ЦЕНЗОРА.NET

When President Donald Trump boarded Air Force One to fly to a Kentucky campaign rally two weeks ago, a plan was in place for him to give final approval to a plan to ban most flavored e-cigarettes.By the time Trump landed back at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington a few hours later, the plan was off. And its future is unclear.For nearly two months, momentum had been building inside the White House to try to halt a youth vaping epidemic that experts feared was hurting as many as 5 million teenagers.Both first lady Melania Trump and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and senior adviser, pushed for the ban, which was also being championed internally by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, who has taken the lead on some public health issues.But as Trump sat surrounded by political advisers on the flights to and from Lexington, he grew reluctant to sign the ban, convinced it could alienate voters who would be financially or otherwise affected by a vaping ban, according to two White House and campaign officials not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.A news conference scheduled by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to announce the ban was canceled, while more meetings with industry leaders and lobbyists were proposed, according to the officials.Trump tweeted last week that he’ll be meeting with vaping industry representatives, medical professionals and others “to come up with an acceptable solution to the Vaping and E-cigarette dilemma.” The White House has yet to announce a date for a meeting.FILE- Flavored vaping solutions are shown in a window display at a vape and smoke shop in New York, Sept. 16, 2019.This month, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale and others showed the president polling data indicating that e-cigarette users could abandon him if he followed through with the ban, the officials said.Campaign aides also highlighted an aggressive social media campaign — (hash)IVapeIVote —  in which advocates claimed a ban would force the closure of vaping shops, eliminating jobs and sending users of electronic cigarettes back to traditional smokes. Parscale also pointed out the risk that a ban could have on e-cigarette users in key battleground states that Trump narrowly won in 2016.Others in the West Wing, including Conway, have argued that a ban could be a winning issue with suburban voters, including mothers, who have fled the president in large numbers. Few would predict where Trump, who is known to abruptly change his mind, would end up since he recently has been consumed with other matters, notably televised impeachments hearings.The vaping industry’s largest trade group said Monday the administration was heading “in the right direction for adult smokers and their families.”“Bans don’t work, they never have,” Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, said in a statement.Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, an advocacy organization, added that the government should put in place “sensible and targeted regulations” before it resorts to prohibition, which opponents of a ban said could lead to the creation of an underground market for e-cigarettes.But Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said Trump would be guilty of “terrible public policy” and “bad politics” if he backs down.“This is one of the very few issues on which public views are unified,” Myers said in a telephone interview. “There are a small number of vape shop owners who are loud and don’t care. But there are millions more moms and dads who are deeply concerned.”Robin Koval, president and CEO of the Truth Initiative, a nonprofit, anti-tobacco organization, called on Trump to implement the original plan.“The health of America’s youth must come first and is not for sale or political gain,” Koval said in a statement. The first lady opened the White House to a group of young people from the Truth Initiative in October to tell her about their experiences with vaping.FILE – A high school student uses a vaping device near a school campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Trump’s initial pledge Sept. 11 to ban virtually all flavored e-cigarettes stunned vaping proponents and was immediately embraced by anti-tobacco advocates. In an Oval Office appearance with the first lady and Azar, Trump said the government would act within weeks to protect children from fruit, candy, dessert and other sweet vaping flavors, including mint and menthol.The announcement followed a tweet two days earlier by Mrs. Trump expressing concern “about the growing epidemic of e-cigarette use in our children.”“We need to do all we can to protect the public from tobacco-related disease and death, and prevent e-cigarettes from becoming an on-ramp to nicotine addiction for a generation of youth,” she said.But within days, Trump tweeted that e-cigarettes might be a less-harmful alternative for smokers, a point long made by the industry. Meanwhile, vaping lobbyists, conservative groups and Republican lawmakers from key states warned Trump that a crackdown could cost him with voters.The Vapor Technology Association launched ads and an online campaign promising to punish Trump and other politicians who support vaping restrictions. Conservative groups that have long promoted vaping as an alternative to smoking, including Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, joined the criticism.That group and others helped organize protests against banning flavors, including one outside the White House. Trump supporters also showed up at some of his campaign rallies holding signs expressing their opposition to a ban.The industry warned some 15,000 to 19,000 vaping shops across the country — and jobs — could be wiped out if flavors were eliminated.The administration was widely expected earlier this month to announce a scaled-back flavor ban that would exempt menthol, citing research that the flavor was not widely used by children. But no decision came.Trump instead told reporters on Nov. 8 — four days after his political advisers buttonholed him on the Kentucky trip — he was considering new approaches to curbing teen use, including raising the minimum age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21.Last week, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson sent Trump a letter warning against “unchecked government action that stifles innovation and restricts adults’ freedom to choose safer alternatives to smoking.”Asked how disappointed the first lady would be if the president did not follow through with a ban, her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, who also speaks for the president, said Mrs. Trump’s priority is the health and safety of children.“She does not believe e-cigarettes or any nicotine products should be marketed or available to children,” Grisham said.Underage vaping has reached what health officials call epidemic levels. In the latest government survey, 1 in 4 high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month.Anticipating a ban on flavors, Juul Labs, the nation’s largest e-cigarette maker, said this month it would stop selling its best-selling, mint-flavored nicotine pods.
…

