Mediaboss Marketing

Some, such as California Rep. Maxine Waters, have explicitly called for impeaching the President. Others, like Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have merely mentioned the possibility, with Gabbard saying last month that she was studying the impeachment process.

Impeachment requires the support of a majority of members of the House of Representatives. No Republicans have publicly voiced support for impeaching Trump. CNN's KFile is, however, keeping a running count of Democratic lawmakers who have talked about impeachment. That count, which includes those who discussed impeachment prior to Comey's firing, is currently at 26, 24 members of the House, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, has also said impeachment is possible.

California Rep. Maxine Waters: Waters has been talking about impeachment for months, most recently telling MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Thursday that "The President needs to be impeached." Waters also suggested in the interview that Trump could be charged with "obstruction of justice" for saying that the FBI's Russia investigation was a factor in his decision to fire Comey.

"If the President is found to have done this to circumvent this investigation, to thwart to the efforts to get the bottom of this, I think this is going to be an impeachable offense," Green said. "He's really treading in some very dangerous waters. This is unusual for this kind of thing to happen in the United States of America."

"Impeachment will happen if handful of Republicans in Congress join Dems to put country above party. Or in 2019 after Dems win the House," Huffman tweeted at 1:51 a.m. on Friday morning.

"It may well produce another United States vs. Nixon on a subpoena that went to United States Supreme Court," he said. "It may well produce impeachment proceedings, although we're very far from that possibility."

"On the issue of impeachment, I am doing my homework," Gabbard said at the Hilo, Hawaii, event. "I am studying more about the impeachment process. I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don't go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence."

Texas Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee: Jackson Lee first raised the possibility of impeachment in March after President Trump made unfounded claims that he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration.

Lee went further in late March at an event for the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

Lee also raised the possibility of impeaching Trump during a commencement address at Texas Southern University this week, according to local Fox26 News in Houston.

California Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragn: Barragn raised the possibility of impeachment at a town hall in her district on May 15.

"Every day there's something new, the more I smell impeachment," Barragn said.

Barragn's office told CNN's KFile she wasn't directly calling for impeachment.

California Rep. Ted Lieu: Lieu said on May 16 that Democrats would follow the facts following reports that former FBI Director James Comey wrote in a memo that President Donald Trump asked him to end the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

"As an American I hope impeachment does not happen," Lieu added. "That is never good for a system of government, but we do have to follow the facts and the investigation where it leads. Certainly impeachment is possible. Obstruction of justice was in fact the first article of impeachment during Richard Nixon's tenure."

Maine Sen. Angus King: King, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on May 16 that the possibility of impeachment was getting closer.

"If indeed the President tried to tell the director of the FBI who worked for him that he should drop an investigation, whether it was Michael Flynn or whether it was some investigation that had nothing to do with Russia or politics or the election, that's a very serious matter," King said.

"If these allegations, senator, are true, are we getting closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Reluctantly, Wolf, I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense," King responded.

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal: Jayapal released a statement in response to the May 16 Comey memo news saying, "If true, Donald Trump's attempt to influence and intimidate the FBI Director James Comey to block an investigation is a textbook definition of obstruction of justice and it would be an impeachable offense."

Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch: Lynch said on May 17 it would be grounds for impeachment if the President attempted to interfere with an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn.

"May be grounds, absolutely," Lynch said on local public radio when asked about impeachment.

Lynch added if the President interfered with an ongoing investigation "for a corrupt purpose," then "this would be an impeachable offense."

Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen: Cohen said his "belly" wants to go forward with impeachment but his brain is saying wait for more facts.

New York Rep. Adriano Espaillat: Espaillat retweeted a tweet citing comments from CNN contributor David Gergen, who said, "I think we're in impeachment territory."

A spokeswoman for the congressman confirmed he was calling for Trump's impeachment.

"Rep. Espaillat is calling for Trump's impeachment. He will be talking about this issue later this evening on the House floor, likely around 6pm," his spokeswoman said.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings: In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on May 16, Cummings said obstruction of justice by the President would be an impeachable offense.

"CNN is reporting that this memo that was written by the FBI Director James Comey, says, among other things, 'I hope you can let this go,'" Blitzer said. "The New York Times says the memo also says, 'I hope you can see your way clear of letting this go, Michael Flynn go, he is a good guy. I hope can you let this go.' Is that, potentially, impeachable if it is an obstruction of justice?

"I think we have to look into it further, Wolf. But I would think so," replied Cummings.

Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline: Cicilline said if the President obstructed justice, it would be grounds for impeachment.

