buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Anita Hill Told An Iowa Crowd That It’s Too Late For An Apology From Joe Biden

IOWA CITY , Iowa — Anita Hill said Thursday that it ’ s too late for a proper apology from Joe Biden , reopening a decades-old conflict that has followed Biden into his third run for president .
“ The statute of limitations for his apology is up , ” Hill said in response to a question from the audience at the University of Iowa , where she gave a lecture on ending sexual harassment .
Hill , a law professor , accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearings .
Biden , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , presided over the hearings and has faced persistent criticism since for how he and the all-white , all-male panel treated Hill during her nationally televised testimony .
Her appearance was part of the school ’ s MLK Human Rights Week program , but also came 11 days before Iowa holds the nation ’ s first presidential caucuses .
Biden is among the frontrunners .
“ I know you all are getting ready to caucus , ” Hill said as she opened her remarks .
A question submitted later for the Q & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were considering caucusing for Biden but could not forget his role in the 1991 confirmation hearings .
How hard , the questioner wondered , could it be for Biden to simply say he was wrong ?
“ The statute of limitations for his apology is up , ” Hill said to applause .
“ Here is what I want now … What are you going to do about it ?
What are you going to do today ?
Will you promise as leader of this country … would you promise to use all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it happened and to prevent it from happening to another generation ?
That ’ s what I want to hear .
And I not only want to hear from him , I want to hear from every one of them who want to be the leader of this country.
” Hill made a similar “ statute of limitations ” comment in late 2018 , but in the months between then and Biden ’ s launch of his 2020 presidential campaign , the former senator and vice president reached out to her directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time the call became public that she found his words insufficient .
Later , in an appearance on The View , Biden was grilled for his passive statements — “ I ’ m sorry for the way she got treated ” — and the story lingered for days .
It had faded in the subsequent months as Biden ’ s campaign accelerated .
Last June , Hill told NBC News she was open to voting for Biden .
“ I was criticized because I didn ’ t immediately open my arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ OK , I forgive you , ’ ” Hill told her Iowa audience Thursday night .
“ One of the reasons I didn ’ t was because I didn ’ t think it was enough.
” The other , she said , was that she didn ’ t want “ every young woman ” to “ feel like they had to follow ” her lead .
Biden , who spent the earlier part of the week campaigning in Iowa , was not in the state Thursday .
He and his allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Violence Against Women Act as an example of his leadership on issues of gender inequality and abuse .

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Anita Hill said Thursday that it’s too late for a proper apology from Joe Biden, reopening a decades-old conflict that has followed Biden into his third run for president.
“The statute of limitations for his apology is up,” Hill said in response to a question from the audience at the University of Iowa, where she gave a lecture on ending sexual harassment.
Hill, a law professor, accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearings. Biden, then the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, presided over the hearings and has faced persistent criticism since for how he and the all-white, all-male panel treated Hill during her nationally televised testimony.
Her appearance was part of the school’s MLK Human Rights Week program, but also came 11 days before Iowa holds the nation’s first presidential caucuses. Biden is among the frontrunners.
“I know you all are getting ready to caucus,” Hill said as she opened her remarks.
A question submitted later for the Q&A came from someone who said they were considering caucusing for Biden but could not forget his role in the 1991 confirmation hearings. How hard, the questioner wondered, could it be for Biden to simply say he was wrong?
“The statute of limitations for his apology is up,” Hill said to applause. “Here is what I want now … What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do today? Will you promise as leader of this country … would you promise to use all of your energy to address the problem as it happened and to prevent it from happening to another generation? That’s what I want to hear. And I not only want to hear from him, I want to hear from every one of them who want to be the leader of this country.”
Hill made a similar “statute of limitations” comment in late 2018, but in the months between then and Biden’s launch of his 2020 presidential campaign, the former senator and vice president reached out to her directly to express his regrets. Hill said at the time the call became public that she found his words insufficient. Later, in an appearance on The View, Biden was grilled for his passive statements — “I’m sorry for the way she got treated” — and the story lingered for days. It had faded in the subsequent months as Biden’s campaign accelerated. Last June, Hill told NBC News she was open to voting for Biden.
“I was criticized because I didn’t immediately open my arms and embrace him [and say], ‘OK, I forgive you,’” Hill told her Iowa audience Thursday night. “One of the reasons I didn’t was because I didn’t think it was enough.” The other, she said, was that she didn’t want “every young woman” to “feel like they had to follow” her lead.
Biden, who spent the earlier part of the week campaigning in Iowa, was not in the state Thursday. He and his allies often have pointed to his later championing of the Violence Against Women Act as an example of his leadership on issues of gender inequality and abuse.


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Democrats Have To Pick Their Line Of Attack — The Evidence Or The Cover-Up?

WASHINGTON — Whenever the impeachment trial pauses for a break , Democrat and Republican senators flood out towards cameras and microphones to push their competing messages .
Democratic Sen. Tom Carper summed up his strategy with the words of an old Methodist minister from his home state of Delaware — “ He used to say to me ‘ the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing . '
” It sounds simple but Democrats are grappling with a question : What is their main thing ?
They ’ re torn between two options .
One is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his powers of office to extort a foreign country , Ukraine , into launching an investigation into his political rival , former vice president Joe Biden .
The other is that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are committing a cover-up by blocking any new information that could further expose Trump ’ s guilt .
Republicans spent Tuesday voting down 10 amendments to subpoena key witnesses and documents .
The Trump administration has refused to provide documents or allow staff to testify , though former national security adviser John Bolton said he would appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry , House Republicans relentlessly hammered the proceedings as a sham , a show trial , and a political hit job .
They overwhelmingly attacked the process and largely avoided getting into the contents of witness testimony .
Now some Democrats are working to turn that back on them .
“ It ’ s a cover-up , ” Sen. Michael Bennett said early and often during one media scrum in a break from the trial .
“ Mitch McConnell is trying to cover up what Donald Trump did.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats may convince some Republicans to break ranks and vote to call witnesses .
There will be one more vote on witnesses next week and it will take four Republicans to succeed .
If it fails , the Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit Trump quickly , likely before the end of the week .
Politicians are used to honing their top sound bites , knowing only one or two of their lines are likely to make it into print or onto TV .
But the risk of attacking the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Democrats think overwhelmingly harms the president .
Rep. Adam Schiff and other impeachment managers finally have the floor to themselves as they spend three days laying out the evidence that Trump abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress .
Melding the two can get rocky .
After Rep. Jerry Nadler accused Republicans of a cover-up while speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday , Sen. Susan Collins sent a note to Chief Justice John Roberts .
Shortly afterward , Roberts admonished both legal teams and directed them to use more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening to stress their indignation .
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said the solution is to taper your approach to your audience .
In the chamber , it ’ s about the case against Trump .
But in the media , Democrats need to loudly object to the process .
“ If your jury is the senators in the room , go through the facts , go through the evidence , go through the argument .
Because I think when laid bare it ’ s pretty hard not to conclude that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Coons .
“ But for the general public who is kind of watching at a distance , it is far more compelling to say this is not on the level , this is not a fair trial , we are working without all the facts and the facts are easy to get.
” But most Democrats say they are trying to follow Schiff ’ s lead and do both at once .
Schiff is not yet publicly declaring a cover-up , but he is taking every chance he gets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over two days of testimony he ’ s outlined documents and evidence the Trump administration has refused to turn over , such as the contemporaneous notes of then-acting Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor , who told Trump administration officials at the time that he thought it was “ crazy ” to withhold aid for the country to benefit Trump politically .
“ Maybe those notes say ‘ no quid pro quo.
’ Maybe those notes say it ’ s a perfect call , ” said Schiff .
“ I ’ d like to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show them to you .
They ’ re yours for the asking .
”

WASHINGTON — Whenever the impeachment trial pauses for a break, Democrat and Republican senators flood out towards cameras and microphones to push their competing messages. Democratic Sen. Tom Carper summed up his strategy with the words of an old Methodist minister from his home state of Delaware — “He used to say to me ‘the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.'”
It sounds simple but Democrats are grappling with a question: What is their main thing?
They’re torn between two options. One is the evidence that President Donald Trump abused his powers of office to extort a foreign country, Ukraine, into launching an investigation into his political rival, former vice president Joe Biden.
The other is that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are committing a cover-up by blocking any new information that could further expose Trump’s guilt. Republicans spent Tuesday voting down 10 amendments to subpoena key witnesses and documents. The Trump administration has refused to provide documents or allow staff to testify, though former national security adviser John Bolton said he would appear before the Senate if subpoenaed.
During the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry, House Republicans relentlessly hammered the proceedings as a sham, a show trial, and a political hit job. They overwhelmingly attacked the process and largely avoided getting into the contents of witness testimony. Now some Democrats are working to turn that back on them.
“It’s a cover-up,” Sen. Michael Bennett said early and often during one media scrum in a break from the trial. “Mitch McConnell is trying to cover up what Donald Trump did.”
The hope is that by applying maximum pressure, Democrats may convince some Republicans to break ranks and vote to call witnesses. There will be one more vote on witnesses next week and it will take four Republicans to succeed. If it fails, the Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit Trump quickly, likely before the end of the week.
Politicians are used to honing their top sound bites, knowing only one or two of their lines are likely to make it into print or onto TV. But the risk of attacking the process is taking attention away from the substance, which Democrats think overwhelmingly harms the president.
Rep. Adam Schiff and other impeachment managers finally have the floor to themselves as they spend three days laying out the evidence that Trump abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress.
Melding the two can get rocky. After Rep. Jerry Nadler accused Republicans of a cover-up while speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Susan Collins sent a note to Chief Justice John Roberts. Shortly afterward, Roberts admonished both legal teams and directed them to use more respectful language. That gave Republicans an opening to stress their indignation.
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said the solution is to taper your approach to your audience. In the chamber, it’s about the case against Trump. But in the media, Democrats need to loudly object to the process.
“If your jury is the senators in the room, go through the facts, go through the evidence, go through the argument. Because I think when laid bare it’s pretty hard not to conclude that there’s a very troubling set of facts here,” said Coons.
“But for the general public who is kind of watching at a distance, it is far more compelling to say this is not on the level, this is not a fair trial, we are working without all the facts and the facts are easy to get.”
But most Democrats say they are trying to follow Schiff’s lead and do both at once. Schiff is not yet publicly declaring a cover-up, but he is taking every chance he gets to poke Republicans on the subpoena issue. Over two days of testimony he’s outlined documents and evidence the Trump administration has refused to turn over, such as the contemporaneous notes of then-acting Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor, who told Trump administration officials at the time that he thought it was “crazy” to withhold aid for the country to benefit Trump politically.
“Maybe those notes say ‘no quid pro quo.’ Maybe those notes say it’s a perfect call,” said Schiff. “I’d like to see them. I’d like to show them to you. They’re yours for the asking.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Top Cory Booker Supporters Are Accusing Pete Buttigieg Of "Chasing Ambulances"

