her Secretary of Education to "begin to compromise and modify federal student loans," using a so-called safety valve in the Higher Education Act. Warren has said she would cancel up to $50,000 in student debt for middle-class Americans.
She cited experts at Harvard Law School's Project on Predatory Student Lending, a group that has long advocated for student loan forgiveness, who argue that debt cancellation would be "lawful and permissible."
Her plan echoed a fight she waged during the Obama administration, when Warren helped identify a loophole of sorts — already encoded in the law — that enabled speedy debt forgiveness for thousands of students scammed by for-profit colleges.
Warren told BuzzFeed News in June that she saw a similar path forward for broader-scale forgiveness. "We could have a much more expansive student loan cancellation program under the current law," she said.
Any attempt at mass student debt forgiveness without the passage of a new law would likely be met with legal challenges from those who see it as an overreach of federal government authority. And it would represent a huge logistical challenge for the Department of Education, a federal agency that has so far struggled to implement much smaller-scale student loan forgiveness, even under the Obama administration.
But any student loan forgiveness bill would also face steep opposition in Congress, where many Democrats do not yet back such a measure, and all Republicans are sharply opposed. The Trump administration, under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has brought student loan forgiveness measures for defrauded for-profit college students to a standstill, a move that is being challenged in court.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed an even more sweeping student loan forgiveness bill — one that would wipe out every single dollar of student debt for Americans, regardless of income or debt burden.
Warren's campaign provided few new details of how it would carry out or prioritize mass debt forgiveness.
"I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," Warren's statement said.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Apple Said It Is Helping In The Pensacola Shooting Investigation, But It Won't Unlock The Shooter's

Apple Said It Is Helping In The Pensacola Shooting Investigation, But It Won't Unlock The Shooter's iPhones

Apple denied a request from US Attorney General Bill Barr Monday evening to unlock two iPhones belonging to the Saudi Air Force cadet who killed three sailors and wounded eight others in a shooting at a naval air station in Pensacola , Florida , last month .
`` We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation .
Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely , thorough and are ongoing , '' the company said in a statement .
`` We responded to each request promptly , often within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Jacksonville , Pensacola and New York .
The queries resulted in many gigabytes of information that we turned over to investigators .
In every instance , we responded with all of the information that we had . ''
But Apple said nothing about actually unlocking the gunman 's two iPhones .
Instead , it reiterated its stance on privacy .
`` We have always maintained there is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys , '' the company explained .
`` Backdoors can also be exploited by those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data security of our customers .
... We feel strongly encryption is vital to protecting our country and our users ' data .
Earlier on Monday , Barr declared that the shooting was an act of terrorism and asked the company to unlock two phones — an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 5 — belonging to the gunman , who died in a shootout with security officers .
“ We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter ’ s iPhones .
So far Apple has not given us any substantive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference .
`` This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that investigators be able to get access to digital evidence once they have obtained a court order based on probable cause .
We call on Apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of Americans and prevent future attacks . ''
During the attack , the shooter placed one of his phones on the ground and shot a single round into it .
The other phone was undamaged .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the damaged phone , they have not been able to unlock it or the second phone , which Barr said the FBI needed to do to `` run down all leads and figure out with whom the shooter was communicating . ''
This is not the first time that Apple has squared off against federal law enforcement in defense of its users ' privacy , arguing that agreeing to such a request would require Apple to build a backdoor around its fingerprint-based encryption and set a dangerous precedent .
In 2015 , Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI by unlocking the iPhone belonging to another mass shooter — one of two terrorists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino .
In that case , the standoff was resolved after a private company working for the FBI found a way to unlock the phone .
“ We ’ re not trying to weaken encryption , to be clear , ” David Bowdich , the deputy director of the FBI , said at the news conference .
In his remarks , Barr suggested that the Trump administration had begun discussing legislation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in cases such as these .
Barr 's request also drew criticism from civil libertarians : `` The government ’ s demand would weaken the security of millions of iPhones , and is dangerous and unconstitutional , '' ACLU surveillance and cybersecurity counsel Jennifer Granick said in a statement .
`` There is simply no way for Apple , or any other company , to provide the FBI access to encrypted communications without also providing it to authoritarian foreign governments and weakening our defenses against criminals and hackers . ''
The day following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharply criticized the company on Twitter : `` We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues , and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers , drug dealers and other violent criminal elements , '' he wrote on Tuesday evening .

Apple denied a request from US Attorney General Bill Barr Monday evening to unlock two iPhones belonging to the Saudi Air Force cadet who killed three sailors and wounded eight others in a shooting at a naval air station in Pensacola, Florida, last month.
"We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation. Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely, thorough and are ongoing," the company said in a statement. "We responded to each request promptly, often within hours, sharing information with FBI offices in Jacksonville, Pensacola and New York. The queries resulted in many gigabytes of information that we turned over to investigators. In every instance, we responded with all of the information that we had."
But Apple said nothing about actually unlocking the gunman's two iPhones. Instead, it reiterated its stance on privacy.
"We have always maintained there is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys," the company explained. "Backdoors can also be exploited by those who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers. ... We feel strongly encryption is vital to protecting our country and our users' data.
Earlier on Monday, Barr declared that the shooting was an act of terrorism and asked the company to unlock two phones — an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 5 — belonging to the gunman, who died in a shootout with security officers.
“We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter’s iPhones. So far Apple has not given us any substantive assistance," Barr said in a press conference. "This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that investigators be able to get access to digital evidence once they have obtained a court order based on probable cause. We call on Apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of Americans and prevent future attacks."
During the attack, the shooter placed one of his phones on the ground and shot a single round into it. The other phone was undamaged. Although FBI agents have been able to reconstruct the damaged phone, they have not been able to unlock it or the second phone, which Barr said the FBI needed to do to "run down all leads and figure out with whom the shooter was communicating."
This is not the first time that Apple has squared off against federal law enforcement in defense of its users' privacy, arguing that agreeing to such a request would require Apple to build a backdoor around its fingerprint-based encryption and set a dangerous precedent.
In 2015, Apple defied a court order to assist the FBI by unlocking the iPhone belonging to another mass shooter — one of two terrorists who killed 14 people in San Bernardino. In that case, the standoff was resolved after a private company working for the FBI found a way to unlock the phone.
“We’re not trying to weaken encryption, to be clear,” David Bowdich, the deputy director of the FBI, said at the news conference.
In his remarks, Barr suggested that the Trump administration had begun discussing legislation to provide law enforcement access to encrypted phones in cases such as these.
Barr's request also drew criticism from civil libertarians: "The government’s demand would weaken the security of millions of iPhones, and is dangerous and unconstitutional," ACLU surveillance and cybersecurity counsel Jennifer Granick said in a statement. "There is simply no way for Apple, or any other company, to provide the FBI access to encrypted communications without also providing it to authoritarian foreign governments and weakening our defenses against criminals and hackers."
Update, Jan. 14:
The day following Apple's response, President Donald Trump sharply criticized the company on Twitter: "We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues, and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements," he wrote on Tuesday evening.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders Seemed To De-Escalate In The Debate. The Conflict Is "Not Exactl

Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders Seemed To De-Escalate In The Debate. The Conflict Is "Not Exactly" Over.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at the end of the debate Tuesday , Jan. 14 , 2020 .
DES MOINES — “ So Sen. Sanders , I do want to be clear here , ” the moderator started .
“ You 're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election ?
” Bernie Sanders replied unequivocally .
“ That is correct , ” he said .
The debate moderator , CNN ’ s Abby Phillip , turned back to his Senate colleague .
“ Sen .
Warren , what did you think when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not win the election ?
” The explosive conflict between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , two progressive giants and self-described friends , came to a head here in Iowa in one of the most fraught and surreal moments of a yearlong Democratic primary — and ended with a seemingly tense exchange between the two candidates as they parted ways onstage after Tuesday ’ s two-hour debate .
After the fast-developing and chaotic controversy over a private meeting between the two senators — beginning on Monday with Sanders aides calling the reports “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday with both campaigns seeking to “ de-escalate ” the conflict — Warren seemed to try offering the final word .
Telling viewers she was “ not here to fight with Bernie , ” the Massachusetts senator pivoted the conflict into a case for the electability of women candidates , addressing a longstanding fear among some Democratic voters about her candidacy and drawing the only other woman on the debate stage , Amy Klobuchar , into an alliance .
“ This question about whether or not a woman can be president has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to attack it head-on , ” she said onstage in Des Moines .
“ And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people 's winning record .
So , can a woman beat Donald Trump ?
Look at the men on this stage.
” She gestured to the candidates to her left and right : Sanders , Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg .
“ Collectively , they have lost ten elections , ” she said .
“ The only people on this stage who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 've been in are the women .
Amy and me.
” Klobuchar smiled and leaned into her microphone .
“ So true , ” she said .
In the end , the longer back-and-forth between Warren and Sanders was an uncomfortable exchange over Sanders ’ electoral record .
Sanders took issue with Warren ’ s claim that she was the only candidate on stage to have defeated an incumbent Republican “ in 30 years.
” “ Well , just to set the record straight , I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the candidates moved on without incident to other issues .
After the debate was over , though , Warren approached Sanders as the candidates were exiting the stage .
Sanders extended his hand , but the two did not shake hands .
An animated back-and forth ensued , with another candidate , Tom Steyer , looking on in uncomfortable silence .

DES MOINES — “So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here,” the moderator started.
“You're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?”
Bernie Sanders replied unequivocally. “That is correct,” he said.
The debate moderator, CNN’s Abby Phillip, turned back to his Senate colleague.
“Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
“I disagreed,” she replied, also unequivocally.
The explosive conflict between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two progressive giants and self-described friends, came to a head here in Iowa in one of the most fraught and surreal moments of a yearlong Democratic primary — and ended with a seemingly tense exchange between the two candidates as they parted ways onstage after Tuesday’s two-hour debate.
After the fast-developing and chaotic controversy over a private meeting between the two senators — beginning on Monday with Sanders aides calling the reports “a lie” and ending on Tuesday with both campaigns seeking to “de-escalate” the conflict — Warren seemed to try offering the final word.
Telling viewers she was “not here to fight with Bernie,” the Massachusetts senator pivoted the conflict into a case for the electability of women candidates, addressing a longstanding fear among some Democratic voters about her candidacy and drawing the only other woman on the debate stage, Amy Klobuchar, into an alliance.
“This question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised and it’s time for us to attack it head-on,” she said onstage in Des Moines. “And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people's winning record. So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage.”
She gestured to the candidates to her left and right: Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg.
“Collectively, they have lost 10 elections,” she said. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women. Amy and me.”
Klobuchar smiled and leaned into her microphone. “So true,” she said.
In the end, the longer back-and-forth between Warren and Sanders was an uncomfortable exchange over Sanders’ electoral record. Sanders took issue with Warren’s claim that she was the only candidate on stage to have defeated an incumbent Republican “in 30 years.”
“Well, just to set the record straight, I defeated an incumbent Republican running for Congress,” Sanders said.
“When?” Warren asked.
Sanders replied: “1990. That's how I won. Beat a Republican congressman. Number two.”
“30 years ago,” Warren said.
From there, the candidates moved on without incident to other issues.
After the debate was over, though, Warren approached Sanders as the candidates were exiting the stage. Sanders extended his hand, but the two did not shake hands. An animated back-and-forth ensued, with another candidate, Tom Steyer, looking on in uncomfortable silence.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--What The Hell Is Tom Steyer Doing On That Debate Stage?

So what is Tom Steyer doing on the debate stage tonight ?
He ’ s a truly successful money manager , a quirkily charming guy , and a climate activist for long enough to prove his sincerity .
But as the debates have winnowed to people with a clear shot at being president , his plaid tie and fourth-wall stare grew jarring Tuesday .
The answer to this question has less to do with Steyer than with the Democratic National Committee , which ended the 2016 presidential cycle under siege .
DNC insiders , in emails published by Wikileaks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ’ s left suspected the system had been rigged against them .
So for 2020 , DNC chairman Tom Perez abandoned the DNC ’ s traditional role of , well , rigging the system , and steering the party .
And the committee instead created a system someone else could rig , if they thought about the primary process more in terms of arbitrage than as persuasion .
Steyer ’ s professional career has been mentioned , when it ’ s mentioned at all , mostly in coverage of his firm Farallon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would help fund climate activism .
There ’ s been virtually no coverage of the broader sweep of his career , which — as I gather from the occasional story in Bloomberg and Institutional Investor — involved using elite connections and a great reputation to raise a huge amount of money ; and to build a “ multistrategy arbitrage operation.
” Arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of different prices of an asset in different markets , buying in one and immediately selling in the other .
In particular , Steyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merger arbitrage , in which he would simultaneously buy and sell the stocks of two companies that are merging , and profit when the deal closed .
Investors reportedly liked Steyer because he got great returns with relatively low-risk strategies like that one ; unlike many in his generation of financiers , he didn ’ t get rich borrowing money and taking huge risks .
He got rich studying systems carefully and exploiting the gaps .
And that ’ s what Steyer ’ s doing on that debate stage , his spokesman circulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the swallowed the canary .
It 's why moderator Wolf Blitzer is asking — aren ’ t we all — “ Would a President Steyer use military force as a deterrent ?
” Some of the candidates who aren ’ t there also raised and spent millions .
But only Steyer exploited the DNC ’ s complex system , in which you need to meet percentage requirements in a series of polls to qualify for the debates .
He realized that popularity in South Carolina in December and January can be bought relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot on the Des Moines stage .
And so he essentially converted an investment in a strangely early advertising campaign in South Carolina — when he was basically alone on the air there — into poll results that got him into the debate .
Soon , the system leaves the hands of the DNC and enters ( mostly ) the hands of Democratic voters .
You probably can ’ t arbitrage your way to the nomination .
But Steyer ’ s success marks a new stage in the collapse of the Establishment Institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political process .
And as in pretty much everything else these days , a kind of financial speculation immediately filled the gap .
The DNC thought it was transparently laying out a system that nobody could see as rigged .
Instead , it was creating a great opportunity for a skilled arbitrageur .

