Inbox: Iowa Democratic Party chairman Troy Price has scheduled a meeting to address reporters shortly. Headed there now. #iacaucus
Rape
The Pronk Pops Show 1391, February 4, 2020, Story 1: Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists (REDS) Sweep The Iowa Caucuses Based on Partial Results — Buttigieg (26.9%), Sanders (25.1%), Warren (18.3%), and Moderate Left of Center Biden Just Makes Cutoff with (15.6%) For Now — Results Subject To Change — Videos — Story 2: President Trump To Deliver The State of Union Speech — Trump Promises Accomplished and 2020 Agenda — Videos — Story 3: Trump Hits Gallup Approval Rating of 49%! — Videos — Story 4: President Trump To Award The Medal of Freedom to Conservative Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh — Great Choice — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019
UPDATED February 5, 2020
Story 1: Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists (REDS) Sweep The Iowa Caucuses Based on Partial Results — Buttigieg (26.9%), Sanders (25.1%), Warren (18.3%), and Moderate Left of Center Biden Just Makes Cutoff with (15.6%) For Now — Results Subject To Change — Videos
Democrat says ‘systemic racism’ to blame for low turnout in Iowa caucuses
OMG the Democrat meltdown in Iowa just keeps getting worse. In addition to the technical glitches that embarrassed Democrats worldwide, they are trying to pin the blame on Iowa in their latest effort to alienate voters. Democrat consultant Zerlina Maxwell told Craig Melvin on MSNBC that the low Democrat turnout in Iowa was because “white children are not in the cages.” WHAT?!? Of course, many Latinos are white, but beyond that she has insulted all those good progressive Iowans who thought they were just as good as the radical Dems in California and New York. Guess again!
Partial results released after glitch delays Iowa caucus numbers
2020 Iowa caucuses end in debacle
Trump reacts to Iowa chaos as he prepares for State of the Union address l ABC News
Trump reacts to Iowa chaos as he prepares for State of the Union address l ABC News
Pete Buttigieg IS ahead in Iowa caucus results as Democrats FINALLY unveil two-thirds of votes – with Bernie Sanders in second place and Joe Biden in distant FOURTH
- Pete Buttigieg, the former South Bend mayor, declared himself victor of the Iowa caucuses even though there were no official results
- On Tuesday afternoon almost 24 hours after the caucuses began the state Democratic party finally unveiled results from two-third of precincts
- They dramatically revealed that Buttigieg, 38, IS in the lead for state delegates, the key measure of success
- He was on 26.9% with Bernie Sanders on 25.1%, Elizabeth Warren on 18.3% and Joe Biden on 15.6%
- But the final vote result puts Bernie Sanders just ahead of Buttigieg in the second round votes – the raw popular vote
- The caucus system works like the electoral college so it is possible to lose the popular vote but win the overall result
- The results are bad news for Joe Biden who was in fourth on 15.6% and a mixed picture for Elizabeth Warren on 18.3%
- Amy Klobuchar said she did ‘incredibly well’ on Tuesday night but was in fifth on 12.6%
- Bernie Sanders’ campaign put out numbers that put him in the lead, but the senator said ‘we are not declaring victory’ like Buttigieg’s campaign
- Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price apologized for the disaster and moved rapidly off stage after saying he promised the data was accurate
Pete Buttigieg is leading Democrats in the first big batch of Iowa election data released finally released Tuesday by the state party after a faulty app botched Monday night’s caucus results.
Buttigieg, 38, who declared Monday night that he would be ‘victorious,’ was leading the field with 26.9 per cent of delegates, the key measure of success, according to the first batch of returns, with 62 per cent of precincts reporting.
He was followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, at 25.1 per cent, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, at 18.3 percent. Joe Biden was at 15.6 percent in the returns.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, from neighboring Minnesota, was in fifth place, with 13 per cent of the vote. She has been banking on a strong performance in in Iowa to vault her to the national stage.
Andrew Yang, who has drawn big crowds of young Iowans, was at just 1 percent. In Iowa’s controversial caucus system, candidates who draw less than 15 per cent are not deemed viable, and supporters are required to caucus for other candidates.
But the other measure of success – final round votes – put Buttigieg narrowly in second place to Bernie Sanders with 27,030 votes to the Vermont senator’s 28,220.
Buttigieg addressed the results at his Tuesday night rally in Laconia, New Hampshire.
‘They are not complete, but a majority is in, and they show our campaign in first place. So, we don’t know all of the numbers, but we know this, a campaign that started a year ago with four staff members, no name recognition, no money, just a big idea,’ he said.
Buttigieg, the first openly gay major party candidate, choked up talking about what the results meant to him.
‘It validates for a kid somewhere in a community wondering if he belongs or she belongs or they belong in their own family that if you believe in yourself and your country, there is a lot backing up the belief,’ he said.
‘And now, we come to new Hampshire. A state that famously thinks for itself, and as we enter this new phase and this week ahead to convince New Hampshire to support this vision and then go on, I have never been more confident in our campaign, in our team, and in the vision that brought to us this point.’
But Sanders offered no concession. His campaign adviser Jeff Weaver said: ‘We want to thank the people of Iowa. We are gratified that in the partial data released so far it’s clear that in the first and second round more people voted for Bernie than any other candidate in the field.’
The news came after nearly 24 hours of chaos, after the Iowa party failed to release the results after experiencing widespread technical difficulties that were attributed to an app that allowed precinct chairs to report election information.
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price apologized for the snafu that upended Democratic politics.
‘The bottom line is that we hit a stumbling block on the back end of the reporting of the data but the one thing I want you to know: we know this data is accurate,’ he said.
He reassured Americans about the outcome, after multiple candidates put their spin on the results.
‘The one thing they will say is that the underlying data that — the raw data — is secure. It was always secure. This was a coding error in one of the pieces on the back-end, but the raw data, the data that has come in, is secure,’ he said.
‘We have been working day and night to make sure that the results are accurate,’ he pledged, after party officials told stunned media in Iowa that it would not release results Monday night.
He called the reporting that occurred ‘unacceptable’ and said he was sorry. ‘As chair of the party, I apologize deeply for this,’ he said in a televised news conference.
The strong performance by Buttigieg came as he was ridiculed by other party members for declaring victory before the results were in. Rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders put out his own unofficial count Monday night that had him leading the field in areas tabulated by his staff.
In fact, at least as far as the first 62 per cent precincts were concerned, it is Buttigieg who is the unofficial leader.
‘It took longer than we expected,’ he said of the count.
Price wouldn’t say when the full 100 per cent of results would be available.
When asked about President Trump’s allegation the results were rigged, Price responded: ‘We have said all along, that we would make the caucuses more transparent, and this year, we are reporting out more data than we have ever reported before and in addition to that, we have paper trails that we have never had before. So we will take the time to verify the results, but the results are based off of what happened in the precincts last night.’
And he wouldn’t say if he would resign as party chair over the fiasco, Price demurred.
‘When I ran for chair, I made a commitment to see the caucus process through. That is what I am working on. That is what I will continue to work on, and whatever happens that, it is to be determined.’
‘Anyway, thank you all, folks, the results are coming in, and we will see you later,’ he concluded as he ended his press conference in Des Moines, moving rapidly off stage.
The event was packed with reporters who stayed behind to cover the turmoil in Iowa, even as the candidates hastily made their way to New Hampshire for political events.
At the same time, Democratic presidential candidates put their own inexact spin on the Iowa caucuses Tuesday morning as they headed to campaign events across New Hampshire.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts spoke almost as soon as she landed in New Hampshire – the next big battleground on the political calendar – declaring herself satisfied with her performance after flying direct from Des Moines.
‘When I left Iowa, I said it was too close to call, and it still is, but I feel good,’ she told reporters. ‘It is good to be in New Hampshire.’ She declared her own organization, with hundreds already deployed across the country, up to the task.
‘This is an organization that is built for the long haul,’ she said.
Buttigieg, who declared himself ‘victorious’ and said his backers ‘shocked the nation’ in a Monday night speech continued to talk up his performance, which he called ‘phenomenal.’
‘They said we shouldn’t even be here. And now, here we are, in the position that we are in, coming into New Hampshire for what we think will be another historic night a week from today,’ he said, referencing Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary.
Buttigieg was the first of his rivals to wake up and do an early TV interview, speaking to CBS. He had a morning event set for Manchester and made a coffee stop in Nashua. Warren had an event planned in Keene, former Vice President Joe Biden had one set for Nashua, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had an evening rally on tap just outside of Manchester.
The Sanders campaign put out numbers in the early hours of Tuesday representing tallies from 40 per cent of precincts across Iowa showing the Vermont senator ahead of Buttigieg in all three ways results can be tallied.
Buttigieg then put out his own information. It showed him getting 28 per cent of state delegate equivalents in Iowa, which would be a strong showing – but did not reveal whether another candidates did better and who did worse.
Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager and a top adviser on the senator’s 2020 campaign, gave new tallies to reporters Tuesday afternoon before the campaign plane took off for the Granite State. The new numbers represent 60 per cent of caucus sites, Weaver said.
On first alignment Sanders got 29.08 per cent, Buttigieg got 21.63 per cent, Warren came in third with 19.51 per cent, Sen. Amy Klobuchar came in fourth with 12.27 per cent and Biden, long considered the party’s frontrunner, came in a shocking fifth place with just 12.04 per cent.
The way the Iowa caucuses work is that if candidates don’t get 15 per cent of caucusgoers at a particular precinct they’re not viable to earn delebates, so the second set of numbers are the percentages that reflect voters’ second-place preferences.
For those, the Sanders campaign still had their guy on top – with 29.4 per cent of the vote. Sanders is again followed by Buttigieg at 24.87 per cent and Warren, at 20.65 per cent. In the second tally, Biden gets more support than Klobuchar. He’s at 12.92 per cent and she’s at 11.18 per cent, according to the Sanders campaign.
‘We anticipate that this will hold,’ Weaver told reporters, according to The Intercept.
Sanders also spoke.
‘Obviously, I am disappointed,’ the Vermont senator expressed. ‘I suspect I speak for all the candidates, all of their supporters and the people of Iowa that the Iowa Democratic Party has not been able to come up with timely election results.’
‘I can’t understand why that has happened, but it has happened,’ Sanders added.
Asked about Buttigieg’s rush to victory, Sanders said, ‘I don’t know how anybody could claim this as a victory.’
‘We are not declaring victory,’ he also said, explaining that his campaign was sharing internal numbers for the sake of ‘transparency.’
Klobuchar said in Manchester that ‘we know that we did incredibly well’ in Iowa.
‘We won a bunch of precincts and delegates, places we didn’t expect to win and we’re feeling good,’ Klobuchar added.
Biden advisor Symone Sanders blasted Iowa for blowing its handling of results in comments to reporters in New Hampshire Tuesday.
‘The app failed last night. The backup phone process failed last night. You couldn’t drive your ballot to the Iowa Democratic Party last night,’ she fumed. ‘The process, there were grotesque, grotesque breakdowns in the process and the integrity in this election.
‘We implore the Iowa Demoratic party to get it right,’ she said. Asked about candidates declaring victory, Sanders said: ‘It’s just not accurate. There is no data. Victory is determined by state delegate equivalencies, ladies and gentlemen. We don’t have any of those right now.’
‘Iowa is the beginning and not the end,’ she said. ‘We have to wait for the data, frankly. The Iowa Democratic party is being implored to get it right,’ she told DailyMail.com in Nashua.
Biden rolled out the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late John F. Kennedy and who President Barack Obama named ambassador to Japan.
Kennedy called Biden the Democratic Party’s ‘best bet to win the White House, keep the gains we made in the House, and put the Senate in play.’
Andrew Yang, whose campaign slogan is M.A.T.H. – Make America Think Harder – stopped short of trying to massage the numbers absent information, with his supporters not reaching a 15 per cent viability threshold in some precincts.
‘We’re very excited to get results like the rest of the country,’ said Yang.
There are 21 campaign events scheduled for the Democratic contenders – including Tulsi Gabbard and Deval Patrick – on Tuesday throughout the state, according to a New Hampshire candidate tracker.
In Nashua he had a cup of joe with the town’s mayor, Jim Donchess.
He was optimistic results from Iowa would be in Tuesday although he declined to answer a question from reporters with him about whether it was premature to declare himself the winner.
‘Well, I think it’s safe to say no one in the country is more impatient than I am to hear the official results from the party, but we’ve also put out the results that we’ve got from over 1,200 districts our precinct organization reported based on the procedure that they were trained to do. And based on that, it was a phenomenal night for us,’ he told CBS This Morning on Tuesday.
‘We don’t know all of the results. But we do know that by the time it’s all said and done, Iowa: you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications we are going on to New Hampshire victorious,’ Buttigieg told cheering supporters – in the kind of statement that might ordinarily follow a strong measure of public information.
Instead there was no official result in any form, and the Iowa Democratic Party rushed out a statement promising that they had not been hacked and would now be using paper results with a count which will stretch into daylight on Tuesday morning.
Biden’s campaign issued a letter from its lawyers warning that the results could not be trusted – but did not say how they believed they had performed.
But Buttigieg, a Harvard and Oxford-educated former McKinsey management consultant who was a Naval Reserve intelligence officer in Afghanistan, swept in with a move of extraordinary daring.
He told his supporters in Des Moines they had started a movement. ‘You joined your names to say that the time has come to turn the page and join a new chapter in America,’ he told them.
‘With hope in our heart and fire in our bellies we are going on to New Hampshire, on to the nomination and on to chart a new course for this nation we love!’ he said.
He spoke at a made-for-TV victory celebration, with supporters cheering on an elevated platform. All it was lacking was evidence from state party officials that he had won the most support.
‘No results have been released,’ noted CNN’s Anderson Cooper after his network aired Buttigieg’s speech.
Buttigieg, 38, had performed well in many state precincts, including one on the Drake University campus nearby where he held his rally – although he trailed Warren on the first ballot.
At another caucus site that DailyMail.com observed, this one in Norwalk, Iowa, near the Des Moines airport, Buttigieg came in first, with Klobuchar and Sanders also winning delegates.
Pete Buttigieg claims victory in Iowa before results are announced
I’ve won! The daring moment Pete Buttigieg delivered a full-blown victory speech despite no official results being released as the entire counting process was plunged into crisis with no results delivered
The real official results: How the candidates fared – at exactly the moment Pete Buttigieg declared victory
His remarks followed other Democrats who tried to put the best face on the night, but in a far more restrained form.
‘The Iowa Democratic Party is working to get these results – to get them straight,’ said Biden at his own caucus-night party.
‘We’re going to walk out of here with our share of delegates,’ saying he didn’t know exactly,’ he said, hedging. He said indications are that ‘it’s going to be close.’
‘We don’t know exactly what it is yet, but we feel good about where we are,’ said Biden.
Klobuchar also found ways to express optimism absent any pubic information about how she fared.
‘We know there’s delays but we know one thing. We are punching above our weight. My heart is full tonight,’ she said at a rally outside Des Moines.
‘Somehow and some way I’m going to get on a plane to New Hampshire,’ she said.
Klobuchar declared: ‘We have beaten the odds every step of the way.’
Sanders, who surged in polls in the run-up to the caucuses, also held back.
‘Let me begin by stating that I imagine, have a strong feeling that at some point the results will be announced,’ he said.
‘And when those results are announced, I have a good feeling we’re going to be doing very, very well here in Iowa.’
The fiasco unfolded after caucusing around the state started at 7pm Central Standard Time. Three hours later, not a single precinct’s results were officially in.
‘We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report,’ Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure said in a statement. ‘This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion.’
The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results,’ McClure added. Earlier, other Iowa officials had pointed a finger at the app.
Des Moines County Chair Tom Courtney told the Associated Press that it was ‘a mess’ and organizers were having to call in the results to the party.
CNN reported that party officials are meeting with representatives from the campaigns.
This is the first year that three separate results were to be released to the public. The number of caucus-goers who initially came to support candidates, then the second vote – how caucus-goers re-aligned if their candidates weren’t viable. Finally, the number of delegates won by each candidate will be reported.
Each of the precincts is using ‘presidential preference’ cards for the first time, so there will be a paper trail of the vote.
Bernie Sanders’ campaign said they had tallied results from around 40 per cent of precincts themselves, and found the Vermont senator coming out on top in both initial vote count, votes after eliminations and number of delegates won
Amy Klobuchar claimed her campaign is ‘punching above our weight’, despite having no results to off Monday night
Andrew Yang will be hoping his campaign gets the support it needs to continue after final votes counts are released Tuesday
Shadowy app behind vote-count chaos in Iowa
‘Inconsistencies’ with an app that was supposed to track the results of the Democrat caucuses in Iowa threw the vote into chaos overnight – with zero per cent of precincts reporting early Tuesday.
The app was created by Shadow, Inc., a technology firm that was created in January last year after data and messaging service Groundbase was acquired by Democrat non-profit ACRONYM.
Shadow’s CEO Gerard Niemira, product manager Ahna Rao and COO James Hickey all worked on the Hillary for America campaign which was defeated by Donald Trump in 2016.
Other staff include alumni of Obama’s presidential campaign, as well as Google, Apple and the DNC.
Ready for the caucus: At Hoover High School, voters headed to the basketball court to show their support for their favored candidate
How it works: The Kellogg fire station is ready with locals asked to line up under their first preference. Anyone who backs a candidate under 15% is then asked to move to one of the candidates who scored over 15%.
Democratic caucus voting gets underway in Iowa
How to understand the Iowa Caucuses (and why there may be more than one ‘winner’)
The Iowa caucuses are essentially small local meetings where neighbors and strangers stand up to show their support for a particular candidate, and to persuade others to join them. Iowa’s 41 national delegates are up for grabs, but the real stakes for the candidates are all about momentum.
The caucuses are the first opportunity for Democrats to express their preferences in what´s been a long and tumultuous primary. They set the tone for the monthlong sprint through the early primary states, after which the field of candidates is typically culled. The winner usually receives a boost in media attention and fundraising that can propel them through subsequent contests. An unexpectedly bad performance, meanwhile, can hobble a candidate.
Attendees hold letters reading Caucus during a campaign event in Coralville, Iowa
The caucuses don´t always pick the eventual nominee, but for Democrats they´ve been more predictive – every winner since 2000 has gone on to become the Democratic nominee. And historically, they´ve been known to catapult underdog candidates´ campaigns to prominence – like they did with Barack Obama in 2008, or Jimmy Carter in 1976.
WHERE AND WHEN DO THEY TAKE PLACE – AND WHO PARTICIPATES?
