Mediaboss Marketing

Senator Lamar Alexander this week at the Capitol. He was one of four Republicans considered critical to the question of whether to call witnesses.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats have proved their case that President Trump had acted inappropriately in his dealings with Ukraine, he did not think the presidents actions were impeachable and he would vote against considering new evidence in the impeachment trial.

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did, he said in a statement. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

Mr. Alexanders statement is a strong indication that Republicans have lined up the votes to block a call for more witnesses and documents.

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitutions high bar for an impeachable offense, Mr. Alexander said.

His opposition is a significant victory for Republican leaders. Though not all senators have announced their intentions, the vast majority of Republicans are expected to vote on Friday against allowing new evidence, and Mr. Alexander was a critical swing vote.

His announcement indicated that Republicans had fallen in line to push the trial into its final phase reaching a verdict that is all but certain to be Mr. Trumps acquittal without delay.

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation, Mr. Alexander said.

Democrats would need four Republicans to join them in voting for a motion to consider additional witnesses and documentary requests. But so far, only two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah, have indicated they will do so.

A fourth possible Republican swing vote, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has yet to announce her decision. Both parties deemed it nearly impossible that any other Republican senator would defect.

Mr. Alexander met privately with Ms. Murkowski earlier Thursday evening when the trial broke for dinner.

Mr. Alexander, a former education secretary and presidential candidate, is set to retire at the end of the year.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said late Thursday that she would vote in favor of considering additional witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity, she said in a statement released shortly after the trial adjourned for the day. Therefore, I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed.

Democrats would need four Republicans to side with them on Friday to demand new witnesses and documents. Ms. Collins had strongly signaled that she would vote in favor of admitting new evidence. Her statement makes her the second Republican to confirm she will do so, after Senator Mitt Romney of Utah.

Ms. Collins said that if a majority of senators indeed vote on Friday to allow witnesses, she would propose that the House managers and presidents defense lawyers try to agree to a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side. If they fail, she said senators should choose the number of witnesses.

If a vote on hearing witnesses ends in a tie, it could fall to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to decide what happens next.

When a vote on any motion ends in a tie, the motion fails. So one outcome in that scenario is that Chief Justice Roberts does nothing, and thats the end of the matter.

However, a precedent from the first presidential impeachment trial the unsuccessful effort to remove Andrew Johnson in 1868 would also seem to give Chief Justice Roberts the option of breaking the tie.

The Senates general rules for impeachment trials are silent about what happens in a tie and whether the chief justice may cast tiebreaking votes on procedural motions, and the current version of them last revised in 1986 still does not address that question. A resolution that the Senate approved this month laying out specific procedures for the Trump trial is also silent on ties.

But Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who presided over the Johnson trial, twice cast tiebreaking votes on procedural motions, which therefore both passed. (On a third tie, Mr. Chase abstained, so that motion failed.)

To be sure, both of the procedural motions that Chief Justice Chase voted on were far less momentous than calling Mr. Bolton as a witness would be: They involved whether the Senate should take a short break and adjourn for the day.

Some senators in 1868 believed that Chief Justice Chase lacked that power under the Constitution and moved to declare his intervention null. But the Senate voted down the objection, creating a precedent that chief justices do have tiebreaking power in impeachment trials, just as vice presidents have tiebreaking power in votes on legislation and nominations.

In the only other presidential impeachment trial against Bill Clinton in 1999 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cast no tiebreaking votes; the issue never came up.

John Warner, a Republican elder statesman who served for 30 years in the Senate, called on his fellow Republicans on Thursday night to bring relevant witnesses and documents into President Trumps impeachment trial.

As a lifelong Republican and retired member of the U.S. Senate, who once served as a juror in a presidential impeachment trial, I am mindful of the difficult responsibilities those currently serving now shoulder, Mr. Warner, 92, wrote in a statement.

I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow our nations norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this impeachment trial, he added.

Mr. Warner, a five-term senator from Virginia and one of Congresss most influential voices on the war in Iraq, declined to seek re-election in 2008, and was succeeded by Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat who is of no relation.

A centrist who often worked across party lines, the elder Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee, served as secretary of the Navy and was long known as one of the Senates old bulls the guardians of its institutions.

His statement, distributed by Mark Warners Senate office, harked back to another era in the Capitol.

Not long ago, senators of both major parties always worked to accommodate fellow colleagues with differing points of view to arrive at outcomes that would best serve the nations interests, he wrote. If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a sham, I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the Senate, and to our fragile national consensus.

It started when Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, said, With the greatest respect, if the Senate can just decide theres no executive privilege, guess what? Youre destroying executive privilege.