So what is Tom Steyer doing on the debate stage tonight?
He’s a truly successful money manager, a quirkily charming guy, and a climate activist for long enough to prove his sincerity. But as the debates have winnowed to people with a clear shot at being president, his plaid tie and fourth-wall stare grew jarring Tuesday.
The answer to this question has less to do with Steyer than with the Democratic National Committee, which ended the 2016 presidential cycle under siege. DNC insiders, in emails published by WikiLeaks, clearly favored Hillary Clinton, and the party’s left suspected the system had been rigged against them.
So for 2020, DNC Chair Tom Perez abandoned the committee's traditional role of, well, rigging the system and steering the party. And it instead created a system someone else could rig — if they thought about the primary process more in terms of arbitrage than persuasion.
Steyer’s professional career has been mentioned, when it’s mentioned at all, mostly in coverage of his firm Farallon’s investments in dirty energy, which would help fund climate activism. There’s been virtually no coverage of the broader sweep of his career, which — as I gather from the occasional story in Bloomberg and Institutional Investor — involved using elite connections and a great reputation to raise a huge amount of money and build a “multistrategy arbitrage operation.”
Arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of different prices of an asset in different markets, buying in one and immediately selling in the other. In particular, Steyer learned at Goldman Sachs the practice of merger arbitrage, in which he would simultaneously buy and sell the stocks of two companies that are merging, and profit when the deal closed. Investors reportedly liked Steyer because he got great returns with relatively low-risk strategies like that one; unlike many in his generation of financiers, he didn’t get rich borrowing money and taking huge risks. He got rich studying systems carefully and exploiting the gaps.
And that’s what Steyer’s doing on that debate stage, his spokesperson circulating the press file looking like the cat who swallowed the canary. It's why moderator Wolf Blitzer is asking — aren’t we all — “Would a President Steyer use military force as a deterrent?”
Some of the candidates who aren’t there also raised and spent millions. But only Steyer exploited the DNC’s complex system, in which you need to meet percentage requirements in a series of polls to qualify for the debates. He realized that popularity in South Carolina in December and January can be bought relatively cheap — and converted into a coveted spot on the Des Moines stage. And so he essentially converted an investment in a strangely early advertising campaign in South Carolina — when he was basically alone on the air there — into poll results that got him into the debate.
Soon, the system leaves the hands of the DNC and enters (mostly) the hands of Democratic voters. You probably can’t arbitrage your way to the nomination.
But Steyer’s success marks a new stage in the collapse of the Establishment Institutions that used to control America’s political process. And as in pretty much everything else these days, a kind of financial speculation immediately filled the gap. The DNC thought it was transparently laying out a system that nobody could see as rigged. Instead, it was creating a great opportunity for a skilled arbitrageur.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Congress Released Messages From Rudy Giuliani’s Associate As New Impeachment Evidence

The evidence includes text messages , handwritten notes , and other correspondence from Lev Parnas , one of the men who worked with Rudy Giuliani to dig up dirt in Ukraine .
WASHINGTON — House Democrats have released dozens of pages of new documents related to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump , including texts and notes turned over by a key associate to Rudy Giuliani , a lawyer working for the president who ran the Ukrainian backchannel campaign at the center of Trump ’ s impeachment .
Three House committees sent the evidence to the House Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the official record that will be transmitted to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.
” The House is expected to send the articles to the Senate on Wednesday afternoon .
The evidence sent by the Intelligence , Oversight , and Foreign Affairs committees included documents provided recently by Lev Parnas , who helped Giuliani dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden , in response to a subpoena Parnas received from the House in October .
The committees said the evidence also included call records , which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitivity .
“ 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 , ” the chairs of all four committees said in a statement .
The committees said Parnas “ continues to provide material responsive to the subpoena on a rolling basis.
” Here are some highlights from the documents the committees made public : The notes , written on stationery from the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Vienna appear to be a to-do list related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incriminating information on Biden , one of the president ’ s top Democratic rivals .
The former vice president ’ s son Hunter worked for a Ukrainian gas company that faced corruption allegations .
Parnas may have written the notes last July , as he notes in texts to Giuliani on July 2 that he was headed to Vienna .
“ [ T ] rying to get us mr Z , ” Parnas told Giuliani at the time , appearing to reference a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
One bullet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Annonce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.
” In another , Parnas says to “ start commun [ icating ] with ” Zelensky without involving two Ukrainian oligarchs — Victor Pinchuk and Igor Kolomoisky .
Parnas and his business partner Igor Fruman previously sought to use Kolomoisky to set up a meeting with Zelensky .
“ Put together a package , ” reads the next point , and “ go to DC with package.
” The following bullet says Parnas should do his “ magic ” and “ cut deal.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two Trumpworld lawyers — Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova — are mentioned as having been “ retained ” at $ 100,000 per month .
The notes also say to hire one of two well-connected lobbyists in Trump ’ s Washington : Brian Ballard and Robert Stryk .
Parnas cashed two checks totaling $ 45,000 from Ballard ’ s firm in 2018 for work that it has said is unrelated to Ukraine .
In a letter dated May 10 , 2019 , Giuliani introduced himself to Zelensky as Trump ’ s personal lawyer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory ” in the Ukrainian presidential election .
“ Along with many others , I am very hopeful that your election is a real turning point and allows the Ukraine to prosper and overcome some or the long-standing problems of the past , ” Giuliani wrote .
“ Anything I can do to help you or your country would be a great honor .
“ However , I have a more specific request , ” he continued .
“ In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you on this upcoming Monday , May 13th or Tuesday , May 14th .
I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing , a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter.
” Trump would speak with Zelensky by phone two months later after placing a hold on millions in foreign aid to Ukraine .
Trump has sought to distance himself from Giuliani ’ s efforts to find incriminating evidence on Biden in Ukraine .
Parnas and Fruman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by John Dowd , who once served as the president ’ s lead lawyer in former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation .
“ I have discussed the issue of representation with the President , ” Jay Sekulow , the president ’ s current lawyer , wrote to Dowd on Oct. 2 .
“ The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.
” Parnas and Fruman were later arrested on campaign finance charges as they prepared to leave the country , and both have new lawyers representing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages turned over by Parnas show his efforts to have then–US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch — a prominent anti-corruption advocate — recalled from her post in Ukraine .
Parnas was working with Yuriy Lutsenko , the former prosecutor general of Ukraine , to dig up dirt on the Bidens — and text messages between the pair reveal why removing the ambassador was important to them .
“ It ’ s just that if you don ’ t make a decision about Madam—you are bringing into question all my allegations .
Including about B , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a translation by the Intelligence Committee .
Texts between Parnas and Robert F. Hyde , a Republican who ’ s running for Congress in Connecticut this year , suggest Yovanovitch was under surveillance in Kyiv before she was abruptly recalled to Washington .
Yovanovitch had previously said she was told by a Trump administration officials that her recall was related to her “ security , ” but that it was unclear what that meant .
“ Can ’ t believe Trumo hasn ’ t fired this bitch .
I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texted Parnas in March 2019 , after Parnashe sent him press coverage about Yovanovitch .
“ She under heavy protection outside Kiev , ” Hyde wrote later that day .
“ My guy thinks maybe FSB.. ?
” Hyde said , apparently referring to the Russian spy agency .
The men continued messaging each other on WhatsApp .
Two days later , Hyde sent Parnas a series of texts about Yovanovitch ’ s supposed movements .
“ The guys over they asked me what I would like to do and what is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They will let me know when she ’ s on the move , ” he later said .
“ They are willing to help if we/you would like a price .
Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money ... what I was told , ” Hyde said .
In a statement to NBC News Tuesday night , an attorney for Yovanovitch called the idea that she was being surveilled `` disturbing '' and called for an investigation by the `` appropriate authorities . ''
Yovanovitch and Hyde ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ' requests for comment .
Christopher Miller and Hayes Brown contributed to this story .

