# data[].attributes.headline
Feds have eye on cybersecurity issues as voters go to polls

# data[].attributes.subject
Feds have eye on cybersecurity issues as voters go to polls

# data[].attributes.body
"We're working closely with officials in Virginia and New Jersey and other states and will have cybersecurity advisers embedded with state officials and with direct lines to DHS' National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center throughout the day today," spokesman Scott McConnell told CNN in an email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While experts do not believe any interference with actual voting occurred last year, Russian efforts to meddle in the election -- in part through hacking emails and some probing of election-related systems at the state level -- have fueled a national conversation about the cybersecurity of elections.

The Department of Homeland Security has taken the lead for the federal government in helping shore up election systems, which are managed at the state and local level.

"We are working closely with officials in Virginia and New Jersey and other states and will have cybersecurity advisers embedded with state officials and with direct lines to DHS' National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center throughout the day today," spokesman Scott McConnell told CNN in an email. "We continue to offer state and local governments our cybersecurity services, including cyber hygiene scans of Internet-facing systems and onsite risk and vulnerability assessments. "

Virginia and New Jersey have high-profile gubernatorial elections, but voters across the country are casting ballots in other state and local races.

Despite the intelligence community's assessment last year that Moscow was engaged in efforts to meddle in US elections, in part by cyber means, experts have long noted that it would be near impossible to alter the outcome of a national election by hacking. The myriad state and local offices that manage elections provide an element of decentralization, and voting machines are not connected to the Internet. Most also produce a paper trail for auditing purposes.

Still, the experience has heightened concerns -- and tensions -- between state officials and DHS over adequately protecting against possible threats, especially when a few votes could swing a small local election.

Multiple state officials complained to DHS, for example, that they publicly announced that 21 states were the target of hacking attempts in 2016 without notifying states if they were included until nearly a year later.

McConnell said DHS has worked to improve communication since last year.

"We've done a lot since last year in terms of building relationships and establishing information sharing mechanisms," McConnell said. "Just last month, the first government coordinating council for the election infrastructure was convened."

Still, DHS is not scoring top marks for its ability to share critical cybersecurity information. Last week, the department's inspector general published a report saying that progress has been slow after a 2015 law designed to enhance DHS information sharing on cybersecurity with the private sector, saying "the system DHS currently uses (for that process) does not provide the quality, contextual data needed to effectively defend against ever-evolving threats."

Earlier this fall, Virginia moved to decertify all of its paperless elections equipment.

"Our No. 1 priority is to make sure that Virginia elections are carried out in a secure and fair manner," State Board of Elections Chairman James Alcorn said in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
feds have eye on cybersecurity issues tuesday - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feds have eye on cybersecurity issues Tuesday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While experts do not believe any interference with actual voting occurred last year, Russian efforts to meddle in the election -- in part through hacking emails and some probing of election-related systems at the state level -- have fueled a national conversation about the cybersecurity of elections.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump admin asks Supreme Court to review immigrant abortion case

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump admin asks Supreme Court to review immigrant abortion case

# data[].attributes.body
The filing marks the first time the Trump administration has gone to the Supreme Court on an abortion-related case, and the briefs outline in dramatic fashion the government's take on the events that lead to the teen "identified as Jane Doe or J.D." ACLU Legal Director David Cole said the Justice Department is solely to blame for any issues over timing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Justice Department also says that the teen's lawyers at the ACLU misled the government about the timing of the abortion.

Although the teen has already gotten the procedure, the Justice Department says it is concerned that the ruling by a federal appeals court based in Washington might be used for similarly situated women.

The filing marks the first time the Trump administration has gone to the Supreme Court on an abortion-related case, and the briefs outline in dramatic fashion the government's take on the events that lead to the teen -- "identified as Jane Doe or J.D." -- to obtaining the procedure.

The issue is not directly whether a woman has a right to an abortion. Instead, the Justice Department argues that it does not have to facilitate access to an abortion of an unaccompanied minor who was apprehended when she was unlawfully seeking to enter the United States.

"It's a remarkably aggressive and unusually angry filing from the solicitor general, and, among other things, could turn a small, technical dispute into one of the more contentious cases the court considers this term," said CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck.

Argument over timing of abortion

In the unusual filing, the administration also alleged that the teen's lawyers at the ACLU misled the Department of Justice about the timing of the abortion.

"Although Ms. Doe's representatives informed the government of the change in timing, they did not inform the government of the other two developments -- which kept the government in the dark about when Ms. Doe was scheduled to have an abortion," Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote.

He asked the justices to vacate the judgment of the appeals court and remand the case to the district court "for dismissal of all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors."

On October 24, after lower courts held that the government could no longer block the abortion, it was led to believe that the abortion would occur on October 26 and that the government "asked to be kept informed of the timing" of the procedure, he said. "Based on those representations," his office informed the Supreme Court's clerk's office that it would file an appeal on the morning of October. Instead, Francisco writes, the timing of the appointment was changed until early in the morning of October 25.

ACLU Legal Director David Cole said the Justice Department is solely to blame for any issues over timing.

"The Trump administration blocked Jane Doe from getting constitutionally protected care for a month and subjected her to illegal obstruction, coercion, and shaming as she waited," Cole said in a statement.

"Now, because they were unable to stop her, they are raising baseless questions about our conduct," he added. "That government lawyers failed to seek judicial review quickly enough is their fault, not ours."

Jane Doe came across the border illegally in early September and learned she was pregnant while in the legal custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Because Texas law requires parental consent or a judicial waiver before an abortion for a minor, Doe, with the assistance of a court-appointed guardian, received the necessary judicial permission.

The federal government, however, had declined to transport her to the clinic.

Initially, a three-judge panel of an appeals court in Washington delayed the abortion in order to give officials enough time to find the teen a sponsor who could take over as a legal custodian. But that order was reversed on October 24 by a larger panel of judges on the same court.

After Doe obtained the abortion, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reacted angrily and later told Fox News that the procedure was performed at 4:30 a.m., before his lawyers could get to court.

"We are very upset about it," he said.

In 1992, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to an abortion and held that the government cannot impose an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
trump admin asks scotus to review immigrant abortion case - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump admin asks SCOTUS to review immigrant abortion case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Justice Department also says that the teen's lawyers at the ACLU misled the government about the timing of the abortion. Although the teen has already gotten the procedure, the Justice Department says it is concerned that the ruling by a federal appeals court based in Washington might be used for similarly situated women.

# data[].attributes.body
Republican Beth Grossman, who had won the endorsement of the Philadelphia Inquirer, conceded the race Tues. night. Krasner, who according to his website has represented Black Lives Matter and DACA "Dreamers," among others, has campaigned on changing the "culture" of the district attorney's office, "from a culture of seeking victory for prosecutors to a culture of seeking justice for victims."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Krasner beat out Republican Beth Grossman, who had won the endorsement of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and in her concession speech said she felt "honored and privileged to have run this race," according to the newspaper.

Krasner, who according to his website has represented Black Lives Matter and DACA "Dreamers," among others, has campaigned on changing the "culture" of the district attorney's office, "from a culture of seeking victory for prosecutors to a culture of seeking justice for victims."

The city's newest chief prosecutor has filed "more than 75 civil rights lawsuits against the police for corruption and physical abuse," according to Krasner's website.

His platform included a pledge to "never seek the death penalty," and has taken aim directly at policies of President Donald Trump's administration.

