Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump loves to brag about all the great things hes doing for black people.

His Feb. 5 State of the Union show was chock-full of boasts and grins aimed at African Americans. Our unemployment rate is at an all-time low, thanks to him. Trump is a criminal justice champion, he claimed in the speech. He lavished praise on a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman and bestowed a scholarship on a young black girl.

Black folks wont fall for that okey-doke.

No matter. Trumps softer, gentler words were aimed at another, crucial constituency: white suburban women.

Women who swing more liberally on social issues than their male counterparts. Trump needs their votes to prevail in the November presidential election.

Women who are not amused by Trumps embrace of white nationalists and anti-immigrant crusades. Women who abhor his bombastic, misogynist ways.

In the 2020 presidential campaign, women prefer all of the leading Democratic candidates over Trump by 23 to 30 percentage points, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.

The poll was conducted Jan. 20 to 23. If held on Election Day, it would nearly double the previous record gender gap in exit polls dating to 1976, ABC News reported.

A woman will surely be on the Democratic presidential ticket, as either the nominee or the VP pick.

Talk is cheap. Trump needs a secret weapon to get alienated women voters back into his fold.

Last spring, Trump was asking his longtime friends and members of his inner circle whether keeping Pence on the ticket was a shrewd decision heading into 2020, Politico reported in December.

Trump was talking up Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and former U.N. ambassador, as a possible running mate.

Would he consider replacing Vice President Mike Pence with a woman on the 2020 ticket?

I rang up Pat Brady. The former chairman of the Republican Party of Illinois said he would be surprised if Trump dumped Pence.

Pence is a very trusted and relied upon adviser to the president, said Brady, a consultant, lobbyist and attorney who keeps close tabs on political and corporate affairs.

Bradys GOP friends in Washington tell him Pence is the guy on [Trumps] schedule daily, more than almost anybody. Hes in every meeting.

Besides, abandoning Pence would create so much consternation in conservative circles and so many problems for Trump that he doesnt need.

Right now, Trump is savoring one of the best weeks of his presidency after delivering a powerful State of the Union speech and reveling in his impeachment acquittal.

But if anyone knows how to ruin a good thing, its this president.

During his acquittal celebration in the White House East Room, he berated U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and declared the investigation into Russian electoral interference was bullshit. He labeled one adversary a sleazebag.

Others scum.

Heres some unsolicited, free advice for the Trump campaign.

I guarantee your candidate will continue to alienate women, no matter how much he panders. If anything, the gender gap will grow. He may need a Plan B.

For any other president, dumping an uber-loyal vice president would be unthinkable.

It would be a cinch for Trump. He knows no allegiance beyond whatever will save his orange skin.

Trump is the ultimate transactional president. Whats good for Trump personally had better be good for everyone else.

Pence and the rest of you are highly dispensable.

Send letters to: letters@suntimes.com.

Follow this link:
To win the suburban vote, Trump might want to dump Pence and put a woman on the ticket | Laura Washington - Chicago Sun-Times

The three-week impeachment trial of President Trump came to a close last Wednesday as the Senate voted to acquit him of abusing power and obstructing justice.

The outcome wasnt unexpected; In December, Senate-majority leader Mitch McConnell publicly announced his plans to work closely with White House lawyers, dissolving hopes for an unbiased trial.

While foreseeable, the proceedings results have left many troubled with the consequences. This is best exemplified by reactions of late-night hosts, such as Samantha Bee: the Senate has set a devastating precedent. Future presidents can solicit foreign interference in an election; they can investigate private citizens. There are no rules.

Nevertheless, whether one is left disappointed by a muddied due process characterized by a tilted system of check and balances, those hoping to see a Democratic alternative to Trump in 2020 may actually find comfort in his acquittal. A Trump-free Oval Office would mean, potentially, a Mike Pence candidacy, whis is a reality that would threaten the likelihood of a liberal presidency.

