National security adviser John BoltonJohn Robert BoltonThe Hill’s Morning Report – More talk on guns; many questions on Epstein’s death Bolton to press UK on stronger response to Iran, Huawei: report Hoekstra emerges as favorite for top intelligence post MORE on Monday said the U.S. would support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the British government decides, Reuters reports. 

“If that is the decision of the British government we would support it enthusiastically,” Bolton told reporters Monday. 

ADVERTISEMENT

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is an ardent Brexit supporter. He vowed to negotiate a deal to leave the European Union by Oct. 31.

But the negotiating parties are facing an impasse as the EU will not alter a part of the deal Johnson said needs to be changed, leaving Britain without any formal transition period or legal agreement, Reuters reports. 

Bolton also told reporters the U.S. could agree to trade deals on a sector-by-sector basis and leave more difficult areas in the trading relationship for later.

Click Here: watford football shirts

The chances of a recession in the next year have risen to about a third, in large part because of President TrumpDonald John TrumpHarris campaigns off of NRA attack Help wanted: American ambassador in Moscow Goldman Sachs CEO dismisses ‘impending economic crisis’ amid rising recession fears MORE‘s trade war, according to a Bank of America analysis.

“Our official model has the probability of a recession over the next 12 months only pegged at about 20 percent, but our subjective call based on the slew of data and events leads us to believe it is closer to a 1-in-3 chance,” Bank of America wrote in a Friday analysis.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our model likely does not fully capture the threat of US-China trade tensions spiraling into a more severe trade war, which we view as the biggest downside risk for the US economy,” the note said.

 

Trump’s trade war with China ramped up in recent weeks, as Trump threatened to impose new 10 percent tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports, and China retaliated by weakening its currency and further cutting off purchases of U.S. agriculture. 

The analysis said chances of a recession might be even worse if the trade war continues escalating.

 

A recession could have serious implications for the 2020 presidential election. A strong economy is one of the best predictors of a president’s reelection chances.

 

There were other signs of concern as well.

 

Unemployment is low, but other indicators such as auto sales, industrial production and aggregate hours worked, were “near levels consistent at the start of previous recessions.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

The Taliban announced Monday that its latest round of talks with the United States has ended.

The eighth round of talks on a deal to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Afghanistan was “long and useful,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Discussions on ending the 18-year-old war have extended for months now.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mujahid made no statements on the outcome of this round.

The agreement being negotiated is expected to revolve around a U.S. promise to withdraw troops in exchange for a Taliban promise to not let Afghanistan be used as a base for terrorism.

However, both ISIS and al Qaeda remain active in the country.

The agreement may also include a joint call to end civilian casualties.

The U.S. and NATO formally concluded their combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014.

Roughly 20,000 American and allied troops remain in the country.

The Trump administration in December of last year broadcast plans to begin withdrawing forces from the country over the next few months, but the proposal was met with resistance from congressional Republicans.

The Senate voted in January for a “sense of the Senate” resolution warning against the “precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. troops from the region.

Trump temporarily backed off his withdrawal plan after hearing feedback from senior military leaders, giving more time for negotiations and a deal to come to fruition.

House Democrats want the same judge to decide whether lawmakers can obtain materials from former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerTrump calls for probe of Obama book deal Democrats express private disappointment with Mueller testimony Kellyanne Conway: ‘I’d like to know’ if Mueller read his own report MORE’s grand jury and testimony from ex-White House counsel Don McGahn, arguing both cases seek evidence related to possible impeachment of President TrumpDonald John TrumpHarris campaigns off of NRA attack Help wanted: American ambassador in Moscow Goldman Sachs CEO dismisses ‘impending economic crisis’ amid rising recession fears MORE.

Democrats wrote in a nine-page legal brief filed Monday why they believe the two cases should be deemed related, saying “both seek key evidence for the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump for potentially criminal obstructive conduct.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The same underlying Committee investigation of the same Presidential misconduct is at the heart of both matters before this Court,” Democrats wrote in the filing submitted by House general counsel Douglas Letter. Democrats argued that “judicial economy” would therefore be served by having the same judge rule on both cases.

