Posts tagged with "Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)"

WaPo offers five takeaways from Biden’s forceful January 6 takedown of Trump

January 10, 2022

About a month after the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection and with impeachment suddenly in the rearview, President Joe Biden signaled he was “tired” of talking about Donald Trump. A month later, he responded to a question about the former president by sarcastically saying he missed “my predecessor.”

Indeed, Biden largely has avoided mentioning Trump in the following months, reports The Washington Post.

However, on the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol riot on Thursday, Biden made a huge exception. He delivered a muscular speech aimed at repudiating the former president, whose hold on the Republican Party has proved as strong as ever; according to the Post, as well as the allies who fomented and excused the Capitol riot.

Below are the Post’s takeaways from Biden’s speech.

The Trump focus

Biden’s intention to make his speech not just about the rioters, but also about Trump, was evident from the first minute of his brief speech and continued throughout. After praising those who withstood the attack and marking the somber occasion, Biden almost immediately linked the attack to Trump—and did so repeatedly, with a palpable anger in his voice.

“For the first time in our history, the president had not just lost an election; he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol,” Biden said. “But they failed. They failed.”

Biden added later: “He has done what no president in American history—the history of this country—has ever, ever done: He refused to accept the results of an election and the will of the American people.”

Then Biden went after Trump’s delayed response.

“What did we not see?” Biden said. “We didn’t see a former president who had just rallied the mob to attack, sitting in the private dining room off the Oval Office in the White House, watching it all on television and doing nothing for hours as police were assaulted, lives at risk, the nation’s capital under siege.”

Not just targeting—but goading Trump

Much of Biden’s speech seemed aimed at not just criticizing but also goading Trump. He referred to Trump’s “bruised ego” over losing the 2020 election.

 He’s done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interest as more important than his country’s interest and America’s interest, and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our Constitution,” Biden said.

Biden also referenced the 81 million people who voted for him—a seeming reference to Trump and his allies’ regular invocations of the 74 million people who voted for Trump, and the idea that not further scrutinizing Trump’s baseless voter-fraud claims was tantamount to disregarding those voters.

Biden also pointed to those who might otherwise be allies who clearly didn’t back up Trump’s claims. “He can’t accept he lost, even though that’s what 93 United States senators, his own attorney general, his own vice president, governors and state officials in every battleground state—have all said he lost,” Biden said. “That’s what 81 million of you did, as you voted for a new way forward.”

Biden punctuated it all toward the end of his speech by labeling Trump what Trump fears perhaps most of all—a loser. “He was just looking for an excuse, a pretext to cover for the truth: that he’s not just a former president; he’s a defeated former president,” Biden said, emphasizing “defeated” and then repeating it—“defeated by a margin of over 7 million of your votes in a full and free and fair election.”

A recognition that being passive doesn’t work

Biden’s speech might have been for a special occasion, but it also seemed to mark a recognition that Trump is going nowhere, and one can’t pretend otherwise.

At the same time, it echoed previous rebukes of Trump, in that Biden avoided saying his name. There was a word curiously missing from Biden’s remarks: “Trump.” [Biden explained afterwards that he avoided politicizing the speech.]

Throughout the speech, Biden merely cited the “former president”—at least 16 times in a little over ten minutes—as if speaking his name was tantamount to legitimizing him, or that something would happen a la saying “Voldemort.”

The undersold rebuke

According to the Post, toward the end, Biden referred to something that hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention: the implicit GOP idea that the presidential election was somehow stolen, but not other races.

In fact, a few days before January 6, this comparison was pushed by none other than Republican Representative Chip Roy (Texas), who had been Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) former chief of staff. If the election results were suspect, Roy argued, why wouldn’t his fellow Republicans have objected to the seating of members who were elected on the same ballots? So Roy forced a vote, and all but two Republicans voted to seat the members.

What happens now

The question in the aftermath of Biden’s speech is what it means. Was this just about reminding people of an assault on democracy—one day only—or was it about spurring further action?

Democrats have pushed for revamping the nation’s voting laws, citing Republican efforts to rewrite them in the states, but that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Democrats have also shunned GOP leaders’ suggestions that the two sides could meet in the middle, by reviewing the Electoral Count Act that Trump sought to exploit January 6. Democrats have suggested this is a wholly insufficient step.

An alternate political explanation is that Biden understands his agenda probably isn’t going anywhere. That argument suggests that voters must be reminded of what happened in 2020 ahead of the 2022 election—when Democrats’ majorities are severely imperiled—and perhaps ahead of a potential 2024 rematch with Trump (or another Democrat running against Trump).

