Mediaboss Marketing

These two wily operators are circling each other warily. Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

To read most press accounts, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his closest allies are fighting a lonely battle to keep the impending impeachment trial of Donald Trump short and bereft of witnesses. Meanwhile, Trump himself, House Republicans, and maybe some Senate renegades like Ted Cruz want a trial focused on the alleged corruption of the Bidens that the president was supposedly pursuing in his conversations with the president of Ukraine, while airing some of the vast conspiracy theories about the origins of the witch hunt Democrats have pursued to torment the poor, defenseless POTUS.

And now comes Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer with his own demands for a longer trial with witnesses, as the Washington Post reports:

The top Senate Democrat on Sunday called for subpoenaing several senior Trump administration officials who have yet to testify in the Houses impeachment probe as witnesses for President Trumps likely trial part of an opening salvo in negotiations that could determine the parameters for the Senate proceedings next month.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined a number of procedural demands that Democrats say would make the Senate trial fair and able to be completed within a reasonable period of time.

That includes subpoenas issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; former national security adviser John Bolton; and Michael Duffey, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey had been subpoenaed by the House committees and defied the summons; Bolton has not been subpoenaed but indicated he would fight one in court.

Schumers demands, it should be understood, are in the context of a possible (but not at all mandatory) bipartisan resolution laying out the details of an impeachment trial beyond the broad outlines set by the Constitution and the standing Senate rules. Such a resolution was enacted prior to the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, to the great surprise of observers at the time. Absent a deal, the Senate majority can easily impose a set of rules of its own by a simple majority. And items not covered by those ad hoc guidelines may trigger rulings from the chair (in this case, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) and/or additional Senate votes, with 51 needed for a decision (except for procedures that require amendment of the standing Senate rules, which will require a supermajority).

Yes, Democrats particularly in the House, where the White Houses obstruction of efforts to secure testimony from high-ranking administration officials led to an entire second article of impeachment would love to get the opportunity to question Mulvaney, Blair, and Duffey, and have reason to think a subpoena issued by the chief justice in a Senate trial would not be challengeable in federal courts. But the White House and Senate Republicans are very unlikely to agree to such a stipulation. So what Schumer is probably conducting is a dual gambit to satisfy Democrats who want a deeper impeachment investigation than the House was able to pull off, while signaling no deal to McConnell on a bipartisan rules package even as he talks the language of bipartisanship.

Schumer is also doing McConnell the favor of giving him a talking point against Republican demands for a broader, longer trial with the witnesses Trump wants. Absent a bipartisan deal (and Schumer is no more likely to accept the idea of Hunter Biden testifying than McConnell will go along with dragging Mulvaney into the Senate), decisions about calling witnesses could wind up being resolved on individual votes, and McConnell might well fear the possibility of just enough Republicans defecting on one or more that he could lose control of the parameters of the trial. In any event, the only available compromise is for both sides to back off demands for witnesses, leading to the short-and-sweet trial and acquittal McConnell wants.

This is a tricky business, though. House Republicans and allied professional troublemakers like Ted Cruz are unlikely to stop agitating for a longer trial with witnesses until Trump publicly goes along with McConnells plans. Thats why the Kentuckian is making such a big display of his total coordination with the White House, as I noted last week:

McConnell knows that the only way to put out the MAGA fire building for an insane-a-thon in the Senate is to get Washingtons chief pyromaniac on his side. What harm is a little groveling if it keeps the lid on the craziness? Being a megalomaniac wrangler is all just part of service in Trumps army.

In other words, theres a lot of not-entirely-sincere posturing going on about how this impeachment trial will proceed. My money would be on McConnell keeping a lid on it, providing Republicans with a quick acquittal, and Democrats with protection for Joe Biden and for the five Democratic senators currently in the presidential race who could be imprisoned in Washington during a long trial.

Having said that, Cruz has helped cast some light on the fiction that senators are exactly like jurors in a criminal trial who must remain totally silent during the trial:

Senators are not required, like jurors in a criminal trial, to be sequestered, not to talk to anyone, not to coordinate. Theres no prohibition, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said on This Week, calling impeachment inherently a political exercise and Trumps impeachment a partisan show trial.

The standing Senate rules for impeachment trials provide no avenues for senators to speak (they must submit questions for any witnesses in writing), but theres no gag order preventing them from saying whatever pops into their heads when the trial itself is not in session. Id expect senators to have a lot to say late at night and on Sundays, though some will use the juror excuse to avoid reporters and angry constituents.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Read more:

Schumer and McConnell Play Chess Over Impeachment Trial Rules - New York Magazine

GATINEAU, Que. Canada's competition watchdog says it wants consumers to be told when advertisers have a close relationship with the people who praise their products through social media accounts.

The Competition Bureau says it has sent letters to nearly 100 brands and agencies involved in what's called "influencer marketing."