Then Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead Democratic House manager, snapped back: It may be different in the court than it is in this chamber and in the House, but when anybody begins a sentence with the phrase, I have the greatest respect for, you have to look out for what follows.

Enter Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who asked the next question: I sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Capito and Scott of South Carolina with all due respect.

There was laughter in the chamber.

In his next response, Mr. Cipollone struck back. I wont respond to the ad hominem attacks that keep coming, he said. I will just say, for the record: Youre right, I havent been elected to anything, but when I say the greatest respect, I mean it.

For those keeping track, Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan, asked the third bipartisan question of the trial.

The two men wanted to know how the trial verdict would alter the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

In 1999, there was only one bipartisan question asked over the two days of questioning.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who is weighing whether to join Democrats in voting to hear witnesses in President Trumps impeachment trial, may have tipped her hand Thursday evening with a pointed question for Mr. Trumps defense team: Why should this body not call Ambassador Bolton?

Ms. Murkowski was referring to John R. Bolton, the presidents former national security adviser, whose coming book contradicts Mr. Trump on the question at the heart of the impeachment trial: whether the president withheld military aid from Ukraine until that countrys leaders investigated his political rivals.

Mr. Boltons draft manuscript says the aid was conditioned on the investigations. Mr. Trump has said it was not. Given that discrepancy, Ms. Murkowski pushed the presidents team to explain why Mr. Bolton should not be called.

A deputy White House counsel, Patrick Philbin, did not directly address whether Mr. Bolton could settle the matter.

Instead, he replied on procedural grounds, saying that pursuing Mr. Bolton was the job of the House, which did not subpoena him. If the Senate does so, he argued, it would do great damage to the Senate by effectively turning it into the investigative body that the framers expected the House to be.

Whatever is accepted in this case becomes the new normal for every impeachment proceeding in the future, he said.

Ms. Murkowski is one of four Republicans the others are Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee who have indicated that they are open to expanding the scope of the trial to include witnesses and new documents. Democrats need the votes of four Republicans to do so.

Four Democratic presidential candidates hoping for breakout performances in the Iowa caucuses next week spent Thursday in Washington listening to questioning in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.

But the president himself headed to Des Moines for a rally to fire up his supporters before the caucuses on Monday. It was his second rally in three nights this week; he spoke Tuesday in Wildwood, N.J.

Mr. Trump told a raucous crowd of supporters Thursday night that they had a front row seat to the lunacy and the madness of a totally sick left.

Mr. Trump tried to belittle his Democratic opponents with the nicknames he has become famous for, referring to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as Sleepy Joe, and Senator Bernie Sanders as Crazy Bernie. He poked fun, multiple times, at the pronunciation of the surname of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., Pete Buttigieg.

But Mr. Trumps focus on the Democratic field in front of him appeared to be divided by his political enemies of the past and his foils in Congress.

While we are proudly creating jobs and killing terrorists, congressional Democrats are consumed with partisan rage and obsessed with a witch-hunt hoax, he said. We are having probably the best years we have ever had in the history of our country. And I just got impeached. Can you believe these people? They impeach Trump.

Jay Sekulow, one of the presidents lawyers, has made a simple case to the senators: The president is under attack, and they must defend him.

As he describes it, the impeachment inquiry is just the latest iteration of relentless efforts by the presidents enemies to undercut and unseat him. Like the F.B.I.s investigation of whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, Mr. Sekulow argues, the impeachment investigation has been misguided and deeply unfair.

On Thursday, Mr. Sekulow again raised his favorite example: how the F.B.I. misled a federal court so it could secretly eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last month severely criticized mistakes and omissions in the F.B.I.s applications to surveil Mr. Page.

Mr. Sekulow argued that the Page case showed that the president was right to question the assessment of the nations intelligence officials about foreign interference in the 2016 election and to listen instead to people he trusted, like his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

That argument is sure to appeal to Mr. Trump, who takes every opportunity to rail against federal and congressional investigations that have dogged him since he took office. Whether senators see as on point is another question.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said his wife, Franki, fielded a number of calls on Wednesday from people who wanted to express their anger at the president.

Mr. Roberts lamented the starkly partisan nature of the trial, saying he did not remember it being so bad during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. The mood at the time was not as harsh, as full as animus with regards to the president, Mr. Roberts said.

Still, he shared a moment of levity as he headed into lunch before the session on Thursday: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, walked by and stopped to shake hands and banter before a gaggle of reporters. Its not true that you have to be bald to be named Patrick, joked Mr. Leahy, who is bald. The man speaketh the truth, said Mr. Roberts, who is also bald.

Were part of the octogenarian club, added Mr. Roberts, who is 83. Almost for me! said Mr. Leahy, who is 79.

