Joe Biden will be the 46th President of the United States. According to CNN, NBC, Fox News, and the AP, he prevailed against incumbent Donald Trump in the state of Pennsylvania and thus obtained the required majority in the electorate.

The Key Role of the Keystone State

The state of Pennsylvania was decisive for Biden’s success. Biden was able to prevail against Trump and thus achieve the required majority in the electorate. While four states are still counting votes, Biden now has obtained 290 electoral votes, with 270 required for victory. Trump remains unchanged at 214 electoral votes.

In the days before the election, the signs were increasingly pointing to Biden’s victory. However, in states such as Pennsylvania, a neck-and-neck race transpired until the last votes were counted.

Biden: ‘I Will Be a President for All Americans’

In an initial response on Twitter, Biden said he was honored. “We have hard work ahead of us,” he wrote. “But I promise you, I will be a president for all Americans – whether you voted for me or not.”

In a separate statement, Biden said it was time to unite and heal the country. “Now that the campaign is over, it is time to leave the anger and harsh rhetoric behind and come together as a nation.” He went on to write, “We are the United States of America. And there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together.”

Trump’s Reaction to Biden’s Victory

Meanwhile, Trump is still not inclined to accept Biden’s victory. According to the president, no state has formally confirmed Biden as a winner. There will be recounts, primarily in the contested states, and his election campaign team has “submitted valid and lawful legal challenges, the president continued.

A recount of votes cast in Georgia is indeed conceivable, as Trump and Biden are less than 0.5 percentage points apart. In this case, the state’s electoral law requires a recount.

However, the state has yet to conclude the counting, and Biden’s lead is likely to increase, not decrease due to it.

Trump Team to Begin Taking Legal Action to Dispute Results

From Monday on, Trump’s campaign team will also start taking legal action against the counts.

Trump and his team complain above all that election observers were allegedly kept away from the counting room and that some illegal ballot papers were cast. Neither the president nor his team provided valid evidence for either allegation. The chances of success of his team’s lawsuits are accordingly low.

Biden Supporters Celebrate

Just seconds after several US media had declared Biden the winner of the election cheers broke out in many major cities across the country. On the streets of New York and Washington, people clapped and screamed with joy. Hundreds flocked to Times Square and Black Lives Matter Plaza to celebrate.

Congratulations to Biden quickly came from all over the world, such as Paris, Berlin, and London. The leaders of the EU also called for a closer transatlantic partnership. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote on Twitter on Saturday:

“The EU Commission is ready to intensify cooperation with the new government and the new Congress” to address challenges such as the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, digital transformation, Address security, and the multilateral system.

Historical Election

It is an election that will go down in history. Not only due to President’s Trump unprecedented conduct or because Joe Biden received the most votes of all time, but also because Senator Kamala Harris is now the first woman and black American to take over the office of vice president. In an initial reaction to the election victory, she promised the citizens that she would serve the country with Biden.

“This election is about so much more than Joe Biden and me. It’s about the soul of America and our willingness to fight for it,” she wrote on Twitter. “We have a lot of work to do. Let’s get started.”

The work for President-elect Biden has already started. According to media reports, he wants to present a council of experts to contain the coronavirus pandemic on Monday.

The establishment of the body before the announcement of the personnel election for the first cabinet positions underscores the importance Biden plans to give to the fight against the pandemic in his first year in office.

L'articolo Joe Biden Beats Donald Trump for the Presidency proviene da InsideOver.

For the U.S., history has just repeated itself in a very short time, and once again the opinion polls have failed to anticipate how much support U.S. President Donald Trump enjoys. On Monday, CNBC reported that the Democratic runner and former Vice President, Joe Biden, had a 6.5-point lead over Trump, according to The RealClearPolitics general election polling average. However, the results at this current time of writing present a very different picture.

So far, this election is proving to be just as close and nail-biting as the 2000 U.S. presidential election, which saw George W. Bush narrowly beat his Democratic rival Al Gore in the state of Florida by just 537 votes. Yet the swing state delivered the Republicans’ biggest win there since the 2004 poll.

The blue wave never happened for Biden

Trump also won certain battleground states that were crucial for his return to the White House, such as Ohio and Iowa. Even Texas was considered to be a battleground state, and Biden would have no doubt been left disappointed at the Democrats’ failure to win the state for the first time since 1976.