When the calendar turns to an election year, after all, the Post notes, legislation tends to grind to a halt, and those concerns take precedence. Biden’s goading of Trump certainly doesn’t discount this theory.

Either way, though, it’s a significant entry in the long-standing fight over democracy. And it was the most significant entry on that front from Biden to date.

Research contact: @washingtonpost

Trump adviser Peter Navarro lays out how he and Bannon planned to overturn Biden’s electoral win

January 29, 2021

A former Trump White House official says he and right-wing provocateur Steve Bannon were actually behind the last-ditch coordinated effort by rogue Republicans in Congress to halt certification of the 2020 election results on January 6 and keep President Donald Trump in power earlier this year, in a plan dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep.”

In his recently published memoir—In Trump Time, published by All Seasons Press—Peter Navarro, then-President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, details how he stayed in close contact with Bannon as they put the Green Bay Sweep in motion with help from members of Congress loyal to the cause, reports The Daily Beast.

But in an interview last week with The Daily Beast, Navarro shed additional light on his role in the operation—and his and Bannon’s coordination with GOP politicians Representative Paul Gosar (Arizona) and Senator Ted Cruz (Texas).

“We spent a lot of time lining up over 100 congressmen, including some senators. It started out perfectly. At 1 p.m., Gosar and Cruz did exactly what was expected of them,” Navarro told The Daily Beast. “It was a perfect plan. And it all predicated on peace and calm on Capitol Hill. We didn’t even need any protestors, because we had over 100 congressmen committed to it.”

That commitment appeared as Congress was certifying the 2020 Electoral College votes reflecting that Joe Biden had trunced Trump. Senator Cruz signed off on Gosar’s official objection to counting Arizona’s electoral ballots—an effort that was supported by dozens of other Trump loyalists.

Staffers for Cruz and Gosar did not respond to requests for comment. Also, there’s no public indication whether the January 6 Committee has sought testimony or documents from Senator Cruz or Representative Gosar.

But the committee has only recently begun to seek evidence from fellow members of Congress who were involved in the general effort to keep Trump in the White House—including GOP Representatives Jim Jordan (Ohio) and  Scott Perry (Pennsylvania).

This last-minute maneuvering never had any chance of actually decertifying the election results on its own, a point that Navarro quickly acknowledges. But their hope was to run the clock as long as possible to increase public pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to send the electoral votes back to six contested states, where Republican-led legislatures could try to overturn the results.

And in their minds, ramping up pressure on Pence would require media coverage. While most respected news organizations refused to regurgitate unproven conspiracy theories about widespread election fraud, this plan hoped to force journalists to cover the allegations by creating a historic delay to the certification process.

“The Green Bay Sweep was very well thought out. It was designed to get us 24 hours of televised hearings,” he said. “But we thought that we could bypass the corporate media by getting this stuff televised.”

Navarro’s part in this ploy was to provide the raw materials, he said in an interview on Thursday. That came in the form of a three-part White House report he put together during his final weeks in the Trump administration with volume titles like, “The Immaculate Deception” and “The Art of the Steal.”

“My role was to provide the receipts for the 100 congressmen or so who would make their cases .… who could rely in part on the body of evidence I’d collected,” he told The Daily Beast. “To lay the legal predicate for the actions to be taken.” (Ultimately, states have not found any evidence of electoral fraud above the norm, which is exceedingly small.)

The next phase of the plan was up to Bannon, Navarro says. “Steve Bannon’s role was to figure out how to use this information—what he called ‘receipts’—to overturn the election result. That’s how Steve had come up with the Green Bay Sweep idea,” he wrote.

“The political and legal beauty of the strategy was this: By law, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must spend up to two hours of debate per state on each requested challenge. For the six battleground states, that would add up to as much as 24 hours of nationally televised hearings across the two chambers of Congress.”

His book also notes that Bannon was the first person he communicated with when he woke up at dawn on January 6, writing, “I check my messages and am pleased to see Steve Bannon has us fully ready to implement our Green Bay Sweep on Capitol Hill. Call the play. Run the play.”

The rest is history.

Research contact: @thedailybeast

Every man (and his family) for himself: Ted Cruz flies to Cancun amid major power crisis in Texas

February 19, 2021

Some 400,000 North Texans remained without power for the third consecutive day on February 18—and both food and water were scarce as the population dealt with an energy crisis in the middle of a blizzard.