Krasner's website said the progressive candidate is "dedicated to fighting President Trump's anti-immigration agenda and increasing trust between immigrants and police," and adds that Krasner "will work to maintain Philadelphia as a 'sanctuary city.'"

The Inquirer reported in August that Philadelphia was one of several cities to sue the Trump administration over Attorney General Jeff Sessions' effort to withhold federal dollars from local governments as an effort to curb sanctuary cities across the nation.

The former Philadelphia district attorney, Democrat Seth Williams, pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges in June.

Voters headed to the ballot box Tuesday for several elections around the nation, including the New Jersey and Virginia governor races.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights lawyer larry krasner to be the next philadelphia district attorney - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Civil rights lawyer Larry Krasner to be the next Philadelphia district attorney

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Krasner beat out Republican Beth Grossman, who had won the endorsement of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and in her concession speech said she felt "honored and privileged to have run this race," according to the newspaper.

# data[].attributes.body
The trouble keeps stacking up for President Donald Trump: No major legislative success on Capitol Hill, pointed criticism from fellow GOP lawmakers and previous Republican presidents blasting his approach to government and a special counsel probe that recently ensnared 3 campaign advisers and a Democratic sweep of the Nov. 7 gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The trouble keeps stacking up for President Donald Trump: No major legislative success on Capitol Hill, pointed criticism from fellow GOP lawmakers and previous Republican presidents blasting his approach to government and a special counsel probe that recently ensnared three campaign advisers and a Democratic sweep of the Nov. 7 gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.

For any other president, this would seem like key ingredients for a primary challenge in the next election. But, as America has learned in the year since he was elected, Trump isn't like any other president.

In interviews with nearly three-dozen GOP strategists and fundraisers over the past several tumultuous weeks, virtually everyone told me that - barring some major personal embarrassment in the Russia investigation - they expect Trump to coast to the GOP nomination in 2020.

Yes, there's plenty of handwringing within the GOP about Trump's presidency. Earlier this fall, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse were frequently discussed as potential challengers for Trump. Flake went so far as to say Trump's actions were " inviting a challenge." But lately, the most vocal Trump critics within the GOP, such as Flake and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, are exiting the political stage entirely - and in the process, potentially clearing the way for more Trump loyalists to move to Washington.

"The primary process is going to be dominated, just as it was in 2016, by the most vocal, the most ardent Trump supporters," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who advised Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign and is a CNN political commentator. If Trump were to draw an opponent, those voters "would be focused on guarding against a primary challenger who could be destructive in the general election."

Trump's political future is, of course, deeply uncertain and could well depend on the results of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and whether Democrats can retake the House in next year's midterm elections. And modern political history has plenty of examples of incumbent presidents such as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush staring down primary fights.

But the hurdles to a 2020 primary challenge are vivid when considering a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 91% of Trump voters said they'd vote for him again. That means the idea of another Republican dislodging Trump in the 2020 primary remains, for now, a liberal fantasy -one that vastly underestimates the institutional power of the presidency, the desires of GOP donors, and the fact that the Republican National Committee is essentially built to support the incumbent running for re-election.

"The email lists, the voter files, as well as donor lists - from major donors to low dollar donors - all of that is sitting there (at the RNC) to help the President get re-elected when that time comes," said Henry Barbour, a GOP strategist and longtime RNC member. "There would be plenty of discussion about voter lists and what the RNC controls, but it would be challenging for any (Trump opponent) to get their hands on the best lists that the RNC controls - and that matters."

Spencer Zwick, Romney's former fundraising chairman, said from the money standpoint alone, the hurdles of successfully executing a primary challenge against a sitting president would be daunting.

"Incumbency has a huge advantage as it relates to the money," Zwick said. "All of the money that is being raised today for the party, that's all ultimately going to flow up to the incumbent," he said, pointing to the investments the party is making in its field operation and voter data collection. "They can take advantage of that now, and also in the general election."

Several bundlers who raised money for other GOP candidates in the 2016 cycle also said there is little appetite among donors right now for supporting a Trump challenger. As one donor put it: "It doesn't even rise to the level of discussion." A Republican strategist who opposed Trump in 2016, noted that most donors view a Trump primary challenge as "kamikaze mission"- one that would "just allow a Democrat to win."

The four primary challenges that have occurred since 1968, when Eugene McCarthy took on Lyndon B. Johnson, are a testament to that thinking. Weakened by the Vietnam War, Johnson announced he would not run for re-election. Ford was weak when Ronald Reagan challenged him in 1976; Carter's vulnerability drew Ted Kennedy into the 1980 race. Pat Buchanan's challenge of Bush in 1992 sowed division within the GOP, weakening him in his three-way race with Ross Perot and Bill Clinton in the general election.

"Most primary challenges to an incumbent president have not been successful, but they have been determinative in shaping the outcome of the general election where the incumbent who was challenged lost," said Steve Schmidt, a top strategist for 2008 Republican nominee John McCain and someone who has criticized the President.

Trump has faced a remarkable backlash within his own party during the first year of his presidency. Corker, who is retiring, has questioned the President's stability and competence and referred to the White House as an "adult daycare center."

In an extraordinary speech from the Senate floor as he announced that he would not seek re-election, Flake warned that if the politics of Trump and his former chief strategist Steve Bannon were to triumph, Americans would become a "fearful, backward looking people." But Flake, who has been frequently mentioned as a potential Trump opponent in 2020, acknowledged that he was stepping down, in part, because he was unlikely to win the primary in his own state and was unwilling to do what it would take to win.

Others who have taken on Trump, like McCain and the former Bush presidents are at the stage of their careers that are far beyond presidential politics.

At this moment, Schmidt said, most of the top players in the Republican Party seem paralyzed in their embrace of Trump, shrinking away from the battles he invites with his mocking tweets and criticism of his own party.

To take on Trump in 2020, "You'd need toughness, principle and the communication ability to reunite the conservative movement around the idea of the Republican Party being the party of ideals and solutions-a party that's not run by crazy people," Schmidt said.

"You need someone who's not intimidated by the Breitbart convention, somebody who has the capacity to understand that the power of Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter is illusory," Schmidt said. He described a culture of timidity and fear, where some Republican leaders are acting like "prey animals" who are "constantly skittish, looking nervously over their shoulders for the predator who is about to get them."

Any Trump opponent would also need to match the President's talent for drawing free media and defining the daily narrative. Terry Sullivan, who ran Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign, described the ability to get earned media attention as the top criteria for any Trump foe.

"It's one of these situations where money almost doesn't matter, because you need more than money," Sullivan said. "An ability to get media attention is going to be critical."

"We're in a brave new world of politics these days, so anything is possible," he went on.

Someone like Mark Cuban, the entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner, "who would force Trump into responding-could be a deadly candidate against him," Sullivan said.

Cuban recently said that if he were to run, he would run as a Republican. In an email, he underscored that he was not "committing to anything," and believes "the only smart strategy right now is to not focus on where things are today."

"To me the biggest underlying issue is that it needs to be someone who can stand up to Trump," Cuban said in an email when asked about whether he would entertain a 2020 challenge to Trump. Someone who can "throw punches back harder than him, and spend 100% of their time with his base talking with them one on one, city by city, and letting them see what real respect for their situation is, and what real solutions sounds like."

If Trump does draw a primary challenger, the Reagan-Ford matchup of 1976 serves as a useful historical lesson about the power of incumbency to sway party leaders and delegates.

Reagan's challenge to Ford was so serious that the two men fought it out all the way through the Republican convention, with advisers to both men contemplating a "co-presidency" until that idea was quashed by both sides.

