rawstory--2020-01-14--Political assassinations were once unthinkable. Why the US killing of Suleimani sets a worrying prec

Political assassinations were once unthinkable. Why the US killing of Suleimani sets a worrying precedent

Since the US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani , the immediate crisis appears to have dissipated .
However , the wider ramifications pose a worrying precedent for international affairs .
For many , the killing was unexpected .
But this was no Trump administration miscalculation .
It ’ s the latest in a wider decay of the liberal norms that underpin diplomacy , conflict resolution and the day-to-day functioning of interstate relations .
Once championed by Washington , these rules have become increasingly rejected under President Donald Trump .
That threatens to inject even more instability into our global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations ?
“ Norms ” is the term foreign policy people use to mean actions that are implicitly or explicitly acknowledged as reasonable for states to undertake – like a rulebook that guides the conduct of international relations .
Norms influence everything from human rights protection to when and how it is appropriate to use force .
Norms differ from laws , as they lack formal enforcement mechanisms .
Nevertheless , there can be major repercussions when they are violated .
Norms change over time , often shaped by dominant cultural , ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Iran showdown , conflict could explode quickly – and disastrously For instance , in previous centuries , war was seen as a natural part of statecraft and something to be celebrated .
However , this view has changed markedly , largely due to the catastrophic great wars .
Today , war is viewed by most countries as something to be avoided , and only used as a last resort .
This has led to an overall decline in major conflicts and the establishment of a range of international bodies designed to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a kind of “ standard operating procedure ” for states , which is especially pertinent in times of crisis and uncertainty .
Understanding that one ’ s rivals generally wish to avoid conflict allows states to formulate policies aimed at deescalation and détente .
When countries deviate from these norms , however , it injects unpredictability into the system .
This can lead to miscalculation , panicked escalation and , ultimately , violent conflict .
The rise of the ‘ liberal international order ’ The most influential body of norms today are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the liberal international order , which emerged from Western consensus after the second world war .
This order does several important things , such as : • encourages democracy , dialogue and understanding over authoritarianism and aggression ; and • seeks to lessen violence by providing alternative means of resolving conflict .
The liberal international order rejects actions – such as the assassination of state officials like Soleimani – which are likely to inflame , rather than resolve , tensions .
Many scholars and analysts argue that such norms have been a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace since the second world war .
The US and liberal international norms Over the past 70 years , the US been at the centre of many of the institutions that promote these rules , including the WTO , NATO , UN and IMF .
While the constraints of the liberal international order have not always benefited it – Washington has lost numerous trade disputes in the WTO , for instance – the US has been able to shape the very nature of the international system .
It ’ s one thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dictate the rules by which that game is played .
As a result , the US has sought to promote itself not just as an adherent of liberal norms , but as an exemplar of them .
Notable exceptions not withstanding , this has been a position held across both Republican and Democratic administrations , from Harry Truman to Barack Obama .
The US abandoned the practice of political assassinations in the wake of the infamous Church committee of 1975 .
This inquiry exposed repeated CIA attempts to kill foreign leaders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as out of sync with the strengthening liberal norms of the day .
If the US was really committed to promoting the order , how could it engage in actions that flagrantly undermined peace and stability ?
Read more : Iran vows revenge for Soleimani ’ s killing , but here ’ s why it won ’ t seek direct confrontation with the US After the inquiry , the US halted its assassination programs , and adopted alternative methods of dealing with troublesome regimes .
These included sanctions and funding and training opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the targeting of state officials in assassinations is understood to be strictly verboten and reckless .
This position allows officials to engage with more confidence and good faith in diplomacy , and dissuades states from engaging in such activities .
Upsetting the balance of the world order In retrospect , Trump ’ s willingness to reject liberal norms on assassinations hardly seems out of character for someone who has shown profound hostility for them .
Trump has undermined longstanding alliances and weakened important mechanisms of collective cooperation , all while encouraging the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s blase attitude towards the importance of liberal norms and institutions has left traditional allies feeling increasingly insecure and unable to rely on the US .
Dictatorial leaders of rival states have felt empowered by Trump ’ s own penchant for authoritarian behaviour at home , and more confident to violate international norms without fear of significant collective reprisal .
Soleimani ’ s assassination presents a further worrying decline in the influence of liberal norms .
Not only does it position the US as a transgressive state with little concern for the rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides precedent for states to engage in such activities themselves .
At the best of times , this would be an unpleasant development .
Within the chaos of our current world “ order ” , however , the resumption of political assassination poses serious concerns for the future stability of the entire international system .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Since the US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani, the immediate crisis appears to have dissipated. However, the wider ramifications pose a worrying precedent for international affairs.
For many, the killing was unexpected. But this was no Trump administration miscalculation. It’s the latest in a wider decay of the liberal norms that underpin diplomacy, conflict resolution and the day-to-day functioning of interstate relations.
Once championed by Washington, these rules have become increasingly rejected under President Donald Trump. That threatens to inject even more instability into our global system.
What are norms in international relations?
“Norms” is the term foreign policy people use to mean actions that are implicitly or explicitly acknowledged as reasonable for states to undertake - like a rulebook that guides the conduct of international relations. Norms influence everything from human rights protection to when and how it is appropriate to use force.
Norms differ from laws, as they lack formal enforcement mechanisms. Nevertheless, there can be major repercussions when they are violated.
Norms change over time, often shaped by dominant cultural, ideological and political trends.
Read more:
In Iran showdown, conflict could explode quickly – and disastrously
For instance, in previous centuries, war was seen as a natural part of statecraft and something to be celebrated. However, this view has changed markedly, largely due to the catastrophic great wars. Today, war is viewed by most countries as something to be avoided, and only used as a last resort.
This has led to an overall decline in major conflicts and the establishment of a range of internationalbodies designed to prevent, constrain and moderate war.
Norms provide a kind of “standard operating procedure” for states, which is especially pertinent in times of crisis and uncertainty. Understanding that one’s rivals generally wish to avoid conflict allows states to formulate policies aimed at deescalation and détente.
When countries deviate from these norms, however, it injects unpredictability into the system. This can lead to miscalculation, panicked escalation and, ultimately, violent conflict.
Michael Reynolds/EPA
The rise of the ‘liberal international order’
The most influential body of norms today are encapsulated in what foreign policy analysts call the liberal international order, which emerged from Western consensus after the second world war.
This order does several important things, such as:
incentivises collective action over unilateralism;
encourages democracy, dialogue and understanding over authoritarianism and aggression; and
seeks to lessen violence by providing alternative means of resolving conflict.
The liberal international order rejects actions – such as the assassination of state officials like Soleimani – which are likely to inflame, rather than resolve, tensions.
Many scholars and analysts argue that such norms have been a significant factor in the period of relative global peace since the second world war.
The US and liberal international norms
Over the past 70 years, the US been at the centre of many of the institutions that promote these rules, including the WTO, NATO, UN and IMF.
While the constraints of the liberal international order have not always benefited it – Washington has lost numerous trade disputes in the WTO, for instance – the US has been able to shape the very nature of the international system.
It’s one thing to win in a game, quite another to dictate the rules by which that game is played.
As a result, the US has sought to promote itself not just as an adherent of liberal norms, but as an exemplar of them. Notableexceptionsnotwithstanding, this has been a position held across both Republican and Democratic administrations, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
ALI Al-MUMEN/EPA
Why assassinations matter to international norms
The US abandoned the practice of political assassinations in the wake of the infamous Church committee of 1975.
This inquiry exposed repeated CIA attempts to kill foreign leaders and officials. Such clandestine activities were seen as out of sync with the strengthening liberal norms of the day. If the US was really committed to promoting the order, how could it engage in actions that flagrantly underminedpeace and stability?
Read more:
Iran vows revenge for Soleimani's killing, but here's why it won't seek direct confrontation with the US
After the inquiry, the US halted its assassination programs, and adopted alternative methods of dealing with troublesome regimes. These included sanctions and funding and training opposition groups.
In the modern era, the targeting of state officials in assassinations is understood to be strictly verboten and reckless. This position allows officials to engage with more confidence and good faith in diplomacy, and dissuades states from engaging in such activities.
Upsetting the balance of the world order
In retrospect, Trump’s willingness to reject liberal norms on assassinations hardly seems out of character for someone who has shown profound hostility for them.
Trump has undermined longstanding alliances and weakened important mechanisms of collective cooperation, all while encouraging the worst predilections of authoritarian leaders.
Trump’s blase attitude towards the importance of liberal norms and institutions has left traditional allies feeling increasingly insecure and unable to rely on the US.
Dictatorial leaders of rival states have felt empowered by Trump’s own penchant for authoritarian behaviour at home, and more confident to violate international norms without fear of significant collective reprisal.
Soleimani’s assassination presents a further worrying decline in the influence of liberal norms. Not only does it position the US as a transgressive state with little concern for the rules of the international system, it also provides precedent for states to engage in such activities themselves.
At the best of times, this would be an unpleasant development.
Within the chaos of our current world “order”, however, the resumption of political assassination poses serious concerns for the future stability of the entire international system.
Ben Rich, Senior lecturer in International Relations and Security Studies, Curtin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Harry, Meghan, and a right royal battle for control

After Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced on their website and Instagram that they are going to “ step back as ‘ senior ’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent ” , there was an explosion of interest on social media and the news .
Everyone is asking what “ financial independence ” means , how this semi-separation will affect the monarchy , and whether the decision was affected by racist and sexist abuse against Markle .
Then there is media relations .
The couple have said they will adapt their media approach for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ” .
This includes working with grassroots media organisations and more “ credible ” media outlets .
They will also be using “ official communication channels ” ( the website and Instagram ) to engage the public “ directly ” .
Most notably , they will “ no longer participate in the royal rota system ” that determines which journalists can cover royal events in person – mostly royal correspondents from particular UK media outlets including the Daily Mail , The Times and The Sun .
It all amounts to a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are portrayed by the media – though they are arguably underestimating what is already in place .
The royal family need the media to function .
They need to share their initiatives , patronages and philanthropic projects to appear to be “ doing good ” .
This is , as I argue in my forthcoming book , a key mechanism through which to produce public consent for the monarchy .
They know this .
Despite serious recent missteps – Prince Andrew ’ s disastrous Newsnight interview , for example – the monarchy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a constant battle over visibility : the monarchy must retain some semblance of fairytale and superiority ( of being “ above ” politics , for example ) , or it risks being exposed as an institution invested in maintaining wealth and power at any cost .
Therefore , visibility has to be tightly stage-managed .
As political constitutionalist Walter Bagehot famously wrote : “ we must not let in daylight upon magic ” .
The royal rota system essentially means that the monarchy has control over who covers their events , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they speak to .
Royal correspondent for the Daily Express Richard Palmer has tweeted about how rota journalists are stationed so far away from the royals it becomes impossible to document what happens .
This , he says , inevitably leads to a series of identical stories about “ good work ” or royal women ’ s clothing .
Media coverage of royal tours works similarly .
A team of correspondents have their itinerary organised by Buckingham Palace .
This model reflects the “ embedded journalism ” agreement established during the Vietnam war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular military unit and deployed to war zones alongside it .
This led to issues around impartiality and objectivity , since it essentially operated as Ministry of Defence propaganda .
Not that any mainstream UK news outlet is sufficiently critical about the monarchy anyway – particularly in terms of wealth inequality , racial inequality or neo/colonialism .
But by controlling access , the royals remove a vital opportunity for scrutiny .
In view of this , Harry and Meghan ’ s intention to step away from it is remarkable .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse that Meghan Markle has faced at points by certain ( right-wing ) media outlets .
This ranged from articles littered with coded language that called her “ exotic ” to others that said outright that she was “ straight outta Compton ” and from “ a gang-scarred home ” .
It raises serious questions about UK media-political alignments and ideologies , particularly at a time of growing far-right movements around the world .
Some coverage , however , such as criticism of the couple using private jets while campaigning against climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the couple ’ s statement that they will only be permitting “ credible ” journalists to cover their events begs the question , who gets to decide who is credible ?
The National Union of Journalists has said that this is an attempt to “ prevent the media from functioning and [ compromises ] the ability of journalists to do their jobs , which is completely unacceptable ” .
The new restriction , particularly in light of the couple ’ s recent statement about suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father , feels like a sweeping criticism of all journalists and media organisations .
While many have been particularly vicious towards Markle – the Mail on Sunday in particular – others such as Hello !
have barely said a negative word about the royals in their history .
This raises a different set of questions around bias .
The couple ’ s need to shape a new kind of royal relationship with the media justifiably raises issues about the practice of royal reporting , the role of the royal correspondent and the structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British media .
It also exposes the battle for control over the royal narrative .
As of yet , however , it is unclear whether circumventing the royal rota and carving a new path for engagement will give the Sussexes more say in the story that is told or how much they are hounded in the long run .
As the news settles , it seems like things are just the same as they have always been .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the @ @ @

After Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced on their website and Instagram that they are going to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent”, there was an explosion of interest on social media and the news. Everyone is asking what “financial independence” means, how this semi-separation will affect the monarchy, and whether the decision was affected by racist and sexist abuse against Markle.
Then there is media relations. The couple have said they will adapt their media approach for more “diverse and open access to their work”. This includes working with grassroots media organisations and more “credible” media outlets.
They will also be using “official communication channels” (the website and Instagram) to engage the public “directly”. Most notably, they will “no longer participate in the royal rota system” that determines which journalists can cover royal events in person – mostly royal correspondents from particular UK media outlets including the Daily Mail, The Times and The Sun. It all amounts to a clear attempt to take more control over how they are portrayed by the media – though they are arguably underestimating what is already in place.
No more priority access
The royal family need the media to function. They need to share their initiatives, patronages and philanthropic projects to appear to be “doing good”. This is, as I argue in my forthcoming book, a key mechanism through which to produce public consent for the monarchy.
They know this. Despite serious recent missteps – Prince Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview, for example – the monarchy run a very sophisticated PR programme. There is a constant battle over visibility: the monarchy must retain some semblance of fairytale and superiority (of being “above” politics, for example), or it risks being exposed as an institution invested in maintaining wealth and power at any cost. Therefore, visibility has to be tightly stage-managed. As political constitutionalist Walter Bagehot famously wrote: “we must not let in daylight upon magic”.
The royal rota system essentially means that the monarchy has control over who covers their events, what access they get, and who they speak to. Royal correspondent for the Daily Express Richard Palmer has tweeted about how rota journalists are stationed so far away from the royals it becomes impossible to document what happens. This, he says, inevitably leads to a series of identical stories about “good work” or royal women’s clothing.
Media coverage of royal tours works similarly. A team of correspondents have their itinerary organised by Buckingham Palace. This model reflects the “embedded journalism” agreement established during the Vietnam war. The agreement saw reporters attached to a particular military unit and deployed to war zones alongside it. This led to issues around impartiality and objectivity, since it essentially operated as Ministry of Defence propaganda.
Not that any mainstream UK news outlet is sufficiently critical about the monarchy anyway – particularly in terms of wealth inequality, racial inequality or neo/colonialism. But by controlling access, the royals remove a vital opportunity for scrutiny. In view of this, Harry and Meghan’s intention to step away from it is remarkable.
‘Credible’ journalism
This is not to dismiss the racist and sexist abuse that Meghan Markle has faced at points by certain (right-wing) media outlets. This ranged from articles littered with coded language that called her “exotic” to others that said outright that she was “straight outta Compton” and from “a gang-scarred home” . It raises serious questions about UK media-political alignments and ideologies, particularly at a time of growing far-right movements around the world.
Some coverage, however, such as criticism of the couple using private jets while campaigning against climate change, is entirely valid. Also, the couple’s statement that they will only be permitting “credible” journalists to cover their events begs the question, who gets to decide who is credible?
The National Union of Journalists has said that this is an attempt to “prevent the media from functioning and [compromises] the ability of journalists to do their jobs, which is completely unacceptable”. The new restriction, particularly in light of the couple’s recent statement about suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a private letter that Markle had sent to her father, feels like a sweeping criticism of all journalists and media organisations. While many have been particularly vicious towards Markle – the Mail on Sunday in particular – others such as Hello! have barely said a negative word about the royals in their history. This raises a different set of questions around bias.
The couple’s need to shape a new kind of royal relationship with the media justifiably raises issues about the practice of royal reporting, the role of the royal correspondent and the structural racism that exists within parts of the British media. It also exposes the battle for control over the royal narrative. As of yet, however, it is unclear whether circumventing the royal rota and carving a new path for engagement will give the Sussexes more say in the story that is told or how much they are hounded in the long run. As the news settles, it seems like things are just the same as they have always been.
Laura Clancy, Postdoctoral fellow, Lancaster University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Oceans were hottest on record in 2019

Oceans were hottest on record in 2019

The world ’ s oceans were the hottest in recorded history in 2019 , scientists said on Tuesday , as manmade emissions warmed seas at an ever-increasing rate with potentially disastrous impacts on Earth ’ s climate .
Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of excess heat created by greenhouse gas emissions and quantifying how much they have warmed up in recent years gives scientists an accurate read on the rate of global warming .
A team of experts from around the world looked at data compiled by China ’ s Institute of Atmospheric Physics ( IAP ) to gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a depth of 2,000 metres over several decades .
They found that oceans last year were by far the hottest ever recorded and said that the effects of ocean warming were already being felt in the form of more extreme weather , rising sea levels and damage to marine life .
The study , published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences , said that last year the ocean was 0.075 Celsius hotter than the historical average between 1981-2010 .
That means the world ’ s oceans have absorbed 228 Zetta Joules ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent decades .
“ That ’ s a lot of zeros , ” said Cheng Lijing , lead paper author and associate professor at the International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences at the IAP .
“ The amount of heat we have put in the world ’ s oceans in the past 25 years equals 3.6 billion Hiroshima atom bomb explosions.
” The past five years are the five hottest years for the ocean , the study found .
As well as the mid-term warming trend , the data showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of additional energy in 2019 compared with 2018 ’ s figure .
“ That ’ s roughly equivalent to everyone on the planet running a hundred hairdryers or a hundred microwaves continuously for the entire year , ” Michael Mann , director of Penn State ’ s Earth System Sciences Center , told AFP .
The 2015 Paris accord aims to limit global temperature rises to “ well below ” 2C , and to 1.5C if at all possible .
With just 1C of warming since the pre-industrial period , Earth has experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floods and wildfires made more likely by climate change .
The study authors said there was a clear link between climate-related disasters — such as the bushfires that have ravaged southeastern Australia for months — and warming oceans .
Warmer seas mean more evaporation , said Mann .
“ That means more rainfall but also it means more evaporative demand by the atmosphere , ” he said .
“ That in turn leads to drying of the continents , a major factor that is behind the recent wildfires from the Amazon all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California and Australia.
” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a landmark oceans report last year warned that tens of millions of people could be displaced from coastal areas by the end of the century because of encroaching seas .
And given that the ocean has a far higher heat absorption capacity than the atmosphere , scientists believe they will continue to warm even if humanity manages to drag down its emissions in line with the Paris goals .
“ As long as we continue to warm up the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 percent of the heating to continue to go into the oceans , ” said Mann .
“ If we stop warming up the planet , heat will continue to diffuse down into the deep ocean for centuries , until eventually stabilising .
”