But the biggest disappointment for the former Vice President is that the ‘blue wave’ many pollsters anticipated never happened. As I wrote in a previous column, Biden used his former boss, Barack Obama, to his advantage by campaigning alongside him in many swing states. The idea behind this strategy was to encourage many floating voters who voted for Trump’s predecessor in 2008 and 2016, to vote for his former Vice President. The Democrats’ decision to roll out Obama clearly failed to trigger the blue wave that Biden so desperately needed.

Obama failed to inspire the Democratic base

Not only did Obama fail to inspire the Democrats’ base to vote in large numbers, but the blue wave never happened because Biden does not possess the charm and likability that many former Democratic presidents have. According to YouGov, Trump’s predecessor has a 58 percent positive rating, and Bill Clinton remains the thirteenth most popular former Democratic president.

Biden possessed almost the same positive ratings as Hillary Clinton did months before the 2016 election. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that the former Vice President was ahead of Trump by 11 percentage points. In 2016, Hillary was ahead of the then Republican candidate by 10 points. Biden was also over 50 percent in a previous poll, but the polls clearly got it wrong again as they failed to consider one crucial factor that helped Trump carry many US states: the shy Trump factor.

Despite this, there was one pollster who accurately predicted that Trump’s shy supporters would help him win in many battleground states. The Sun reported that Robert Cahaly of the Trafalgar Group said that the U.S. President’s ‘shy’ voters would help get him re-elected. He said that those voters do not tell pollsters the truth because of mounting pressures within society. Therefore, it is clear that Trump still enjoys a lot of popular support amongst his own base.

The Democrats must do some soul-searching

What also became apparent on Tuesday was that Trump performed better with many voters that the Democrats have always taken for granted. The BBC discovered that the U.S. President’s support among black voters increased by 4 percent, and CNN found that Trump won the support of 35 percent of Latino voters, although Biden managed to win over just half of the Latino vote. He performed worse with this group than Hillary did in 2016, as the latter won 62 percent of the Latino vote that year.

Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the Democrats need to start asking themselves why they are failing to mobilize their supporters in the same they did when Obama and Bill Clinton were leading their party. They need to learn some lessons from the last four years and stop taking their supporters for granted, otherwise it will be a long time before we witness another blue surge in support.

L'articolo Why The Blue Wave Never Happened for the Democrats proviene da InsideOver.

The US Senate voted in favour of a bipartisan measure that would limit US President Donald Trump’s authority to start military operations against Iran.

Bipartisan Effort to Restrict Trump’s War Powers

The resolution was authored by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. He asserted that the President must win approval from Congress before engaging in future military action against Tehran. In a devastating blow to Trump, eight Republicans sided with the Democrats on Wednesday on a procedural motion to force a vote on the issue as early as Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Both Trump and his supporters have argued that the legislation sends a signal of weakness to Iran and other potential adversaries.

However, Kaine and his supporters said the measure was not targeted at Trump or his presidency, but instead characterised them as a significant reassertion of congressional power to declare war.

Which Republicans Supported the Resolution?

The legislation had the support of GOP senators like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who supports the President’s foreign policy towards Iran, but also believes that Congress cannot escape its constitutional responsibility to act on issues of war and peace.

Although Kaine’s measure had cross-party support, it is understandable why the President and his supporters believe this bill is targeted at his presidency. The Democratic Senator was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and many in his party opposed Trump’s order to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last month.

This is why the Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, opposed the bill because he believes that it sends the wrong message to the US’s allies.

No Guarantee Resolution Will Become Law

There is no guarantee that the legislation will become law yet. Now that it has passed the Senate, the House of Representatives could take up the former chamber’s resolution later this month.

Also, if Trump vetoes the resolution, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to overturn the President’s veto.

All US presidents since George W. Bush have enjoyed an expansion in executive authority to declare war following 9/11. According to Chris Edelson, assistant professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, Congress has struggled to challenge any sitting president who has overstepped the limits of their emergency powers.

During 2011, Congress failed to challenge Barack Obama’s executive order to declare war on Libya, a conflict arguably as controversial as the 2003 Iraq War, and the former president’s decision to order attacks against ISIS was not thwarted by the legislature either.

This is why Kaine’s resolution is so radical because it could limit the executive’s authority to declare war for the first time in almost twenty years.

Expansion of Executive Authority is Nothing New

But as the American University argues, presidents pushing the limits of executive authority when it comes to national security is not entirely new. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, though he secured congressional authorisation to do so.

