As Sen. Elizabeth Warren climbs in Democratic presidential polls, touting an image as the champion of the working class against powerful corporations, it’s only a matter of time before she faces renewed questions about her history advocating on behalf of the kinds of corporations she now vilifies.
That work predated her time in the Senate. She helped LTV Steel in its effort to dodge paying employee benefits in 1995; helped defend the Traveler’s Insurance company in a 2009 Supreme Court case against consumer asbestos claims and did bankruptcy consulting work for Dow Chemical after a lawsuit by thousands of women with allegedly faulty breast implants that caused health problems.
On the campaign trail, that history is not part of the personal narrative.
“I’ve spent my career getting to the bottom of why America’s promise works for some families, but others who work just as hard slip through the cracks into disaster,” the second-term Massachusetts Democrat said in her original campaign video announcing her exploratory committee. “What I found is terrifying. These aren’t cracks that families are falling into. They’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack. How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.”
Some of that career was reportedly spent earning as much $675 per hour as a corporate lawyer, a side job while working fulltime in academia. Her vanquished 2012 opponent Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, failed to make the corporate-past issue stick. However, she faces a different set of circumstances in the 2020 Democratic primary field, as she tries to lure away progressive support from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
A recent Fox News poll showed Warren moving into third place in the crowded Democratic field, with 9 percent of the vote. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a favorite among the party’s far-left base, indicated she would likely endorse either Sanders or Warren.
“Warren’s half-baked rhetoric belies her record. From falsely claiming minority status to advance her career to her long record of fighting on behalf of corporate interests, to hear Warren now say she will fight for the little guy is ridiculous,” Steve Guest, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, told Fox News.
Fox News contacted Warren’s presidential campaign and Senate office but got no formal response, aside from a campaign email acknowledging the inquiry and stating “someone from the press office will be in touch.”
Today, insurance companies are often one of Warren’s biggest rhetorical targets. In the campaign video, Warren quipped, “Politicians look the other way while big insurance companies deny patients lifesaving coverage.”
Travelers, however, paid Warren $212,000 over three years in consulting fees, in the case of Travelers v. Pearlie Bailey that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Boston Globe reported.
In 1982, Johns Manville, a large asbestos maker, filed for bankruptcy because of multiple asbestos liability claims, and entered into a settlement with cancer victims. But, by 2001, the company fund began to slash payments to those in the settlement, and plaintiffs filed suit against Travelers in state courts accusing the company of breaking consumer protection, alleging it hid dangers of asbestos.
The high court ruled in favor of Travelers in June 2009, largely shielding the company from future lawsuits. The Boston Globe reported, “Travelers won most of what it wanted from the Supreme Court, and in doing so Warren helped preserve an element of bankruptcy law that ensured that victims of large-scale corporate malfeasance would have a better chance of getting compensated, even when the responsible companies go bankrupt.”
Gayla Benefield, an asbestos victim and victims’ advocate, was quoted in a 2011 Boston Herald article saying of Warren, “She’s supposed to be a consumer advocate? That’s laughable. … I guess she’s just doing her job, but I don’t think she would get the vote of anybody who’s an asbestos victim.”
LTV Steel reportedly paid Warren $10,000 to write its Supreme Court petition in 1995 to attempt to help the firm avoid paying into a fund that gave health benefits to retired coal miners. This put her on the opposite side at the time of the Clinton administration and the United Mine Workers. However, the Supreme Court ultimately didn’t take the case.
The 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act required about 100 former mining companies to continue to pay the benefits for retired miners that earned them. LTV was in bankruptcy when the law took effect in 1993. Warren argued the company’s obligations should have been addressed as part of the bankruptcy.
When the case came up during the 2012 Senate campaign, Warren campaign spokeswoman Althea Harney said: “In the LTV steel case, there was never any question that coal miners and their surviving spouses would receive their full benefits under the Coal Act. This case involved bankruptcy principles and who would pay what into the fund.”
After the Supreme Court didn’t accept the case, LTV reportedly had to pay about $140 million in benefits to retired miners.