The world's oceans were the hottest in recorded history in 2019, scientists said on Tuesday, as manmade emissions warmed seas at an ever-increasing rate with potentially disastrous impacts on Earth's climate.
Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of excess heat created by greenhouse gas emissions and quantifying how much they have warmed up in recent years gives scientists an accurate read on the rate of global warming.
A team of experts from around the world looked at data compiled by China's Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) to gain a clear picture of ocean warmth to a depth of 2,000 metres over several decades.
They found that oceans last year were by far the hottest ever recorded and said that the effects of ocean warming were already being felt in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels and damage to marine life.
The study, published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, said that last year the ocean was 0.075 Celsius hotter than the historical average between 1981-2010.
That means the world's oceans have absorbed 228 Zetta Joules (228 billion trillion Joules) of energy in recent decades.
"That's a lot of zeros," said Cheng Lijing, lead paper author and associate professor at the International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences at the IAP.
"The amount of heat we have put in the world's oceans in the past 25 years equals 3.6 billion Hiroshima atom bomb explosions."
The past five years are the five hottest years for the ocean, the study found.
As well as the mid-term warming trend, the data showed that the ocean had absorbed 25 Zetta Joules of additional energy in 2019 compared with 2018's figure.
"That's roughly equivalent to everyone on the planet running a hundred hairdryers or a hundred microwaves continuously for the entire year," Michael Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Sciences Center, told AFP.
- Centuries of warming -
The 2015 Paris accord aims to limit global temperature rises to "well below" 2C, and to 1.5C if at all possible.
With just 1C of warming since the pre-industrial period, Earth has experienced a cascade of droughts, superstorms, floods and wildfires made more likely by climate change.
The study authors said there was a clear link between climate-related disasters -- such as the bushfires that have ravaged southeastern Australia for months -- and warming oceans.
Warmer seas mean more evaporation, said Mann.
"That means more rainfall but also it means more evaporative demand by the atmosphere," he said.
"That in turn leads to drying of the continents, a major factor that is behind the recent wildfires from the Amazon all the way to the Arctic, and including California and Australia."
Hotter oceans also expand, leading to sea level rises.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a landmark oceans report last year warned that tens of millions of people could be displaced from coastal areas by the end of the century because of encroaching seas.
And given that the ocean has a far higher heat absorption capacity than the atmosphere, scientists believe they will continue to warm even if humanity manages to drag down its emissions in line with the Paris goals.
"As long as we continue to warm up the planet with carbon emissions, we expect about 90 percent of the heating to continue to go into the oceans," said Mann.
"If we stop warming up the planet, heat will continue to diffuse down into the deep ocean for centuries, until eventually stabilising."
© 2020 AFP


rawstory--2020-01-14--What do we know about the Trump Organization and its influence on his public policy?

President Donald Trump has grown bolder about promoting his personal business from the White House — and a team of investigative reporters pledged to uncover even more about his private financial entanglements .
The president ’ s personal business could expose Trump to private pressure — in the form of underperforming properties or debts coming due — that could be relieved through his official duties , and the Washington Post intends to find out where he ’ s vulnerable .
“ Among the things we learned in 2019 : Some of the Trump Organization ’ s key properties are struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become toxic to an array of customers .
The company has pushed out dozens of undocumented workers it was employing .
And lawsuits surrounding Trump ’ s possible conflicts of interests are piling up , ” wrote reporters David Fahrenthold , Joshua Partlow and Jonathan O ’ Connell .
The journalists posed five questions they want to answer this year .
Trump the politician rails against illegal immigration , but his businesses have employed undocumented workers for years — until many of them were fired recently after their status was exposed .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean the company has to increase salaries or offer more benefits to attract replacements who are legal to work , ” the reporters noted .
“ That , in turn , could further strain the company ’ s finances .
How the Trump Organization moves past revelations about its undocumented workforce will be key in 2020.
” 2 .
What ’ s the financial status of Trump ’ s businesses ?
At least three Trump properties in Miami , Chicago and Washington are saddled with more than $ 300 million in debt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s attorneys blame the steep losses on politics .
Other Trump properties — including Mar-A-Lago and his New York City golf course — are also losing money , and some of his residential towers are removing the president ’ s name — and the Trump Organization is even considering selling off his Washington , D.C. , hotel ’ s lease .
3 .
Will Trump Organization sell off its assets ?
The company had intended to stop large-scale deals and focus on customer-oriented businesses during the Trump presidency , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working out .
Trump Organization is making preparations to sell vacation homes in Ireland and Scotland , and the company is reportedly asking $ 500 million for the Trump hotel in D.C. — which presents new risks of conflict of interests .
4 .
Will Trump distance himself from the company , or get even more involved in promoting it ?
The president awarded the contract to host next year ’ s Group of Seven summit at his struggling Trump National Doral Miami , which would have dumped federal money into the property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican lawmakers objected .
But he ’ s taken many smaller steps to promote his businesses , by attending GOP fundraisers at them or promoting them on his Twitter account .
5 .
Will others continue trying to win Trump ’ s approval by spending money at his businesses ?
The Post has reported on “ VIP Arrivals ” logs at Trump ’ s hotel in D.C. , which showed business executives seeking administration approval poured money into the president ’ s hotel .
Those guests included T-Mobile ’ s top executives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al-Kasnazan , a wealthy Iraqi who wants the U.S. to challenge Iran ’ s influence .

President Donald Trump has grown bolder about promoting his personal business from the White House -- and a team of investigative reporters pledged to uncover even more about his private financial entanglements.
The president's personal business could expose Trump to private pressure -- in the form of underperforming properties or debts coming due -- that could be relieved through his official duties, and the Washington Post intends to find out where he's vulnerable.
"Among the things we learned in 2019: Some of the Trump Organization’s key properties are struggling. The company’s brand has become toxic to an array of customers. The company has pushed out dozens of undocumented workers it was employing. And lawsuits surrounding Trump’s possible conflicts of interests are piling up," wrote reporters David Fahrenthold,
Joshua Partlow and Jonathan O'Connell.
The journalists posed five questions they want to answer this year.
1. Will the Trump Organization continue hiring undocumented immigrants?
Trump the politician rails against illegal immigration, but his businesses have employed undocumented workers for years -- until many of them were fired recently after their status was exposed.
"Eliminating these workers from the payroll could mean the company has to increase salaries or offer more benefits to attract replacements who are legal to work," the reporters noted. "That, in turn, could further strain the company’s finances. How the Trump Organization moves past revelations about its undocumented workforce will be key in 2020."
2. What's the financial status of Trump's businesses?
At least three Trump properties in Miami, Chicago and Washington are saddled with more than $300 million in debt, according to annual financial disclosures, and the president's attorneys blame the steep losses on politics.
Other Trump properties -- including Mar-A-Lago and his New York City golf course -- are also losing money, and some of his residential towers are removing the president's name -- and the Trump Organization is even considering selling off his Washington, D.C., hotel's lease.
3. Will Trump Organization sell off its assets?
The company had intended to stop large-scale deals and focus on customer-oriented businesses during the Trump presidency, but that doesn't seem to be working out.
Trump Organization is making preparations to sell vacation homes in Ireland and Scotland, and the company is reportedly asking $500 million for the Trump hotel in D.C. -- which presents new risks of conflict of interests.
4. Will Trump distance himself from the company, or get even more involved in promoting it?
The president awarded the contract to host next year's Group of Seven summit at his struggling Trump National Doral Miami, which would have dumped federal money into the property, but the plan was canceled after Republican lawmakers objected.
But he's taken many smaller steps to promote his businesses, by attending GOP fundraisers at them or promoting them on his Twitter account.
5. Will others continue trying to win Trump's approval by spending money at his businesses?
The Post has reported on “VIP Arrivals” logs at Trump's hotel in D.C., which showed business executives seeking administration approval poured money into the president's hotel.
Those guests included T-Mobile’s top executives, including CEO John Legere, and Nahro al-Kasnazan, a wealthy Iraqi who wants the U.S. to challenge Iran's influence.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Dispute over former Pope Benedict’s role in controversial book