After Mr. Leahy stepped away, Mr. Roberts reflected further on the divided state of the Congress, and the country. I hope we can get out of here and get back to work, he said. Thats the best thing we can do.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and a potential swing vote over whether to call witnesses, asked his first question of the impeachment trial on Thursday with Senators Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Steve Daines, Republican of Montana.

Mr. Alexander asked the House impeachment managers to outline the differences in bipartisanship between the Nixon impeachment and the Trump impeachment.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a veteran of all three presidential impeachments, stood to answer the question. But she did not specify the vote margins in the current impeachment inquiry.

After Mr. Alexander conferred with Republican staff, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, asked the presidents defense lawyers to respond to the question. That also signaled Mr. McConnells first question.

When one of the lawyers initially referred to Mr. Alexander as Senator Lamar, he chuckled, replying, Thats O.K.

After five hours of questioning, senators broke for a 45-minute dinner break at 6:39 p.m. Eastern. Over the last two days, nearly 150 questions have been asked.

Senator Elizabeth Warren called John G. Roberts Jr.s legitimacy as chief justice into question while inquiring about the possibility of witness testimony during President Trumps impeachment trial.Credit...Image by Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, sent a particularly pointed question for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to read aloud in the Senate chamber.

Does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution? she asked of the House managers.

Stunned gasps and oohs filled the chamber from senators and spectators alike as Mr. Roberts finished reading the question, with little emotion on his face.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the lead House impeachment manager, said in response that Chief Justice Roberts had presided admirably over the proceedings.

As Republicans grow increasingly confident that they have the votes to block calling new witnesses and evidence, Democrats have turned to Chief Justice Roberts as a potential savior for their cause: If there is a tie, it could fall to the chief justice to decide whether to break it.

Progressive activists have also begun to criticize the chief justice, with one group, Demand Justice, photoshopping a Make America Great Again hat on him in a video it circulated on Twitter.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman worked hand in hand in Ukraine last year to help Rudolph W. Giuliani dig up damaging information about President Trumps political rivals, an effort at the center of the impeachment trial.

But in federal court in Manhattan on Thursday, their recent split was on display as a dispute erupted between lawyers for the two men, both Soviet-born businessmen, over the extent of Mr. Parnass cooperation with impeachment investigators.

The dispute stemmed from Mr. Parnass decision to share a trove of his text messages and other records with the House Intelligence Committee, even though he and Mr. Fruman both face criminal campaign finance charges in Manhattan. The committee publicly released some of the records in recent weeks, shedding new light on the pressure campaign and generating momentum among Democrats to call Mr. Parnas as a witness in the impeachment trial.

Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Mr. Fruman, raised concerns afterward that Mr. Parnas produced records to the House that might be protected under attorney-client privilege. As such, Mr. Blanche petitioned the judge presiding over the criminal case to order Mr. Parnass lawyer, Joseph A. Bondy, to seek to claw back some of the records from Congress.

Mr. Bondy declined, and defending his decision to release the records, he explained that, What we tried to do was get all this evidence quickly to the House, before the trial ended.

Judge J. Paul Oetken, while acknowledging that Mr. Blanche raised legitimate concerns, effectively sided with Mr. Bondy, who argued that Mr. Blanche did not object promptly and that such a retrieval was now unrealistic. Instead of recovering the documents, Mr. Bondy agreed to ask House investigators to not publicly release any records involving communications with certain lawyers.

The back-and-forth between the lawyers, which at one point grew heated as they accused each other of acting improperly, reflected a larger split between Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman after their arrest in October. While Mr. Parnas broke with Mr. Giuliani and vowed to cooperate with Congress, and even with prosecutors if they are interested, Mr. Fruman has kept quiet and remains aligned with Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Bondy indicated at the hearing that he might continue to release some of Mr. Parnass nonprivileged records, whether the House does or not.

Shortly before the hearing, Mr. Bondy released a new recording of Mr. Trump meeting in April 2018 with a small group of donors, including Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman. It was the latest step in Mr. Parnass recent publicity tour as he seeks to be called as a witness in the impeachment trial, even as the criminal indictment looms in federal court in Manhattan.

We approached this case a little differently, Mr. Bondy noted during the hearing.

When she testified before a House committee last year, Fiona Hill, a former top national security official, warned lawmakers not to twist her words to try to legitimize an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine, like Russia, undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election.

But on Thursday, the presidents legal team seemed to ignore that warning.

President Trumps lawyers are trying mightily to convince the senators that he had some reason to suspect Ukraine of meddling in the 2016 election. That helps them portray the presidents demand that Ukraine investigate the issue as rooted in a legitimate concern, not merely a desire for his own political gain.