Labeling the cases related would mean both are eventually decided by Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who has already been assigned to the case involving the grand jury material. House Democrats and Justice Department officials agreed on a schedule for that case that would result in a decision sometime after Sept. 30.

The Judiciary Committee filed a civil suit to enforce the subpoena for McGahn’s testimony last week, arguing it is necessary for the House panel to decide whether to formally recommend articles of impeachment against Trump.

House Democrats have increasingly characterized the Judiciary panel’s investigation as one pursuing potential impeachment, and the latest filing reinforces that by describing the probe as an “impeachment investigation.”

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday described McGahn as the “most important witness” — other than Trump himself – in its investigation into the potential episodes of obstruction of justice laid out in Mueller’s report.

House Democrats filed an application for the release of material from Mueller’s grand jury to the Judiciary committee in late July.

Monday’s filing similarly described McGahn as the witness best equipped to shed light on Trump’s intent with respect to possible episodes of obstruction of justice. It also labeled him a “critical link” connecting both cases, noting that the committee is seeking grand jury material that described actions taken by McGahn or could be used to question him during testimony.

McGahn was viewed as a key witness in Mueller’s investigation into possible obstruction; he testified before the grand jury and his testimony was cited extensively throughout Mueller’s 448-page report that was publicly released in April.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerNational Archives: Trump, Bush can review Democrats’ request for Kavanaugh records Pelosi says House recess could be cut short if Senate passes background checks bill De Niro defends Mueller: ‘A calm, confident, dignified public servant’ MORE (D-N.Y.) said last week that the committee is engaging in “formal impeachment proceedings.” At the same time, Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiThe Hill’s Morning Report – More talk on guns; many questions on Epstein’s death Five factors that will determine gun control debate Warren unveils plan to combat gun violence MORE (D-Calif.) has resisted opening a formal impeachment inquiry, arguing that doing so would be premature and that the committees need to see their investigations play out.

The Judiciary panel subpoenaed McGahn to testify in May following the release of Mueller’s report. However, he resisted the appearance on instructions from Trump, who argued he is immune from compelled congressional testimony about his work in the White House.

The committee described Trump’s position regarding McGahn and immunity as having no basis in law.

McGahn’s lawyer William Burck said in a statement last week that his client would continue to comply with the White House’s order unless a judge strikes it down.

Howell, an Obama appointee, will ultimately need to rule on whether to satisfy Democrats’ bid to designate the two cases as related. McGahn’s attorneys are required to file their own response, if they have one, by noon Tuesday.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Taxes are playing a leading role in the health care debate that’s dividing the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

Centrist candidates are criticizing their opponents on the left who support the single-payer proposal known as “Medicare for All” by arguing that it is too expensive and would require tax hikes for the middle class.

Progressives counter that Americans will be better off overall under their plan because the amount households spend on health care will go down, even if their taxes go up.

ADVERTISEMENT

Experts say the discussion over taxes stems from the fact that Democrats all want to expand the federal government’s role in providing coverage.

“The reason it’s getting more attention is that there’s a broad agreement in the Democratic field that the public sector needs to be taking on a much bigger role in health care,” said Michael Linden, a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. “With that, comes questions of financing.”

White House hopefuls are also looking to differentiate themselves from the pack.

The primary will be about “candidates trying to distinguish themselves and separate themselves from one another on the issues,” said Mollyann Brodie, who directs public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The fight over taxes and health care was front-and-center during the recent debates in Detroit.

During the first night of the debates, Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes Joe Biden needs to watch out for Elizabeth Warren as she picks up Biden faces challenge from Warren in Iowa MORE (D-Mass.), who supports Medicare for All, was asked by CNN’s Jake TapperJacob (Jake) Paul TapperSunday shows – Trump’s Epstein conspiracy theory retweet grabs spotlight Immigration officials defend Mississippi ICE raids as part of larger investigation Jake Tapper calls out Trump for sharing ‘deranged’ and ‘insane’ conspiracy theory about Epstein death MORE if she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her plan. Fellow candidate Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersScalise: Trump no more responsible for El Paso than ‘Bernie Sanders is for my shooting’ Health care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes Joe Biden needs to watch out for Elizabeth Warren as she picks up MORE (I-Vt.) has said he would do just that.