The Vatican was gripped Tuesday by a dispute over whether elderly ex-pope Benedict XVI was being used by the Catholic Church ’ s ultra-conservative wing to undermine his successor Pope Francis .
At least three Vatican correspondents cited a source close to Benedict saying the former pontiff had not co-authored a controversial book with a conservative cardinal .
When France ’ s Le Figaro newspaper published extracts of the book on Sunday , it was presented as a collaboration between Benedict and the ultra-conservative Cardinal Robert Sarah .
Benedict was quoted in the book saying he “ can not keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not to allow married men to become Catholic priests — and coming down firmly against it .
Francis is currently considering allowing it in remote locations , such as the Amazon , where communities seldom have Mass due to a lack of priests .
He is expected to publish his decision in the coming weeks .
Vatican experts expressed astonishment that the retired pope would speak out on such a sensitive topic .
But sources late Monday threw doubt on the extent of Benedict ’ s collaboration with Cardinal Sarah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old pope emeritus was being exploited .
“ Benedict XVI… never saw , nor authorised the cover , nor did he authorise the publication of a co-authored book , ” a Vatican source “ very close ” to the former pope told Elisabetta Pique , Vatican correspondent for Argentina ’ s La Nacion .
“ It ’ s clearly an editorial and media op , from which Benedict distances himself , ” said the source , who asked not to be named .
Benedict had merely shared his notes on celibacy with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Vatican correspondents also cited sources close to Benedict denying he co-authored it .
Cardinal Sarah took to Twitter to “ solemnly affirm that Benedict XVI knew that our project would take the form of a book ” .
“ We exchanged several proofs to make the corrections , ” he said , before publishing three letters written by the former pope .
In one , Benedict writes that “ the text can be published in the manner you suggested ” — without , however , specifying if that was a book .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my part .
These slanders are exceptionally serious , ” Sarah said .
He later issued a statement affirming his “ affection ” for Benedict and “ obedience ” to Pope Francis .
The book , set to be published Wednesday in France , features an essay by Benedict and another by Sarah , with a co-authored introduction and conclusion .
It has both the former pope and cardinal on the cover .
“ No-one is doubting that Benedict agrees with the premise of the book — to retain clerical celibacy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vatican expert Christopher Lamb .
“ The question is the use of a retired pope ’ s authority to make the point.
” Nicolas Seneze of the French Catholic daily La Croix reported a flurry of exchanges Monday between Benedict ’ s abode and Francis ’ s , “ where the danger of a book that erects the pope emeritus as a parallel magisterium ( Catholic authority ) was clearly understood ” .
Joshua McElwee of the US-based National Catholic Reporter said it was “ unclear from these texts if Benedict meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Italian daily Repubblica also weighed in on the controversy .
At the former monastery in the Vatican gardens , Benedict ’ s home since becoming the first pontiff to resign in almost 600 years , the fear was “ that the emeritus pope has been used without his knowledge ” , it reported .
It warned of “ the real risk that there are those… who use Benedict to advance their own battles ” .

The Vatican was gripped Tuesday by a dispute over whether elderly ex-pope Benedict XVI was being used by the Catholic Church's ultra-conservative wing to undermine his successor Pope Francis.
At least three Vatican correspondents cited a source close to Benedict saying the former pontiff had not co-authored a controversial book with a conservative cardinal.
When France's Le Figaro newspaper published extracts of the book on Sunday, it was presented as a collaboration between Benedict and the ultra-conservative Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Benedict was quoted in the book saying he "cannot keep silent" about the divisive issue of whether or not to allow married men to become Catholic priests -- and coming down firmly against it.
Francis is currently considering allowing it in remote locations, such as the Amazon, where communities seldom have Mass due to a lack of priests. He is expected to publish his decision in the coming weeks.
Vatican experts expressed astonishment that the retired pope would speak out on such a sensitive topic.
But sources late Monday threw doubt on the extent of Benedict's collaboration with Cardinal Sarah, raising questions as to whether the 92-year old pope emeritus was being exploited.
"Benedict XVI... never saw, nor authorised the cover, nor did he authorise the publication of a co-authored book," a Vatican source "very close" to the former pope told Elisabetta Pique, Vatican correspondent for Argentina's La Nacion.
"It's clearly an editorial and media op, from which Benedict distances himself," said the source, who asked not to be named.
Benedict had merely shared his notes on celibacy with the cardinal, the source added.
Two other Vatican correspondents also cited sources close to Benedict denying he co-authored it.
- 'Attacks' -
Cardinal Sarah took to Twitter to "solemnly affirm that Benedict XVI knew that our project would take the form of a book".
"We exchanged several proofs to make the corrections," he said, before publishing three letters written by the former pope.
In one, Benedict writes that "the text can be published in the manner you suggested" -- without, however, specifying if that was a book.
"Attacks seem to imply a lie on my part. These slanders are exceptionally serious," Sarah said.
He later issued a statement affirming his "affection" for Benedict and "obedience" to Pope Francis.
The book, set to be published Wednesday in France, features an essay by Benedict and another by Sarah, with a co-authored introduction and conclusion. It has both the former pope and cardinal on the cover.
"No-one is doubting that Benedict agrees with the premise of the book -- to retain clerical celibacy for the Latin rite priesthood," said Vatican expert Christopher Lamb.
"The question is the use of a retired pope's authority to make the point."
Nicolas Seneze of the French Catholic daily La Croix reported a flurry of exchanges Monday between Benedict's abode and Francis's, "where the danger of a book that erects the pope emeritus as a parallel magisterium (Catholic authority) was clearly understood".
Joshua McElwee of the US-based National Catholic Reporter said it was "unclear from these texts if Benedict meant to share an essay or an entire book".
Italian daily Repubblica also weighed in on the controversy.
At the former monastery in the Vatican gardens, Benedict's home since becoming the first pontiff to resign in almost 600 years, the fear was "that the emeritus pope has been used without his knowledge", it reported.
It warned of "the real risk that there are those... who use Benedict to advance their own battles".
© 2020 AFP


rawstory--2020-01-15--Parnas documents prove ‘this was a shakedown by the president’: Ex-prosecutor

On MSNBC Tuesday , former federal prosecutor John Flannery said that the new trove of documents released to the House Intelligence Committee by Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas remove any uncertainty that President Donald Trump was involved in the Ukraine extortion scheme .
“ If there was any room for doubt that this was a shakedown by the president , and that he was involved and Rudy was involved , and Rudy ’ s people were involved … these additional documents put that all to rest , ” said Flannery , who once worked with Giuliani when he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ One of the most significant things about this letter that you were reading is that it starts with , I am private counsel to President Donald Trump .
It even suggests that this is out of channels.
” “ If you take this date as real in May , it would suggest that the initial effort in this plot was not for Trump to necessarily have to ask the Ukrainian leader on record in front of government officials , but to get Giuliani to do it .
And only when that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wanted , did it then go to the July call , ” said anchor Ari Melber .
“ Yes .
And the context is interesting , ” said Flannery .
“ Before this letter in May , you have them getting rid of Yovanovitch in April so she ’ s not in the way to obstruct this corrupt deal they ’ re putting together .
And I think you mentioned in the broadcast , that there was a text message or email from Giuliani .
And he ’ s talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zelensky that he ’ s concerned about .
Then when the two subs who worked there , they found out and were indicted , there is interesting correspondence for the president , John Dowd to represent both of them in the criminal proceedings .
That ’ s changed .
Lev Parnas is represented by different counsel .
So the evidence that fills in whatever gaps people have.
” “ I relate to be one of those senators who think they have to lie for the president and vote for him at this upcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” added Flannery .

On MSNBC Tuesday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery said that the new trove of documents released to the House Intelligence Committee by Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas remove any uncertainty that President Donald Trump was involved in the Ukraine extortion scheme.
"If there was any room for doubt that this was a shakedown by the president, and that he was involved and Rudy was involved, and Rudy's people were involved ... these additional documents put that all to rest," said Flannery, who once worked with Giuliani when he was at the Southern District of New York. "One of the most significant things about this letter that you were reading is that it starts with, I am private counsel to President Donald Trump. It even suggests that this is out of channels."
"If you take this date as real in May, it would suggest that the initial effort in this plot was not for Trump to necessarily have to ask the Ukrainian leader on record in front of government officials, but to get Giuliani to do it. And only when that faltered, didn't get results they wanted, did it then go to the July call," said anchor Ari Melber.
"Yes. And the context is interesting," said Flannery. "Before this letter in May, you have them getting rid of Yovanovitch in April so she's not in the way to obstruct this corrupt deal they're putting together. And I think you mentioned in the broadcast, that there was a text message or email from Giuliani. And he's talking about the anti-Trump people who are around, not Zelensky that he's concerned about. Then when the two subs who worked there, they found out and were indicted, there is interesting correspondence for the president, John Dowd to represent both of them in the criminal proceedings. That's changed. Lev Parnas is represented by different counsel. So the evidence that fills in whatever gaps people have."
"I relate to be one of those senators who think they have to lie for the president and vote for him at this upcoming trial with this kind of evidence," added Flannery.
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-15--This one word reveals which Democrats are repeating insurance industry talking points on health care