Patrick Philbin, one of Mr. Trumps lawyers, noted that Ms. Hill had testified that some Ukrainian officials had bet on the wrong horse in 2016 and sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton in the hope that she would beat Mr. Trump.

But he omitted the rest of what she said: Officials in other countries did the same thing, without inciting Mr. Trumps displeasure. The difference here, however, is that hasnt had any major impact on his feelings toward those countries, Ms. Hill testified at the time.

He also failed to mention that the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, said bluntly last month: We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election.

Hours after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected an attempt to name the individual believed to be the whistle-blower whose complaint spurred the impeachment inquiry, a group of Republican senators made a second attempt to ask about the origins of the accusations against President Trump.

As the second afternoon of questioning during the impeachment trial wore on, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a group of more than a dozen other Republicans asked about news reports about a former National Security Council aide who now works for the Democratic staff of the House Intelligence Committee, and his relationship with someone alleged to be the whistle-blower, as well as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who testified in the impeachment inquiry.

Mr. Trumps defenders have asserted that all three were part of a conspiracy to remove Mr. Trump from office.

Earlier, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, had tried without success to ask about the trio, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to read his question aloud because it contained the name of the person believed to be the whistle-blower. Mr. Paul quickly left the Senate chamber and revealed the name at a televised news conference and on Twitter.

Hours later, the group led by Mr. Johnson had more success by leaving out that name, and simply referring to the person as an individual alleged as the whistle-blower.

But Democrats still took umbrage at the mention of the whistle-blower, and the suggestion that one of their aides conspired with the individual to try to bring down the president.

I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever, Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said in an angry response.

He added that he would not jeopardize the whistle-blowers privacy, telling senators, I worry that future people that see wrongdoing are going to watch how this person has been treated, the threats against this persons life and theyre going to say, Why stick my neck out?

Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, has quickly emerged as one of President Trumps leading defenders on the Senate floor, jumping up to answer some of the most pointed questions from senators. His last name quickly drew jokes about whether Mr. Trump, with his love of television, confused the lawyer with the television host who shares the same surname but his background is in fact far more significant.

The rest is here:
Day in Impeachment: Alexander Says Democrats Proved Their Case, But Its Not Impeachable - The New York Times

GILLETTE, Wyo. From behind the counter of his brother's auto-parts store, Bubba Miller looks out at the 2020 presidential race and worries about what will happen to his hometown if a Democrat wins. Not just a Democrat, but, based on the current frontrunners, a liberal Democrat. Or a Progressive. Or an avowed Socialist.

"I wish we could build a wall around Wyoming," he says with a laugh. "I think there's just something wrong in their heads to think you can get everything for free."

Shifting the wad of tobacco tucked in his lip, Miller, 24, lays out the case for re-electing President Donald Trump, from this coal town's booming economy to the president's protection of gun rights,to his tough border policies and efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. As far as Miller is concerned, Trump can do no wrong.

He's notalone.In 2016, then-candidate Trump won 86% of the vote here as he swept every Wyoming county but one, the wealthy liberal enclave of Teton County, home to Jackson Hole.Only once since 1952 has the state voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, and in 2016 Trump beat Hillary Clinton here by the widest margin of any state. And ahead of the November presidential election, none of the 2020 Democraticcandidates aremaking any inroads with these most conservative of voters.

"I've very concerned about the direction of the Democratic Party," says Robin Clover, a 20-year Wyoming resident and registered Republican who's voted for Democrats at the local level. "They're either past their prime or far too progressive."

Here in Wyoming, where every other car is a pickup, and cowboy hats and boots are a working man's uniform, the 2020 election worries voters, who fear the election of a Democrat will upend their way of life, force the coal mines to close and the oil wells to stop pumping. Force them to pay higher taxes, force them to give up their AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines. Force them to subsidize the health care of immigrants. Force them to pay for college loans for city kids. Force. Force. Force.

"That's the problem," Miller says. "I'm an adult. You can't make me. It's just taking away from letting people grow up."

A sign on the outskirts of Gillette, Wyoming, offers residents health care options.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

Like his neighbors, Miller says he wishes Trump could lead the country the way he was elected to, without being second-guessed or attacked by what he considers a "corrupt" class of politicians and bureaucrats. The way Miller sees it, the fact that Trump is being so forcefully opposed perfectly demonstrates that the president ison the right track in drainingthe swamp in Washington, D.C.

The state Republican Party officially endorses a slew of other conservative positions, from disarming forest rangers, to returning to aDont Ask, Dont Tell policy for the military and banning birthright citizenship. The party has also called for banning the acceptance of any international refugees unless they are vetted Christians, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, abolishing the EPA and the U.S. Department of Education, and strictly enforcing all immigration laws.