As another example, Harry Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and control the country’s steel mills to produce weapons during the Korean War, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

For those who believe that the legislature should have the final say to authorise the executive’s decision to declare war, Kaine’s legislation is a welcome move. However, at a time when the nature of war is changing and terrorist attacks are becoming more sophisticated, it could weaken Trump’s authority to act quickly if an individual or terrorist group poses an imminent threat to the US. This was the main reason why Bush was awarded those powers in 2001 and why no president has faced the prospect of being robbed of them until now.

Checks and balances are needed. Arguably⁠—the Bush administration went too far in its waterboarding of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay⁠—but with Iran becoming more threatening, this bill could not come at a worse time for the Trump administration or for American readiness to face national security threats.

L'articolo The Senate Has Decided To Restrict Trump’s War Powers proviene da InsideOver.

Although South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was declared the winner of last week’s Iowa caucus, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders closely defeated his moderate rival in the New Hampshire primary with a lead of 1.6 percent. He managed to secure a 26 percent vote share over Buttigieg, leaving the Indiana Mayor with a 24.4 percent vote share.

Meanwhile, the Republicans held their own primary in New Hampshire and US President Donald Trump emerged unscathed with an 85.5 percent vote share. His main rival, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, only secured a 9.2 percent vote share. Therefore, the sitting President is overwhelmingly likely to be facing the Democrats during the 2020 US Presidential Election. Regardless of who wins the Democrats’ primaries, it will help Trump develop his campaign message and strategy.

Considering it was swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that lifted the President to power in 2016, the Trump campaign is aiming to regain votes from these states after the Democrats performed well in these battlegrounds during the 2018 midterms.

Other swing states like Minnesota and New Hampshire will be pivotal during this election, which is why it is reassuring for Trump that he performed so well in the latter’s GOP primary. Policies like securing the most radical tax cuts since the Bush era and reforming NAFTA will be vital in persuading moderate voters in these battlegrounds to vote for the President. A thriving economy will also be vital to Trump’s fortunes.

Furthermore, the Republican campaign will focus on black voters. If Barack Obama’s former Vice President, Joe Biden, secures the Democratic nomination, it will be harder for Trump to win their support as the former is popular among black Americans due to his association with his former boss. Maggie Haberman, Annie Karni and Jonathan Martin of the New York Times argue the President cannot win a second term without winning back suburban voters and independents, as Trump’s conduct has helped accelerate a realignment among moderate electors towards the Democrats. 

Republican National Committee officials believe many Republican voters will flock back to the party after Trump appointed conservative judges and delivered on his promise of tax cuts.

Suburban women will be harder to sway. Republican officials have witnessed a surge in support for the President when he has discussed how the Democrats intend to end private health care insurance and provide government health care benefits to undocumented immigrants. Yet that statement is not entirely true and for that reason it is a difficult line to argue.

If Sanders goes on to win the Democratic primaries, the Trump campaign will focus on brandishing his rivals as ‘socialists.’ Indeed, the Vermont Senator embraces the term ‘democratic socialist.’ Although a Gallup poll last year revealed that 68 percent of Americans believe wealth should be evenly distributed, the UK’s general election proves that if enough conservative-leaning voters and moderates turn out to vote, radical socialism can be defeated at the ballot box. Only 25 percent of Americans identify as socialists.

The President’s campaign will be betting on a Sanders win so that they can adopt the same strategy the Conservative Party did to defeat Jeremy Corbyn last December.

It is rumoured that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run for president because he is the right man for an ‘Instagram election.’ The President’s strategy to defeat his opponents will depend upon his proficiency at social media. Other politicians like Jair Bolsonaro copied his strategy and initiated a “Brazil First” campaign on Facebook. Whoever wins the Democratic race will have to match Trump’s regular tweeting.

Although Trump’s campaign is likely to focus on the economy and a message that appeals to both his base and moderate voters, the key to the President’s strategy will be whoever the Democrats select as their candidate, and there is a long way to go before that outcome is decided.

L'articolo What effect are the Democrats having on Trump’s campaign? proviene da InsideOver.

Following a disastrous caucus in Iowa, the Democrats are now on the next phase of their journey to face off against Donald Trump, who’s hoping for re-election in 2020. Dozens of names have been pushed forward for the party’s presidential nominee, but with the first hurdle now over, only a few names have remained solid.

The Democratic Frontrunnners

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar are the top tier candidates. None has any significant majority. Perhaps another name, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, may join them due to fact that he intentionally skipped Iowa but continues to have significant support.