As Democrats prepare to debate health care reform during the last debate before the first votes , a former top insurance company executive warned about one key talking point that he helped the insurance companies push .
Wendell Potter laid out his warning in a new op-ed for The New York Times .
“ There ’ s a dangerous talking point being repeated in the Democratic primary for president that could affect the survival of millions of people , and the finances of even more .
This is partly my fault , ” Potter admitted .
“ When the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bound to hear some of them talk about consumer ‘ choice.
’ If the nation adopts systemic health reform , this idea goes , it would restrict the ability of Americans to choose their plans or doctors , or have a say in their care , ” he explained .
“ It ’ s a good little talking point , in that it makes the idea of changing the current system sound scary and limiting .
The problem ?
It ’ s a P.R .
concoction.
” “ And right now , somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care industry executives are probably beside themselves with glee , drinking a toast to their public relations triumph .
I should know : I was one of them , ” he continued .
“ To my everlasting regret , I played a hand in devising this deceptive talking point about choice when I worked in various communications roles for a leading health insurer between 1993 and 2008 , ultimately serving as vice president for corporate communications , ” Potter wrote .
“ Now I want to come clean by explaining its origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both factually inaccurate and a political ploy.
” He went on to explain how public opinion researchers like Frank Luntz urged the industry to use the word “ choice ” to push back against reforms that would threaten their profit margins .
“ But those of us who held senior positions for the big insurers knew that one of the huge vulnerabilities of the system is its lack of choice .
In the current system , Americans can not , in fact , pick their own doctors , specialists or hospitals — at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of network ’ bills , ” he explained .
“ Not only does the current health care system deny you choice within the details of your plans , it also fails to provide many options for the plan itself .
Most working Americans must select from a limited list made by their company ’ s chosen insurance provider ( usually a high-deductible plan or a higher-deductible plan ) .
” “ This presented a real problem for us in the industry .
Well aware that we were losing the ‘ choice ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on lobbying , advertising and spin doctors — all intended to muddy the issue so Americans might believe that reform would somehow provide ‘ less choice.
’ Recently , the industry launched a campaign called ‘ My Care , My Choice ’ aimed in part at convincing Americans that they have choice now — and that government reform would restrict their freedom .
That group has been spending large sums on advertising in Iowa during this presidential race , ” Potter explained .
The former health insurance executive was shocked that some Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s talking points .
“ What ’ s different now is that it ’ s the Democrats parroting the misleading ‘ choice ’ talking point — and even using it as a weapon against one another .
Back in my days working in insurance P.R.
, this would have stunned me .
It ’ s why I believe my former colleagues are celebrating today , ” Potter wrote .
“ My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about or they ’ re willfully ignoring the truth .
Either way , the insurance industry is delighted .
I would know .
”

As Democrats prepare to debate health care reform during the last debate before the first votes, a former top insurance company executive warned about one key talking point that he helped the insurance companies push.
Wendell Potter laid out his warning in a new op-ed for The New York Times.
"There’s a dangerous talking point being repeated in the Democratic primary for president that could affect the survival of millions of people, and the finances of even more. This is partly my fault," Potter admitted.
"When the candidates discuss health care, you’re bound to hear some of them talk about consumer 'choice.' If the nation adopts systemic health reform, this idea goes, it would restrict the ability of Americans to choose their plans or doctors, or have a say in their care," he explained. "It’s a good little talking point, in that it makes the idea of changing the current system sound scary and limiting. The problem? It’s a P.R. concoction."
"And right now, somewhere in their plush corporate offices, some health care industry executives are probably beside themselves with glee, drinking a toast to their public relations triumph. I should know: I was one of them," he continued.
"To my everlasting regret, I played a hand in devising this deceptive talking point about choice when I worked in various communications roles for a leading health insurer between 1993 and 2008, ultimately serving as vice president for corporate communications," Potter wrote. "Now I want to come clean by explaining its origin story, and why it’s both factually inaccurate and a political ploy."
He went on to explain how public opinion researchers like Frank Luntz urged the industry to use the word "choice" to push back against reforms that would threaten their profit margins.
"But those of us who held senior positions for the big insurers knew that one of the huge vulnerabilities of the system is its lack of choice. In the current system, Americans cannot, in fact, pick their own doctors, specialists or hospitals — at least, not without incurring huge 'out of network' bills," he explained. "Not only does the current health care system deny you choice within the details of your plans, it also fails to provide many options for the plan itself. Most working Americans must select from a limited list made by their company’s chosen insurance provider (usually a high-deductible plan or a higher-deductible plan)."
"This presented a real problem for us in the industry. Well aware that we were losing the 'choice' argument, my industry colleagues spent millions on lobbying, advertising and spin doctors — all intended to muddy the issue so Americans might believe that reform would somehow provide 'less choice.' Recently, the industry launched a campaign called 'My Care, My Choice' aimed in part at convincing Americans that they have choice now — and that government reform would restrict their freedom. That group has been spending large sums on advertising in Iowa during this presidential race," Potter explained.
The former health insurance executive was shocked that some Democratic Party presidential candidates were repeating the industry's talking points.
"What’s different now is that it’s the Democrats parroting the misleading 'choice' talking point — and even using it as a weapon against one another. Back in my days working in insurance P.R., this would have stunned me. It’s why I believe my former colleagues are celebrating today," Potter wrote. "My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve your 'choice' as a consumer, they don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re willfully ignoring the truth. Either way, the insurance industry is delighted. I would know."


rawstory--2020-01-14--‘A real conspiracy in pursuit of an illicit end’: GOP commentator shocked by Parnas’s newly-released

‘A real conspiracy in pursuit of an illicit end’: GOP commentator shocked by Parnas’s newly-released evidence

Longtime conservative activist and Republican operative Bill Kristol was shocked after newly-released evidence suggested that Rudy Giuliani associates put a @ @ @ @ @ Marie Yovanovitch .
Politico national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand said , “ holy sh*t ” @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This certainly makes it sound like Parnas and co. were actively tracking Yovanovitch @ @ @ @ @ could explain why Yovanovitch was moved out of Ukraine so quickly , ” she wrote @ @ @ @ @ removal of Yovanovitch was always a sign this was a real conspiracy in pursuit of @ @ @ @ @ a case of mere haphazard , fitfully-expressed wishes of Trump , ” he explained .
@ @ @ @ @ way of effectuating the conspiracy .
And she was removed at the direction of Trump @ @ @ @ @

After announcing the names of those who are being indicted, she also listed off the premise of her indictment of the 19 individuals and 41 counts.
"Specifically, the participants in association took various actions in Georgia and elsewhere to block the counting of the votes of the presidential electors who were certified as the winners of Georgia's 2020 general election. As you examine the indictment, you will see acts that are identified as overacts and those are that are identified as predicate acts, sometimes called acts of racketeering activity," she explained. "Over acts are not necessarily crimes under Georgia law in isolation but are alleged to be acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy."
She went on to say that many occurred in Georgia, while some happened in other places, but are included because they are part of the effort to overthrow the 2020 election results in Georgia.
"The acts identified as predicate acts or acts of racketeering activity are crimes that are alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the criminal enterprise," Willis explained. "Acts of racketeering activity are also charged as separate counts in the indictment against those who are alleged to have committed them. All elections in our nations are administered by the states which are given the responsibility of ensuring a fair process and an accurate counting of the votes. That includes elections for presidential electors, congress, state officials and local offices. The state's role in this process is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Georgia, like every state, has laws that will allow those who believe the results of an election are wrong, whether because of intentional wrongdoing or unintentional error, to challenge those results in our state courts. The indictment alleges that rather than abide by Georgia's legal process for election challenges, the defendants engaged in a criminal racketeering enterprise to overturn Georgia's presidential election result."
Willis went on to say that she intends to try all 19 defendants together.
See her full statement and answer questions in the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Trump said he’d pay legal fees of Giuliani’s business partners — then denied knowing them

In October , when asked about indicted Rudy Giuliani business associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know those gentlemen.
” But that is decidedly at odds with @ @ @ @ @ of a trove of documents given by Parnas to the House Intelligence Committee , which @ @ @ @ @ counsel for Parnas and Fruman just days before denying he knew them to reporters : @ @ @ @ @ on campaign finance charges relating to their roles in the scheme to withhold military aid @ @ @ @ @ to force him to announce an “ investigation ” of former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ , currently serving as Trump ’ s attorney , is reportedly also under investigation for @ @ @

"If you look at the sheer number of people charged in the Georgia case, you're talking about 18 Trump allies, including Trump himself," said anchor Abby Phillip. "They're accused of racketeering, at least one, and at least one related crime. There's a lot of conduct alleged here, including trying to tamper with voting machines, and actual voting information. What is your take on the actual information contained in this document?"
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"So, a couple things," said Sununu. "I'm not a lawyer. I will say, this is incredibly similar to the federal indictment that Jack Smith is doing out of DOJ. Other than, as you brought up, now 18 people involved. That's a much bigger swath of individuals. Something that I think republicans need to take note of, this is a grand jury in a very conservative state. That said, this guy needs to be indicted. This isn't just the Department of Justice and the idea that it's all politicized. This is a grand jury in Georgia of all states."
All of this, said Sununu, underscores the fact that "this guy can't win in November."
"You might give him the nomination — I hope we don't — but this guy cannot win a state like New Hampshire, or Arizona, where these two states they absolutely have to have," said Sununu. "Last time I checked, you can't govern if you don't win. It's just gonna be another sob story for Donald Trump. And he's gonna crush the Republican ticket going down. I still am very hopeful the Republicans as a whole make a smart choice and find that one or two candidates to go against him by the time Iowa in New Hampshire hit."
Watch the video below or at the link.