DES MOINES — The phone calls to Amy Nielsen came around two hours apart .
It was last Monday around 12 p.m. , not long after the news broke , when her phone lit up with his name .
By then , Nielsen considered Cory Booker “ part of [ her ] family.
” He knew her husband .
He knew her kids .
He knew her kids ’ friends .
She was the first state representative in Iowa to endorse Booker .
So the end of his campaign felt — “ and I ’ m not exaggerating , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a death.
” On the phone , Booker assured her they would stay in touch .
“ I ’ m in your life forever , ” he told her .
“ We ’ re family now.
” The next call came around 2:30 p.m. , this time from an unknown number .
Nielsen was at the capitol in Des Moines and let the call go to voicemail .
What she heard in the one-minute recording , she said in an interview this week , came as a “ gut punch.
” It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s support now that her candidate had made the decision to “ step aside.
” “ What he said was not appropriate , and calling me four hours after [ Booker dropped out ] was not appropriate , ” said Nielsen , who provided a copy of Buttigieg ’ s voicemail .
“ It was a gut punch — like , really ?
He did not ‘ step aside ’ for you , ” she said .
“ Like , wow , that ’ s some nerve right there.
” Later that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one of Booker ’ s field organizers who said she had already been contacted by the Buttigieg campaign to go door-knock .
Nielsen , a 42-year-old Iowa Democrat who has served in the legislature since 2016 , was one of at least six top Booker endorsers who had received calls from Buttigieg the day the campaign ended .
It is not uncommon for candidates to try to win over a fallen rival ’ s supporters — Booker did the same after Sen. Kamala Harris left the race late last year — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bothered to hear from him .
But for Nielsen and at least three of Booker ’ s top backers in a state where Democrats expect a personal touch , the timing and content of the calls struck them as tactless and insensitive .
At the end of his voicemail , Buttigieg left a phone number for one of his staffers and asked Nielsen to schedule a time to talk .
“ I hope we ’ ll connect down the line , ” he told her .
“ Thanks again.
” With 11 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February , countless Iowa Democrats are facing a raw and intractable reality : the end .
In many cases , this year ’ s historically large field has lent an atypically large role to endorsers and supporters , with more space and time to grow close to the candidates .
Four years ago , Hillary Clinton had dozens of endorsers in Iowa alone .
For younger leaders in Iowa Democratic politics like Nielsen , this is their first time playing in a competitive primary as elected officials .
In Iowa , the nominating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal .
Feelings get hurt .
There is , Democrats here say , a real “ grieving period.
” When Beto O ’ Rourke dropped out of the race hours before the Liberty and Justice dinner , the premier event in presidential politics here , staffers and volunteers gathered near the event site , sobbing and hugging .
After she left the race , Harris flew to Iowa to personally thank her team .
And last weekend , five days after Booker ended the campaign , his young staff gathered at a dive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their candidate ’ s signature blue , red , and black .
A spokesperson for Buttigieg , Matt Corridoni , said the former mayor has “ a great deal of respect for Sen. Booker , the campaign he ran , and the voters who supported him and continue to support his vision.
” Sue Dvorsky , a former Iowa Democratic Party chair whose endorsement lent Harris a significant early boost in the state , warned other campaigns to back off after the California senator left the race .
Right away , Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dvorsky to express her outrage on Twitter .

DES MOINES — The phone calls to Amy Nielsen came around two hours apart.
It was last Monday around 12 p.m., not long after the news broke, when her phone lit up with his name. By then, Nielsen considered Cory Booker “part of [her] family.” He knew her husband. He knew her kids. He knew her kids’ friends. She was the first state representative in Iowa to endorse Booker. So the end of his campaign felt — “and I’m not exaggerating,” she said this week — like “a death.” On the phone, Booker assured her they would stay in touch. “I’m in your life forever,” he told her. “We’re family now.”
The next call came around 2:30 p.m., this time from an unknown number. Nielsen was at the capitol in Des Moines and let the call go to voicemail. What she heard in the one-minute recording, she said in an interview this week, came as a “gut punch.”
It was Pete Buttigieg, calling to seek Nielsen’s support now that her candidate had made the decision to “step aside.”
“What he said was not appropriate, and calling me four hours after [Booker dropped out] was not appropriate,” said Nielsen, who provided a copy of Buttigieg’s voicemail.
“It was a gut punch — like, really? He did not ‘step aside’ for you,” she said. “Like, wow, that’s some nerve right there.”
Later that night, she said, Nielsen heard from one of Booker’s field organizers who said she had already been contacted by the Buttigieg campaign to go door-knock.
Nielsen, a 42-year-old Iowa Democrat who has served in the legislature since 2016, was one of at least six top Booker endorsers who had received calls from Buttigieg the day the campaign ended. It is not uncommon for candidates to try to win over a fallen rival’s supporters — Booker did the same after Sen. Kamala Harris left the race late last year — and some endorsers said they weren’t bothered to hear from him. But for Nielsen and at least three of Booker’s top backers in a state where Democrats expect a personal touch, the timing and content of the calls struck them as tactless and insensitive.
At the end of his voicemail, Buttigieg left a phone number for one of his staffers and asked Nielsen to schedule a time to talk. “I hope we’ll connect down the line,” he told her. “Thanks again.”
With 11 days until the nominating process begins here in February, countless Iowa Democrats are facing a raw and intractable reality: the end. In many cases, this year’s historically large field has lent an atypically large role to endorsers and supporters, with more space and time to grow close to the candidates. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton had dozens of endorsers in Iowa alone. For younger leaders in Iowa Democratic politics like Nielsen, this is their first time playing in a competitive primary as elected officials.
In Iowa, the nominating process is as close as it is personal. Feelings get hurt. There is, Democrats here say, a real “grieving period.”
When Beto O’Rourke dropped out of the race hours before the Liberty and Justice dinner, the premier event in presidential politics here, staffers and volunteers gathered near the event site, sobbing and hugging. After she left the race, Harris flew to Iowa to personally thank her team. And last weekend, five days after Booker ended the campaign, his young staff gathered at a dive bar in Des Moines, still dressed in their candidate’s signature blue, red, and black.
A spokesperson for Buttigieg, Matt Corridoni, said the former mayor has “a great deal of respect for Sen. Booker, the campaign he ran, and the voters who supported him and continue to support his vision.”
Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic Party chair whose endorsement lent Harris a significant early boost in the state, warned other campaigns to back off after the California senator left the race. Right away, Harris organizers heard from rival staffers, driving Dvorsky to express her outrage on Twitter.


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--"You Can't Trust This President": Democrats Accuse Trump Of Betraying The Country In Impeachment Tri

"You Can't Trust This President": Democrats Accuse Trump Of Betraying The Country In Impeachment Trial