Buttigieg: Growing Support But Still Lacking Enthusiasm Among African-Americans

Buttigieg was eventually declared the winner in Iowa, surprising many pollsters. So-called Mayor Pete was a lesser known candidate when he put himself forward for the presidential race. He was mainly overlooked due to his lack of experience and questionable support among African-Americans and minority voters. It is also important to remember that Buttigieg is the first openly gay politician to seek the Democratic nomination, and in the beginning, it was rather unknown how this factor might play a role in his run. Despite these factors, Buttigieg’s young age and energy, notable foreign policy knowledge, solid performances in debates and moderate approach to various policies has had a positive impact and increased his support. His real power will be tested in areas such as South Carolina and Nevada. Buttigieg’s lack of experience may be quoted more frequently during the remainder of the presidential race and more contenders, including President Donald Trump, will focus their attacks on him.

Sanders: Questions Over Health And Far-Left Positions

Obtaining second place during the Iowa caucuses, experienced policymaker and Senator Bernie Sanders will try again—like he did in the 2016 election—to become his party’s presidential nominee. Sanders hopes to rise from the ashes after his close combat with Hillary Clinton in 2016. A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders’ age and his slide to leftist policies are the main obstacles facing him. If elected, the 78-year-old lawmaker will be the oldest president in the history of the United States. However, the heart attack that he suffered in 2019 raises questions about his health. Sanders’ leftist political ideas are also questionable in terms of the appeal they might have on more moderate voters. His positions on war, healthcare and the economy will be constantly questioned by his adversaries the further he gets in the race.

Warren: Losing Momentum But Still A Strong Candidate

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was another dominant name during the second part of the Democratic presidential race. Her ambitious approach on Medicare, the economy and taxation faced both criticism and praise from electors. Warren’s anti-establishment approach—like Sanders’—faced criticism and was accused of being unrealistic. For instance, her “Medicare for all” plan helped her gain significant momentum in the beginning, but then the same plan was accused of being unrealistic due to how it would be paid for. Warren never backed down in strong confrontations with other candidates—especially Buttigieg and Sanders—but it is also difficult to say that she won either of her main duels. Despite these doubts, Warren remains the most powerful female candidate for 2020, especially after being endorsed by the New York Times. If Warren can overcome doubts about her “electability,” she can remain a top candidate.

Biden: Iowa Loss A ‘Gut Punch,’ But VP Is Still A Formidable Contender

Biden called himself the only candidate who can beat Donald Trump during his campaign. Biden dominated the polls soon after announcing his run for the presidency, but for the same reason he became an obvious target. His fourth place in the Iowa caucuses was a surprise for many and Biden himself called it a “gut punch.” With age being a potential concern for Sanders and Warren, it is also an important factor for some in considering whether to vote for Biden, who is 77. Biden’s involvement in Trump’s impeachment case through work activities that he and his son Hunter had in Ukraine became both positive and negative at the same time. Biden’s cold-blooded coolness during the impeachment case was praised by his supporters, but his opponents saw that as a way to emphasize all the unanswered questions around his Ukraine activity. Nonetheless, Biden is one of the best choices for Republican voters due to his moderate political views. He is still seen as the candidate that may “steal” the most votes from the Republican vote pool and among right-leaning independents in the Rust Belt and other areas. Biden’s foreign policy knowledge and experience will also continue to play an important part. Like his supporters claim, Biden may witness a significant boost once he participates in voting in states with major racial diversity where he enjoys strong support among African-American voters and minority voters, unlike Iowa, which is a state with mostly white voters.

Klobuchar: Struggling To Stand Out, But Lots Of Potential

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar took the fifth spot at the Iowa caucuses, but she continues her attempt to become the leading candidate of the Democratic Party. So far, she has failed to dominate any polls. Klobuchar is struggling to solidify her position as a strong moderate candidate and has had challenges in trying to distinguish her policies. Despite remaining in the grey-zone for a lot of the race thus far, Klobuchar has started to reinforce her position after being co-endorsed by the New York Times along with Warren. Nevertheless, as one of two strong female candidates remaining, Klobuchar has a lot of potential and her strong performance during the recent New Hampshire Democratic debate points to future success.