"These are very, very serious allegations," Cicilline said in an interview with WJAR on May 17. "No one in our country is above the law, including the President of the United States. And if in fact he attempted to impede or prevent an investigation and obstructed justice, that is a basis for removal from office."

"Let's be clear: In the past, there has been strong bipartisan agreement that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense," she said. "That's not a Democratic position or a Republican conviction, it is a bipartisan position. And if the facts that are currently alleged are proven, then we should take the next step."

New York Rep. Yvette Clarke: Clarke tweeted on May 17: "We have to remove @realDonaldTrump from the White House as soon as possible. #Impeach45"

Originally posted here:
A running list of Democrats who have discussed impeachment

WASHINGTON U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday denounced as a "detestable lie" the idea he colluded with Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and he clashed with Democratic lawmakers over his refusal to detail his conversations with President Donald Trump.

Sessions, a senior member of Trump's Cabinet and an adviser to his election team, had a series of tense exchanges with Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee during about 2-1/2 hours of high-stakes testimony as they pressed him to recount discussions with the Republican president.

"You raised your right hand here today and said you would solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich said. "Now you're not answering questions. You're impeding this investigation."

Sessions refused to say whether he and Trump discussed FBI director James Comey's handling of an investigation into possible coordination between Trump's campaign and Russia during the election campaign before the president fired Comey on May 9.

He declined to say whether Trump expressed concern over Sessions' decision in March to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, and he refused to say if Justice Department officials discussed possible presidential pardons of individuals being looked at in the probe.

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden told Sessions, "I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling. Americans don't want to hear that answers to relevant questions are privileged."

"I am not stonewalling," Sessions replied, saying he was simply following Justice Department policy not to discuss confidential communications with the president.

Sessions' testimony did not provide damaging new information on any Trump campaign ties with Russia or on Comey's firing, but his refusal to discuss conversations with Trump raised fresh questions about whether the White House has something to hide.

Last week, Comey told the same Senate committee that Trump had fired him to undermine the FBI's investigation of the Russia matter.

Sessions had recommended that Comey be fired, and Trump's decision prompted critics to charge that the president was trying to interfere with a criminal investigation. Sessions on Tuesday defended his involvement in Comey's firing despite recusing himself from the Russia probe.

Senator Angus King, an independent, questioned Sessions' legal basis for refusing to answer questions after Sessions said Trump had not invoked executive privilege regarding the conversations.

Executive privilege is a power that can be claimed by a president or senior executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress or the courts to protect the executive branch decision-making process.

Sessions said it would be "inappropriate" for him to reveal private conversations with Trump when the president "has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve such an answer."

'APPALLING AND DETESTABLE LIE'

Sessions' clash with the Democratic senators was the latest chapter in a saga that has dogged Trump's first five months as president and distracted from his domestic policy agenda including major healthcare and tax cut initiatives.

"The suggestion that I participated in any collusion or that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for over 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie," Sessions said.

"I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected with the Trump campaign."

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in a report released in January that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to interfere in the election to help Trump in part by hacking and releasing damaging emails about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Russia has denied any such interference, and Trump has denied any collusion by his campaign with Moscow.

Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after revelations that he had failed to disclose two meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to Washington, Sergei Kislyak.

In his testimony on Tuesday, Sessions addressed media reports that he may have had a third previously undisclosed meeting with Kislyak at Washington's Mayflower Hotel last year.

Sessions said he did not have any private meetings and could not recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the hotel but did not rule out that a "brief interaction" with Kislyak may have occurred there.

Sessions, a Republican former senator, was an early supporter of Trump's presidential campaign. But there has been tension between the two men in recent weeks because Trump was annoyed that Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe.

Sessions said on Tuesday he did not recuse himself because he felt he was a subject of the investigation himself but rather because he felt he was required to by Justice Department rules.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley and Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Richard Cowan, Andy Sullivan, Amanda Becker, Warren Strobel, Steve Holland, David Alexander and Mohammad Zargham; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump has given Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, a U.S. official told Reuters on Tuesday, opening the door for future troop increases requested by the U.S. commander.

WASHINGTON U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday a policy of engagement with Cuba has financially benefited the island's government in violation of U.S. law, further fueling expectations that President Donald Trump this week will roll back parts of former President Barack Obamas opening to Havana.

Read more from the original source:
Sessions angers Democrats with refusal to testify on Trump conversations - Reuters

Both victory and defeat have been radicalizing experiences for the Democratic party during this century. Democrats moved left after losing to George W. Bush; they moved farther left after winning with Barack Obama; and now they seem to be moving farther left still under President Donald Trump.