But for most voters here, coal and the jobs it provides are the biggest drivers of decisions. And that means Trump is their guy.

Because Wyoming has only three Electoral College votes, there's little chance a Democrat will even bother campaigning here, and even Trump is considered unlikely to visit, since most voters across the statewill back him regardless if they see him in person shaking hands and holding babies. That leaves Wyoming's voters in a uniquely powerless situation: Ignored by both parties, they are effectively sidelined despite the critical role federal policy plays in their future. And they're facing Democratic candidates who all see a bigger federal government as a solution to the nation'sproblems.

Polls suggest their worst nightmare could come true in November. Former Vice President Joe Biden,Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts andformer South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg are all narrowly leading or in a close tie with Trump in recent polls.The president's supporters in Wyoming, however, point out that polls showed Clinton winning the presidency in 2016, so they don't put much stock in them.

Wyoming's approximately 578,000 residents, most of them white and living on land seized from Native Americans,have long prided themselves on a frontier spirit of rugged individualism and independence.They also see themselves as a world apart from the nation's big coastal states, all of which tend to vote Democrat. For generations, they've voted Republican and arguedthat big-city liberals can't possibly understand what life is like where there's just six people per square mile. New York City, by contrast, has 27,000 people per square mile.

But the outside world is increasingly moving in a different direction, where global warming is settled science, inclusivity, diversity and tolerance are honored,and access to health care is seen as a fundamental human right. The United Nations even has set a 2030 goal for achieving universal health coverage internationally. That's setting up an increasingly stark contrast for Wyomingites who see a Trump victory as essential to preserving their freedoms and independence.

"Our way of life here is threatened by a Democratic administration," said state Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, a Republican who represents a portion of the largest city, Cheyenne, where Trump won 60% of the vote in 2016. "Every Republican in Wyoming you'll talk to would agree that Wyoming is better off under a Republican administration. No one liked Hillary. They just knew that she was the enemy. And whether it's Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, I don't think thevote totals would change by 5%. There's just this attitude that you have to maintain control of the presidency at all costs."

Coal-fired power plants next to the WyoDak mine east of Gillette, Wyoming, provide electricity for millions of homes.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

To understand Wyoming, you have to understand a little bit about coal,the state's backbone, both physically andfinancially.In Gillette, which calls itself the "Energy Capital of the Nation," coal is inextricable from daily life. The mines outside of town set the pace, explosives blasting the windswept groundto free the coal. Many of the workers are no longer fulltime employees but work as contractors, missing out on the benefits but still keeping the same 12-hour shifts they used to before repeated bankruptcies prompted many mine operators to restructure.

In town, restaurants proudly display "coal keeps the lights on" and "friends of coal" stickers, and the diesel-equipment repair shops and heavy machinery repair yards line the approaches to the historic downtown, where the Gillette Brewing Company's bar is supported by pieces of drilling rigs.

Taxes levied on the vast trainloads of coal hauled to power plants across the Westmeans the state has never had an income tax, and its sales taxes are among the nation's lowest. While Eastern coal states like Kentucky and West Virginia get the president's attention, Wyoming leads the nation in coal production, with its approximately 5,500 miners digging more than the next six states combined.

Virtually all of that coal is mined from land owned by the federal government, whichleases the property to conglomerates to mine and then burn the coalfor electricity. That quirk of geology has long helped Wyoming maintain its financial independence, but even coal's strongest backers worry that times are changing. The federal government plays a key role because slowing down new coal leases or restricting coal-powered generating plants almost immediately impacts the miners themselves.

During the 2016 election, Clinton declared "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, a statement that infuriated Wyoming residents who already dislikedher for reasons ranging from Benghazi to her work with the Clinton Foundation. While Clinton then went on to explain that she planned to offer job retraining to coal workers, Wyoming's voters -- who weren't going to supporther anyway -- hardened their opposition further.

A loaded hauler ferries freshly dug coal from the Eagle Butte mine outside Gillette, Wyoming. Wyoming's coal mines are open pit, which means workers blast and dig away the top layers of dirt to reach the coal seams below, and then cover the area back up once the coal is gone. (Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

They saythere's still life in coal, and that Clinton would have harmed an already struggling industry. And they say the Democrats running for president in 2020 have a similar playbook.

"I think Hillary would have killed our economy. And I think any of the people running on the Democrat side would absolutely eviscerate our economy. The Democrats seem to do everything they can to squash business," says Vicki Million Hughes, a Cheyenne real estate agent whose grandparents moved to Wyoming in 1920.