The caucuses begin at 7 p.m. CST on Monday. Democrats gather in school gymnasiums, union halls and community centers – known in caucus parlance as precincts. There are 1,678 precincts in Iowa this year and an additional 99 satellite precincts, which are for caucuses held outside of the state or at different times of the day and in locations that may be more accessible to those with disabilities or those who have to work during the main event.
Some precincts could have hundreds of Iowans show up, and some may have fewer than 10. The 2008 Democratic caucuses set a record when nearly 240,000 Iowans turned out; this year, party operatives are expecting turnout to be big, but likely not record-breaking.
Any registered Democrat who will be 18 by election day can participate, which includes 17-year-olds with an upcoming birthday. And Iowans can newly register or switch their party registration at their caucus site the day of – so campaigns have been courting disaffected Republicans and new voters across Iowa.
WHAT HAPPENS AT A CAUCUS?
There are essentially two rounds of voting in the caucuses.
When all the caucusgoers at a precinct have signed in, the attendees elect a caucus chair, who directs the proceedings. Representatives of the campaigns have an opportunity to stand up and give a last-minute pitch for their candidate, and then the caucuses begin, with a process known as the ‘first alignment.’
That´s where attendees gather in the designated area for their favored candidate. In most precincts, any candidate that receives the support of 15% of the people in the room is considered ‘viable’ and moves on to the next round of voting. Caucusgoers who chose a viable candidate on their first round are locked in and can´t choose a new candidate on the second.
Democratic presidential candidate former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s shadow is cast on the Iowas state flag in Coralville, Iowa
Supporters of candidates who didn´t meet that threshold, however, have four options: They can support a viable candidate, or join with supporters of another non-viable candidate close to 15% support to get them to viability. Alternately, they can try to entice supporters of other non-viable candidates over to theirs to get them over the threshold. Or, they can go home.
This part of the caucuses – known as realignment – is the most crucial, and typically the most chaotic, portion of the night. Well-organized campaigns have volunteers, staffers and surrogates working the room, trying to win over caucusgoers from opposing campaigns. It´s part of the reason why having staff and surrogates who know their area and have built a community there is so important for the campaigns.
At the end of realignment, the caucus chair takes a final count of the room, and transmits the numbers to the Iowa Democratic Party.
Changes from 2016 will allow for additional reporting of caucus results
HOW ARE THE RESULTS CALCULATED?
The results in each precinct are used by the Iowa Democratic Party to calculate what´s known as the ‘state delegate equivalent,’ or how many delegates each candidate gets at the Iowa Democratic Party convention. That number ultimately translates to how many of Iowa´s 41 national delegates each candidate gets at the national convention.
HOW ARE THIS YEAR´S CAUCUSES DIFFERENT FROM YEARS PAST?
For the first time, caucusgoers will record their choices on a slip of paper, which they´ll sign to certify their support. The caucus leaders will collect those presidential preference cards and turn them into the Iowa Democratic Party, and they´ll be used if any candidate requests a recount.
This year, there are only two rounds of alignment, rather than the multiple rounds in years past, and supporters of a viable candidate after the first alignment are locked in to that candidate. In previous caucuses, every attendee could choose a new candidate on each realignment.
The satellite caucuses are new, and the Iowa Democratic Party is allowing attendees to check in early rather than at their precinct site, a move aimed to cut down on the long lines and wait times in years past.
But the biggest change is the change in how the Iowa Democratic Party will report its results. Previously, they only released the state delegate equivalent numbers; now, they´re releasing the raw totals from the first and second alignments, as well as the state delegate equivalents.
The Associated Press will be deciding the winner based on state delegate equivalents – but with more data being released, the campaigns have signaled they plan to spin the numbers in their favor, whatever the eventual result.
– Associated Press
WHO ARE THE 11 DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020?
MICHAEL BENNET
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 56
Entered race: May 2, 2019
Career: Currently Colorado senator. Educated at elite St. Albans preparatory school and was a Capitol Hill page before graduating Wesleyan and Yale Law School. Was law clerk and worked in Clinton’s Department of Justice then moved to Colorado in 1997 as managing director of billionaire Philip Anschutz’s investment company. Was chief of staff to Denver mayor John Hickenlooper, then superintendent of Denver Public schools. Appointed to vacant Colorado Senate seat in 2009, held it 48.1 to 46.4 in 2010 and 50 to 44.3 in 2016
Family: Married to environmental attorney Susan Daggett, with three daughters – Halina, Anne and Caroline. Was born in New Delhi while to diplomat father Douglas Bennet, who went onto be CEO of NPR and a Clinton assistant secretary of state. His grandfather, also Douglas, was an economic adviser to FDR. Mother Susanne is retired elementary school librarian whose parents were Holocaust survivors. Brother James is editor of the New York Times opinion section
Religion: Says he was raised with Jewish and Christian heritage; no known adherence
Views on key issues: Moderate who does not endorse Medicare for all or – so far – Green New Deal. Strongly pro-choice and pro-gay rights, leading to 2010 Senate victory. Pro raising minimum wage. Wants citizenship pathway for ‘dreamers.’
Would make history as: First Colorado president
Slogan: Building Opportunity Together
JOE BIDEN
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 78
Entered race: April 25, 2019
Career: No current role. A University of Delaware and Syracuse Law graduate, he was first elected to Newcastle City Council in 1969, then won upset election to Senate in 1972, aged 29. Was talked out of quitting before being sworn in when his wife and daughter died in a car crash and served total of six terms. Chaired Judiciary Committee’s notorious Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Ran for president in 1988, pulled out after plagiarism scandal, ran again in 2008, withdrew after placing fifth in the Iowa Caucuses. Tapped by Obama as his running mate and served two terms as vice president. Contemplated third run in 2016 but decided against it after his son died of brain cancer.
Family: Eldest of four siblings born to Joe Biden Sr. and Catherine Finnegan. First wife Neilia Hunter and their one-year-old daughter Naomi died in car crash which their two sons, Joseph ‘Beau’ and Robert Hunter survived. Married Jill Jacobs in 1976, with whom he has daughter Ashley. Beau died of brain cancer in 2015. Hunter’s marriage to Kathleen Buhle, with whom he has three children, ended in 2016 when it emerged Hunter was in a relationship with Beau’s widow Hallie, mother of their two children. Hunter admitted cocaine use; his estranged wife accused him of blowing their savings on drugs and prostitutes
Religion: Catholic
Views on key issues: Ultra-moderate who will emphasize bipartisan record. Will come under fire over record, having voted: to stop desegregation bussing in 1975; to overturn Roe v Wade in 1981; for now controversial 1994 Violent Crime Act; for 2003 Iraq War; and for banking deregulation. Says he is ‘most progressive’ Democrat. New positions include free college, tax reform, $15 minimum wage. No public position yet on Green New Deal and healthcare. Pro-gun control. Has already apologized to women who say he touched them inappropriately
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president
Slogan: Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead
MIKE BLOOMBERG
Age on Inauguration Day: 78
Entered race: November 24, 2019
Career: Currently multi-billionaire CEO of Bloomberg PL, the financial information firm he founded in 1981 and which remains a private company. Educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, he became a Wall Street trader at investment bank Salomon Brothers and was laid off in 1981, walking away with $10m in stock which he used to set up his own financial information firm, now one of the world’s largest. Three times mayor of New York 2002 to 2013, running first as Republican then as independent; had to get term limits suspended for final term. Once flirted with running for mayor of London where he has a home; holds an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth. Has spent large amounts on philanthropy in line with his political views as well as on political campaigns
Family: Born in Brookline, MA, to first-generation Jewish immigrant parents whose own parents had fled Russia. Divorced wife of 18 years, Susan Brown-Meyer, in 1993; former couple have daughters Emma, who has a son with her former boyfriend, and Georgina, who has daughter Zelda with her husband Chris Fissora. The child has a portmanteau surname, Frissberg. Partner since 2000 is Diana Taylor, former New York state banking commissioner, 13 years his junior
Religion: Jewish
Views on key issues: Self-professed fiscal conservative, although painted as a Democratic moderate by other conservative groups. Opposed to Medicare for all. Social progressive who backed gay marriage early, but has flip-flopped on marijuana legalization, most recently opposing it.. Wants firm action on climate change. Fiercely in favor of gun control. As New York mayor banned smoking in public places and tried to outlaw large sugary drinks. Backs increased immigration. Apologized for his stop-and-frisk policing strategy as mayor
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president; richest president ever; first New York mayor to become president
Slogan: Fighting For Our Future
PETE BUTTIGIEG
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Announced formation of exploratory committee January 23, 2019. Formally entered race April 14, 2019
Career: Currently mayor of Sound Bend, Indiana. Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar who got a second degree from Oxford before working as a McKinsey management consultant and being commissioned as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer. Elected South Bend mayor in 2011 and served in combat in 2013, won re-election in 2015
Family: Came out as gay during second mayoral run and married husband Chasten Glezman, a middle school teacher in 2018. Parents were University of Notre Dame academics; his father was Maltese-American. Surname is pronounced BOOT-edge-edge
Religion: Raised as a Catholic, now Episcopalian
Views on key issues: Has said Democratic party needs a ‘fresh start’; wrote an essay in praise of Bernie Sanders aged 17; backed paid parental leave for city employees; other policies unknown
Would make history as: First openly gay and youngest-ever president. First veteran of post-World War II conflict
Slogan: A Fresh Start For America
TULSI GABBARD
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Still to formally file any papers but said she would run on January 11 2019
Career: Currently Hawaii congresswoman. Born on American Samoa, a territory. Raised largely in Hawaii, she co-founded an environmental non-profit with her father as a teenager and was elected to the State Legislature aged 21, its youngest member in history. Enlisted in the National Guard and served two tours, one in Iraq 2004-2006, then as an officer in Kuwait in 2009. Ran for Honolulu City Council in 2011, and House of Representatives in 2012
Family: Married to her second husband, Abraham Williams, a cinematographer since 2015. First marriage to childhood sweetheart Eduardo Tamayo in 2002 ended in 2006. Father Mike Gabbard is a Democratic Hawaii state senator, mother Carol Porter runs a non-profit.
Religion: Hindu
Views on key issues: Has apologized for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views; wants marijuana federally legalized; opposed to most U.S. foreign interventions; backs $15 minimum wage and universal health care; was the second elected Democrat to meet Trump after his 2016 victory
Would make history as: First female, Hindu and Samoan-American president; youngest president ever
Slogan: Lead with Love
AMY KLOBUCHAR
Age on Inauguration Day: 60
Entered race: Announced candidacy February 10, 2019 at snow-drenched rally in her native Minneapolis
Career: Currently Minnesota senator. Yale and University of Chicago law graduate who became a corporate lawyer. First ran unsuccessfully for office in 1994 as Hennepin, MI, county attorney, and won same race in 1998, then in 2002, without opposition. Ran for Senate in 2006 and won 58-38; re-elected in 2012 and 2018
Family: Married to John Bessler, law professor at University of Baltimore and expert on capital punishment. Daughter Abigail Bessler, 23, works fora Democratic member of New York City council. Father Jim, 90, was a veteran newspaper columnist who has written a memoir of how his alcoholism hurt his family; mom Rose is a retired grade school teacher
Religion: Congregationalist (United Church of Christ)
Views on key issues: Seen as a mainstream liberal: says she wants ‘universal health care’ but has not spelled out how; pro-gun control; pro-choice; backs $15 minimum wage; no public statements on federal marijuana legalization; has backed pro-Israel law banning the ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions’ movement; spoke out against abolishing ICE
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Let’s Get To Work
DEVAL PATRICK
Age on Inauguration Day: 63
Entered race: Told friends he was running on November 13, 2019
Career: Currently a managing director of Bain Capital. Awarded scholarship in eighth grade to Massachusetts boarding school Milton Academy, becoming first in his family to go to college. Harvard law grad who twice failed the bar before working for NAACP then private practice where he represented Mike Tyson’s rape victim Desiree Washington. Assistant attorney general for civil rights in Clinton administration then Texaco and Coca-Cola and sub-prime lender Ameriquest executive. Ran for Massachusetts governor as outside candidate in 2006 and won, becoming first African-American in role, won a second term 48-42.
Family: Born in Chicago, his jazz musician father Pat Patrick left mother Emily Wintersmith when he was three when he fathered a Patrick’s half-sister with another woman. Patrick married wife Diane Bemus, an attorney, in 1984; they have two adult daughters, Sarah and Katherine. Sarah is married to a former Italian soldier Marco Morgese; their son Gianluca is the Patricks’ first grandchild. Katherine came out as lesbian in 2008 and married Alisha Lemieux in 2016.
Religion: Presbyterian
Views on key issues: Moderate who championed social liberal policies and embraced Obamacare. Boosted transportation spending and increased state gas taxes to pay, speaking out against climate change. Unclear where he stands on Medicare for All and Green New Deal. Pro-gun control, proposing ban on multiple gun sales after Sandy Hook.
Would make history as: No obvious claim
Slogan: To be announced
BERNIE SANDERS
Age on Inauguration Day: 79
Entered race: Sources said on January 25, 2019, that he would form exploratory committee. Officially announced February 19
Career: Currently Vermont senator. Student civil rights and anti-Vietnam activist who moved to Vermont and worked as a carpenter and radical film-maker. Serial failed political candidate in the 1970s, he ran as a socialist for mayor of Burlington in 1980 and served two terms ending in 1989, and win a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990. Ran for Senate in 2006 elections as an independent with Democratic endorsement and won third term in 2018. Challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 but lost. Campaign has since been hit by allegations of sexual harassment – for which he has apologized – and criticized for its ‘Bernie bro’ culture
Family: Born to a Jewish immigrant father and the daughter of Jewish immigrant parents in Brooklyn, New York. First marriage to college sweetheart Deborah Shiling Messing in 1964 ended in divorce in 1966; had son Levi in 1969 with then girlfriend Susan Cambell Mott. Married Jone O’Meara in 1988 and considers her three children, all adults, his own. The couple have seven grandchildren. His older brother Larry is a former Green Party councilor in Oxfordshire, England.
Religion: Secular Jewish
Views on key issues: Openly socialist and standard bearer for the Democratic party’s left-turn. Wants federal $15 minimum wage; banks broken up; union membership encouraged; free college tuition; universal health care; re-distributive taxation; he opposed Iraq War and also U.S. leading the fight against ISIS and wants troops largely out of Afghanistan and the Middle East
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president
Slogan: Not me. Us.
TOM STEYER
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 63
Entered race: July 9, 2019
Career: Currently retired. New York-born to wealthy family, he was educated at elite Phillips Exeter Academy, same as rival Andrew Yang, and Yale, then Stanford Business School. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs banker who founded his own hedge fund in 1986 and made himself a billionaire; investments included subprime lenders, private prisons and coal mines. Stepped down in 2012 to focus on advocating for alternative energy. Longtime Democratic activist and donor who started campaign to impeach Trump in October 2017. Net worth of $1.6 billion has made him one of the Democrats’ biggest single donors
Family: Married Kathryn Taylor in 1986; they have four adult children who have been told they will not inherit the bulk of his fortune. Announced last November he and his wife would live apart. Father Roy was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor
Religion: Episcopalian
Views on key issues: On the left of the field despite being a hedge fund tycoon. Backs single-payer health care, minimum wage rises and free public college. Previously spoke in favor of Bernie Sanders’ agenda. Aggressive backer of climate change action, including ditching fossil fuels
Would make history as: Richest Democratic president ever
Slogan: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
ELIZABETH WARREN
Age on Inauguration Day: 71
Entered race: Set up exploratory committee December 31, 2018
Career: Currently Massachusetts senator. Law lecturer and academic who became an expert on bankruptcy law and tenured Harvard professor. Ran for Senate and won in 2012, defeating sitting Republican Scott Brown, held it in 2018 60% to 36%. Was short-listed to be Hillary’s running mate and campaigned hard for her in 2016
Family: Twice-married mother of two and grandmother of three. First husband and father of her children was her high-school sweetheart. Second husband Bruce Mann is Harvard law professor. Daughter Amelia Tyagi and son Alex Warren have both been involved in her campaigns. Has controversially claimed Native American roots; DNA test suggested she is as little as 1,064th Native American
Religion: Raised Methodist, now described as Christian with no fixed church
Views on key issues: Was a registered Republican who voted for the party but registered as a Democrat in 1996. Pro: higher taxes on rich; banking regulation; Dream Act path to citizenship for ‘dreamers’; abortion and gay rights; campaign finance restrictions; and expansion of public provision of healthcare – although still to spell out exactly how that would happen. Against: U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Syria; liberalization of gambling
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Warren Has A Plan For That
ANDREW YANG
Age on Inauguration Day: 46
Entered race: Filed papers November 6, 2018
Career: No current job. Went to public school in New York where he describes being bullied with racial slurs, then elite Phillips Exeter Academy boarding school – same as rival Tom Steyer. Brown and Columbia Law graduate who abandoned career as an attorney then started a dotcom flop then become healthcare and education tech executive who set up nonprofit Venture for America
Family: Married to wife Evelyn with two sons, one of whom he has said is on the autism spectrum. His parents were both immigrants from Taiwan who met at the University of California, Berkeley, as grad students
Religion: Reformed Church
Views on key issues: Warns of rise of robots and artificial intelligence, wants $1,000 a month universal basic income and social media regulated. Spoke out against male circumcision. Wants a state monitor to crack down on ‘fake news.’
Would make history as: First Asian-American president
Slogan: Humanity First
AND THE 18 WHO HAVE WITHDRAWN
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey Senator
Entered race: February 1, 2019
Quit: January 13, 2020
STEVE BULLOCK, Montana governor
- Entered race: May 14, 2019
- Quit: December 2, 2019
JULIÁN CASTRO, former Housing Secretary
- Entered race: January 18, 2019
- Quit: January 2, 2020
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York senator
- Entered race: January 16, 2019
- Quit: August 28, 2019
BILL DE BLASIO, New York City mayor
- Entered race: May 16, 2019
- Quit: September 20, 2020
JOHN DELANEY, former Maryland Congressman
- Entered race: July 8, 2017
- Quit: January 31, 2019
MIKE GRAVEL, Former Alaska governor
- Entered race: April 2,2019
- Quit: August 2, 2019
KAMALA HARRIS,California senator
- Entered race: January 21, 2019
- Quit: December 3, 2019
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Former Colorado governor
- Entered race: March 4, 2019
- Quit: August 15, 2019
JAY INSLEE, Washington governor
- Entered race: March 1, 2019
- Quit: August 21, 2019
WAYNE MESSAM, mayor of Miramar, Florida
- Entered race: March 28, 2019
- Quit: November 20, 2019
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts congressman
- Entered race: April 22,2019
- Quit: August 23, 2019
RICHARD OJEDA, former West Virginia state senator
- Entered race: November 12, 2018
- Quit: January 25, 2019
BETO O’ROURKE, former Texas congressman
- Entered race: March 14, 2019
- Quit: November 1, 2019
TIM RYAN, Ohio congressman
- Entered race: April 4, 2019
- Quit: October 24, 2019
JOE SESTAK, former Pennsylvania congressman
- Entered race: June 23, 2019
- Quit: December 1, 2019
ERIC SWALWELL, California congressman
- Entered race: April 8, 2019
- Quit: July 8, 2019
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, author
- Entered race: November 15, 2018
- Quit: January 10, 2020
The Iowa Democratic Party, shortly before 4 p.m. Tuesday, released the first caucus results of the presidential candidates.