The interview aired after House Democrats released hundreds of pages of new documents related to the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, including texts and notes turned over by Parnas.
Three House committees sent the evidence to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday “to be included as part of the official record that will be transmitted to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.” The House sent the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening.
In a statement to MSNBC as the interview aired, Giuliani said Parnas had "never" spoken on behalf of Trump in his meetings.
He added that Parnas is "a very sad situation."
The evidence sent by the Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees included documents provided recently by Parnas, who helped Giuliani dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, in response to a subpoena he received from the House in October. The committees said the evidence also included call records, which they did not make public due to their sensitivity.
“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,” the chairs of all four committees said in a statement.
The committees said Parnas “continues to provide material responsive to the subpoena on a rolling basis.”
Here are some highlights from the documents the committees made public:


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Is Telling Key Supporters To De-Escalate The Fight With Bernie Sanders


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--This Was The Democratic Presidential Debate You Actually Needed To Watch

Tonight 's debate in Iowa was the last big , scheduled moment before people actually start voting in the Democratic presidential primaries .
The debate hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register is the smallest stage we 've seen so far , featuring only Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , and Tom Steyer .
It 's also the whitest : Andrew Yang , who was in the last debate , just missed qualifying for this one .
But the smallness of the stage should be a help for voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few weeks , on Feb. 3 .
This is the last debate before caucusing begins .
It 's the last chance for some of these candidates to win voters on a debate stage or change the course of their campaigns .
It , really , is actually a pretty big deal .
Here 's some of what to watch for .
Sanders and Warren are the two leaders in the primary 's left lane , and both are at the top of the latest Des Moines Register Iowa poll .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticize each other , pursuing something of a friendship pact while directing more negative focus elsewhere ( Biden for Sanders , Buttigieg for Warren ) .
That truce looks to be ending pretty dramatically .
Over the weekend , Politico reported that Sanders ' campaign had a script for volunteers that suggested telling voters that Warren was `` bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party . ''
Sanders distanced himself from the script , telling reporters `` no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth , '' but not before Warren said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me . ''
The bigger moment came Monday , when CNN reported that Sanders told Warren in a private meeting in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency .
Sanders denied making that comment .
Hours later , Warren said in a statement that he had .
`` Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate , '' Warren said Monday night .
`` I thought a woman could win ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry . ''
Before every single debate we 've had so far , someone has pundited that this would be the debate where the gloves would come off and Warren and Sanders would trade their barbs .
To this point , it has not happened even a little .
This debate genuinely feels different .
And it 's impossible to think CNN 's moderators will not ask both candidates about an explosive story first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have led Iowa polls ( Buttigieg in November , Biden at the outset of the campaign and again in some new polling ) , and they 're both squarely in the mix in the top four .
But Buttigieg 's candidacy , like that of many others , has always appeared to hinge on Biden slipping .
Both candidates are pushing a more centrist politics — in the new Des Moines Register poll , majorities of their supporters say it 's important to have a candidate who can bring Republicans into their campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voters .
Biden has not slipped in Iowa , and at this point it 's getting tricky to imagine what exactly would cause a slip , or what one would look like .
But after being the focus of attacks in the last debate , Buttigieg has a chance now to be less on the defensive Tuesday .
One thing to look out for : how much Buttigieg , who served in Afghanistan , and others go in on Biden 's vote for the Iraq War in 2002 .
Elizabeth Warren has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the start of the year : She is the primary 's true unity candidate , the one who can bring supporters of all candidates together in a final race against Trump .
Pete Buttigieg , a former mayor of a city in a red state , has been making this argument for months .
Joe Biden , a self-determined successor of the Obama coalition who has a huge advantage with black voters , has been making this argument for months .
Amy Klobuchar , a moderate who has run up big electoral margins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making this argument for months .
Even Bernie Sanders has been making a version of this argument , pointing to his supporters ' energy and enthusiasm to win converts .
There 's a reason candidates are locking in on this pitch as voting is set to begin : Democratic voters have consistently said all year that the thing they care about most is `` electability , '' and what better way to show you 're electable than by proving you 're the one that can bring the party together after a long primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can pick and choose data to suggest that they 're the true unity candidate .
But the argument is about feeling as much as anything : Who can voters imagine leading the other candidates onstage , and their supporters , joyfully behind them come summer ?
Democrats get freaked out by the idea of long-running internal conflict — some might still remember the pro-Clinton PUMA faction against Obama in 2008 , most definitely remember the bad feelings between Sanders and Clinton supporters in 2016 .
Tuesday night gives candidates a chance to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that off , before the stage gets even smaller .
Whom does Amy Klobuchar like most ?
Klobuchar has exceeded most expectations for her campaign , outlasting flashier candidates like Kamala Harris , Cory Booker , and Beto O'Rourke and qualifying for the last debate before the Iowa caucuses ahead of Andrew Yang .
But as of right now , her odds of truly breaking through remain low : the Iowa poll showed her with 6 % support among the state 's Democrats — which is impressive , but well outside the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave her below the state 's threshold for viability on caucus night .
This gets a touch confusing — the simplest way of thinking about this is that in Iowa 's system , if a candidate is not able to hit a certain level of support in the first vote at a particular caucus , that candidate is eliminated in that caucus and their supporters are able to vote for one of the remaining candidates .
In a super-tight race like this one appears to be , Klobuchar 's 6 % ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who 's not debating Tuesday ) could make a winner .
So ... does Klobuchar give any indication of where her supporters could land in caucuses where she 's not viable ?
The Minnesota senator has spent her campaign arguing that she 's the best bet to beat Trump , a pragmatic moderate who has won voters in Republican areas and is an antagonist of some progressive priorities like Medicare for All .
She also used much of her speaking time in the last debate to attack the qualifications of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar arguments : Pete Buttigieg .

Tonight's debate in Iowa was the last big, scheduled moment before people actually start voting in the Democratic presidential primaries.
The debate hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register is the smallest stage we've seen so far, featuring only Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer. It's also the whitest: Andrew Yang, who was in the last debate, just missed qualifying for this one.
But the smallness of the stage should be a help for voters. The first voting starts in Iowa in just a few weeks, on Feb. 3. This is the last debate before caucusing begins. It's the last chance for some of these candidates to win voters on a debate stage or change the course of their campaigns. It, really, is actually a pretty big deal.
Here's some of what to watch for.
Sanders vs. Warren
Sanders and Warren are the two leaders in the primary's left lane, and both are at the top of the latest Des Moines Register Iowa poll. They've also historically been extra hesitant to criticize each other, pursuing something of a friendship pact while directing more negative focus elsewhere (Biden for Sanders, Buttigieg for Warren).
That truce looks to be ending pretty dramatically.
Over the weekend, Politico reported that Sanders' campaign had a script for volunteers that suggested telling voters that Warren was "bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party." Sanders distanced himself from the script, telling reporters "no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth," but not before Warren said she was "disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me."
The bigger moment came Monday, when CNN reported that Sanders told Warren in a private meeting in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency. Sanders denied making that comment.
Hours later, Warren said in a statement that he had. "Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate," Warren said Monday night. "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry."
Before every single debate we've had so far, someone has pundited that this would be the debate where the gloves would come off and Warren and Sanders would trade their barbs. To this point, it has not happened even a little.
This debate genuinely feels different. And it's impossible to think CNN's moderators will not ask both candidates about an explosive story first published by CNN's reporters.
Can Buttigieg upstage Biden?
Both have led Iowa polls (Buttigieg in November, Biden at the outset of the campaign and again in some new polling), and they're both squarely in the mix in the top four.
But Buttigieg's candidacy, like that of many others, has always appeared to hinge on Biden slipping. Both candidates are pushing a more centrist politics — in the new Des Moines Register poll, majorities of their supporters say it's important to have a candidate who can bring Republicans into their campaigns — and they appeal to similar sets of voters.
Biden has not slipped in Iowa, and at this point it's getting tricky to imagine what exactly would cause a slip, or what one would look like. But after being the focus of attacks in the last debate, Buttigieg has a chance now to be less on the defensive Tuesday. One thing to look out for: how much Buttigieg, who served in Afghanistan, and others go in on Biden's vote for the Iraq War in 2002.
Who's the "unity" candidate?
Elizabeth Warren has been making a very explicit pitch since the start of the year: She is the primary's true unity candidate, the one who can bring supporters of all candidates together in a final race against Trump.
Pete Buttigieg, a former mayor of a city in a red state, has been making this argument for months. Joe Biden, a self-determined successor of the Obama coalition who has a huge advantage with black voters, has been making this argument for months. Amy Klobuchar, a moderate who has run up big electoral margins in a purple state, has been making this argument for months. Even Bernie Sanders has been making a version of this argument, pointing to his supporters' energy and enthusiasm to win converts.
There's a reason candidates are locking in on this pitch as voting is set to begin: Democratic voters have consistently said all year that the thing they care about most is "electability," and what better way to show you're electable than by proving you're the one that can bring the party together after a long primary with 45 presidential candidates.
Each candidate can pick and choose data to suggest that they're the true unity candidate. But the argument is about feeling as much as anything: Who can voters imagine leading the other candidates onstage, and their supporters, joyfully behind them come summer? Democrats get freaked out by the idea of long-running internal conflict — some might still remember the pro-Clinton PUMA faction against Obama in 2008, most definitely remember the bad feelings between Sanders and Clinton supporters in 2016. Tuesday night gives candidates a chance to convince voters they're best positioned to head that off, before the stage gets even smaller.
Whom does Amy Klobuchar like most?
Klobuchar has exceeded most expectations for her campaign, outlasting flashier candidates like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Beto O'Rourke and qualifying for the last debate before the Iowa caucuses ahead of Andrew Yang. But as of right now, her odds of truly breaking through remain low: the Iowa poll showed her with 6% support among the state's Democrats — which is impressive, but well outside the top four.
That level of support would leave her below the state's threshold for viability on caucus night. This gets a touch confusing — the simplest way of thinking about this is that in Iowa's system, if a candidate is not able to hit a certain level of support in the first vote at a particular caucus, that candidate is eliminated in that caucus and their supporters are able to vote for one of the remaining candidates.
In a super-tight race like this one appears to be, Klobuchar's 6% (and the current 5% from Andrew Yang, who's not debating Tuesday) could make a winner.
So...does Klobuchar give any indication of where her supporters could land in caucuses where she's not viable? The Minnesota senator has spent her campaign arguing that she's the best bet to beat Trump, a pragmatic moderate who has won voters in Republican areas and is an antagonist of some progressive priorities like Medicare for All. She also used much of her speaking time in the last debate to attack the qualifications of one of the other candidates who has tried making similar arguments: Pete Buttigieg.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Key Witnesses In The Mueller Probe Told Investigators How Sean Hannity Advised Trump's Closest Aides