Warren stated in a 2002 affidavit that she worked for Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, which went into bankruptcy in 1995 after lawsuits over allegedly faulty breast implants. Some of the claims reportedly stated the implants caused autoimmune diseases and made it difficult to diagnose cancer. When Dow Chemical employed Warren, it was reportedly trying to limit its liability by asserting it was a separate company from Dow Corning. The company initially made a $3.2 billion settlement with about 170,000 women, but many reportedly got only a minimal payment.
Warren, when pressed on the matter during her 2012 Senate run, declined to provide details about her work with Dow. However, her campaign argued that establishing a trust fund would have been the only means to ensure victims were compensated.
The Springfield Republican newspaper in 2012 quoted Brown campaign manager saying: “Dow did not hire Elizabeth Warren in order to further to serve the interests of the victims. That’s not what these companies do, not why they pay big money to high profile lawyers.”
Source: Fox News Politics
Elizabeth Warren: Matchmaker-in-chief?
Sen. Warren, D-Mass., Sunday on Twitter offered to help one user “figure out” her love life as the Democratic hopeful continued campaigning for her party’s nomination ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
“Do you think Elizabeth Warren has a plan to fix my love life,” comedian Ashley Nicole Black tweeted in a humorous play on the Democratic hopeful’s “I have a plan for that” slogan, which has appeared on t-shirts throughout the senator’s campaign stops.
But to the comedian’s surprise, Warren did indeed appear to have a plan.
“DM me and let’s figure this out,” Warren responded.
The comedian wasn’t the only one gobsmacked by Warren’s response. Twitter users largely supported Warren’s move to include matchmaker to her list of 2020 policy proposals.
“Me next, please. Thank you,” wrote one user.
“And THIS is why we love her!” another wrote.
“I want to have a beer with Warren and I don’t even drink,” a tweet read.
Warren has used her reputation as a wonk to roll out ambitious policy proposals since she first announced her candidacy for the 2020 presidential election. The Massachusetts senator has addressed a variety of policy topics, including college debt, the opioid crisis, Wall Street, breaking up Big Tech and taxation.
A Fox News Poll last week has Warren sitting in third place among Democrats with nine percent of Democratic primary voters. The senator trails former Vice President Joe Biden, who leads with 35 percent, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has 17 percent.
Source: Fox News Politics
It’s a time-honored tradition, and the growing crop of 2020 is proving itself no exception to the rule.
A number of Democratic contenders to enter the race had previously ruled out running for the Oval Office, with some even doing so while trying to win election to lower offices.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio became the latest Democrat to do so when he officially launched his candidacy on Thursday, making him the sixth 2020 hopeful this election cycle to be running for president after denying he had any intention.
During a Democratic mayoral primary debate in 2017, de Blasio was asked to make a pledge that he would serve all four years of his next term as the NYC mayor and was not going to run in 2020.
“I’m looking at that camera right there,” de Blasio pointed to the camera, “to my fellow New Yorkers, I’m running for one thing and one thing only- for re-election as mayor of New York City. It is my honor to be mayor of this great city. I want to serve for four more years.”
“Will you pledge to serve for four more years?” NY1 Spectrum News political reporter Grace Rauh asked.
“I will serve for four full years,” de Blasio assured NYC residents.
De Blasio, of course, is in good company.
Three senators, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, were all re-elected in the 2018 midterm elections. All three of them, however, previously expressed they were simply running to maintain their level of office.
In March 2018, Warren was asked on “Meet The Press” if she would pledge to serve a full six-year term.
“So look, I am not running for president of the United States,” Warren stated. “I am running for the United States Senate 2018, Massachusetts, woohoo!”
“I don’t mean to pick on you about this, but do you know how many people have said that over the years?” NBC News’ Chuck Todd later responded after pointing out she didn’t actually pledge to serve her full term. “Two years before and then, of course, ended up running for president? Do you see why a lot of people aren’t going to believe that answer?”
“Yes, that’s my plan,” she said at the time.
During an August 2018 debate, Klobuchar attempted to dispell the rumors that she was going to run against President Trump in 2020 by pledging she would finish her term.