Warren did not directly answer the question but said that large corporations and billionaires would pay more while “middle-class families are going to pay less out of pocket for their health care.”

Sanders, who was on stage with Warren, called Tapper’s questions Republican talking points, while noting that his Medicare for All legislation doesn’t include deductibles or co-payments.

Meanwhile, candidates who do not support Medicare for All, such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) and former Rep. John DelaneyJohn Kevin DelaneyHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes The Memo: Warren emerges as Biden’s most dangerous rival Democrats pounce on Trump in bid for rural voters MORE (D-Md.), emphasized their plans wouldn’t result in middle-class tax increases.

ADVERTISEMENT

During the second night of debates, Sen. Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes The Hill’s Campaign Report: 2020 Democrats challenge Trump’s response to El Paso Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur: The mythology of unity MORE (D-Colo.) criticized the progressives’ health care plan for necessitating middle class tax increases. New York City Mayor Bill de BlasioBill de BlasioHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes Democrats pounce on Trump in bid for rural voters The Hill’s Campaign Report: 2020 Democrats challenge Trump’s response to El Paso MORE (D) responded by accusing Bennet of “fearmongering” and argued that the costs associated with premiums and deductibles are “worse than any tax.”

In the lead-up to the debates, Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes Joe Biden needs to watch out for Elizabeth Warren as she picks up Harris: Russian election interference exposed race as nation’s ‘Achilles heel’ MORE (D-Calif.) unveiled a health plan that would provide universal coverage but keep a role for insurance companies, and said she would not raise taxes on people making less than $100,000 to pay for it. But other candidates, such as former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHealth care fight among 2020 Democrats shifts to taxes Joe Biden needs to watch out for Elizabeth Warren as she picks up Biden faces challenge from Warren in Iowa MORE, disputed that Harris’s plan wouldn’t require tax increases for the middle class.

The amount of new federal costs associated with candidates’ health plans will ultimately depend on the details of their proposals. Many of those plans have not been fully fleshed out.

Sanders said at an event hosted by The Washington Post last month that he thinks Medicare for All will cost somewhere between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over 10 years, but that it would be less expensive overall than the current health care system. Analysts across the ideological spectrum have estimated that past versions of Sanders’s Medicare for All plan would cost about $25 trillion to $36 trillion.

Sanders put out a white paper earlier this year that included financing options for his plan: a 4-percent “income-based premium” on household income above $29,000; a 7.5-percent “income-based premium” paid by employers that exempts the first $2 million in payroll; a wealth tax; and an expansion of the estate tax.

Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a deficit-hawk group, said the options Sanders describes as premiums look more like taxes because they are a compelled percentage of taxpayers’ income, rather than a fixed dollar amount.

He also said that Sanders’s financing options would not raise enough revenue to pay for his plan.

“Looking through and eyeballing it, it’s really hard to see them getting past $20 trillion, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was closer to $15 trillion,” said Goldwein.

Harris said she backs many of Sanders’s financing options, including the premium paid by employers, but would only impose the employee premium on workers who make more than $100,000 and instead would create a financial transactions tax and tax companies’ foreign earnings at the same rate as their domestic earnings.

Goldwein said the employer-side tax would be an “indirect tax on the middle class,” since businesses would pass on the costs to employees.

A spokesman for Harris’s campaign told The Hill that employers would end up having less in per-employee health costs under the plan than they do currently.

Other proposals are expected to increase federal costs by less than Medicare for All would, though they would not eliminate premiums like Sanders’s plan would.

A proposal similar to the one O’Rourke supports, proposed by the left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP), has been estimated to cost $2.8 trillion to $4.5 trillion over 10 years.