In Mueller ’ s published report , Hannity is mentioned just a handful of times , often in relation to comments guests made on his show .
But in the documents — interview summaries with key witnesses that informed the report 's narrative , known as 302s — Hannity is mentioned more than a dozen times and emerges as a central point of contact between the president ’ s allies who were under investigation and Trump himself .
BuzzFeed News will receive thousands more pages of interview summaries with other witnesses in the months ahead .
But hundreds of pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the depths of the conservative firebrand ’ s relationship with key members of President Donald Trump ’ s orbit as they faced a vast criminal investigation conducted by Mueller ’ s team over two years .
The documents , turned over by the Justice Department and FBI in response to a BuzzFeed News Freedom of Information Act lawsuit , also raise ethical questions about Hannity ’ s role as a trusted adviser to the president ’ s circle at the height of Mueller ’ s inquiry — something the television host failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WASHINGTON — Sean Hannity has never been shy about using his highly rated Fox News show to express his disdain for former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election and the president ’ s efforts to obstruct the inquiry .
As Hannity and Trump ’ s relationship flourished during the 2016 campaign , the Fox News personality met often with other members of the then-candidate ’ s entourage , according to one witness interviewed by Mueller ’ s team .
“ Trump and Manafort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often , ” Rick Gates , Manafort ’ s former deputy , told the FBI .
Trump , in this case , appears to be the president ’ s eldest son , Donald Jr. , per handwritten notes attached to the interview summary .
A lawyer for Manafort did not respond to requests for comment .
The White House declined to comment .
Fox News declined to answer a series of questions BuzzFeed News sent the network about Hannity ’ s appearance in the documents .
Instead , through a spokesperson , Hannity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already called into question the reporting of BuzzFeed [ News ] .
I stand by my incredible investigative team and our great sources and reporting.
” “ It ’ s alarming , ” Kelly McBride , senior vice president of the Poynter Institute and an expert in journalistic ethics , said of Hannity ’ s appearances in the interview summaries .
“ It ’ s evidence that Hannity is as much a part of the president ’ s inner circle as he is Fox ’ s inner circle , and so you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , Hannity used his nightly Fox News program to question the integrity of the special counsel ’ s investigation , calling Mueller a “ disgrace to the American justice system .
” At one point , the host even “ advised ” witnesses to `` bash '' their phones `` into itsy-bitsy pieces . ''
( Hannity would later clarify that he was being facetious . )
In one instance , former campaign chair Paul Manafort describes Hannity as “ a close personal friend ” who acted as a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In another , Hannity counsels Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former longtime personal attorney , after he received an inquiry from Congress .
The next year , Hannity ’ s proximity to the president was on full display , according to other witnesses interviewed by Mueller ’ s team .
When Cohen received a letter from the House of Representatives asking him to testify , he turned to Hannity , who suggested a lawyer , Cohen said .
“ Hannity recommended [ Jay ] Sekulow and gave his name and phone number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview summary states , adding that Sekulow ended up representing the president .
Later that summer , Hannity would also advise Manafort after the FBI raided his home , telling him to “ stay strong ” and offering to “ strategize ” with him , according to text messages unsealed by a federal judge last year .
But according to the FBI interview summaries , Manafort understood the Fox News host to be passing along messages from the president — whom Mueller accused of trying to “ influence ” Manafort after he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking to Trump around then because Hannity would tell Manafort to hang in there , that he had been talking to Trump , that Trump had his back , and things like that , ” reads a summary of an October 2018 interview with Manafort .
“ Manafort understood his conversations with Hannity to be a message from Trump.
” That detail is absent from Mueller ’ s final report , which focuses on Trump ’ s efforts to “ encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government ” after he was indicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a plea deal , only to violate it .
The timing of the conversations between Manafort and Hannity is also crucial .
In the weeks after the FBI searched Manafort ’ s home , Trump appeared to distance himself from his former campaign chair , saying he hadn ’ t spoken to Manafort “ in a long time.
” Manafort told investigators he didn ’ t remember exactly when his conversations with Hannity occurred , but that the “ frequency was dependent on what was going on at the time ; sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks not at all.
” That summer , Hannity also spoke to several people within Trump ’ s sphere about the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting , where senior campaign officials were offered incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as “ part of Russia and its government 's support for Mr. Trump.
” Reince Priebus , the White House chief of staff at the time , told Mueller he learned about the meeting from Hannity , and Manafort told investigators that he discussed the meeting after news of it broke in July .
“ Manafort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They did not talk about strategy , just the facts , ” his interview summary says .
That month , Donald Trump Jr. would appear on Hannity ’ s show to give his first sit-down interview about the meeting .
It wouldn ’ t be the first time the Trump team would use Hannity ’ s program for messaging purposes .
The interview summaries show Cohen describing how , in 2015 , he used Hannity ’ s radio show to tease a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin after former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Putin at the United Nations General Assembly .
Cohen and Trump agreed “ it would be funny for the two men to meet at Trump Tower and have a burger , ” Cohen told investigators .
After Cohen spoke to Hannity , “ Trump asked a handful of times for updates , ” the summary states .
Cohen then tried to call the Kremlin — after using Google to find a phone number — to set up the meeting .
In another interview , Cohen told investigators that when he prepared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a specific conversation about keeping TRUMP out of the UNGA narrative ” because he had discussed it on Hannity ’ s show .
Cohen would later plead guilty to lying to Congress about other elements of the president ’ s relationship with Russia .
McBride , who serves as chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership , a journalistic ethics group launched by the Poynter Institute , is baffled by Fox News ’ acceptance of Hannity ’ s relationship to Trump and his circle .
“ Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear political ideology , you want your talent to place their loyalties with the audience , not the sources , ” McBride said , “ unless your true objective has nothing to do with serving your audience , but your true objective actually is to carry out a political agenda.
” ●