“Of course I will,” Klobuchar said. “I think my track record shows that. I love working in the Senate. I love representing Minnesota.”
Gillibrand was also pressed about a presidential run during a debate in October 2018.
“I will serve my six-year term,” Gillibrand declared.
“Honestly, I don’t believe that,” her GOP opponent Chele Farley shot back.
Former congressman Beto O’Rourke insisted in September 2018 that he would remain in the Senate if he beat the incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex, and dismissed the notion that he would be former Vice President Joe Biden’s future running mate.
“I asked you to put me into this position of public trust and I could not ask you in good conscience if I didn’t intend to serve every single day of the next six years trying to make this state in this country better,” O’Rourke said. “You have my commitment tonight. I will not run for any other office in those six years. It’s 100 percent for Texas as your U.S. senator.”
Seeking his re-election in the House of Representatives, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass, appeared to have closed the door on a 2020 bid last October.
“I’m not running for president, period,” Moulton told McClatchy. “I just want to serve the country the best way I can. Right now, that’s as the representative of the Sixth District of Massachusetts.”
Moulton did leave open the possibility of a change of plans ahead of 2020.
“I don’t think it’s the best way I can serve the country right now… If that were to change, I would consider it, but I don’t think that’s the best way I can serve the country,” Moulton said.
Source: Fox News Politics
Democrats seeking their party’s 2020 presidential nomination seem to be backing away from the #AbolishICE movement as a new poll shows the call to dismantle the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has failed to catch on with voters.
Their move toward more centrist immigration positions seems somewhat isolating for Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has renewed her call to abolish the immigration agency.
Last year, many prominent Democrats — including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders, who are all now running for president — all boldly declared their support for doing away with the agency that was linked to the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy on immigration, which has since been rescinded.
But with the 2020 primaries looming closer, Dems making a White House run are seeking out safer positions.
Though he lives in the border town of El Paso, Texas, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke avoided talking about ICE on Tuesday when asked about border and immigration issues on “The View.” O’Rourke instead made vague statements against Trump’s proposal of a border wall, adding that Washington needs to “change immigration laws to respect our values,” and treat immigrants with the dignity and respect by honoring U.S. asylum laws.
But Ocasio-Cortez, who at 29 is too young to seek the presidency, doesn’t face the same pressure to move to the center.
“I think ‘Abolish ICE’ is a call to action,” the New York Democrat said in April. “I don’t think an agency that systematically and repeatedly violates human rights can be reformed.”
A new poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research may explain why Democratic presidential contenders are no longer talking about ICE on their campaign trails. Only a quarter of Democrats said they support the abolishment of ICE despite 57 percent of Democrats answering they still had a negative view of the agency, the Federalist, a conservative website, reported.
Several activists behind #AbolishICE told BuzzFeed News they feel betrayed by Democrats who they say used the progressive movement to gain political ground before the topic became too controversial.
“It’s a little harmful,” said Miguel Andrade, a spokesman for Juntos, a Latinx activist group in Philadelphia. “Everybody was using it as the big hot topic or issue, but nobody is putting the model forward of what that means, or the possibilities of what that looks like.”
Democratic presidential contenders who initially clung to left-wing, progressive policies are now backtracking. When Ocasio-Cortez spoke against ICE shortly after her victory last summer, Gillibrand said she agreed with her stance.
“I don’t think ICE today is working as intended,” Gillibrand told CNN’s Chris Cuomo in June. Instead, Gillibrand said, the U.S. should “reimagine ICE under a new agency.” Her campaign now claims she never called to “abolish” ICE.
In a June 2018 Facebook post days later, Warren said, “we need to rebuild our immigration system, start by replacing ICE.” Sen. Kamala Harris told MSNBC “there’s no question that we need to reexamine ICE,” adding that “we should probably think about starting from scratch.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted in July 2018 that “it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform.”
The Democratic Party has failed to put forth a unified stance on immigration, and many Republicans used the #AbolishICE movement to their advantage, airing political ads during midterms that painted Democrats as weak on border security, Buzzfeed News reported.