The cumulative effect of all this movement has been to put the party well to the left of where it was during Bill Clintons administration. Hillary Clintons 2016 campaign felt it necessary to disavow many of her husbands old stances, and some of her own. President Clinton signed a tough-on-crime bill; Hillary Clinton said it had gone too far. Bill Clinton appointed a commission that recommended a reduction in legal immigration, and briefly endorsed that recommendation. Hillary Clinton campaigned against large-scale raids and roundups of illegal immigrants and vowed to bring back some of those who had been deported.

Bill Clinton supported free trade, fighting to get the North American Free Trade Agreement approved. Hillary Clinton repudiated the big trade agreement up for discussion in 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Leading Democrats, including Bill Clinton, seemed open to paring back the growth of entitlement programs in the 1990s. Last year, Hillary Clinton campaigned on an across-the-board increase of Social Security benefits.

The Democratic partys liberalism became more pronounced on social issues, too. Bill Clinton said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare; by 2016 the Democratic platform no longer called for making abortion rare but did call explicitly for federal funding of abortion for low-income women. Bill Clinton signed legislation codifying marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. Hillary Clinton came out for same-sex marriage in 2013.

She did not lead the way on any of these issues. Left-wing activists dragged her into opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Same-sex marriage was gaining majority support from the public, and supermajority support from Democrats, when she embraced it. Expanding Social Security had already won the support of all Senate Democrats before Clinton.

These leftward moves were not enough to satisfy some Democratic primary voters. Forty-five percent of them chose Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who has stayed out of the party for most of his career because he has defined himself to its left.

The odds are pretty good that the Democrats next presidential nominee will run on a program even more left-wing than the one Clinton adopted in 2016. Many Democrats want to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed almost by acclamation under President Clinton. The American Civil Liberties Union, which once championed the law, is on board. The party is moving left on health care. Most House Democrats have concluded that the problems of Obamacare are a reason to create a federal-government monopoly on health insurance, which they call single payer. Democrats are raising their antes on the minimum wage, too. Obama began his second term calling for an increase from $7.25 to $9 an hour. Clinton campaigned for $12, but the party platform called for $15. Nancy Pelosi says that if Democrats win the House, they will pass this more-than-doubling of the minimum wage within a hundred hours of taking control.

There are two big exceptions to this trend. Democrats have not made a left turn on guns or on welfare. On guns, they have, if anything, moved right, along with public opinion. In 1993, a Democratic Senate mustered 56 votes for a ban on assault weapons. The Democratic Senate of 2013 had only 40. In recent years, liberal intellectuals have decided that the welfare reform Bill Clinton signed in 1996 was a crime against humanity. Democratic politicians have refrained from joining this chorus.

Changes in public opinion have clearly driven some of the Democrats shifts. Same-sex marriage, in particular, grew rapidly in popularity. Some Democratic politicians moved along with the public, and many others felt liberated by voters change of mind to declare what they really thought. Public opinion has turned more pro-immigration, too. The year Bill Clintons commission issued its report, Gallup found that 65 percent of Americans wanted lower levels of immigration and 7 percent wanted higher. By 2016 only 38 percent wanted less immigration and 21 percent wanted more.

The Democrats shift is in large part a result of the long process by which conservatives and liberals have sorted themselves into the two major parties. Millions of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans left their former parties, the parties changed to reflect that increased philosophical uniformity, and then millions more voters defected. There are fewer conservative Democratic politicians to restrain the partys progressivism, and fewer conservative Democratic voters to give them a reason to do so.

Another reason the Democrats have moved left in fits and starts over the last two decades: Victories have confirmed and defeats only momentarily shaken their confidence that the future belongs to them. That confidence may be built into the Left: One of Obamas favorite sayings was that the arc of history bends toward justice. Liberals took discrete changes in public opinion, such as the embrace of same-sex marriage, as examples of a general progressivizing tendency. Young people strengthened this impression by voting more and more for the Democrats. During the Obama years in particular, Democrats became invested in the idea that they represented a progressive coalition of the ascendant, with the ascending to happen as old white men died off. Democratic politicians felt both that they had to move left to keep up with their primary voters and that they would not pay a price for it with the general public.

George W. Bushs election did not cause a major rethinking: He won fewer votes than Al Gore, after all. His presidency ended in a pit of unpopularity that appeared to validate both the Democrats preferences on foreign and domestic policy and their political optimism.