The results were long delayed after the Monday night caucuses, causing sharp critiques, confusion and recriminations.
“I apologize deeply for this,” said party chair Troy Price, adding he would soon announce 62% of results were ready to be reported. He said the delay was unacceptable.
“We hit a stumbling block on the reporting of the back end of the data,” he said, “but we know this data is accurate.”
The results, once released, showed former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading the field with 26.9% of state delegate equivalents. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders followed with 25.1%. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was in third at 18.3%. At 15.6%, former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (12.6%) made up the rest of the top five.
The party, under pressure the modernize the caucuses and make them more transparent, added a new app for reporting results, new ways of reporting results and new back up systems. Those systems failed on Monday night.
Live results updates:
This file will update
Barbara Rodriguez
✔@bcrodriguez
Here at this press filing area for address from Iowa Democratic Party chairman Troy Price. It was supposed to begin at 3:45p central. #iacaucus
18 people are talking about this
Zerlina Maxwell
Jump to navigationJump to search
Maxwell in 2018
Zerlina Maxwell is an American political analyst, commentator, speaker, and writer. She writes and speaks about rape culture, sexual assault, gender inequity, sexual consent, racism, and similar topics.[1][2] She is herself a survivor of sexual assault and describes herself as a survivor activist.[1][3]
Maxwell has appeared frequently on CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC as a commentator and has written for the Washington Post, JET Magazine, The American Prospect, Black Enterprise, CNN.com, the Huffington Post, Salon.com, and Ebony.com.[4][5][6] Her Twitter account was named by The New York Times as “A Twitter Voice to Follow” in 2012,[7] as one of “Salon’s Twitter 50” in 2012,[8] and one of TIME‘s 140 Best Twitter Feeds of 2014.[9] The Cut magazine’s Kaitlin Menza said that Maxwell as “has built a career around expressing her political opinions with wit and intelligence.”[6]
Maxwell worked as a field organizer for the 2008 Obama presidential campaign,[10] and was Director of Progressive Media for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.[6] She is now Director of Progressive Programming for SiriusXM, and hosts a weekly radio show on SiriusXM, “Signal Boost.”[6] In September 2017, Maxwell interviewed Hillary Clinton for a SiriusXM Progress Town Hall.[11]
References…
Story 2: President Trump To Deliver The State of Union Speech — Trump Promises Accomplished and 2020 Agenda — Videos
Trump to give ‘extraordinarily low-key’ State of the Union address
Trump Set To Give State Of The Union Address Ahead Of Impeachment Vote | TODAY
President Trump Set To Deliver State Of The Union Address Tuesday Night
Story 3: Trump Hits Gallup Approval Rating of 49%! — Videos
Trump Job Approval at Personal Best 49%
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Approval among Republicans hits 94%
- Poll shows highest party polarization on record
- Half of registered voters say Trump deserves to be re-elected
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.
The new poll finds 50% of Americans disapproving of Trump, leaving just 1% expressing no opinion. The average percentage not having an opinion on Trump has been 5% throughout his presidency.
Trump’s approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and independents. His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up six percentage points from early January and is three points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans. The 42% approval rating among independents is up five points, and ties three other polls as his best among that group. Democratic approval is 7%, down slightly from 10%.
The 87-point gap between Republican and Democratic approval in the current poll is the largest Gallup has measured in any Gallup poll to date, surpassing the prior record, held by Trump and Barack Obama, by one point.
The Jan. 16-29 poll was conducted in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial that will likely result in the president’s acquittal. The poll finds 52% of Americans in favor of acquitting Trump and 46% in favor of convicting and removing him from office.
In addition to possibly reflecting sentiment regarding his impeachment, Trump’s increased approval rating may also result from other issues, including:
- The recent military action in Iran. More Americans in the new poll approve (53%) than disapprove (45%) of the U.S. military action that resulted in the death of a leading Iranian military general. Iran retaliated but, despite fears of escalation, no further military action has been taken by either side.
- Foreign trade. During the poll’s field period, Trump also signed the United States-Mexico-Canada trade deal to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement.
- The economy. Americans’ confidence in the economy is higher than at any point in the past two decades. Similarly, national satisfaction is the highest in nearly 15 years.
Sixty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Trump is handling the economy, up six points from the prior reading in November. It is the highest economic approval rating not only for Trump, but for any president since George W. Bush enjoyed stratospheric job approval ratings in the first few months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Trump’s ratings for handling foreign affairs (47%) and foreign trade (50%) are also his best to date.
Republican Party Image Also Improving
As Trump’s job approval rating has improved, so has the image of the Republican Party. Now, 51% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably, up from 43% in September. It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50% since 2005.
Meanwhile, 45% of Americans have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, a slight dip from 48% in September.
Additionally, the poll finds 48% of Americans identifying as Republicans or leaning toward that party, compared with 44% Democratic identification or leaning. Recent Gallup polls had shown a fairly even partisan distribution, after the Democratic Party held advantages for much of 2019.
Gallup observed similar public opinion shifts when Bill Clinton was impeached.
- Clinton’s approval rating spiked to a personal high of 73% after the House impeachment vote, and stayed above his pre-impeachment readings through his acquittal by the Senate in early 1999.
- A seven-point average Democratic advantage in party identification and leaning in two early December 1998 polls (49% to 42%) swelled to an average 17 points (53% to 36%) in two late December polls after the Dec. 19, 1998, impeachment vote.
- The latest impeachment saga has had a different effect on party favorable ratings, however. When Clinton was impeached, favorable ratings of the Democratic Party were unchanged (but high, at 57% and 58% in two December polls), while the GOP’s ratings plummeted, falling from 43% pre-impeachment to an all-time low of 31% after the House vote to impeach.
Election Context
Impeachment and a strong state of the nation may have brightened Trump’s election prospects, but U.S. registered voters are evenly divided at 50% as to whether he deserves re-election. When the question was last asked, just before the 2018 midterm elections, 41% of Americans thought Trump deserved a second term.
With the Democratic nomination campaign fully underway, 39% of registered voters say they will vote for Trump regardless of whom the Democratic Party nominates for president, while nearly the same percentage (36%) say they will vote against Trump regardless of whom the Democrats choose. Twenty-four percent of voters say they are waiting to see whom the Democrats nominate.
For their part, Democrats continue to prefer a nominee who can defeat Trump over a candidate closer to them on the issues. Fifty-six percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want the party to nominate a candidate who has the best chance of beating Trump, even if the candidate does not agree with them on the issues they care most about, while 42% want a nominee who agrees with them on the issues but does not have the best chance of beating Trump. The current 14-point margin in favor of electability is smaller than the 24-point gap measured in November, suggesting Democrats may have a harder time settling for the eventual nominee if it’s someone they don’t agree with.
Democrats identify Joe Biden (44%) as the candidate they think has the best chance of beating Trump, followed by Bernie Sanders at 19% and Michael Bloomberg at 10%. Meanwhile, Democrats are most likely to name Sanders (28%) as the candidate who is closest to them on the issues, followed by Biden (20%) and Elizabeth Warren (16%).
Implications
Whether the rise in Trump’s approval rating and the Republican Party’s image is being driven by a backlash against impeachment, the strong economy or other factors may become clearer in the near future. If it is mostly impeachment-based, his approval rating may revert quickly back to pre-impeachment levels, as it did for Clinton. Within two months of his acquittal in February 1999, Clinton’s approval rating returned to where it was before he was impeached, as did the Democratic Party’s advantage in party identification and leaning.
If Trump’s higher approval rating is being driven by Americans giving him credit for improvements in the economy, his support may increase over the course of the year, as it did for Ronald Reagan in 1984, Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012. All of those recent presidents held office during periods of sustained economic improvement and were re-elected with job approval ratings of better than 50%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/trump-job-approval-personal-best.aspx
Story 4: President Trump To Award The Medal of Freedom to Conservative Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh — Great Choice — Updates — Videos
TISSUES PLEASE: President SURPRISES Rush Limbaugh with PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM
BREAKING: Rush Limbaugh honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom
Trump says he will award Rush Limbaugh with Medal of Freedom
President Donald Trump told network anchors during a private lunch Tuesday that he will award Rush Limbaugh with the Medal of Freedom, one day after the prominent political radio host announced he has advanced lung cancer.
According to a person familiar with the discussion, Trump informed anchors he will bestow Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the coming months. Limbaugh has been a staunch ally of the President’s for years, and dined with him at his Palm Beach golf club over the holidays. Once, during an event in the Rose Garden, Trump praised Limbaugh as someone who “can speak for three hours without a phone call.”
Trump wished the conservative radio talk show host a speedy recovery Monday after Limbaugh told his audience he is beginning treatment, which will require him to miss the show some days.
“I wish I didn’t have to tell you this, and I thought about not trying to tell anybody, I thought about trying to do this without anybody knowing, because I don’t like making things about me,” Limbaugh said Monday during a live broadcast. But “there are going to be days that I’m not going to be able to be here, because I will be undergoing treatment, or I’m reacting to treatment.”
Limbaugh has been hosting “The Rush Limbaugh Show” for 31 years.
The Medal of Freedom is bestowed to “individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors,” according to the White House.
People close to Trump say he personally enjoys granting his friends the nation’s highest civilian honor. He bestowed the award upon seven recipients in 2019, and several more the year prior.
Like presidents before him, Trump invites anchors from all the major networks to dine with him at the White House in advance of his State of the Union address. The conversation is considered off the record, but CNN was excluded this year, and therefore did not agree to the mandate. Other anchors did attend the lunch.
Presidential Medal of Freedom
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Presidential Medal of Freedom | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Awarded by the President of the United States of America | |
| Type | Medal |
| Awarded for | “An especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”[1] |
| Statistics | |
| Distinct recipients |
Unknown; an average of fewer than 11 per year since 1993 |
| Precedence | |
| Next (higher) | None |
| Equivalent | Congressional Gold Medal |
| Next (lower) | Presidential Citizens Medal |
.PNG){kind=small} .png){kind=small} Service ribbon of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (left: Medal with Distinction) |
|
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award bestowed by the president of the United States. The Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal are the highest civilian awards of the United States. The presidential medal seeks to recognize those people who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors”.[2] The award is not limited to U.S. citizens and, while it is a civilian award, it can also be awarded to military personnel and worn on the uniform.
It was established in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy,[3] superseding the Medal of Freedom that was established by President Harry S. Truman in 1945 to honor civilian service during World War II.
History of the award
Similar in name to the Medal of Freedom,[2] but much closer in meaning and precedence to the Medal for Merit, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is currently the supreme civilian decoration in precedence in the United States, whereas the Medal of Freedom was inferior in precedence to the Medal for Merit; the Medal of Freedom was awarded by any of three Cabinet secretaries, whereas the Medal for Merit was awarded by the president, as is the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[4]
President John F. Kennedy established the current decoration in 1963 through Executive Order 11085, with unique and distinctive insignia, vastly expanded purpose, and far higher prestige.[1] It was the first U.S. civilian neck decoration and, in the grade of Awarded With Distinction, is the only U.S. sash and star decoration (the Chief Commander degree of the Legion of Merit—which may only be awarded to foreign heads of state—is a star decoration, but without a sash). The Executive Order calls for the medal to be awarded annually on or around July 4, and at other convenient times as chosen by the president,[4] but it has not been awarded every year (e.g., 2001, 2010). Recipients are selected by the president, either on the president’s own initiative or based on recommendations. The order establishing the medal also expanded the size and the responsibilities of the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board so it could serve as a major source of such recommendations.
The medal may be awarded to an individual more than once; Colin Powell received two awards, his second being With Distinction;[5] Ellsworth Bunker received both of his awards With Distinction. It may also be awarded posthumously (after the death of the recipient); examples (in chronological order) include John Wayne, John F. Kennedy, Pope John XXIII, Lyndon Johnson, Paul “Bear” Bryant, Thurgood Marshall, Cesar Chavez, Roberto Clemente, Jack Kemp, Harvey Milk, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Elouise Cobell, Grace Hopper,[6] Antonin Scalia, Elvis Presley and Babe Ruth.[7] (Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, civil rights workers murdered in 1964, were awarded their medals in 2014, 50 years later.)
In 2015, in response to questions about the medal awarded to Bill Cosby in 2002, President Barack Obama stated that there was no precedent to revoke Presidential Medals of Freedom.[8]
Insignia
Medal and accoutrements including undress ribbon, miniature, and lapel badge.
Graphical representation of the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction as worn with white tie.
The badge of the Presidential Medal of Freedom is in the form of a golden star with white enamel, with a red enamel pentagon behind it; the central disc bears thirteen gold stars on a blue enamel background (taken from the Great Seal of the United States) within a golden ring. Golden North American bald eagles with spread wings stand between the points of the star. It is worn around the neck on a blue ribbon with white edge stripes.
A special rarely given grade of the medal, known as the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction,[9] has a larger execution of the same medal design worn as a star on the left chest along with a sash over the right shoulder (similar to how the insignia of a Grand Cross is worn), with its rosette (blue with white edge, bearing the central disc of the medal at its center) resting on the left hip. When the medal With Distinction is awarded, the star may be presented descending from a neck ribbon and can be identified by its larger size than the standard medal (compare size of medals in pictures below).
Both medals may also be worn in miniature form on a ribbon on the left chest, with a silver North American bald eagle with spread wings on the ribbon, or a golden North American bald eagle for a medal awarded With Distinction. In addition, the medal is accompanied by a service ribbon for wear on military service uniform, a miniature medal pendant for wear on mess dress or civilian formal wear, and a lapel badge for wear on civilian clothes (all shown in the accompanying photograph of the full presentation set).
Recipients
List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients
Gallery
-
Civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964.
-
President Richard Nixon and the Apollo 13 crew (right to left: Jack Swigert, Jim Lovell and Fred Haise) after being presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom, 1970.
-
President Ronald Reagan presenting Mother Teresa with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House, 1985
-
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George H. W. Bush, 1991
-
George H. W. Bush awarding former President Ronald Reagan the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, 1993
-
“The Queen of Soul” Aretha Franklin wipes a tear after being honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom alongside historian Robert Conquest, left, and economist Alan Greenspan, 2005
-
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush, 2009
-
President Barack Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction to Vice President Joe Biden, 2017
-
President Donald Trump awards Roger Staubach with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2018.
See also[
- Awards and decorations of the United States government
- Awards and decorations of the United States military
- Bharat Ratna (India)
- Federal Cross of Merit (Germany)
- Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana (Italy)
- Legion of Honour (France)
- Order of Merit (United Kingdom and Commonwealth)
- Order of Australia
- Knight Bachelor (United Kingdom)
- Order of Canada
- Order of St. Andrew (Russia)
- Order of the White Lion (Czech Republic)
- Order of Mapungubwe (South Africa)
References
- ^ Jump up to:ab Executive Order 11085, signed February 22, 1960; Federal Register 28
- ^ Jump up to:ab Executive Order 9586, signed July 6, 1945; Federal Register 10 FR 8523, July 10, 1945
- ^ “President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11085: Presidential Medal of Freedom – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum”. http://www.jfklibrary.org. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
- ^ Jump up to:ab “U.S. Senate: Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipients”. 17 November 2015. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
- ^ Clinton, W. J. (September 30, 1993). “Remarks on the Retirement of General Colin Powell in Arlington, Virginia”. University of California, Santa Barbara: The American Presidency Project. Retrieved September 18, 2016.
In recognition of your legacy and service, of your courage and accomplishment, today, General Powell, I was honored to present you with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, with distinction. I want to tell all those here in attendance that this was the second Medal of Freedom you have received, the first from President Bush in 1991. And today, you became only the second American citizen in the history of the Republic to be the recipient of two Medals of Freedom.
- ^ US White House (November 16, 2016). “President Obama Names Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom”. Retrieved 22 Nov 2016.
- ^ Stracqualursi, Veronica. “Trump to award Medal of Freedom to Elvis, Babe Ruth, among others”. CNN. Retrieved 2018-11-11.
- ^ “Obama asked if Bill Cosby’s Medal of Freedom will be revoked”. PBS NewsHour.
- ^ Torreon, Barbara Salazar (31 Mar 2004). A Guide to Major Congressional and Presidential Awards(PDF). CRS Report for Congress. RS20884. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service – Library of Congress (United States Government). p. 4. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
There are two degrees of the Medal, the higher being the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction.
External links
 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Presidential Medal of Freedom. |
- “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, an article (undated) from jfklibrary.org, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum‘s official website. Accessed August 22, 2009.
- “Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipients”, a list of recipients from May 5, 1993, through August 19, 2009, from senate.gov, the U.S. Senate‘s official website. Accessed August 22, 2009.
- “President Bush Honors Medal of Freedom Recipients”, a news release from the White House Press Secretary, December 15, 2006, containing a transcript of President George W. Bush‘s opening remarks at the December 15, 2006, presentation (with link to individual citations). Hosted on georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov, a section of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration‘s official website. Accessed August 22, 2009.
- “Medal of Freedom Ceremony” (August 12, 2009), a news release, August 12, 2009, from the White House Press Secretary at whitehouse.gov, the White House‘s official website. Accessed August 22, 2009.