Democrats argued that President Trump violated the Constitution and must be removed from office in their second day of opening arguments in the impeachment trial .
WASHINGTON — House Democrats continued making their case against President Donald Trump Thursday night , ending with an impassioned speech from Rep. Adam Schiff on why senators must vote to remove the president from office .
`` You know you ca n't trust this president to do what 's right for this country .
You can trust he will do what 's right for Donald Trump .
He 'll do it now , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it for the next several months , he 'll do it in the election if he is allowed to , '' Schiff , who chairs the House Intelligence Committee , told senators .
`` This is why if you find him guilty , you must find he should be removed .
Because right matters .
And the truth matters .
Otherwise we are lost . ''
Republicans had been restless in the closing hour , with many standing around or retreating to the cloakroom where they could chat .
But during Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stared to the center of the room .
Both parties seemed rapt .
Democratic Sens .
Jeanne Shaheen and Debbie Stabenow called Schiff ’ s final remarks of the evening “ powerful.
” “ You could hear a pin drop when he was speaking , ” said Stabenow , leaving the Capitol Thursday night .
“ This is a very serious thing that is being talked about here — of the president focusing on himself and not on the country and intimidating and coercing another country to do what he wants politically.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on applying the Constitution to the president ’ s actions , further bolstering their impeachment case .
The arguments followed Wednesday 's presentation , in which House Democrats laid out a timeline events to support the two articles of impeachment against Trump : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Each of the seven impeachment managers covered a detail from their investigation into Trump ’ s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his family .
House Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday , making the case that Trump has committed `` high crimes and misdemeanors '' — impeachable offenses as defined by the Constitution .
Republicans have argued that because Democrats did n't charge Trump with a crime — a violation of the criminal code — he should not have been impeached and should not be removed from office .
But Nadler countered that the founders specified `` high crimes '' as opposed to just `` crimes '' in writing the impeachment section of the Constitution , calling it `` a deliberate choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that `` impeachable offenses are defined fundamentally by 'the abuse or violation of some public trust . '
'' Nadler also played a clip of Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the president 's top allies in the Senate , who served as an impeachment manager in former president Bill Clinton 's trial .
“ What 's a high crime ?
How about if an important person hurt somebody of low means ? ''
Graham said at the time .
`` It 's not very scholarly , but I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's what they meant by high crimes — does n't even have to be a crime .
It 's just when you start using your office and you 're acting in a way that hurts people , you 've committed a high crime . ''
Graham was reportedly not in the Senate chamber when the clip was played .
Throughout the day , Democrats showed news clips of Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , as well as witnesses in the House investigation testifying that Trump withheld the aid from Ukraine in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help him in the 2020 election .
Schiff also read portions of the White House 's record of Trump 's July 25 call in which he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a `` favor '' and to help `` look into '' Biden .
Toward the end of arguments Thursday night , Schiff addressed a question he said that senators may have , `` Okay he is guilty .
Does he really need to be removed ? ''
Schiff said that while there 's little dispute about the facts of the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next election is coming up and that voters should get to decide .
`` This is why he needs to be removed , '' Schiff said .
`` Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies .
He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI director , Rudy Giuliani over his own national security advisers .
When all of them are telling him the Ukraine 2016 stuff is crazy Russia propaganda , he chose not to believe them he chose to believe Rudy Giuliani .
That makes him dangerous to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Senate impeachment rules , the prosecutors and defense attorneys have 24 hours to make their case over the span of three days , leaving Friday for House managers to finish summarizing their case .
The president ’ s defense team will begin its opening arguments Saturday .
( The Senate will take Sunday off and return to the trial on Monday ) .
On Wednesday , Schiff led the opening arguments .
The Democrat from California went as far back as 2016 when Trump , then a presidential candidate , called on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton .
Republicans are saying there ’ s nothing new , but that ’ s because they voted against subpoenaing documents and witnesses .
Senators , per the rules of the trial , sat quietly while listening to the testimony .
During Rep. Hakeem Jeffries ’ testimony , a protester burst into the public gallery but was swiftly constrained and removed by Capitol Police .
No other protesters have interrupted the proceedings so far .
Senators will vote on whether to hear witnesses and admit new documents after both sides have finished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjourned Wednesday a little after 9:30 p.m. to applause from senators listening to testimony for nearly nine hours .
Thursday is likely to go just as late .
“ I ’ ll listen to what they ’ ve got to say tomorrow , ” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters when she was leaving the building .
“ It ’ s like sitting in front of the class or sitting in the front pew at church .
You ’ ve got to pay attention .
”

Throughout the day, Democrats showed news clips of Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as well as witnesses in the House investigation testifying that Trump withheld the aid from Ukraine in exchange for the investigations he requested to help him in the 2020 election. Schiff also read portions of the White House's record of Trump's July 25 call in which he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a "favor" and to help "look into" Biden.
Toward the end of arguments Thursday night, Schiff addressed a question he said that senators may have, "OK, he is guilty. Does he really need to be removed?" Schiff said that while there's little dispute about the facts of the case, some Republicans may feel that the next election is coming up and that voters should get to decide.
"This is why he needs to be removed," Schiff said. "Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI director, Rudy Giuliani over his own national security advisers. When all of them are telling him the Ukraine 2016 stuff is crazy Russia propaganda, he chose not to believe them he chose to believe Rudy Giuliani. That makes him dangerous to us, to our country."
According to Senate impeachment rules, the prosecutors and defense attorneys have 24 hours to make their case over the span of three days, leaving Friday for House managers to finish summarizing their case. The president’s defense team will begin its opening arguments Saturday. (The Senate will take Sunday off and return to the trial on Monday.)
On Wednesday, Schiff led the opening arguments. The Democrat from California went as far back as 2016 when Trump, then a presidential candidate, called on Russia to hack his political rival, Hillary Clinton. Republicans are saying there’s nothing new, but that’s because they voted against subpoenaing documents and witnesses.
Senators, per the rules of the trial, sat quietly while listening to the testimony. During Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ testimony, a protester burst into the public gallery but was swiftly constrained and removed by Capitol Police. No other protesters have interrupted the proceedings so far.
Senators will vote on whether to hear witnesses and admit new documents after both sides have finished opening statements.
Chief Justice John Roberts adjourned Wednesday a little after 9:30 p.m. to applause from senators listening to testimony for nearly nine hours. Thursday is likely to go just as late.
“I’ll listen to what they’ve got to say tomorrow,” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters when she was leaving the building. “It’s like sitting in front of the class or sitting in the front pew at church. You’ve got to pay attention.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--A Senator Wants Congress To “Unilaterally” Release Information On Jamal Khashoggi’s Killing If The T

A Senator Wants Congress To “Unilaterally” Release Information On Jamal Khashoggi’s Killing If The Trump Administration Won’t

WASHINGTON — Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said he will seek to make public the secret information about the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi if the Trump administration continues to refuse to turn over a report on the issue .
Earlier this week , the director of national intelligence was required by law to provide an unclassified report to Congress on Khashoggi ’ s brutal killing at a Saudi Consulate in 2018 .
However , the DNI missed the deadline , as BuzzFeed News first reported Thursday , prompting inquiries from lawmakers .
On Friday , Wyden told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report by the end of President Donald Trump ’ s ongoing impeachment trial , he will trigger a process that would allow the Senate to “ unilaterally ” release information itself .
“ It has been more than a year since agents of the Saudi government murdered Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey , and yet the Trump administration refuses to publicly acknowledge who ordered that assassination , and instead the Trump administration is basically running interference for an authoritarian government , ” Wyden said .
Wyden , a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say what the panel knows about Khashoggi ’ s death , citing its strict rules around secrecy .
The CIA has reportedly concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing , and senators have said they had little doubt he was involved following a briefing from CIA Director Gina Haspel in December 2018 .
“ If there isn ’ t a new DNI report , I can work to declassify information that would go into it , ” Wyden said of the information he would seek to have released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , outlined in the Senate resolution that formed the committee in 1974 , states that the panel may disclose any information in its possession if it would serve the public interest .
The process would require a committee vote and could end in a full vote on the Senate floor , which would take weeks .
Wyden said the process has been triggered before but never reached its conclusion ; lawmakers and the administration have been able to eventually come to an agreement in those cases .
Asked if the move would garner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican-controlled committee and Senate , Wyden said there isn ’ t much appetite among Senate Republicans for covering for the Saudis .
In December 2018 , the Senate voted to end US aid to the Saudi war in Yemen in response to Khashoggi ’ s death — a move that contrasted Trump ’ s refusal to publicly call out Saudi leadership for the killing .
A spokesperson for North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr , the committee chair , declined to comment .

WASHINGTON — Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said he will seek to make public the secret information about the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi if the Trump administration continues to refuse to turn over a report on the issue.
Earlier this week, the director of national intelligence was required by law to provide an unclassified report to Congress on Khashoggi’s brutal killing at a Saudi Consulate in 2018. However, the DNI missed the deadline, as BuzzFeed News first reported Thursday, prompting inquiries from lawmakers.
On Friday, Wyden told reporters that if the DNI fails to produce the report by the end of President Donald Trump’s ongoing impeachment trial, he will trigger a process that would allow the Senate to “unilaterally” release information itself.
“It has been more than a year since agents of the Saudi government murdered Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey, and yet the Trump administration refuses to publicly acknowledge who ordered that assassination, and instead the Trump administration is basically running interference for an authoritarian government,” Wyden said.
Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to say what the panel knows about Khashoggi’s death, citing its strict rules around secrecy. The CIA has reportedly concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing, and senators have said they had little doubt he was involved following a briefing from CIA Director Gina Haspel in December 2018.
“If there isn’t a new DNI report, I can work to declassify information that would go into it,” Wyden said of the information he would seek to have released through the Senate process.
That process, outlined in the Senate resolution that formed the committee in 1974, states that the panel may disclose any information in its possession if it would serve the public interest. The process would require a committee vote and could end in a full vote on the Senate floor, which would take weeks.
Wyden said the process has been triggered before but never reached its conclusion; lawmakers and the administration have been able to eventually come to an agreement in those cases.
Asked if the move would garner enough support to be approved by the Republican-controlled committee and Senate, Wyden said there isn’t much appetite among Senate Republicans for covering for the Saudis. In December 2018, the Senate voted to end US aid to the Saudi war in Yemen in response to Khashoggi’s death — a move that contrasted Trump’s refusal to publicly call out Saudi leadership for the killing.
A spokesperson for North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the committee chair, declined to comment.