Bloomberg: Long-shot Candidate With A Bigger Chance Than You Might Think

Despite deciding not to participate in early caucuses and primaries, America’s eighth richest man, Michael Bloomberg, continues to have a solid footing in various polls. His policy to focus on primary races further down the line is seen as strategic for his supporters and some critics say that the Iowa disaster actually helped him boost his position. On the other hand, avoiding direct confrontation with other candidates by skipping both primaries and debates is perceived by some as dodging real debate. In the same way, Bloomberg’s ambitious campaign spending for his cause has been characterized by some as his attempt to buy the presidency. Bloomberg’s moderate policies coupled with his economic and international experience may put him ahead of other candidates to eventually face Trump.

It is important to remember that the schism between moderates and liberals within the Democratic Party is stronger than ever. Democrats need to heal their party divisions if they want to win the election, perhaps by bringing moderates and leftists together in a presidency and vice presidency ticket so that they can rally more Trump supporters, independents and undecideds to come to their side.

L'articolo After Iowa Which Democrat Looks Most Likely To Face Trump? proviene da InsideOver.

What had been anticipated after the Iowa Caucus on Monday has now been declared official: Pete Buttigieg has narrowly won the first Democratic presidential election stop and thus leads the 2020 primaries.

Iowa Caucus Results

With a delay of three days, the Democrats have finally concluded a turbulent first caucus in the presidential race in the state of Iowa. After counting all the state’s precincts, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg narrowly won. He remains ahead of the party’s extreme left in the form of Bernie Sanders. In vote percentages, Buttigieg obtained 26.2 percent, Vermont’s Senator Sanders 26.1 percent and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren 18 percent. Accordingly, Buttigieg and Sanders both receive ten delegates, while Warren receives four. Meanwhile, former VP Joe Biden leaves Iowa without a single delegate. His 15.8 percent vote share was insufficient to nab one of the first three spots.

Chaos during the vote count due to a severe technical breakdown delayed the announcement of the results. Buttigieg nevertheless presented himself as the winner in a speech on Tuesday and—despite confirmed results of only two-thirds of the state’s precincts—spoke of an “amazing victory” for his campaign.

Buttigieg’s Big Win

Buttigieg’s delight is justified. Until a year ago, the moderate Indiana state politician was still entirely unknown on the national level. He had no campaign team and no campaign donations. When he entered the presidential race, he was seen as an outsider and chastised by his opponents for his inexperience and lack of political pedigree. Twelve months later, he left all three favorites behind him. Even though nothing has been won overall with the victory in Iowa, Buttigieg will continue the primaries with plenty of momentum.

Iowa’s Role In The Primary Process

Iowa, with a population of three million, sends only a few delegates (24) to the Democratic convention in the summer where the party nominee for president is agreed upon by delegates. In the past, Iowa has nonetheless often been an indicator of a candidate’s success down the stretch. Those who do not end up in the top three in Iowa have traditionally seen their prospects as bleak.

Nonetheless, Buttigieg’s triumph cannot and will not negate the fact that in key states with a disproportionately large number of delegates such as North Carolina (110), Texas (228), and California (415), he remains far behind Biden, Sanders, and Warren in the polls. Thus, Super Tuesday, on March 3—when more than a dozen states are asked to vote—will likely show how far Buttigieg can really get in his ambition to become the nominee and then president.

The decisions for the people of Iowa of whom to vote for was not made at polling stations, but at “caucuses”—many hundreds of party meetings. At these meetings, Democrats used a complicated procedure to vote on whom they consider is the best presidential candidate for their party.

Biden Campaign On Iowa Brouhaha: ‘Significant Shortcomings’

Meanwhile, the party blamed a programming error in an app to broadcast the election results for the chaos. The presidential hopefuls reacted with expected frustration. Biden’s team even raised doubts regarding the results and complained about “significant shortcomings” in the counting process.

Democratic party leader Tom Perez called for the results to be reviewed because of the chaotic election. “Enough is enough,” Perez wrote Thursday on Twitter. Given the problems with transferring the results and restoring public confidence, he urged the Democratic Party in Iowa to begin an “immediate” review. It was not immediately clear whether this meant a complete recount of the votes.

In the next primary state of New Hampshire, Sanders (24 percent) is ahead of the Democratic presidential candidates, according to surveys. He is a distinct distance ahead of Biden who sits at an estimated 17 percent. The primaries run until June, after which the Democrats then elect their presidential nominee in Milwaukee in July at the convention.

L'articolo At Last, Iowa Declares Pete Buttigieg As Caucus Winner proviene da InsideOver.

The first day of the Trump impeachment trial commenced as anticipated: in utter acrimony between the Democrats and the Republicans, primarily over the trial’s resolution introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, which Democrats labeled a farce.