Many 2020 hopefuls now approach immigration by talking about more popular subjects, like ending the separation of children at the border or advocating of Dreamers, but steer clear of attacking ICE.
Warren is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, reversing cuts in aid to Central America and “making sure we provide the support needed so mamas don’t have to flee with their babies for their lives,” an aide told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Other 2020 Democrats have commented on immigration without making it the forefront of their presidential campaigns. In April, Harris introduced a bill that would permit Dreamers who are temporarily protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to be hired in congressional offices, the newspaper reported.
Source: Fox News Politics
A new survey shows former Vice President Joe Biden opening up a large lead over President Donald Trump in a hypothetical 2020 general election matchup in the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania.
The Quinnipiac University poll, released on Wednesday, is the latest national or state survey to give Biden a clear lead over the rest of the historically large Democratic field in the race for the party’s presidential nomination.
According to the Keystone State poll, Biden tops Trump 53 percent to 42 percent in a head-to-head matchup. While the president holds a four-percentage-point advantage among men, Biden enjoys a 24-point lead among women. The Democrat also edges out Trump 49 percent to 45 percent among all white voters, while crushing the president 70 percent to 27 percent among non-white voters in the state.
Biden was born and spent his first ten years in Scranton, Pa., before moving with his family to Delaware. Biden went on to represent Delaware for nearly four decades in the U.S. Senate before becoming Barack Obama’s vice president. But he kept his deep ties to his native state and was often referred to by Keystone State Democrats as “Pennsylvania’s third senator” during his years in the upper chamber of Congress.
The Quinnipiac survey indicates Trump’s approval rating in the state is underwater, with just 42 percent of voters approving of the job the president’s doing in the White House, while 54 percent give Trump a thumbs down.
Pennsylvania is one of three Rust Belt states – along with Michigan and Wisconsin – making up the traditional Democratic ‘blue wall’ in presidential elections that Trump narrowly captured in 2016. The president edged out Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania by less than one percentage point, becoming the first GOP candidate to carrying the state since George H.W. Bush in 1988.
The Pennsylvania poll also shows independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont leading Trump 50 percent to 43 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts edges out the president 47 percent to 44 percent, while Trump is in a virtual tie with Sen. Kamala Harris of California, South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas in other potential Pennsylvania showdowns.
“More than half of Pennsylvania voters say they are better off financially than they were in 2016. But the economy isn’t giving President Donald Trump an edge in an early read of the very key Keystone State,” Quinnipiac University Poll analyst Mary Snow said.
In the state’s Democratic primary race, the survey puts Biden at 39 percent support, with Sanders a distant second at 13 percent. Warren and Harris each are at eight percent, Buttigieg garners six percent, and Sen. Cory Booker of neighboring New Jersey has five percent support. Every other candidate registered at two percent or less.
“Bolstering Vice President Biden’s numbers is something on which Democrats of all stripes in Pennsylvania agree: Whether they back Biden or not, more than 60 percent believe he has the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020,” Snow spotlighted.
The Quinnipiac University survey was conducted May 9-14, with 978 Pennsylvania voters questioned by live telephone operators. The survey has an overall sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.
Source: Fox News Politics
President Trump used his speech in Louisiana on Tuesday to take shots at his potential 2020 Democratic challengers for the White House – launching attacks at former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, among others.
Speaking about his administration’s energy agenda at the LNG Export Facility in Hackberry, La., Trump veered off script to mock O’Rourke’s campaign reboot.
“Beto’s falling fast, what the hell happened?” Trump asked. “He’s trying to restart his campaign. Doesn’t work out too well, history has said that’s trouble, but he’s going to restart his campaign.”
O’Rourke, who made national headlines last fall when he lost a close race for Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s seat, has recently been hit by a slew of bad press and falling poll numbers that have seen him drop far behind frontrunners like Biden and Sanders.
On Biden and Sanders, Trump called the Vermont lawmaker “crazy,” but said he had “more energy” than Biden.
“I don’t know what the hell happened to Biden – that doesn’t look like the guy I knew,” he said. “Bernie’s crazy, but Bernie’s got a lot more energy than Biden…energy to get rid of your jobs.”