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Anti-Trump Evangelicals Are Trying To Figure Out What To Do Next

The first month of 2020 has been filled with infighting over Trump among prominent evangelicals .
“ How do we pick up the pieces of the conservative party once he is out of office ?
” It was the Monday before Christmas and Napp Nazworth was the only editor left on duty at the Christian Post .
He was nearing the end of his nearly 10-hour shift , getting ready to go on his two-week family vacation , when he got sent one last piece to edit : an op-ed in support of President Trump written by two of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The op-ed by executive editor Richard Land and senior managing editor John Grano was a response to an editorial published at the Christian Post ’ s rival , Christianity Today .
That editorial , by now-retired editor-in-chief Mark Galli , was titled “ Trump Should Be Removed From Office , ” and argued just that .
Land and Grano disagreed .
“ One might well ask Mr. Galli how his obvious elitist disdain and corrosive condescension for fellow Christians with whom he disagrees … might well damage evangelical witness to an unbelieving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reads .
“ CT ’ s disdainful , dismissive , elitist posture toward their fellow Christians may well do far more long-term damage to American Christianity and its witness than any current prudential support for President Trump will ever cause.
” This defense of Trump was a 180 from what Nazworth and his fellow Christian Post editors wrote together a few years before , when they published their first-ever editorial , titled “ Donald Trump Is a Scam .
Evangelical Voters Should Back Away.
” Grano himself had published a piece before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why Trump Is Dangerous for Evangelicals.
” But Nazworth had watched this shift happen over the past few years , so he was not surprised .
He sighed and began to edit the piece .
“ I didn ’ t agree with it , but I was fine with publishing it .
I publish op-eds I disagree with all the time , ” Nazworth , a self-described “ Never Trumper , ” told BuzzFeed News .
But then his phone rang .
It was the managing editor telling him they wanted to publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Christian Post ’ s official stance .
“ I said , ‘ You know I can ’ t support that , ’ ” Nazworth told BuzzFeed News .
“ If you publish this as an editorial , it 's like you 're announcing to the world that the Christian Post is joining Team Trump.
” The managing editor responded that that , more or less , was their intention , Nazworth said .
( The Christian Post did not respond to BuzzFeed News ’ request for comment ) .
From the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influential religious leaders have taken issue with his character .
The man had never seemed particularly religious in his previous , very public life .
He notoriously fraternized with socially liberal figureheads , porn stars , and Jeffrey Epstein , and donated to influential elected Democrats .
Many prominent evangelicals believed he could not be trusted , that he was posing for their vote .
“ Trump claims to be a Christian , yet says he has never asked for forgiveness , ” the February 2016 Christian Post editorial reads .
“ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demeans women and minorities .
His preferred forms of communication are insults , obscenities and untruths .
While Christians have been guilty of all of these , we , unlike Trump , acknowledge our sins , ask for forgiveness and seek restitution with the aid of the Holy Spirit and our community of believers.
” Over the course of his term , as Trump appointed conservative anti-abortion judges and justices and enacted versions of the policies he promised them in his campaign , many of the once-wary evangelicals kept quiet , and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the 2020 election approaches , the arguments of those skeptics have started to resurface .
The questions faced by evangelicals who distrust or disapprove of Trump ( anywhere from 36 % to 42 % of evangelicals of all races , depending on the poll ) are about what he would do with a second term and how beholden he ’ d be to evangelicals who make up a good chunk of his base .
“ Trump has a long history in the public eye , his circle is well-known , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very recently included this large group of self-identified evangelicals , who now happen to form a large part of his base , ” a prominent figure in the political conservative movement ( who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely ) told BuzzFeed News .
When Trump doesn ’ t need them anymore , what ’ s to stop him from abandoning the issues important to conservative voters and handing the reins over to those members of his administration who are even less conservative than he is ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong support among white evangelicals .
Even if they disapprove of Trump ’ s character , the Democratic party ’ s stance on social issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights mean many of them feel they have no one else to vote for .
The question they are asking now is not how to defeat Trump but “ how do we pick up the pieces of the conservative party once he is out of office ?
” as one conservative lobbyist put it .
Some prominent conservatives who spoke to BuzzFeed News said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could see Trump abandoning was anything related to the LGBTQ community .
While his administration has enacted and pushed for policies that would disproportionately , negatively affect LGBTQ people , such as allowing government-funded institutions such as hospitals , schools , and adoption agencies to deny service or otherwise discriminate due to “ religious or moral beliefs , ” they see the issue as unimportant to Trump .
“ One thing Trump has been consistent about throughout his life is desire for acceptance .
It ’ s an innate flaw he has — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has to be the smartest man , ” Shermichael Singleton , a conservative political strategist said in response to a question about Trump relaxing his stance on LGBTQ issues .
Singleton ’ s sentiment was echoed by several of the people who spoke to BuzzFeed News .
When the day comes that Trump is near the end of his presidency and preparing to return to civilian life , Singleton , who organized evangelical voters for Ben Carson ’ s presidential campaign , continued , “ I wouldn ’ t be surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues in a way that wouldn ’ t totally isolate the evangelicals , but would help him rebuild a rapport with some of his old friends on the other side.
” Two of the people who spoke to BuzzFeed News pointed to a specific piece of legislation they believe Trump will allow through if he is reelected : the Equality Act , which would ban LGBTQ discrimination .
The bill , which passed the House in May but stalled in the Senate , would `` prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or pregnancy , childbirth , or a related medical condition of an individual , as well as because of sex-based stereotypes.
” One influential conservative lobbyist , who asked to remain anonymous so as not to affect business relationships , said that if Democrats gained any seats in the Senate , the Equality Act would be an easy win for the left , and that Ivanka Trump would encourage her father to turn a blind eye to or even support the bill .
“ The Trump Administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a spokesperson for the White House told BuzzFeed News when asked for comment on this theory , “ however , [ the Equality Act ] in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights.
” On the other hand , Nazworth told BuzzFeed News his opposition to Trump was not about what he might do in the future , but what he has already done .
“ He has n't really done much for evangelicals other than the judges , which are very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nazworth said , referring to the appointment of conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , and the more than 100 federal judges now confirmed by the Senate .
“ But the evangelicals are getting scammed — they 're not really getting what they elected him for.
” Trump made several promises to evangelicals when he was courting their vote in 2016 , most notably that he would appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court , defund Planned Parenthood , and “ totally destroy ” the Johnson Amendment , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonprofit organizations from endorsing political candidates .
In Trump ’ s recent speeches to evangelicals , he has claimed to have accomplished all three of these goals .
In reality , he has only accomplished one of them .
While the Trump administration enacted a rule that prevents Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants , the organization and others like it still receive federal funding through Medicaid reimbursements .
And though Trump has repeatedly claimed that he “ got rid ” of the Johnson Amendment , what he actually did was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , which Trump ’ s own Justice Department confirmed in a court filing had no effect on the Johnson Amendment and was essentially symbolic .
In 2016 , as Trump began winning over some evangelical leaders , earning the nomination and choosing evangelical Vice President Mike Pence as his running mate , several evangelical opponents stood strong , identifying themselves publicly as “ Never Trumpers ” and even having several in-person meetings to try and build support for an independent candidate .
After Trump won the election and was sworn into office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , waiting to see whether he would fulfill his promises to their socially conservative community .
Some of them stayed in touch via a Google Group , sharing news stories and columns and having heated debates , but as they grew more divided in their opinions on Trump , the president became a topic they avoided .
In December , however , this changed .
The discussion turned from whisperings at Christmas parties to a public battle after the Christianity Today editorial .
In it , Galli argued that the impeachment hearings made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power by asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent , and that he deserved to be removed from office , whether by impeachment or through the 2020 elections .
“ If we don ’ t reverse course now , will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come ?
” Galli wrote .
“ Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that can not be tolerated and , with the same straight face , say that the bent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader doesn ’ t really matter in the end ?
” That strong statement coming from an elite member of a powerful religious and political group — one that is frequently cited as Trump ’ s main stronghold — was enough to spark some outrage , but the sentiment coming from Christianity Today , a magazine founded in the 1950s by powerhouse evangelical preacher Billy Graham , seemed , to some , almost sacrilegious .
The response was an uproar .
Nearly 200 evangelical leaders wrote a stern letter to Christianity Today opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not represent their beliefs .
Billy Graham ’ s son Franklin Graham wrote on Facebook that his father had supported Trump and would be “ disappointed ” in his own publication .
And in typical fashion , Trump took to Twitter , inaccurately calling Christianity Today a “ far left ” magazine .
The next day his team announced plans to host an Evangelicals for Trump rally , where he launched a coalition to solidify and expand evangelical support .
“ I think evangelicals are a wild and wily group .
Though we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not monolithic , ” Owen Strachan , a conservative commentator and professor of theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary , told BuzzFeed News .
“ I think there is a significant , and frankly pretty influential , evangelical body that is politically centrist and does not support Donald Trump.
” More than 75 % of white , self-identified evangelicals approve of Trump , according to the 2018 Harvard University Cooperative Congressional Election Study ( CCES ) and analyzed for BuzzFeed News by political scientists Paul Djupe ( Denison University ) and Ryan Burge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have both studied evangelical support for Trump .
Evangelicals are a significant demographic , the two said , making up about a fifth of all registered voters in the US , a statistic also supported by Pew Research Center ’ s 2016 report .
So it ’ s no wonder Trump quickly ramped up his focus after the Christianity Today editorial , making sure their support wouldn ’ t waver .
But Nazworth and those who agree with him told BuzzFeed News they question whether the accepted belief that a solid majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It really depends on how you define evangelicals , ” Greg Scott , media director for the conservative Heritage Foundation , told BuzzFeed News over lunch days before the Christianity Today editorial .
“ What an evangelical is has been so overly defined and misdefined , it ’ s just meaningless now.
” There have been a few attempts to organize the anti-Trump evangelicals , including calls to cast write-in votes in the 2020 presidential election .
The Lincoln Project , an anti-Trump group founded by George Conway ( husband of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released an ad warning evangelicals to “ beware of false prophets.
” But ultimately , all of the evangelicals and political analysts who spoke to BuzzFeed News agreed that the argument that has been raging among evangelical leaders and commentators over the past few weeks is moot .
White evangelicals will largely end up voting for Trump again in 2020 — regardless of what they think of him — they said .
Strachan told BuzzFeed News that many of the evangelical conservatives he knows who were very wary of or opposed to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president , either because of his attempts and successes in making good on his promises , especially in upholding anti-abortion policies , or because the left has become “ even more extreme.
” “ There are two groups of evangelicals today : There are evangelicals who have an idealistic portrait of leadership , and then there are evangelicals who are trying to grapple with actual , complex people , ” Strachan said .
“ Both sides have hard choices before them .
The division is , do we follow an actual clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or should we press hard for one who seems more virtuous ?
” More and more people , especially young people , have been walking away from the evangelical movement in recent years , and some of the conservatives who spoke to BuzzFeed News blame Trump , and what he represents , for some of this attrition .
Data from Pew ’ s 2019 study of the US religious population found that the number Protestants who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians has declined about by 3 % as a share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last decade , a number that continued to decrease each year .
Three of the social conservatives who spoke to BuzzFeed News said they saw Trump and what he represents as contributing to attrition from the church , particularly among young people .
“ I think that there are some evangelicals who say , ‘ You know what ?
Yes , these [ socially conservative ] policies are important , but look at what this is doing to the faith , ’ ” Singleton told BuzzFeed News .
Millennials are “ leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because they look at Trump and his supporters and see them as hypocrites , see them as judgmental , ” he continued .
“ As this chaos continues , it ’ s expediting young people leaving the church .
There ’ s a lot of evangelicals who don ’ t want that.
” It ’ s time for the conservative party and politically influential evangelicals to step back and look beyond Trump , six of the seven people who spoke to BuzzFeed News agreed .
This upcoming election may be a lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start rebuilding the party for a post-Trump world , to figure out what ’ s next for those who oppose Trump but feel they have no one else to vote for .
“ I think the conservative movement was in need of a reformation before Trump , but now he 's basically burned everything down , ” Nazworth said as he prepared to write his own op-ed on “ Trumpvangelicals , ” now as a freelancer .
“ So now it 's time to rebuild .
And that ’ s good.
” @