Both O’Rourke’s preferred plan and the CAP proposal would allow employers to continue offering private plans, but they could also sponsor a plan that’s similar to Medicare. Employees would have the choice to enroll in that plan, rather than their employer coverage.

Biden’s campaign estimates that his plan — which gives people the option of a government plan but allows private, employer-based insurance to remain — would cost about $750 billion over 10 years, and that the cost would be offset by increasing taxes on high earners.

Experts note that candidates are proposing trade-offs: tax increases that eliminate premiums and deductibles. Medicare for All proponents have been making the case that people’s overall health care costs would decrease even if taxes are higher, as polls show that many Americans could be scared off by the tax hikes.

A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in January found that overall support for Medicare for All drops when people hear that it would require most Americans to pay more in taxes. At the same time, favorability for the plan increases when people are told it would eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket health care costs for most Americans.

Brodie, who directs the foundation’s survey research, said the U.S. is in the “early stages” in the debate over Medicare for All, and that the public doesn’t have a strong understanding of what it would entail, so arguments from supporters and opponents are more likely to sway public opinion.

A poll conducted by Kaiser in July found that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer lawmakers build on ObamaCare rather than replace ObamaCare with Medicare for All. Similarly, a Monmouth University survey released Thursday found that a majority of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers prefer a health plan where people can opt-in to Medicare over Medicare for All.

Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth’s polling institute, said that the preference for a public option among Democrats has more to do with concerns about losing private insurance and viewing Medicare for All as unrealistic than concerns about tax increases. But that could change in a general election, and Democratic voters who aren’t personally worried about tax increases might be worried about how Medicare for All would play in a general election, he added.

“If we were polling a general electorate, we’d be talking about the tax issue as well as concerns about losing private insurance,” Murray said.

Linden, of the Roosevelt Institute, said he thinks it’s a mistake for Democrats to attack other Democratic candidates’ health plans over tax increases, arguing it’s misleading to focus just on taxes if people will ultimately have more take-home pay.

But Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at the center-left think tank Third Way, said there’s no guarantee that employers will pass on any savings they receive to employees. He also said there may not end up being cost savings in the U.S. health system under a single-payer plan, and that it depends on the reimbursement rate for doctors and hospitals.

Kessler said the debate in the primary on taxes to finance health plans is important “because if Democrats don’t have it internally, they’re going to hear it when the general election starts.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

Clashes at a Jerusalem holy site Sunday injured at least 14 Muslim worshippers and four Israeli police officers, according to the Associated Press.

The unrest began during prayers for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha at the site, called the Al-Aqsa mosque compound by Muslims and the Temple Mount by Jews, according to the AP. Sunday was also the Ninth of Av in Judaism, which marks the biblical destruction of the two temples that once stood on the site.

ADVERTISEMENT

A large number of Palestinians gathered at the gates of the compound in response to rumors Jewish worshippers would be allowed in and threw stones at police, then Israeli officers charged the compound with rubber bullets and stun grenades, after which they allowed Jews to enter.

The decision to allow Jewish worshippers to enter was reached “with the backing of the top political officials,” Jerusalem District police commander Doron Yedid told Israeli media, according to the AP.

A longstanding agreement between Israeli and Palestinian officials bars Jews from praying at the compound, and Jewish religious tradition cautions against entering it, but Israeli nationalists have increasingly challenged the arrangement in recent years.

While Israel has long maintained that it has no plans to alter the agreement, Palestinians frequently raise concerns about the possibility of such a move, which they worry could come as a prelude to the Israeli government partitioning the site or taking it over, according to the AP. The site is the holiest in Judaism and the third-holiest in Islam.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Senior Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Hanan Ashrawi accused Israel of “fueling religious tensions in Jerusalem” and said they were “fully responsible for its grave consequences,” according to the news outlet.

Israeli-Palestinian tensions in Jerusalem have been particularly high since 2017, when President TrumpDonald John TrumpScalise: Trump no more responsible for El Paso than ‘Bernie Sanders is for my shooting’ Bloomberg: Next generation of Democrats needs to ‘earn their spurs’ Bloomberg: McConnell may allow gun reform vote to boost reelection chances MORE announced the U.S. would recognize the city as the Israeli capital and announced the transfer of the U.S. embassy there.