The next year, Hannity’s proximity to the president was on full display, according to other witnesses interviewed by Mueller’s team. When Cohen received a letter from the House of Representatives asking him to testify, he turned to Hannity, who suggested a lawyer, Cohen said. “Hannity recommended [Jay] Sekulow and gave his name and phone number to Cohen,” a November 2018 interview summary states, adding that Sekulow ended up representing the president.
Later that summer, Hannity would also advise Manafort after the FBI raided his home, telling him to “stay strong” and offering to “strategize” with him, according to text messages unsealed by a federal judge last year.
But according to the FBI interview summaries, Manafort understood the Fox News host to be passing along messages from the president — whom Mueller accused of trying to “influence” Manafort after he was charged.
“Manafort knew Hannity was speaking to Trump around then because Hannity would tell Manafort to hang in there, that he had been talking to Trump, that Trump had his back, and things like that,” reads a summary of an October 2018 interview with Manafort. “Manafort understood his conversations with Hannity to be a message from Trump.”
That detail is absent from Mueller’s final report, which focuses on Trump’s efforts to “encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government” after he was indicted in October 2017. Manafort did eventually take a plea deal, only to violate it.
The timing of the conversations between Manafort and Hannity is also crucial. In the weeks after the FBI searched Manafort’s home, Trump appeared to distance himself from his former campaign chair, saying he hadn’t spoken to Manafort “in a long time.” Manafort told investigators he didn’t remember exactly when his conversations with Hannity occurred, but that the “frequency was dependent on what was going on at the time; sometimes they spoke twice a week, some weeks not at all.”
That summer, Hannity also spoke to several people within Trump’s sphere about the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting, where senior campaign officials were offered incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.” Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff at the time, told Mueller he learned about the meeting from Hannity, and Manafort told investigators that he discussed the meeting after news of it broke in July. “Manafort thought he probably just complained about it. They did not talk about strategy, just the facts,” his interview summary says. That month, Donald Trump Jr. would appear on Hannity’s show to give his first sit-down interview about the meeting.
It wouldn’t be the first time the Trump team would use Hannity’s program for messaging purposes. The interview summaries show Cohen describing how, in 2015, he used Hannity’s radio show to tease a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin after former president Barack Obama refused to sit down with Putin at the United Nations General Assembly. Cohen and Trump agreed “it would be funny for the two men to meet at Trump Tower and have a burger,” Cohen told investigators.
After Cohen spoke to Hannity, “Trump asked a handful of times for updates,” the summary states. Cohen then tried to call the Kremlin — after using Google to find a phone number — to set up the meeting. In another interview, Cohen told investigators that when he prepared to testify to Congress in 2017, “there was a specific conversation about keeping TRUMP out of the UNGA narrative” because he had discussed it on Hannity’s show. Cohen would later plead guilty to lying to Congress about other elements of the president’s relationship with Russia.
McBride, who serves as chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership, a journalistic ethics group launched by the Poynter Institute, is baffled by Fox News’ acceptance of Hannity’s relationship to Trump and his circle.
“Even if you are a partisan network, with a clear political ideology, you want your talent to place their loyalties with the audience, not the sources,” McBride said, “unless your true objective has nothing to do with serving your audience, but your true objective actually is to carry out a political agenda.” ●


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Trump’s Senate Impeachment Trial Can Now Begin

After delays , the House voted to send two articles of impeachment to the Senate , which will begin considering whether to remove Trump from office in the coming days .
WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to send two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate , setting up a trial .
The House also voted to approve seven Democratic impeachment managers , who will argue the case against Trump to the Senate during his trial .
The Democrats , who were appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier Wednesday , all have legal or law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the trial , arguing that senators must remove Trump from office over abuse of power and obstruction of justice impeachment charges .
The managers physically walked the articles from the House to the Senate Wednesday evening .
The trial is expected to begin in earnest next week , following some procedural setup on Thursday .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that first , the House managers will be invited to officially present the articles of impeachment at noon Thursday ; then Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will arrive at 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After that , the Senate will invite Trump to present his counsel , and the actual trial will start next Tuesday .
The House voted 228–193 in favor of sending the articles to the Senate earlier Wednesday .
Just one Democrat — Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson — voted no .
Peterson also voted against impeaching Trump in December .
Independent Rep. Justin Amash , who left the Republican Party last year in part because of Trump , voted with Democrats in favor of starting the Senate 's trial .
No Republican voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chair of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the impeachment managers , made the case for removing Trump from office just ahead of Wednesday 's vote .
“ There ’ s overwhelming evidence that the president pressured the Ukrainian government to interfere in our election on his behalf .
Then he covered it up .
These are high crimes and misdemeanors , and we will prove that in the Senate , ” Nadler said .
Pelosi had delayed sending over the articles for weeks after the House voted to impeach Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that the trial would be fair after McConnell said he would be coordinating his strategy with the White House .
But even some Senate Democrats grew weary with Pelosi ’ s decision to slow-walk the articles .
“ If we ’ re going to do it , she should send them over .
I don ’ t see what good delay does , ” California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Bloomberg last week .
Rep. Adam Smith , chair of the House Armed Services Committee , echoed the same sentiment during a television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two politicians walked their statements back ; Smith recanted within hours of criticizing Pelosi ’ s strategy .
“ I misspoke this morning , I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial , ” Smith wrote on Twitter .
“ If the Speaker believes that holding on to the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate , then I wholeheartedly support that decision.
” Republicans meanwhile had called Democrats hypocritical for delaying sending the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impeachment was urgent and a threat to the 2020 election during the House phase of the investigation .
Pelosi said she initially held back from pushing forward with impeachment despite “ obvious violations ” the president had already committed for fear of how it would divide the country .
“ Frankly , I said this president isn ’ t worth it , ” Pelosi said .
“ But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He gave us no choice . ''
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy condemned Pelosi and House Democrats in a speech on the floor just before Wednesday ’ s vote , calling the impeachment process a “ national nightmare ” and criticizing the speaker 's delay in sending over the articles after Democrats expressed urgency to push forward .
“ If impeachment was truly as urgent as Democrats claim , the majority should not have waited for the speaker to choose a political , convenient time , ” McCarthy said .
Nadler addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor speech .
“ My colleagues in the minority would rather talk about anything than try to defend what President Trump actually did .
Because they can ’ t , ” Nadler said .
It will now be up to the Senate to determine the rules for the trial , but McConnell has said that the process will be political and that no one should expect him to be an impartial juror .
He recently announced Republicans had enough votes to shape the rules and structure of the trial without needing Democratic votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been pushing for the Senate to include witnesses in the trial — including former national security adviser John Bolton , acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair , and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey , all of whom had firsthand knowledge of Trump ’ s interactions with Ukraine , which spawned the impeachment inquiry .
McConnell has n't formally said whether the Senate will allow witnesses to testify , but he has said it will vote on the issue after opening arguments and once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions to both sides in the trial .
Should the trial include witnesses , McConnell has indicated that both Republicans and Democrats would get to call them .

“I misspoke this morning, I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial,” Smith wrote on Twitter. “If the Speaker believes that holding on to the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate, then I wholeheartedly support that decision.”
Republicans meanwhile had called Democrats hypocritical for delaying sending the articles of impeachment after arguing that Trump’s impeachment was urgent and a threat to the 2020 election during the House phase of the investigation.
Pelosi said she initially held back from pushing forward with impeachment despite “obvious violations” the president had already committed for fear of how it would divide the country.
“Frankly, I said this president isn’t worth it,” Pelosi said. “But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and political, he crossed a threshold. He gave us no choice."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy condemned Pelosi and House Democrats in a speech on the floor just before Wednesday’s vote, calling the impeachment process a “national nightmare” and criticizing the speaker's delay in sending over the articles after Democrats expressed urgency to push forward. “If impeachment was truly as urgent as Democrats claim, the majority should not have waited for the speaker to choose a political, convenient time,” McCarthy said.
Nadler addressed that line of attack in his own floor speech. “My colleagues in the minority would rather talk about anything than try to defend what President Trump actually did. Because they can’t,” Nadler said.
It will now be up to the Senate to determine the rules for the trial, but McConnell has said that the process will be political and that no one should expect him to be an impartial juror. He recently announced Republicans had enough votes to shape the rules and structure of the trial without needing Democratic votes.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been pushing for the Senate to include witnesses in the trial — including former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair, and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey, all of whom had firsthand knowledge of Trump’s interactions with Ukraine, which spawned the impeachment inquiry.
McConnell hasn't formally said whether the Senate will allow witnesses to testify, but he has said it will vote on the issue after opening arguments and once senators have had the opportunity to submit questions to both sides in the trial. Should the trial include witnesses, McConnell has indicated that both Republicans and Democrats would get to call them.
Paul McLeod contributed reporting to this story.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Bernie Sanders’ Very Online Fans Are Filling Elizabeth Warren’s Twitter Mentions With Snakes

Bernie Sanders supporters are bombarding Elizabeth Warren ’ s social media accounts with snakes emojis , memes , and GIFs in a ramp-up of the tension that ’ s been brewing between the two campaigns over the past week .
The barrage of emojis , which are often used by stans of pop stars in the comment sections of someone they ’ re feuding with ( Taylor Swift vs. Calvin Harris or Taylor Swift vs. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West ) , has boiled over as supporters of both Warren and Sanders have escalated a proxy battle online as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private 2018 meeting where Warren claims Sanders told her a woman couldn ’ t win the 2020 election , which Sanders vehemently denies .
Sanders supporters have called Warren a “ backstabber ” and a “ snake ” for reiterating the claim during the debate Tuesday night .
Even as the Warren and Sanders campaigns attempted to move on from the story that caused a rift between their campaigns by easing tensions in group direct messages with prominent followers and again on the debate stage , supporters of the candidates have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Warren and Sanders supporters has always seemed inevitable .
On various platforms , leftists and Sanders supporters have criticized Warren for being a capitalist and for her health care plan , which they see as her campaign backing away from a commitment to Medicare for All .
Democratic Socialists of America , which launched its own independent campaign for Sanders , told BuzzFeed News in September that it wasn ’ t ruling out the idea of distributing materials to canvassers pointing out the differences between the two candidates .
In the lead-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a # RefundWarren hashtag demanding refunds from the candidate through ActBlue , the Democratic-aligned fundraising platform , and posted screenshots of emails claiming ActBlue was “ experiencing high volumes ” of refund requests from Sanders supporters who ’ d donated to Warren .

The barrage of emojis, which are often used by stans of pop stars in the comment sections of someone they’re feuding with (Taylor Swift vs. Calvin Harris or Taylor Swift vs. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West), has boiled over as supporters of both Warren and Sanders have escalated a proxy battle online as the candidates have disagreed over the characterization of a private 2018 meeting where Warren claims Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the 2020 election, which Sanders vehemently denies. Sanders supporters have called Warren a “backstabber” and a “snake” for reiterating the claim during the debate Tuesday night.
Even as the Warren and Sanders campaigns attempted to move on from the story that caused a rift between their campaigns by easing tensions in group direct messages with prominent followers and again on the debate stage, supporters of the candidates have been warring over their relationship.
The fight between Warren and Sanders supporters has always seemed inevitable. On various platforms, leftists and Sanders supporters have criticized Warren for being a capitalist and for her health care plan, which they see as her campaign backing away from a commitment to Medicare for All. Democratic Socialists of America, which launched its own independent campaign for Sanders, told BuzzFeed News in September that it wasn’t ruling out the idea of distributing materials to canvassers pointing out the differences between the two candidates.
In the lead-up to the debate, Sanders supporters trended a #RefundWarren hashtag demanding refunds from the candidate through ActBlue, the Democratic-aligned fundraising platform, and posted screenshots of emails claiming ActBlue was “experiencing high volumes” of refund requests from Sanders supporters who’d donated to Warren.


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Joe Biden’s Launching “HBCU Students For Biden” As He Works To Fight Off Bernie Sanders

WASHINGTON — Joe Biden ’ s campaign is rolling out a new outreach program on historically black colleges as younger , engaged voters have broadly been drawn to Sen. Bernie Sanders .
The Biden campaign is leading the effort to recruit and organize supporters on campuses across the country .
The campaign announced that three student leaders — Adunola Rachel Osinuga of Texas Southern University in Houston ; Nia Page , the Student Government Association president at Spelman College in Atlanta ; and William Fairfax of Claflin University in South Carolina — will serve as cochairs for `` HBCU Students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Biden surrogates are launching a bus tour in South Carolina ahead of what could be a potentially lethal stretch of voting in Iowa and New Hampshire , mostly white states where Biden enjoys strong support but hasn ’ t yet drawn enough excitement to pull away from some of his Democratic challengers .
Biden has maintained strong support among black voters .
`` Joe Biden has always been , and continues to be central to civil rights activism and social justice , and produce outstanding young leaders .
...
The campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country organizing and volunteering for our campaign , and their strength will help us win the nomination and beat Trump , ” campaign aide Kamau M. Marshall said in a statement to BuzzFeed News .
HBCUs have been a quandary for national Democrats — and attention has turned increasingly toward them in 2020 .
At many HBCUs , students are upset and impatient with the lack of racial progress and economic opportunities .
Students attend institutions that lack resources ( unlike well-known HBCUs like Howard University and Spelman College ) — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the educators and administrators .
Biden , Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Pete Buttigieg have all released plans to specifically address funding issues for HBCUs and students who attend them ; Biden ’ s proposal includes a $ 70 billion investment .
Sanders has emerged as a potent force on HBCUs , with strong support among young black voters nationally .
In recent polling from the Washington Post , Sanders led all candidates in support among black voters under 35 , while Biden led with black voters overall and among older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the student cochairs , said that Biden ’ s affection for HBCUs came through in the way that he saw the hope , vibrancy , and possibility of HBCUs .
“ I don ’ t discount elderly individuals , ” Osinuga told BuzzFeed News over the phone .
“ I think he has a very wise attitude in the way he deals with people of my generation , and he ’ s someone who has had a lot of experience in politics .
So you have to give credit where credit is due @ @