rawstory--2020-01-14--‘Rudy Giuliani’s colleague Parnas proving the whole impeachment case’: Shocked internet responds to

‘Rudy Giuliani’s colleague Parnas proving the whole impeachment case’: Shocked internet responds to new document dump

The House Intelligence Committee is releasing new documents that were given to them from Rudy Giuliani ’ s associate Lev @ @ @ @ @ last year .
One note , scribbled on Ritz-Carlton paper appears to be reminders for @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy involving President Donald Trump ’ s bribe to Ukraine .
One page of the @ @ @ @ @ do my magic , ” which was among the many things questioned by those reading @ @ @ @ @ “ If you have to write a note to self saying “ do my magic @ @ @ @ @ to rethink things , ” said Bloomberg reporter Ryan Beckwith .
You can see other @ @ @ @ @ below :


rawstory--2020-01-14--Giuliani letter proves Ukraine scheme was about helping Trump personally and was not in the public i

Giuliani letter proves Ukraine scheme was about helping Trump personally and was not in the public interest

The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday transmitted a treasure-trove of new evidence to the House Judiciary Committee .
The digital files , stored on two flash drives , include records from Lev Parnas , the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani , the former New York City mayor who is President Donald Trump ’ s private defense attorney .
Eric Lipton , a New York Times investigative reporter , flagged on letter in particular .
The letter was from Giuliani to Volodymyr Zelensky and was dated May 10th — after Zelensky won the election on April 21st , but before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the letter , Giuliani makes clear that he is working for Trump ’ s personal benefit , not the United States .
“ I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump .
Just to be precise , I represent him as a private citizen , not as President of the United States , ” Giuliani wrote .
“ This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same.
” Trump ’ s lawyer went on to request a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his “ capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent.
” Prominent Republican lawyer described the letter as , “ I would like you to do us a favor though .
”

The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday transmitted a treasure-trove of new evidence to the House Judiciary Committee.
The digital files, stored on two flash drives, include records from Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is President Donald Trump's private defense attorney.
Eric Lipton, a New York Times investigative reporter, flagged on letter in particular.
The letter was from Giuliani to Volodymyr Zelensky and was dated May 10th -- after Zelensky won the election on April 21st, but before he was sworn in on May 20th.
In the letter, Giuliani makes clear that he is working for Trump's personal benefit, not the United States.
"I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States," Giuliani wrote. "This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same."
"Separate representation is usual process," Giuliani claimed.
Trump's lawyer went on to request a meeting prior to Zelensky being sworn-in, in his "capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent."
Prominent Republican lawyer described the letter as, "I would like you to do us a favor though."


rawstory--2020-01-14--Text messages suggest Giuliani’s associates put a tail on Ukraine ambassador Yovanovitch

Among the trove of information released to the House Intelligence Committee by indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas is a @ @ @ @ @ suggests Parnas and his cohorts were tracking the movements of U.S .
Ambassador to the @ @ @ @ @ was a sharp critic of Giuliani ’ s scheme to extort Ukraine with military aid @ @ @ @ @ talked to three people .
Her phone is off .
Computer is off , ” @ @ @ @ @ a one text exchange to Parnas .
“ She ’ s next to the embassy @ @ @ @ @ .
Private security .
Been there since Thursday.
” Yovanovitch was later recalled from the @ @ @ @ @ s direction .
Parnas , along with his alleged co-conspirator Igor Fruman , are accused @ @ @ @ @ the Ukraine scheme .
Giuliani himself is also reportedly under criminal investigation , and the @ @ @ @ @ of the first article of impeachment against President Donald Trump .

But that appears to be just the beginning, according to the new report.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
The huge staff shortages mean some essential classes won't even be offered this term, reported Johanna Alonso: "Dani Delaney, the mother of one former New College student who is transferring to Hampshire College in Massachusetts — which guaranteed admission to all New College students in good standing — said her son could only find two classes that counted toward his 'area of concentration' (which is what New College calls majors).
"When he contacted the institution about the lack of relevant courses, she said, he was told the course catalogue was 'in flux' and to 'choose something else.'"
The school is also facing a housing crisis. The new leadership of New College has made a push to boost the school's sports program, accepting huge numbers of student athletes, only to realize that they don't have enough housing for them. It's squeezing out juniors and seniors who were previously given a housing contract into older dorms "except for a number of rooms that are offline due to mold and other structural problems," and, in some cases, even moving them to an extended-stay Home2 Suites hotel at Bradenton Airport, which has been completely rented out for campus housing for the semester.
New College is not the only public college in which Florida that DeSantis is accused of interfering with. A report last month suggests that DeSantis sabotaged the hiring process for the president of Florida Atlantic University in order to seat an unqualified ally in the role.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Indicted Giuliani associate scrawled reminder to pressure Ukrainian president on Ritz-Carlton statio

Indicted Giuliani associate scrawled reminder to pressure Ukrainian president on Ritz-Carlton stationery

On Tuesday , the House Intelligence Committee released some of the documents turned over by indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev @ @ @ @ @ in the scheme to use military aid to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden .
One of the most eye-catching documents to be released is a @ @ @ @ @ stationery from the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Vienna , Austria , which read “ get Zalensky @ @ @ @ @ [ sic ] that the Biden case will be Investigated.
” Parnas turned over a @ @ @ @ @ the House as part of his attempt to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings .

And former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, during an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” said other alleged co-conspirators are likely to pursue a similar legal avenue.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Meadows “filed to have his case moved from Georgia court to federal court, why?” Tapper asked Honig.
“This is more than just procedural wrangling,” Honig said. “This could be outcome determinative, because if Mark Meadows can show that the charges relate to his performance of his official duties, in this case as White House Chief of Staff, then a couple things happen.
“First, he gets moved across the street to the federal courthouse. Second of all, he's then on the doorstep of a dismissal, because under the law, federal law, if a person can show that they've been criminally charged for something that they did, ‘under color of law,’ meaning in their capacity as a federal official, then the case gets thrown out altogether.
“So there's no question Mark Meadows has a reasonable argument to make here and I look for Donald Trump to make a similar argument. I don't think he has as strong an argument and I look for Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ to make a similar argument. All of these are going to be potentially dispositive motions.”
Added Honig: “Dispositive means they either stay or they go away They live or they die.
“Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump are also expected to make the same request, do they have a strong case do you think?” asked Tapper.
“Donald Trump does not have as good a case as Mark Meadows because Trump will say, ‘Well, this was my effort to sort of regulate and make sure the election was clean as president’, but I think ...the prosecutors are going to respond, ‘No, this was you as a private citizen as a candidate, way overstepping your authority as President,” Honig said.
“As for Rudy Giuliani, he's got nothing, he was not a federal employee at the time.”
Watch the video below or at the link here.
CNN 08 16 2023 16 04 46 www.youtube.com


rawstory--2020-01-14--West Point cadet busted crowdfunding travel fare for adult film star to be his date to a service aca

West Point cadet busted crowdfunding travel fare for adult film star to be his date to a service academy dance

On Tuesday , the military news website Task & Purpose reported that a cadet at the United States Military Academy West Point tried to bring a porn star to the academy ’ s Yearling Winter Weekend banquet — and launched a campaign on the crowdfunding website GoFundMe to raise $ 1,200 for airfare and lodging for his supposed date .
“ Diamond Foxxx agreed to go to Y dubs with me if I can pay for her plane ticket and hotel room , ” posted the unidentified cadet , who went by the username “ Mr .
Krabs.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yuk payroll and I have no money .
Please help a young boy ’ s dream come true.
” According to Task & Purpose , the crowdfunding campaign raised a number of potential ethics concerns , including that members of the U.S. military are not permitted to use their official positions to solicit money .
The page had raised $ 370 before the cadet locked it down , telling donors , “ Some cadets and officers were discomforted by the effort to bring Diamond Foxxx to YWW , so I was advised with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discontinue the campaign and inform the actress I can no longer bring her.
” The cadet has requested to remain anonymous so as to avoid prospective employers from seeing his name on a Google search with the words “ West Point ” and “ porn star .
”

On Tuesday, the military news website Task & Purposereported that a cadet at the United States Military Academy West Point tried to bring a porn star to the academy's Yearling Winter Weekend banquet — and launched a campaign on the crowdfunding website GoFundMe to raise $1,200 for airfare and lodging for his supposed date.
"Diamond Foxxx agreed to go to Y dubs with me if I can pay for her plane ticket and hotel room," posted the unidentified cadet, who went by the username "Mr. Krabs." "Problem is I'm on the yuk payroll and I have no money. Please help a young boy's dream come true."
According to Task & Purpose, the crowdfunding campaign raised a number of potential ethics concerns, including that members of the U.S. military are not permitted to use their official positions to solicit money.
The page had raised $370 before the cadet locked it down, telling donors, "Some cadets and officers were discomforted by the effort to bring Diamond Foxxx to YWW, so I was advised with those with much higher rank than me to discontinue the campaign and inform the actress I can no longer bring her." The cadet has requested to remain anonymous so as to avoid prospective employers from seeing his name on a Google search with the words "West Point" and "porn star."
Diamond Foxxx was unavailable for comment.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Legal experts perplexed why Trump-appointed judge refuses to rule on Trump tax case until other Trum