But for Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), it was every man for himself, as he and his family boarded a plane for Cancun amid the major crisis, Fox News reports.

Photographs of Cruz at an airport began circulating on social media late Wednesday, with people alleging that the senator had left the state for the tropical holiday spot in southeast Mexico.

A Republican source told Fox News that the allegations Cruz was traveling to the Mexican city are true. “The photos speak for themselves,” the source said. 

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Lone Star State were calling on Cruz to resign. Indeed, MSN reported, Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Cruz’s actions “disturbing and disappointing.”

He ripped Cruz for challenging the Electoral College vote ahead of the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, and said Cruz should now resign for “jetting off to Mexico while Texans remain dying in the cold.”

“The Texas Democratic Party calls on Ted Cruz to resign or be expelled from office,” Hinojosa said. “Barring that, we will put all of the resources we have into defeating him and every Texas Republican who abandoned us in this disaster, including Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Patrick, in 2022 and 2024. We are in a battle for the soul of our state. We must restore ethics, competence, and a government that works for the people.”

As temperatures have plunged dangerous record lows across the state, at least 36 people have died.

Cruz acknowledged how serious the crisis is in a tweet on Tuesday, saying, “A blizzard strikes Texas & our state shuts down. Not good.”

His office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Thursday morning.

Research contact: @FoxNews

Secretive Ethics panel will judge Hawley and Cruz

February 3, 2021

Former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will be conducted on the Senate floor, live on TV. By contrast, the Senate investigation into Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) will take place behind closed doors—conducted by one of the most secretive committees in Congress, Politico reports.

After multiple leading Democrats called for the two Republicans to resign, Cruz and Hawley’s challenge to President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win is now tied up in the opaque U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics. And while Trump’s impeachment trial probably will conclude quickly; Politico projects that the probe into whether the two senators played a role in inciting the violent Capitol attack will unwind over an interminable timetable, with little hint of where it is going.

The committee says nothing about its business until actions are taken. And it has a lot of business before it: Seven Democratic senators filed a complaint against the two GOP senators who led the effort to object to the election results, arguing that they ‘lent legitimacy” to the cause of those who invaded the Capitol. Hawley fired back with a counter complaint—alleging “improper conduct” for partisan gain.

The panel is led by Chair Chris Coons (D-Delaware), who called for Cruz and Hawley to resign; and by Vice Chair James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), who planned to challenge the election results, himself, before backing away after the invasion of the Capitol. Coons and Lankford speak frequently to each other and have a warm relationship, just as Coons did with former Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia).

And the two senators will keep a tight lid on the highest profile ethics investigation in years. “Neither of us [is] going to talk about it at all,” Lankford said in an interview with Politico. “We don’t bring up anything on the ethics stuff at all. We don’t confirm anything and we’re pretty lockstep about that.”

Research contact: @politico

GOP trashes Joaquin Castro for tweeting the names of top Trump donors

August 8, 2019

Now that their names are in the news, major GOP donors are not quite so confident that gun violence is not the issue. In fact, they say they have been “targeted” in the wake of last weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, The Washington Post reports.

The 44 names (see list)that Representative Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) tweeted out late on Monday, August 6, have at least two things in common, the Post notes: They’re all constituents in his district, and they all donated the maximum amount to President Donald Trump’s campaign this year.

The congressman and brother of presidential hopeful Julián Castro said the people liste — including retirees, business owners and other individuals whose names are public record — were “fueling a campaign of hate.”

“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump—the owner of @BillMillerBarBQ, owner of the @HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.,” Castro wrote. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as invaders.”

Castro, who also serves as chairman for his brother’s presidential campaign, spent much of August 7 deflecting intense criticism from GOP lawmakers and others. They contended that Castro was “targeting” the listed donors by tweeting their names to his thousands of followers—a serious accusation in the aftermath of two mass shootings that left 31 people dead and many more wounded.

“This is grossly inappropriate, especially in the wake of recent tragic shootings,” replied Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas).This win-at-all-costs mentality, publicly targeting an opponent’s supporters, and encouraging retaliation is dangerous and not what Texans have a right to expect from their members of Congress.”

Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-California) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took similar positions, and the latter accused Castro of “outing” his own constituents.

EVERYONE needs to tone the hateful partisan rhetoric way down,” Cruz tweeted., adding, “This is WRONG & Castro should retract it. In our constitutional Republic, the People rightly hold their representatives accountable; elected representatives should not be vilifying & doxxing their own constituents.”