- Sanger, David E., “War Figures Honored With Medal of Freedom”, The New York Times, December 15, 2004.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1305, August 12, 2019, Story 1: Just In Time — Incompetent Involuntary Government Assisted Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein — Let The Conspiracy Theories Flourish –Massive Corruption of Justice — Videos — Story 2: FBI Agents Raid Epstein’s Little St. James aka “Pedophile Island” in U.S. Virgin Island — Videos — Story 3: Police and Protesters At Hong Kong Airport Clash As Communist China Masses Troops For Possible Intervention To Restore Order and Stability in Hong Kong — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1305 August 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1304 August 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1303 August 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1302 August 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1282 June 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1281 June 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1280 June 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1279 June 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1278 June 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1277 June 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1276 June 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1275 June 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1274 June 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1273 June 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1272 June 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1271 June 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1270 June 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1269 June 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1268 June 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1267 May 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1266 May 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1265 May 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1264 May 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1263 May 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1262 May 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1261 May 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1260 May 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1259 May 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019
Story 1: Just In Time — Incompetent Involuntary Government Assisted Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein — Let The Conspiracy Theories Flourish — Massive Corruption of Justice — Videos
Rudy Giuliani on Epstein’s ‘mind-boggling’ death: It’s impossible
Jeffery Epstein dies by suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan
Demands for justice after Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide
FBI and Justice Department investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s death l ABC News
Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide leads to an FBI investigation
Bill Barr Says There Will Be Accountability For Epstein’s Death
Jeffrey Epstein’s death prompts conspiracy theories
Jeffrey Epstein’s death deepens multiple lingering mysteries
Conspiracy theories build after Jeffrey Epstein ‘suicide’
Matt Whitaker: ‘Serious questions’ raised by Epstein’s death
The Five 8/12/19 | Breaking Fox News August 12, 2019
The Years-Long Case Against Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein | NBC News Now
Documentary: Who is Jeffrey Epstein, accused of sexually abusing teen girls?
Jeffrey Epstein Accuser Shares Story Of Alleged Rape For 1st Time | TODAY
How Trump is fuelling anger over Jeffrey Epstein’s death
The security lapses at the jail where Jeffrey Epstein killed himself: How a guard took a bribe from a Turkish gold dealer and how a Wikileaks leaker managed to share new information from phones smuggled into his cell
- Jeffrey Epstein was found alone and unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan early Saturday
- He was pronounced dead at New York Presbyterian-Lower Manhattan hospital
- The billionaire pedophile’s death has raised serious questions about the jail given it is hardly the first scandal
- A prison guard, Victor Casado, pleaded guilty last year to taking $25,000 in cash bribes to smuggle cellphones, alcohol and food to a wealthy Turkish gold trader
- Reza Zarrab, who was the trader involved, was in prison over a money laundering scheme to Iran and says someone also tried to assassinate him
- A former CIA employee, Joshua Adam Schulte, is also accused of leaking classified files from a cell phone while he was locked up in the federal prison
Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide has brought new scrutiny to the federal jail in New York where he was being held given the previous security lapses at the facility that houses some of the highest-security inmates in the country.
The 66-year-old was found alone and unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan early Saturday morning before being rushed to the New York Presbyterian-Lower Manhattan hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The billionaire pedophile’s death has raised serious questions after it emerged he was alone in his cell and corrections officers had not checked on him for several hours – even though they were required to look in on him every 30 minutes given he was previously on suicide watch.
His defense attorney has since faulted jail officials, saying they recklessly put Epstein in harm’s way and failed to protect him.
Epstein’s death is hardly the first scandal at the MCC facility in Manhattan.
Jeffrey Epstein’s death on Saturday is hardly the first scandal at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. There have been multiple security lapses at the federal facility that houses some of the highest-security inmates in the country
Last year, a prison guard at the jail, Victor Casado, pleaded guilty to taking more than $25,000 in cash bribes to smuggle cellphones, alcohol and food to a wealthy Turkish gold trader between 2016 and 2017.
He also received thousands of dollars in payments from another inmate, which were given to him by the prisoners relatives and a paralegal representing him.
Casado was sentenced in January to three years in prison by a judge who called the crime an assault on ‘our entire system of justice’.
Reza Zarrab, who was the Turkish gold trader involved with bribing the guard, was in prison over a money laundering scheme to Iran.
He has previously testified in court that someone tried to assassinate him at the prison when he implemented Turkey’s President Recep Tayip Erdogan in the scheme that would launder billions of dollars from the U.S. to Iran.
‘I came face to face with an individual who was trying to take my life, and he had pulled a knife on me, and I was about to lose my life,’ Zarrab testified in 2017.
‘He said that he had received instructions to kill because I was cooperating.’
A former CIA employee, Joshua Adam Schulte, is also accused of leaking classified files while he was locked up in the federal prison.
Schulte was charged last year with stealing classified national defense information from the CIA in 2016. He is believed to be behind the ‘Vault 7’ and ‘Vault 8’ documents released by WikiLeaks.
Last year, a prison guard at the jail, Victor Casado, pleaded guilty to taking more than $25,000 in cash bribes to smuggle cellphones, alcohol and food to jailed Turkish gold trader Reza Zarrab (pictured above in 2013)
Authorities found multiple cellphones in his cell at the prison when they raided it in October last year. Officials also found 13 email and social media accounts that Schulte was allegedly using to communicate with others outside the prison.
Prosecutors argued that the information he was allegedly disclosing behind bars was different to what WikiLeaks had published.
A former CIA employee, Joshua Adam Schulte, is also accused of leaking classified files while he was locked up in the federal prison
Epstein’s death is now the latest black eye for the jail and the wider U.S. Bureau of Prisons as well.
Attorney General William Barr is now demanding answers, saying he was appalled by the apparent suicide and announcing a pair of federal inquiries by the FBI and the Justice Department’s inspector general.
Epstein’s death brings fresh attention to the staffing issues at the prison where shortages worsened by a partial government shutdown prompted inmates to stage a hunger strike in January after they were denied family and lawyer visits.
Eight months later, the lockup remains so short-staffed that the BOP is offering correctional officers a $10,000 bonus to transfer there from other federal lockups. That’s on top of a so-called ‘recruitment incentive’ that amounts to 10% of new guards’ first-year salaries.
Staffing shortfalls are resulting in extreme overtime shifts, in which guards may work up to 16 hours a day. A person familiar with the jail’s operations said a guard in Epstein’s unit was working a fifth straight day of overtime and another guard was working mandatory overtime the day he was found.
Those conditions could make it more difficult for correctional officers to enforce the BOP’s strict measures for screening security risks. Those protocols acknowledge that inmates held in so-called special housing units, as Epstein was, ‘may be at a higher risk for suicidal behavior’.
Those safeguards – including cell checks every 30 minutes – were not followed the night before Epstein’s death, The New York Times reported Sunday, citing a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.
Epstein’s death brings fresh attention to the staffing issues at the prison where shortages worsened by a partial government shutdown prompted inmates to stage a hunger strike in January after they were denied family and lawyer visits
Epstein had been alone in his cell when he was found unresponsive Saturday, even though he only recently had returned to the Special Housing Unit from suicide watch, the person familiar with the jail’s operations said.
The jail had placed him on 24-hour monitoring – with daily psychiatric evaluations – after he was found injured on the floor of his cell two weeks ago with neck bruises.
There was speculation following Epstein’s initial attempt that he had been trying to get away from his prior cellmate – former NYPD officer Nicholas Tartaglione who is accused of killing four men over a drug deal gone wrong.
Tartaglione, however, said that he saved Epstein’s life in that incident after finding him unconscious in their cell and calling for help.
The 12-story jail had been designed to house 449 inmates when it opened in 1975 near the Brooklyn Bridge. Its population ballooned within two years to 539 inmates, prompting a judge to declare it ‘unacceptably cramped and oppressive for most healthy inmates.’
Today it holds more than 760 inmates and counts among its former star inhabitants the Mexican drug lord and escape artist Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman, Mafia boss John Gotti, several close associates of Osama bin Laden and Wall Street swindler Bernard Madoff.
Authorities tightened security after a guard was seriously injured in 2000 by a terrorist convicted in the deadly 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Ron Kuby, who once represented a blind Egyptian sheik sentenced to life in prison after a 1990s Manhattan terrorism trial, said the lockup houses some of ‘the highest-security prisoners on earth.’
He said that while suicide attempts among inmates are commonplace, ‘it’s been a long time since they lost somebody.’
‘The overall quality of staffing tends to be better than your average county jail in Bumbleberg,’ he said.
Jeffrey Epstein
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Jeffrey Epstein
|
|
|---|---|
Epstein’s July 2006 mugshot
|
|
| Born |
Jeffrey Edward Epstein
January 20, 1953 New York City, New York, U.S.
|
| Died | August 10, 2019 (aged 66)
Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City, New York, U.S.
|
| Residence | New York City Palm Beach, Florida Stanley, New Mexico Paris, France U.S. Virgin Islands |
| Education | Cooper Union (no degree) New York University (no degree) |
| Occupation | Financier Owner, Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation |
| Criminal charge | Sex offender, Sex trafficking |
| Criminal penalty | 13 months with work release (2008) |
Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and convicted sex offender.[1][2] Epstein began his career in finance at the investment bank Bear Stearns before forming his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. Until his conviction for sex crimes in 2008, Epstein was a multimillionaire who was connected with the financial, political, and cultural elites of society.[3]
In April 2005, police of Palm Beach, Florida began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he molested her 14-year-old daughter.[4] After an investigation, prosecution, and plea negotiations, Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted by a Florida state court of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution on June 30, 2008.[5] He served 13months in custody, with work release, as part of a plea deal; federal officials had identified 36girls, some as young as 14 years old, who had been molested.[6][7]
Epstein was arrested again on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York.[8][9] He died on August 10, 2019, reportedly after hanging himself in his Manhattan prison cell.[10][11] Three weeks earlier, Epstein had been found unconscious in his jail cell with injuries to his neck and placed on suicide watch, which lasted six days and ended twelve days before he died.[12] An autopsy was performed on August 11; the New York City medical examiner’s office announced that it needed more information before the cause of death could be determined.[13]
Contents
Early life
Aerial view of Epstein’s childhood neighborhood of Sea Gate, Brooklyn.
Epstein was born in 1953 in the New York City borough of Brooklyn to Jewish parents[14][15] Pauline (née Stolofsky, 1918–2004)[16] and Seymour G. Epstein (1916–1991).[17] His parents were married in 1952 shortly before his birth.[17] Pauline worked as a school aide and was a homemaker.[17][18] Seymour Epstein worked for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation as a groundskeeper and gardener.[17][14] Jeffrey Epstein was the older of two siblings. Epstein and his brother Mark grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Sea Gate, Coney Island, Brooklyn.[18]
Epstein attended local public schools, first Public School 188 and then Mark Twain Junior High School nearby.[18] In 1967, Epstein attended the National Music Camp at the Interlochen Center for the Arts.[19] He was a talented musician who learned to play the piano when he was five.[20] He graduated in 1969 from Lafayette High School at age 16, having skipped two grades.[21][22] Later that year, he attended classes at Cooper Union until he changed colleges in 1971.[21][23] From September 1971, he attended the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University, but left without receiving a degree in June 1974.[21][22]
Career
Teaching
Epstein started working after the summer of 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher at the Dalton School in the Upper East Side of Manhattan,[21][24] where Donald Barr was the headmaster until June of 1974 and may have hired Epstein.[25][24] Epstein taught at the exclusive private school from the fall of 1974 until he was dismissed in June 1976.[26][27][28] While teaching at the school, Epstein became acquainted with Alan Greenberg, the chief executive officer of Bear Stearns, whose son and daughter were going to the school. Greenberg’s daughter, Lynne Koeppel, pointed to a parent teacher conference where Epstein influenced another Dalton parent into advocating for him to Greenberg.[28] Greenberg, impressed with Epstein’s intelligence and drive for financial success, offered him a job at Bear Stearns.[20][29]
Banking
.jpg)
Epstein joined Bear Stearns in 1976 and learned the art of finance and trade on Wall Street in New York City.
Epstein joined Bear Stearns in 1976 as a low-level junior assistant to a floor trader.[30] He swiftly moved up to become an options trader, working in the special products division, and then advised the bank’s wealthiest clients, such as Seagram president Edgar Bronfman, on tax mitigation strategies.[22][31][32] Jimmy Cayne, the bank’s later chief executive officer, praised Epstein’s skill with wealthy clients and complex products. In 1980, four years after joining Bear Stearns, Epstein became a limited partner.[30] He was asked to leave Bear Stearns in 1981, for policy violations which remain unclear.[22][20] Even though Epstein departed abruptly, he remained close to Cayne and Greenberg and was a client of Bear Stearns until it collapsed in 2008.[30]
Financial consulting
In August 1981, Epstein founded his own consulting firm, Intercontinental Assets Group Inc. (IAG),[33] which assisted clients in recovering stolen money from fraudulent brokers and lawyers.[20] Epstein described his work at this time as being a high-level bounty hunter. He told friends that he worked sometimes as a consultant for governments and the very wealthy to recover embezzled funds, while at other times he worked for clients who had embezzled funds.[20][34] Ana Obregón was one such wealthy Spanish client, who Epstein helped in 1982 to recover her father’s millions in lost investments, which had disappeared when Drysdale Government Securities collapsed because of fraud.[35]
Epstein also stated to some people at the time that he was an intelligence agent.[36][37] Whether this statement was truthful, in jest, or just plain false is not clear. During the 1980s, Epstein possessed an Austrian passport that had his photo but a false name. The passport showed his place of residence in Saudi Arabia.[38][39] Investigative journalist Vicky Ward said she was told in 2017 by “a former senior White House official” that U.S. Florida District Attorney Alexander Acosta, who handled Epstein’s criminal case in 2008, said to Trump transition interviewers “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone” and that Epstein was “above his pay grade“.[40]
During this period, one of Epstein’s clients was the Saudi Arabian businessman Adnan Khashoggi, who was the middleman in transferring American weapons from Israel to Iran, as part of the Iran–Contra affair in the 1980s.[3] Khashoggi was one of several defense contractors that he knew.[20][36] In the mid-1980s, Epstein traveled multiple times between the United States, Europe and Southwest Asia.[38][39] While in London, Epstein met Steven Hoffenberg. They had been introduced through Douglas Leese, a defense contractor, and John Mitchell, the former U.S. Attorney General.[20]
Tower Financial Corporation
In 1987, Hoffenberg and Epstein unsuccessfully tried to take over Pan Am in a corporate raid.
Steven Hoffenberg hired Epstein in 1987, as a consultant for Tower Financial Corporation (unaffiliated with the company of the same name founded in 1998, and acquired by Old National Bancorp in 2014),[41] a collection agency that bought debts people owed to hospitals, banks, and phone companies.[42][43] Hoffenberg set Epstein up in offices in the Villard House and paid him US$25,000 per month for his consulting work (equivalent to $55,000 in 2018).[20]
Hoffenberg and Epstein then refashioned themselves as corporate raiders using Tower Financial as their raiding vessel. One of Epstein’s first assignments for Hoffenberg was to implement what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid to take over Pan American World Airways in 1987. A similar unsuccessful bid in 1988 was made to take over Emery Air Freight Corp. During this period, Hoffenberg and Epstein worked closely together and traveled everywhere on Hoffenberg’s private jet.[20]
In 1993, Tower Financial Corporation imploded as one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in American history which lost its investors over US$450million.[20] In court documents, Hoffenberg claimed that Epstein was intimately involved in the scheme.[44][45] Epstein left the company by 1989 before it collapsed and was never charged for being involved with the massive investor fraud committed. It is unknown if Epstein acquired any stolen funds from the Tower Ponzi scheme.[20]
Financial management firm
.jpg)
In 1988, while Epstein was still consulting for Hoffenberg, he founded his own financial management firm, J. Epstein & Company.[43][33] The company was said by Epstein to have been formed to manage the assets of clients with more than US$1billion in net worth, although others have expressed skepticism that he was this restrictive in the clients he took.[22]
The only publicly known billionaire client of Epstein was Leslie Wexner, chairman and CEO of L Brands (formerly The Limited, Inc.) and Victoria’s Secret.[20][46] In 1986, Epstein met Wexner through their mutual acquaintances, insurance executive Robert Meister and his wife, in Palm Beach, Florida. A year later, Epstein became Wexner’s financial adviser and served as his right hand man. Within the year, Epstein had sorted out Wexner’s entangled finances.[22][47] In July 1991, Wexner granted Epstein full power of attorney over his affairs. The power of attorney allowed Epstein to hire people, sign checks, buy and sell properties, borrow money, and do anything else of legally binding nature on Wexner’s behalf.[48]
By 1995, Epstein was a director of the Wexner Foundation and Wexner Heritage Foundation. He was also the president of Wexner’s Property, which developed the town of New Albany outside Columbus, Ohio where Wexner lived. Epstein made millions in fees by managing Wexner’s financial affairs. Although never employed by L Brands, he corresponded frequently with the company executives. Epstein often attended Victoria’s Secret fashion shows, and hosted the models at his New York City home, as well as helping aspiring models get work with the company.[47][48]
In 1996, Epstein changed the name of his firm to the Financial Trust Company[22] and, for tax advantages, based it on the island of St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.[22] By relocating to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Epstein was able to reduce federal income taxes by 90 percent. The U.S. Virgin Islands acted as an offshore tax haven, while at the same time offering the advantages of being part of the United States banking system.[49]
Media activities
In 2003, Epstein bid to acquire New York magazine.[50] Other bidders included advertising executive Donny Deutsch, investor Nelson Peltz, media mogul and New York Daily News publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, and film producer Harvey Weinstein. The ultimate buyer was Bruce Wasserstein, a longtime Wall Street investment banker, who paid US$55million.[50]
In 2004, Epstein and Zuckerman committed up to US$25million to finance Radar, a celebrity and pop culture magazine founded by Maer Roshan. Epstein and Zuckerman were equal partners in the venture. Roshan, as its editor-in-chief, retained a small ownership stake. It folded after three issues.[51]
Liquid Funding Ltd.
Epstein was the president of the company Liquid Funding Ltd. between 2000 and 2007.[52][53] The company was an early pioneer in expanding the kind of debt that could be accepted on repurchase, or the repo market, which involves a lender giving money to a borrower in exchange for securities that the borrower then agrees to buy back at an agreed-upon later time and price. The innovation of Liquid Funding, and other early companies, was that instead of having stocks and bonds as the underlying securities, it had commercial mortgages and investment-grade residential mortgages bundled into complex securities as the underlying security.[52]
Liquid Funding was initially 40percent owned by Bear Stearns. Through the help of the credit rating agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service – the new bundled securities were able to be created for companies so that they got a gold-plated AAA rating. The implosion of such complex securities, because of their inaccurate ratings, led to the collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008 and set in motion the Financial Crisis of 2007–2008 and the subsequent Great Recession. If Liquid Funding was left holding large amounts of such securities as collateral, it could have lost large amounts of money.[52][54]
Investments
Hedge funds
Epstein invested $80million between 2002 and 2005, in the D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities hedge fund.[55] In November 2006, Epstein, while under federal investigation for sex crimes,[56] attempted to redeem his investment after he was informed of accounting irregularities in the fund.[57][58] By this time, his investment had grown to $140million. Zwirn refused to redeem the investment. Zwirn worried that Epstein’s redemption could cause a “run on the bank” at the hedge fund. It is unknown how much Epstein personally lost, when the fund was wound down in 2008.[55]
The government began negotiation with Epstein for a plea agreement, as the hedge fund began to collapse. The fund’s collapse would trigger the Great Recession and lose Epstein millions.