Trumps victory stunned Democrats (among others) because they didnt expect it. But Trump won with an even lower percentage of the vote than Bush, or even Mitt Romney, had received; his numbers have been anemic at best since he became president; and most polling has suggested that the public is moving left in response to him. Obamacare, for example, has gotten more popular as Republicans have threatened to replace it. But the latest left turn is not just a matter of cool calculation. Rage and hysteria seem to be the dominant emotional reactions to Trump among both rank-and-file and professional Democrats.

The intra-Democratic debate about how Trump won is mostly reinforcing the partys inclination to keep going where it wants to go: farther left. Clinton is blaming the Russians, the FBI, the media, sexism. To the extent Democrats believe her, they will think that they should have won the election and that it was stolen from them. Other Democrats blame Clinton herself for being personally uninspiring, taking too much Wall Street money, campaigning arrogantly, and neglecting Wisconsin. Neither explanation points toward any need for the Democrats to do anything different when it comes to program or ideology. The pro-Clinton explanation does, however, push in the direction of becoming more conspiracy-minded. Many Democrats are eagerly accepting that invitation something about which some liberals, to their credit, are worrying.

Other arguments among Democrats have gone a little deeper. As soon as the returns were in, an old struggle resumed over whether to place a higher priority on economics or on cultural issues or, to put it in different terms, the class struggle or identity politics. Some progressives tried to finesse the issue, saying that such feminist causes as mandatory paid leave and subsidies for contraception and abortion are vital for the material fortunes of the working class.

Even if that proposition is granted, though, Democrats face a strategic choice. Should the party define itself by progressive economics, in which case it will make room for at least a few social conservatives who agree on the $15 minimum wage? Or should it define itself first and foremost as a socially liberal party? That choice has implications for which voters the Democrats should court most aggressively. An economically progressive party might win back some of the white voters without college degrees who went for Trump last fall. A socially liberal party, on the other hand, might keep some of the college-degreed Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The matter came to a head in Omaha, Neb. Sanders endorsed Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor who had co-sponsored legislation to ban late-term abortions and described himself as personally opposed to abortion. Sanders, who himself has an impeccably pro-abortion record, lauded Mellos economic platform. The head of NARAL Pro-Choice America attacked Sanders over the endorsement, and other Democrats were drawn into the debate. Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez first endorsed Mello and then, under criticism, said that all Democrats had to support the Democratic partys position on womens fundamental rights. Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, argued for a bigger tent, noting that members of her own Democratic family broke with her on abortion.

While some Democrats are arguing that the party should tolerate a range of viewpoints on social issues, and others are saying that they should at least try not to condescend toward people who disagree with them, no prominent members of the party are saying that it should actually moderate its positions on abortion, immigration, or religious liberty. When the party is viewed from the outside, it might seem like theres a good case for such moderation. Even in the Obama years, betting on inevitable demographic tides made for a narrow coalition. The geographic distribution of liberal voters makes it easier to assemble a majority for president than one for Senate and governors races, which is in turn easier than to assemble one for a majority of House races.

Betting on the coalition of the ascendant didnt work for Clinton even at the presidential level. She repeatedly invited Republicans to support her but refused to give an inch of substance in return. She did nothing even to gesture toward the cultural concerns of working-class white voters, who everyone knew had found Trump appealing. She didnt actually call working-class whites deplorable, but she might as well have. President Obama had done abysmally in key swing states among white voters who were working-class, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic, and the fact that he won anyway helped lead Democrats to write off these groups as a coalition of the descending. Clinton managed to do significantly worse, enough to cost her the election.

Thats not the way many Democrats see it. In their view, Trump was reason enough for many Republicans to abandon their party, and he still got 90 percent of their votes. Conservatives partisanship is too strong to make it worth reaching out to them. Besides, Republicans spent the Obama years being obstructionist, turning more extreme, and indulging in conspiracy theories, and it didnt keep them from winning unified control of the federal government. The public figure who did more than any other to spread the nutty theory that Obama wasnt born in America is now president. Why, they ask, shouldnt Democrats act the same way?

There are a number of possible answers to that question, starting with the fact that the bet doesnt offer much protection on the downside. But there may not be a large Democratic audience for such answers. Too many of them think that they already represent an anti-Trump majority or inevitably will represent a liberal one, convictions that reduce the urgency of building either. Political life being what it is, their approach might pay off anyway.

READ MORE: The Class-Warfare Rhetoric of Wealthy Democratic Politicians The Fusion Party: Demsandthe Progressive Media Dems to Pro-Lifers: You Are Unwanted and May Be Discarded

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor of National Review.