In such a hypothetical situation, Pence, the current vice president, would have every reason to campaign once in office. History has revealed a pattern of vice presidents running after their term in office. Following Nixons resignation, Gerold Ford ran against Jimmy Carter in 1976. So did Al Gore after Bill Clintons impeachment, contesting against Bush in 2000.

Some have already laughed at the prospect of Pence in such power, his inflexible religious views and spouse-obsessed lifestyle being the center of ridicule. Bee said, It would have been fun seeing Pence try to figure out if he wants to call his wife first lady mother or first mother lady, referring to a 2017 Rolling Stone claim that Pence calls his wife mother.

The idea of Mike Pence who has remained largely out of the scandal spotlight throughout Trumps reign as the nations top executive feels so foolish that theres even a satirical website for his campaign, proclaiming, among other things that Jesus Christ is his running mate.

Yet, whatever his caricature, a Pence candidacy would overturn much of the current Democratic drive against Trump. Most of the competitors run on the promise of dismantling President Trumps provoking policies in essence, a promise to bring the nation back to a familiar normality.

A normality Pence represents.

Even during the 2016 election, Pences status quo persona provided much to appreciate. In an New Yorker article, Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist, said, Trumps got the populist nationalists, but Pence is the base. Without Pence, you dont win.

As a politician with experience and a cool temperament an immense contrast to Trump Pence would spell trouble for those Democrats who pride themselves on being just that. One example is Joe Biden, who has proven to be the most conventional of the runners.

In addition to President Trumps base, Pence could rally the few on the right who disapprove of Trump but feel uneasy or at odds with the Democratic campaigns, especially the more progressive ones. For instance, in the words of a Politico article, as long as Pence is perceived as having restored honor and dignity, to the White House, Warrens crusade against corruption might feel outdated.

Moreover, though less obviously, president-want-to-be Pence would have the financial backing to jump-start his campaign, something of significance in modern elections. In the same New Yorker article mentioned previously, much was also revealed about Pences profound ties with the Koch family, for whom he pursued certain policies in exchange for financial backing.

The two are so deeply connected that, in 2014, a Republican strategist told Politico that the whole Koch operation had become the shadow headquarters of Pence for President, according to the New Yorker.

With the impeachment trial wrapped up and President Trump continuing on with his first term, Democratic candidates have sustained their increased chance of placing one of their own in the oval office. Though upsetting to many, Trumps acquittal means avoiding a greater threat that of candidate Pence, a would-be serious runner with far-reaching financial backing and a far less stained past. Democrats can now safely continue with their arranged objectives.

At least until 2024.

Filip De Mott is a sophomore Journalism and International Affairs major. Contact Filip at demottfs@dukes.jmu.edu.

Read more:
Opinion | Would Pence Make a Tougher Candidate? - The Breeze

The Army brought home the remains Monday of two soldiers killed in an apparent insider attack in Afghanistan this weekend.

The remains of Sgt. 1st Class Javier J. Gutierrez, of San Antonio, Texas, and Sgt. 1st Class Antonio R. Rodriguez, of Las Cruces, New Mexico, were flown in to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, on a C-17 cargo aircraft.

Both men were assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Army Chief of Staff James McConville attended the dignified transfer ceremony. White House reporters were told it was the first time since 2009 that a president and vice president attended a dignified transfer together.

Six other Americans were also wounded in the attack that took the lives of Gutierrez and Rodriguez. One Afghan soldier was also killed and three others were wounded.

The attack came after a key leader engagement at the Sherzad district center in Nangarhar province, an area considered a stronghold for Afghanistans Islamic State off-shoot.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

Both Gutierrez and Rodriguez were posthumously promoted to sergeant 1st class and awarded Bronze Star medals and Purple Hearts. Their deaths bring the number of U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan this year to four. Seventeen American combat casualties in Afghanistan in 2019 made it the worst year since 2014.

Rodriguez was a former Army Ranger and veteran of eight combat deployments with 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. He retrained to be a cryptologic linguist and was assigned to 7th Special Forces Group in 2018. Gutierrez was a Green Beret communications sergeant who had one previous deployment to Iraq.