Hughes says she's 100% behind the president, aside from offensive tweets attacking specific people, because his focus has been creating a strong economy, growing industry and "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The strength of the national and local economy is a major factor for Trump's ongoing support in Wyoming, even though coal mining jobs have been on the decline for decades. Voters here believe four more years of his administration will keep the economy humming and extend the life of the coal mines for the foreseeable future.

"If God is good enough to give us a natural resource, we should use that resource wisely," says Hughes, who like many Wyoming voters, says she believes the planet naturally warms and cools, and that humans have little to do with it. "Why waste what God has given us?"

About 70% of Americans sayclimate change is occurring, and a majority -- 55% -- say it's mostly human-caused, according to an April 2019 study by Yale Universityin New Haven, Connecticut, scientists. In Wyoming, voters like Hughes and Miller say they have the right to disagree and worry that their voices will be shouted down by the modern-day shaming mobs populating social media.

An American and Trump 2020 flag wave in the evening wind outside Gillette, Wyoming, a small city with some of President Trump's most ardent supporters.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

"I have lots of friends who live on the coasts and they tell me it's time to evolve, that Wyoming needs to get past fossil fuels. But we make our living and livelihood off oil and gas and coal," saidZwonitzer. "You've got people who have been involved in these industries for generations."

That singular focus on coal and federal land management means Wyoming's voters spend littletime worrying about the nuances of immigration or health care reform, although many shake their heads at what they see as the entitlement culture of the Democratic candidates and their supporters.

Wyomingites pride themselves on their low-tax, work-focused culture, and the idea of erasing student loans or giving everyone government-run health insurance runs counter to their deeply held ideology of taking care of their own problems and being responsible for their own decisions.

A giant mural on the side of a building in Gillette, Wyoming highlights the state's two sources of income: Coal mining and cattle ranching.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

Miller, for instance, is paying off medical debt accumulated when he crashed his dirtbike and blew out his knee. He didn't have health insurance at the time, and instead paid the Obamacare tax because it was cheaper than paying for health insurance. While having to pay the bills "sucks," Miller says, he accepts that it was his decision to forgo insurance.

"Everybody in Wyoming would love to have the best college education,the best health care, and for it all to be done for free. And that's just impossible," saidCarl "Bunky" Loucks, a Republican state representative from Casper. "I just don't understand the mentality that you can get everything for free."

Loucks, 52, said he and many other Wyoming residents support both an audit of the federal government and a balanced budget amendment that would limit government spending to what it can actually afford, instead of adding to the ballooning national deficit. Loucks said he's frustrated the national debt has increased under Trump but saysitwould have been worse under a Democrat.Trump won Louck's county with 70% of the vote.

Miller says Wyoming has flourished under Trump, and none of his neighbors regret their 2016 votes. If anything, he says, Trump's support has increased.

"How can you hate someone who is so good for the United States?" Miller says. "I think his mouth gets him in trouble, but sometimes what he says is well-needed."

The license plate on a Wyoming resident's car pays homage to his father's long career as a coal miner in one of the mines surrounding Gillette, Wyoming.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/19/2020-democratic-candidates-bogeymen-voters-who-back-trump/4463037002/

Originally posted here:
When Democrats are the bogeymen: A possible Trump loss has these voters very worried - USA TODAY

Media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow squad members have never been shy about their plan to shove the Democratic Party toward adopting socialist principles. And now that were more than a year and a half into the AOC era, its clear that theirtwo-partplan is working.

The first component of their plan is to reshape the Congressional Progressive Caucus(CPC)into a powerful political force in Congress. Historically, thecaucus,which began in the 1990s, has beenprimarilya club for left-wing congressional Democrats. But it hadlittle political power because of itsmembersunwillingness to vote as a bloc.

AOC, Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and other radical Democrats have been working to reform the CPC so that the socialist left has the ability to controlor, at the very least, heavily influencethe agenda for the entire party.

NEWT GINGRICH: TRUMP IMPEACHMENT WILL BRING PELOSI AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS CONDEMNATION BY HISTORY

Although the CPC hasnt totally adopted this approach, socialists havein recent monthsmade significant progress towardachievingtheir goal. The caucus was initially one of the primary drivers of the effort to impeach President Trump, and their demands for a government takeover of health care, increasing the federal minimum wage to $15, and the creation of a radical Green New Deal all made significant progress in 2019, laying the groundwork for 2021, when CPC members hope to have friendlier forces controlling the White House and Senate.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

But perhaps the biggestvictoryfor the CPC came in December when it won a widely publicized battle with House leadership over the detailsof drug-pricing legislation.