Despite Trump’s comments on the two Democratic frontrunners, a recent poll conducted by The Hill and Harris X has Biden holding a six-point advantage over Trump and a CNN poll has Sanders also with a six-point lead over the president.
Trump also mocked Democratic candidates Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
He added dismissively that there are “350 million people and that’s the best we can do” with Democratic candidates.
Besides lambasting his Democratic rivals, Trump focused his speech on his administration’s efforts to ramp up liquefied natural gas exports – arguing that it has boosted jobs and cemented the U.S.’s role as an energy provider for international markets.
Source: Fox News Politics
Warren blasted DeVos for her history of being in favor of for-profit colleges and lack of teaching experience. In contrast, Warren guaranteed that, if she wins in 2020, she will only consider hiring someone with public school teaching experience.
“She doesn’t really believe in public education,” Warren said about DeVos in a video message posted in a Twitter thread targeting DeVos. “So here’s what I promise: in a Warren administration, we’ll have a Secretary of Education who is committed to public education. In fact, I’ll double down on that. I will only appoint for Secretary of Education someone who has been a public school teacher.”
Warren’s remarks included a number of angry statements about DeVos, calling her “a terrible Secretary of Education” and “a symptom of a badly broken system.” Under the current system, she said, “America’s teachers are being crushed” by low budgets and salaries, as well as their own student debt. She said hiring someone with public school experience would be part of a necessary “big structural change.”
The Democratic senator added, “we need to make it easier to join a union,” saying that would give them negotiating power that would be “good for making sure we put the resources we need directly into our schools.”
Source: Fox News Politics
A former Republican California state assemblyman said Friday on “Fox & Friends” that “tax the rich”-type proposals are attractive to a wide swath of voters because they force the GOP to defend “interests that frankly aren’t very popular.”
Texas Public Policy Institute Vice President Chuck DeVore, who host Ed Henry said left the Golden State over its high taxation, said that Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and others are looking at several new tax proposals that would cost trillions of dollars.
“That’s a lot of money,” he said.
Henry asked how such programs work.
“It works as a political device,” DeVore said. “While it doesn’t raise very much money, it forces the other side to try to defend interests that frankly aren’t very popular.”
He and Henry discussed how Republicans have to defend unpopular businesses like financial institutions in order to prevent such progressive policies from being enacted.
DeVore said that Democratic plans to raise taxes and increase regulations on corporations would just lead to companies passing the costs to the consumer.
“There is no free lunch,” he said, adding that proposals like eliminating mortgage-interest tax deductions and hiking the capital gains tax will hurt small businesses and some in the middle class.
DeVore said that while pushing their high-tax proposals, Democrats must promise voters things like “free health care or free college” because they would otherwise feel the financial pain of some of the initiatives.
He said that, for example, hiking the gasoline tax or introducing carbon taxes will affect the working class when they fill up their cars or pay their utility bills.
“You have to insulate [people] from that by taking a huge portion of those new revenues raised and giving it to favored groups,” DeVore said.
Source: Fox News Politics
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might only be a freshman congresswoman, but she could yet be a kingmaker in 2020.
The New York Democrat told reporters she is “entertaining” the idea of endorsing a candidate in the crowded race to win her party’s nomination, and while she hasn’t yet picked a candidate, she believes Sens. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are someone she could endorse.
“What I’d like to see in a presidential candidate is one that has a coherent worldview and logic from which all these policy proposals are coming forward,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think Sen. Sanders has that. I also think Sen. Warren has that.”
She went on to add that she also wants to see “working people” in the Democratic primary focusing on combatting income inequality, climate change, and being “bold to really big ideas that are gonna make people lives better.”
“What I’d like to see in a presidential candidate is one that has a coherent worldview and logic from which all these policy proposals are coming forward.”
She didn’t respond to a question whether she would support former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy. Ocasio-Cortez has previously said a bid by Biden would be going backward, instead of forward.
“That does not particularly animate right now,” she told Yahoo last month, adding that she has “a lot of issues” with a potential Biden run.