Ford campaign adviser Stu Spencer and Reagan campaign adviser Charlie Black still laugh about their daily battles over delegates during that 1976 campaign cycle. Spencer noted that in Reagan they were facing a far more talented candidate, who was the ideological heir apparent within the party, while Ford was an accidental candidate dealing with all of Richard Nixon's Watergate baggage.

"He had the heart of the party... There were delegates who voted for us in Kansas City (at the convention) who had tears in their eyes, because we used the institution to break through to the party base at the delegate level," Spencer said. "That could mean a hundred different things. You had Air Force One that you could give them a ride on. You've got the Oval Office you could invite them to. If it was a farm vote that you needed, you could get the Secretary of the Agriculture to deliver it."

Black recalled traveling the country during 1976, and visiting an uncommitted delegate at his home in Pennsylvania. "I'd get him leaning toward Reagan, and that person would have dinner at the White House the next night."

"You can use the White House for all kinds of perks," Black said.

In 1976, Ford's aides became experts on the wishes and desires of each delegate that they needed to sway. They arranged interviews for the young relatives of delegates who were seeking jobs in Washington, and engaged in discussions with delegates about who they wanted nominated to serve as judges on the federal bench.

In one case, Spencer told Ford that to win the vote of delegate, he needed to pardon two of the delegate's friends. (Ford said no.)

"The West Wing of the White House when I was doing the Ford campaign thought I was awful - I was making commitments galore," Spencer said. "Trump has no qualms about doing things like that - it's part of his deal-making."

"No matter how unpopular he becomes," Spencer said, "he still has all of those tools."

Illustration by Alejandro Cardenas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Trump has a lock on the 2020 GOP nomination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The trouble keeps stacking up for President Donald Trump: No major legislative success on Capitol Hill, pointed criticism from fellow GOP lawmakers and previous Republican presidents blasting his approach to government and a special counsel probe that recently ensnared three campaign advisers and a Democratic sweep of the Nov.

# data[].attributes.headline
Retired captain: We are veterans, and this is what we do

# data[].attributes.subject
Retired captain: We are veterans, and this is what we do

# data[].attributes.body
The fourth American hero to make the ultimate sacrifice that day was US Army Maj. I received the Medal of Honor from President Barack Obama on Nov. 12, 2015. What made the ceremony so special was that my fellow Afghanistan veterans and -- most importantly -- the families of my fallen military brothers were able to join us at the White House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It took eight seconds for me to reach the threat, who I soon realized was a suicide bomber. After I threw him to the ground, the attacker detonated his vest.

While most of our patrol survived, four incredible men did not. USAID Foreign Service Officer Ragaei Abdelfattah, US Air Force Maj. David Gray, and US Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin Griffin were among the dead. The fourth American hero to make the ultimate sacrifice that day was US Army Maj. Tom Kennedy.

Before Kennedy deployed to Afghanistan, a neighbor asked why he was returning to the battlefield despite two previous tours in Iraq.

"I'm a soldier," Kennedy replied. "This is what I do."

Although Tom and I would eventually cross paths in Afghanistan, how we got there was different. While he grew up playing hockey in the New York suburbs, the early part of my childhood was spent kicking around a soccer ball in a town near Paris. In 1994, I arrived in the United States at 12 years old.

Soon after my family settled into a Washington suburb, I received the dreadful news that my Uncle Abdou, an Algerian soldier, had been murdered by Islamic extremists. That terrible day pointed me toward military service, but it wasn't until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that I ultimately decided to join the Army. At the time, I had dual citizenship in France and the United States. After waiting for the French government to renounce my citizenship, I enlisted in the Army in 2008.

As an immigrant, I wanted to earn my place as an American. While serving in the military wasn't the only way to do so, I felt an intense desire to give back to a country that had already given me so many opportunities to learn, grow and succeed.

When I made the choice to serve, I knew that death was a part of war. But nothing really prepares you for it. I lost 50% of my lower left calf, lost hearing in my left ear, was in the hospital for 2.5 years and had 33 surgeries, but seeing the bodies of my fallen friends hurt more than the injuries I suffered in the explosion. It was the worst moment of my life.

My team of fellow survivors and I wouldn't reunite until 2015, on the night before Veterans Day. As I write in my new book, " 8 Seconds of Courage," the pain of losing friends in battle never subsides.

Over a few beers later that night, Brink -- the first soldier to spot the suicide bomber -- pulled me aside to share that one of the soldiers in our group was still having a hard time speaking about the events of that day. After we asked the soldier how he was doing, he eventually decided not to participate in the next day's marathon interview session.

More than three years after the suicide bombing, my Army brother was still hurting deeply inside, which made sharing his story with strangers very difficult. It reminded me that so many combat veterans, including myself, grapple with these types of emotions daily.

I received the Medal of Honor from President Barack Obama on November 12, 2015. What made the ceremony so special was that my fellow Afghanistan veterans and -- most importantly -- the families of my fallen military brothers were able to join us at the White House.

For me, the meaning of Veterans Day changed forever on August 8, 2012. It is a day to honor all who have served, like my four fallen friends and fellow veterans like Brink and my medic, Spc. Daniel Balderrama, who helped save my life. It is also a day to thank their families, who often sacrifice every bit as much as the man or woman who deploys.

Sixteen years after the US-led coalition's invasion of Afghanistan, I believe America has found a new "Greatest Generation." Without taking anything away from the patriots who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and other conflicts, the current all-volunteer force will likely be forced to shoulder at least two decades of constant war.

When I made my decision to serve on 9/11, a future warrior was sitting in kindergarten or preschool, too young to comprehend the horrors of terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. Today, that young man or woman is following in the footsteps of my teammates in Afghanistan and other global hot spots.

All Americans have a sacred duty to not only spotlight the sacrifices of fallen heroes, Gold Star families, and veterans, but also to thank the next Greatest Generation of vets. Without their willingness to step forward in wartime, we would be at the mercy of enemies much like the evil men who murdered my uncle and stole my friends from their loved ones.

Those of us who have experienced war firsthand also have a responsibility to honor and nurture the brave men and women who are still fighting. After all, to slightly modify the powerful words of Maj. Tom Kennedy: We are veterans, and this is what we do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retired captain: We are veterans, and this is what we do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It took eight seconds for me to reach the threat, who I soon realized was a suicide bomber. After I threw him to the ground, the attacker detonated his vest. While most of our patrol survived, four incredible men did not. USAID Foreign Service Officer Ragaei Abdelfattah, US Air Force Maj.

# data[].attributes.headline
Randazza: Even Trump has a right to free speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Randazza: Even Trump has a right to free speech

# data[].attributes.body
It isn't that I approve of Trump's words, but as a sworn defender of the First Amendment, I am honor-bound to defend his right to say them -- if he might have a tense relationship with the First Amendment. If you think maybe Trump's free-speech rights should be laid at the altar of your politics, you need to reconsider.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite his admonition, Trump supporters assaulted three protesters. Those three protesters are seeking to hold Trump liable for what people in the crowd did.

The trial court denied the defense's motion to dismiss, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is taking the unusual step of hearing an interlocutory appeal. The Sixth Circuit will now consider whether statements like Trump's are actionable.

If these claims survive, it will chill free speech, political and otherwise. It is not that I approve of Trump's words, but as a sworn defender of the First Amendment, I am honor-bound to defend his right to say them -- even if he might have a tense relationship with the First Amendment.

If you feel differently, I ask you to take a breath and follow me down free speech lane.