Thebill, titledtheElijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act,would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companiesfor a set number of drugs. Of course, it wouldnt be much of a negotiation. The White House Council of Economic Advisersnotedthat those who fail to meet the pricing standards set by the federal government would face an excise tax of up to 95 percent of sales.

The CPC supported the legislations framework, but it demanded that SpeakerNancyPelosi and House leadership expand the number of drugs covered by the legislation from 35 to 50, along with several other fairly sizeable changes. Pelosi initially refused, but once the CPC threatened to vote against thebill, House leadership was forced to cave and theconcessions were made.

After winning the battle with Pelosi, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a socialist andCPCco-leader, said onTwitter, This is a huge victory for the American people! When we stick together, fight hard and with principle, we help improve lives for millions of people.

Sticking together is exactly whatOcasio-Cortez and her allies have been demanding of the caucus from the moment they arrived in Washington, and its looking like their efforts have paid off.

The AOC-backed group Justice Democrats is working with numerous candidates across the country to unseatmoderate Democratic members of Congress.

The second part ofAOC and her alliesplan to reshape the Democratic Party is to push out of positions of power and influence those who dont agree with their socialist platform.

In an interview earlier in January with New York Magazine, Ocasio-Cortez said that despite the gains made within the CPC, it still has far too many moderate members.

According to the New York Magazine profile,She [Ocasio-Cortez]said the Congressional Progressive Caucus should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line.Other caucuses within the Democratic Party in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. Butthey let anybody who the cat dragged in call themselves a progressive. Theres no standard,she said.

Laterin the interview, when asked about the possibility of Joe Biden becoming president, AOC groaned and then said,In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.

Ocasio-Cortez isntjust passively complaining aboutthe alleged moderates in the party, either.In September,AOCendorsedsocialist congressional candidate Marie Newman, who is attempting to unseat an incumbent Democrat in Illinois.

In October, AOCendorsed Jessica Cisneros, a challenger to Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, yet another sitting Democratic member of Congress.

Further, despite the fact Ocasio-Cortez has raised more money than any other Democratic member of the House, she has refused to give any of her vast treasure trove of resources to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, choosing instead to independently help socialists and progressives that more closely align with her vision for the party.

And thats just the beginning. The AOC-backed group Justice Democrats is working with numerous other candidates across the country to unseateven moremoderate Democratic members of Congress.

The Democratic Partyhas been under the control of the left for more than a decade, butthepresent shift is even more extreme than many anticipated was possible at the end of the Obama era. Instead of preaching tolerance, AOC and her friends are demanding strict adherence to their brand of socialism. Anything short of putting the government in charge of virtually every aspect of society is now considered too moderatefor their party.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There is simply no room left in the Democratic Party for anyone who believes in anything approaching responsible government spending practices or limiting the power of the ruling administrative state in Washingtoneven if that limitation is slight. Only those who agree to walk in lockstep with Ocasio-Cortez and the other de facto leaders of the party will be tolerated.

As Ocasio-Cortezrecently said,Democrats can be too big of a tent.Or, put another way, moderates are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. It belongs to Karl Marx now.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JUSTIN HASKINS

More here:
Justin Haskins: AOC's socialist takeover of Democrats is working here's why moderates should worry - Fox News

As the House casts its vote on forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate, we should pause to remember a timely lesson about submitting evidence to prove that the Holocaust occurred.

Though difficult to believe, the Holocaust still has its deniers people driven by anti-Semitism or ignorance seeking to plant the seed it was all a myth. It is not dissimilar to what Democrats are doing today with impeachment claims against President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE.

Concerned at World War IIs end there would be those in future generations questioning the Holocausts validity, the Allies collected as much evidence as possible. But Jewish historians have determined that just as important is to ensure that all evidence displayed about the Holocaust should lack any basis for deniers to challenge its authenticity, so that it cannot undermine that which it seeks to prove. A scrap of inauthentic evidence could be poison for the truth of the Holocausts occurrence.

The Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York opened in May 2019, housing a living Holocaust memorial in an exhibit covering three floors. Curators there soon realized they had just such a poison document on display. Although collected long ago, and despite references to it years earlier by many scholars, it still potentially could provide fodder for Holocaust deniers.

Titled SS Rentabilittsberechnung (meaning profitability calculation), it was somewhat of an obscure document, apparently authored to show a financial justification that slave labor camps were profit centers for the Nazis.

Most visitors to the Museum of Jewish Heritage listen to a 90-minute audio/video program that guides them through various artifacts and documents. But soon after the museums opening, to be safe, curators decided to delete a 13-second segment from the tape referencing the document in question. The sentence removed was: During World War II, the SS calculated that, after costs such as cremation, but not including the value of bones used in fertilizer, the profit made from each prisoner was roughly $745.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document provided every tidbit of minutia about various costs associated with running the camps, including feeding and housing individuals, costs of running crematoriums, etc. The data were so detailed, even the average number of calories prisoners consumed was factored into calculations to determine the anticipated average lifespan of laborers (nine months).