Both men were 28 years old.

An Afghan government official told the Associated Press that the shooter was an Afghan soldier who had argued with U.S. troops before opening fire. The Afghan official said the shooter was not suspected of being a Taliban infiltrator, a potentially important detail as peace talks with the insurgent group continue on this winter.

Follow this link:
Trump, Pence and McConville attend dignified transfer of 2 troops killed in Afghanistan - ArmyTimes.com

Q: Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi break the law by ripping up the presidents State of the Union address?

A: Legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosis copy of the address would be subject to a criminal statute cited by some conservatives.

Did Nancy Pelosi tear up an official copy of the speech at the State of the Union Address? Is she liable for any legal penalty?

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosis supporters praised her decision to publicly rip up her copy of President Donald Trumps State of the Union address at the end of his Feb. 4 speech, conservatives lambasted the act, calling it partisan and childish. But some, including the president himself, went further by alleging that the act was illegal.

First of all, its an official document, Trump told reporters. Youre not allowed its illegal what she did.

The claim that Pelosi violated federal law circulated widely on social media before Trump himself made the suggestion it was advanced by Charlie Kirk, of the prominent conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, and by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who called for an ethics investigation and said the act was a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071).

Readers asked us about the claim and about a viral story circulating online with the headline, Nancy Pelosi Fined $40K for Destruction of Government Property. That false story was first published on a website that calls its work satire.

Legal experts have widely dismissed the notion that federal prosecutors would try to apply the criminal statute cited by Gaetz which deals with concealment, removal, or mutilation of federal records to Pelosis ripping up a copy of the speech.

A saving grace of federal criminal law is that its applied by prosecutors, judges, and juries with common sense, Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School, told us. Richman, who previously served as chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York and was a legal adviser for former FBI Director James Comey, added: That approach makes it impossible to see the aggressive recycling of a non-unique document as anything more than that.

Similarly, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who served as an impeachment expert for House Republicans, concluded that it would not be considered a violation of the law.

The specific statute in question refers to someone who willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of anycourt of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of theUnited States.

I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea, Turley wrote on his blog.

Turley opined that the copy is a historic document worthy of preservation as one of two copies hand delivered by the President to the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and that it should be preserved. But, he said, It is a copy and a court would likely decline to read the law broadly to find a violation on the margins of the defined covered conduct.

Another provision of the statute applies to the destruction of such records by those with custody of the records generally those considered having responsibility for their maintenance. Turley said Pelosi wouldnt be considered a custodian of the copy she received.

Some law professors also have argued that the First Amendment, or the U.S. Constitutions free speech or debate clause, could be further protection for Pelosi.

Its worth noting that the National Archives and Records Administration will preserve a copy of the speech from the White House.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) preserves and provides access to the permanent records of Federal Agencies and the President in accordance with laws and regulations that govern the disposition of those records, the agency said in a statement. NARA will receive the Presidents version for preservation as a permanent record in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

NARA also said that while it holds the historical records of the House and Senate, those records remain the legal property of the respective Chambers [t]he rules governing those records are not determined by federal laws or overseen by NARA, but rather by each Chambers agreed upon rules. The agency said it does not have information about the record status of Speaker Pelosis copy of the speech.

The conflict reveals the fuzzy rules surrounding the Houses record status of the specific copy given to the speaker.

Turley, in his blog, said: I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker.

The day after the State of the Union address, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer debated the matter on the House floor. Hoyer argued that Pelosis conduct was protected by the First Amendment and McCarthy countered by saying Pelosi had no right to destroy this document. But the question of whether the specific, printed version of the speech given to the speaker constituted a document of the House went unanswered.

Gaetz, in a column on the website Townhall.com, argued that the signed versions handed to Vice President Mike Pence and Pelosi, as the leaders of the Senate and House respectively, are original documents that are not the personal property of the two recipients, but instead, the permanent record (and property) of the two chambers of Congress. When the document is received by the Speaker of the House, it becomes an official record of the House of Representatives.

We asked Gaetzs office to point us to documentation or evidence that stipulates that process and record-keeping protocol. His office told us that the information was relayed by Republican Rep. Mike Johnsons office and that Johnsons office gathered the information from officials in the House clerk and House parliamentarian offices.

A spokesperson for the House clerk, on the other hand, told us in a statement that the Congressional record of the State of the Union address is the transcribed remarks, as recorded by the Official Reporters of the House. The Clerk of the House has a duty to preserve documents transmitted to the Clerk, and a duty to publish the State of the Union address. The Clerk received the Presidents prepared State of the Union remarks electronically, which will be preserved for the National Archives.

Consistent with precedent and practice in prior Congresses, immediately after the Presidents address to the joint session of Congress, the House, without objection, ordered the Presidents remarks to be printed, the statement said. The Government Publishing Office has accordingly published the Presidents remarks as a presidential address before a joint session of Congress.

18 U.S. Code 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally. U.S. Code. Accessed 7 Feb 2020.

Gaetz, Matt (@RepMattGaetz). BREAKING: Im filing an ethics complaint against @SpeakerPelosi for destroying @realDonaldTrumps State of the Union speech. Her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071). Nobody is above the law. She must be held accountable. Twitter. 5 Feb 2020.

Garvey, Todd. Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause. Congressional Research Service. 1 Dec 2017.

House of Representatives. Congressional Record. Vol. 166, No. 24. 5 Feb 2020.

Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure. White House. 7 Feb 2020.

Richman, Daniel. Professor of law, Columbia Law School. Email to FactCheck.org. 10 Feb 2020.

Turley, Jonathan. No, Nancy Pelosi Did Not Violate Federal Law . . . Just Decades Of Tradition. JonathanTurley.org. 6 Feb 2020.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 7 Feb 2020.

Originally posted here:
Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate - FactCheck.org

NASA astronaut Christina Koch just spent 11 months in Earth orbit, and she'd welcome a trip much farther afield.

The U.S. space agency is working to land two astronauts, at least one of whom will be a woman, on the surface of the moon by 2024, as directed last year by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence. NASA has not yet selected those two spaceflyers, but Koch said she'd definitely answer the call if her name came up.

"Of course, me or anyone in our [astronaut] office would be honored beyond measure to be a part of that mission," Koch said during a news conference on Wednesday (Feb. 12). "Any of us would be ready and honored to accept that mission if it were offered to us."

Photos: Astronaut Christina Koch returns to Earth after record spaceflight

Koch came back to Earth last Thursday (Feb. 6), wrapping up a historic 328-day mission aboard the International Space Station. No woman has ever served aboard the orbiting lab for a longer continuous stint, and Koch's mission came up just 12 days shy of the American single-spaceflight record, which Scott Kelly set in 2016.

These long-duration missions are designed to help NASA and the international human-spaceflight community prepare for trips to deep-space destinations, especially Mars, which is a six- to nine-month ride away from Earth using current propulsion technology.

NASA aims to put boots on the Red Planet sometime in the 2030s, and the agency plans to use the moon as a steppingstone on that epic journey. The 2024 lunar landing, which is part of NASA's Artemis program of moon exploration, is designed to advance this long-term vision.

Indeed, Artemis aims to establish a sustainable human presence on and around the moon by the late 2020s,a different goal than the flags-and-footprints approach of the Apollo program. This work, in turn, will enable the giant leap to Mars, NASA officials have said.

"It is certainly a very exciting time to be part of the NASA family, when we are looking to go back to the moon, to go in a different way to go to stay, to go for all and by all," Koch said. "So, it's a privilege to be here at this time."

Mike Wall's book about the search for alien life, "Out There" (Grand Central Publishing, 2018; illustrated by Karl Tate), is out now. Follow him on Twitter @michaeldwall. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or Facebook.

The rest is here:
Will record-setting NASA astronaut Christina Koch be the 1st woman on the moon? - Space.com