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have required President Donald Trump to turn over some of his financial records to a Democratic-led committee in the House of Representatives.Trump, in two conflicts with opposition lawmakers and prosecutors investigating his finances, has sought to shield disclosure of his personal and business affairs. He is only the second U.S. leader in the last four decades to refuse to make his tax returns public.Last week, a federal appellate court in Washington refused to rehear a ruling from a divided three-judge panel that Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, must turn over eight years of Trump’s financial records.But Trump appealed and the Supreme Court, at least for the moment, blocked the need for Mazars to comply with the lower court ruling to turn over the documents.The order issued by Chief Justice John Roberts did not indicate whether the court ultimately plans to hear Trump’s appeal. The Roberts order puts the lower court ruling on hold while the nine Supreme Court justices decide how to proceed.In separate litigation, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to bar turning over the Mazars financial records to prosecutors in New York who are investigating the president’s business deals.The case could eventually result in a major decision on the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.Trump’s lawyers have argued that as long as Trump remains in office he is immune from criminal proceedings and investigations.”That the Constitution would empower thousands of state and local prosecutors to embroil the president in criminal proceedings is unimaginable,” Trump’s lawyers argued.The accounting firm has said that it will turn over the documents the prosecutors want if Trump loses the case. 
…

A House of Representatives committee on Monday told the U.S. Supreme Court it would agree to a 10-day hold – but not a longer delay – on a lower court ruling directing President Donald Trump’s accounting firm to hand over his financial records to the Democratic-led panel.The case represents an important showdown pitting the powers of the presidency against the authority of Congress, with Trump fighting doggedly to keep details of this finances private.The delay agreed to by the House Oversight Committee would give the nine justices a chance to decide whether to grant Trump’s emergency request, filed on Friday, seeking to block the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling.Trump turned to the justices after the lower court last week refused his request to reconsider its October decision backing the House committee’s authority to subpoena the records from Mazars LLP, Trump’s longtime accounting firm.The Republican president had asked the justices for at least a temporary hold on the enforcement of the subpoena. Trump’s lawyers would also want the matter to be put on hold for a longer period while the litigation is resolved.In a letter to the court, the committee’s lawyers said they would agree to a 10-day delay “out of courtesy for this court,” but would oppose Trump’s request for a longer pause. The Supreme Court has yet to act on Trump’s request or the committee’s offer to allow the 10-day delay.If the Supreme Court declines to hear Trump’s appeal, the documents would have to be handed over to lawmakers. Five votes among the justices are needed to grant a stay request. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.In a separate case, Trump last Thursday asked the Supreme Court to review a New York-based federal appeals court’s ruling that local prosecutors can enforce a subpoena also issued to Mazars demanding Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018.The House committee subpoenaed Mazars this year, saying it needed the records to determine if Trump complied with laws requiring disclosure of his assets, and to assess whether those laws needed to be changed.
…

The number of Democrats running for president is growing as the first votes of the primary approach. And voters have a clear message: stop.
                   
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick roiled the race last week by launching a surprise bid. New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg is likely to do the same in the coming days.
                   
The late entries, less than 80 days before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, have exposed a fresh gulf in a party already plagued by divisions. On one side: anxious establishment leaders and donors, who are increasingly concerned about the direction of the race and welcome new candidates. On the other: many rank-and-file voters and local officials across early voting Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, who are drowning in candidates and say they’re more than satisfied with their current options.
                   
“They need to sit down. We’ve got enough Democrats running,” said Debra Tyus, a 63-year-old Democrat from Walterboro, South Carolina.
                   
In New Hampshire, 75-year-old undecided Democrat Thea Lahti said it’s “awfully late” in the process and fears that adding more candidates is “further splintering the field.”
                   
And in Iowa, state Rep. Jennifer Konfrst said she hasn’t spoken to a single Democrat who felt the current field wasn’t good enough.
                   
“The more common refrain revolves around having too many great candidates already,” said Konfrst, a first-term lawmaker who’s backing Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey. “I struggle to see what more candidates bring to the conversation that isn’t already here.”
                   