In August 2006, Epstein, a month after the federal investigation of him began,[56] invested $57million in the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage hedge fund.[55][59] This fund was highly leveraged in mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).[59] On April 18, 2007, an investor in the fund, who had $57million invested, discussed redeeming his investment.[60] At this time, the fund had a leverage ratio of 17:1, which meant for every dollar invested there were seventeen dollars of borrowed funds; therefore, the redemption of this investment would have been equivalent to removing $1billion from the thinly traded CDO market.[61] The selling of CDO assets to meet the redemptions that month began a repricing process and general freeze in the CDO market. The repricing of the CDO assets caused the collapse of the fund three months later in July, and the eventual collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008. It is likely Epstein lost most of this investment, but it is not known how much was his.[60][59]
By the time that the Bear Stearns fund began to fail in May 2007, Epstein had begun to negotiate a plea deal with the U.S. Attorney’s Office concerning imminent charges for sex with minors.[55][56] In August 2007, a month after the fund collapsed, the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, entered into direct discussions about the plea agreement.[56] Acosta brokered a lenient deal, according to him, because he had been ordered by higher government officials, who told him that Epstein was an individual of importance to the government.[40] As part of the negotiations, according to the Miami Herald, Epstein provided “unspecified information” to the Florida federal prosecutors for a more lenient sentence and was supposedly an unnamed key witness for the New York federal prosecutors in their unsuccessful June 2008 criminal case against the two managers of the failed Bear Stearns hedge fund. Alan Dershowitz, one of Epstein’s Florida attorneys on the case, told FOX Business “We would have been touting that if he had [cooperated]. The idea that Epstein helped in any prosecution is news to me.”[55][6][62]
Israeli startup
In 2015, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Epstein invested in the startup Reporty Homeland Security (rebranded as Carbyne in 2018).[63][64][65] The startup is connected with Israel’s defense industry. It is headed by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who was also at one time the defense minister, and chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The CEO of the company is Amir Elihai who was a special forces officer, and Pinchas Bukhris, who is a director of the company, was at one time the defense ministry director general and commander of the IDF cyber unit 8200.[66] Epstein and Barak, the head of Carbyne, were close, and Epstein often offered him lodging at one of his apartment units at 301 East 66th Street in Manhattan.[67][68]
Legal proceedings
First criminal case
Initial developments (2005–2006)
At the time of his death, Epstein was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (pictured here in 2010) awaiting trial for sex-trafficking.[69]
In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida’s Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein’s mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $380 in 2018) to strip and massage Epstein.[70] She had allegedly undressed, but left the encounter wearing her underwear.[71]
Police began a 13-month undercover investigation of Epstein, that included a search of his home.[56][72] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also became involved in the investigation. Subsequently, the police alleged that Epstein had paid several girls to perform sexual acts with him.[73] Interviews with five alleged victims and 17 witnesses under oath, a high school transcript and other items found in Epstein’s trash and home allegedly showed that some of the girls involved were under 18.[74] The police search of Epstein’s home found two hidden cameras and large numbers of photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom the police had interviewed in the course of their investigation.[71]
The International Business Times reported that papers filed in a 2006 lawsuit alleged that Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his property to record sexual activity with underage girls by prominent people for criminal purposes, such as blackmail.[75] Epstein allegedly “lent” girls to powerful people to ingratiate himself with them and also to gain possible blackmail information.[73] In 2015, evidence came to light that one of the powerful men at Epstein’s mansion may have been Prince Andrew, Duke of York.[73] A former employee told the police that Epstein would receive massages three times a day.[71] Eventually the FBI compiled reports on “34 confirmed minors” eligible for restitution (increased to 40 in the NPA) whose allegations of molestation by Epstein included corroborating details.[76] Julie Brown‘s 2018 exposé[6][56][77] in the Miami Herald identified about 80 and located about 60 victims. She quotes the then police chief, Michael Reiter, “This was 50-something ‘shes’ and one ‘he’—and the ‘shes’ all basically told the same story.”[6]
In May 2006, Palm Beach police filed a probable cause affidavit saying that Epstein should be charged with four counts of unlawful sex with minors and one molestation count.[71][78]
Epstein’s high-powered team of defense lawyers included Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, and former Clinton special prosecutor Ken Starr.[70][79]
After press reports that Epstein would be charged with one count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter accused the Palm Beach County state prosecutor, Barry Krischer, of being too lenient and was instrumental in bringing in the FBI.[70] Instead Krischer convened a Palm Beach County grand jury, which was usually only done in capital cases. Presented evidence from only two victims, the grand jury returned a single charge of felony solicitation of prostitution,[80] to which Epstein pleaded not guilty in August 2006.[81]
Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) (2006–2008)
 Documentary: Who is Jeffrey Epstein, accused of sexually abusing teen girls? Perversion of Justice, Miami Herald, November 29, 2018. |
In July 2006, the FBI began its own investigation of Epstein, nicknamed “Operation Leap Year”. It resulted in a 53-page indictment in June 2007 that was never presented to a grand jury.[56] Alexander Acosta, then the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, agreed to a plea deal to grant immunity from all federal criminal charges to Epstein, along with four named co-conspirators and any unnamed “potential co-conspirators”. According to the Miami Herald, the non-prosecution agreement “essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes”. At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: “Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims.”[6]
Acosta later said he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence”, was “above his pay grade” and to “leave it alone”.[40] Epstein agreed to plead guilty in Florida state court to two felony prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI.[6][73]
A Federal Judge later found that the prosecutors had violated the victims’ rights in that they had concealed the agreement from the victims and instead urged them to have “patience”.[82][83]
Conviction and sentencing (2008–2011)
On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18,[84] he was sentenced to 18months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was after 31⁄2months allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to 12hours a day, 6days a week. This contravened the sheriff’s own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours.[77]
Epstein’s cell door was left unlocked, and he had access to the attorney room where a television was installed for him, before he was moved to the stockade’s previously unstaffed infirmary. He worked at the office of a foundation he had created shortly before reporting to jail; he dissolved it after he had served his time. The Sheriff’s Office received $128,000 from Epstein’s non-profit to pay for the costs of extra services being provided during his work release. His office was monitored by “permit deputies” whose overtime was paid by Epstein. They were required to wear suits, and checked in “welcomed guests” at the “front desk”. Later the Sheriff’s Office said these guest logs were destroyed per the department’s “records retention” rules (although inexplicably the Stockade visitor logs were not).[85] He was allowed to use his own driver to drive him between jail and his office and other appointments.[77][85]
Epstein in 2013, photographed for sex offender registry
Epstein served almost 13months before being released for a year of probation on house arrest until August 2010. While on probation he was allowed numerous trips on his corporate jet to his residences in Manhattan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He was allowed long shopping trips and to walk around Palm Beach “for exercise”.[77]
After a contested hearing in January 2011, and an appeal, he stayed registered in New York State as a “level three” (high risk of repeat offense) sex offender, a lifelong designation.[86][87] At that hearing the Manhattan District Attorney argued unsuccessfully that the level should be reduced to a low-risk “level one” and was chided by the judge. Despite opposition from Epstein’s lawyer that he had a “main” home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the judge confirmed he personally must check in with the New York Police Department every 90 days. Though Epstein had been a level three registered sex offender in New York since 2010, the New York Police Department never enforced the 90-day regulation, though non-compliance is a felony.[83]
Reactions
The immunity agreement and his lenient treatment were the subject of ongoing public dispute. The Palm Beach police chief accused the state of giving him preferential treatment,[70] and the Miami Herald said U.S. Attorney Acosta gave Epstein “the deal of a lifetime”.[6] Following Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, on sex trafficking charges, Acosta resigned as Secretary of Labor effective July 19, 2019.[88]
After the accusations became public, several persons and institutions returned donations that they had received from Epstein, including Eliot Spitzer, Bill Richardson,[89] and the Palm Beach Police Department.[74] Harvard University announced it would not return any money.[89] Various charitable donations that Epstein had made to finance children’s education were also questioned.[84]
On June 18, 2010, Epstein’s former house manager, Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18months’ incarceration after being convicted on an obstruction charge for failing to turn over to police, and subsequently trying to sell, a journal in which he had recorded Epstein’s activities. FBI Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was information “that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims.”[90][91]
Civil cases
Jane Does v. Epstein (2008)
| How teen runaway Virginia Roberts became one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims Perversion of Justice, Miami Herald, November 30, 2018. |
On February 6, 2008, an anonymous Virginia woman filed a $50million civil lawsuit[92] in federal court against Epstein, alleging that when she was a 16-year-old minor in 2004–2005, she was “recruited to give Epstein a massage”. She claims she was taken to his mansion, where he exposed himself and had sexual intercourse with her, and paid her $200 immediately afterward.[80] A similar $50million suit was filed in March 2008, by a different woman, who was represented by the same lawyer.[93] These and several similar lawsuits were dismissed.[94] All other lawsuits have been settled by Epstein out of court.[95] Epstein made many out-of-court settlements with alleged victims.[94]
Victims’ rights: Jane Does v. United States (2014)
A December 30, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1 (Courtney Wild) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice‘s NPA with Epstein and his limited 2008 state plea. There was a later unsuccessful effort to add Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 3) and another woman (Jane Doe 4) as plaintiffs to that case.[96] The addition accused Alan Dershowitz of sexually abusing a minor, Jane Doe 3, provided by Epstein.[97] (See Two Jane Does v. United States.) The allegations against Dershowitz were stricken by the judge and eliminated from the case because he said they were outside the intent of the suit to re-open the plea agreement.[98][99] A document filed in court alleges that Epstein ran a “sexual abuse ring“, and lent underage girls to “prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders”.[100]
This long-running lawsuit is pending in federal court, aimed at vacating the federal plea agreement on the grounds that it violated victims’ rights.[101] On April 7, 2015, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the allegations made by alleged victim Virginia Roberts against Prince Andrew had no bearing on the lawsuit by alleged victims seeking to reopen Epstein’s non-prosecution plea agreement with the federal government; the judge ordered that allegation to be struck from the record.[98] Judge Marra made no ruling as to whether claims by Roberts are true or false. Though he did not allow Jane Does 3 and 4 to join the suit, Marra specifically said that Roberts may later give evidence when the case comes to court.[102]
On February 21, 2019, in the case of the two Jane Does v. USA, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Kenneth Marra said federal prosecutors violated the law by failing to notify victims before they allowed him to plead guilty to only the two Florida offenses. The judge left open what the possible remedy could be.[103]
Virginia Roberts Giuffre v. Epstein (2015)
| Where are they now? The biggest players in the Jeffrey Epstein case Perversion of Justice, The Miami Herald, November 29, 2018. |
In January 2015, a 31-year-old American woman, Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre),[104] alleged in a sworn affidavit that at the age of 17, she had been held as a sex slave by Epstein.[105] She further alleged that he and the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell had trafficked her to several people, including Prince Andrew[106][107] and retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.[104] Roberts also claimed that Epstein, Maxwell and others had physically and sexually abused her.[106] Roberts alleged that the FBI may have been involved in a cover-up.[107] She said she had served as Epstein’s sex slave from 1999 to 2002, and had recruited other underage girls.[108] Prince Andrew, Epstein, and Dershowitz all denied having had sex with Roberts. Dershowitz took legal action over the allegations.[109][110][111] A diary purported to belong to Roberts was published online.[112][113] Epstein entered an out-of-court settlement with Roberts, as he had done in several other lawsuits.[73] The BBC television series Panorama planned an investigation of these claims.[114] As of 2016, these accusations had not been tested in any court of law.[115]
Virginia Roberts Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell (2015)
As a result of Giuffre’s allegations and Maxwell’s comments about them, Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in September 2015. After much legal confrontation, the case was settled under seal in May 2017. The Miami Herald, other media, and Alan Dershowitz filed to have the documents about the settlement unsealed. After the judge dismissed their request, the matter was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[116]
On March 11, 2019, in the appeal of the district judge’s refusal to unseal the documents relating to the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell, the 2nd Circuit Court gave parties one week to provide good cause as to why they should remain under seal, without which they would be unsealed on March 19, 2019. Later the Court ordered these documents to be unsealed (after having them redacted to protect innocent parties). In Giuffre’s testimony, she claims that she was directed by Maxwell to give erotic massages and engage in sexual activities with Prince Andrew, Jean-Luc Brunel, Glenn Dubin, Marvin Minsky, Governor Bill Richardson, another unnamed prince, an unnamed foreign president, “a well known Prime Minister”, and an unnamed hotel chain owner from France, among others that she could not name.[117] As Giuffre testified, “my whole life revolved around just pleasing these men and keeping Ghislaine and Jeffrey happy. Their whole entire lives revolved around sex.”[117][116]
Jane Doe v. Epstein and Trump (2016)
A federal lawsuit filed in California in April 2016, against Epstein and Donald Trump by a California woman alleged that the two men sexually assaulted her at a series of parties at Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 1994, when she was 13years old. The suit was dismissed by a federal judge in May 2016 because it did not raise valid claims under federal law. The woman filed another federal suit in New York in June 2016, but it was withdrawn three months later, apparently without being served on the defendants. A third federal suit was filed in New York in September 2016. The two latter suits included affidavits by an anonymous witness who attested to the accusations in the suits, asserting Epstein employed her to procure underage girls for him, and an anonymous person who declared the plaintiff had told him/her about the assaults at the time they occurred. The plaintiff, who had filed anonymously as Jane Doe, was scheduled to appear in a Los Angeles press conference six days before the 2016 election, but abruptly canceled the event; her lawyer Lisa Bloom asserted that the woman had received threats. The suit was dropped on November 4, 2016. Trump attorney Alan Garten flatly denied the allegations, while Epstein declined to comment.[118][119][120][121][122]
Sarah Ransome v. Epstein and Maxwell (2017)
Epstein was accused of sex trafficking of minors at his mansion at 9 East 71st Street.
In 2017, Sarah Ransome filed a suit against Epstein and Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had hired her to give massages to Epstein and later threatened to physically harm her or destroy her career prospects if she did not comply with their sexual demands at his mansion in New York City and on his private Caribbean island, Little Saint James. The suit was settled in 2018 under undisclosed terms.[123][124][125]
Bradley Edwards’ defamation v. Epstein (2018)
A state civil lawsuit in Florida filed by attorney Bradley Edwards against Epstein was scheduled for trial in December 2018. The trial was expected to provide victims with their first opportunity to make their accusations in public. However, the case was settled on the first day of the trial, with Epstein apologizing to Edwards; other terms of the settlement were confidential.[101][126]
Maria Farmer v. Epstein and Maxwell (2019)
On April 16, 2019, a new accuser, Maria Farmer, went public and filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in New York, alleging that she and her 15-year-old sister, Anne, had been sexually assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell in separate locations in 1996. According to the affidavit, Farmer had met Epstein and Maxwell at a New York City art gallery reception in 1995. The following year, in the summer of 1996, they hired her to work on an art project in Leslie Wexner’s Ohio mansion, where she was then sexually assaulted.[127] Farmer reported the incident to the New York City Police Department and the FBI.[128]
Farmer’s affidavit also stated that during the same summer, Epstein flew her then-15-year-old sister to his New Mexico property where he and Maxwell molested her on a massage table.[129]
Jennifer Araoz v. Epstein (2019)
On July 22, 2019, while in jail awaiting trial, Epstein was served with a petition regarding a pending state civil lawsuit filed by a Jennifer Araoz, who says Epstein raped her in his New York City mansion when she was 15. As of August 14, 2019, adult survivors of child sexual abuse will have one year from that date to sue for offenses in New York State, no matter how long ago the abuse took place.[130]
Second criminal case
Trafficking charges
US v. Jeffrey Epstein indictment[1]
On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey on sex trafficking charges.[14][131][132]
According to witnesses and sources on the day of his arrest, about a dozen FBI agents forced open the door to his Manhattan townhouse, the Herbert N. Straus House, with search warrants. The search of his townhouse turned up evidence of sex trafficking and also found “hundreds – and perhaps thousands – of sexually suggestive photographs of fully – or partially – nude females”. Some of the photos were confirmed as those of underage females. In a locked safe, compact discs were found with handwritten labels including the descriptions: “Young [Name] + [Name]”, “Misc nudes 1”, and “Girl pics nude”.[133] There were also found in the safe $70,000 in cash, 48 diamonds,[134] and a fraudulent Austrian passport, which expired in 1987, and had Epstein’s photo but another name. The passport had numerous entrance and exit stamps, including entrance stamps that showed the use of the passport to enter France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. The passport showed his place of residence as Saudi Arabia.[38][39][135][136][137] According to his attorneys, Epstein had been advised to acquire the passport because “as an affluent member of the Jewish faith”, he was prone to kidnappings whilst traveling abroad.[138]
On July 8, prosecutors with the Public Corruption Unit of the Southern District of New York charged him with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. The grand jury indictment alleges that “dozens” ofunderage girls were brought into Epstein’s mansions for sexual encounters.[8][9][139] Judge Kenneth Marra was to decide whether the non-prosecution agreement that protected Epstein from the more serious charges should still stand.[140]
Epstein’s lawyers urged the court to allow Epstein to post bail, offering to post up to a $600million bond (including $100million from his brother, Mark) so he could leave jail and submit to house arrest in his New York City mansion. Judge Richard M. Berman denied the request on July 18, saying that Epstein posed a danger to the public and a serious flight risk to avoid prosecution.[141]
On July 23, Epstein was found injured and semiconscious at 1:30a.m. on the floor of his cell, with marks around his neck that were suspected to be the result of either a suicide attempt or an assault. His cellmate, former New York City police officer Nicholas Tartaglione, who is charged with four counts of murder, was questioned about Epstein’s condition. He denied knowledge of what happened. Epstein himself said he recollected nothing.[134][142][143][144] According to NBC News, two sources said that Epstein might have tried to hang himself, a third said the injuries were not serious and could have been staged, while a fourth source said that an assault by his cellmate had not been ruled out.[69]
Personal life
Previous long-term girlfriends associated with Epstein include Eva Andersson-Dubin[145][146] and publishing heiress Ghislaine Maxwell.[20] Epstein was romantically linked with Andersson-Dubin in the 1980s and the two later remained friendly well after her marriage to Glenn Dubin.[145][146] Epstein had met Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of disgraced media baron Robert Maxwell, by 1991.[37][125][147][148][149] Maxwell was implicated by several of Epstein’s accusers as procuring or recruiting underage girls in addition to once being Epstein’s girlfriend.[123][125][149] In a 2009 deposition, several of Epstein’s household employees testified that Maxwell had a central role in both his public and private life, referring to her as his “main girlfriend” who also handled the hiring, supervising, and firing of staff starting around 1992. In 1995, Epstein renamed one of his companies the Ghislaine Corporation in Palm Beach, Florida; the company was later dissolved in 1998.[128] In the year 2000, Maxwell moved into a 7,000-square-foot townhouse, less than 10blocks from Epstein’s New York mansion. This townhome was purchased for $4.95million by an anonymous limited liability company, with an address that matches the office of J. Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Epstein’s longtime lawyer.[124] In a 2003 Vanity Fair exposé, Epstein refers to Maxwell as “my best friend”.[20]
Epstein was a longtime acquaintance of Prince Andrew and Tom Barrack,[150] and attended parties with many prominent people, including Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, Donald Trump,[151] Katie Couric, and Woody Allen.[152] His contacts also included Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and British prime minister Tony Blair.[153][154] Both Clinton[155] and Donald Trump[156] claimed that they never visited Epstein’s island. Epstein owned a private Boeing 727 jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express” by the tabloid press, and traveled in it frequently, logging “600 flying hours a year … usually with guests on board”.[157][158][159] Epstein’s brother told The Washington Post that Trump flew “numerous times” on Epstein’s airplane, although he was only present on one of the flights.[160][161] Trump also flew Epstein on his own airplane at least once, according to Michael Corcoran.[162] In September 2002, Epstein flew Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private jet.[22][158][163][164] Flight records obtained in 2016 show Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 26times to at least a dozen international locations.[165][166] Flight logs did not list any Secret Service detail for at least five flights, all in Asia,[165] and Secret Service stated that there is no evidence of the former President making a trip to his private island.[165] In 2019, a Clinton spokesperson stated that, in 2002 and 2003, Clinton took four trips on Epstein’s airplane, making stops on three continents, all with his staff and Secret Service detail.[167] At the time of Epstein’s 2019 arrest, Clinton’s spokeswoman Angel Ureña stated that Clinton had “not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.”[168] In documents unsealed the day before Epstein’s death, the deposition of alleged sex slave Virginia Giuffre includes her allegations that when she was 17, Clinton visited Little Saint James island, that underage girls were present, and that Epstein threw a dinner party for the former President. She stated Secret Service was present, but not at all times;[169][170] the Secret Service told Fox News it had no record of agents being on the island.[171] The unsealed court documents also showed Giuffre later acknowledged that her claim Clinton visited the island was false.[172] Giuffre claims Maxwell told her she flew Clinton to the island on her helicopter, although she conceded, “I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true – too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe.”[169][170]
President Trump states “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him.” July 2019 video from the White House.