Read more from the original source:
The Democrats' Leftward March - National Review

Photo of President Donald Trump by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

WASHINGTON House Democrats distanced themselves on Tuesday from a longshot bid to impeach President Donald Trump, arguing that multiple investigations should to play out before considering such drastic, politically fraught action.

California Rep. Brad Sherman has told colleagues that he may try to force a vote in the full House if the Judiciary Committee declines to consider a proposed article of impeachment that hes still finalizing.

Shermans proposal, circulated to colleagues along with a letter, states that the president sought to hinder and stop federal investigations by threatening and then terminating James Comey, the ousted FBI director.

The evidence we have is sufficient to move forward now. And the national interest requires that we do so, Sherman said in his letter.

Sherman said hes getting suggestions from colleagues now on how to improve his proposal. He said about a dozen lawmakers have told him theyre supportive of his effort.

But numerous Democrats emerged from a close-door caucus meeting Tuesday opposed, including some of Trumps harshest critics.

Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky said more time is needed so that people can decide whether there have been impeachable offenses.

Democratic leaders recognize that any talk of impeachment energizes the Republican base, and that could undercut Democrats hoping for significant gains in next years midterm elections.

My concern is this: If we dont allow the discovery of and unwinding of all this so that people come to their own conclusions that there have been impeachable offenses, Republicans will just accuse Democrats of trying to rig the system: Couldnt win the election outright, so they want to manipulate the process,' Schakowsky said. That wont be helpful for our country. It certainly wont be helpful for the Democratic Party.

Democratic leaders recognize that any talk of impeachment energizes the Republican base, and that could undercut Democrats hoping for significant gains in next years midterm elections.

Its a little early. We all know that, said Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

We believe strongly that a discussion about impeachment is not timely until the facts are fully garnered, said Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Shermans efforts come after Comey appeared before a Senate panel last week to answer questions about his May 9 firing and other matters. Comey said it was his judgment that he was fired because of the Russia investigation, but he also refused to say whether he thinks Trump broke the law. Sherman said Comeys testimony was a turning point for him.

Obstruction was an article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon before he resigned and was one of the counts on which the House impeached President Bill Clinton, who was later acquitted by the Senate.

Sherman said hes under no illusion that his article of impeachment would pass, but we want to move the ball forward one step.

Visit link:
Democrats try to distance themselves from call for Trump's impeachment - PBS NewsHour

President Trump on June 13 said Republican efforts to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will result in a "phenomenal bill" and "fantastic" outcome. Trump was hosting several Republican senators at the White House. (The Washington Post)

President Trump met with Senate Republicans on Tuesday at the White House, and although the meeting and short media appearance were ostensibly to talk about Senate efforts to craft health-care legislation, Trump couldn't resist taking a few digs at Democrats.

Then he endorsed what he called their new motto.

You have the Democrats on the other side, who truly have become obstructionists, he said. Even their new motto, 'resist,' and I guess it's a pretty accurate motto. Every time I see it, I say, that's right! That does represent the Democrats.

Trump has been making the argument for a while that the Democrats are obstructionists, although he seems to be using that specific word a lot this week (on Monday, he used the word obstructionist to describe Democrats at a Cabinet meeting, and press secretary Sean Spicer repeated it at his daily briefing). He's taking this approach even though Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress.

It's not entirely accurate to call resist a motto simply for Democrats. It has been used broadly by liberals, and not just liberals in the United States, and it's most closely associated with Greenpeace activists. Remember, just a few days after Trump's inauguration, Greenpeace activists hung a resist banner from a crane in downtown Washington.

Outside the United States, Greenpeace activists who oppose far-right French politician Marine Le Pen unfurled a resist banner on the Eiffel Tower in the run-up to last month's French elections. Another group, also affiliated with Greenpace, unfurled a similar banner in May 25 at the U.S. Embassy in Brussels.

But it has become a sort of rallying cry for anti-Trump forces in the United States, and liberals around the world. Beyond being used by environmental activists, it has become a go-to phrase for LGBTQ activists, and this year's Pride parade in Los Angeles was renamed the Resist March.

Resist has made appearances in Washington, too. It appeared on an apartment building as residents fought a sort of political banner proxy war on their balconies in April.

In endorsing resist as a motto, Trump seems to be missing a bit of the point that those who resist are resisting him personally, and seek to resist him in ways that go way beyond partisanship in Congress. And at the same time, Democrats are probably just fine with being labeled as obstructionists who won't go along with his agenda.

More here:
Trump endorses 'resist' as a motto for Democrats - Washington Post