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders unveiled a new proposal on Thursday that aims to put a 15 percent cap on credit card interest rates, with the ability of states to establish lower limits if they wish.
Multiple Democratic 2020 candidates also endorsed the Green New Deal, a radical proposal introduced by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey that aims to transform the economy in an effort to tackle climate change.
Yet while Ocasio-Cortez remains the rising star of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, it’s likely that some campaigns could see her endorsement a drawback rather than an advantage during the general election against Trump.
Polls show that Ocasio-Cortez favorability ranking has tanked just months after arriving to Congress, with most of the public – particularly Republicans – viewing her negatively rather than favorably.
Source: Fox News Politics
On Thursday, Time revealed the cover, which followed others featuring South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a long list of other Democratic candidates.
The magazine appeared to be focusing on Warren’s policy proposals — which conservatives have derided as socialist, too expensive and unrealistic — as “big ideas.”
“Elizabeth Warren is bettng that Americans are ready for her big ideas,” the cover read. It also highlighted Warren’s oft-repeated line “I have a plan for that.”
Noting the senator’s series of “complex policy proposals,” Time editor Haley Sweetland Edwards portrayed Warren as the catalyst behind a “populist political revolution.”
“This flurry of white papers, often rendered in fine detail, appears to suggest a technocratic approach to governing,” Edwards wrote in the magazine’s cover story. “But in fact, her vision, taken as a whole, is closer to a populist political revolution.”
Amid other concerns about bias, Time received criticism for its cover featuring Pete Buttigieg and his partner, Chasten, at the beginning of May. Left-leaning outlets PinkNews and Towleroad praised the cover, which featured the big-print type “First Family.”
“The unlikely, untested and unprecedented campaign of Mayor Pete Buttigieg,” it read. Buttigieg has become controversial for his claim to be a “devout Christian,” as Time described him, while maintaining a same-sex partnership — something many Christians have deemed contradictory.
Buttigieg’s cover story started with a description of an anti-abortion activist wearing a devil costume, taunting the Indiana mayor and remarking that Buttigieg was “such a threat” because he was a “homosexual” people could be proud of.
After citing pastor Franklin Graham’s derisive response to Buttigieg and Jacob Wohl’s sexual assault allegations, correspondent Charlotte Alter wrote, “But to some Americans, Buttigieg may just be the man to vanquish America’s demons.”
Time featured Biden on its cover before he announced his 2020 bid, but also while he led other Democrats in the polls. The crowded Democratic field also made an appearance on Time’s cover in February when the magazine detailed how the “biggest field yet” was intent on challenging Trump in 2020. That cover showed Democrats peering into the Oval Office as Trump sat at his desk.
By contrast, many Time covers of Trump have led to cries of negativity. For instance, earlier this year one cover featured a cartoon Trump slinging Twitter birds at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. as she catapulted subpoenas at him.
Another, more ambiguous cover, from April, showed Trump smiling while weathering an ominous storm looming over the Capitol. The image appeared after Special Counsel Robert Mueller released his report on the Russia investigation, which stopped short of recommending prosecution for obstruction of justice.
“America has now seen Trump weather a massive investigation led by a widely respected prosecutor,” Time’s Brian Bennett wrote.
Bennett declared the report — which didn’t establish that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, either — one of Trump’s “biggest victories” but said Mueller’s verdict wasn’t “nearly as definitive as the president and his allies would claim.” He also wrote that the report didn’t “clear Trump of obstruction” and that his “presidency remains extraordinarily scandal-scarred.”
Some other covers have shown Trump’s face melting; his hair on fire after his first year in office; Trump as a series of wrecking balls; his face composited with that of Russian President Vladimir Putin; and Trump seeing a reflection of himself as a king.
As the conservative IJR Red noted, those seemed to differ from covers of former President Barack Obama.
One of Time’s more controversial covers of the president happened as the administration struggled to deal with criticism over family separations at the southern border. The cover, introduced as a reflection on “Trump’s border separation policy,” included a much-circulated photo of a crying migrant girl who had, in fact, not been separated from her parents.
Time’s editor in chief stood by the cover, saying “our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment.”
Source: Fox News Politics