In his opening statement, lead impeachment manager for the Democrats, Adam Schiff, attempted to call upon the senators’ integrity and reminded them what he believed was at stake before raising the question of whether Republicans will be able to say goodbye to partisanship and welcome to a fair and balanced procedure.

Schiff’s statement came after Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, had sharply scrutinized the resolution that Mitch McConnell aspired to put to the vote on Tuesday and which entailed the rules procedures for the forthcoming weeks. It stipulated that the Democrats, as well as the defense, were only granted 24 hours for their arguments. However, the appearance of each side ought to be restricted to two days, which would have resulted in twelve hours per day.

Since the trial should in no case begin before 9 am with longer breaks to be expected, the Democrats and Schumer feared that their team would be at the lectern at night to justify the impeachment and thus absent from the public’s spotlight.

The White House’s defense council, meanwhile, repudiated these allegations in the first session yesterday. Instead, it was the Democrats who attempted to void not only the 2016 election but steal 2020 also, the lawyers argued.

Nonetheless, in an apparent concession to Democrats, the resolution introduced at the start of the trial deviated from the resolution McConnell unveiled on Monday. Changes to the resolution were written by hand into the original text, highlighting how the adjustment to the opening remarks schedule occurred at the last minute – despite McConnell’s previous claims to possess sufficient votes to pass his original resolution.

It was unclear whether he feared an early showdown that the Trump loyalists could have lost or whether the moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney beseeched McConnell into these concessions. As a result, the Democrats and the defense are now granted 24 hours over three days to conduct their arguments.

Besides the scheduling issues, the Democrats demanded various amendments to ensure, inter alia, that the Senate would summons witnesses – including Trump’s Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The Democrats, moreover, attempted to enforce further requests that the Senate would subpoena numerous documents for the procedure in advance – including from the White House, the US State Department, and the Pentagon.

Republicans, however, rejected all efforts on day one.

After a 12-hour debate and just before 2 am, the GOP voted along party lines, 53 to 47, to ratify McConnell’s trial resolution and with it in favor of postponing the decision on whether to summon witnesses or subpoena documents for the trial.

Nonetheless, the fact that the moderate Republicans did not appear to be inclined to rush to early conclusions can be seen as a minor success for the Democrats, particularly after day one had impressively illustrated how far apart the Trumpian GOP and the Democrats are. The fact that, unlike during the Clinton trial in 1999, both sides could not even concur on the rules in advance is a testimony of the latter.

It remains to be seen, however, what price the Democrats are willing to pay for Mitt Romney and co. to ensure an infinitesimally more impartial trial. Romney, for one, has already affirmed he was interested in Bolton’s testimony. However, the trade-off would presumably be a subpoena for Hunter Biden. So far, the Democrats have not been inclined to make him a participant. Whether they are prepared to put their leading presidential candidate and his son in jeopardy in order to potentially obtain a smoking gun Bolton may or may not possess, remains to be seen though it is not entirely inconceivable after the first day of the Trump trial is in the books.

L'articolo The Trump Impeachment: Day One proviene da InsideOver.

It was only a matter of time before the favorites Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would break their truce. A memo has surfaced a few weeks before the already critical Iowa caucus that officially starts the 2020 presidential nominee contest. In it, the Sanders’ volunteers were asked to criticize Warren during their door to door duties in the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Warren countered and has officially opened the fight for the hard left.

It is an inevitable development, despite the close “friendship” the two presented to the public during the 2019 trail. After all, both Warren and Sanders are targeting the same group of voters. How deep this friendship goes will be seen for the first time tonight during the Democratic debate. Up to this point, both had focused their attacks on Pete Buttigieg and co-favorite Joe Biden by forming a united front. Mutual attacks? Nonexistent.

The reason for the internal struggle? A script has surfaced in which Sanders’ team lists its volunteer workers’ arguments to utilize against Sanders’ opponent. In addition to Warren, the script also lists arguments against other democratic candidates, such as the aforementioned Biden or Buttigieg. It could all be summed up as political campaigning if only there had not been the previous non-aggression pact by Warren and Sanders, which now appears to be officially broken.

“I like Elizabeth Warren,” the script states. “In fact, she is my second choice. But here is my concern about her: people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what”. Warren was thus “not bringing new bases into the Democratic Party,” the script continues.

Warren‘s response did not take long. She was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me,” Warren told reporters in Iowa. “Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for, and the coalition and grassroots movement we are trying to build.”

