buzzfeed--2020-02-28--A Powerful Court Sided With Trump And Said His Former Lawyer Can Ignore A Congressional Subpoena

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump ’ s former top White House lawyer , Don McGahn , can avoid testifying before the House of Representatives , giving the president a victory in his efforts to block his senior staff from appearing before lawmakers .
The case had arisen in the context of the Russia probe , with relevance that extended into Trump ’ s impeachment proceedings , as the president blocked several members of his administration from testifying .
But it also raised questions about whether the president enjoys blanket powers to stonewall congressional investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges appointed by Republicans , said the House Judiciary Committee lacked standing to bring the case , arguing the dispute should be worked out by the White House and Congress , not courts .
The decision from the US Court of Appeals for Washington , DC , overrules a lower court ’ s November order against the president and said the case should be dismissed .
A constitutional provision known as Article III that dictates the sort of cases judges can adjudicate , the court wrote , “ forbids federal courts from resolving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case had become a closely watched indicator for larger battles over Trump ’ s powers with Congress and , looking ahead , decades of future White House maneuvers .
In particular , it may establish whether presidents can yoke their aides away from Congress , even if those staffers have intimate knowledge of possible misconduct .
Judge Thomas Griffith , an appointee of former president George W. Bush , wrote the Friday opinion with a concurrence from Judge Karen Henderson , who was appointed by George Bush Sr. “ We express no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize a crucial aspect of our constitutional design , ” the opinion says .
“ The branches have long resolved their differences through negotiation and compromise.
” Judge Judith Rogers , who was appointed by former Democratic president Bill Clinton , said in a dissent that the majority ’ s decision may undermine Congress .
“ The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation , all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress , and further impairs the House ’ s ability to perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least for now , the decision against House Democrats shuts down attempts to obtain fresh evidence in its investigations of the president and make McGahn , who was the White House general counsel , discuss what he knew about the Russia probe .
It was not immediately clear if the House Judiciary Committee would appeal the decision .
But many believe the McGahn case is destined for the Supreme Court .
McGahn had departed the White House in October 2018 , well before Trump ’ s conversations with Ukraine that led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case rolled ahead , House Democrats insisted his knowledge was relevant to removing the president from office as well .
McGahn ’ s case is specifically about whether White House staff must appear to testify before Congress , not that they answer every question , because executive privilege allows the president to withhold particularly sensitive information .
But Trump ’ s Justice Department has claimed to possess an exceptionally broad shield , saying top aides like McGahn are “ absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.
” Justice Department lawyers representing McGahn argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should stay out of the current “ political food fight.
” But the case animates a rerun of American history that ’ s never reached a season finale .
Many presidents have bristled at calls for their staff to testify before Congress , including the George W. Bush administration unsuccessfully attempting to block former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying in 2008 .
And yet , no federal appeals court has ever set legal precedent by resolving the dispute .
McGahn ’ s imbroglio began when Democrats who control the House Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they investigated elements of the Russia probe by former special counsel Robert Mueller .
After the White House repeatedly claimed McGhan was immune , the committee filed suit .
“ McGahn ’ s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee ’ s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee , ” House Democrats told the circuit court in a December filing .
The committee said it has “ an urgent need for McGahn ’ s testimony ” to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump of obstructing Congress .
“ For example , ” the Democrats ’ filing continued , “ if McGahn confirms to the Committee that the President ordered him to fire Special Counsel Mueller — an event that President Trump has publicly disputed — and then tried to cover it up , that testimony would constitute powerful evidence of the pattern of obstructive behavior described in the second Article [ of impeachment ] .
” House Democrats also contended their purpose is legislative , referring to the constitutional right to subpoena officials for lawmaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them craft policy on election security , campaign finance , use of electronic data , and other conduct described in the Mueller Report .
The Justice Department has consistently said courts must back off from territory strictly reserved for the White House and Congress .
In a December filing , administration lawyers said intervention by courts would amount to a “ radical distortion of the balance of powers.
” “ Rather than allow the political branches to resolve disputes over their institutional prerogatives through the political process as they have done for over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world in which the Legislative Branch may simply file complaint after complaint against the Executive Branch , with the Judicial Branch stuck in the middle of legally and politically fraught battles , ” the filing said .
That argument from Trump failed in the same case at a lower court in November , when US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that “ absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.
” She added that “ absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ has no basis in the law.
” Jackson , who was appointed by former president Barack Obama , also rejected the Trump administration 's claim that judges must butt out of clashes like these between the executive and legislative branches , writing , “ A federal court determines that the subpoenaed official does , as a matter of law , have a duty to respond.
” “ Stated simply , ” she added , “ the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department have invoked the absolute immunity argument to defy subpoenas and requests for testimony before — including from White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway , former senior adviser Hope Hicks , and former presidential aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter .
Democrats did not pursue litigation in those cases .
Justice Department spokesperson Brianna Herlihy praised the Friday ruling , saying in a statement that it shows Congress `` can not invoke the power of the courts in its political disputes with the Executive Branch .
Suits like this one are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and are inconsistent with the Constitution ’ s design .
The D.C.
Circuit ’ s cogent opinion affirms this fundamental principle.
” In another closely watched case , House Democrats sought testimony from Charles Kupperman , the president ’ s former deputy national security adviser , in the impeachment inquiry .
Kupperman asked a court to declare whether he had immunity , but a judge dismissed his case as moot in December after Democrats withdrew their subpoena .

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump’s former top White House lawyer, Don McGahn, can avoid testifying before the House of Representatives, giving the president a victory in his efforts to block his senior staff from appearing before lawmakers.
The case had arisen in the context of the Russia probe, with relevance that extended into Trump’s impeachment proceedings, as the president blocked several members of his administration from testifying. But it also raised questions about whether the president enjoys blanket powers to stonewall congressional investigations.
The 2–1 decision, led by judges appointed by Republicans, said the House Judiciary Committee lacked standing to bring the case, arguing the dispute should be worked out by the White House and Congress, not courts. The decision from the US Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, overrules a lower court’s November order against the president and said the case should be dismissed.
A constitutional provision known as Article III that dictates the sort of cases judges can adjudicate, the court wrote, “forbids federal courts from resolving this kind of interbranch information dispute.”
The case had become a closely watched indicator for larger battles over Trump’s powers with Congress and, looking ahead, decades of future White House maneuvers. In particular, it may establish whether presidents can yoke their aides away from Congress, even if those staffers have intimate knowledge of possible misconduct.
Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of former president George W. Bush, wrote the Friday opinion with a concurrence from Judge Karen Henderson, who was appointed by George Bush Sr.
“We express no view on the merits, except to emphasize a crucial aspect of our constitutional design,” the opinion says. “The branches have long resolved their differences through negotiation and compromise.”
Judge Judith Rogers, who was appointed by former Democratic president Bill Clinton, said in a dissent that the majority’s decision may undermine Congress.
“The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties,” Rogers said.
At least for now, the decision against House Democrats shuts down attempts to obtain fresh evidence in its investigations of the president and make McGahn, who was the White House general counsel, discuss what he knew about the Russia probe.
It was not immediately clear if the House Judiciary Committee would appeal the decision. But many believe the McGahn case is destined for the Supreme Court.
McGahn had departed the White House in October 2018, well before Trump’s conversations with Ukraine that led to the impeachment inquiry, but as the case rolled ahead, House Democrats insisted his knowledge was relevant to removing the president from office as well.
McGahn’s case is specifically about whether White House staff must appear to testify before Congress, not that they answer every question, because executive privilege allows the president to withhold particularly sensitive information. But Trump’s Justice Department has claimed to possess an exceptionally broad shield, saying top aides like McGahn are “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”
Justice Department lawyers representing McGahn argued in a Jan. 3 hearing that courts should stay out of the current “political food fight.” But the case animates a rerun of American history that’s never reached a season finale. Many presidents have bristled at calls for their staff to testify before Congress, including the George W. Bush administration unsuccessfully attempting to block former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying in 2008. And yet, no federal appeals court has ever set legal precedent by resolving the dispute.
McGahn’s imbroglio began when Democrats who control the House Judiciary Committee sought his testimony in spring 2019 as they investigated elements of the Russia probe by former special counsel Robert Mueller. After the White House repeatedly claimed McGhan was immune, the committee filed suit.
“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee,” House Democrats told the circuit court in a December filing. The committee said it has “an urgent need for McGahn’s testimony” to support their second article of impeachment, accusing Trump of obstructing Congress.
“For example,” the Democrats’ filing continued, “if McGahn confirms to the Committee that the President ordered him to fire Special Counsel Mueller — an event that President Trump has publicly disputed — and then tried to cover it up, that testimony would constitute powerful evidence of the pattern of obstructive behavior described in the second Article [of impeachment].”
House Democrats also contended their purpose is legislative, referring to the constitutional right to subpoena officials for lawmaking. They say interviewing McGahn would help them craft policy on election security, campaign finance, use of electronic data, and other conduct described in the Mueller Report.
The Justice Department has consistently said courts must back off from territory strictly reserved for the White House and Congress. In a December filing, administration lawyers said intervention by courts would amount to a “radical distortion of the balance of powers.”
“Rather than allow the political branches to resolve disputes over their institutional prerogatives through the political process as they have done for over two centuries, the Committee envisions a world in which the Legislative Branch may simply file complaint after complaint against the Executive Branch, with the Judicial Branch stuck in the middle of legally and politically fraught battles,” the filing said.
That argument from Trump failed in the same case at a lower court in November, when US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that “absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.” She added that “absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time” and “has no basis in the law.”
Jackson, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, also rejected the Trump administration's claim that judges must butt out of clashes like these between the executive and legislative branches, writing, “A federal court determines that the subpoenaed official does, as a matter of law, have a duty to respond.”
“Stated simply,” she added, “the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”
The Trump White House and the Justice Department have invoked the absolute immunity argument to defy subpoenas and requests for testimony before — including from White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway, former senior adviser Hope Hicks, and former presidential aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter. Democrats did not pursue litigation in those cases.
Justice Department spokesperson Brianna Herlihy praised the Friday ruling, saying in a statement that it shows Congress "cannot invoke the power of the courts in its political disputes with the Executive Branch. Suits like this one are without precedent in our Nation’s history and are inconsistent with the Constitution’s design. The D.C. Circuit’s cogent opinion affirms this fundamental principle.”
In another closely watched case, House Democrats sought testimony from Charles Kupperman, the president’s former deputy national security adviser, in the impeachment inquiry. Kupperman asked a court to declare whether he had immunity, but a judge dismissed his case as moot in December after Democrats withdrew their subpoena.