WASHINGTON — Joe Biden’s campaign is rolling out a new outreach program on historically black colleges as younger, engaged voters have broadly been drawn to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The Biden campaign is leading the effort to recruit and organize supporters on campuses across the country. The campaign announced that three student leaders — Adunola Rachel Osinuga of Texas Southern University in Houston; Nia Page, the Student Government Association president at Spelman College in Atlanta; and William Fairfax of Claflin University in South Carolina — will serve as cochairs for "HBCU Students for Biden."
The announcement comes as Biden surrogates are launching a bus tour in South Carolina ahead of what could be a potentially lethal stretch of voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, mostly white states where Biden enjoys strong support but hasn’t yet drawn enough excitement to pull away from some of his Democratic challengers. Biden has maintained strong support among black voters.
"Joe Biden has always been, and continues to be central to civil rights activism and social justice, and produce outstanding young leaders. ... The campaign is proud to have student leaders on HBCUs across the country organizing and volunteering for our campaign, and their strength will help us win the nomination and beat Trump,” campaign aide Kamau M. Marshall said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
HBCUs have been a quandary for national Democrats — and attention has turned increasingly toward them in 2020. At many HBCUs, students are upset and impatient with the lack of racial progress and economic opportunities. Students attend institutions that lack resources (unlike well-known HBCUs like Howard University and Spelman College) — many are barely scraping by, sustained by the educators and administrators. Biden, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg have all released plans to specifically address funding issues for HBCUs and students who attend them; Biden’s proposal includes a $70 billion investment.
Sanders has emerged as a potent force on HBCUs, with strong support among young black voters nationally. In recent polling from the Washington Post, Sanders led all candidates in support among black voters under 35, while Biden led with black voters overall and among older age groups.
Osinuga, one of the student cochairs, said that Biden’s affection for HBCUs came through in the way that he saw the hope, vibrancy, and possibility of HBCUs.
“I don’t discount elderly individuals,” Osinuga told BuzzFeed News over the phone. “I think he has a very wise attitude in the way he deals with people of my generation, and he’s someone who has had a lot of experience in politics. So you have to give credit where credit is due.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-15--Speaker Pelosi Named Seven Impeachment Managers Who Will Deliver The Case To Remove President Donald

Speaker Pelosi Named Seven Impeachment Managers Who Will Deliver The Case To Remove President Donald Trump From Office

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven managers to serve as prosecutors in President Donald Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial Wednesday morning .
The managers will make the case to remove the president from office before the Senate following the House ’ s Dec. 18 vote to impeach Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges .
All but one — first-term Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado — serve on the House Judiciary or Intelligence Committees , which led the impeachment inquiry .
Reps. Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren of California , Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida , and Sylvia Garcia of Texas will also serve as managers in the Senate trial , which is expected to begin next week .
Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee and Nadler chairs the Judiciary Committee .
All of the members chosen as impeachment managers have law degrees or extensive law enforcement backgrounds .
Pelosi noted `` the emphasis on litigators '' in announcing her decision Wednesday morning .
`` The emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom .
The emphasis is making the strongest possible case to protect and defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the American people .
I 'm very proud and honored that these seven members , distinguished members , have accepted this serious responsibility , '' she said .
Lofgren , notably , is the only manager to have served in all three impeachment-related proceedings in modern US history .
She served as a staffer during former president Richard Nixon ’ s impeachment proceedings , and she served as a member of the Judiciary Committee during former president Bill Clinton 's impeachment hearings .
Lofgren said Wednesday the impeachment process was `` misused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump did is different .
`` That is part of a misuse of presidential power , '' she said of Trump 's dealings with Ukraine .
The House will vote later Wednesday to send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate , after weeks of delays .
Following a House vote and ceremonial signing of the articles Wednesday afternoon , the members will hand-deliver the articles to the Senate after a procession through the Capitol early Wednesday evening .
“ There is an overwhelming case , beyond any reasonable doubt , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withholding federal funds appropriated by Congress — breaking the law by doing so — in order to extort a foreign government into intervening in our election to try to embarrass a potential opponent of his .
There ’ s overwhelming evidence of that , ” Nadler told reporters during the press conference announcing the managers ' appointment .
A group of first-term Democrats had lobbied to have Independent Rep. Justin Amash appointed as a manager , arguing the Congress member — who abandoned the Republican Party in 2019 and voted in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Amash was not among the managers announced Wednesday .
Members began jockeying for the high-profile position ahead of the impeachment vote in December .
Rep. Stacey Plaskett , who represents the Virgin Islands , made her case in a letter to Pelosi one day before the House voted to approve the articles of impeachment .
Plaskett , a former prosecutor , argued that her appointment would show deference to her constituent base who can not vote in a presidential election .
Pelosi ’ s decision to appoint seven managers marks a departure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when 13 members of Congress , all members of the House Judiciary Committee , served as managers .
Wednesday 's announcement comes after House Democrats released additional evidence Tuesday night , including texts and notes turned over by Lev Parnas , a close ally of Rudy Giuliani 's .
The documents outline a plan to get Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden 's son Hunter Biden and a letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying he has Trump 's `` knowledge and consent '' to seek a meeting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nadler said the new documents were `` just more damning evidence '' against Trump .
This is a developing story .
Check back for updates and follow BuzzFeed News on Twitter.

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven managers to serve as prosecutors in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial Wednesday morning.
The managers will make the case to remove the president from office before the Senate following the House’s Dec. 18 vote to impeach Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges. All but one — first-term Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado — serve on the House Judiciary or Intelligence Committees, which led the impeachment inquiry.
Reps. Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren of California, Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Val Demings of Florida, and Sylvia Garcia of Texas will also serve as managers in the Senate trial, which is expected to begin next week. Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee and Nadler chairs the Judiciary Committee.
All of the members chosen as impeachment managers have law degrees or extensive law enforcement backgrounds. Pelosi noted "the emphasis on litigators" in announcing her decision Wednesday morning. "The emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom. The emphasis is making the strongest possible case to protect and defend our Constitution, to seek the truth for the American people. I'm very proud and honored that these seven members, distinguished members, have accepted this serious responsibility," she said.
Lofgren, notably, is the only manager to have served in all three impeachment-related proceedings in modern US history. She served as a staffer during former president Richard Nixon’s impeachment proceedings, and she served as a member of the Judiciary Committee during former president Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings. Lofgren said Wednesday the impeachment process was "misused" to prosecute Clinton and that what Trump did is different. "That is part of a misuse of presidential power," she said of Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
The House will vote later Wednesday to send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate, after weeks of delays. Following a House vote and ceremonial signing of the articles Wednesday afternoon, the members will hand-deliver the articles to the Senate after a procession through the Capitol early Wednesday evening.
“There is an overwhelming case, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the president betrayed the country ... by withholding federal funds appropriated by Congress — breaking the law by doing so — in order to extort a foreign government into intervening in our election to try to embarrass a potential opponent of his. There’s overwhelming evidence of that,” Nadler told reporters during the press conference announcing the managers' appointment.
A group of first-term Democrats had lobbied to have Independent Rep. Justin Amash appointed as a manager, arguing the Congress member — who abandoned the Republican Party in 2019 and voted in favor of impeachment — would appeal to conservatives. But Amash was not among the managers announced Wednesday.
Members began jockeying for the high-profile position ahead of the impeachment vote in December. Rep. Stacey Plaskett, who represents the Virgin Islands, made her case in a letter to Pelosi one day before the House voted to approve the articles of impeachment. Plaskett, a former prosecutor, argued that her appointment would show deference to her constituent base who cannot vote in a presidential election.
Pelosi’s decision to appoint seven managers marks a departure from Clinton’s impeachment trial, when 13 members of Congress, all members of the House Judiciary Committee, served as managers.
Wednesday's announcement comes after House Democrats released additional evidence Tuesday night, including texts and notes turned over by Lev Parnas, a close ally of Rudy Giuliani's. The documents outline a plan to get Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and a letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying he has Trump's "knowledge and consent" to seek a meeting.
Following the press conference Wednesday morning, Nadler said the new documents were "just more damning evidence" against Trump.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates and follow BuzzFeed News on Twitter.