In a profile of Epstein in New York magazine in 2002, former Democratic Senate leader George J. Mitchell said of Epstein, “I would certainly call him a friend and a supporter.” In the same article, Donald Trump remarked, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”[173] In July 2019, Trump said “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” stating four times he had not been “a fan” of Epstein and that he had not spoken to him in about fifteen years. Video surfaced that month showing the two men partying together at Mar-a-Lago in 1992.[174][175][176][177] By 2007,[178] Epstein was reported to have been banned from Trump’s club.[179][180][181] The ban allegation was included in court documents filed by attorney Bradley Edwards,[182] although Edwards later said it was a rumor he tried but failed to confirm.[183][184] Clinton lauded Epstein as “a committed philanthropist” with “insights and generosity”. At the time Epstein was on the board of Rockefeller University, a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a major donor to Harvard University.[185]
Epstein visited the White House on four known occasions in the 1990s.[186] In 1993, during Bill Clinton’s presidency he went to a donor event at the White House with his companion Ghislaine Maxwell. Around the same time, he also met with President Clinton’s aide Mark Middleton on at least three occasions at the White House. In 1995, financier Lynn Forester discussed “Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization” with Clinton.[186] Epstein, according to his own accounts, was heavily involved in the foreign exchange market and traded large amounts of currency in the unregulated forex market.[20][22] In 1995, Epstein also attended a small political fundraiser dinner for Bill Clinton which included 14 other people such as Ron Perelman, Don Johnson, Jimmy Buffett, and dinner organizer Paul Prosperi.[187]
From the 1990s to mid-2000s, Epstein often socialized with the future President Donald Trump.[148][160][176][188] Journalist Michael Wolff wrote that Trump, Epstein, and Tom Barrack were at the time like a “set of nightlife musketeers” on the social scene.[3][189] Epstein and Trump socialized both in New York City and Palm Beach, where they both had houses.[176][188] A porter who worked next door to Epstein’s house on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in 2000 stated to The Mail on Sunday in reference to people coming and going from Epstein’s house that “I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night. It’s amazing he’s got so many ladies, as Mr Epstein, and always has a new one on his arm, it seems.”[148] In April 2003, New York magazine reported Epstein hosted a dinner party in his Manhattan residence to honor Bill Clinton, who did not attend, although Trump did attend.[190] According to The Washington Post, one person who knew Epstein and Trump during this time noted that “they were tight” and “they were each other’s wingmen“. In November 2004, Epstein and Trump’s friendship ran into trouble when they became embroiled in a bidding war for a $40million mansion, Maison de L’Amitie, which was being auctioned in Palm Beach. Trump won the auction for $41million, and successfully sold the property four years later for $95million to the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev. That month was the last time Epstein and Trump were recorded to have interacted.[160]
Wealth
Swiss Leaks: map of HSBC bank accounts. Epstein had millions stored in offshore Swiss accounts.
In 2008, when Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting and procuring prostitution, his lawyers stated he was a billionaire with a net worth of over one billion dollars.[191] A number of sources, however, have questioned the extent of Epstein’s wealth and his status as a billionaire. According to an article in The New York Times, his “fortune may be more illusion than fact”. Epstein lost “large sums of money” in the 2008 financial crisis, and “friends and patrons”—including retail billionaire Leslie H. Wexner, “deserted him” following his pleading guilty to prostitution charges in 2008.[43] New York magazine claimed that “there’s scant proof” of Epstein’s “financial bona fides”,[191] and Forbes also ran an article entitled “Why sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is not a billionaire”.[192]
Spencer Kuvin, an attorney for three of Epstein’s alleged victims in the case where Epstein pleaded guilty to sexual activity with minors, stated that “he and his team ‘pursued every possible angle’ to find out Epstein’s net worth but found that much of his wealth is offshore.”[192] An investigation by the Miami Herald of the Swiss Leaks documents indicated that Epstein had multiple financial accounts with millions of dollars in offshore tax havens. In the Paradise Papers, records showed that Epstein in February 1997, became a client of Appleby, a Bermuda-based law firm which specialized in the creation of offshore companies and investment vehicles for the ultra-wealthy. A client profile of Epstein described his job cryptically as the “Manager of Fortune”.[52][53]
Federal prosecutors on July 12, 2019, stated in court documents that, based on records from one financial institution, that Jeffrey Epstein was “extravagantly wealthy” and had assets worth at least $500million and earned more than $10million a year. The extent of his wealth, however, was not known, since he had not filled out a financial affidavit for his bail application.[193][194][195] According to Bloomberg, “Today, so little is known about Epstein’s current business or clients that the only things that can be valued with any certainty are his properties.”[196] The Miami Herald in their investigation of the Paradise Papers and Swiss Leaks documents concluded that Epstein’s wealth is likely spread secretly across the globe.[52]
Residences
Epstein’s private island of Little St. James in the US Virgin Islands.
Epstein owned the Herbert N. Straus House on 9 East 71st Street in the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City.[197][198] It was originally purchased for $13.2million in 1989 by Epstein’s mentor, Les Wexner, who renovated it completely.[199][200][201] Epstein moved into the mansion in 1995 after Wexner married and moved with his wife to Columbus, Ohio, to raise their family.[22][200] He took full possession of the mansion in 1998, when he paid Wexner $20million for it.[43] The mansion is reputedly the largest private residence in Manhattan at 21,000 sq ft (2,000 m2).[199][197] Hidden under a flight of stairs, there is a lead-lined bathroom fitted with its own Closed-circuit television screens and a telephone, both concealed in a cabinet under the sink. It also has its own heated sidewalk to melt away the snow.[202] The entrance hall is lined with rows of individually framed prosthetic eyeballs which were made for injured English soldiers.[20]
The financier’s other properties include a residence in Palm Beach, Florida, purchased in 1990;[203] an apartment near the Arc de Triomphe at 22 Avenue Foch in Paris, France;[197] a 7,500-acre (30 km2) ranch named Zorro Ranch near Stanley, New Mexico, purchased in 1993;[200][204][205] a private island near Saint Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands called Little Saint James, which includes a mansion and guest houses, purchased in 1998; and the neighboring island of Great Saint James purchased in 2016.[105][206] Epstein was building a compound on the latter including an amphitheater and “underwater office & pool” but ran into problems when a stop-work order was issued in late 2018; work continued despite the order.[207]
Epstein, previous to his final Manhattan home, lived in a spacious townhouse, which was a former Iranian government building that had been taken over by the State Department during the Iranian revolution, at 34 East 69th Street for a rate of $15,000 a month from 1992 to 1995.[208] He also previously owned a mansion outside Columbus, Ohio near Wexner’s home from 1992 to 1998 which he purchased from his mentor.[48] Before the Herbert Straus house was purchased, Wexner purchased in 1988 the adjacent townhouse at 11 East 71st Street. Like in the case of the 9 East 71st Street house, Epstein was on the deed of the 11 East 71st Street house as the trustee. The townhouse was sold in 1996 to the Comet trust which holds part of the assets of the de Gunzburg/Bronfman family.[209]
Epstein rented multiple apartment units for his employees, models, and guests since the 1990s at 301 East 66th Street. The majority of the apartment complex at this address is owned by Ossa properties, which is owned by Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, Mark, who purchased the complex in the early 1990s from Wexner. Over the years Epstein has housed different friends at 11 East 71st Street, including his ex-girlfriend Eva Andersson, who is now married to his hedge-fund friend Glenn Dubin, MC2 Models founder Jean-Luc Brunel, and on occasions former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He has housed some of his workers, including his pilot, housekeeper and office work staff, in the apartment complex. Epstein has also housed underage girls, who Brunel scouted from South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union for the MC2 modeling agency owned by Jean-Luc Brunel, at the location.[67][68] On August 6, 2012, a model and party promoter associated with MC2, Pedro Gaspar, who lived above another of the modeling agency’s locations in Manhattan, died of what some consider to be a suspicious drug overdose.[210]
Political donations
From 1989 until 2003, Epstein donated more than $139,000 to Democratic federal candidates and committees and over $18,000 to Republican candidates and groups.[211]
Epstein contributed $50,000 to Democrat Bill Richardson‘s successful campaign for New Mexico Governor in 2002 and again for his successful run for reelection in 2006. Also that year, he contributed $15,000 to Democrat Gary King‘s successful campaign for New Mexico Attorney General. He later contributed $35,000 to King’s 2014 unsuccessful campaign for Governor. Other contributions in New Mexico included Epstein $10,000 toward Jim Bacca’s campaign to become head of the land commission and $2,000 toward Santa Fe County Sheriff Jim Solano’s bid for reelection. In 2010, Epstein received a notice from New Mexico Department of Public Safety which said, “You are not required to register [as a sex offender] with the state of New Mexico.”[212]
Philanthropy
Epstein donated millions of dollars to Harvard University over the years for different causes.
In 1991, Epstein was one of four donors who pledged to raise US$2million for a Hillel student building Rosovsky Hall at Harvard University.[213][214] In 2000, Epstein established the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, which funds science research and education. Prior to 2003, the foundation funded Martin Nowak‘s research at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In May 2003, Epstein pledged a series of donations totaling US$30million to create a mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program at Harvard which was run by Martin Nowak.[213] According to The Boston Globe, the actual amount received from Epstein was US$6.5million.[89][213][214] In 2019, Forbes deleted a 2013 article that called Epstein “one of the largest backers of cutting edge science” after The New York Times revealed its author, Drew Hendricks, had been paid $600 to submit it falsely as his own.[146]
According to attorney Gerald B. Lefcourt, Epstein was “part of the original group that conceived of the Clinton Global Initiative”.[215] Epstein co-organized a science event with illusionist and skeptic Al Seckel called the Mindshift Conference.[216] The conference took place in 2010 on Epstein’s private island Little Saint James.[216] In attendance were scientists Murray Gell-Mann, Leonard Mlodinow, and Gerald Sussman.[29]
The true extent of Epstein’s donations is unknown. The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation fails to disclose information which other charities routinely disclose. Concerns have been raised over this lack of transparency. In 2015, the Attorney General of the state of New York was reported to be trying to gain information but was refused since the charities were based outside of the state and did not solicit in New York State.[217] Epstein, besides making donations through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, also made a number of charitable donations through his three private charities: Epstein Interest, the COUQ Foundation, and Gratitude American Ltd. According to federal tax filings, Epstein donated $30million between 1998 and 2018, through these three charities.[218]
Interest in eugenics and transhumanism
According to various sources, Epstein, beginning in the early 2000s, showed a strong interest in improving the human race through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, including using his own sperm. He addressed the scientific community at various events and occasions and communicated his fascination with eugenics.[219] It was reported in August 2019 that Epstein had planned to “seed the human race with his DNA” by impregnating up to 20 women at a time using his New Mexico compound as a “baby ranch”, where mothers would give birth to his offspring. He was an advocate of cryonics and his own idiosyncratic version of transhumanism, and had said that he intended to have his penis and head frozen.[220][221]
Death
Epstein’s body moved from New York hospital to medical examiner’s office, video from Voice of America
Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City at 6:30a.m. EDT on August 10, 2019. He was 66 years old.[10][222] The Bureau of Prisons said lifesaving measures were initiated immediately upon the discovery of Epstein’s body. Emergency responders were called and he was taken to a hospital. The Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Attorney General William Barr called the death an apparent suicide, although no final determination had been made.[11] The circumstances leading up to his death are being investigated by the Justice Department.[223][224] An autopsy was performed August 11, but no cause of death has been announced because the New York City medical examiner’s office is awaiting further information.[13]
On July 23, three weeks prior, Epstein was found unconscious in his jail cell with injuries to his neck.[144] After that incident, he was placed on suicide watch.[225] Six days later, Epstein was taken off suicide watch and placed in a special housing unit with another inmate. The jail had informed the Justice Department that Epstein would have a cellmate and that a guard would look into the cell every 30 minutes. These procedures were not followed on the night of his death. Two weeks after his suicide watch the jail allowed him to be housed alone. In violation of the jail’s normal procedure, Epstein was not being checked every 30 minutes on the night he died.[12][226]
Epstein’s removal from suicide watch at such a time, and in such a high-security federal facility, left some prison experts “stunned and angry”; MCC is nicknamed the “Guantanamo of New York”.[227] Attorney General Barr ordered an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General in addition to the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying that he was “appalled” by Epstein’s death in federal custody.[11][228] Two days later Barr said there had been “serious irregularities” in the prison’s handling of Epstein, promising “We will get to the bottom of what happened, and there will be accountability.”[229]
Investigation
The national president of the Council of Prison Locals C-33, E. O. Young, stated that prisons “can’t ever stop anyone who is persistent on killing themselves”.[230] Between 2010 and 2016, around 124 inmates while in federal custody killed themselves, or around 20 prisoners per year, out of an inmate population of 180,000.[231][232] The last reported inmate to kill themselves in the MCC facility in Manhattan was 21 years ago in 1998.[233] The union leader Young said it was unclear if there was video of Epstein’s hanging or direct observations by jail officials. He said that while cameras are ubiquitous in the facility, he did not believe that the interior of inmates’ cells were within their range. Young said union officials had long been raising concerns regarding staffing, as the Trump administration had imposed a hiring freeze and budget cuts on the BOP, adding “All this was caused by the administration.”[230] President Serene Gregg, of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 3148, said MCC is functioning with fewer than 70 percent of the needed correctional officers, forcing many to work mandatory overtime and 60 to 70-hour workweeks.[230][234] The White House did not respond to requests for comment. In previous congressional testimony, Attorney General Barr admitted the BOP was “short” about 4,000 to 5,000 employees. He had lifted the freeze and was working to recruit sufficient new officers to replace those who had departed.[230]
The circumstances surrounding the death quickly spawned conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death,[235] with President Donald Trump retweeting one suggesting that Bill Clinton was involved in causing Epstein’s death.[236][237]
References …
Story 2: FBI Agents Raid Epstein’s Little St. James aka “Pedophile Island” in U.S. Virgin Island — Videos
EXCLUSIVE: A dozen FBI agents raid Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Pedophile Island’, pulling up to his Caribbean getaway in speedboats and roaming the grounds in golf carts, two days after pervert billionaire’s suicide
- FBI agents were seen raiding Jeffrey Epstein’s US Virgin Island – Little St. James – on Monday morning and afternoon, exclusive DailyMailTV footage shows
- At least a dozen agents were seen disembarking speedboats at the pier and driving around the 71.5 acre grounds on golf carts
- Other officials with ‘FBI’ lettering on clear display were later seen overlooking the sea from the top of Epstein’s remote luxury home
- The raid comes two days after the 66-year-old was found dead by suicide in his New York jail cell early on Saturday morning
- An onlooker told DailyMailTV: ‘I’m on a boat charter with guests. We were enjoying lunch when we saw over a dozen people landing on the island’
- The home – dubbed ‘pedophile island’ and ‘orgy island’ – is at the center of an ongoing sex trafficking probe into the criminal financier
- Allegations have been made that underage girls were used as sex slaves and repeatedly abused inside a temple on the island
FBI agents were seen raiding Jeffrey Epstein’s private US Virgin Island, which has been dubbed ‘Pedophile Island’, as the sex trafficking probe around the now deceased billionaire intensifies, as exclusive DailyMailTV footage shows the search being carried out.
A large group of FBI officers were seen disembarking speedboats at the pier of Little St James on Monday morning and driving around on golf carts after the 66-year-old was found dead by suicide in his New York jail cell early on Saturday morning.
Other officials with ‘FBI’ lettering on clear display were later seen overlooking the crystal blue sea from the top of Epstein’s remote luxury home off the coast of St Thomas.
The search comes after 2,000 pages of documents detailing the lurid allegations of his sexual abuse of underage girls were unsealed to the public on Friday, adding more fuel to the fire of the government’s case of sex trafficking against Epstein.