In our increasingly polarized political climate, up is down and black is white. Those who half a generation ago were free-speech hawks are now those who cry for censorship. Many now embrace the notion that "words are violence." What they really mean is "words I disagree with are violence."

This view is unprincipled -- an attempt to justify "free speech for me, but not for thee" by those who, in a different context, would have worshiped at the altar of the famous Voltaire misquote: "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

Why the change? Trump Derangement Syndrome -- many people are simply too blinded by their perception of the President to think clearly, critically, or honestly.

Speech is presumptively protected. And, while there were decisions at one time that prohibited speech that had the tendency to produce negative results, those were thoroughly wiped away in 1969 in the landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

In that case, the Supreme Court wisely held that incitement to violence could be punished, but it must be speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It needs to have intent and immediacy and likelihood. Without all three, it remains protected.

Today, many are ready to tear down that wall protecting our cherished freedom simply because they have adopted the view that the end justifies the means. And, if their political tribe will win and our basic freedoms get in the way, that is worth it. After all, who would it hurt? Just their villain: Donald Trump.

But that is shortsighted. Lets look at the facts: Trump's words were "Get 'em out of here ... Don't hurt 'em -- if I say go 'get 'em,' I get in trouble with the press."

Allowing this case to move forward on facts like that would chill speech. I know the "Occupy" movement was popular among those who call for Trump to be held liable. But I would question whether every one of those rallies went on without language of that type -- or worse.

I could see a comedian saying worse to get a heckler thrown out of a nightclub. Louis Head, Michael Brown's stepfather, famously screamed, "Burn this mother****** down!" at a 2014 protest rally in Ferguson, Missouri. That was certainly more of a call to violence, to an already worked-up crowd. And rioting ensued.

And I'd be just as interested in defending him, had he been sued or prosecuted. Because there, as here, if it goes the wrong way, it will come crashing down on us all. A speaker ought to be able to say "get 'em out of here." If someone in the crowd gets carried away, that should not fall upon the speaker's shoulders, but upon the person who crossed the line himself.

Too many Americans are prepared to change their principles at this point, simply because they suffer from TDS. They are more interested in tribalism over principles.

Forget that this is a case involving someone you might despise. If this case goes the wrong way, then its arc bends toward censorship and repression.

There is an important First Amendment question here. I am happy that the 6th Circuit is considering it, and for all of our sakes, I hope that it makes the right choice. And if you think maybe Trump's free-speech rights should be laid at the altar of your politics, you need to reconsider. We can not sever his right to free speech from our own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
randazza: even trump has a right to free speech - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Randazza: Even Trump has a right to free speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite his admonition, Trump supporters assaulted three protesters. Those three protesters are seeking to hold Trump liable for what people in the crowd did. The trial court denied the defense's motion to dismiss, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is taking the unusual step of hearing an interlocutory appeal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's 'trial balloons' test our commitment to freedom

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's 'trial balloons' test our commitment to freedom

# data[].attributes.body
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a frequent contributor to CNN Opinion and a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University who writes about authoritarianism and propaganda. It's easy to miss a key factor in how authoritarianism takes hold: how a leader's comments, little by little, can instill a new vision of what's possible and acceptable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It works by introducing an idea that is reprehensible to the values of liberal democracy, framing it as an off-the-cuff remark or even as a joke. Later, you can take it back, or blame others for having misheard or misinterpreted you. Meanwhile, your idea has circulated to millions, sometimes even creating its own news cycle. It is in the air. It cannot be unheard.

Some commentators want us to look only at what Trump has actually done for evidence of authoritarian tendencies. They say "it's alarmist" to focus on his threatening speech over his policies. Yet talking (or tweeting) is a form of action: It's a choice to say one thing rather than another, or say nothing at all.

When Trump tweets his congratulations to Chinese leader Xi Jinping on his "extraordinary elevation," and then gushes to an interviewer about Xi's increased power ("Now some people might call him the King of China -- but he's called President"), this is a deliberate message about the kind of leadership he admires and whom he sees as a kindred spirit.

It's easy to miss a key factor in how authoritarianism takes hold: how a leader's comments, little by little, can instill a new vision of what is possible and acceptable. As a professional marketer, Trump understands the power of suggestion. He sees how a casual statement or tweet can become a viral meme that exposes millions to his toxic notions.

Whether it's his remark about the "disgusting" freedom of the press "to write whatever it wants," (which raises the specter of state-mandated media controls) or his remark made "in jest" about Vice President Mike Pence wanting to "hang gays," (which conjures regime-style persecution) he has dangerously expanded the boundaries of public presidential language. It took just two days after the latter remark for anti-LBGTQ posters to appear on college campuses (and Twitter feeds) showing bodies hanging from a noose.

Savvy rulers know that ideas prepare the psychological terrain for future actions, habituating people to consider a distasteful notion as "out there" in the realm of the possible. That's why anti-democratic rulers have always "tested" allies, the public and the media as they consolidate their power, saying things that "push the envelope" against democratic norms to the point of raising the idea of extralegal or irregular action.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte used this tactic very explicitly during his 2015 campaign when he vowed to kill thousands of drug dealers and criminals. "I am telling the Filipino people not to vote for me, because it will be bloody," he said. Once he won, he reminded reporters: "I am testing the elite of this country."

It's tempting to dismiss such declarations as bluster. Surely the politician will "calm down" eventually. Yet such reactions merely embolden a leader to be even more reckless. It's at this stage that handlers often cycle through the leader's inner circle, each one trying to contain the fallout from these tests, especially in the foreign policy sphere. In truth, the leader has little incentive to rein himself in: His outbursts play well to his base, and they show the political class that he can't be owned.

Trump has used speeches and Tweets to launch trial balloons for almost two years now, and in the process has changed our expectations for what a leader of a democracy might say and do. In typical fashion, one of his strongest and most revealing "testing" statements came very early on.

In January 2016, he boasted that he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone without losing any followers. Most Americans filed this away as "Trump being Trump," but it was a milestone in Trump's process of gauging the strength of our commitment to prevailing political norms. With one tossed-off remark, he tested the loyalty of his base, and the GOP's tolerance for a candidate who claimed the right to act with impunity in potentially many areas of governance. Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation takes on such attitudes, which the GOP never felt the need to rebuke.

Authoritarianism is not something presented to us as a fait accompli, but something we help along, step by step, by acquiescing to changes in political climates that start with pronouncements by the leader and slowly move the boundaries of what is possible.

Leaders such as Trump use such unsettling language to demoralize and frighten the populace and incite greater political and social polarization that, in the end, benefits only them. Trump has shown he's eager to help us lose our conscience and our principles: It's up to us to let him know we are wise to his game, and will stand our ground.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
trump's 'trial balloons' test our commitment to freedom - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's 'trial balloons' test our commitment to freedom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his first year, President Trump has shown he's eager to help us lose our conscience and principles, repeatedly floating language that habituates us to challenges to a free press, civil rights, rule of law and more. We must reject this, writes Ruth Ben-Ghiat.

# data[].attributes.headline
As Syria joins Paris climate agreement, US stands alone

# data[].attributes.subject
As Syria joins Paris climate agreement, US stands alone

# data[].attributes.body
Syrian officials announced their intention to ratify the accord at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday. President Donald Trump announced in June that the US would withdraw from the climate accord, a process that will be complete in 2020. Trump isn't invited "for the time being" to the climate change summit being hosted in Dec. in Paris, the Elysee Palace press office told CNN on Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Syria will join the Paris climate agreement, leaving the US as the only country in the world not signed on to the landmark climate deal.

Syrian officials announced their intention to ratify the accord at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday.

"I confirm that the Syrian Arab Republic supports the implementation of Paris climate change accord, in order to achieve the desired global goals and to reflect the principles of justice and shared responsibility, but in accordance with the capabilities of each of the signatories," Syria's Deputy Minister of Local Administration and Environment M. Wadah Katmawi said.

Katmawi added that developed countries, "in their capacity as the primary contributors to climate change, should live up to their legal and humanitarian responsibility" by offering technical and financial support to developing countries to help battle climate change.

The Syria People's Assembly voted to approve ratification of the agreement last month, according to the country's state-run media outlet SANA.

Syria, plunged in a civil war, was not present at the 2015 negotiations for the climate agreement, which is dedicated to lowering emissions and strengthening countries' abilities to deal with the effects of climate change. Nearly 200 countries signed on the pact at the time. Nicaragua was the only other hold-out, based on criticisms that it was "insufficient" in addressing climate change.

However, the Central American country recently announced its intent to join the agreement. In late October, Nicaraguan Vice President and first lady Rosario Murillo said the nation had submitted a "document of adhesion" to the United Nations to join the pact.

"It is the only instrument we have in the world that allows us to unify intentions and efforts to face climate change and natural disasters," she said of the agreement at the time.

President Donald Trump announced in June that the US would withdraw from the climate accord, a process that will be complete in 2020.

"We're getting out," he said. "And we will start to renegotiate and we'll see if there's a better deal. If we can, great. If we can't, that's fine."

In addition, Trump is not invited "for the time being" to the climate change summit being hosted in December in Paris, the Elysee Palace press office told CNN on Tuesday. Invitations are being sent first to countries that are "very active and particularly engaged" in climate change and will then extend an invitation to whoever the US government chooses to represent them.

French President Emmanuel Macron is one of numerous foreign leaders who decried Trump's decision to exit the agreement. He appeared to troll Trump in a televised speech when he pledged to "make our planet great again."

At the opening plenary for the COP23 on Monday, the US representative reaffirmed that "the administration's position remains unchanged" on the agreement: the US will withdraw unless the terms of the agreement are renegotiated to be "more favorable to the American people."

At the time Trump announced the US' withdrawal, the leaders of France, Italy and Germany indicated in a joint statement that the US could not unilaterally renegotiate the agreement. The UN body that facilitated the deal said it "cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single party."

Trump's decision to leave the accord sparked massive outcry. Former President Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the agreement, said the decision would hurt American workers, saying "the nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created." Mayors and governors throughout the US vowed to carry on the commitments of the climate accord in their own jurisdictions.

The US trails only China as the world's worst emitter of carbon dioxide, according to the European Commission's emissions database. In 2015, it released 5.1 million kilotons of carbon dioxide, more than all 28 European Union countries combined, and makes up almost a sixth of all global emissions.

CNN's Schams Elwazer, Shama Nasinde, Bijan Hosseini, Angela Barajas, Kevin Liptak, Ben Westcott and Steve George contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
syria seeks to join paris climate agreement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
leaving us as the only non-member - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As Syria joins Paris climate deal, US stands alone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Syria will join the Paris climate agreement, leaving the US as the only country in the world not signed on to the landmark climate deal. Syrian officials announced their intention to ratify the accord at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Election night brings historic wins for minority and LGBT candidates

# data[].attributes.subject
Election night brings historic wins for minority and LGBT candidates

# data[].attributes.body
Two openly transgender candidates won races as well as the first Sikh mayor in New Jersey and first African-American mayors in major cities. Garrison, elected in MA, was the first openly transgender person to serve in a state legislature, but didn't campaign as an openly transgender person during her race in 1992. Jenny Durkan is projected to win the mayoral race, which would make her the first lesbian mayor in Seattle, reported the Seattle Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Election night brings historic wins for minority and LGBT candidates | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a night of many firsts, several minority and LGBT candidates won local elections that in many ways echoed the blue wave in which Democrats won races large and small.

# data[].attributes.body
Coming midway through the US President's tour through 5 Asian capitals, his diplomacy in China acts as the fulcrum of a strategy for Asia that hinges upon Xi's cooperation on security and economic issues, which Trump has framed as essential to both American and Chinese success. It was a stance shaped partly by Bannon, his onetime chief White House strategist and still an informal adviser who has pressed Trump to adopt a far tougher stance in countering China's trade practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But beneath the state pageantry lies another message, one not meant to stoke Trump's ego but instead to issue a stark reminder. Xi, now the most powerful Chinese leader in decades, leads a nation that's poised to challenge the US in new and unpredictable ways.

How Trump -- who is desperate to find success amid sagging approval ratings and an investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia -- responds to Xi's overtures could help dictate the world's most important bilateral relationship for years to come.

"As far as China is concerned, my relationship, as you know, with President Xi is also excellent. I like him a lot. I consider him a friend. He considers me a friend," Trump said earlier this week in Japan, his first stop in Asia. "With that being said, he represents China; I represent the United States. His views are different on things."

The breadth and scale of the issues up for discussion in Beijing render the two-day stop, which begins Wednesday, the most consequential foreign visit of Trump's presidency. Coming midway through the US President's tour through five Asian capitals, his diplomacy in China acts as the fulcrum of a strategy for Asia that hinges upon Xi's cooperation on security and economic issues, which Trump has framed as essential to both American and Chinese success.

At the core is Trump's insistence that Beijing do more to isolate North Korea amid its nuclear provocations, believing that Pyongyang's chief trading partner has unparalleled power to choke off the regime. But the agenda also includes intensive talks on trade, a pet issue for a President intent on returning economic security to the American lower and middle classes.

To drive forward his economic message, Trump will be joined by dozens of American business executives who are expected to announce billions of dollars in agreements, some of which have been in the works for years. The inking of the deals in China can help Trump cast his visit as win, despite the lingering disputes and questions over the trading relationship.

Global statesman?

In the lead-up to his visit, Trump's aides spent a series of focused, hour-long sessions preparing him for the various topical conversations expected to arise during his talks with Xi. But they also worked to coach him on the finer aspects of Chinese official protocol, believing that a seamless visit could help bolster the sense that Trump is an effective global statesman.

Trump's brand of brash and opinionated politics is an awkward fit in China, where diplomacy is conducted according to strict protocols and off-hand comments have the potential to cause unintentional offense. Some Chinese officials have expressed concern at what Trump may say in the country, and there's an acknowledgment that even China's "great firewall" that blocks numerous social media sites -- including Twitter -- will have little impact on the President's ability to fire off messages.

"I think that what concerns them is the unpredictability that they see," said Christopher Johnson, a former China analyst for the CIA who is now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Typically the Chinese, what they want most in the bilateral relationship is stability. They don't need to like the US president. They just need the person to be predictable."

"I don't think they see that with President Trump," Johnson said.

In Xi, Trump finds a leader flexing newfound political muscle after emerging from China's Communist Party Congress having consolidated power in historic fashion. American officials aren't yet sure precisely what to make of the developments, which Xi could use to exert greater influence within China and possibly the wider region.

Trump, who has record low approval ratings and is politically hamstrung by investigations into his ties to Russia, has praised Xi's new stature, comparing him to a king during an interview on Fox Business channel last week. But he's also downplayed the potential power mismatch. Aboard Air Force One this week, he quickly interjected when a reporter referred to Xi as politically powerful.

"Excuse me, so am I," Trump insisted, identifying a surging stock market and low unemployment as evidence.

In Beijing, that view is likely to be validated by the outsized "state visit-plus" welcome planned by Chinese officials. Trump will be feted by military honor guards and dine at an elaborate state banquet. Upon his arrival, Xi will walk him through the Forbidden City and provide a personal tour of a collection of Chinese antiquities.

The welcome display is designed as much to flatter Trump as it is to demonstrate Xi's view of China as a global superpower, with both an ancient history and an increasingly modern society to call upon in his bid to compete with the United States. Past administrations have worked to counter China's influence in Asia through military alliances, trade agreements and soft-power programs like the Peace Corps.

Trump, however, has expressed less urgency in slowing the inevitable rise of China. He has withdrawn the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the massive trade pact initiated by President Barack Obama to act as a counterbalance in Asia to China's economic pull. He has expressed a desire to wean allies off American support, encouraging the purchase of US-made weapons systems that would allow nations like Japan and South Korea to defend themselves. And he's moved to slash the budgets of agencies like the State Department, which execute the diplomatic efforts to spread American influence among China's neighbors.

Those steps, paired with the sense that Washington is gripped with intractable political gridlock, have led to the impression among some in the region that China is a better functioning power.

"There is a certain amount of sly happiness with what seems to be the decline of the United States. There's been a lot of commentary about dysfunction in American democracy, the impossibility of getting congressional agreement on basic things like having a budget and funding infrastructure," said David Dollar, a former US Treasury Department envoy based in China who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "This works well for China. The US seems to be in decline and yet, you know he's a practical President with whom China can deal on specific issues."

Approach to China

Trump's approach to China has been shaped both by his deeply felt opinion that unfair trade practices have badly harmed American workers and his view that the United States requires partners in combating threats to global security like North Korea.

As a presidential candidate, it was the first viewpoint that often dominated, and helped him win over white working class voters who ultimately propelled him to the presidency. He accused Beijing of raping the United States, vowed to label China a currency manipulator, and frankly declared the country an economic enemy.

It was a stance shaped partly by Steve Bannon, his onetime chief White House strategist and still an informal adviser who has pressed Trump to adopt a far tougher stance in countering China's trade practices.

But others in his administration have voiced an alternate view, insisting that China's economic rise is an inevitability that requires partnership -- not war -- with the United States.

The dueling options have led to some confusion among some Chinese officials on where, precisely, Trump stands.

As Trump himself has expressed divergent opinions on China, the impression that he's echoing the last person who advised him has lingered. That Trump's son-in-law and top White House adviser Jared Kushner was, at one stage, undertaking diplomatic efforts outside the usual State Department channels only fueled the impression that the Trump administration was approaching China without a fully formed strategy.

In recent months, however, the administration's approach has narrowed. Kushner has backed off on developing inroads to the Chinese government, a result of a more streamlined West Wing and questions over his family's real estate ties to Chinese investors.

And Trump has seen successes in convincing China to agree to new punitive measures against North Korea, though the actual results of those moves has yet to truly materialize.

Speaking in South Korea on Tuesday, Trump praised Xi for his help in isolating the nuclear menace and said the ramifications of those steps would soon be apparent.

"I want to just say that President Xi -- where we will be tomorrow, China -- has been very helpful. We'll find out how helpful soon. But he really has been very, very helpful," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
all eyes on trump during high-stakes china visit - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All eyes on Trump during high-stakes China visit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But beneath the state pageantry lies another message, one not meant to stoke Trump's ego but instead to issue a stark reminder. Xi, now the most powerful Chinese leader in decades, leads a nation that's poised to challenge the US in new and unpredictable ways.

# data[].attributes.body
A year into Trump’s presidency, Tues.’s elections offer the nation a window into how voters view his job performance so far and how effectively Democrats have corrected the problems that plagued them in 2016 and mobilized a base desperate for victories. CNN will broadcast a projected winner only after an extensive review of data from a number of sources. "Party change" denotes a race where the 2017 projected winner is from a different party than the previous winner or incumbent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View 2017 election results and exit polls.

# data[].attributes.headline
Donald Trump was the biggest looser in Virginia.

# data[].attributes.subject
Donald Trump was the biggest looser in Virginia.

# data[].attributes.body
In key areas of Virginia Republicanism, the suburbs of Richmond and the exurbs of Washington, DC. Republican Ed Gillespie ran far behind recent past GOP gubernatorial nominees and behind Trump himself. Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe won Loudoun county by 5 points in his 2013 victory,about 4,000 votes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In key areas of Virginia Republicanism -- the suburbs of Richmond and the exurbs of Washington, DC -- Republican Ed Gillespie ran far behind recent past GOP gubernatorial nominees and even behind Trump himself.

That poor performance seemed to come in spite of the fact that Gillespie's profile -- a former Republican National Committee Chairman and card-carrying member of the Republican establishment -- seemed to be more ready-made for voters in those critical regions of the state than past Republican nominees. And in spite of the fact that Ralph Northam, the Democratic nominee, hailed from the sparsely populated eastern shore of Virginia and had a southern accent that some Democrats worried wouldn't play well in northern Virginia.

So, why? Why did a race that most polling suggested was tightening -- in Gillespie's favor -- wind up not being all that close? The obvious -- and right -- answer is Trump.

The exit polls bear that out. Trump's approval rating among Virginia voters was just 42% as compared to a dispproval rating of 58%. Even more importantly, of the 50% of Virginians who said that Trump was a major factor in their vote in the 2017, twice as many said they wanted to send a signal of opposition to the President as said they wanted to send a signal of support.

The story of the race -- and Trump's drag on Gillespie -- can be told in the vote count in two counties: Loudoun and Chesterfield.

Loudoun, an exurban county west of Washington, has grown rapidly over the past decade -- and as it has, it's moved away from its strong conservative roots. Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe won Loudoun county by 5 points in his 2013 victory -- about 4,000 votes. In 2009, Republican Bob McDonnell carried Loudoun by 15,000 votes. '

Democrats were hoping Northam might be able to match -- or slightly improve on McAuliffe's showing from four years ago. With almost every precinct reporting, Northam had a massive 20 point margin (more than 17,000 votes). That's absolutely stunning.

Chesterfield, which includes the city of Richmond, is the ancestral home of country club Republicanism in the Old Dominion. Business conservatives dominate. Gentility reigns. It is not then Trump territory.

Hillary Clinton lost Chesterfield by only 4,000 votes in 2016, a massive improvement over Barack Obama, who lost the county by almost four times that amount in 2012. With nearly all votes counted in Chesterfield, Northam was running less than 1,000 votes behind Gillespie.

"This is where we will see if Trump is dragging Gillespie down," a Democratic consultant told me earlier Tuesday. "Are Never-Trumpers now Never-GOPers?

The answer -- at least in Chesterfield on Tuesday night -- was a resounding "yes."

Trump, of course, distanced himself from the loss almost immediately. He tweeted just after 8:40 p.m. ET:

"Ed Gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what I stand for. Don't forget, Republicans won 4 out of 4 House seats, and with the economy doing record numbers, we will continue to win, even bigger than before!"

And, there will be a segment of Republicans who believe it because, well, they believe anything and everything Trump says. But that won't make it true.

But, the simple fact when you look at turnout patterns in places like Chesterfield and Loudoun, is that the lots of Virginia voters -- including some decent chunk of establishment GOPers -- jumped at the chance to send Trump a very clear message that they didn't like what he was selling. They didn't like it at all.

That is a message that Republicans in targeted districts and states will get loud and clear from Tuesday's vote in Virginia. The problem they will face is this: Trump and Trumpism is clearly a problem with general electorates but the President remains an extremely popular figure within the most conservative elements of the GOP, who tend to decide primary nominations. (Remember that Gillespie almost loss his primary against a little regarded GOP opponent who ran as a Trump clone.)

That conundrum is going to be hugely problematic for Republicans as they try to navigate between primaries over the next 10 months and the 2018 general election. To win the GOP nomination, you have to hew as closely to Trump as possible. But, once you win, that close connection -- or even a not-so-close connection -- can doom you among swing voters.

Square peg. Round circle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
donald trump was the big loser in virginia  - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump was the big loser in Virginia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In key areas of Virginia Republicanism -- the suburbs of Richmond and the exurbs of Washington, DC -- Republican Ed Gillespie ran far behind recent past GOP gubernatorial nominees and even behind Trump himself.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump once trashed China, Now their friends. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump once trashed China, Now their friends. 

# data[].attributes.body
- While a senior White House official insisted earlier this week that Trump would make no trade offs on his trade agenda in order to elicit more support from China in pressuring North Korea, Trump himself has signaled a willingness to make concessions on trade in exchange for stepped up pressure on Pyongyang from Beijing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And he was welcomed with open arms: Trump's reception in the Chinese capital on Wednesday was complete with Chinese schoolchildren on the tarmac waving US and Chinese flags and others later uttering "I love you" to the US President.

His arrival was filled with an unmistakable sense of irony. But it also underscored the geopolitical realities Trump has had to confront as President -- and the relief here that he has yet to enact many of the toughest measures he pledged at nearly every campaign trail rally.

"We can't continue to allow China to rape our country and that's what they're doing. It's the greatest theft in the history of the world," he said at a May 2016 rally.

But Trump hasn't imposed double-digit tariffs on Chinese imports. He seems to have entirely abandoned his plans to label China a currency manipulator. And he hasn't retaliated against Beijing's abusive trade practices with draconian measures of his own, as his campaign once foreboded.

Instead, Trump's administration is leaning much more heavily on dialogue with Chinese officials -- notably direct talks with his counterpart, President Xi Jinping -- than other more dramatic powers afforded to him by the presidency.

That relationship pressed forward as Trump arrived Wednesday for a reception Chinese officials are calling the beginning of a "state visit, plus" that included an elaborate series of theatrical performances -- timed to coincide with the sunset -- in the heart of Beijing's historic Forbidden City.

Trump was all smiles and laughter, exchanging pleasantries with Xi and laughing at bits of the performance. And during tea time, Trump and Xi bonded over video clips of Trump's granddaughter singing and reciting ancient poems in Chinese.

"We're having a great time," Trump told reporters.

Foundation laid

In the 10 months of his presidency, the Trump administration has laid the foundation for him to take the kinds of strong retaliatory measures that would leave Chinese officials fuming. But so far, he hasn't pulled the trigger.

Pulling out his presidential pen, Trump has launched trade investigations into steel and aluminum imports and alleged Chinese theft of US intellectual property. But while those actions signal the administration's seriousness about countering Chinese trade abuses, the follow-up, so far, has been lacking -- even when those reviews have been completed, awaiting presidential action to impose tariffs or other measures to protect US industries.

Trump has offered no signs that his stance on China has changed or that he views the Asian powerhouse as less destructive to US manufacturing or threatening to the US' continued economic dominance. In fact, he's continued to rail against the US trade deficit with China and suggested more decisive action could come soon.

But the presidency has a way of bringing uncomfortable realities crashing down on the most powerful person in the world, like the undeniably intertwined fates of the US and Chinese economies. Or the importance of enlisting China's support in confronting the North Korean nuclear threat.

Few issues have been more at loggerheads over the course of Trump's presidency than trade and North Korea. And few relationships have been a better example of that conflict than that of the US and China.

While a senior White House official insisted earlier this week that Trump would make no trade-offs on his trade agenda in order to elicit more support from China in pressuring North Korea, Trump himself has signaled a willingness to make concessions on trade in exchange for stepped up pressure on Pyongyang from Beijing.

The effort -- which has been peppered with Trump's public praise for Xi and hours devoted to building a personal relationship with the Chinese leader -- has yielded results as China has gone further in sanctioning North Korea and backing the US-led pressure campaign than ever. One key step, China signing on to new UN Security Council sanctions, came only after the White House delayed a move to launch an investigation into alleged Chinese intellectual property theft.

Scaling up pressure on North Korea

But the Trump administration continues to believe China can and must do more to leverage its influence over the North Korean regime, which trades almost exclusively with China. It's unclear how Trump will react if China resists calls to continue scaling up pressure on North Korea.

As his visit to China approached, Trump and his advisers have made clear that trade is a top item on the agenda -- and Trump's rhetoric on trade often found a target in Beijing as Trump made his way to Tokyo and Seoul.

"It's been a very unfair trade situation. Our trade deficit (with China) is massive. It's hundreds of billions of dollars a year ... It has to come down," Trump said Monday in Japan, before signaling that the US "will take very, very strong action" against countries that he believes have taken advantage of the US.

"You're going to see a very big difference, and it's going to happen very soon," Trump added, without offering any more detail.

Aboard Air Force One en route to Beijing, a senior White House official stressed that Trump plans to confront the Chinese on the "severe imbalances in the US-China economic relationship" and ways to remedy the "grossly un-level playing field" for US companies in China.

And while his visit to China will be a crucial opportunity for Trump to press Chinese officials to increase market access for US companies in China, end unfair subsidies to Chinese companies dumping goods in the US and curtail the theft of US intellectual property, his efforts could be undercut by the pressure he must mount on Xi when it comes to North Korea.

But so far Chinese officials have been wary at the prospect of taking more punitive measures against North Korea.

"China has been doing everything we can on the Korean issue," said Cui Tiankai, the Chinese ambassador to the US, who pointed to the UN sanctions that he said are being implemented "with a high cost for China itself."

But, he stressed, "this issue cannot be solved all by China's self."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump once trashed China. Now, they're friends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And he was welcomed with open arms: Trump's reception in the Chinese capital on Wednesday was complete with Chinese schoolchildren on the tarmac waving US and Chinese flags and others later uttering "I love you" to the US President. His arrival was filled with an unmistakable sense of irony.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 2017 Election is going to send Republicans into total panic. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The 2017 Election is going to send Republicans into total panic. 

# data[].attributes.body
- Despite largely keeping Trump at arm's length a fact the President noted in a "don't blame me" tweet shortly after the race was called Tuesday night Gillespie watched as anti-Trump sentiment in key regions of the commonwealth doomed his chances of pulling off an upset victory. The across the board losses in VA, not to mention other Rep. defeats on Island, NJ, ME, NH and WA State among others suggest that Trump isn't only a drag on his party in general elections but also a massive turnout motivator for the Democratic base.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That panic is born not from the fact of Gillespie's defeat but the way in which he lost -- and the role President Donald Trump and Trumpism played in that loss.

Gillespie, like lots and lots of Republicans in the House and Senate, is very much an establishment figure. A former chairman of the Republican National Committee. A senior member of Bushworld. A GOP lobbyist. A conservative but someone willing to compromise. A pragmatist not an ideologue.

And yet, on the biggest election night since Trump engaged in a hostile takeover of the GOP 18 months ago, even Gillespie was unable to escape the Trump vortex. Despite largely keeping Trump at arm's length -- a fact the President noted in a "don't blame me" tweet shortly after the race was called Tuesday night -- Gillespie watched as anti-Trump sentiment in key regions of the commonwealth doomed his chances of pulling off an upset victory. (Worth noting: In the race's final weeks, Gillespie embraced many elements of Trump messaging -- defending Confederate monuments, attacking MS-13 and sanctuary cities etc.)

From the DC exurbs of Loudoun County (where Northam won by an eye-popping 20 points) to the conservative Richmond suburbs of Chesterfield County (where Gillespie appeared to eke out a win), voters turned out in droves to send a clear message to Trump: We don't like what you're doing. At all.

Almost six in 10 Virginians disapproved of the job Trump is doing as president, according to exit polling. Half of the Virginia electorate said that Trump was a major factor in their vote on Tuesday; of that group, twice as many said they saw their vote as a way to voice opposition to Trump as said they voted the way they did to express support for the President.

There's simply no way to explain the demolition of Gillespie in the suburbs and exurbs other than a strong distaste for Trump among those voters.

And, for all of the caveats and the don't-read-too-much-into-one-race-ism by the "smart" political reporters, the simple fact is that every single Republican politician in the halls of Congress will be paying very close attention to what happened in Virginia Tuesday night and wondering what it all means for them.

What it means -- at least as of today -- is this: Trump remains a potent and powerful force in Republican primaries. But, he is a potentially toxic taint with the broader general electorate.

Which puts Republicans -- especially those facing potentially serious primary challenges or who sit in swing districts in the general election -- in a no-win position. Run away from Trump and risk losing your primary fight. Run with Trump and risk losing the general election. Badly.

Already, faced with the possibility of being driven out of the party by the pro-Trump forces, a number of Republicans from the so-called "governing wing" of the GOP are heading for the exits.

New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo joined their ranks on Tuesday -- before the election results were known -- with a statement that tilted very heavily toward his distaste for the current political realities within his party.

"As some of my closest colleagues have also come to realize, those of us who came to Congress to change Washington for the better through good governance are now the outliers," LoBiondo said. "In legislating, we previously fought against allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Today, a vocal and obstinate minority within both parties has hijacked good legislation in pursuit of no legislation."

LoBiondo joines the likes of Reps. Dave Reichert (Washington), Charlie Dent (Pennsylvania), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida) and Dave Trott (Michigan) as members of the pragmatic wing of the GOP -- all of whom represent seats that will be Democratic pickup targets -- calling it quits in advance of the 2018 election.

For members who remain on the fence about whether or not to stick around for another term, the Virginia results will be terrifying. And, in turn, more open seats make for a more volatile political environment for Republicans. And the more open seats for Democrats to target, the better chance they have at making a very serious run at regaining their House majority next November. And the possibility of going from the majority to the minority come 2019 will be a major disincentive for Republicans pondering their political futures.

In short: Panic builds on itself. It snowballs.

The across-the-board losses in Virginia, not to mention other Republican defeats on Long Island, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire and Washington State -- among others -- suggest that Trump is not only a drag on his party in general elections but also a massive turnout motivator for the Democratic base. (This was true of President Barack Obama and Republicans; Obama was, effectively, the only person who was able to unite the Republican Party.)

Waking up Wednesday morning, Republicans are being smacked in the face with the reality of a Trump presidency: He is a man beloved by their base and disliked almost everywhere else.

That's a massive political problem without an easy or obvious solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the virginia governor's race is going to send republicans into a total panic - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Virginia governor's race is going to send Republicans into a total panic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That panic is born not from the fact of Gillespie's defeat but the way in which he lost -- and the role President Donald Trump and Trumpism played in that loss. Gillespie, like lots and lots of Republicans in the House and Senate, is very much an establishment figure.

# data[].attributes.body
- Democrats rebounding after Trumps victory. They are ecstatic about things finally being on their side. Gillespie wanted to distance himself from trump, but still follow what trump had in mind as president.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The marquee matchup is the Virginia governor's race, which pits Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam against Republican lobbyist and former George W. Bush administration official Ed Gillespie.

Gillespie has mimicked Trump's tactics -- attacking Northam over sanctuary cities while saying he would not remove Confederate Civil War monuments. A Gillespie mailer also referenced the controversy over protests by NFL players. "You'd never take a knee ... so take a stand on Election Day," the mailer reads.

But he has kept personal distance from Trump: The two didn't campaign together at all, despite Trump visiting his own golf course in Virginia 15 times after Gillespie won the Republican nomination.

Republicans nationally are closely watching to see if Gillespie's approach works or whether he got too close to Trump for suburban voters' comfort, or strayed too far away from the President to win over his rural, white base.

Northam, meanwhile, has struggled to motivate the black voters who make up the Democratic base. Former President Barack Obama urged Democrats not to get "complacent" in non-presidential elections during an October rally with Northam in Richmond.

The Virginia race carries national importance as a gauge of how voters are reacting to Trump a year into his presidency -- and also because the state is a proving ground for both parties' approaches in the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats hope to take control of the House and Republicans seek to expand their 52-48 Senate majority.

The election takes place with Trump overseas on a 13-day Asia trip. The President had thrown his political capital heavily behind Sen. Luther Strange in an Alabama Republican Senate primary in September -- but Strange lost to former judge Roy Moore, and Trump has been much less involved in subsequent races, although he continues to tweet to help Gillespie.

The Virginia race has caused national Democrats anxiety for weeks. Northam has struggled to pull away in a state Obama carried twice and Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

Polls have shown a tight race, with Northam narrowly leading in most. Four new polls were released Monday, with the closest, from Monmouth University, showing Northam's lead at 2 percentage points. The widest gap came from Quinnipiac University, which pegged Northam's lead at 9 points. The Wason Center at Christopher Newport University showed Northam up 6 points, and Fox News had Northam's lead at 5 points.

Voting in Virginia ends at 7 p.m. ET.

Democrats look to take over New Jersey

The other major match-up Tuesday takes place in New Jersey, in the race to replace Chris Christie as governor.

But unlike Virginia, the New Jersey race features a clear favorite: Democrat Phil Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs executive and former US Ambassador to Germany. He faces Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, a Republican who is badly hobbled by Christie's record-low approval rating in the mid-teens -- despite her efforts to break from the unpopular, term-limited governor. Polls there close at 8 p.m. ET.

Republicans, meanwhile, have an advantage in a Utah special election to replace the retired former House oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz. There, Provost Mayor John Curtis is expected to cruise to an easy victory.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio -- who campaigned with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and has fashioned himself as a leading progressive voice -- appears to be on track to win a second term. It's one of many mayoral races across the country taking place Tuesday.

Down-ballot races

Democrats also hope to make down-ballot gains.

In Virginia, Democrat Justin Fairfax is running for lieutenant governor against Republican Jill Holtzman Vogel, a state senator known for her sponsorship of a 2012 bill that would have required women seeking abortions to undergo vaginal ultrasounds. Social issues are prominent in another statewide race in Virginia, as Democratic attorney general Mark Herring faces Republican challenger John Adams, who has hit Herring for his refusal to defend Virginia's same-sex marriage ban in court.

Across the country in Washington, a state senate match-up will decide whether Democrats take control of the chamber -- and therefore land the "trifecta" of control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
us election tests nation's mood a year after trump win - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tuesday's elections test the nation's mood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The marquee matchup is the Virginia governor's race, which pits Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam against Republican lobbyist and former George W. Bush administration official Ed Gillespie. Gillespie has mimicked Trump's tactics -- attacking Northam over sanctuary cities while saying he would not remove Confederate Civil War monuments.