Some of the biggest social media influencers are global celebrities such asKim Kardashian West, but even lesser-known people with a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram following canreceive free products to promote or, in some cases, a fee.

The federal competition agency says influencers should clearly disclose what they've received from the brand or marketing agency and base any reviews or testimonials on their personal experience.

The Competition Bureau also warns that businesses that are marketing products or services through influencers could violate rules against sales or misleading content.

The bureau's commissioner, Matthew Boswell, says consumers must be able to know if opinions expressed by influencers are independent or an advertisement.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 19, 2019.

The Canadian Press

Read more here:
BEYOND LOCAL: 'Influencers' warned to clearly state when social media messages are advertising - TimminsToday

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Link:
Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason

You may love your CBD gummies from Verma Farms, but most of the CBD products you enjoy sit in a gray legal area. The laws are complicated and confusing, and the history is even more complicated and confusing. With the rising popularity of CBD gummies, and hundreds if not thousands of brands cashing in, the government has taken a very relaxed attitude toward the gray areas, as will likely continue until the full lift on prohibition of cannabis finally happens.

Hemp and its products were made illegal outside of medical use with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It became prohibitively expensive and difficult to grow, harvest, or use any part of any hemp plant. At this time, all hemp plants were seen to be in the same category of marijuana plants, and there was little known about the difference between the types of hemp.

The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 made all use of marijuana completely illegal, and put it on the list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Types of hemp were still undifferentiated, and all hemp plants were illegal to cultivate. The term, The War on Drugs, was coined by Richard Nixon in a press conference in 1971, and since then, the Federal Government has taken a hard-line stance on all things related to cannabis.

In 1996, California legalized marijuana for medical use. In 1998, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington followed suit. Over the next decade, states began to recognize the medical benefits of cannabis products. They all set up their own laws regulating the use, in defiance of the Federal Government, which still classified hemp and hemp products as a Schedule I controlled substance (this category is reserved for substances that have no medical value, come with significant health risks, and are highly addictive).

More and more states began decriminalizing marijuana. Prohibition had not been completely lifted in these states, but penalties were not as strict as they were before. States recognized the financial and social benefits of not imprisoning everyone who got caught with a small amount of the green stuff for their own personal use.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults, with actual legal sales beginning in Colorado in 2014. They have seen major financial gains ever since, and Colorado reached $1 billion in tax revenue in just over four years. Crime rates have not been affected, as the bills opposers originally feared, and the benefits have far outweighed the cost.

As of 2019, 11 states have legalized the use of recreational marijuana for adults over 21. Medical use of marijuana is legal in 33 states. A total of 44 states are in direct defiance of federal law, but the Federal Government has decided not to pursue action.

Hemp has been a source of food, textiles, and building materials, for thousands of years. Historical references note its use in Ancient China and Rome as medicine. Early American settlers used hemp to make ropes, oil, and clothing. Even Henry Fords original Model T prototype was fueled by hemp.

The Marijuana Tax Act was likely a matter of corporate competition, and it became illegal in the US to use hemp for anything. What was once an important crop that nearly everyone grew and cultivated, became outlawed. By the 1970s, there was no distinctinction between the stuff people used for food, medicine, and fuel, and the stuff people used to get high.

With global warming becoming more of a reality every day, and solutions to the problems that come with this crisis few and far between, the interest in hemp is growing once again. Hemp is a crop that is easy on the earth. It acts as a biofilter that can clean the soil and the air in its surrounding environment. It is easy to grow, and is one of the most beneficial crops in existence.

Hemp is an excellent source of food, containing essential amino and fatty acids, it can be used to make almost any product that we use petroleum to make now, and it is an efficient source of energy storage. Food shortages, the non-renewable energy crisis, and rising medical costs, can all be mitigated with the hemp plant.

In 2014, the distinction was made between the marijuana plant and industrial hemp. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, and cannot get anyone high. A bill passed through the Senate, allowing research to take place on industrial hemp under very restrictive circumstances.

Hemp farming became an important part of Kentuckys economy again, and in 2018, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell slipped an expansion of the legalization of farming industrial hemp into the Farm Bill.

This means that it is now legal to farm and cultivate industrial hemp, and manufacture hemp products. For certain farmers. Under certain circumstances. With special licensing. And under strict supervision. All CBD produced must be under the guidelines of the Farm Bill of 2018, and the USDA is now in charge of overseeing all regulatory processes related to the plant.

It took more than sixty years, and direct defiance from 44 states, to even begin to clarify key differences between marijuana and hemp. These clarifications have led to a few more gray areas. Now that the USDA is in charge of regulating the farming of hemp, the FDA needs to bring its policies into alignment. Which will likely take quite a bit of time.

As of right now, the FDA is in charge of regulating interstate commerce related to any CBD product marketed as a medicine, supplement, food, or cosmetic. It has determined that CBD cannot be added to food, and it recently released a statement indicating that it will pursue legislation against any company purporting CBD to treat, mitigate, or diagnose serious illnesses like diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimers.