FBI agents were seen raiding Jeffrey Epstein’s US Virgin Island Little St James on Monday morning and afternoon, exclusive DailyMailTV footage shows
+12
At least a dozen agents were seen disembarking speedboats at the pier and driving around on golf carts
+12
An onlooker, who wanted to remain anonymous and shot the footage, told DailyMailTV: ‘I’m on a boat charter with guests. We are the only guests out here at the moment. We were enjoying lunch when we saw over a dozen people getting off their speedboats and landing on the island’
+12
Allegations have been made that underage girls were used as sex slaves and repeatedly abused inside a temple on the island
‘We were enjoying lunch when we saw over a dozen people getting off their speedboats and landing on the island.
‘When we looked harder, we could see the FBI logo on the backs of their shirts.
‘It didn’t take long for us to realize they must be conducting a raid on Epstein’s house.’
The home – dubbed ‘pedophile island’ and ‘orgy island’ – is at the center of an ongoing sex trafficking probe into the criminal financier.
Allegations have been made that underage girls were used as sex slaves and repeatedly abused inside a temple on the island.
+12
The raid comes days after the 66-year-old was found dead by suicide in his New York jail cell early on Saturday morning
Many members of the community believe that Epstein hid young girls he allegedly enslaved in underground rooms below the temple and other parts of the island. There is no concrete evidence to support that claim.
Sources say Epstein flew the girls into St. Thomas then shuttled them over to his island on a boat named after Ghislaine Maxwell, his ex-girlfriend and his alleged ‘madam’. The boat was called Lady Ghislaine.
The former employee said that guests included Victoria’s Secret billionaire Les Wexner, who sold Epstein his Upper East Side home in the 1990s.
The staffer said that he had seen Victoria’s Secret models on the island.
Whenever Epstein was there, normally for three to four days at a time, women would sunbathe either nude or topless by the pool as he padded around in shorts and flip flops, they said.
One former employee who declined to be identified said Epstein once had five boats and said he saw a handful of young women when he was on Epstein’s property but he believed they were older than 18.
A former air traffic controller at the island’s airport told Vanity Fair: ‘On multiple occasions I saw Epstein exit his helicopter, stand on the tarmac in full view of my tower, and board his private jet with children—female children. One incident in particular really stands out in my mind, because the girls were just so young. They couldn’t have been over 16.’
Epstein doubled his property holdings in January 2016 when he paid $18 million for Great St. James, which is nearby Little St. James a few years back.
That 162-acre property is located next to Little St. James, the 71.5-acre island he purchased in 1998 for $7.95 million.
Epstein had plans for Great St. James to include a barge dock, two homes, cottages, an amphitheater, gardens, a marine electrical cable, solar array and generator, storage building, security building, work shed, machine shop, and an ‘underwater office and pool.’
That barge and a few completed structures, as well as construction equipment, are visible in aerial images of the island.
The source added: ‘When we looked harder, we could see the FBI logo on the backs of their shirts. It didn’t take long for us to realize they must be conducting a raid on Epstein’s house’
+12
Allegations have been made that underage girls were used as sex slaves and repeatedly abused inside a temple on the island
This work has been done despite the fact that only the construction of a flagpole and repair of cisterns has been approved on the island.
And yet next door, his temple remains domeless.
Epstein had erected ‘No Trespassing’ signs throughout around almost all of Great St. James due to the area’s popularity with tourists.
Local laws make all land below the tide or bush lines public property, so Epstein couldn’t legally kick people off those lands, but he was being vigilant about making sure no one wanders onto his property.
He had made Little St. James his primary residence, but in June the helicopter that shuttles the millionaire and his guests to and from the airport was listed for sale online, with an asking price of $1.8 million
Epstein also sold one of his private jets in June. His other was seized when he was arrested in July after landing back on US soil following three-week trip to Paris.
In total, Epstein’s properties are valued at close to $150 million.
There is the Paris bolthole where he spent the weeks before returning to the US and getting arrested on the tarmac as his plane touched down at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.
The $9 million pied-a-terre is located on one of the nicest blocks in the City of Lights, and Epstein traveled there frequently, often spending a few months at the apartment each summer.
The raid came at the same morning that Attorney General Bill Barr issued a stark warning to Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, telling them they ‘should not rest easy’.
The investigation into Epstein’s sex crimes is set to shift its focus following his death to those accused of helping him, in a move that threatens to implicate some of the world’s richest, most powerful people.
Speaking at a police event in New Orleans Barr said: ‘Let me assure you that this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein. Any co-conspirators should not rest easy.
‘The victims deserve justice and they will get it.’
He also slammed the handling of Epstein by the Manhattan Correctional Center after it was revealed a corrections officer had not checked on the pedophile for several hours before he hanged himself in his cell in the special housing unit.
Barr, who said he was ‘appalled’ and ‘angry’ at the failure to ‘adequately secure’ Epstein, added: ‘This sex trafficking case was very important to the Department of Justice and to me personally.
‘Most importantly this case was important to the victims who had the courage to come forward and deserve the opportunity to confront the accused in the courtroom.
‘I was appalled, and indeed the whole department was, and frankly angry to learn of the MCC’s failure to adequately secure this prisoner.
‘We are now learning of serious irregularities at this facility that are deeply concerning and demand a thorough investigation.
‘We will get to the bottom of what happened and there will be accountability.’
A former close associate of the late mobster John Gotti Sr., Lewis Kasman, said he heard Barr paid the MCC a visit around the time Epstein was with bruises on his neck. He told The New York Post: ‘When does that happen? The attorney general never visits jails. Something’s not right there.’
Ghislaine Maxwell, the socialite daughter of late media tycoon Robert, is one of those who may find her dealings with the disgraced financier in the spotlight after he was found hanged in his prison cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center on Saturday morning.
Maxwell, 58, described as the ‘madam of the house’ by a former housekeeper at Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, has always denied any wrongdoing but reports now suggest she may even be ready to co-operate with the authorities.
Prosecutors may also target the witnesses who were set to testify against Epstein now that ‘they don’t need them’, The New York Post reports.
One source said: ‘They were getting a deal to testify against Epstein.’
According to Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown prosecutors ‘will likely refocus their probe on Maxwell, Sarah Kellen Vickers, Adriana Ross and Lesley Groff’.
They have all been accused of helping to run Epstein’s operation and Brown adds: ‘Another woman, Nadia Marcinkova, was accused of sexually abusing some of the underage girls.’
Brown also told MSNBC there are still ‘thousands and thousands of more documents that are probably going to be released’.
She added: ‘There are so many threads of information and evidence and testimony and witnesses that are contained in those documents that he has a lot to work with there.’
Epstein’s accusers may also be able to pursue civil cases against his estate, including his $77 million mansion in New York City and his Palm Beach home.
Story 3: Police and Protesters At Hong Kong Airport Clash As Communist China Masses Troops For Possible Intervention To Restore Order and Stability in Hong Kong — Videos
Hong Kong airport scrambles to resume operations
What the Hong Kong airport chaos could mean for Trump and trade
Cavuto to Collins: Will history repeat itself in Hong Kong?
China moving troops to Hong Kong border amid intensifying protests: Trump
Violence in Hong Kong intensifies as protests enter 10th week
Have protests pushed Hong Kong to ‘point of no return’? | DW News
Police Fire Tear Gas at Hong Kong Protests With No End in Sight
Trump claims China moving troops to Hong Kong border, citing US intelligence
China’s military warns Hong Kong protesters with propaganda video
China’s Hong Kong PLA garrison commander warns against violence | DW news
China releases video showing Hong Kong-based troops conducting anti-riot drills
White House Official Says Chinese Forces Are on Hong Kong’s Border
The Point: How likely is a Chinese military intervention in HK?
Chinese forces show off power as Hong Kong gears up for protests
Full video: China’s grand military parade marks PLA 90th birthday | 中国人民解放军建军90周年阅兵
Chaos Grips Hong Kong’s Airport as Police Clash With Protesters
By Mike Ives, Ezra Cheung and
HONG KONG — Anti-government protesters clashed with Hong Kong riot police on Tuesday, crippling the airport for the second straight day and targeting a potent symbol of the city’s position as a global center of commerce and finance that is essential to China.
The mass protests have forced the airport to suspend check-ins, creating long delays for passengers and forcing airlines to cancel hundreds of flights over the past two days. After a chaotic night, check-ins resumed on Wednesday morning, but the airport warned that flights would be rescheduled, and Hong Kong’s flagship carrier said there could be “further flight disruptions at short notice.”
[How the airport that symbolized Hong Kong’s global stature became a hub of its unrest.]
The protests at the airport have been deeply tactical, as the largely leaderless movement strikes at a vital economic artery. Hong Kong International Airport, which opened in 1998, a year after China reclaimed the territory from Britain, serves as a gateway to the rest of Asia. Sleek and well-run, the airport accommodates nearly 75 million passengers a year and handles more than 5.1 million metric tons of cargo.
Peter Tan, a 23-year-old student, said that protesters were sorry to inconvenience travelers, but that other tactics hadn’t worked. “We want to spread the message to them so that they can spread the message to their country,” he said. “We are trying to protect our rights and our city.”
The clashes began late in the evening, after a group of demonstrators attacked a man they accused of being a mainland Chinese police officer impersonating a protester. As medics and the police tried to evacuate him in an ambulance, protesters blocked a road outside the departure hall.
Some officers in riot gear then began running after demonstrators, wrestling some to the ground. A group of protesters inside surrounded a police officer, taking his baton and beating him with it. They retreated after he pulled a gun, according to video footage and a police statement.
The Hong Kong government, in a statement, condemned the protesters’ tactics, saying their “violent acts” at the airport “are outrageous and have overstepped the bottom line of a civilized society.” On Wednesday morning, the city’s airport authority said it had obtained a court injunction to prevent unlawful demonstrations there.
The disruptions are a direct affront to the Chinese leadership. The wave of protests began in June to oppose legislation that would have allowed extraditions to the mainland, where the courts are controlled by the Communist Party. Since then, they have evolved into a broader push to protect Hong Kong’s autonomy and civil liberties, including a call for free elections that would be nonstarter for Beijing.
[Here’s a guide to what prompted the Hong Kong protests and how they evolved.]
In recent days, China has taken an increasingly hard stance, warning protesters in strident terms to stand down or face consequences. Beijing has also ramped up its propaganda machine, portraying the demonstrators as violent gangsters whose activities are starting to look like terrorism.
President Trump said in a tweet on Tuesday that he had intelligence “that the Chinese government is moving troops to the border with Hong Kong.” But it was unclear what information, if any, Mr. Trump had.
While Chinese security forces have recently conducted large-scale operations across the border from Hong Kong in Shenzhen, they appear mainly to be a nationalistic show of force. The possibility that China would send its military to restore order still looks remote.
The city’s embattled leader, Carrie Lam, pleaded earlier on Tuesday for order after days of escalating street violence.
“The stability and well-being of seven million people are in jeopardy,” Mrs. Lam said, her voice breaking slightly. “Take a minute to think about that. Look at our city, our home. Do we really want to push our home to the abyss where it will be smashed into pieces?”
In the news conference, Mrs. Lam was frequently interrupted by journalists who demanded an explanation for what protesters have called police misconduct. She looked more visibly emotional than she has at other recent public appearances.
“Will you apologize to the girl?” one reporter asked, referring to a woman who was hit in her right eye by a projectile during protests on Sunday. While the police have not confirmed the cause of her injury, the incident, widely reported by local news media, has helped galvanize protests at the airport.
“Why have you never condemned the police?” another journalist asked.
Toward the end of the briefing, Mrs. Lam said that police operations were not determined by “someone like myself, who is outside the police.”
Local authorities have faced criticism from a broad cross-section of Hong Kong society for their use of force in the protests. During street clashes, the police have regularly fired tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds to disperse protesters, even in residential areas and crowded shopping districts.
On Sunday night, in addition to using tear gas in a train station, the police beat protesters and chased some down an escalator at another station. The authorities, for their part, accused protesters of attacking officers with bricks and gasoline bombs.
China’s diplomatic mission in Geneva issued a testy rebuttal, expressing “deep dissatisfaction and firm opposition,” saying the comments sent the wrong signal to “violent criminal offenders.” It said Ms. Bachelet and the United Nations’ human rights office should stop interfering in Hong Kong and China’s domestic affairs.
Also on Tuesday, medical professionals held rallies at several local hospitals to protest against the police tactics and in solidarity with the woman who was hit in the eye on Sunday.
The rallies are a “direct response to what happened on Sunday,” Dr. Alfred Wong, a cardiologist who works at Tuen Mun hospital in northwest Hong Kong, said at a gathering there that drew several hundred of his colleagues.
The disruptions at the airport have left some travelers frustrated and angry.
Maisa Sodebayashi, who is from Brazil and works in a car factory in Japan, said on Tuesday that while she understood the protesters were fighting for democracy, she also wanted to catch her flight to Rio de Janeiro. She had been stranded in the airport for about 24 hours.
“Honestly, I don’t know what to do,” Ms. Sodebayashi said, standing beside a customer service desk.
On Tuesday afternoon, thousands of demonstrators had occupied parts of the departure and arrival halls, with some using luggage trolleys to block travelers from reaching their gates. The Hong Kong Airport Authority later closed check-in services and advised all passengers to leave as soon as possible.
By early evening, some arriving flights were still scheduled, along with some departures, apparently for passengers who had managed to clear immigration before check-in closed. But Cathay Pacific Airways, the flagship carrier, told its customers to postpone “nonessential travel” out of the city for the rest of the day and on Wednesday.
The clashes at the airport began late in the evening when police vans arrived outside the departure hall, which was full of black-clad protesters. Some of the protesters obstructed the vans with makeshift blockades and threw plastic bottles at them.
As midnight neared, bands of protesters were still in the airport, while bewildered travelers, fresh off arriving flights, walked past them and into the sweltering night. The protest crowd later thinned, as did the police presence. By late Wednesday morning, there were just a few dozen protesters in the arrivals hall.
The police said in a statement issued just before dawn that they had arrested five people on charges of unlawful assembly, breach of peace, assault against police officers and possession of “offensive weapons.” Two police officers had been injured, it said.
Much of the evening chaos at the airport centered on confrontations between protesters and the man accused of being a mainland Chinese police officer. The protesters pushed him to the ground, punching and kicking him, and he eventually fainted, prompting the ambulance evacuation. His identity could not be immediately confirmed.
Protesters also surrounded another man, bound his hands and feet, searched his belongings and punched him. Some accused him of being a “fake” reporter. He, too, was evacuated in an ambulance.
In television footage of the incident, Mr. Fu can be heard telling his captors in Mandarin, the primary mainland Chinese dialect, that he supported the Hong Kong police.
“You can beat me up now,” he said.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1305
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1259, May 16, 2019, Story 1: President Trump’s New Immigration Proposal — What Happened To Border Security First With A 1,000 Mile Wall? — Build Big Beautiful Border Barrier — Additional 1500 Miles! — What Happened To Deporting and Removing All The Illegal Aliens (The 30-60 Million) Living and Working in United States? — Then and Only Then Talk About Common Sense Comprehensive Immigration Reform — No Sale Mr. President! — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1259 May 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1247 April 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1246 April 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1245 April 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1244 April 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1243 April 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1242 April 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1241 April 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1240 April 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1239 April 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1238 April 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1237 April 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1236 April 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1235 April 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1234 April 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1233 April 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1232 April 1, 2019 Part 2
Pronk Pops Show 1232 March 29, 2019 Part 1
Pronk Pops Show 1231 March 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1230 March 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1229 March 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1228 March 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1227 March 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1226 March 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1225 March 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1224 March 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1223 March 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1222 March 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1221 March 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1220 March 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1219 March 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1218 March 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1217 February 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1216 February 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1215 February 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1214 February 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019
Story 1: President Trump’s New Immigration Proposal — What Happened To Border Security First With A 1,000 Mile Wall? — Build Big Beautiful Border Barrier — Additional 1500 Miles Required! — What Happened To Deporting and Removing All The Illegal Aliens (The 30-60 Million?) Living and Working in United States? — Then and Only Then Talk About Common Sense Comprehensive Immigration Reform — No Sale Mr. President! — Videos
President Trump unveils new immigration proposal
Sarah Sanders: There’s one agenda, one decisionmaker, that’s Trump
Trump‘s immigration plan could have a strong impact on the U.S. economy
Jared Kushner And President Donald Trump’s Immigration Proposal Comes Out DOA | Deadline | MSNBC
MAJOR TRUMP IMMIGRATION PLAN: Watch As Donald Trump Outlines His Immigration Executive Plan FNN
Trump elaborates on plan to deport illegal immigrants
How would Donald Trump deport millions of immigrants?
Your tax dollars supporting deported illegal immigrants?
Trump to unveil ‘merit-based’ immigration plan with English tests for new arrivals which White House insists IS ‘designed to become law’ despite Republican saying it is dead on arrival
- Donald Trump will unveil his immigration overhaul Thursday afternoon, providing a road map for weary lawmakers tired of anticipating what he wants
- In Rose Garden remarks, Trump will announce changes to America’s ‘screwed up’ asylum laws and seek to build GOP support for a new merit-based plan
- GOP senator who introduced a plan Wednesday suggested White House’s plan cannot pass, because it includes a border wall and merit-based immigration
- Lindsey Graham said at a press conference that Trump’s plan ‘isn’t designed to become law – it was meant to ‘unify’ the GOP on border security
- White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders insisted it’s more than set of goals and bullet points as she spoke to DailyMail.com on Thursday morning
- ‘We think it certainly is designed to become law. We think it should. That’s why we put it out,’ she said on the White House driveway
- Plan does away with the diversity visa lottery and prioritizes skilled workers
Donald Trump will unveil his ideal immigration plan in a speech today, calling for new criteria and a point-based system for legal entry into the United States.
The proposal eliminates the diversity visa lottery for potential green card holders and refocuses the legal immigration system around skilled workers. It proposes English-language tests for visa holders and requires applicants to pass a U.S. citizenship test.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that the proposal the White House previewed to Congress ‘isn’t designed to become law.’ He said it was intended to ‘unify’ the GOP on border security and a merit-based admission system.
A presentation by senior officials to press before Trump’s speech came in the form of a slideshow and did not include go into detail.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders insisted Thursday that Trump’s proposal is more than a set of goals and bullet points, however.
‘We think it certainly is designed to become law. We think it should. That’s why we put it out, and that’s why we’ve spent a lot of time developing and making sure that this is something that could have buy-in from both sides and actually fix our system that hasn’t been upgraded or touched in decades,’ she told DailyMail.com.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that the proposal the White House previewed to Congress ‘isn’t designed to become law.’ He said it was intended to ‘unify’ the GOP on border security and a merit-based admission system
Graham unveiled an immigration plan Wednesday that zeros in on the humanitarian crisis at the border. The White House said the GOP senator’s proposal is a ‘subset’ of Trump’s and the plans are complimentary to each other.