Against these costs appeared the average income each prisoner generated, either as a Nazi slave laborer or when rented out to German companies. Included, too, as an asset was the gold extracted from the teeth of deceased laborers, the value of their bones used in fertilizers, value of personal belongings, etc.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung reduced to paper the frightening reality of the evil that man can render unto his fellow man. Although numerous historians, writers and rabbis long had referenced this document, research showed its origin could not be determined. Citation cross-references only cited each other, without linking the document to an original source. Every citation, it turned out, was a secondary source.

This very telling document could be real, but curators had to consider that their inability to prove its authenticity also raised the possibility it was not. Knowing Holocaust deniers would seize upon even a minor historical inaccuracy as ammunition to discredit the Jewish genocide, curators opted not to display the document.

This cautionary tale is one that promoters of Trumps impeachment totally ignore. The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document could be a museum curators evidentiary dream to support what happened in Nazi Germany, but why risk arming deniers with a way to undermine the Holocausts reality?

Similarly, it became clear early on in the House impeachment inquiry that Democrats would take an entirely different approach to authenticity concerning evidence with regard to Trumps July phone call with the Ukrainian president. His accusers had no firsthand evidence that Trump committed an impeachable offense; instead, they chose to rely on unvetted hearsay evidence sometimes as much as three times removed. One Democrat went so far as to outrageously suggest, Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct.

Democrats have demonstrated no concern about unsubstantiated evidence, giving impeachment deniers valid arguments. This strongly suggests House Democrats never were really interested in the truth, but only in marketing unsupportable claims that the president committed impeachable offenses.

The SS Rentabilittsberechnung document stands as a warning that relying on hearsay evidence opens the door to undermining the truth. The museum curators chose not to run this risk; the impeachment promoters wont be as careful.

Interestingly, the Democrats anti-Trump efforts date to the Steele dossier, opposition research from the 2016 campaign that was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham Clinton Democrats plot new approach to win over rural voters The Memo: Sanders-Warren battle could reshape Democratic primary Rosenstein says he authorized release of Strzok-Page texts MORE a dossier we now know was based almost entirely on hearsay. This document shows us how far down a road paved with untruths hearsay can take us.

There are many lessons about the Holocaust and its aftermath that teach us about the evils of mankind and the need to preserve truth for future generations. Pro-impeachment members of Congress should pay attention to the latter.

James G. Zumwalt is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who served in the Vietnam War, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf War. He heads a security consulting firm named after his father, Adm. Zumwalt & Consultants, Inc.

Excerpt from:
A Holocaust lesson lost on the Democrats impeaching Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Sen. Tammy DuckworthLadda (Tammy) Tammy DuckworthDemocrats request briefing on intel behind Trump's embassy threat claim Duckworth slams Collins's comments: 'I left parts of my body in Iraq fighting terrorists' The biggest political upsets of the decade MORE (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee and the first disabled woman elected to Congress, called for a meeting with the CEO of Amtrak amid reports the railroad service charged a group of disabled passengers $25,000 for an in-state trip from Chicago to Bloomington, Ill.

It is outrageous that Amtrak asked a group of passengers with disabilities to pay $25,000 to ride from the City of Chicago to Bloomington, Illinois. It is also disappointing that Amtrak leadership appears to have failed to offer a public apology for its initial mistake, Duckworth, who lost both legs serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq, said in a statement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has been the law of the land for 30 years. Yet in 2020, Amtrak believes it would be an unreasonable burden to remove architectural barriers that would enable a group with five wheelchair users to travel together, she added.

The Chicago-Bloomington route is priced at $16 one way, but two wheelchair users in question were told they would be charged $25,000, with an Amtrak agent telling a group booking transportation on behalf of the advocacy group Access Living that the cost was necessary to offset the cost of taking out extra seats.

"We will contact Access Living and suggest costs could be avoided by using the two separate trains on this route, with each train separated by about three hours and having three spaces for wheelchairs without any reconfiguration. We will also confirm the pricing for a railcar reconfiguration given to this important and valued customer, Amtrak said in a statement, according to NPR.

In a statement to The Hill, an Amtrak spokesperson said "We apologize for any inconvenience we caused our customers. Amtrak is complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and is committed to meeting the needs of all of our customers. We will work with this group of passengers on an alternative plan to facilitate their upcoming trip.

See the article here:
Democratic senator asks for meeting with Amtrak head over alleged disability discrimination | TheHill - The Hill