buzzfeed--2020-02-28--Someone Is Trying To Help This Republican Win A Democratic Seat In California — He Just Has No Idea

Someone Is Trying To Help This Republican Win A Democratic Seat In California — He Just Has No Idea Who

Stoddard said he doesn ’ t want to speculate about where the mailers came from but confirmed to BuzzFeed News in an interview Friday that they weren ’ t from him .
The mailers have no disclosure , as required by the Federal Election Commission for all political mailings and it ’ s not clear who sent them .
The first mailer was first reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune Thursday .
BuzzFeed News obtained photos of the second mailer from Stoddard Friday .
It ’ s good advertising for Stoddard , a pilot for the US Marine Corps Reserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has nothing to do with it and has no idea who sent them .
Georgette Gómez , a Democrat running in the district who has been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , said she thinks she knows where the mailers are coming from — and she believes they ’ re an effort to knock her out of the race in next Tuesday ’ s primary .
California has a jungle primary system , which sends the top two vote-getters in the primary to the general election regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diego Union-Tribune/10News poll , Sara Jacobs , a self-funding Democrat running in the district , is currently favored to finish first in the primary on March 3 , polling at about 23 % .
Gómez and Stoddard polled at 5 % and 10 % , respectively .
Gómez ’ s campaign told BuzzFeed News it believes the mailer is coming from Jacobs ’ campaign or Forward California , a super PAC formed in January of this year to support her campaign — and funded entirely by Jacobs ’ billionaire grandparents .
Jacobs ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It 's clear that somebody with resources is trying to influence voters , and they 're doing it and without even putting disclaimers .
That 's intentional , ” Gómez said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Friday .
“ This person that is getting lifted has no money ... [ Stoddard ] has not shown up to any of the debates , so there 's clearly somebody trying to lift somebody who , just on paper , he 's running .
We know for a fact that it 's not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign filed a complaint with the FEC earlier this week arguing that Jacobs or Forward California is illegally sending mailers without disclosures .
( Stoddard said the Gómez campaign never reached out to him to ask if it was him sending the mailers . )
The Jacobs campaign told BuzzFeed News that it didn ’ t send the mailers and does n't know who did .
“ This is the type of silly , baseless attack you often see right before Election Day , and voters are tired of it , ” Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ campaign , said in a statement .
“ Quite frankly , we expect better from fellow Democrats .
Sara will stay focused on talking to voters about what she will do to make their lives better , as she has been doing throughout this campaign.
” The campaign released a second statement Friday afternoon disavowing the mailers .
“ This mailer did not come from our campaign .
If this mailer was sent out with the intention of helping our campaign , we fully disavow it , ” said Amy Kuhn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been fully transparent in all of our communications and we believe all others should do the same .
We believe all pieces of paid communication should state who paid for it.
” The Jacobs campaign also ran a television ad this week that compares and contrasts Jacobs to Stoddard and does n't mention any other candidates in the race .
“ It is , you know , either an insane coincidence that [ the mailer ] happened during the same week , or , you know , what we believe is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign manager Elijah Lefkow told BuzzFeed News Friday .
Stoddard said he only learned about both mailers when a friend of his who received them told him about them .
The information on the mailer is taken almost exactly from Stoddard ’ s website , he said , though in some cases it frames his positions differently than he would .
“ It says [ I ] oppose immigration to allow sanctuary cities , it says oppose Obamacare and government-run health care , and it says oppose using tax dollars to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country illegally , ” Stoddard said .
“ I mean , I 'm not 100 % against health care for all , [ but ] I 'm not really for the Affordable Care Act , because it did affect a lot of people in a negative way .
So , you know , I guess it does align with my views .
It ’ s just an interesting way they put it on here.
” Right now , he said he ’ ll take the free advertising , but he does worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him .
“ The scary part for me is just that somebody is sending out stuff with my face all over it , you know , pretty much speaking on my behalf , and I did n't allow it , ” he said .
“ So I do n't know if this is a setup where , at some point , one of them 's going to come out just blasting me , you know , but without knowing who it came from , it 's a little bit scary knowing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Georgette Gómez, a Democrat running in the district who has been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said she thinks she knows where the mailers are coming from — and she believes they’re an effort to knock her out of the race in next Tuesday’s primary.
California has a jungle primary system, which sends the top two vote-getters in the primary to the general election regardless of party. According to a recent San Diego Union-Tribune/10News poll, Sara Jacobs, a self-funding Democrat running in the district, is currently favored to finish first in the primary on March 3, polling at about 23%. Gómez and Stoddard polled at 5% and 10%, respectively.
Gómez’s campaign told BuzzFeed News it believes the mailer is coming from Jacobs’ campaign or Forward California, a super PAC formed in January of this year to support her campaign — and funded entirely by Jacobs’ billionaire grandparents. Jacobs’ campaign has denied sending the mailers.
“It's clear that somebody with resources is trying to influence voters, and they're doing it and without even putting disclaimers. That's intentional,” Gómez said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Friday. “This person that is getting lifted has no money... [Stoddard] has not shown up to any of the debates, so there's clearly somebody trying to lift somebody who, just on paper, he's running. We know for a fact that it's not the Republican Party doing it.”
The Gómez campaign filed a complaint with the FEC earlier this week arguing that Jacobs or Forward California is illegally sending mailers without disclosures. (Stoddard said the Gómez campaign never reached out to him to ask if it was him sending the mailers.)
The Jacobs campaign told BuzzFeed News that it didn’t send the mailers and doesn't know who did.
“This is the type of silly, baseless attack you often see right before Election Day, and voters are tired of it,” Morgan Hill, a spokesperson for the Jacobs’ campaign, said in a statement. “Quite frankly, we expect better from fellow Democrats. Sara will stay focused on talking to voters about what she will do to make their lives better, as she has been doing throughout this campaign.”
The campaign released a second statement Friday afternoon disavowing the mailers.
“This mailer did not come from our campaign. If this mailer was sent out with the intention of helping our campaign, we fully disavow it,” said Amy Kuhn, Jacobs' campaign manager. “We have been fully transparent in all of our communications and we believe all others should do the same. We believe all pieces of paid communication should state who paid for it.”
The Jacobs campaign also ran a television ad this week that compares and contrasts Jacobs to Stoddard and doesn't mention any other candidates in the race.
“It is, you know, either an insane coincidence that [the mailer] happened during the same week, or, you know, what we believe is that it came from her,” Gómez’s campaign manager Elijah Lefkow told BuzzFeed News Friday.
Stoddard said he only learned about both mailers when a friend of his who received them told him about them. The information on the mailer is taken almost exactly from Stoddard’s website, he said, though in some cases it frames his positions differently than he would.
“It says [I] oppose immigration to allow sanctuary cities, it says oppose Obamacare and government-run health care, and it says oppose using tax dollars to pay health care costs for people in the country illegally,” Stoddard said. “I mean, I'm not 100% against health care for all, [but] I'm not really for the Affordable Care Act, because it did affect a lot of people in a negative way. So, you know, I guess it does align with my views. It’s just an interesting way they put it on here.”
Right now, he said he’ll take the free advertising, but he does worry that whoever is sending them could turn against him.
“The scary part for me is just that somebody is sending out stuff with my face all over it, you know, pretty much speaking on my behalf, and I didn't allow it,” he said. “So I don't know if this is a setup where, at some point, one of them's going to come out just blasting me, you know, but without knowing who it came from, it's a little bit scary knowing that people can just do this.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-28--"Good" Jews, "Bad" Jews, And Bernie Sanders

Talk to people who have been in politics for a while , and they will say the fact that two Jewish Americans are running for the Democratic nomination , one of them the clear frontrunner , is a sign of the country ’ s diversity and acceptance of Jews .
“ The barriers that previously existed appear to be no longer really a part of our political reality , and that is something for Jews to celebrate , ” said Halie Soifer , executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America .
The fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Jewish “ has become less of an issue , ” said David Greenfield , the head of the Met Council , a Jewish charity , and the former deputy finance chair for Joe Lieberman ’ s campaign in 2004 .
That their Judaism isn ’ t the first thing most people think of , versus their positions on the issues , is a “ sign of the maturation of the political process in the United States , ” he said .
But scratch the surface and there is a deep anxiety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Democratic nomination at a time when concerns about growing anti-Semitic incidents and attacks are higher than they have been in years .
And while no one — radical extremists excluded — is questioning whether they are fit to run for the nomination because they are Jews , questions over what it means to be Jewish are playing out in strange ways across the political spectrum , tied to the two candidates ’ positions on Israel and masked as a discussion of policy .
What we ’ re hearing are disturbing echoes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a “ good Jew ” or a “ bad Jew ” — who is acceptable to a Christian-majority society , and who is not ?
The last few years have seen a sea change in the debate over anti-Semitism , which has become increasingly partisan and often fought out through the prism of Israel .
Republicans have stood by a president who has repeatedly engaged in anti-Semitic tropes — from claims of dual loyalty to dangerous clichés about money — and attempted to cleanse his behavior by pointing to his strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iran deal to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem , one of several Israel-related campaign promises he had made to evangelical Christians .
Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib , two first-year Muslim women members of Congress and Sanders surrogates , have been used to paint the Democratic Party as anti-Israel .
The two have both been called out for statements that have veered into anti-Semitism , and Democrats say work is being done internally to confront activists and Democratic politicians who have made the same mistakes .
Like Omar and Tlaib @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian rights — but unlike them , he and most of the party do not support the boycott , divestment , and sanctions ( BDS ) movement .
Because Jews are widely accepted in US society , the question of Sanders ’ and Bloomberg ’ s Jewishness is not about the particulars of their religious practices , unlike the questions around Sen. Mitt Romney ’ s Mormonism .
Both identify as secular Jews , and neither makes a huge deal of it .
Sanders , after barely mentioning it when he ran for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been speaking more about his Jewishness publicly , writing an essay for Jewish Currents , a progressive outlet , releasing videos , and speaking at town halls about the family he lost in the Holocaust and how that has informed his upbringing and values .
The recent turn has prompted some Jews — Republicans and more conservative Democrats — to question his sincerity .
Sometimes those questions can be valid ; where was Sanders , for example , when Jews were looking to flee the Soviet Union he so often sought to praise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into anti-Semitism .
“ Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he Jew-ish ?
” asked Kalman Yeger , a New York City Council member and conservative Jew whose anti-Palestinian remarks have drawn wide criticism .
“ I 've seen in the last couple of days he 's been putting out tweets about how he 's a proud Jew , and I ’ m wondering , in my life , I 've heard about Sanders since I was a little kid .
I ca n't remember Bernie Sanders ever being someone who took particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure where that all came from all of a sudden .
And I do n't question somebody his level of observance .
I truly do n't care much .
I do n't know where all of a sudden Bernie Sanders became , you know , the chief rabbi of the United States.
” Yeger added , “ Normally , that would be unreasonable , insulting , and borderline inappropriate — but he ’ s the one who has put his Jewishness on the table.
” Sanders has seen an outpouring of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects an identity that 's not often seen in the highest positions of power , but has long been represented in the Jewish community , with a focus on social justice and encapsulating the values of Judaism while not strictly practicing .
But that has also made him a target for everyone from conservative Jews to evangelical Christians to Republicans across the board to some in the mainstream media who have questioned whether he can really be Jewish if he does not pledge allegiance to Israel without criticizing its leadership or treatment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have played into anti-Semitic tropes or made anti-Semitic statements , from Tlaib and Omar ( who 've apologized ) to activist Linda Sarsour , does legitimately trouble some Jews who are not coming from a place of anti-Muslim prejudice .
No such claims about whether he is “ really ” a Jew have been made about Bloomberg , who has a more traditional pro-Israel stance .
Introducing his platform to Jewish voters last month , Bloomberg outlined how he was against the Iran deal — but was also against Trump tearing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of for it .
He said he was against the way Trump moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem , a de facto recognition of the city as the capital , but would not look to move it back .
And he has said he will address this year ’ s AIPAC conference after Sanders made a show of announcing he would not attend .
Abigail Pogrebin , director of Jewish outreach for Bloomberg , positioned her candidate as someone who would heal divisions in the post-Trump era .
`` If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish Americans in the race , it calls for someone who 's going to bring that temperature down and not exacerbate it , ” she said .
“ To me , that 's where you have to look at these candidates very differently — one is not just exploiting those divisions but , I think , deepening them , and that 's Bernie Sanders . ''
Sanders ’ director for Jewish outreach declined to comment on the record .
But in society at large , the debate over AIPAC , and over Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain discussions or policy shifts mean on the ground for Israelis and Palestinians .
More often , it is a means of signaling one ’ s politics — `` radical '' or not ?
At the Democratic debate in South Carolina on Tuesday night , moderator Major Garrett of CBS News directed a question on Judaism and Israel to the two Jewish candidates .
“ If elected , Sen. Sanders , you would be America ’ s first Jewish president .
You recently called a very prominent , well-known American Israel lobby a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you say to American Jews who might be concerned you ’ re not from their perspective supportive enough of Israel ?
And specifically , sir , would you move the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv ?
” A follow-up tweet from CBS juxtaposed Sanders ’ Jewishness and support for Israel , as if one threatened the other , saying “ @ BernieSanders says he ’ s 'very proud of being Jewish , ' but calls @ IsraeliPM Benjamin Netanyahu a 'reactionary racist ' and says that while the U.S. must defend Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people.
’ ” Despite how it was phrased , the Israel question wasn ’ t really for American Jewish voters anyway .
According to a poll released Friday by the Jewish Electorate Institute , Jewish voters continue to identify as strongly pro-Israel , but still rank a candidate ’ s stance on Israel at the bottom of a list of 16 policy priorities ( health care and protecting Medicare and Social Security rank at the top ) .
Another poll found that the number one issue for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Jewish Electorate poll also found that Jewish voters give Sanders the lowest favorability rating out of the field of candidates , but it still stands at 52 % .
The Forward recently found that the bulk of donations among rabbis went to Elizabeth Warren .
The debate over Sanders ’ and Bloomberg ’ s stance on Israel has become a stand-in for their politics at large .
Are they traditional or “ too radical ” ?
Are they a “ good Jew ” — as defined by non-Jews — or not ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and breeds .
Pogrebin said Jewish identity is more than a stance on Israel , and that it comes down to values .
Commenting on CBS ’ s focus on the embassy move at the debate , she said : `` It ’ s the oversimplification of both identity and morality .
I wanted to be with someone who refuted those camps , those silos .
It ’ s facile , it ’ s reductive , and I think it ’ s destructive . ''
Even those who consider themselves “ friends of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this month , Sen. Ted Cruz was called out for commenting critically on a tweet about Bloomberg by saying “ It ’ s almost as if he owns the media.
” Rep. Andy Levin responded , “ Words matter .
Owning the media outlet carrying this message is indeed a problem .
However , accusing a Jewish candidate of owning ‘ the media ’ is anti-Semitic.
” Cruz denied the charge , calling it “ utter nonsense ” and trying to fortify his bona fides : “ There is no stronger supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate.
” Levin , who has endorsed Warren and was critical of Bloomberg in an interview with BuzzFeed News , said , “ I 'm not going stand by when Republicans use him as fodder for their political aims , including their effort to weaponize anti-Semitism to divide progressives.
” This debate is happening at a time of increasing fear among the Jewish community .
A recent poll found 73 % of Jews feel less secure in the US compared to two years ago , with 59 % thinking Trump was at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks on synagogues like Poway and the Tree of Life .
Daily attacks on Orthodox Jews are growing astronomically .
They , along with the mass stabbing in Monsey and shooting in Jersey City , have shown that not all violence is directly driven by the rise in white nationalism , though Trump ’ s countenance of violence and hate speech has led to an atmosphere of instability around the country .
The Anti-Defamation League , which monitors anti-Semitism , says it has stepped up monitoring both online and off .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'Jews control the government ' or 'Jews control the banks ' or 'Jews control the media ' — we do n't want those ideas to become again centered in the conversation during this race , ” said ADL ’ s chief , Jonathan Greenblatt .
“ On the part of the fringes , on the margins where these extremists exist and where they trade their ideas and whatnot , we 're already seeing signs that they 're talking about the campaign , ” he said .
“ And they 're talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the will of Zionist or Jewish interests at the expense of what 's best for the US.
” Those ideas reign supreme among white nationalists , like those who shouted “ Jews will not replace us ” during the deadly events in Charlottesville , spewing a hateful conspiracy theory that says Jews are pro-immigration to weaken the white race .
That ’ s the concern of progressive Jewish activists like Sophie Ellman-Golan , 27 , who supports Sanders .
“ He describes himself as a Zionist who believes in Palestinian rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe the majority of American Jews would also describe themselves , ” she said .
These activists care about Israel , but their focus — especially coming at a time when the peace process is stalled and many people have turned on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , who has embraced Trump and supernationalist policies — is on the situation at home .
Rising anti-Semitism in the US , stoked in part by Trump and his rhetoric , has , maybe ironically , shifted many young Jews ’ views inward .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s helped push her toward considering Sanders as the candidate to support .
“ I think it 's just this really somewhat archaic understanding of Jewish safety ... that is predicated very much on that this state must be protected at all costs , ” Ellman-Golan said .
“ I believe that for Jews to be safe , all people have to be safe .
...
I want to be safe here , where I live .
”

Talk to people who have been in politics for a while, and they will say the fact that two Jewish Americans are running for the Democratic nomination, one of them the clear frontrunner, is a sign of the country’s diversity and acceptance of Jews.
“The barriers that previously existed appear to be no longer really a part of our political reality, and that is something for Jews to celebrate,” said Halie Soifer, executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. The fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg are Jewish “has become less of an issue,” said David Greenfield, the head of the Met Council, a Jewish charity, and the former deputy finance chair for Joe Lieberman’s campaign in 2004. That their Judaism isn’t the first thing most people think of, versus their positions on the issues, is a “sign of the maturation of the political process in the United States,” he said.
But scratch the surface and there is a deep anxiety. Sanders and Bloomberg are running for the 2020 Democratic nomination at a time when concerns about growing anti-Semitic incidents and attacks are higher than they have been in years. And while no one — radical extremists excluded — is questioning whether they are fit to run for the nomination because they are Jews, questions over what it means to be Jewish are playing out in strange ways across the political spectrum, tied to the two candidates’ positions on Israel and masked as a discussion of policy. What we’re hearing are disturbing echoes of a centuries-long discussion over what it means to be a “good Jew” or a “bad Jew” — who is acceptable to a Christian-majority society, and who is not?
The last few years have seen a sea change in the debate over anti-Semitism, which has become increasingly partisan and often fought out through the prism of Israel. Republicans have stood by a president who has repeatedly engaged in anti-Semitic tropes — from claims of dual loyalty to dangerous clichés about money — and attempted to cleanse his behavior by pointing to his strong support for Israel, from tearing up the Iran deal to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, one of several Israel-related campaign promises he had made to evangelical Christians. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, two first-year Muslim women members of Congress and Sanders surrogates, have been used to paint the Democratic Party as anti-Israel. The two have both been called out for statements that have veered into anti-Semitism, and Democrats say work is being done internally to confront activists and Democratic politicians who have made the same mistakes. Like Omar and Tlaib, Sanders is vocal in focusing on Palestinian rights — but unlike them, he and most of the party do not support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
Because Jews are widely accepted in US society, the question of Sanders’ and Bloomberg’s Jewishness is not about the particulars of their religious practices, unlike the questions around Sen. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Both identify as secular Jews, and neither makes a huge deal of it. Sanders, after barely mentioning it when he ran for the nomination in 2016, has recently been speaking more about his Jewishness publicly, writing an essay for Jewish Currents, a progressive outlet, releasing videos, and speaking at town halls about the family he lost in the Holocaust and how that has informed his upbringing and values. The recent turn has prompted some Jews — Republicans and more conservative Democrats — to question his sincerity. Sometimes those questions can be valid; where was Sanders, for example, when Jews were looking to flee the Soviet Union he so often sought to praise? But sometimes that question can veer into anti-Semitism.
“Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he Jew-ish?” asked Kalman Yeger, a New York City Council member and conservative Jew whose anti-Palestinian remarks have drawn wide criticism. “I've seen in the last couple of days he's been putting out tweets about how he's a proud Jew, and I’m wondering, in my life, I've heard about Sanders since I was a little kid. I can't remember Bernie Sanders ever being someone who took particular pride in his Jewishness. I'm not sure where that all came from all of a sudden. And I don't question somebody his level of observance. I truly don't care much. I don't know where all of a sudden Bernie Sanders became, you know, the chief rabbi of the United States.”
Yeger added, “Normally, that would be unreasonable, insulting, and borderline inappropriate — but he’s the one who has put his Jewishness on the table.”
Sanders has seen an outpouring of support from leftist Jews in part because he reflects an identity that's not often seen in the highest positions of power, but has long been represented in the Jewish community, with a focus on social justice and encapsulating the values of Judaism while not strictly practicing. But that has also made him a target for everyone from conservative Jews to evangelical Christians to Republicans across the board to some in the mainstream media who have questioned whether he can really be Jewish if he does not pledge allegiance to Israel without criticizing its leadership or treatment of Palestinians. And his embrace of surrogates who have played into anti-Semitic tropes or made anti-Semitic statements, from Tlaib and Omar (who've apologized) to activist Linda Sarsour, does legitimately trouble some Jews who are not coming from a place of anti-Muslim prejudice.
No such claims about whether he is “really” a Jew have been made about Bloomberg, who has a more traditional pro-Israel stance. Introducing his platform to Jewish voters last month, Bloomberg outlined how he was against the Iran deal — but was also against Trump tearing it up, and he is now sort of for it. He said he was against the way Trump moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a de facto recognition of the city as the capital, but would not look to move it back. And he has said he will address this year’s AIPAC conference after Sanders made a show of announcing he would not attend.
Abigail Pogrebin, director of Jewish outreach for Bloomberg, positioned her candidate as someone who would heal divisions in the post-Trump era. "If we're going to look at the two Jewish Americans in the race, it calls for someone who's going to bring that temperature down and not exacerbate it,” she said. “To me, that's where you have to look at these candidates very differently — one is not just exploiting those divisions but, I think, deepening them, and that's Bernie Sanders." Sanders’ director for Jewish outreach declined to comment on the record.
But in society at large, the debate over AIPAC, and over Israel more broadly, is rarely about what certain discussions or policy shifts mean on the ground for Israelis and Palestinians. More often, it is a means of signaling one’s politics — "radical" or not?
At the Democratic debate in South Carolina on Tuesday night, moderator Major Garrett of CBS News directed a question on Judaism and Israel to the two Jewish candidates. “If elected, Sen. Sanders, you would be America’s first Jewish president. You recently called a very prominent, well-known American Israel lobby a platform for 'bigotry.' What would you say to American Jews who might be concerned you’re not from their perspective supportive enough of Israel? And specifically, sir, would you move the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv?” A follow-up tweet from CBS juxtaposed Sanders’ Jewishness and support for Israel, as if one threatened the other, saying “@BernieSanders says he’s 'very proud of being Jewish,' but calls @IsraeliPM Benjamin Netanyahu a 'reactionary racist' and says that while the U.S. must defend Israel's security, ‘you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people.’”
Despite how it was phrased, the Israel question wasn’t really for American Jewish voters anyway. According to a poll released Friday by the Jewish Electorate Institute, Jewish voters continue to identify as strongly pro-Israel, but still rank a candidate’s stance on Israel at the bottom of a list of 16 policy priorities (health care and protecting Medicare and Social Security rank at the top). Another poll found that the number one issue for Jewish voters was defeating Donald Trump. The Jewish Electorate poll also found that Jewish voters give Sanders the lowest favorability rating out of the field of candidates, but it still stands at 52%. The Forward recently found that the bulk of donations among rabbis went to Elizabeth Warren.
The debate over Sanders’ and Bloomberg’s stance on Israel has become a stand-in for their politics at large. Are they traditional or “too radical”? Are they a “good Jew” — as defined by non-Jews — or not? These are the cracks where anti-Semitism lives and breeds.
Pogrebin said Jewish identity is more than a stance on Israel, and that it comes down to values. Commenting on CBS’s focus on the embassy move at the debate, she said: "It’s the oversimplification of both identity and morality. I wanted to be with someone who refuted those camps, those silos. It’s facile, it’s reductive, and I think it’s destructive."
Even those who consider themselves “friends of the Jews” can fall victim. Earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz was called out for commenting critically on a tweet about Bloomberg by saying “It’s almost as if he owns the media.” Rep. Andy Levin responded, “Words matter. Owning the media outlet carrying this message is indeed a problem. However, accusing a Jewish candidate of owning ‘the media’ is anti-Semitic.” Cruz denied the charge, calling it “utter nonsense” and trying to fortify his bona fides: “There is no stronger supporter of Israel or foe of antisemitism in the Senate.”
Levin, who has endorsed Warren and was critical of Bloomberg in an interview with BuzzFeed News, said, “I'm not going stand by when Republicans use him as fodder for their political aims, including their effort to weaponize anti-Semitism to divide progressives.”
This debate is happening at a time of increasing fear among the Jewish community. A recent poll found 73% of Jews feel less secure in the US compared to two years ago, with 59% thinking Trump was at least partially to blame for the unprecedented attacks on synagogues like Poway and the Tree of Life. Daily attacks on Orthodox Jews are growing astronomically. They, along with the mass stabbing in Monsey and shooting in Jersey City, have shown that not all violence is directly driven by the rise in white nationalism, though Trump’s countenance of violence and hate speech has led to an atmosphere of instability around the country.
The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors anti-Semitism, says it has stepped up monitoring both online and off. “There's concern that anti-Semitic tropes, like 'Jews control the government' or 'Jews control the banks' or 'Jews control the media' — we don't want those ideas to become again centered in the conversation during this race,” said ADL’s chief, Jonathan Greenblatt.
“On the part of the fringes, on the margins where these extremists exist and where they trade their ideas and whatnot, we're already seeing signs that they're talking about the campaign,” he said. “And they're talking about the idea that Sanders and Bloomberg will carry out the will of Zionist or Jewish interests at the expense of what's best for the US.”
Those ideas reign supreme among white nationalists, like those who shouted “Jews will not replace us” during the deadly events in Charlottesville, spewing a hateful conspiracy theory that says Jews are pro-immigration to weaken the white race.
That’s the concern of progressive Jewish activists like Sophie Ellman-Golan, 27, who supports Sanders. “He describes himself as a Zionist who believes in Palestinian rights and Jewish safety — that is probably how I believe the majority of American Jews would also describe themselves,” she said.
These activists care about Israel, but their focus — especially coming at a time when the peace process is stalled and many people have turned on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has embraced Trump and supernationalist policies — is on the situation at home. Rising anti-Semitism in the US, stoked in part by Trump and his rhetoric, has, maybe ironically, shifted many young Jews’ views inward. In Ellman-Golan’s case, it’s helped push her toward considering Sanders as the candidate to support.
“I think it's just this really somewhat archaic understanding of Jewish safety ... that is predicated very much on that this state must be protected at all costs,” Ellman-Golan said. “I believe that for Jews to be safe, all people have to be safe. ... I want to be safe here, where I live.”


buzzfeed--2020-02-28--Pete Buttigieg Is Competing Hard For A Participation Trophy In South Carolina

GREENVILLE , South Carolina — For Pete Buttigieg this week , the cost is so high to meet expectations so low .
His aides are bracing for a fifth-place finish Saturday in South Carolina ’ s Democratic primary , the first contest this year in which black voters are expected to account for most of the turnout .
His viability as a presidential candidate depends on his ability to build a more diverse coalition and his ability to be competitive in most states .
But nothing has gone exactly as planned , and now those two needs don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t-win jam .
Buttigieg couldn ’ t simply blow off the voters in South Carolina , not when his struggle to connect with people of color lingers as a concern .
More time and money — the latter running low to the point of urgent fundraising goals and performative strategy memos — might have been better spent in the upcoming Super Tuesday states .
So he ’ s stuck here trying to make the most of it , with the promise of little more than a participation trophy and hopes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t so bad for him ( and so good for former vice president Joe Biden ) that they obliterate Buttigieg ’ s case that he ’ s the strongest moderate in the race .
“ If I could give the harshest criticism of Pete ’ s campaign so far , it would be the fact that we ’ re almost out of time in South Carolina , ” J.A .
Moore , the South Carolina state representative who is Buttigieg ’ s most prominent endorser here , told BuzzFeed News .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more time here , this would be a completely different race in South Carolina.
” Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , was unknown nationally a year ago .
And though he ’ s made positive impressions in his events here since Monday , South Carolina was never a cornerstone of the launch plan .
Advisers believed strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire , the overwhelmingly white states that voted first and second , would translate into more favorable consideration from black and Latino voters in the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is left with a bunch of what-ifs : What if he had won a more decisive delegate lead in Iowa ?
And what if that result was obvious on caucus night , not delayed for several days due to technical difficulties , and not announced alongside a substantial popular vote lead for Sen. Bernie Sanders ?
What if his close second-place finish behind Sanders in New Hampshire hadn ’ t taken a narrative backseat to Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s surprise third-place showing ?
What if Buttigieg ’ s team hadn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in Nevada — Buttigieg ’ s first test with voters of color — only to finish a distant third ?
Even those impressed with Buttigieg in South Carolina were skeptical of his chances going forward .
There was a sense that any value from his visits may not be realized until later in his political career .
“ I think he ’ s a fine young man , I really do , ” Rev .
O.L .
Davis said after hearing Buttigieg speak Wednesday at a ministers breakfast hosted by Rev .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in North Charleston .
“ I look for him to be president one day .
I don ’ t know if it ’ ll be this time.
” Buttigieg ditched his usual pitch for generational change this week in favor of a speech meant to show compassion and empathy and acknowledge his white privilege .
He expressed an eagerness to learn from those with different life experiences .
He described his request for black support as humbling .
“ I do not have the experience of having to sit down with a teenage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do if you get pulled over , or the experience of my hands tightening on the wheel when I see red and blue lights , fearing for my life , rather than just wondering how much the ticket is going to be , ” he said Monday during another campaign event in North Charleston .
“ I do not have the everyday experience of walking down the street or to a shopping mall and feeling eyes on me , judging me to be dangerous for no other reason other than the color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign was criticized and embarrassed last year when several prominent black leaders said they were identified publicly — without their knowledge and against their wishes — as supporters of his candidacy or his plan to address systemic racism .
More recently , ABC News reported he had overstated his relationships with black business owners .
This week ’ s outreach has been more rewarding and less clumsy .
Several black surrogates from South Bend have been traveling the state to vouch for Buttigieg ’ s inclusiveness .
( In a trolling move , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina primary , has been campaigning with actor Vivica A .
Fox , a South Bend native . )
Walter Clyburn Reed — the grandson of the influential local Rep. Jim Clyburn , who has endorsed Biden — is working for Buttigieg ’ s campaign and was among the speakers at Monday ’ s event in North Charleston .
Sharpton bragged at his Wednesday breakfast that he and Buttigieg chat regularly by phone — “ never about who I ’ m going to endorse , but about what we see needs to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leader in the Greenville County Democratic Party , organized a Thursday photo op and roundtable discussion on health care at a church in Greenville ’ s largely black Nicholtown neighborhood .
“ This is a community that ’ s been neglected , ” Elrod said .
“ His being here means a great deal because this is one of the most heavily African American precincts in the city , and he is the only presidential candidate to have set forth in this church.
” There were some awkward moments too .
Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been dealing with a cold and weakened voice .
The roundtable , open only to about a half dozen health care activists and the media , came to a hard stop after a half hour .
And the Monday event in North Charleston drew mostly white voters ; nearly every black attendee was placed behind Buttigieg in the camera shot .
“ We ’ re trying to figure that out ourselves , ” Charmanique Bailey , a Buttigieg supporter from Charleston , replied when asked who determined the seating arrangements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also been some allusions to tensions that emerged in the state last year over Buttigieg ’ s sexuality .
Gladys Muhammad , one of the South Bend surrogates , interrupted Buttigieg ’ s closing remarks Monday with an impromptu testimonial : “ I ’ m an old black straight woman , and I support Pete Buttigieg , ” she said before praising the former mayor ’ s work in Indiana and asking the crowd to back him .

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — For Pete Buttigieg this week, the cost is so high to meet expectations so low.
His aides are bracing for a fifth-place finish Saturday in South Carolina’s Democratic primary, the first contest this year in which black voters are expected to account for most of the turnout. His viability as a presidential candidate depends on his ability to build a more diverse coalition and his ability to be competitive in most states.
But nothing has gone exactly as planned, and now those two needs don’t quite align, leaving him in a can’t-win jam.
Buttigieg couldn’t simply blow off the voters in South Carolina, not when his struggle to connect with people of color lingers as a concern. More time and money — the latter running low to the point of urgent fundraising goals and performative strategy memos — might have been better spent in the upcoming Super Tuesday states. So he’s stuck here trying to make the most of it, with the promise of little more than a participation trophy and hopes that the final numbers on Saturday aren’t so bad for him (and so good for former vice president Joe Biden) that they obliterate Buttigieg’s case that he’s the strongest moderate in the race.
“If I could give the harshest criticism of Pete’s campaign so far, it would be the fact that we’re almost out of time in South Carolina,” J.A. Moore, the South Carolina state representative who is Buttigieg’s most prominent endorser here, told BuzzFeed News. “I think if Pete was given a little more time here, this would be a completely different race in South Carolina.”
Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was unknown nationally a year ago. And though he’s made positive impressions in his events here since Monday, South Carolina was never a cornerstone of the launch plan. Advisers believed strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, the overwhelmingly white states that voted first and second, would translate into more favorable consideration from black and Latino voters in the following contests.
Instead, Buttigieg, 38, is left with a bunch of what-ifs: What if he had won a more decisive delegate lead in Iowa? And what if that result was obvious on caucus night, not delayed for several days due to technical difficulties, and not announced alongside a substantial popular vote lead for Sen. Bernie Sanders? What if his close second-place finish behind Sanders in New Hampshire hadn’t taken a narrative backseat to Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s surprise third-place showing? What if Buttigieg’s team hadn’t prematurely raised expectations of another second place in Nevada — Buttigieg’s first test with voters of color — only to finish a distant third?
Even those impressed with Buttigieg in South Carolina were skeptical of his chances going forward. There was a sense that any value from his visits may not be realized until later in his political career.
“I think he’s a fine young man, I really do,” Rev. O.L. Davis said after hearing Buttigieg speak Wednesday at a ministers breakfast hosted by Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in North Charleston. “I look for him to be president one day. I don’t know if it’ll be this time.”
Buttigieg ditched his usual pitch for generational change this week in favor of a speech meant to show compassion and empathy and acknowledge his white privilege. He expressed an eagerness to learn from those with different life experiences. He described his request for black support as humbling.
“I do not have the experience of having to sit down with a teenage son and have the talk about what to do if you get pulled over, or the experience of my hands tightening on the wheel when I see red and blue lights, fearing for my life, rather than just wondering how much the ticket is going to be,” he said Monday during another campaign event in North Charleston. “I do not have the everyday experience of walking down the street or to a shopping mall and feeling eyes on me, judging me to be dangerous for no other reason other than the color of my skin.”
Buttigieg’s campaign was criticized and embarrassed last year when several prominent black leaders said they were identified publicly — without their knowledge and against their wishes — as supporters of his candidacy or his plan to address systemic racism. More recently, ABC News reported he had overstated his relationships with black business owners. This week’s outreach has been more rewarding and less clumsy.
Several black surrogates from South Bend have been traveling the state to vouch for Buttigieg’s inclusiveness. (In a trolling move, Biden, the frontrunner in the South Carolina primary, has been campaigning with actor Vivica A. Fox, a South Bend native.) Walter Clyburn Reed — the grandson of the influential local Rep. Jim Clyburn, who has endorsed Biden — is working for Buttigieg’s campaign and was among the speakers at Monday’s event in North Charleston. Sharpton bragged at his Wednesday breakfast that he and Buttigieg chat regularly by phone — “never about who I’m going to endorse, but about what we see needs to happen in this country.” Jalen Elrod, a leader in the Greenville County Democratic Party, organized a Thursday photo op and roundtable discussion on health care at a church in Greenville’s largely black Nicholtown neighborhood.
“This is a community that’s been neglected,” Elrod said. “His being here means a great deal because this is one of the most heavily African American precincts in the city, and he is the only presidential candidate to have set forth in this church.”
There were some awkward moments too. Buttigieg, often a loud and confident speaker, has been dealing with a cold and weakened voice. The roundtable, open only to about a half dozen health care activists and the media, came to a hard stop after a half hour. And the Monday event in North Charleston drew mostly white voters; nearly every black attendee was placed behind Buttigieg in the camera shot.
“We’re trying to figure that out ourselves,” Charmanique Bailey, a Buttigieg supporter from Charleston, replied when asked who determined the seating arrangements. “We noticed that.”
There have also been some allusions to tensions that emerged in the state last year over Buttigieg’s sexuality.
Gladys Muhammad, one of the South Bend surrogates, interrupted Buttigieg’s closing remarks Monday with an impromptu testimonial: “I’m an old black straight woman, and I support Pete Buttigieg,” she said before praising the former mayor’s work in Indiana and asking the crowd to back him.


buzzfeed--2020-02-28--The Mayor Of Jackson, Mississippi, Has Endorsed Bernie Sanders After A Caucus Of City Residents

Lumumba ’ s endorsement is considered key ahead of Mississippi ’ s primary the week after Super Tuesday , and multiple campaigns have courted him in the lead-up to the election .
Bloomberg , the former New York City mayor , has invested heavily in Mississippi ahead of the state ’ s primary .
Lumumba appeared at a roundtable discussion on criminal justice reform last December with Bloomberg , and he ’ s attended events with Warren , Sanders , and Biden over the past two years .
“ Sen .
Sanders rose to the top , ” Lumumba said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where representatives for Sanders , Joe Biden , Michael Bloomberg , and Elizabeth Warren were available to share their candidate ’ s platforms with residents .
“ On a personal level , Sen. Sanders rises to the top for me because he has demonstrated the most consistency , and I think that his policies and what he has prioritized in his campaign speaks to the issues that we ’ re most concerned with in Mississippi.
” “ I believe that an endorsement from myself should represent more than just my own personal thoughts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be considerate of the people who are impacted by the policy , impacted by whatever relationship ensues from that individual if that relationship were to prevail , ” Lumumba said explaining the choice to have a caucus .
“ We decided that we ’ d have a people ’ s caucus , which is consistent with our normal assemblies to discuss major issues in our city.
” The process for obtaining the mayor ’ s endorsement started with the release of an agenda from four mayors across the South , including mayors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; LaToya Cantrell from New Orleans ; Randall Woodfin from Birmingham , Alabama ; and Lumumba , which offered a road map for campaigns looking for their endorsements .
“ The Democratic nomination runs through our communities , ” the mayors wrote in their letter to campaigns in September .
“ Given the power that we wield in this primary process , we fully intend to use our influence and elevate the interests of our residents.
” Since the release of that letter , Lumumba told BuzzFeed News that engagement from campaigns with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayors who signed on to that letter have splintered in their support for particular candidates across the primary : Benjamin endorsed Bloomberg , Woodfin endorsed Biden , and Lumumba and members of his city voted to endorse Sanders .
“ I do think that it is important that we have a candidate that can beat Donald Trump , and I think that Sen. Sanders can achieve that aim , ” Lumumba added .
“ But for us , simply beating Donald Trump is not the bar .
The bar is : Whose campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change circumstances in Mississippi ?
” He added , “ The reality is : No matter who ’ s been in office , no matter whether we ’ ve been told the country is experiencing economic prosperity or an economic recession — Mississippi has always been at the bottom .
So we ’ re not looking for status quo .
We ’ re not simply looking for someone who says the things we want them to say .
We ’ re looking for representation that identifies that economic justice must be a centerpiece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it was necessary that we do our homework , ” Lumumba told BuzzFeed News .
“ We ’ ve heard from virtually every campaign .
...
I ’ ve spoken to Mayor [ Pete ] Buttigieg [ and ] I ’ ve spoken to Biden when he called us to Atlanta to do a roundtable discussion with Southern mayors after we issued that letter .
And we listened to their platforms and we learned a lot .
I ’ m not here to speak against any campaign ; I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I believe that my candidate ’ s platform is the one that moves the needle forward .
”

The process for obtaining the mayor’s endorsement started with the release of an agenda from four mayors across the South, including mayors Steve Benjamin from Columbia, South Carolina; LaToya Cantrell from New Orleans; Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama; and Lumumba, which offered a road map for campaigns looking for their endorsements.
“The Democratic nomination runs through our communities,” the mayors wrote in their letter to campaigns in September. “Given the power that we wield in this primary process, we fully intend to use our influence and elevate the interests of our residents.”
Since the release of that letter, Lumumba told BuzzFeed News that engagement from campaigns with their communities had increased significantly. The mayors who signed on to that letter have splintered in their support for particular candidates across the primary: Benjamin endorsed Bloomberg, Woodfin endorsed Biden, and Lumumba and members of his city voted to endorse Sanders.
“I do think that it is important that we have a candidate that can beat Donald Trump, and I think that Sen. Sanders can achieve that aim,” Lumumba added. “But for us, simply beating Donald Trump is not the bar. The bar is: Whose campaign represents the type of big ideas that change circumstances in Mississippi?”
He added, “The reality is: No matter who’s been in office, no matter whether we’ve been told the country is experiencing economic prosperity or an economic recession — Mississippi has always been at the bottom. So we’re not looking for status quo. We’re not simply looking for someone who says the things we want them to say. We’re looking for representation that identifies that economic justice must be a centerpiece of how we move forward.”
Lumumba said Sanders stood out.
“I think it was necessary that we do our homework,” Lumumba told BuzzFeed News. “We’ve heard from virtually every campaign. ... I’ve spoken to Mayor [Pete] Buttigieg [and] I’ve spoken to Biden when he called us to Atlanta to do a roundtable discussion with Southern mayors after we issued that letter. And we listened to their platforms and we learned a lot. I’m not here to speak against any campaign; I’m here to speak for my candidate, and I believe that my candidate’s platform is the one that moves the needle forward.”


buzzfeed--2020-03-01--The National Right To Abortion Is Facing An Intense Threat. This Group Has Been Preparing For This F

The National Right To Abortion Is Facing An Intense Threat. This Group Has Been Preparing For This Fight For Decades.

The Center for Reproductive Rights will argue in the first major Supreme Court case over abortion in the Trump era , which could gut Roe v. Wade .
It is no exaggeration to say that the Center for Reproductive Rights was made for this moment .
Around 30 years ago , Nancy Northup , the center ’ s current president , was outside an abortion clinic in Baton Rouge , Louisiana , linking arms with the people around her to form a human barricade to protect patients trying to get inside .
Hundreds of anti-abortion protesters faced them down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block patients from entering the clinic .
Northup was just out of law school at the time and clerking for a judge in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana .
She had watched the fight over abortion rights reach a fever pitch in 1989 , both in the courts and on the ground .
Dozens of abortion clinics had been bombed or burned down in recent years .
The Supreme Court , thanks to appointments made by the Republican president , was growing more and more conservative , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dismantling Roe v. Wade .
Though Roe survived , the court had still affirmed laws limiting access to abortion in Louisiana and Missouri .
Three decades later , Northup said , not much has changed .
“ I had a frontline view to how vitriolic the battle was in Louisiana back then , ” Northup told BuzzFeed News as she sat in business attire in her corner office in lower Manhattan , the Brooklyn Bridge stretching over the East River behind her .
“ It ’ s really unfortunate that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this remains such an entrenched fight , ” she said .
The Center for Reproductive Rights , a major nonprofit and nonpartisan organization , focuses on bringing anti-abortion laws to court to block and overturn them before they can go into effect .
On March 4 , attorneys from the center will appear before the Supreme Court to argue against another Louisiana law that could gut the constitutional right to abortion .
This will be the first case on abortion to come before the conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights advocates are nervous .
The case , June Medical Services v. Russo , pertains to a law passed in 2014 that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to local hospitals .
This requirement has proven to be unnecessary for clinics ( an abortion rarely results in complications , and if one did , the patient would be admitted to a hospital regardless of the doctor ’ s privileges ) .
And it ’ s so difficult to implement that when Texas passed a similar law , it shut down half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion-related regulations , referred to by advocates as TRAP ( Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers ) laws , purport to be for the patient ’ s safety but in fact aim to close clinics and create barriers to accessing the procedure .
But what makes this case unusual is that the Center for Reproductive Rights already argued against this law in front of the Supreme Court just four years ago— and won .
In 2016 , the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt , a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting privileges in Texas in 2013 .
The court struck it down 5–3 , giving abortion rights advocates their biggest legal win in decades .
The court ’ s decision strongly reaffirmed that placing an “ undue burden ” on access to abortion is unconstitutional .
“ Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right , ” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court ’ s opinion , concluding that Texas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if any , health benefits for women , poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions , and constitutes an 'undue burden ' on their constitutional right to do so . ''
With such a cut-and-dried opinion from the highest court in the country , it was a shock to the center , and advocates in general , when Louisiana ’ s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — where , coincidentally , Northup got her start — let a nearly identical law stand .
In the 5th Circuit Court ’ s opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the cases is not in the two laws , which the court admitted were virtually identical , but rather between the two states .
It may be easier for doctors to obtain admitting privileges in Louisiana than it is in Texas , Smith wrote ( the center strongly contests this assertion ) .
If the Supreme Court overturns Whole Woman ’ s Health , it would be a green light for states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws , closing down clinics and potentially making the procedure totally inaccessible in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the justices could use this case to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade and completely undo the national right to abortion , as some advocates fear , it is much more likely that the court would instead give states the ability to regulate abortion until Roe only exists on paper .
The center was created to fight a case like this .
In 1992 , lawyer Janet Benshoof founded the organization to represent Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania in one of the only other major Supreme Court cases on abortion to be decided in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Casey .
In that case , the center argued against Pennsylvania laws that required a married woman seeking an abortion to provide a signed statement indicating she notified her spouse , required minors to notify their parents , required patients to wait 24 hours between appointments to get an abortion , and required doctors to read patients scripts that were often inaccurate or opposed to abortion .
The center , then called the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy , won the case 5–4 , but it was a bittersweet victory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spousal-notification law but allowed the rest of the restrictions to go into place .
That decision has enabled the success of hundreds of TRAP laws nationwide in the two decades since , which have closed dozens of clinics , limited abortion access , and kept the center busy in the courts .
Northup took over as the center ’ s president and CEO in 2003 .
During her tenure , she has significantly built up the organization , expanding the team from around 55 staff members to hundreds , with around 800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for the center .
Since Northup started , the organization ’ s operating budget has grown from around $ 6 million to $ 40 million , and the center is often thought to be on par with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union , two reproductive rights legal giants .
In 2016 , when the center helped deliver a major Supreme Court win in Whole Women ’ s Health , the future looked bright for abortion rights .
The center and its supporters thought they could soon start working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on repealing restrictions .
Now , more than three years later , Northup is “ alarmed.
” “ Never have I been as concerned as I am today about the promise of Roe being hollowed out for the women in this country , ” she said in an emphatic but measured voice during a hearing on the Women ’ s Health Protection Act before Congress in mid-February .
She reiterated this thought to BuzzFeed News .
“ What 's alarming is the extremism of the laws that were passed in the last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade , that Alabama would pass a blanket abortion ban that would be signed by the governor , that other states would pass bans before women know that they 're pregnant , ” Northup told BuzzFeed News in her office , two days after returning from Congress .
“ Being back in the Supreme Court , litigating the same issue we won four years ago — that gives me grave concern.
” Usually , legal and policy organizations like the center know for years which cases are likely to be taken up before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time to prepare .
When Louisiana passed the exact same hospital-admitting privileges law that had been struck down in Texas , and when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to take it up , the center thought it was a “ nothingburger , ” Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Counsel T.J. Tu told BuzzFeed News .
Tu had started at the center just two weeks before , and this case was his first assignment .
He thought it was so open-and-shut that he asked his supervisor for more work , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill up his days .
When the 5th Circuit upheld Louisiana ’ s law , Tu and the whole center were shocked .
“ We have mined the Supreme Court jurisprudence , and there 's no situation that looks remotely like this , where the court has been confronted with an identical law in such a short period of time , ” Tu said .
“ It ’ s unheard of .
There was no way this one was going to be the next big abortion rights case , but here we are.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , putting what is normally a decade ’ s worth of work into a case that would be argued in just one year .
Eight days away from the Louisiana law going into effect , the center rushed to the Supreme Court to request an emergency stay .
The lawyers were told by prognosticators they had no chance of getting it , Tu said , but it was their Hail Mary pass .
“ Stays in general are rare .
You only really see them in the movies , ” Tu , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside the center ’ s senior director , Julie Rikelman , told BuzzFeed News .
You need the assent of five justices to get a stay , the same number you need to win a case — but to the center ’ s surprise , it was granted , the law was blocked , and clinics were prevented from closing .
This gave the center a sliver of hope that the Supreme Court , even with its new conservative majority , might rule on its side .
“ The center has been honing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can be ready for a moment like this , ” Tu said .
As if this weren ’ t enough , the center was then thrown another curveball when Louisiana ’ s legal team entered a last-minute petition to the Supreme Court .
The brief argued that the center and the abortion clinic it represents , June Medical Services , shouldn ’ t even have the ability to sue the state over abortion laws , and that the only people who should be able to sue are the patients themselves .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the center ( and other organizations , like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU ) functions .
Since its inception , the center has mainly represented clinics suing state governments on behalf of their patients in order to block anti-abortion laws .
People seeking abortions in states that are hostile to the procedure often only have a matter of weeks between finding out they are pregnant and being able to get an abortion .
The law requires the plaintiff to be pregnant when they file the suit .
Without organizations like the center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients ’ behalf , very few lawsuits challenging anti-abortion laws would be filed .
“ It would be devastating for us and other organizations that litigate ” if the Supreme Court were to agree with Louisiana on this issue , Northup told BuzzFeed News .
Tu agreed , saying that the vast majority of the cases they are currently working on would be thrown into turmoil .
“ It would instantly create an earthquake , ” Northup added .
Louisana ’ s ask is not entirely out of the blue , getting rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long been a strategy pursued by anti-abortion organizations , and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas even argued against it in his dissent in the Whole Woman ’ s Health case .
Still , the center ’ s lawyers said they are hopeful .
“ The Supreme Court has recognized third-party standing for almost a hundred years , and it 's done that in a number of cases — not just abortion , ” Rikelman , the lead attorney on the case , said in a press briefing in mid-February .
The practice has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if it were overturned it could have wide-reaching effects for cases outside of the abortion sphere , including , for example , gun sellers suing over Second Amendment rights on behalf of their customers or teachers suing on behalf of their students .
Despite the feeling of emergency permeating the center in the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court hearing , the court ’ s decision — which will likely come in late spring or early summer — is in no way predictable .
Nothing has changed about the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whole Woman ’ s Health decision , the attorneys from the center said .
Chief Justice John Roberts , now considered the court 's swing vote , joined the dissent in Whole Woman 's Health , though attorneys from the center insisted this does not necessarily indicate what his vote will be this time around .
The only thing that ’ s changed is the makeup of the Supreme Court and who occupies the White House .
It is in the court ’ s interest to appear above politics , above the whims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult doing so may be , the attorneys emphasized .
Flipping their own decision in such a short amount of time would undermine that .
“ I have to feel hopeful , or I can ’ t get out of bed in the morning , ” Janice Mac Avoy , a prominent member of the center ’ s board of directors , told BuzzFeed News over the phone .
“ [ The justices ] literally protect our freedoms .
They ’ re the last bastion protecting us against tyranny , and I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Avoy paused for a moment and began to laugh .
“ As soon as I said that I was like , ‘ Oh , we ’ re fucked , ’ ” she said .
No matter what happens , the center has a plan .
For one , there ’ s the Women ’ s Health Protection Act , the bill Northup testified to Congress about this month .
The bill — which the center first spearheaded in 2013 during the Obama administration and now has more than 150 Democratic cosponsors — would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to abortion law no matter what the Supreme Court decides and giving lower courts guidance on which state laws would violate federal law .
The legislation has the support of every Democratic presidential candidate and is likely to pass the House , but not the Republican-controlled Senate .
But Northup said advocates are preparing the bill so they ’ ll be “ ready to move ” if Democrats take back the Senate and the White House .
The center has also turned more attention to the states , working to pass legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to get the right to abortion enshrined in state constitutions even as it is degraded federally .
But Northup ’ s moon shot , she told BuzzFeed News , is to get an equality amendment in the US Constitution that would protect abortion rights as well as prohibit discrimination .
“ If I have to go out of my career the way it came in , if I have to doorknock for the rest of my life , I ’ ll do it , ” Northup said .
“ But you do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , always another route to go.
” ●