Where does this leave CBD gummies? It seems as though they fit directly in the gray area. Which seems to be where most CBD products fit. 92% of cannabis businesses operate in the gray area. Only 4% are fully legal, and 4% are clearly violating the law.

Brands selling CBD gummies are in the gray area, but there are thousands of brands in it together. While the amazing health benefits of CBD gummies are apparent, it will likely be several years before they can be marketed as a supplement, or to treat medical symptoms. In the meantime, the best thing CBD companies can do, is use their blogs to educate people and point them in the direction of the research that backs their claims.

CBD gummy brands take heart! Legislation is moving fast, and changing in favor of the hemp industry every day.

The rest is here:
How CBD Gummies Gray Areas Should Be Handled - The Libertarian Republic

MANCHESTER, N.H.Tulsi Gabbard wasnt present.

Not physically, at least. But in the small, half-filled Rex Theatre in downtown Manchester, it didnt seem to matter. While seven of her top Democratic rivals prepared to hit the stage in Los Angeles for the sixth primary debate, a group of Gabbards most ardent loyalists were glued to a large-screen projector, where a livestream of Gabbards face, fixed between panels of tulle wrapped in twinkling lights, beamed in from Washington, D.C.

I really wish I could be there to hug you, she said, to no one in particular.

Citing a conflicting House vote in Congress, the Hawaii Democrat wasnt in Manchester for her campaigns much-hyped party alternative to Thursday nights debate, for which she failed to qualify. The party, and the debate, came the day after Gabbard had set Washington ablaze by voting present on the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, which occurred for only the third time in the countrys history.

Aides to Democratic presidential candidates often say the topic of impeachment rarely comes up on the campaign trail. Voters, the thinking goes, prefer asking about kitchen table issues, like jobs. But here, it was the first question.

My decision to vote present was a decision to actively protest this zero-sum mentality that rules over our politics today, the four-term congresswoman told a skeptical attendee of her vote on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.

On top of being a self-proclaimed act of protest, Gabbard explained, to delayed applause, her present proclamation was an attempt to stand for our people, our county, and our future.

Were going to continue to see this spiraling downward, she said.

During the two-hour event, Gabbards fiercest fans praised her dovish foreign and liberal domestic policy, a hallmark of her nearly year-long campaign, and asked whether she would ever ditch the Democratic Party, with which she frequently clashes. No, she strongly implied, brushing off naysayers who speculate she may launch a third-party bid, an idea that she has routinely shot down.

Still, at multiple points in the night, she praised nearly every other conceivable party, in addition to her own.

I appreciate the voice the Libertarian Party brings to this conversation, Gabbard said. It is necessary.

Richard Manzo, the vice chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, was in attendance, and had mixed reactions about Gabbards impeachment move.

I wish she would have taken a stance one way or another, Manzo told The Daily Beast. But it wasnt enough to change his likely primary vote on Feb. 11. Im leaning towards voting for her, he said.

Mark Colvin, one of Gabbards most passionate supporters who drove from Boston to see her video conference through the projector, had no such reservations. Shes the only one who got it right, he said about her stance. Shes a patriot.

Gabbard has made New Hampshire a top campaign priority in recent weeks, and there are early signs her work is resonating with segments of the electorate, particularly independent voters. As The Daily Beast recently reported, pollsters argue there is evidence to believe Gabbard is already poking holes at the independent bloc that helped sweep Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to victory here in 2016. In a Suffolk University survey conducted in November, Gabbard receives five times as much support among independents as she does among Democrats.

But Thursday nights set up hardly seemed poll-tested. In fact, the lines between substance and style frequently blurred, with campaign aides moonlighting as singers and poets, and a professional Trump impersonator taking cracks at the commander in chief.

At times, the vibe felt like multiple genres of YouTube were merging on loop: Gabbards sister Vrindavan, also known as V, performed a virtual hula dance, while Gabbard and her husband Abraham Williams reminisced about when they were first dating.

Looking forward to hearing your song later! Gabbard told a volunteer, one of several she publicly acknowledged from a lengthy roster. At one point, a guitarist with long curly blonde hair wearing a pink lei serenaded audience members.

Tul-seeeeee, Tulsi 2020, he sang to attendees, who clapped along enthusiastically. Everyone! Were backing Tulsiiiiii, shes the onlyyyyy choice.

If youre not sure if youre on keyI would say sing louder! Gabbards Deputy Campaign Manager Caitlin Rose Pomerantz instructed the crowd.

Shortly after, lyrics titled, We, The People appeared on the screen, replacing Gabbard. After that, her aide recited a poem with the identical name.

When we get bitter, thats when they win, Rose Pomerantz said. We are the people who are still alive inside.

Read this article:
Tulsi Gabbard Beamed in to Her Debate Night Alternative Event - The Daily Beast