It is uncertain whether the order to “trash” Warren actually came from Sanders himself and was not based on one of his campaign worker’s ideas. However, to make sure, Sanders stressed on Sunday that he had never expressed a negative opinion about his inner-party rival. Instead, he attempted to shift the blame onto the campaign team.

However, Warren went one step further and promptly accused Sanders of something he supposedly said in 2018, namely that a woman could not beat Donald Trump. The latter was, of course, contested by Sanders and dismissed as absolutely preposterous.

Nonetheless, Warren’s campaign manager Roger Lau uttered his displeasure and warned that the Democrats should not repeat the mistake of fighting amongst each other as in 2016 when it cost the party the presidency.

These development display that the Democrats face an intriguing conflict, in which the gloves are about to come off. After all, Warren has accused Sanders of something that could undoubtedly be interpreted as demeaning towards women in the current climate and thus detrimental regarding women voters. However, Warren has little choice. In a recent poll for Iowa, Warren is at 15% not only three points behind Sanders, but nine points behind Biden, who leads the entire field.

Warren, as well as Sanders, are cognizant that one of them has to win and beat Biden in Iowa, as a Biden win here, will make it already hard for the rest of the field to catch him, according to forecasts.

How much despair and pressure Warren and Sanders are willing to apply to counteract this, will be seen on stage this evening – though one should not expect any low blows.

Nonetheless, Biden will enjoy the socialist bidding war that is about to transpire between the two, as it will likely deter the last remaining moderates willing to vote for either Sanders or Warren. The first shot was taken by Warren earlier today when she pledged to wipe out federal student debt loans – if necessary, without Congress. One can thus expect Sanders to up the ante reasonably soon.

L'articolo Warren And Sanders Have Ceased Their Truce proviene da InsideOver.

The growing and deadly tendency for American domestic terrorists to target members of various religions and their places of worship has reached a point where some parishioners are arming themselves before entering houses of God.

While God and guns may seem like an odd mix, two recent heinous crimes have spurred a growing call from religious institutions for better security and the right to carry weapons.

On Dec. 29, a gunman killed two parishioners in a church near Forth Worth Texas before armed worshippers, members of security at the West Freeway Church of Christ, shot the assailant to death.

On the seventh night of Hanukkah, the marking of the night Jews rose against their Greek-Syrian oppressors in 167 B.C., a man stabbed five people at a rabbi’s house in New York.

The Dec. 28 assault was the most violent of several anti-Semitic acts promulgated recently.

The assailant tried to enter a synagogue next door but those inside were able to stymie the attack by barricading the door.

Mass shootings, defined in the US as a crime where four or more people are killed, have entered the realm of routine in the United States.

According to database figures extracted by the Associated Press, USA Today media outlet and Northeastern University, there were 41 mass murdered recorded in 2019, taking a total of 211 lives. It is the most mass murders since records have been kept and 33 of the crimes involved firearms.

But even the record did not result in the largest death toll. That dubious honour belongs to 2017 when 224 people died in mass killings. It included the worst mass shooting in American history, with 59 shot to death and at least 500 injured at a music festival in Las Vegas.

Enough Americans have stood steadfast by their weapons, so much so that the majority who want stiffer gun control have a hapless task because politicians are afraid to rile the powerful gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association.

An illustration: Republican Party politicians – stiff proponents for guns – praised the armed security parishioner who gunned down the shooter at the West Freeway Church of Christ and said it was fortunate that Texas state laws allowed guns in houses of worship. Meanwhile the Democrats called for stricter guns laws that they claimed would help prevent such attacks.

And the gun proponents invariably cite the Second Amendment of the Constitution of United States, which states: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That was written in 1791, before automatic and semi-automatic weapons, when a single-shot musket was the most common firearm. Guns were also essential to life back then when people had to hunt and shoot dinner and protect themselves from Indian attacks.

President Barack Obama said after the Sandy Hook school massacre where 20 children and six educators were shot to death on Dec. 14, 2012 that stricter gun control was on the way. He admitted defeat five months later when Congress refused to act – it was a “shameful day” in Washington, Obama said.

But leaving the pros and cons of guns restrictions, there is a question both sides of the argument ask: What drives a person to commit a mass shooting?

An analysis of the Violence Project Database shows that shootings committed through hate have taken a sharp increase in the last five years.

Portrait of a mass killer

Two distinct groups emerge – those who were motivated by hate of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, blaming the religions for disappointments in their lives.