It is no exaggeration to say that the Center for Reproductive Rights was made for this moment.
Around 30 years ago, Nancy Northup, the center’s current president, was outside an abortion clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, linking arms with the people around her to form a human barricade to protect patients trying to get inside. Hundreds of anti-abortion protesters faced them down, chanting, saying prayers, and attempting to block patients from entering the clinic.
Northup was just out of law school at the time and clerking for a judge in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana. She had watched the fight over abortion rights reach a fever pitch in 1989, both in the courts and on the ground. Dozens of abortion clinics had been bombed or burned down in recent years. The Supreme Court, thanks to appointments made by the Republican president, was growing more and more conservative, and a recent case was just one vote short of dismantling Roe v. Wade. Though Roe survived, the court had still affirmed laws limiting access to abortion in Louisiana and Missouri.
Three decades later, Northup said, not much has changed.
“I had a frontline view to how vitriolic the battle was in Louisiana back then,” Northup told BuzzFeed News as she sat in business attire in her corner office in lower Manhattan, the Brooklyn Bridge stretching over the East River behind her.
“It’s really unfortunate that we’re here, 30 years later, and this remains such an entrenched fight,” she said.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, a major nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, focuses on bringing anti-abortion laws to court to block and overturn them before they can go into effect.
On March 4, attorneys from the center will appear before the Supreme Court to argue against another Louisiana law that could gut the constitutional right to abortion. This will be the first case on abortion to come before the conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Abortion rights advocates are nervous.
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, pertains to a law passed in 2014 that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to local hospitals. This requirement has proven to be unnecessary for clinics (an abortion rarely results in complications, and if one did, the patient would be admitted to a hospital regardless of the doctor’s privileges). And it’s so difficult to implement that when Texas passed a similar law, it shut down half the state’s clinics.
Many abortion-related regulations, referred to by advocates as TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws, purport to be for the patient’s safety but in fact aim to close clinics and create barriers to accessing the procedure. But what makes this case unusual is that the Center for Reproductive Rights already argued against this law in front of the Supreme Court just four years ago— and won.
In 2016, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a case over a nearly identical law requiring hospital admitting privileges in Texas in 2013. The court struck it down 5–3, giving abortion rights advocates their biggest legal win in decades. The court’s decision strongly reaffirmed that placing an “undue burden” on access to abortion is unconstitutional.
“Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right,” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, concluding that Texas’s admitting privilege requirement “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."
With such a cut-and-dried opinion from the highest court in the country, it was a shock to the center, and advocates in general, when Louisiana’s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — where, coincidentally, Northup got her start — let a nearly identical law stand. In the 5th Circuit Court’s opinion, Judge Jerry Smith suggested the difference between the cases is not in the two laws, which the court admitted were virtually identical, but rather between the two states. It may be easier for doctors to obtain admitting privileges in Louisiana than it is in Texas, Smith wrote (the center strongly contests this assertion).
If the Supreme Court overturns Whole Woman’s Health, it would be a green light for states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws, closing down clinics and potentially making the procedure totally inaccessible in their states. While it is theoretically possible the justices could use this case to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade and completely undo the national right to abortion, as some advocates fear, it is much more likely that the court would instead give states the ability to regulate abortion until Roe only exists on paper.


buzzfeed--2020-03-01--Tom Steyer Is Ending His Presidential Campaign

COLUMBIA , South Carolina — Tom Steyer is ending his presidential campaign , after spending millions of his personal fortune on his race and coming up short in South Carolina , where his campaign focused heavily on turning out black voters .
He made the announcement at his election night party here , as results continue to come in but show him shy of the 15 % statewide delegate threshold .
`` I said if I did n't see a path to winning , then I 'd suspend my campaign .
And honestly , I ca n't see a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he said , while committing to keep working in South Carolina .
Steyer , a billionaire from California , had staked his campaign on doing well in South Carolina , hosting dozens of events and lavishing the state in ads .
He made some in-roads with black voters in the state , spending hours listening to the concerns of individual communities and convincing voters that he deserved their trust .
At campaign events across the state this week , black voters told BuzzFeed News that Steyer had been able to woo them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed 116 organizers across the state to host events and develop relationships with community organizers and elected officials .
That support wasn ’ t enough to overcome Biden ’ s wide lead in the state where he remained the top choice among black voters in the state .
The campaign said it was vital to secure delegates in the state , alongside a finish in the top three to help the campaign gain momentum ahead of Super Tuesday .
Steyer first became widely known last year , when his group Need To Impeach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump 's impeachment .
The ads , which starred Steyer speaking directly to the camera , captured much of his initial campaign — an earnest , if slightly awkward , persona dedicated primarily to removing Trump from office .
Steyer had previously spent millions on other Democratic causes , particularly fighting climate change .
Though a billionaire himself , Steyer took issue with Michael Bloomberg 's campaign and how he was spending his own money .
“ I think if you want to be president of the United States , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans in the eye and listen to what they have to say , '' he told BuzzFeed News late last year .
By the last months of his campaign , Steyer appeared to be one of the few remaining candidates truly having fun on the trail .
His incidental involvement in the January fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , in which Steyer said he was simply trying to say hi to Sanders , went viral .
His campaign events featured huge musical acts of the '90s — like TLC , Boyz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a performance from that latter , on the last night before South Carolina 's primary , Steyer enthusiastically danced on stage to `` Back That Azz Up . ''
`` This has been a great experience , I have zero regrets , '' Steyer said in closing Saturday night .

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — Tom Steyer is ending his presidential campaign, after spending millions of his personal fortune on his race and coming up short in South Carolina, where his campaign focused heavily on turning out black voters.
He made the announcement at his election night party here, as results continue to come in but show him shy of the 15% statewide delegate threshold.
"I said if I didn't see a path to winning, then I'd suspend my campaign. And honestly, I can't see a path where I can win the presidency," he said, while committing to keep working in South Carolina.
Steyer, a billionaire from California, had staked his campaign on doing well in South Carolina, hosting dozens of events and lavishing the state in ads. He made some inroads with black voters in the state, spending hours listening to the concerns of individual communities and convincing voters that he deserved their trust.
At campaign events across the state this week, black voters told BuzzFeed News that Steyer had been able to woo them because of his deeply-rooted campaign, which deployed 116 organizers across the state to host events and develop relationships with community organizers and elected officials. That support wasn’t enough to overcome Biden’s wide lead in the state where he remained the top choice among black voters.
The campaign said it was vital to secure delegates in the state, alongside a finish in the top three to help the campaign gain momentum ahead of Super Tuesday.
Steyer first became widely known last year, when his group Need To Impeach began taking out national ads pushing for President Donald Trump's impeachment. The ads, which starred Steyer speaking directly to the camera, captured much of his initial campaign — an earnest, if slightly awkward, persona dedicated primarily to removing Trump from office. Steyer had previously spent millions on other Democratic causes, particularly fighting climate change.
Though a billionaire himself, Steyer took issue with Michael Bloomberg's campaign and how he was spending his own money. “I think if you want to be president of the United States, you should have to go out and look Americans in the eye and listen to what they have to say," he told BuzzFeed News late last year.
By the last months of his campaign, Steyer appeared to be one of the few remaining candidates truly having fun on the trail. His incidental involvement in the January fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, in which Steyer said he was simply trying to say hi to Sanders, went viral. His campaign events featured huge musical acts of the '90s — like TLC, Boyz II Men, and Juvenile. At a performance from the latter on the last night before South Carolina's primary, Steyer enthusiastically danced on stage to "Back That Azz Up."
"This has been a great experience, I have zero regrets," Steyer said in closing Saturday night.