Before Patrick’s announcement, at least 16 high-profile Democrats were running for president. The field spans multiple generations, racial backgrounds, political ideologies and levels of experience.
                   
There are still so many candidates, in fact, that they can’t all debate together. The Democratic National Committee implemented a system of rising donor and polling thresholds to make the numbers manageable, although last month’s debate featured 12 candidates, and a group of 10 will share the stage this week.
                   
Despite the extraordinary options, establishment-minded Democrats have become increasingly concerned about the direction of the race, seizing on what they see as former Vice President Joe Biden’s lackluster candidacy and fears that leading progressives Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are too liberal.
                   
Underlying their concerns is an almost desperate urgency shared by much of the Democratic Party to find a surefire nominee to deny Trump a second term. After almost a year of campaigning, virtually all the candidates face lingering questions about their political liabilities.
                   
Former President Barack Obama sought to calm establishment anxiety at a weekend donor conference when he reminded attendees of his own turbulent primary battle against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Yet he also seemed to reinforce concerns about the more liberal candidates in the race, warning that “the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”
                   
Obama and Patrick have long been friends. They spoke privately in the days before the former Massachusetts governor launched, just as Obama did with several other candidates earlier in the year. Far from dissuading Patrick from running, the former president shared “great insights about his own experiences and about his experience with some of the other candidates and what he thought the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign, of my campaign, might be,” Patrick said late last week.
                   
Patrick campaign manager Abe Rakov insisted that deep uncertainty across the electorate and the absence of clear front-runners creates an opening for new candidates.
                   
“When we’re at this point in the process and voters still haven’t made up their minds, there’s an opportunity for someone with a different story and a different background to come in and make their case,” said Rakov, who most recently worked for Beto O’Rourke’s failed presidential campaign. “If it was obvious this was a two-person race, it probably would be too late for someone to get in. But it’s not. This is a wide-open race.”
                   
Having launched his campaign in New Hampshire late last week, Patrick is scheduled to make his inaugural Iowa appearance on Monday, followed by a Tuesday appearance in South Carolina.
                   
A Bloomberg announcement is expected this week as well.
                   
Should he run, the former New York mayor is planning to bypass the early states altogether and focus instead on the group of so-called Super Tuesday states holding primary contests on the first Tuesday in March. While Patrick may struggle to raise the resources to launch a robust multistate effort in the short term, Bloomberg has a net worth of more than $50 billion, and he’s expressed a willingness to spend whatever’s necessary to win.
                   
Bloomberg senior adviser Howard Wolfson said he’s aware that many voters and early state officials are pushing back against new candidates.
                   
“I hear it, I respect it, but we do not believe that the current field is particularly well-positioned to take on Donald Trump in November, and we do believe that Mike would be the best candidate to do that,” Wolfson said. “There will be a burden on us to convince people of that. And that is not a burden that we will likely be successful in overcoming on Day 1, but certainly it’s one in which we hope to be successful in overcoming as the possible campaign commences.”
                   
As Wolfson notes, persuading voters to welcome new faces to a race already bursting with high-profile Democrats will not be easy.
                   
In July, the Pew Research Center found that roughly two-thirds of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters had an excellent or good impression of the Democratic presidential candidates as a group. That’s dramatically higher than ahead of the 2016 presidential primary between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, when only about half of Democrats had a positive impression of the field.
                   
Voters’ level of satisfaction actually increased earlier in the month, according to a Monmouth University poll, which found that 74% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters were satisfied with the field; just 16% said they would like someone else to run.
                   
Still, establishment-minded donors have become increasingly worried about their party’s top-tier candidates.
                   
Robert Zimmerman, a New York-based donor and member of the Democratic National Committee, said that cocktail parties have essentially turned into therapy sessions for nervous Democrats in recent weeks. He noted, however, that most voters on the ground where it matters most are pleased with the current field.
                   
“We need more Democrats in the field like Tom Brady needs more Super Bowl rings,” said Zimmerman, a fan of the lowly New York Jets.
                   
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Don Fowler, who is based in South Carolina, worries that the sheer number of candidates still in the race will allow a less-than-desirable nominee to emerge, much in the same way Trump captured the GOP nomination in 2016 because the more experienced candidates sliced up the establishment vote.
                   
“We’ve got too many candidates,” he said. “No more.”
                   
That’s not to say that all primary voters are completely closed off. While polls show that most are satisfied with the current field, they also suggest that most voters haven’t yet settled on one candidate.
                   
In New Hampshire, 65-year-old independent Carol Maraldo said that the 2020 primary is already confusing because it’s so crowded.
                  
 “Adding more people adds to the confusion,” she said, even as she entertained the possibility of a new candidate. If it’s “somebody that would be that perfect person, I’d be all for it.”
…