The clashes came the same day that Israeli troops killed a Palestinian man they said opened fire on them across the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip, according to the AP. The Palestinian Health Ministry has identified the man as Marwan Nasser.

Walmart announced Thursday that it would temporarily remove advertising displays for violent video games following two shootings in Walmart stores in the past few weeks.

The retailer told USA Today in a statement that the move was done out of respect for victims in the two shootings and did not represent a “long-term” policy for the company.

Click Here: Mini backpacks cheap

ADVERTISEMENT

“We’ve taken this action out of respect for the incidents of the past week, and this action does not reflect a long-term change in our video game assortment,” spokeswoman Tara House told the newspaper.

The decision comes after 22 people were killed in El Paso, Texas, at a Walmart near the city’s Cielo Vista Mall on Saturday by a suspect who police say posted racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric in a manifesto online before his attack.

A separate shooting at a Walmart in Mississippi last Tuesday resulted in the deaths of two Walmart managers and was purportedly carried out by a disgruntled ex-employee.

Police in Missouri say a man was arrested Thursday night after allegedly showing up at a Walmart wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a rifle. 

Earlier this week, 40 of the company’s employees staged a walkout at an e-commerce office in California on Wednesday, urging the retailer to stop selling firearms in the wake of the shootings.

Democrats have called for action on gun control in the wake of the El Paso shooting as well as two other mass shootings within the past two weeks in Dayton, Ohio, and Gilroy, Calif., and have pointed to the white supremacist ideologies reportedly espoused by two of the shooters as a cause for federal action.

Some Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyWalmart removing violent video game displays following mass shootings GOP official in Texas accuses Joaquin Castro of ‘scare tactics’ Democratic lawmaker criticized for tweeting names of Trump donors MORE (R-Calif.) and President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump dismisses backlash to SoulCycle: ‘I think it just makes Steve much hotter’ Trump on China trade talks: ‘We are not ready to make a deal’ Trump: Biden ‘not playing with a full deck’ MORE, have blamed the influence of violent media in recent days, accusing media of glorifying violence.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” Trump said Monday following two shootings over the weekend. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffThe Hill’s Morning Report – How will Trump be received in Dayton and El Paso? Hillicon Valley: GOP hits back over election security bills | Ratcliffe out for intel chief | Social media companies consider policies targeting ‘deepfakes’ | Capital One, GitHub sued over breach Social media companies consider deepfake policy changes after Pelosi video MORE (D-Calif.) released a statement Thursday calling the retirements of two top intelligence officials a “devastating loss.”

Schiff’s statement follows the resignation announcements of Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsTrump withdraws Ratcliffe as Intelligence pick Washington Post report raises questions about record of Trump’s DNI pick The next director of national intelligence fills critical role MORE last month and Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon Tuesday. 

“The retirements of Dan Coats and Sue Gordon represent a devastating loss to the Intelligence Community, and the men and women who serve in it,” Schiff said. “Gordon brought decades of experience and encyclopedic knowledge of the agencies to bear, and her absence will leave a great void.”

“These losses of leadership, coupled with a president determined to weed out anyone who may dare disagree, represent one of the most challenging moments for the Intelligence Community,” he added. “It will be up to the Congress to ensure that the Intelligence Community continues to provide independent analysis and judgement to policy makers, and always speak truth to power.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark WarnerMark Robert Warner8chan’s providers face increased pressure to cut support Trump casts uncertainty over top intelligence role Hillicon Valley: GOP hits back over election security bills | Ratcliffe out for intel chief | Social media companies consider policies targeting ‘deepfakes’ | Capital One, GitHub sued over breach MORE (D-Va.) also called Gordon’s departure a “real loss to our intelligence community.”

“In more than 30 years of service to our nation, Sue Gordon ​has demonstrated herself to be a patriot and a consummate professional, eventually becoming the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and someone who garnered tremendous respect from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill​,” Warner said in a statement. 