From the beginning of Trump’s political ascent, influential religious leaders have taken issue with his character.
The man had never seemed particularly religious in his previous, very public life. He notoriously fraternized with socially liberal figureheads, porn stars, and Jeffrey Epstein, and donated to influential elected Democrats. Many prominent evangelicals believed he could not be trusted, that he was posing for their vote.
“Trump claims to be a Christian, yet says he has never asked for forgiveness,” the February 2016 Christian Post editorial reads. “Trump is a misogynist and philanderer. He demeans women and minorities. His preferred forms of communication are insults, obscenities and untruths. While Christians have been guilty of all of these, we, unlike Trump, acknowledge our sins, ask for forgiveness and seek restitution with the aid of the Holy Spirit and our community of believers.”
Over the course of his term, as Trump appointed conservative anti-abortion judges and justices and enacted versions of the policies he promised them in his campaign, many of the once-wary evangelicals kept quiet, and many have changed their tune. But now as the 2020 election approaches, the arguments of those skeptics have started to resurface.
The questions faced by evangelicals who distrust or disapprove of Trump (anywhere from 36% to 42% of evangelicals of all races, depending on the poll) are about what he would do with a second term and how beholden he’d be to evangelicals who make up a good chunk of his base.
“Trump has a long history in the public eye, his circle is well-known, and in that long history, he has only very recently included this large group of self-identified evangelicals, who now happen to form a large part of his base,” a prominent figure in the political conservative movement (who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely) told BuzzFeed News. When Trump doesn’t need them anymore, what’s to stop him from abandoning the issues important to conservative voters and handing the reins over to those members of his administration who are even less conservative than he is?
It’s practically a given that Trump will have strong support among white evangelicals. Even if they disapprove of Trump’s character, the Democratic party’s stance on social issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights mean many of them feel they have no one else to vote for. The question they are asking now is not how to defeat Trump but “how do we pick up the pieces of the conservative party once he is out of office?” as one conservative lobbyist put it.
Some prominent conservatives who spoke to BuzzFeed News said that one of the first issues they could see Trump abandoning was anything related to the LGBTQ community. While his administration has enacted and pushed for policies that would disproportionately, negatively affect LGBTQ people, such as allowing government-funded institutions such as hospitals, schools, and adoption agencies to deny service or otherwise discriminate due to “religious or moral beliefs,” they see the issue as unimportant to Trump.
“One thing Trump has been consistent about throughout his life is desire for acceptance. It’s an innate flaw he has — he has to be a strong man, he has to be the smartest man,” Shermichael Singleton, a conservative political strategist said in response to a question about Trump relaxing his stance on LGBTQ issues. Singleton’s sentiment was echoed by several of the people who spoke to BuzzFeed News.
When the day comes that Trump is near the end of his presidency and preparing to return to civilian life, Singleton, who organized evangelical voters for Ben Carson’s presidential campaign, continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if he softened his stances on some issues in a way that wouldn’t totally isolate the evangelicals, but would help him rebuild a rapport with some of his old friends on the other side.”
Two of the people who spoke to BuzzFeed News pointed to a specific piece of legislation they believe Trump will allow through if he is reelected: the Equality Act, which would ban LGBTQ discrimination. The bill, which passed the House in May but stalled in the Senate, would "prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes.” One influential conservative lobbyist, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to affect business relationships, said that if Democrats gained any seats in the Senate, the Equality Act would be an easy win for the left, and that Ivanka Trump would encourage her father to turn a blind eye to or even support the bill.
“The Trump Administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all,” a spokesperson for the White House told BuzzFeed News when asked for comment on this theory, “however, [the Equality Act] in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights.”
On the other hand, Nazworth told BuzzFeed News his opposition to Trump was not about what he might do in the future, but what he has already done.
“He hasn't really done much for evangelicals other than the judges, which are very important, can't deny that,” Nazworth said, referring to the appointment of conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and the more than 100 federal judges now confirmed by the Senate. “But the evangelicals are getting scammed — they're not really getting what they elected him for.”
Trump made several promises to evangelicals when he was courting their vote in 2016, most notably that he would appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, defund Planned Parenthood, and “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the tax code that prevents nonprofit organizations from endorsing political candidates. In Trump’s recent speeches to evangelicals, he has claimed to have accomplished all three of these goals. In reality, he has only accomplished one of them.
While the Trump administration enacted a rule that prevents Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants, the organization and others like it still receive federal funding through Medicaid reimbursements. And though Trump has repeatedly claimed that he “got rid” of the Johnson Amendment, what he actually did was sign a somewhat vague executive order in 2017, which Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed in a court filing had no effect on the Johnson Amendment and was essentially symbolic.


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Watch Live: Democrats Warn Senators They Could Be Trump's Next Targets In Closing Impeachment Argume

Watch Live: Democrats Warn Senators They Could Be Trump's Next Targets In Closing Impeachment Arguments

WASHINGTON — Democrats are presenting their closing arguments on Friday in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
On Wednesday , the House impeachment managers — Democrats acting as the prosecutors making the case in the Senate — focused on laying out the timeline of Trump 's decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country agreeing to investigate his political rival , former vice president Joe Biden .
Then , on Thursday , they broke down the constitutional justifications for removing Trump from office for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their presentation with video clips from the House ’ s impeachment hearings late last year .
Rep. Adam Schiff , the lead impeachment manager and chair of the House Intelligence Committee , closed Thursday night ’ s proceedings with a passionate speech , making the case that senators must vote to remove Trump from office .
“ You know you ca n't trust this president to do what 's right for this country .
You can trust he will do what 's right for Donald Trump , ” he said as the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He 'll do it now , he 's done it before , he 'll do it for the next several months , he 'll do it in the election if he is allowed to .
This is why if you find him guilty , you must find he should be removed — because right matters .
And the truth matters .
Otherwise , we are lost . ''
On Friday , Schiff added a new argument for removing Trump from office , warning senators that they could be Trump 's next targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Joe Biden [ that Trump asked to investigate ] — because I will tell you something , the next time , it just may be you .
It just may be you .
Do you think for a moment that any of you , no matter what your relationship with this president … that if he felt it was in his interest , that he would n't ask for you to be investigated ?
Do you think for a moment that he would n't ?
And if somewhere deep down below , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution . ''
Schiff later added , `` It could be any of us .
It may be any of us .
...
It goes to character .
You do n't realize how important character is at the highest office in the land until you do n't have it . ''

WASHINGTON — House Democrats presented their closing arguments on Friday in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, saying the president is "a danger to the country" who must be removed from office.
Democrats have charged Trump with two articles of impeachment. First, abuse of power over his decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country agreeing to investigate his political rival, former vice president Joe Biden. The second article is obstruction of Congress for withholding documents and testimony in the House's investigation.
On Wednesday, the House impeachment managers — Democrats acting as the prosecutors making the case in the Senate — focused on laying out the timeline of Trump's Ukraine scandal. Then, on Thursday, they broke down the constitutional justifications for removing Trump from office.
On Friday, Democrats wrapped up their case, concluding with Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, reading the articles of impeachment and punctuating its allegations against Trump by repeatedly saying "that has been proved."
Schiff then went through a number of arguments that he believes Trump's lawyers will make, arguing that they will focus on process arguments, disparaging the House managers, and saying that Democrats are only impeaching Trump because they "hate the president" — things that are irrelevant to what Trump did, he said. "When you hear those attacks you should ask yourself away from what do they want to distract my attention? Nine times out of ten it is the president's misconduct."
Schiff added that he doesn't hate the president, "I only hate what he has done to this country."
"When they make the argument to you this is only happening because we hate the president is just another form of 'please do not consider what the president did," Schiff said. "Whether you like him or dislike him is immaterial. ... What matters is if he is a danger to the country because he will do it again. And none of us can have confidence based on his word he will not do it again because he is telling us every day he would."
Democrats have been pushing Republicans to allow them to call witnesses and subpoena documents in the trial. While Republicans have voted multiple times already to avoid that, the issue could come up again next week. Schiff concluded his speech, and nearly 22 hours of Democratic arguments this week, by saying, "Americans get a fair trial and so I ask you, I implore you, give America a fair trial. Give America a fair trial. She is worth it.
Schiff made his most impassioned case to senators in a Thursday night speech, arguing that they must vote to remove Trump from office.
“You know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country. You can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump,” he said as the day came to a close around 10:30 p.m. “He'll do it now, he's done it before, he'll do it for the next several months, he'll do it in the election if he is allowed to. This is why if you find him guilty, you must find he should be removed — because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost."
On Friday, Schiff added a new argument for removing Trump from office, warning senators that they could be Trump's next targets.
"It shouldn't matter there was Joe Biden [that Trump asked to investigate] — because I will tell you something, the next time, it just may be you. It just may be you. Do you think for a moment that any of you, no matter what your relationship with this president … that if he felt it was in his interest, that he wouldn't ask for you to be investigated? Do you think for a moment that he wouldn't? And if somewhere deep down below, you realize that he would, you cannot leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution."
Schiff later added, "It could be any of us. It may be any of us. ... It goes to character. You don't realize how important character is at the highest office in the land until you don't have it."


buzzfeed--2020-01-24--Elizabeth Warren’s Mission: Kill The Anxiety About Her Campaign

Elizabeth Warren ’ s closing pitch to Iowa voters is to stop thinking of her as the Democratic primary ’ s “ but ” candidate .
GRIMES , Iowa — “ My heart might be with Warren , but my head might be telling me Klobuchar .
So I don ’ t know.
” With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses , now is the time for Karen Crosby to make up her mind .
Crosby , an adult ESL instructor who came to see Elizabeth Warren at a rally in Grimes , said she knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wavering between two candidates with starkly different visions for the country : Warren , a big-ideas progressive , and Amy Klobuchar , a pragmatic moderate .
But what she was trying to decide , Crosby said , was which vision could actually beat Donald Trump .
Elizabeth Warren is the “ but ” candidate of the Democratic primary : For more than a year , voters have agonized over her just as Crosby has .
They like her — they love her !
But , they say , they worry she can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s too far left , because she ’ s too impractical , because she doesn ’ t speak to white Midwesterners .
Sometimes , that worry is so clear it doesn ’ t need to be voiced : “ I love Warren , but ... ” voters say and then trail off , as though the reasons are obvious .
In Iowa , with the caucuses near and Warren trailing Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden in most polls both nationally and in the state , Warren ’ s campaign has oriented itself around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads , not just their hearts .
The campaign has reshaped its events in a way that seems aimed directly at voters ’ anxieties .
They are working to convince voters obsessed with beating Trump that Warren can appeal to moderates .
On Friday , the campaign took the rare step of releasing a strategy memo outlining its plans beyond Iowa and the early voting states , emphasizing how much staff it has across the country and how prepared they are for a “ long nomination fight.
” And for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been lingering , unspoken , in many voters ’ minds throughout the primary : whether a woman can beat Trump .
Campaign surrogates , like former candidate Julián Castro , have begun to pitch Warren as the “ unity candidate , ” arguing that she can unite the Democratic Party ’ s factions in a way that no other frontrunner can .
On a January swing through Iowa , her campaign arranged for Warren to be introduced by former Republicans at back-to-back events .
They released a list of Iowa Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucusing for Warren .
On Medicare for All , the issue that tripped her up last year over worries that the plan was too radical , Warren has perfected a health care pitch that sounds , at least until the end , like it was ripped from Klobuchar ’ s stump speech .
There is data that shows potential for Warren : She ’ s the most popular second-choice candidate among Iowa voters .
But many of those people , the data also shows , rank her behind the other Iowa frontrunners — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Voters ’ anxieties about Warren are , at least in part , why she remains their second choice , according to conversations with dozens of voters across Iowa in recent months .
To win their votes , many say , she needs to convince them she can win .
In part , that shift reflects a response to Iowa voters ’ clear worries about unity .
When she was in the state earlier this month , voters asked Warren at three separate events how she would unite the country .
The vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” isn ’ t entirely new .
Her campaign has explicitly reached out to centrist voters in a way that Sanders ’ has not .
She has couched her plans for things like student debt cancellation , campaign finance reform , and taxation in terms that appeal to moderates .
But her campaign has embraced “ unity ” far more explicitly in the run-up to the caucuses .
When Warren landed a key endorsement from Janet Petersen , the Democratic leader of Iowa ’ s state Senate , Petersen explained her endorsement by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ bring our nation back together.
” “ All Iowans and all Americans can unite behind her plans for ending corruption and ensuring opportunity , ” Petersen ’ s statement had .
In Marshalltown , Castro , who endorsed Warren soon after dropping out of the presidential race in early January , introduced the candidate by praising her willingness to take on her own party when he was in the Obama administration .
And he cited polls that showed a quarter of Democrats would be unhappy if either Sanders or Biden won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does best by that measure .
“ She can bring this party together .
She can unify Democrats to defeat Donald Trump in November of 2020 , ” he said .
In Iowa and elsewhere , voter worries about Warren ’ s policies are most clearly concentrated around health care — specifically , her support of the single-payer system , known as Medicare for All , championed by Sanders .
After she was criticized in early debates for being evasive on how she would pay for the policy , Warren was dragged into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they worried Warren ’ s health care plan would make her unelectable .
And on the left , some accused her of backing away from Medicare for All when she released a plan that would transition the country onto single-payer health care by first using a public option of the type favored by Buttigieg and Biden .
In the later stage of her campaign , Warren has perfected an answer on health care that sounds more reminiscent of her moderate rivals — starting with a list of practical , feasible solutions like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the cost of prescription drugs .
She speaks far more about a public option — the first phase of her plan — than about single-payer Medicare for All , the eventual endgame .
“ We can do this in budget reconciliation — which means we only need 50 votes .
We can offer full health care coverage to 135 million Americans for free , ” Warren said in Manchester , Iowa , in early January .
“ You ’ re not forced into it if you don ’ t want to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ care is like when it ’ s just between you and your doctor.
” “ Once people have tried it out , ” she finished , “ we vote on Medicare for All for everyone.
” The campaign ’ s narrative has worked for some Iowa voters .
“ In the world of her policies and her approach , I think she ’ s very electable , ” said Jim Ross , a government worker who came to see Warren in Davenport in early January .
It was Warren ’ s health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that struck him as having broad appeal .
“ Electability sounds like you ’ re giving something up to make someone electable , but she doesn ’ t , ” he said .
“ I think she strikes home with a wide range , with conservative Democrats and more liberal Republicans .
She can bring them together.
” But there is a danger for Warren , too , in trying to strike that balance , and in selling herself as a candidate that is somewhere between the moderate and progressive wings .
Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her presidential run , putting out her own version of Medicare for All that tried to assuage the fears of more moderate Democrats about upending the private insurance system .
It opened her up to attacks from both the left and the right , and reinforced an image she ’ d already developed as a candidate who changed policy positions to appeal to voters rather than sticking to firm principles .
In early January , when a Trump-ordered military strike took out top Iranian military Gen. Qassem Soleimani , Warren initially released a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murderer.
” Some on the left attacked her statement as going too far in justifying the strike .
When Warren ’ s later statements called Soleimani ’ s killing an “ assassination , ” she was criticized by pundits and centrists for being disingenuous .
Warren ’ s campaign has also taken on another long-standing voter anxiety : her gender .
Mary , an Iowa voter who lives in Blue Grass , a small town in Eastern Iowa , said she ’ d seen — and been impressed by — Warren .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who she had come to see speak in Davenport .
“ She ’ s a firecracker , but she doesn ’ t have all that experience that Biden does , ” Mary , who did not want her last name used , said of Warren .
Then , almost as an aside , she added : “ And I don ’ t think she can win , because she ’ s a woman , dang it , and they don ’ t like women presidents , I guess.
” Though Warren has woven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her campaign , she had done little to address worries about electability explicitly .
That changed when a story leaked earlier this month that Sanders , a longtime ally of Warren ’ s , had told Warren in a private meeting he believed a woman could not beat Trump .
( Warren later confirmed that account , Sanders denied it . )
In a message to supporters after the story , Warren ’ s campaign acknowledged that anxieties about sexism in the presidential race were something “ many , many people feel.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary debate that next day to focus not on Sanders , but on gender and electability .
“ It ’ s time for us to attack it head-on , ” she said of Sanders ’ alleged claims .
“ Look at the men on this stage : Collectively , they have lost 10 elections .
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women , Amy and me.
” Kathleen Keest , a retired consumer law expert in Des Moines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed the issue of gender and electability directly , instead of letting it fester , as she thought Democrats had done in the past .
“ Once you name the fear , it becomes less fearful .
Naming it helps , ” Keest said .
Cheryl , who came to see Warren in Des Moines in mid-January and did not want her last name to be used , said she “ worried ” about Warren ’ s gender .
The country , she thought , was too strongly tilted against women candidates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned to vote for Biden in the caucuses , she said .
“ I really do believe in her .
I believe what she says , and I think she ’ s probably as honest as any candidate can be , ” Cheryl said of Warren .
“ But she ’ s got big mountains to climb.
” “ I ’ m not too excited by anyone else .
But the reason I ’ m thinking Biden is because he seems to be the one to win .
Unfortunately — I prefer Elizabeth.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up at the debate about women being electable , she said .
But she was not convinced by Warren ’ s argument — at least , not convinced enough to change her vote .
“ Well , I agree with her , ” Cheryl said , emphasizing the `` I . ''
“ But I don ’ t know , I just don ’ t know how other people — we ’ ve got a lot of strong Republicans in this country ...
I don ’ t know that they ’ d even @ @ @

GRIMES, Iowa — “My heart might be with Warren, but my head might be telling me Klobuchar. So I don’t know.”
With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses, now is the time for Karen Crosby to make up her mind.
Crosby, an adult ESL instructor who came to see Elizabeth Warren at a rally in Grimes, said she knew it might seem odd that she was wavering between two candidates with starkly different visions for the country: Warren, a big-ideas progressive, and Amy Klobuchar, a pragmatic moderate. But what she was trying to decide, Crosby said, was which vision could actually beat Donald Trump.
Elizabeth Warren is the “but” candidate of the Democratic primary: For more than a year, voters have agonized over her just as Crosby has. They like her — they love her! But, they say, they worry she can’t beat Trump: because she’s too far left, because she’s too impractical, because she doesn’t speak to white Midwesterners.
Sometimes, that worry is so clear it doesn’t need to be voiced: “I love Warren, but...” voters say and then trail off, as though the reasons are obvious.
In Iowa, with the caucuses near and Warren trailing Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden in most polls both nationally and in the state, Warren’s campaign has oriented itself around changing that dynamic — convincing Iowans’ heads, not just their hearts.
The campaign has reshaped its events in a way that seems aimed directly at voters’ anxieties. They are working to convince voters obsessed with beating Trump that Warren can appeal to moderates. On Friday, the campaign took the rare step of releasing a strategy memo outlining its plans beyond Iowa and the early voting states, emphasizing how much staff it has across the country and how prepared they are for a “long nomination fight.”
And for the first time, Warren has tackled head-on an anxiety that has been lingering, unspoken, in many voters’ minds throughout the primary: whether a woman can beat Trump.
Campaign surrogates, like former candidate Julián Castro, have begun to pitch Warren as the “unity candidate,” arguing that she can unite the Democratic Party’s factions in a way that no other frontrunner can. On a January swing through Iowa, her campaign arranged for Warren to be introduced by former Republicans at back-to-back events. They released a list of Iowa Republicans who had said they were planning on caucusing for Warren. On Medicare for All, the issue that tripped her up last year over worries that the plan was too radical, Warren has perfected a health care pitch that sounds, at least until the end, like it was ripped from Klobuchar’s stump speech.
There is data that shows potential for Warren: She’s the most popular second-choice candidate among Iowa voters. But many of those people, the data also shows, rank her behind the other Iowa frontrunners — Biden, Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg.
Voters’ anxieties about Warren are, at least in part, why she remains their second choice, according to conversations with dozens of voters across Iowa in recent months. To win their votes, many say, she needs to convince them she can win.
In part, that shift reflects a response to Iowa voters’ clear worries about unity. When she was in the state earlier this month, voters asked Warren at three separate events how she would unite the country.


buzzfeed--2020-01-25--Republicans Say There’s Not Enough Evidence To Impeach Trump, But Too Much To Call Any Witnesses

“ I ’ m further away from changing my mind on witnesses , ” said Republican Sen. John Barrasso .
“ When they speak they talk about overwhelming evidence , rock-solid evidence , and even mountains of evidence .
You ’ d think if you have that kind of a case you wouldn ’ t need additional witnesses.
” Since Democrats claimed there is already overwhelming evidence against President Donald Trump , Republicans argue , then by definition you wouldn ’ t need to call more evidence .
At the same time , they say there is not , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
House impeachment managers have pleaded with the Senate to subpoena documents and new witnesses , such as former national security adviser John Bolton .
But Republicans on Friday attempted to turn the managers ’ own words against them .
WASHINGTON — Republican senators are using a novel argument to reject calls for new witnesses and documents , saying Democrats haven ’ t provided overwhelming evidence , therefore there ’ s no need to call for more evidence .
The Impeachment Today podcast gets you up to date with the day ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all the episodes , or subscribe on the iHeartRadio app , Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or wherever you listen to your favorite shows .
Sen. Joni Ernst said Friday afternoon she is still waiting to see the incontrovertible case promised by Democrats .
“ They keep proclaiming that this is overwhelming evidence .
Then likely we wouldn ’ t need additional evidence or witnesses , ” she said .
Asked if this amounted to a catch-22 — no new evidence is needed when the case is overwhelming , even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrasso said no , because that is the impeachment managers ’ responsibility .
“ It ’ s their job to make the case .
It ’ s the Senate ’ s job to judge and listen , ” said Barrasso .
Republicans voted down eight subpoena attempts for documents and witnesses at the start of the trial .
There will be one more vote on the matter next week .
A large majority of Republicans were always expected to vote against new witnesses , which would set up a final vote where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if just four Republicans side with Democrats , new subpoenas could be issued .
Sens .
Susan Collins of Maine , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , and Mitt Romney of Utah are the only senators who have signaled they may be open to calling in new evidence , though others have said they are waiting to make up their mind .
But it ’ s becoming clear most Republicans see this as an open-and-shut case .
“ They ’ ve said the same thing I don ’ t know how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott .
“ I don ’ t believe anything they ’ ve said so far is impeachable.
” House Democrats started their opening arguments Wednesday and had until Friday evening to conclude .
The White House will then give arguments during a short session Saturday , followed by two full days to talk on Monday and Tuesday .
After that , there will be 16 hours for senators to provide written questions , followed by four hours of debate on whether to call additional witnesses and then a vote .
After three straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well into the evening , both sides were showing signs of frustration .
“ Oh , who the hell knows , ” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono when asked if she thought the arguments were getting through to Republicans .
“ I don ’ t think they ’ re showing any signs of being willing to listen .
”

Sen. Joni Ernst said Friday afternoon she is still waiting to see the incontrovertible case promised by Democrats. “They keep proclaiming that this is overwhelming evidence. Then likely we wouldn’t need additional evidence or witnesses,” she said.
Asked if this amounted to a catch-22 — no new evidence is needed when the case is overwhelming, even if the case is not overwhelming — Ernst and Barrasso said no, because that is the impeachment managers’ responsibility. “It’s their job to make the case. It’s the Senate’s job to judge and listen,” said Barrasso.
Republicans voted down eight subpoena attempts for documents and witnesses at the start of the trial. There will be one more vote on the matter next week. A large majority of Republicans were always expected to vote against new witnesses, which would set up a final vote where they could acquit Trump by late next week.
But if just four Republicans side with Democrats, new subpoenas could be issued. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah are the only senators who have signaled they may be open to calling in new evidence, though others have said they are waiting to make up their mind.
But it’s becoming clear most Republicans see this as an open-and-shut case.
“They’ve said the same thing I don’t know how many times,” said Florida Sen. Rick Scott. “I don’t believe anything they’ve said so far is impeachable.”
House Democrats started their opening arguments Wednesday and had until Friday evening to conclude. The White House will then give arguments during a short session Saturday, followed by two full days to talk on Monday and Tuesday.
After that, there will be 16 hours for senators to provide written questions, followed by four hours of debate on whether to call additional witnesses and then a vote.
After three straight days of sitting (mostly) silently well into the evening, both sides were showing signs of frustration. “Oh, who the hell knows,” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono when asked if she thought the arguments were getting through to Republicans. “I don’t think they’re showing any signs of being willing to listen.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-25--A Senator Wants Congress To “Unilaterally” Release Information On Jamal Khashoggi’s Killing If The T


buzzfeed--2020-01-25--Anti-Trump Evangelicals Are Trying To Figure Out What To Do Next


buzzfeed--2020-01-25--Democrats Warn Senators They Could Be Trump's Next Targets In Closing Impeachment Arguments

WASHINGTON — House Democrats presented their closing arguments on Friday in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , saying the president is `` a danger to the country '' who must be removed from office .
Democrats have charged Trump with two articles of impeachment .
First , abuse of power over his decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country agreeing to investigate his political rival , former vice president Joe Biden .
The second article is obstruction of Congress for withholding documents and testimony in the House 's investigation .
On Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the prosecutors making the case in the Senate — focused on laying out the timeline of Trump 's Ukraine scandal .
Then , on Thursday , they broke down the constitutional justifications for removing Trump from office .
On Friday , Democrats wrapped up their case , concluding with Rep. Adam Schiff , the lead impeachment manager and chair of the House Intelligence Committee , reading the articles of impeachment and punctuating its allegations against Trump by repeatedly saying `` that has been proved . ''
Schiff then went through a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers will make , arguing that they will focus on process arguments , disparaging the House managers , and saying that Democrats are only impeaching Trump because they `` hate the president '' — things that are irrelevant to what Trump did , he said .
`` When you hear those attacks you should ask yourself away from what do they want to distract my attention ?
Nine times out of ten it is the president 's misconduct . ''
Schiff added that he does n't hate the president , `` I only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country . ''
`` When they make the argument to you this is only happening because we hate the president is just another form of 'please do not consider what the president did , '' Schiff said .
`` Whether you like him or dislike him is immaterial .
... What matters is if he is a danger to the country because he will do it again .
And none of us can have confidence based on his word he will not do it again because he is telling us every day he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans to allow them to call witnesses and subpoena documents in the trial .
While Republicans have voted multiple times already to avoid that , the issue could come up again next week .
Schiff concluded his speech , and nearly 22 hours of Democratic arguments this week , by saying , `` Americans get a fair trial and so I ask you , I implore you , give America a fair trial .
Give America a fair trial .
She is worth it .
Schiff made his most impassioned case to senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they must vote to remove Trump from office .
“ You know you ca n't trust this president to do what 's right for this country .
You can trust he will do what 's right for Donald Trump , ” he said as the day came to a close around 10:30 p.m. “ He 'll do it now , he 's done it before , he 'll do it for the next several months , he 'll do it in the election if he is allowed to .
This is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must find he should be removed — because right matters .
And the truth matters .
Otherwise , we are lost . ''
On Friday , Schiff added a new argument for removing Trump from office , warning senators that they could be Trump 's next targets .
`` It should n't matter there was Joe Biden [ that Trump asked to investigate ] — because I will tell you something , the next time , it just may be you .
It just may be you .
Do you think for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter what your relationship with this president … that if he felt it was in his interest , that he would n't ask for you to be investigated ?
Do you think for a moment that he would n't ?
And if somewhere deep down below , you realize that he would , you can not leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution . ''
Schiff later added , `` It could be any of us .
It may be any of us .
...
It goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how important character is at the highest office in the land until you do n't have it . ''


buzzfeed--2020-01-25--Here's The Recording Of Trump Saying He Wanted To "Get Rid Of" A Top US Ambassador

`` Get rid of her .
Get her out tomorrow .
I do n't care , '' Trump is heard saying on the tape .
`` Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out , ok ?
Do it . ''
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Lev Parnas , one of Rudy Giuliani ’ s two indicted associates who ran the Ukrainian backchannel campaign at the heart of the impeachment inquiry , has released a recording of President Donald Trump saying he wanted to “ get rid of ” a US ambassador during a dinner with the men and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joseph Bondy , a lawyer for Parnas , shows the president telling Parnas , his partner Igor Fruman , and other participants of an intimate 2018 meal that Marie Yovanovitch , then the US ambassador to Ukraine , should be removed .
`` Get rid of her ! ''
Trump says on the tape after Parnas says Yovanovitch has been privately criticizing the president .
`` Get her out tomorrow .
I do n't care .
Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out .
OK ?
Do it . ''
Parnas previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-aide John DeStefano when he ordered the ambassador ’ s firing .
Bondy said Saturday that Fruman made the hour-long recording , the existence of which was first reported by ABC News , on April 30 , 2018 .
Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled from her post in Kyiv in a phone call a year later , she told House investigators .
Bondy also said that the tape has been turned over to the House Intelligence Committee , which has led the impeachment inquiry .
A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
“ Given its importance to the national interest , we decided to release this recording in a manner intended to ensure equal public access , and in an effort to provide clarity to the American people and the Senate as to the need to conduct a fair trial , with witnesses and evidence , ” Bondy told BuzzFeed News .
Bondy has repeatedly called for senators to allow Parnas to testify in the impeachment trial , tweeting # LetLevSpeak along with video montages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump family , including the president .
Yovanovitch ’ s ouster , which State Department officials have dubbed a politically motivated smear campaign , has been a key component of the impeachment inquiry .
Parnas and Giuliani have said that Yovanovitch , a career foreign service officer , stood in the way of the Ukrainian investigations they were seeking into former vice president Joe Biden and his son , Hunter , on Trump ’ s behalf .
Though Trump has denied knowing Parnas or Fruman , who were charged with campaign finance violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking with the president at an intimate dinner with those close to Trump .
At the beginning of the hour-long video , Parnas can be seen in an ornate dining room at the Trump International Hotel in Washington , DC .
The recording appears to capture the president posing for a photo with his eldest son , Donald Trump Jr , down the hall .
Someone tells Fruman that people might not want their photos taken , but he continues recording .
The video also shows a place setting with “ Mr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ name tag at the spot next to it says “ Mr .
Donald Trump Jr. ” Later , Trump Jr. stands near his place setting and his father joins him at the table to applause from the guests .
After the dinner guests are seated , Fruman appears to place his phone on the table , face up , so the video shows the ceiling and records the conversations .
The ambassador comes up approximately 42 minutes into the video , as Parnas and Trump discuss the oil industry in Ukraine , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the area .
At the time , Parnas and Fruman had just formed a company to export gas to Eastern Europe .
`` The biggest problem there — I think where we need to start is we got ta get rid of the ambassador , ” Parnas says .
“ She 's still left over from the Clinton administration .
She 's basically walking around telling everybody , ‘ Wait , he 's gon na get impeached , just wait ’ . ''
The line prompts laughter from the guests , and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new secretary of state .
At that point , Trump says Yovanovitch should be dismissed .
Then , another dinner guest congratulates the president on the confirmation of Mike Pompeo , who had been approved by the Senate days before to lead the State Department .
“ Pompeo ’ s going to be good , ” Trump says .
The spring of 2018 was a key time in Parnas and Fruman ’ s rise as major Republican donors .
At the time , the South Florida businessmen made a flurry of large donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the contributions — including one to a pro-Trump super PAC for $ 325,000 that prosecutors accused the men of falsely attributing to their energy company — landed the pair in jail last year .
The duo used their newfound political access to deride Yovanovitch to another powerful lawmaker in the weeks after they dined with Trump .
In May 2018 , Parnas and Fruman lambasted the ambassador during a meeting with then-Rep. Pete Sessions .
Afterward , Sessions wrote a letter Pompeo urging him to replace her , as BuzzFeed News first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received notice from close companions that Ambassador Yovanovitch has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration , ” he wrote .
Sessions has claimed that he was referring to “ congressional colleagues ” in his letter , not Parnas and Fruman .
Text messages turned over by Parnas and released by House impeachment investigators last week show that he , Giuliani , and others worked through early 2019 to have the ambassador fired .
Some of the messages even suggest the ambassador was under surveillance in Kyiv — though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t to be taken seriously .
Yovanovitch said that when she received a late-night phone call on April 24 , 2019 , telling her to return to Washington immediately , she was told there were questions about her “ security , ” as well as concerns about her “ up the street ” at the White House .

After the dinner guests are seated, Fruman appears to place his phone on the table with the camera facing up, so the video shows the ceiling and records the conversations.
The ambassador comes up approximately 42 minutes into the video, as Parnas and Trump discuss the oil industry in Ukraine, as well as Russia’s influence in the area. At the time, Parnas and Fruman had just formed a company to export gas to Eastern Europe.
"The biggest problem there — I think where we need to start is we gotta get rid of the ambassador,” Parnas says. “She's still left over from the Clinton administration. She's basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he's gonna get impeached, just wait’."
The line prompts laughter from the guests, and an unidentified person mentions that Trump has a new secretary of state. At that point, Trump says Yovanovitch should be dismissed.
“Excellent,” Parnas says.
Then another dinner guest congratulates the president on the confirmation of Mike Pompeo, who had been approved by the Senate days before to lead the State Department.
“Pompeo’s going to be good,” Trump says.
The spring of 2018 was a key time in Parnas and Fruman’s rise as major Republican donors. At the time, the South Florida business partners made a flurry of large donations to GOP candidates and causes. Some of the contributions — including one to a pro-Trump super PAC for $325,000 that prosecutors accused the men of falsely attributing to their energy company — landed the pair in jail last year.
The duo used their newfound political access to deride Yovanovitch to another powerful lawmaker in the weeks after they dined with Trump. In May 2018, Parnas and Fruman lambasted the ambassador during a meeting with then-Rep. Pete Sessions. Afterward, Sessions wrote a letter Pompeo urging him to replace her, as BuzzFeed News first reported last summer. “I have received notice from close companions that Ambassador Yovanovitch has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration,” he wrote. Sessions has claimed that he was referring to “congressional colleagues” in his letter, not Parnas and Fruman.
Text messages turned over by Parnas and released by House impeachment investigators last week show that he, Giuliani, and others worked through early 2019 to have the ambassador fired. Some of the messages even suggest the ambassador was under surveillance in Kyiv — though Parnas has said the messages weren’t to be taken seriously.
Yovanovitch said that when she received a late-night phone call on April 24, 2019, telling her to return to Washington immediately, she was told there were questions about her “security,” as well as concerns about her “up the street” at the White House.