To that, Castro replied, “No one was targeted or harassed in my post. You know that. All that info is routinely published. You’re trying to distract from the racism that has overtaken the GOP and the fact that President Trump spends donor money on thousands of ads about Hispanics “invading” America. “

He added, “My post was a lament-that so many people in my overwhelmingly Hispanic hometown would give money to a President who is using it to target Hispanics as ‘invaders.’ No one was doxxed-no private address or phone #s were shared.”

Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a Tuesday evening tweet that Castro was “inviting harassment” of the private citizens listed. “At worst, he’s encouraging violence,” Murtaugh wrote. “This is a target list.”

In a separate statement to The Washington Post, Murtaugh said that “this naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible. He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing. No one should be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their political beliefs. He should delete the tweet, apologize, and his brother’s campaign should disavow it.”

However, Castro again pushed back, referring to recent reports that the Trump campaign had paid for thousands of ads on Facebook that use the word “invasion” in reference to immigration.

“Donald Trump has put a target on the back of millions,” Castro said in one response. “How about I stop mentioning Trump’s public campaign donors and he stops using their money for ads that fuel hate?”

Research contact: @washingtonpost

Turning tail: Senate Republicans warn White House against Mexico tariffs

June 6, 2019

Et tu, GOP? Even the Senate Republican are starting to doubt the wisdom of Trump’s tariffs—especially those he means to impose against Mexico. After all, Americans like their avocados, tequila, and automobiles.

Indeed, according to a New York Times report, Republican senators sent the White House a clear and compelling message on June 4—warning that they were almost unanimously opposed to the president’s plans to establish tariffs on Mexican imports, just hours after the president said lawmakers would be “foolish” to try to stop him.

The administration’s latest move to intimidate the nation’s southern neighbor in the face of rising illegal immigration at the border will create a “tax” against Americans, the GOP claims (and Democrats agree). Trump has threatened to set 5% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico, rising to as high as 25%, until the Mexican government stems the flow of migrants, the Times said.

Republican senators emerged from a closed-door lunch at the Capitol angered by the briefing they received from a deputy White House counsel and an assistant attorney general on the legal basis for the president to impose new tariffs by declaring a national emergency at the southern border.

“I want you to take a message back” to the White House, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), told the lawyers, according to Times sources. Cruz warned that “you didn’t hear a single yes” from the Republican conference. He called the proposed tariffs a $30 billion tax increase on Texans.

“I will yield to nobody in passion and seriousness and commitment for securing the border,” Mr. Cruz later told reporters. “But there’s no reason for Texas farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small businesses to pay the price of massive new taxes.”

Texas would be hit the hardest by the proposed tariffs on Mexican products, followed by Michigan, California, Illinois and Ohio, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A 25% tariff would threaten $26.75 billion of Texas imports.

In fact, the Chamber notes on its home page, “Imposing tariffs on Mexico is exactly the wrong move. These tariffs will be paid by American families and businesses without doing a thing to solve the very real problems at he border.

“We’re holding a gun to our own heads,” said Senator John Cornyn, (R-Texas).

If Mr. Trump were to declare an emergency to impose the tariffs, the House and the Senate could pass a resolution disapproving them. But such a resolution would almost certainly face a presidential veto, meaning that both the House and the Senate would have to muster two-thirds majorities to beat Mr. Trump.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) said he warned the lawyers  during the closed-door meeting that the Senate could muster an overwhelming majority to beat back the tariffs, even if the president were to veto a resolution disapproving them. Republicans may be broadly supportive of Trump’s push to build a wall and secure the border, he said, but they oppose tying immigration policy to the imposition of tariffs on Mexico.

“The White House should be concerned about what that vote would result in, because Republicans really don’t like taxing American consumers and businesses,” Senator Johnson said.

However, the Times reported, when asked about Senate Republicans discussing ways to block the tariffs during his UK trip, President Trump responded, “I don’t think they will do that. I think if they do, it’s foolish.”

Research contact: @maggieNYT

Obama aides say Beto is ‘heir’ to Barack

December 4, 2018

It’s “déjà vu all over again,” for President Barack Obama’s former aides—who are saying that Beto O’Rourke’s campaign against Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the midterms gave them flashbacks to their own candidate’s precocious political rise, according to a December 2 report by NBC News.