Warner also accused President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump cites brother’s struggles with alcohol as driving force behind fight against opioids Booker: ‘Knowing the bloody, violent truth of our past empowers me’ Analyst says Trump’s Venezuela policy is driven by Florida politics MORE of pushing out Gordon and Coats.

“In pushing out two dedicated public servants in as many weeks, once again the President has shown that he has no problem prioritizing his political ego even if it comes at the expense of our national security,” he said.

​Trump on Thursday announced that Gordon would retire and later added that Joseph Maguire, current director of the National Counterterrorism Center, will become the acting director of national intelligence. 

Both retirements and Maguire’s ascension will take place Aug. 15.   

Click Here: large kanken backpack

Twitter on Friday announced that it has unlocked the campaign account for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellMSNBC guest calls for ‘pitchforks and torches’ outside of Trump-Hamptons fundraiser Trump calls for ‘intelligent background checks’ in response to mass shootings Why target Tucker Carlson? It’s part of the left’s war on the right MORE (R-Ky.) after a rash of national GOP groups threatened to stop advertising on the social media site.

The boycott — which drew support from the Republican House and Senate campaign arms, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and the Trump campaign — came in response to Twitter’s decision to lock @Team_Mitch over a video that included violent threats.

ADVERTISEMENT

“After multiple appeals from affected users and Leader McConnell’s team confirming their intent to highlight the threats for public discussion, we have reviewed this case more closely,” Twitter said in a statement.

Twitter confirmed the account was unlocked on Friday.

“Victory!!!” McConnell’s campaign account tweeted. “Thank you to EVERYONE for helping #FreeMitch.” The post included a campaign donation link.

 

“We are glad Twitter has reversed their decision to lock our Team Mitch account,” Kevin Golden, McConnell’s campaign manager, said in a statement.

But he added, “It shouldn’t have taken an avalanche of outrage from across the country to stop Silicon Valley from launching an effort to silence conservatives like the Majority Leader of the United States Senate in the first place.”

Chris Pack, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, similarly echoed: “While it’s nice to see Twitter admit to their partisan censorship of Leader McConnell, it’s unfortunate it took a monetary threat to get here.”

Twitter locked @Team_Mitch on Wednesday after the account posted footage of a protester yelling profanities and threats outside of the GOP leader’s house in Kentucky.

The campaign argued the footage highlighted the kind of protestors McConnell is facing, but Twitter insisted for days that they would not unlock the account until @Team_Mitch took down the video.

The company said the footage violated their policy against violent threats.

Twitter reversed the decision on Friday, saying the video will now be available on the website alongside a “sensitive media” warning, ” and only in cases where the Tweet content does not otherwise violate the Twitter Rules.”

McConnell earlier on Friday blasted out a campaign fundraising email with a statement from Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyTrade wars and the over-valued dollar Free college is a bailout for overspending universities GOP senators press Google on reports it developed a smart speaker with Huawei MORE (R-Mo.), one of the senators who backed the crusade against Twitter throughout the week.

“Big Tech continues to censor conservatives — no matter the cost,” the email read, calling for contributions. 

Immediately after McConnell’s campaign account was locked on Wednesday, GOP groups revived allegations that the platform censors right-wing perspectives — a long-standing claim by top Republicans, including President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump dismisses backlash to SoulCycle: ‘I think it just makes Steve much hotter’ Trump on China trade talks: ‘We are not ready to make a deal’ Trump: Biden ‘not playing with a full deck’ MORE, that critics say lacks any substantial evidence.

“From unnecessary censorship to suppression of conservative content, Twitter has shown an incredible amount of bias against Republicans,” RNC chief of staff Richard Walters said in a statement to The Hill on Thursday. “Any future ad money we were planning to spend on the site has been halted until Twitter adequately addresses its biases and assures conservatives that we are on a level playing field with the rest of the users on the site.”

Most of the Republican supporters of the Twitter boycott said they would halt spending until the issue was resolved. 

– Max Greenwood contributed

Updated 2:32 p.m.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap