Alexa Ray Joel has zero tolerance for haters. The daughter of singer Billy Joel and supermodel Christie Brinkley recently took aim at a troll who compared her looks to those of her younger sister, Sailor Brinkley Cook, 19.

The drama unfolded in the comments section of a recent Instagram post by Brinkley, celebrating Sailor’s appearance in the 2018 Sports Illustrated Rookie of the Year competition. In a now-deleted comment, user @sams7007 decided it was an appropriate forum to criticize Alexa’s appearance.

And, Alexa, 32, was having none of it. “@sams7007 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Big Shot,” the brunette beauty clapped back. “You may think I’m hideous, but I like the way I look. And that’s really all the matters. (Besides, there’s a lot more to people than just what they look like.)”

“But hey, continue being a shallow, hateful troll in life and see where it gets you!” she continued.

Alexa appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated alongside her mom and Sailor in 2017. Afterwards, both sisters took to their Instagram accounts with body positive essays.

“Let’s STOP degrading and START celebrating ourselves and others, from both the inside AND out. There’s far too much degradation, competition, insecurity, and unhealthy standards associated with women and their bodies- particularly on social-media,” Alexa wrote. “I don’t have a completely flat tummy, or cellulite-free thighs… nor am I a model’s height or shape. Neither are hundreds of millions of other beautiful women out there. SO WHAT? Does it really matter, in the end? All that matters is how YOU feel about yourself.”

You tell ’em, Alexa!

Click Here: France Football Shop

I was 23 when I pulled the trigger of a gun for the first time at the NRA range in Fairfax, Va. It was 2011, and I had no idea where San Bernardino was or just how close Sandy Hook Elementary was to my grandpa’s house. Feeling the handgrip of the Glock 19 in my slightly sweaty palms, my boyfriend holding me steady, I took a deep breath and squeezed. Bang! I shot the ceiling. Bang! The corner of the paper target. It was exhilarating.

I grew up in a very liberal household in Connecticut. My mother didn’t like the idea of water guns. Going to a shooting range, encouraged by my gun-owning boyfriend, felt like rebellion. But it was more than that—while my feet were rooted in Virginia, emotionally I was back in my college town in Maryland, protecting myself from every creep who followed me across campus at night or grabbed me in a bar against my will. I breathed in the metallic smell of the range and thought about the possibility of never being vulnerable again. Police officers shoot Glock 19s, and now, so did I. I was no longer that defenseless, five-foot-tall girl. I was a strong, confident woman with a gun.

From that moment, I was hooked on the Second Amendment. How dare someone try to take away my right to self-protection. My boyfriend gave me an NRA bumper sticker and I put it on my car, right next to my half marathon 13.1 sticker, celebrating the other most empowering force in my life.

RELATED: What It’s Like to Lose a Child in a Mass School Shooting

Courtesy

I wasn’t reckless, nor was my boyfriend or the other gun enthusiasts I met. They understood that weapons are not toys. I took the range’s required safety course, consisting of showing my driver’s license, my boyfriend’s permit, and a surprisingly simplistic multiple-choice quiz. (Where do you point the gun? Answer: Always down the range, never at your face.)

Click Here: Spain Football Shop

Soon, I graduated to the revolver and then the assault rifle: the AR-15. The rapid fire and seemingly endless magazine made me feel like a hero. My boyfriend had customized his rifle with a better handgrip and scope. These pieces cost hundreds of dollars.

I asked him why he owned this gun if all we were doing was shooting at paper. “Simple,” he responded. “I need it for protection.” Surely a handgun was enough to feel safe, though, right? He looked confused, almost angry. “I want to be prepared.” Should I have been more afraid about the dangerous world I lived in? I considered buying my own gun.

In the years that followed, I heard about dozens of shootings: School shootings, workplace shootings, concert shootings, army base shootings. They were always crushing, but none of them necessarily abated my gun lust. I was no longer with that boyfriend, but I’d dated other men and had a roommate who owned guns legally and safely. They followed protocol, using special gun safes both at home and while carrying, and they respected the huge responsibility they had took on when holding a weapon. It was their identity. I was disturbed by the tragedies and horrified for their victims, but the way I used guns had nothing to do with that.

RELATED: I’m Old Enough to Buy a Gun but Not to Be Taken Seriously?

Still, I felt an inner conflict every time I read those headlines. The same year I started shooting, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 18 other people were shot in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Ariz. I felt queasy realizing that I had shot the same handgun that Jared Lee Loughner had used. I remember his maniacal face in papers, and while I knew that I would never use a gun the same way he did, was our excitement about the power of wrapping our hands around a handgrip all that different? We had a spooky connection.

I moved to Connecticut in 2015 and took my pistol permit class, which pending a background check and fingerprints, would enable me to own a handgun legally. Connecticut has notoriously strict gun laws, so I thought it would be an onerous process. But I took a four-hour NRA safety course (about 10 minutes of which were in a range), and then I was allowed to shoot. Internally, I questioned how safe this was—after all, driver’s ed requires hours behind the wheel before you can get a driver’s license. This experience plus a background check would get me a gun in a few months.

But eventually, I decided not to. Would I truly be safer? People say that an emotional response to a tragedy is not good reason to change your stance on guns laws. But what really changed my mind was the number of times I had to have that emotional response. Two weeks before Parkland, a friend of mine lost his teenage son to a tragic gun accident in his home. AR-15s (a gun I’d also shot) were by that point regularly mentioned in the news. Aurora. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Orlando. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. And most recently Parkland. I had convinced myself that these individual cases were flukes, that bad people will always abuse their power, but you can’t ignore such an obvious pattern; it’s data.

VIDEO: The School Walkout in Parkland, Florida

The NRA’s response to these tragedies, to Parkland in particular, was the final straw for me. Their idea? Combat bad guys with guns with more good guys with guns. Fear tactics. People often sarcastically equate gun control laws with a ban on cars. After all, cars kill more people. But cars are controlled. You can support the Second Amendment, even be a gun enthusiast, while also advocating for common sense laws like background checks, bump stock bans, and waiting periods. In fact, 97 percent of gun owners support background checks. The NRA chooses to use fear tactics instead. The organization doesn’t support the intent of the Second Amendment, which is why it lost my and many other people’s confidence after Parkland.

America has a mental healthcare problem. There are not enough avenues through which to get help and there’s a stigma around treatment. It’s a problem we need to fix and one that would surely decrease some people’s predisposition to violence. But other countries have mental healthcare deficits too and a fraction of the mass shootings. The difference? The U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country worldwide. In some states, guns have shorter waiting periods than reputable therapists.

RELATED: Why I’m Walking Out of School for Gun Safety

So yes, a person hellbent on harming others will do so no matter what, but making it easy for that person to get their hands on an assault weapon turns violence into mass violence. That’s why I’ve thrown away my gun license, torn off the NRA bumper sticker, and now fully support an assault rifle ban.

I don’t think gun owners are bad or oblivious. I respect their right to be able to protect themselves. But teenagers also have the right to attend school without being shot dead. I get scared walking to my car at night, too. I want to be that badass woman who can protect myself from anyone and anything. But despite the NRA’s effort to make me think otherwise, I also know that I don’t need an AR-15 or a preconfigured magazine to do that.

Is Justin Timberlake planning to have more children with Jessica Biel? He’s hinted at wanting to give almost-3-year-old son Silas a sibling before, but the latest pregnancy news surrounding Timberlake has nothing to do with his own family.

At his latest Man of the Woods Tour show in Detroit on Monday, the pop star made one woman’s ultimate fantasy come true. Basically, JT fan Darcell Baxtresser headed to his show with a sign that read, “Will you help me announce my pregnancy?” While he was performing, Timberlake spotted the sign and brought his own show to a halt to make her wish come true.

He carried the sign she brought with her on stage and then said, “Baby Baxtresser arriving November 1, 2018.” Timberlake also joked and asked if he could nickname her child “baby Bax.” Watch it all go down here:

In an interview with E! News, Baxtresser explained that she didn’t plan to share the news of her pregnancy with her family for several more weeks, but thought doing it through Timberlake would be incredible.

RELATED: What Will Khloé Kardashian Name Her Baby Girl? Here Are Our Predictions

“I’ve loved him since I was 6 years old so if I wanted anyone in the world to announce it, it was him,” she said. “As soon as it happened, cousins and friends who were at the show were blowing up my phone, so I figured I had to tell my family right away. I group texted my siblings and parents the video and they were all going nuts. I sent it to my husband and he was just like ‘Oh wow!!'”

Will baby Bax be named after Justin? She has different plans for that, though she did say Timberlake is invited to be the Godfather. A memorable pregnancy announcement indeed.

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle‘s floral arrangements at their upcoming wedding will be full of locally-sourced flowers and plants!

The royal couple have chosen floral designer Philippa Craddock to create and design the church flowers for their May 19 nuptials, according to Kensington Palace.

Craddock—whose client list includes Kensington Palace and fashion houses Alexander McQueen and Christian Dior—will be in charge of creating the displays at St. George’s Chapel, where the actual ceremony will be held, and at St. George’s Hall at Windsor Castle, where the Queen will host a luncheon for the newly married couple.

Mark Cuthbert/UK Press via Getty Images

The floral designer, who specializes in utilizing seasonal flowers in her work, will be creating the floral displays mostly using foliage from the gardens and parklands of The Crown Estate and Windsor Great Park, according to the palace.

And when possible, Craddock will also be using flowers and plants that are in season and blooming naturally in May, which will include branches of beech, birch, and hornbeam, as well as white garden roses, peonies, and foxgloves.

While the exact designs have yet to be revealed, according to the press release the arrangements will reflect the natural landscapes from which the flowers, plants and branches were taken from

“I am excited and honored to have been chosen by Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle to create and design their wedding flowers,” Craddock said in a press release.

RELATED: Why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Royal Wedding Could Cost $45 Million

“Working with them has been an absolute pleasure. The process has been highly collaborative, free-flowing, creative and fun. The final designs will represent them as a couple, which I always aim to achieve in my work, with local sourcing, seasonality and sustainability being at the forefront,” she added.

Additionally, according to the press release, the floral designs will include a very sustainable inclusion from the Royal Parks— pollinator-friendly plants, which provide a wonderful habitat for bees.

After the pair tie the knot, Harry and Meghan have arranged for the arrangements to be distributes to various charitable organizations.

Click Here: Cheap France Rugby Jersey

WASHINGTON — 

William B. Taylor Jr., the top U.S. official in Ukraine and a key witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, told House investigators about a “nightmare” foreign policy gambit in pursuit of political dirt against Joe Biden that he believed was likely to embolden Russia and how he threatened to resign over it.

House Democrats on Wednesday released a transcript of a closed-door deposition by Taylor, the first witness to provide evidence of a quid pro quo in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. In his testimony, he recounted for lawmakers last month how Trump empowered his attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to open up an unofficial diplomatic channel with Ukraine.

Taylor described how Trump prevented the release of military aid to Ukraine as he used that back channel to prod the country’s leaders to publicly announce an investigation of Biden, the former vice president and potential 2020 rival to Trump.

Taylor testified that he learned in September from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, that the aid and a White House visit sought by Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, were both “dependent” on a public statement about an investigation. He worried that demand could embarrass Ukraine and further embolden Russia, he testified.

“The Russians want to know how much support the Ukrainians are going to get in general, but also what kind of support from the Americans,” Taylor told lawmakers. “So the Russians are loving, would love, the humiliation of Zelensky at the hand of the Americans, and would give the Russians a freer hand, and I would quit.”

Explaining to lawmakers his conversation with Sondland, Taylor said he worried about Ukraine making such a statement to satisfy Trump even without a guarantee that the president would eventually release the aid, which is important to the country’s ability to defend itself against incursions by Russia-backed separatists.

The nightmare, Taylor explained, was that Zelensky would mention Burisma, the natural gas company where Biden’s son Hunter served for five years on the board, “get himself in big trouble in [the U.S.] and probably in his country as well, and the security assistance would not be released.”

Democrats in the room for Taylor’s deposition Oct. 22 said it was remarkably “thorough.” The 324-page transcript reveals the detail with which he described key events.

Not surprising, given how central his testimony is to the case, Taylor is scheduled to be the first witness to testify in a public setting Nov. 13 as the impeachment inquiry emerges from behind closed doors after six weeks of witness interviews.

Taylor’s account has now been corroborated by other officials. Sondland amended his testimony this week after claiming that depositions given by other witnesses, especially Taylor, had “refreshed” his memory about telling an aide to Zelensky that the security assistance wouldn’t be delivered until a public statement was made about an investigation.

Taylor described himself as being “alarmed” upon hearing Sept. 1 from Tim Morrison, a National Security Council official at the time, that the aid was contingent on such a statement.

He was similarly disturbed by a subsequent phone call that day with Sondland, who “told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election,” he said.

Sondland had “recognized that he had made a mistake” by informing Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting was contingent on a public statement about investigations from Kyiv, even though that was the case, Taylor said.

“Ambassador Sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a box by making public statement [sic] about ordering such investigations,” he testified.

Taylor was explicit on two issues that are central to the investigation — that Trump was demanding an investigation that could have an effect on the 2020 campaign and that the Ukrainians wanted no part of it.

“It was becoming clear to the Ukrainians that, in order to get this meeting that they wanted, they would have to commit to pursuing these investigations,” Taylor testified.

He said that Ukraine’s former finance minister, Oleksandr Danylyuk, “understood — and I’m sure that he briefed President Zelensky, I’m sure they had this conversation” that “opening those investigations, in particular on Burisma, would have involved Ukraine in the 2020 election campaign. He did not want to do that.”

Taylor, who came out of retirement in June to serve as U.S. envoy to Ukraine, will be the first of two witnesses to repeat their private testimony in a public setting when the impeachment inquiry enters a new, more television-friendly phase next week.

Taylor and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of State, are scheduled to testify Nov. 13, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) announced Wednesday.

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her post by Trump, is scheduled to testify Nov. 15, also in a public hearing.

Yovanovitch’s initial testimony was released this week.

Schiff, whom Republicans have criticized for presiding over what they claim is a partisan impeachment process, told reporters Wednesday that the public hearings will allow Americans to hear the evidence and “to evaluate the witnesses for themselves, to make their own determinations about the credibility of the witnesses, but also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president’s misconduct.”

Despite the mounting evidence of a quid pro quo, Republicans have continued to defend the president’s actions. In recent days, several GOP senators said that such behavior, however problematic, doesn’t rise to the level of a crime or isn’t an impeachable offense.

On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered a new defense, suggesting that the Trump White House was too inept to execute a quid pro quo.

“What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to,” Graham told reporters. “They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.”

Times staff writer Noah Bierman contributed to this report.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

California’s top court appeared skeptical Wednesday that the Legislature may require presidential primary candidates to disclose not only their tax returns but also their birth certificates and psychiatric records.

During a hearing on a new law requiring presidential primary candidates to produce their tax records, a lawyer representing the state argued the Legislature had the power to impose all sorts of requirements. Though some justices appeared inclined to find some support for the new law, no one on the court embraced the notion that the Legislature had unfettered power.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Jay C. Russell, defending the law, spoke of its expansiveness in response to a question from Justice Joshua Groban.

“Would the Legislature be entitled to impose requirements that candidates produce birth certificate or psychotherapy records or affidavits that they have never committed adultery or been a member of the Communist Party?” Groban asked.

Russell said yes, under the text of a state law, “the Legislature does have plenary power to regulate primary elections.”

He noted, though, that some requirements could run afoul of privacy protections embodied in the state and federal constitutions.

“The Legislature can then tack on any number of additional requirements?” asked an incredulous Justice Ming W. Chin.

“Where does it end?” Chin asked. “Do we get all their high school report cards?”

Even justices whose questions suggested an openness to the tax returns requirement indicated there had to be some limits.

Justice Goodwin Liu told Russell that he seemed to be espousing “a very strange reading” of the law.

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar suggested that a less expansive reading of the law might have been “enough to win your case.”

In the case before the court, the California Republican Party argued the law violated the California Constitution, which since 1972 has called for an open presidential primary.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the Legislature had not even considered the state Constitution in drafting the law.

The Legislature has plenary power “until the Constitution speaks,” she said. She said the court searched the records to determine if the Legislature even consulted the state Constitution.

“We didn’t find anything,” she said. “Did you?”

Even if the state high court upheld the law, it could not be enforced under an order by Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.

England ruled in September that the law violated four different sections of the U.S. Constitution in addition to a separate federal law. The state appealed his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is not likely to decide the case before the deadline for producing tax returns.

Federal courts have the last word on matters of federal law, and the California Supreme Court has the final say on state law issues. If either court blocks the law, it cannot take effect.

In a separate case, a federal appeals court in New York decided earlier this week that Trump’s accountants must turn over his tax returns to a grand jury investigating possible illegal conduct by the president. The Trump administration has said it would appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

The Democratic National Committee has yanked its Dec. 19 presidential primary debate from UCLA in solidarity with labor unions that are engaged in disputes with the university.

Mary Beth Cahill, a senior advisor to the DNC, said the party had asked the debate’s media sponsors, “PBS NewsHour” and Politico, to find an alternative site “in response to concerns raised by the local organized labor community.”

The sixth debate of candidates for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination was scheduled to take place at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs.

“With regret,” UCLA said Wednesday in a written statement, “we have agreed to step aside as the site of the debate rather than become a potential distraction during this vitally important time in our country’s history.”

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, one of the nation’s most powerful unions, asked Democratic presidential candidates on Tuesday to honor its three-year boycott on speakers participating in events at UCLA. AFSCME Local 3299, which represents patient care workers, is in protracted contract negotiations with the university system.

Local 3299 praised the DNC on Wednesday for joining its “fight for fair treatment from California’s 3rd largest employer.”

“Just as our next President must work to heal the divisions in our country, they must also work to confront the staggering inequality and mistreatment of low-wage workers that have become all too common in today’s economy,” the local said in a written statement.

In March, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading candidate for the party nomination, joined a UCLA picket line of another union, the University Professional and Technical Employees, an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America, which represents research and technical workers. Since then, that union has reached a contract with UCLA, according to a representative for the local.

WASHINGTON — 

Off-year election results in three key states — Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky — serve as a flashing red warning light for Republicans worried that President Trump’s deep unpopularity outside rural areas may threaten their grip on the White House, the Senate and numerous state legislatures.

But in Washington, where Republicans are expected to ardently defend Trump when the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry open next week, GOP lawmakers are unlikely to alter their approach, at least in the short term.

The statewide contests Tuesday inevitably reflected local candidates and conditions. But several races drew high-profile campaigners and millions of dollars in out-of-state contributions, and were widely seen as a test of voter enthusiasm and party momentum one year ahead of the 2020 election.

In many cases, they reflected Republican struggles in suburban areas that once were crucial to GOP advances.

“There are some canaries in the coal mine right now, and we in the party would do ourselves a favor by paying attention,” said Jim Merrill, a Republican consultant based in New Hampshire, where Democrats also made significant gains in local races. Some polls show Trump’s approval ratings have tanked in a state he lost by 0.4 percentage points in 2016.

Republicans sought to cast the apparent loss of the governor’s seat in Kentucky — Republican Matt Bevin trailed Democrat Andy Beshear on Wednesday by 5,100 votes with 100% of returns tallied — as an outlier, the result of an deeply unpopular incumbent who ran a bad race. Republicans won other statewide races there, they note.

But the race also showed the limits of the GOP’s increasing dependence on the president. On Monday, Trump held a raucous election eve rally with Bevin in Lexington, Ky., and sought to nationalize the governor’s race as a referendum on the impeachment battle roiling Washington, and on the president himself.

Trump told cheering supporters at the rally that a Bevin loss would send “a really bad message” and pleaded, “You can’t let that happen to me.” He looked to save face Wednesday, tweeting that the rally had given Bevin “at least 15 points,” a claim at odds with state polls.

For the president’s own reelection race — and for Republicans looking further ahead — the results in Virginia and Pennsylvania were more alarming. Trump lost Virginia in 2016 but pulled an upset in Pennsylvania, long a Democratic bastion.

Despite a scandal in Richmond this year that almost forced out the Democratic governor, Virginia Democrats on Tuesday won control of both chambers of the state Legislature, marking the first time since 1993 that the party will control the governorship and the legislative branch.

And in Philadelphia’s vast suburban counties, Democrats took control of local government in several longtime Republican strongholds, including Delaware County, which Democrats haven’t controlled since the Civil War, and Chester County, which has never had a Democrat-led council in its history.

Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist in Washington who worked for a decade as chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), sees those results as “huge warnings” for Republicans.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

“What we’ve seen in the Trump era is suburban Republicans are a less reliable Republican vote than rural Democrats, and you can get away with it in states like Kentucky,” he said. “But it’s really hard to get away with it in states like Pennsylvania, where you have huge population numbers that just can’t be overcome in rural areas.”

These swing voters tend to be moderate, and Trump still could win them back if he successfully paints his opponent as an extremist who doesn’t reflect their values.

“There is not a single socialist among them, and they are probably horrified by the likes of Elizabeth Warren,” Holmes said. But many are high-income, highly educated and well-informed voters “who obviously have a big problem with the Republican Party right now.”

Some analysts said candidates who forge their own identities while not repudiating Trump — a tricky balance — are in the best position to win in swing states, where a big rally by the president may not matter as much.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado, both moderate Democrats running for president, pointed to the win in Kentucky, where Beshear focused on pocketbook issues like healthcare and not the president, as evidence that a centrist candidate who appeals to suburban voters is the key to retaking the White House.

Still, while the election results may ease Democrats’ fears about their impeachment efforts backfiring politically, Republicans are unlikely to alter their calculations about sticking with the president.

Not one GOP House member voted last week for a Democratic resolution to start the public phase of the process, and Republican senators, who will serve as jurors in a potential trial, have mostly shrugged off mounting evidence that Trump froze $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in an effort to pressure its president to investigate Democrats, including potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.

“Impeachment is reinforcing the views of people who already disapprove of Donald Trump and having no effect on people who already approve of him,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “That’s exactly what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton’s impeachment, where attitudes about it became synonymous with his job approval.”

Impeachment is already “baked in,” with Republicans all but certain to acquit Trump if the House approves articles of impeachment, according to a senior GOP Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal assessments. Because the Democratic-led inquiry looks “nakedly political,” the aide said, it will be “very easy for GOP senators to vote” to leave him in office.

The political concern for Republicans, Ayres said, is in the long run, given that Tuesday’s results show “a reinforcement and even an acceleration” of what became clear in 2017 and 2018 elections: eroding GOP support among millennials and college-educated voters in America’s suburbs.

“In the long run, that’s a real problem for the Republican Party, because groups where we have gotten stronger are declining as a portion of the electorate,” he said. Exit polls in 2016 showed Trump did best among white, non-college-educated voters, and they remain crucial to his base support.

Trump held what amounted to a pep rally to buck up Republicans on Wednesday, inviting senators and top Cabinet officials to the White House to celebrate the more than 150 federal judges confirmed to lifetime appointments in the last three years.

The issue, more than any other, binds the party’s various factions and has helped Trump maintain strong support from Republicans.

Trump singled out senators for tenacity while several paid tribute to him for sticking by Brett M. Kavanaugh during his tumultuous confirmation process for the Supreme Court.

“It’s necessary to be a warrior, frankly,” the president said. “If you’re not, you’ve got a problem.”

WASHINGTON — 

Senate Republicans are beginning to strategize about how they might use an impeachment trial to reshape the narrative in the president’s favor.

Trump’s strongest allies in the Senate are considering ideas such as calling witnesses that might prove embarrassing to Democrats or trying to time the proceeding to interfere with the campaigning of 2020 candidates, particularly in the run-up to the first presidential contest in Iowa.

If impeachment moves from the Democratic-controlled House to the GOP-controlled Senate, the president’s party will have more control over the process. Many see it as an opportunity to allow the president’s lawyers to make a high-profile case to the public.

Some are speculating that they could call witnesses who could shift focus away from Trump’s alleged misconduct, such as former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, whom Trump has falsely accused of corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

And the Senate might even have influence on the 2020 contest. Assuming articles of impeachment are passed in the House by the end of the year, a trial held in January would keep the six senators who are vying for the Democratic nomination tied up in Washington instead of out campaigning in Iowa. That could be a boon to other Democrats seeking the nomination, including Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“Once it comes over here, it’s in our lap,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “We talk about those things and kind of snicker about it, I suppose: the possibility of it playing out that way, where we’re literally in the middle of voting [in the presidential race and] senators would be stranded here for six days a week.”

All of the senators running for president plan to remain in Washington for any trial, according to the candidates and their campaigns.

Many of the candidates have skipped Senate votes in recent weeks as the presidential contest has picked up steam. But bypassing the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history — particularly when many of the candidates were publicly calling for an impeachment inquiry before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — would be noticed and judged within the Beltway.

“I’ll be there,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “This is a constitutional responsibility. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said “of course” she is concerned that a trial would limit her chance to talk to Iowa voters, but that she would stay in Washington. “I will fulfill my responsibility. There’s no question,” she told reporters recently. “I take it very seriously.”

Clinton’s trial lasted five weeks — a length of time that GOP senators speculate is all but unfathomable in today’s political and news environment.

Any amount of time in Washington could put a significant damper on a campaign, particularly because impeachment is not a central concern of Democratic primary voters. That will be particularly true in Iowa, where voters have grown accustomed to face-to-face contact with candidates.

Republicans’ ability to control the timing of a trial may be limited, however. For example, current Senate rules require it take up articles of impeachment the day after they are forwarded from the House, giving Democrats some influence on the calendar. A trial could be delayed, but that might require Democratic support.

Republicans could simply use their majority to change the rules before the trial begins, though such a move has not been openly discussed.

Current rules and precedents are already not very conducive to a campaign schedule. They require the chamber to conduct the trial six days a week and begin at 1 p.m. each day. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated Tuesday that he wants those rules to remain in place. That leaves little time to hop on a flight to Iowa.

Once the trial begins, senators are prohibited from speaking on the Senate floor; they are expected to sit at their desks and write their questions down to be given to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who would oversee the trial.

Of course, candidates could — and certainly will — do cable television hits from the Senate office buildings to highlight their role in the process. So even though they may lose face time with Iowa voters, they’ll be at the center of a national story that is likely to dominate airwaves and headlines.

McConnell has downplayed how much Republicans can control the process, saying that once the trial begins, rulings will be made by Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — not by a majority of the Senate. “This is not something that the majority can kind of micromanage like it can on almost any other issue,” he said Tuesday.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

During the Clinton impeachment trial, however, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist took a largely ceremonially role.

Many of the major decisions will be made before the trial. Senators will have to approve a resolution setting up the rules, including whether witnesses will be allowed and when the trial should begin. During the Clinton impeachment trial, the Republican and Democratic leaders wrote rules that were approved 100 to 0. McConnell suggested Tuesday that at some point, he will sit down with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to potentially draw them up.

But given the sharp partisan divide over how the House has conducted the process so far, it is far from certain whether the leaders can match the level of bipartisanship seen in 1999.

The Senate trial will give the president and his lawyers a high-profile opportunity to make their case to the American public. In theory, Republicans will have a chance to call witnesses who could undermine the Democrats’ case. But during Clinton’s impeachment trial, the bipartisan agreement limited witnesses and determined that video of a private deposition of Monica Lewinsky would be aired instead of allowing a House prosecutor to question her in the well of the Senate.

Republicans appear to be staying almost universally supportive of the president, suggesting there is little chance Trump will be convicted.

“If it were today, I don’t think there’s any question,” McConnell said Tuesday. “It would not lead to a removal” of the president.

1/11

Clippers guard Lou Williams works to the basket against Bucks guard Eric Bledsoe during the first quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

2/11

Clippers forward Montrezl Harrell goes to the basket and scores against the Bucks during the first quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

3/11

Clippers guard Jerome Robinson goes to the hoop against Bucks guard Pat Connaughton in the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

4/11

Clippers guard Patrick Beverley looks for an open teammate during the second quarter of a game against the Bucks Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

5/11

Bucks guard George Hill steals the ball from Clippers center Ivaca Zubac during the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

6/11

Clippers guard Lou Williams tries to pass the ball around Bucks forward Ersan Ilyasova in the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

7/11

Clippers forward Maurice Harkless drives to the basket against Bucks forward Giannis Antetokounmpo during the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

8/11

Clippers guard Lou Williams drives to the basket against Bucks guard George Hill during the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

9/11

Clippers defenders Montrezl Harrell and Patrick Beverley pressure Bucks forward Giannis Antetokounmpo during the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

10/11

Clippers coach Doc Rivers argues a call with an official in the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

11/11

Clippers guard Jerome Robinson knocks the ball away from Bucks forward Giannis Antetokounmpo as Clippers big man Ivaca Zubac defends during the second quarter of a game Nov. 6 at Staples Center. 

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

The Clippers missed their first seven shots Wednesday night.

They turned the ball over four times before scoring their first points.

Down nine, they rallied to lead Milwaukee before the first quarter’s end — only to trail by 17 eight minutes later.

Their best player was on the sideline in a blue sports coat, watching while Milwaukee’s best player was uncharacteristically sinking as many three-point shots as he’d made all season.

There were several reasons why the Clippers should not have been hanging with a contender to win the Eastern Conference. And yet, with 23 seconds remaining in a chaotic fourth quarter, they trailed by only two points and the entirety of Staples Center’s lower bowl seemed to be standing, waiting for the moment that seemed so distant only hours earlier.

It was a tantalizing prospect that felt straight out of last season — a star-less Clippers lineup grinding down an opponent boasting 7-foot league MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo.

But by removing Kawhi Leonard from the lineup — the second game this season he has missed for load management of his knee — the Clippers also eliminated any margin for error. And unable to rely on the NBA’s top fourth-quarter scorer, the Clippers closed the gap, but couldn’t catch up to their foe.

Instead it was Bucks 129, Clippers 124.

“That was great,” coach Doc Rivers said. “I want to win the game though.”

Montrezl Harrell (a career-high 34 points, plus 13 rebounds), Lou Williams (34 points) and Patrick Beverley (20 points, 10 rebounds) did everything possible to do just that, with their scoring offsetting the stretches in which the Clippers’ offense, down one of the league’s best shot-makers in Leonard, disappeared.

Harrell, in particular, at times resembled a 6-foot-7 bulldozer with braids as he bulled to the rim with a collection of dunks and floaters. “We just gave him the ball, spaced the floor and he went and got it,” Rivers said. “That tells you he’s a heck of a player. We needed every basket. He was phenomenal.”

Outside of that trio, however, the rest of the Clippers managed just 36 points. Their defense held Milwaukee to 42 points in the paint, four off their target. But they couldn’t keep the irrepressible Antetokounmpo out of the key forever, as he made three shots within four feet in the final quarter to finish with 38 points, to go with 16 rebounds and nine assists. He also made his impact felt beyond the arc, with four three-pointers.

In last season’s Eastern Conference finals, Leonard locked up Antetokounmpo defensively over the final four games while playing with Toronto, leading the Raptors to a berth in the NBA Finals. But he could not repeat the effort Wednesday, part of the team’s plan to increase their long-term playoff odds by incurring some short-term pain in the standings.

“Kawhi is gonna sit out for games, it’s going to happen, man, so we can’t put that all on him,” Harrell said. “He’s got to take care of his body just like every other athlete on this team, so, just because he’s sitting out of the game, that don’t mean we got the right to drop a game.”

The Clippers are now 0-2 in games Leonard has sat out and there will be more absences to come. The team’s medical staff has determined that Leonard is not yet healthy to play on consecutive nights, a determination the NBA’s medical staff agree with, a league spokesman said Wednesday in addressing the Clippers’ load management strategy.

“There’s no concern here, but we want to make sure,” Rivers said of Leonard’s health. “I think Kawhi made a statement that he’s never felt better. It’s our job to make sure he stays that way. That’s important. But he played a lot of minutes in the playoffs last year.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

“So, it’s not a health thing, really. It is in some ways. We want him to just keep feeling better and getting better.”

The Clippers are set to get better soon. Injured forward Paul George is expected to take part in his first “live” drills of the season Saturday, a person with knowledge of the plans confirmed.

George, who underwent surgery on both shoulders in the offseason, will give the Clippers more offensive firepower and length defensively on nights when Leonard sits — and vice versa too. His return will give the Clippers the margin for error they lacked against the Bucks.

“There’s no moral victory in anything,” Beverley said. “But we took a step forward, for sure.”