Indeed, according to the network news outlet, the closely fought campaign by the charismatic and youthful Democratic white congressman—who serves Texas’ 16th District— has catapulted him to the position of unlikely heir to the first black president’s “hope and change” mantle.

Obama, himself, said as much, CNN reported, at an event in Chicago in late November, noting, “What I like most about his race was that it didn’t feel constantly poll-tested. It felt as if he based his statements and his positions on what he believed. And that, you’d like to think, is normally how things work. Sadly, it’s not.”

Already, some of #44’s former political lieutenants have been publicly encouraging O’Rourke to consider a 2020 presidential bid; while privately counseling him on what to expect, should he jump in.

And it looks as if he’s willing: O’Rourke said on November 26  that he would prefer to finish his congressional term January 3 before deciding what’s next. But that’s a far cry from repeatedly saying during the Senate campaign that he had no White House aspirations whatsoever.

In O’Rourke, NBC News reported, Obama veterans see not only an inspiring political celebrity, but, like Obama, a tactical innovator who eschewed the political industrial complex of pollsters and consultants; and used technology in new ways to connect directly with supporters and multiply the force of his fundraising and ground game.

“The reason I was able to make a connection with a sizable portion of the country was because people had a sense that I said what I meant,” Obama told his former strategist David Axelrod during an interview last week, adding that O’Rourke has that same quality.

O’Rourke has received invitations to speak to Democratic groups in early presidential states like Iowa and New Hampshire, but has yet to accept them,  a former senior adviser to his campaign told the network.

“We’ve had a lot of former Obama alumni saying: ‘If we can be helpful as you think about this, let us know. If you want our perspective on what it’s like to run a national campaign, let us know,'” said the former O’Rourke aide, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity.

And a new group, co-founded by a former Obama field organizer, has been created to attempt to draft O’Rourke into the presidential race. “Beto has a special ability—like President Obama did—to make people believe in the best version of America,” Lauren Pardi, who worked on Obama’s campaign in New Hampshire, told the network news outlet.

It may not be reaching too far to predict that, along with having the same initials in their names—Barack O’Bama, Beto O’Rourke—they may enjoy the same political destiny.

Research contact: @aseitzwald

As GOP moves to cut coverage of pre-existing conditions, its candidates say the opposite

October 25, 2018

Republicans candidates are feverishly back-pedaling on their plundering of Obamacare—and are regretting filing lawsuits to relieve insurers of their responsibility to cover pre-existing conditions, according to a report by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC on October 23.

A poll released on October 18 by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, found that fully 71% of U.S. voters say healthcare is the most important issue driving them to the polls in the midterm elections. That’s good for Democrats who are running, but bad for the GOP, Maddow said.

But that’s not stopping Republican candidates—and the president—from misrepresenting their true positions, the cable news anchor said.

In fact, Maddow identified five candidates who, she said, are lying about their overall support for healthcare—and their antipathy toward coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Among those whom Maddow said had voted against the Affordable Care Act, but who now say they support it are Representative Martha McSally (R-2nd District-Arizona); Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas); Senator Dean Heller (R-Nevada); Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-48th District-California); and Representative Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota).

In particular, Senator Ted Cruz once spoke for more than 21 hours about his opposition to Obamacare, including a dramatic reading of the Dr. Seuss classic “Green Eggs and Ham” on the Senate floor, The Washington Post reminded readers on October 25. The speech was styled as a filibuster, but was not actually one — no vote was being delayed; Cruz was just making a memorable stink about how much he did not like Obamacare.

President Donald Trump also is prevaricating about his true position: “Republicans will always protect people with pre-existing conditions,” Trump said at a rally on October 23 in support of Senator Dean Heller in Nevada.

However, Maddow’s Producer Steve Benen wrote on her blog on October 24, “In reality, Republicans continue to fight to gut the ACA’s protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, and a total number of zero Democratic officials “have been talking about” scaling back the existing Obamacare safeguards”(although the GOP claims they are).

“This is not a fight in which a complex truth lurks in some gray area in between partisan talking points. Republicans have not only fought for years to strip Americans with pre-existing conditions of their protections; they’re also–right now – trying to get the courts to gut these protections, too,” Benen wrote.

He noted, “If the midterm elections are going to be about which party is sincere about championing protections for those with pre-existing conditions, Republicans are likely to have a rough year.”

Research contact: @stevebenen

After Ted Cruz declines CNN town hall in Texas, rival Beto O’Rourke gets full hour

October 12, 2018

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has declined to participate in a CNN town hall-style meeting on October 18 with his opponent in the midterm elections—leaving the entire one-hour broadcast to his challenger, Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-16th District), the Huffington Post reported on October 10.