Legal experts perplexed why Trump-appointed judge refuses to rule on Trump tax case until other Trump cases are decided

Legal experts are scratching their heads after a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday he is delaying handing down his decision in a Trump tax returns case until other federal judges hand down their decisions in other Trump cases .
That judge is a former Trump transition team volunteer and has donated to the Trump campaign .
District Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia announced he will hold up his ruling in a case brought by the House Ways and Means Committee against the U.S. Treasury Dept .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s tax returns .
The law clearly says the IRS “ shall ” hand them over to Congress .
The Trump administration says Congress has no right to investigate .
Back in August Judge McFadden pushed back against House Democrats , denying “ their request to both expedite consideration of the case and to decide on its merits without holding a trial , ” Politico had reported .
Last year over a separate case former Democratic governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean issued a strong rebuke of Judge McFadden : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insight into why McFadden possibly might be staying his ruling : the judge “ served as an unpaid volunteer on Trump ’ s presidential transition team.
” Here ’ s a writer in residence for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University : Exec .
Editor of legal website Above the Law : National Law Journal reporter covering the DC courts and the legal side of politics :

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement

Legal experts are scratching their heads after a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday he is delaying handing down his decision in a Trump tax returns case until other federal judges hand down their decisions in other Trump cases. That judge is a former Trump transition team volunteer and has donated to the Trump campaign.
District Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia announced he will hold up his ruling in a case brought by the House Ways and Means Committee against the U.S. Treasury Dept. The case involves gaining access to six years of Trump's tax returns. The law clearly says the IRS "shall" hand them over to Congress. The Trump administration says Congress has no right to investigate.
Back in August Judge McFadden pushed back against House Democrats, denying "their request to both expedite consideration of the case and to decide on its merits without holding a trial," Politico had reported.
Last year over a separate case former Democratic governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean issued a strong rebuke of Judge McFadden:
Law.com Senior editor Mike Scarcella offers this insight into why McFadden possibly might be staying his ruling: the judge "served as an unpaid volunteer on Trump’s presidential transition team."
Meanwhile, legal experts are perplexed.
Here's a writer in residence for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University:
Exec. Editor of legal website Above the Law:
National Law Journal reporter covering the DC courts and the legal side of politics:
More:
Image via Wikimedia


rawstory--2020-01-14--Florida woman shopped for bomb supplies at a local Walmart — then tried to blow up the store

Emily Stallard , 37 , of Tampa , Florida , reportedly compiled bomb-making materials while visiting a local Walmart and @ @ @ @ @ the store .
Stallard built what appeared to be a homemade explosive in a mason @ @ @ @ @ denatured alcohol , and a candle , according to WFLA .
She was reportedly roaming @ @ @ @ @ hour with her child in tow .
A security guard and an off-duty police officer @ @ @ @ @ attempt to light a candle , presumably to ignite the device .
Stallard has since @ @ @ @ @ , which included attempted arson of a structure , fire bombing , contributing to the @ @ @ @ @ child abuse and battery on a law enforcement officer .
“ This woman had all @ @ @ @ @ cause mass destruction at her disposal , ” Sheriff Chad Chronister said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ has been set at $ 8,500 .

Emily Stallard, 37, of Tampa, Florida, reportedly compiled bomb-making materials while visiting a local Walmart and then tried to blow up the store.
Stallard built what appeared to be a homemade explosive in a mason jar filled with nails, denatured alcohol, and a candle, according to WFLA. She was reportedly roaming around the store for an hour with her child in tow. A security guard and an off-duty police officer intervened when they saw her attempt to light a candle, presumably to ignite the device.
Stallard has since been charged with several felonies, which included attempted arson of a structure, fire bombing, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse and battery on a law enforcement officer.
“This woman had all the supplies she needed to cause mass destruction at her disposal," Sheriff Chad Chronister said in a statement.
Stallard's bond has been set at $8,500.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon up 85 percent in 2019

Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in northern Brazil soared 85 percent in 2019 , compared with the previous year , official data showed Tuesday .
The 9,166 square kilometers ( 3,539 square miles ) cleared was the highest number in at least five years , according to Brazil ’ s National Institute for Space Research .
In 2018 , the deforested area was 4,946 square kilometers .
The sharp increase overlapped the first year in office of President Jair Bolsonaro , a climate change skeptic who has eased restrictions on exploiting the Amazon ’ s vast riches .
The data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which monitors deforestation in real time .
It comes after fires ravaged swaths of the Amazon basin last year , igniting a global outcry and diplomatic feud between Bolsonaro and European leaders .
The number of fires in the rainforest rose 30 percent to 89,178 in 2019 , compared with the previous year , the latest official data show .
Human Rights Watch on Tuesday called on Bolsonaro to reverse his environmental policy , which the campaign group says has accelerated land clearing and encouraged attacks on forest defenders .
In recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed in two separate incidents in the northeastern state of Maranhao .
One of them died after being ambushed by loggers .
The others were killed in a drive-by shooting .

And the alleged perpetrators in both counties are facing felony charges.
The similarity of events in Mesa County and Coffee County were of particular interest to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who has been vocal about the need for vigilance against “insider threats” to election systems. In response to the Georgia indictment, Griswold said such threats, as the nation heads into a new election year in which Trump is the leading GOP candidate for president, remain active.
“I strongly believe Coloradans and Americans deserve and need to know ongoing attempts to steal elections,” Griswold told Colorado Newsline.
The Georgia indictment, which came from a Fulton County grand jury, charged Trump and 18 members of his inner circle on 41 counts. Two defendants with Colorado ties are named in the indictment — Trump attorneys John Eastman, who at the time of the alleged criminal activity was a visiting scholar at the University of Colorado Boulder and currently represents the Colorado Republican Party in a lawsuit against Griswold, and Jenna Ellis, who until recently lived in Colorado and, though she was censured this year over election falsehoods, remains licensed to practice law in the state.
The indictment, which charges each of the defendants with racketeering, among other counts, says that after Trump lost the election the defendants “refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
Part of that alleged conspiracy involved Misty Hampton, who in 2020 was the Coffee County elections supervisor. Starting on Jan. 7, 2021 — the day after the Jan. 6 insurrection — Hampton, Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and other co-conspirators broke into the county’s Dominion machines and improperly accessed voter data, according to the indictment. Hampton “allowed” co-conspirators into private areas of the elections office.
About four months later, then-Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters committed an almost identical criminal act, according to prosecutors. The Republican clerk allegedly allowed digital copies of the Mesa County election system server’s software and other sensitive information to be made and disseminated. The case against Peters began with an investigation by Griswold’s office.
Though different people are thought to have been involved in the Colorado and Georgia security breaches, the sweeping indictment out of Fulton County speaks of a wide-ranging conspiracy that involved alleged criminal acts “in other states” and 30 unindicted unnamed co-conspirators. Griswold noted that the breaches occurred as part of national election-denial efforts by figures such as MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, both of whom have ties to Peters. Byrne in a video appeared to acknowledge his own involvement in the Mesa County case.
“Make no mistake, there was a national conspiracy to breach Mesa County’s voting equipment. That has always been very clear. Patrick Byrne admitted his complicity on a video and posted it to Twitter,” Griswold said.
Asked if the Fulton County indictment had any bearing on the Peters case, which does not involve the kind of far-ranging racketeering charges brought in Georgia, Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, whose office is prosecuting the case against Peters, wrote in a text, “We will not be amending our charges, as we want to avoid any further delays and are eager to get our case before a jury.”
Peters did not respond to a text seeking comment.
The parties are due in early September to establish a trial date.
Elbert County was also the site of an election system security breach facilitated by the county’s own top election official. In that case, Colorado election denier Shawn Smith, who was part of the Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and works on “election integrity” efforts for the Lindell-funded Cause of America, helped then-Clerk Dalls Schroeder, a Republican, copy sensitive voter information.
Similar security breaches also occurred in three Michigan counties.
Griswold, a Democrat, said such breaches don’t alter election outcomes. But they serve other purposes, such as spreading disinformation.
“I’m absolutely concerned,” Griswold said. “The purpose of the ‘big lie’ is to create chaos, and chaos is definitely part of local election administrators trying to undermine the election process from within. I am increasingly concerned all across the nation about insider threats.”
Colorado has taken steps, such as passage of Griswold-backed protections against “insider threats,” that put the state in a better position to maintain election security, she said.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Airline dumped jet fuel all over students at their school playground: report