The other group attacks the place of worship because they had a grudge against someone worshipping there, such as a family member or girlfriend.

Of the 11 who killed, all were men and the southern United States is a prime breeding ground.

The perpetrator is likely to be white and a resident of Texas, where a third of the crimes took place.

He is as young as his early 20s and as old as early 40s.

The man is single and recently lost his job, most likely fired. He has a criminal history of violence and was in some crisis before the shooting. He also has a documented past of mental illness and substance abuse.

He has been online researching past mass shootings and probably studied white supremacist conspiracy theories. The internet material often pushes them to act.

In short, they are unhappy and hold a grudge against a group the perpetrator blames for disappointments he has suffered.

How to stop it, short of stricter gun control?

Prevention consists of not necessarily arming security personnel, but having paid staff and volunteers greeting worshippers at the church door who are trained to recognize potential problems and on how to de-escalate violence.

And then there is the Internet that has validated the hate and violence. Confronting and challenging hate face-to-face or on the Internet is essential in stopping future mass killings.

(The portrait of a mass murderer who attacks worshippers is based on research by Jillian Peterson, a psychologist and professor of criminal justice at Hamline University in Minnesota and James Densley, a sociologist and professor of criminal justice at Metropolitan State University in Minnesota.)

L'articolo Guns and God: A Strange Mix for Mass Murder proviene da InsideOver.

In his six-page letter to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, American President Trump denied all allegations against him and accused the Democrats of a deranged political witch-hunt, among many other things. As we know by now, it did not stop Pelosi from proceeding in her case against Trump. However, the letter was never meant to stop the impeachment process in the first place.

Unlike his usual approach, Trump did not announce his protest against the then-pending impeachment procedure via Twitter but protested it in the letter he sent to Pelosi on Tuesday. In the letter Trump accuses the Democrats of “perversion of justice and abuse of power.” He reiterates that he has done nothing wrong when he asked a foreign power, namely Ukraine, to investigate political rivals, i.e., Democratic Presidential candidate and former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Why Did Trump Write The Letter?

Trump’s letter wasn’t truly meant for Pelosi. It was a press release for the public. Not the general public, but the Trump public. It was done in order to rally the troops for the upcoming impeachment proceedings and inflame them with even more outrage. As such, the letter represents a summary of Trump’s “fight” against “the swamp,” “the deep state,” and all the other enemies who have been undermining his presidency according to his view. All the misleading statements, exaggerations, and downright falsehoods in the letter notwithstanding, its purpose is clear. Self-reflection? Nonexistent. Victim narrative? Omnipresent.

Trump Letter: Only Stupid People Believe The Democrats Are Sincere

By adhering to the impeachment process, Pelosi has declared an “open war on American democracy,” Trump wrote. The “campaign” of the Democrats against him was an “unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power.”

“You view democracy as your enemy!” Continues the President’s six-page letter. “You are the ones subverting democracy in America. You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.”

No “intelligent person” would believe the Democrats, Trump also claimed. “You are making a mockery of impeachment, and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.”

Moreover, Trump claimed that he had been denied fundamental rights during the Democrats’ preparations for impeachment, such as the possibility of having witnesses interrogated at the House hearings. After all, “more due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

In his letter, Trump also states that he has “no doubt” that “the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 elections.”

Pelosi Unruffled By Angry Letter

Trump’s words—unsurprisingly—did not lead Pelosi to change course. Hours after having received the letter, she sent out the invitations for the impeachment votes the following day to “honor our oath to support our constitution and protect it from all foreign and domestic enemies.” Hours later, Trump became only the third President in the history of the republic to be impeached.

Indeed, the President’s most recent—and well calculated—outburst won’t deter the Democrats or interrupt their plan going forward. As part of the upcoming trial, they now seek to summon witnesses from Trump’s closest circle. Two of the four new witnesses are said to be former Security Adviser John Bolton and incumbent White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Moreover, in a letter to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed for the proceedings to be “fair and honest.” Mcconnell has said he will be working with the White House and there will be no difference between his approach and the President’s approach, while fellow Trump insider Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said the impeachment is bogus and he will do whatever he can to “make it die quickly” in the Senate.

According to Schumer, the trial could begin as early as January 7th, with the process potentially lasting multiple weeks. Meanwhile, Schumer and McConnell are expected to agree on a roadmap for the planned process, just as it occurred during the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton two decades ago.

L'articolo Trump’s Letter to Pelosi: Alternative Facts In An Alternate Reality proviene da InsideOver.