The Texas Senate race remains tightly contested, according to results of a Quinnipiac University poll released on October 11, with Cruz leading by 9 percentage points.

Texas last elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate when Lloyd Bentsen won his fourth term in 1988.

Originally, O’Rourke had proposed six debates between the two candidates, who are vying for the Senate seat that Cruz has held since 2012. However, he then backed off—complaining that Cruz was trying to control too much of the debate structure.

Now, Cruz has refused the town hall platform, although his campaign manager, Jeff Roe, tried to clarify the move on Twitter on October 9, saying “To be clear, the Cruz campaign proposed that @CNN host one of the Cruz-O’Rourke debates. The O’Rourke campaign declined. @CNN subsequently offered back to back town halls, in which we are unable to participate.”

The incumbent has three new campaign events listed on his website—one on October 12 in Houston at the Firehouse Saloon; one on October 13 in Montgomery at Ransom’s Steakhouse; and another later that same day in El Paso at Franklin High School. At this time, he has no events listed for October 18.

Among the comments in response to Roe’s explanation, was one from @jneutron1969, who noted on Twitter, “Why won’t Cruz do a town hall though? I understand that it plays against his strength of traditional debating, but he should still be able to handle the wild-eyed leftist/commie [O’Rourke] in a town hall format shouldn’t he? Sometimes I get the feeling Cruz isn’t very brave. Like Piglet.”

To that, Roe replied, “If @TedCruz had skipped an opportunity to debate before millions of Texans so he could cut a TV ad on Facebook while 6,000 people watched live [on CNN] the media would rightly be lighting their hair on fire. #CricketsforBeto #TXSen.”

Meanwhile, in a write-up of its televised political events, CNN announced: “CNN Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash will moderate a live, one-hour town hall with Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke, who is running for U.S. Senate, on Thursday, October 18, at 7 p.m. ET/6 p.m. CT at the McAllen Performing Arts Center near the US-Mexico border.

“GOP Senator Ted Cruz’s campaign initially accepted CNN’s invitation to participate but later declined, a network official said,” CNN said.

Meanwhile, another Twitter reader, @oldmanebro, commented, “Debates can be hustled, Town Hall meetings don’t allow for prepared, prepackaged BS.”

Research contact: carla.baranauckas@huffpost.com

Trump Calls Omarosa Manigault Newman ‘That Dog’

August 15, 2018

On Tuesday, August 14—the morning that former White House Assistant to the President Omarosa Manigault Newman’s book, Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump Administration went on sale—the POTUS tweeted his thoughts at 7:31 a.m. “When you  give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!”

In response, Manigault Newman told Katy Tur of MSNBC that, if her former boss called her a “dog” in public, she wondered what he called her privately.

During that same interview, Manigault Newman said that she had told Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is conducting the investigation on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, that “there was a lot of corruption” in the campaign and the administration. She added that Trump had known about the “hacked emails” before they were released.

And the plot continues to thicken, as Trump and Newman expertly lob insults—and damning new information—at each other.

Trump has deployed the “dog” insult previously, The New York Times reported. In one case , the news outlet said, Trump claimed that his onetime political rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) “lies like a dog” and, in another, he called Arianna Huffington, co-founder of HuffPost, a “dog.”

On Monday, NBC released a tape Manigault Newman made of her speaking to Trump, which she said was recorded the day after she was fired. In the recording, the president said he knew nothing about this personnel decision and told her, “I don’t love you leaving at all.”

Last December 12, White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly, fired her in the Situation Room, the most secure conference room in the White House. Manigault Newman has released a recording of that conversation, as well.

Kelly said, according to her new book, “I’d like to see this be a friendly departure. There are pretty significant legal issues that we hope won’t make it ugly for you.” However, he declined to hash over the rationale for letting her go, saying “This is a nonnegotiable discussion.”

Manigault Newman has said she has more audio recordings, and in an interview Monday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” she said she would continue to cooperate with the special counsel, if asked. “Anything they want, I’ll share,” she said.

Just the day before, on August 13, a Trump tweet confirmed, after months of confabulation on the issue, that Manigault Newman had been forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Such agreements are illegal, unless they are confined to information that is top secret and highly secure.

The POTUS’s job approval rating registered at 39% on August 12, according to the Gallup poll.

 Research contact: datainquiry@gallup.com