Dozens of first responders are converging on an elementary school in Los Angeles after children outside on the playground were @ @ @ @ @ fuel .
“ An airplane returning to Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday morning dropped @ @ @ @ @ engine fuel onto a school playground , striking several students at Park Avenue Elementary School @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles Times reported , citing local officials .
Seven schoolkids and six adults are @ @ @ @ @ , with 70 firefighters and paramedics on the scene , the newspaper reported .
However @ @ @ @ @ is seventeen children and nine adults .
“ L.A .
City Fire spokesperson Nicholas Prange @ @ @ @ @ when the liquid rained down shortly before noon .
Students and staff were instructed to @ @ @ @ @ for the time being , ” the LA Times reported .
“ The jet landed @ @ @ @ @ .
Police could be seen driving behind the plane with sirens wailing as it arrived @ @

Dozens of first responders are converging on an elementary school in Los Angeles after children outside on the playground were reportedly being doused by jet fuel.
"An airplane returning to Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday morning dropped what was believed to be engine fuel onto a school playground, striking several students at Park Avenue Elementary School in Cudahy," the Los Angeles Timesreported, citing local officials.
Seven schoolkids and six adults are being treated for minor injuries, with 70 firefighters and paramedics on the scene, the newspaper reported. However, KTLA reports the number is seventeen children and nine adults.
"L.A. City Fire spokesperson Nicholas Prange said two classes were outside when the liquid rained down shortly before noon. Students and staff were instructed to go indoors and remain there for the time being," the LA Times reported. "The jet landed safely at LAX soon after. Police could be seen driving behind the plane with sirens wailing as it arrived."
KTLA identified the plane as a Delta Air Lines Boeing 777.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Fox News and Trump aide mocked for using a conservative reporter’s sarcasm to claim liberals attacke

Fox News and Trump aide mocked for using a conservative reporter’s sarcasm to claim liberals attacked Vince Vaughn

Fox News and White House press aide Hogan Gidley got their facts wrong yet again .
It all began with a conspiracy theory Tuesday that liberals were trying to “ get Vince Vaughn canceled.
” Conservatives raged about “ cancel culture , ” which advocates punishing those they disagree with by getting them fired or their shows canceled .
The problem , however , is that the so-called “ liberal ” who Gidley and Fox are using as an example of the attack on Vaughn was a conservative Washington Examiner reporter , who was joking .
To make matters worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a television show was “ F is for Family.
” He hasn ’ t been on the show since 2018 .
As Vox reporter Aaron Rupar pointed out , the network was so desperate to gin up outrage they didn ’ t seem to account for sarcasm in tweets .
“ Fox News is so dense they don ’ t realize the one tweet they keep using to smear the hysterical libs was posted sarcastically by a Washington Examiner staffer .
Beyond parody , ” tweeted Rupar .
You can see other responses @ @ @ @ @

Fox News and White House press aide Hogan Gidley got their facts wrong yet again.
It all began with a conspiracy theory Tuesday that liberals were trying to "get Vince Vaughn canceled." Conservatives raged about "cancel culture," which advocates punishing those they disagree with by getting them fired or their shows canceled.
The problem, however, is that the so-called "liberal" who Gidley and Fox are using as an example of the attack on Vaughn was a conservative Washington Examiner reporter, who was joking. To make matters worse, Vaugh's latest appearance in a television show was "F is for Family." He hasn't been on the show since 2018.
As Vox reporter Aaron Rupar pointed out, the network was so desperate to gin up outrage they didn't seem to account for sarcasm in tweets.
"Fox News is so dense they don’t realize the one tweet they keep using to smear the hysterical libs was posted sarcastically by a Washington Examiner staffer. Beyond parody," tweeted Rupar.
You can see other responses in the tweets below:


rawstory--2020-01-14--Rand Paul vows to force vote on Biden’s testimony after GOP defectors clear way for impeachment witn

Rand Paul vows to force vote on Biden’s testimony after GOP defectors clear way for impeachment witnesses

Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , threatened to force a vote to call Hunter Biden to testify at President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial as news broke that there are now enough Republican votes to support Democratic demands for witnesses .
This article was originally published at Salon The White House expects at least four Republicans to defect and vote with Democrats to call for witnesses at Trump ’ s trial , senior officials told .
Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , told reporters last week that she was working with a “ fairly small group ” of Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be joined by Sens .
Cory Gardner , R-Colo. , Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , and Mitt Romney , R-Utah , according to the report .
Sen. Lamar Alexander , R-Tenn. , has said that he is “ open ” to calling witnesses , as well .
“ Barring some sort of surprise , I ’ ll vote in favor of hearing witnesses , ” Romney , adding that he wanted to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton .
Trump told Fox News last week that he would likely invoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton from testifying , arguing that such a move would of the presidency .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , that he had the votes to start a trial without witnesses but would allow a vote on witnesses after it kicked off .
Democrats need just four Republican defectors in order to approve a motion to call for witnesses .
White House officials also do not believe there are enough votes for an immediate dismissal of the articles of impeachment , according to CBS .
Trump called for the Senate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence , no crime , read the transcripts , ‘ no pressure ’ Impeachment Hoax , rather than an outright dismissal , it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have .
I agree !
” .
Paul responded to the report of Republican defections by threatening to force a vote on calling Hunter Biden , who is at the heart of that led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
“ My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
Calling for some , while blocking others , ” .
“ If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand , I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more !
” McConnell told last month that he opposed calling witnesses , because it would pave the way for a “ kind of mutual assured destruction.
” The majority leader said his party ’ s members would “ want ” both Biden and the whistleblower .
Trump went even further on Twitter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , both Democrats from California , be called as witnesses .
But Sen. John Cornyn , R-Tex.
, the No .
2 Republican in the Senate , dismissed Trump ’ s demand as an “ intervening tweet.
” “ This is about Chuck Schumer getting 2020 Republican incumbents into tough voting situations , ” Cornyn said to Politico .
“ It won ’ t surprise you that we ’ re thinking about that too and how to avoid that as much as possible.
” Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the renewed push for witnesses was the result of Pelosi withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate .
Pelosi has since announced a Wednesday vote to move forward with the impeachment process .
“ Some of the Republicans are now beginning to say , maybe we need witnesses and documents , ” he said .
“ Had Nancy sent the stuff right over and McConnell moved to dismiss , who knows what would have happened ?
” But McConnell for additional witnesses on the Senate floor Tuesday .
“ If the existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation , ” he said .
“ If the existing case is weak , House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place.
” Schumer said on the Senate floor that a trial without would be a “ sham.
” “ All we ’ re asking is for the president ’ s own men , his appointees , to come forward and tell their side of the story , ” Schumer said .
“ The American people want a fair trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people will be able to tell the difference between a fair hearing of the facts and a cover-up .
”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., threatened to force a vote to call Hunter Biden to testify at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial as news broke that there are now enough Republican votes to support Democratic demands for witnesses.
This article was originally published at Salon
The White House expects at least four Republicans to defect and vote with Democrats to call for witnesses at Trump's trial, senior officials told CBS News . Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters last week that she was working with a "fairly small group" of Republicans to allow witnesses. Collins is expected to be joined by Sens. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, according to the report. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has said that he is "open" to calling witnesses, as well.
"Barring some sort of surprise, I'll vote in favor of hearing witnesses," Romney said Monday , adding that he wanted to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton.
Trump told Fox News last week that he would likely invoke executive privilege in an effort to bar Bolton from testifying, arguing that such a move would "protect the office" of the presidency.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., revealed last week that he had the votes to start a trial without witnesses but would allow a vote on witnesses after it kicked off. Democrats need just four Republican defectors in order to approve a motion to call for witnesses.
White House officials also do not believe there are enough votes for an immediate dismissal of the articles of impeachment, according to CBS. Trump called for the Senate to dismiss the articles over the weekend.
"Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, 'no pressure' Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!" he tweeted Sunday .
Paul responded to the report of Republican defections by threatening to force a vote on calling Hunter Biden, who is at the heart of a debunked conspiracy theory that led to Trump's impeachment.
"My colleagues can't have it both ways. Calling for some, while blocking others," he tweeted . "If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand, I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more!"
Paul made a similar threat during a party lunch last week, Politico reported.
McConnell told Fox News Radio last month that he opposed calling witnesses, because it would pave the way for a "kind of mutual assured destruction." The majority leader said his party's members would "want" both Biden and the whistleblower.
Trump went even further on Twitter, demanding Sunday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, both Democrats from California, be called as witnesses.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, dismissed Trump's demand as an "intervening tweet."
"This is about Chuck Schumer getting 2020 Republican incumbents into tough voting situations," Cornyn said to Politico. "It won't surprise you that we're thinking about that too and how to avoid that as much as possible."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told ABC News that the renewed push for witnesses was the result of Pelosi withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate. Pelosi has since announced a Wednesday vote to move forward with the impeachment process.
"Some of the Republicans are now beginning to say, maybe we need witnesses and documents," he said. "Had Nancy sent the stuff right over and McConnell moved to dismiss, who knows what would have happened?"
But McConnell slammed the calls for additional witnesses on the Senate floor Tuesday.
"If the existing case is strong, there's no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation," he said. "If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place."
Schumer said on the Senate floor that a trial without would be a "sham."
"All we're asking is for the president's own men, his appointees, to come forward and tell their side of the story," Schumer said. "The American people want a fair trial in the Senate . . . The American people will be able to tell the difference between a fair hearing of the facts and a cover-up."