‘These two things compliment one another,’ Sanders told Fox News.
She characterized Graham’s comprehensive immigration reform proposal as a quick fix.
‘The president’s plan, that he’s going to talk about later this afternoon, is more of a long-term thing looking at modernizing and updating our entire immigration system.’
Sanders said there’s nothing in Trump’s plan Democrats should be against.
‘We want to move to this merit-based system. Democrats right now, unless they get on board with this, the only thing they’ve said they want is open borders. I think that is a terrible thing for our country and I think it’s a terrible message for them going into 2020 so I think it would be wonderful to watch them get on board with something that helps secure our border,’ she warned.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday at a news conference that Democrats want a plan that secures the border, has a path to citizenship, and respects the family. She said they would only support a package that has ‘certain principles’ that her party agrees to.
Graham had put the White House on blast the afternoon before, as he revealed his plan, telling reporters, ‘The White House’s plan is not designed to become law. This is designed to become law.’
He said the White House plan emphasizing a border wall and merit-based immigration cannot win bipartisan support.
‘I don’t think it’s designed to get Democratic support as much as it is to unify the Republican Party around border security,’ he said Tuesday after seeing the White House’s presentation.
Graham’s bill would require asylum applicants from Central American countries to apply for refugee status before they migrate to the U.S. Asylum claims from those migrants would be automatically rejected at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The senator wants to create processing centers in Mexico to review asylum claims – something Trump has also tried to establish.
Graham’s bill would also allow families to be held together for up to 100 days, revising a 20-day limit that’s currently in place. It would cut down on family separations but drive up the number of beds in use and the length of time that migrants can be detained to more than three months.
He would hire 500 new immigration judges to cut down on wait times.
In Rose Garden remarks this afternoon, Trump will announce changes to America’s ‘screwed up’ asylum laws and seek to build GOP support for his plan, a senior administration official told White House press. on Wednesday.
Jared Kushner, a senior White House official and the president’s son-in-law, crafted the current proposal with the input of economic and border security experts such as senior policy advisor Stephen Miller.
At a briefing for press, officials stressed that it is the ‘Trump plan’ even though it was billed as ‘The Republican Proposal’ in the slideshow.
‘Right now, this is the Trump plan. We’re hoping this will become the Republican plan,’ an official clarified in response to to an inquiry from DailyMail.com on Wednesday, ‘and we’ll keep evolving.’
Whether Trump will be able to get a majority of lawmakers from its own party on board was an unknown as the White House made its second attempt at comprehensive immigration reform following a skirmish with the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives earlier in the year.
White House officials were hopeful and were working hard to fill in the proposal’s details.
Trump met with Republican senators last week and sent his proxies to Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
A report after the GOP luncheon claimed that Trump’s plan was lacking in details and Kushner had trouble handling the information.
An official disputed the claims on Wednesday, insisting senators’ reactions had been ‘misreported’ and telling DailyMail.com, ‘People were very, very enthusiastic about it.’
White House officials have briefed half of the Senate’s 53 Republican members on the president’s plan, the Trump adviser claimed. ‘And there’s been no negative public comments from GOP senators, as well, on the record.’
The person suggested that leakers claiming otherwise were intentionally trying to derail the plan that seeks to decrease the number of immigrants who come because of family connections and increase the number of skilled workers.
A slide in the presentation said that within the current system, just 12 percent of immigrants are coming because of employment and skill, while 66 percent are relocating because of family ties. Another 22 percent are allowed in for humanitarian causes and through the diversity visa lottery.
Trump’s plan, which the slide mistakenly referred to as ‘The Republican Proposal’ even though officials said that wasn’t the case, set up new categories of 57 percent employment and skill based, and a reduction to 33 percent for family links and 10 percent for humanitarian purposes.
The administration based its plan on systems in Australia, Japan and Canada.
Jared Kushner, a senior White House official and the president’s son-in-law, crafted the current proposal with the input of economic and border security experts such as senior policy advisor Stephen Miller
Australia’s point-based system prioritizes merit-based workers at 68 percent of its total with 30 percent relocating for family reasons and 2 percent coming for other reasons.
Trump would totally do away with the diversity visa lottery in America, which he incorrectly claimed on Wednesday involves countries picking its worst citizens and sending them to America.
Non-Americans apply for visas and are selected by the State Department at random through the system. If they pass background checks administered by the United States, they are allowed to come to America.
Many illegal immigrants attempt to take advantage of America’s asylum laws, which are meant for refugees. The Trump administration wants to scale back the number of asylum seekers and unclog the asylum system.
‘Right now we have a lot of people who want to use our asylum system. Right now it’s so screwed up that those people aren’t getting the adjudication they need,’ a senior official told press. ‘So we want to make sure that people who have legitimate claims can come through quickly, and that people who are trying to take advantage of the system, use it as a back door, are ejected and removed in an expedited fashion but also given due process.’
Trump has pushed for a system that allows him to reject most Central American migrants’ asylum requests and immediately send them back to their home countries.
Last week a senior White House official told DailyMail.com that Trump envisions a ‘big door’ that immigrants with skill sets the U.S. wants will be able to walk through, ant that’s the focus of his overhaul.
In the interim, Trump has floated a plan to send illegal immigrants to San Francisco and other sanctuary cities that provide safe harbor to undocumented migrants.
The official said that under the president’s proposed new law, the president’s controversial sanctuary cities plan wouldn’t be necessary.
‘I think that if this plan gets enacted, then the amount of illegal immigrants coming into this country should plummet,’ the senior official told DailyMail.com, ‘because you’ll have the secure border and you’ll have the ability to detain, adjudicate – with due process – and then remove people who coming in illegally.’
The person added, ‘And then we’ll have a big door, which is the people who are coming in legally will be able to come in in a much simpler, expedited fashion, and that’s what we, I think, should expect, and aim for as a country.’
President Trump threatened last week to resort to ‘harsh measures’ to address problems in the immigration system, if Democrats continue to stand in the way of his overhaul.
The Republican president tweeted before a meeting with GOP senators to say, ‘Democrats in Congress must vote to close the terrible loopholes at the Southern Border. If not, harsh measures will have to be taken!’
He did not elaborate on the threat and details of the immigration proposal his White House is preparing with the help of lawmakers remained murky, even after officials held a background briefing for the press.
An outline of Trump’s comprehensive plan laid of six areas of concern: securing the border, protecting American wages and recruiting the best and brightest migrants, family reunification and the preservation of humanitarian values, in that order.
A senior official who spoke to a group of reporters last Tuesday said Trump will reveal a more detailed plan when he’s ready, and the meeting with senators was merely a first step in putting together a coalition.
‘I think he was very happy with the meeting today. I think we got a very positive reaction from people whose opinions he wanted to seek, and I think that was a good step forward to validate a lot of his instincts on what he wanted to produce and the work that he has subsequently done,’ the official stated.
A week later, the White House claimed it was ready to present the broad strokes of a proposal as it continued to work with legislators, however.
Officials said they were focused on winning the support of seven GOP senators, although they refused to say which lawmakers they were.
One who briefed press a week prior told DailyMail.com that what had changed in over the last eight days was that, ‘We got ready.’
‘We’re fairly fluid in terms of how we do these things, but what we’ll do is: when we’re ready,’ the senior Trump aide said.
The official explained that president approved the draft proposal and immediately brought in a focus group of 12 senators to solicit their input.
While it could have went poorly, the person said, ‘Turned out it went very, very well.
‘Feedback in the room was great, and these are all people who are not bashful about telling you both privately and publicly about when they’re not happy with what you put forward,’ the White House official assessed.
Stephen Miller, a senior adviser, to the president, is seen on Tuesday on Capitol Hill
The White House promoted the meeting with senators as a ‘sounding board’ for options and claimed that a timeline for introducing the plan had not been set.
‘We had a good opportunity to share with them the outline that we’ve been working on, and then get some of their feedback, so it was a very constructive meeting. We’ll work on further refining it based on some of the things we heard today,’ the Trump aide who requested anonymity to brief the press said.
Trump is trying to avoid the mistakes Republicans made the first time they attempted to secure enough votes for an immigration overhaul after he assumed office, the White House official intimated.
‘People are always too quick to try and rush in to make deals,’ the person explained. ‘Once we have finalized what we believe is the right position, we’ll try to unify as many of the Republicans around that as possible, and then we’ll see.’
The person suggested that Democrats could come on board without much wrangling if the White House goes about rolling out its plan correctly.
‘Maybe the Democrats will like it. a lot of them say they’re for border security, a lot of Democrats say they’re for a merit-based system and so I think that we’re taking the first step of putting together these ideas in a very detailed format, and hopefully, that starts a very positive discussion,’ the Trump aide said.
Asked Wednesday whether the president seriously believes he can get a plan passed with Democratic senators vying for his job in hot pursuit, the official said the immediate goal is to get GOP senators on board.
‘It’s very easy to be pessimistic, right? We recognize how hard it is. But again the president’s mandate to us is come up with something that … represents my position on immigration, put it out there, let’s unify Republicans. That’s the immediate task. Once you do that, a lot of things become possible,’ the person said.
The aide said of the plan’s legislative viability, ‘I don’t know, maybe we can, maybe can’t but we’re gonna try like hell to see if we can do it.’
‘And the president’s a dealmaker, and he’s flexible and he wants to see this happen,’ the aide insisted.
Trump’s speech on Thursday is not anticipated to get into the nuts and bolts of the proposal.
‘We’re going to release some details tomorrow,’ the official said. ‘We’re going to release more details later on.’
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, suggested to DailyMail.com and other reporters Tuesday morning that the new plan would be similar to one Trump sent to Congress his first year in office
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, suggested to DailyMail.com and other reporters last Tuesday morning that the president’s new plan would be similar to one Trump sent to Congress his first year in office.
‘This president submitted to Congress, in October of 2017, a 70-point immigration plan, that has never been acted on,’ she asserted.
Conway said Trump prioritizes securing the border, ending chain migration and the diversity visa lottery and moving to a merit-based immigration system.
‘This president has shown in the past a serious willingness to solve our Dreamers and DACA challenges, as well,’ she said. ‘So Jared Kushner and others have been talking about for awhile a big immigration plan, and we’re happy that the senators are coming over to be briefed on that.’
She declined to say, in response to a question from DailyMail.com, what is different about the new plan that Trump will be selling to senators.
The senior White House official suggested that the political climate could make immigration reform easier the second crack of the bat.
‘That the Democrats actually come to the table and their serious about it, because this will be our second attempt. Where’s their plan? What is their idea?’ she said.
Specific details of the White House plan are still under wraps, too. Trump has only said that it will prioritize merit-based workers.
‘They have skills, they have talent. We have people coming in under these crazy laws that – I mean under these crazy laws that – I mean if they – if they need welfare or if they need hand outs in the next 50 years, they – they’re almost incentivized,’ he said in a recent interview. ‘Those are the people that we’re supposed to be taking and we take as few as possible of them, I’ll tell you.’
He said Wednesday at a Capitol Hill service for slain police officers that he would keep out illegal immigrant killers like the one who killed a California cop he was honoring.
‘Not one more American life should be lost because our lawmakers failed to secure our borders. Tremendous problems are caused at the southern border — from drugs, to the wrong people being allowed to come in because of a corrupt and broken system that can be changed in 20 minutes — 20 minutes, if they want to change it.’
He said, ‘In the meantime, we have to do it the tough way. And there’s no reason for that. That’s why we are calling on Congress to fix our terrible immigration laws, stop catch-and-release; you catch them and you release them.
‘To end deadly sanctuary cities. To stop the visa lottery program, where they take lottery systems and a country will put you into a lottery and then deposit you into the United States. I don’t think most countries are giving us their finest. Do you agree? And that’s what’s happening. And it’s causing tremendous problems with crime and other things.
Trump claimed an illegal immigrant who killed Officer Ronil Singh ‘could have been kept out with border security, with the wall, with whatever the hell it takes’ and he would make it happen.
‘We’re getting it there. We’re building the wall. We’re beefing up like you wouldn’t believe. The military is come into action,’ he said, ‘People are trying to come into our country illegally because our country is doing well. They can’t come in illegally. They have to come in through the legal system. They have to come in through merit.’
The president insisted, ‘They can’t come in like this killer came in. Just rode across the border, went through every sign he could go through,’ he alleged.
Kushner said at a Time 100 summit last month that border security, including a wall or a barrier, remains the president’s first priority.
‘We want to protect our country’s humanitarian values. We want to make sure we’re reunifying families, and we want to do this in a way that allows our country to be competitive long term,’ he said. ‘And my hope is we can really do something that unifies people around what we’re for on immigration.’
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1259
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show 1258, May 15, 2019, Story 1: Let The People of Each State Decide Whether To Protect Babies In The Womb or Allow Doctors and Women The Choice of Killing Their Babies — Babies In The Womb Have A Moral Right To Life and Due Process — Alabama Bans Abortions — Videos —
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1247 April 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1246 April 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1245 April 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1244 April 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1243 April 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1242 April 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1241 April 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1240 April 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1239 April 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1238 April 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1237 April 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1236 April 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1235 April 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1234 April 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1233 April 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1232 April 1, 2019 Part 2
Pronk Pops Show 1232 March 29, 2019 Part 1
Pronk Pops Show 1231 March 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1230 March 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1229 March 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1228 March 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1227 March 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1226 March 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1225 March 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1224 March 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1223 March 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1222 March 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1221 March 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1220 March 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1219 March 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1218 March 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1217 February 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1216 February 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1215 February 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1214 February 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019
Story 1: Let The People of Each State Decide Whether To Protect Babies In The Womb or Allow Doctors and Women The Choice of Killing Their Babies — Babies In The Womb Have A Moral Right To Life and Due Process — Alabama Bans Abortions — Videos —
He that is kind is free, though he is a slave; he that is evil is a slave, though he be a king.
~Saint Augustine
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
~Edmund Burke
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
~Henry David Thoreau
The resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.
~Thomas Hardy
The Holocaust was the most evil crime ever committed.
~Stephen Ambrose
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
~Hannah Arendt
Abortion
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?
| Legal under any | Legal only under certain | Illegal in all | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 29 | 50 | 18 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 May 3-7 | 29 | 50 | 18 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 29 | 50 | 19 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 29 | 51 | 19 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 28 | 50 | 21 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 May 2-7 | 26 | 52 | 20 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 28 | 52 | 18 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 May 3-6 | 25 | 52 | 20 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 26 | 51 | 20 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 26 | 52 | 21 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 May 5-8 | 27 | 50 | 22 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 May 3-6 | 24 | 54 | 19 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 Jul 17-19 | 21 | 57 | 18 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 May 7-10 | 22 | 53 | 23 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 28 | 54 | 17 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 26 | 55 | 18 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 May 8-11 | 30 | 53 | 15 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Nov 11-13 | 26 | 56 | 16 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Jun 24-26 | 24 | 55 | 20 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 23 | 53 | 22 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Mar 21-23 | 23 | 55 | 20 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 24 | 56 | 19 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Oct 24-26 | 26 | 55 | 17 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 5-7 | 23 | 57 | 19 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 24 | 57 | 18 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 May 6-9 | 25 | 51 | 22 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 Mar 22-24 | 27 | 53 | 19 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 Feb 8-10 | 26 | 54 | 18 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Aug 10-12 | 26 | 56 | 17 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 26 | 58 | 15 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Mar 26-28 | 26 | 51 | 18 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 28 | 51 | 19 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Jan 13-16 | 26 | 56 | 15 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 27 | 55 | 16 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1998 Jan 16-18 | 23 | 59 | 17 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Nov 6-9 | 26 | 55 | 17 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Aug 12-13 | 22 | 61 | 15 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Sep 20-22 ^ | 24 | 52 | 17 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 25 | 58 | 15 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1995 Sep 22-24 | 31 | 54 | 12 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1995 Feb 24-26 | 33 | 50 | 15 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1994 Sep 6-7 | 33 | 52 | 13 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1994 Mar 28-30 | 31 | 51 | 15 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1993 Mar 12-14 | 32 | 51 | 13 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jul 23-24 ^ | 34 | 48 | 15 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 31 | 53 | 14 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1991 Sep 5-8 | 33 | 49 | 14 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1991 May 30-Jun 2 | 32 | 50 | 17 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1990 Apr 5-20 | 31 | 53 | 12 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Jul 6-9 | 29 | 51 | 17 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Jul 6-7 | 29 | 51 | 17 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Apr 12-13 | 27 | 50 | 18 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1988 Sep 25-Oct 1 | 24 | 57 | 17 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1985 Jan 3-4 | 21 | 55 | 21 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1983 Jun 24-27 | 23 | 58 | 16 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1981 May 8-11 | 23 | 52 | 21 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1980 Jul 11-14 | 25 | 53 | 18 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1979 Feb 23-26 | 22 | 54 | 19 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1977 Dec 9-12 | 22 | 55 | 19 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1975 Apr 4-7 | 21 | 54 | 22 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ^ Based on registered voters | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances? (Asked of those who say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances)\nDo you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?
Combined data based on full sample
| Legal under any | Legal under most | Legal only in a few | Illegal in all | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 29 | 14 | 35 | 18 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 May 3-7 | 29 | 13 | 36 | 18 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 29 | 12 | 37 | 19 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 29 | 13 | 36 | 19 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 28 | 11 | 37 | 21 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 May 2-7 | 26 | 13 | 38 | 20 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 28 | 13 | 38 | 18 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 May 3-6 | 25 | 13 | 39 | 20 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 26 | 13 | 38 | 20 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 26 | 12 | 38 | 21 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 May 5-8 | 27 | 10 | 39 | 22 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 May 3-6 | 24 | 15 | 37 | 19 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 Jul 17-19 | 21 | 13 | 42 | 18 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 May 7-10 | 22 | 15 | 37 | 23 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 28 | 13 | 40 | 17 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 26 | 15 | 40 | 18 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 May 8-11 | 30 | 13 | 39 | 15 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Nov 11-13 | 26 | 16 | 39 | 16 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Jun 24-26 | 24 | 15 | 40 | 20 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 23 | 12 | 40 | 22 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Mar 21-23 | 23 | 14 | 39 | 20 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 24 | 13 | 42 | 19 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Oct 24-26 | 26 | 14 | 40 | 17 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 5-7 | 23 | 15 | 42 | 19 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 24 | 14 | 42 | 18 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 May 6-9 | 25 | 12 | 39 | 22 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 Mar 22-24 | 27 | 12 | 40 | 19 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Aug 10-12 | 26 | 12 | 43 | 17 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 26 | 15 | 41 | 15 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Mar 26-28 | 26 | 13 | 38 | 18 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 28 | 11 | 38 | 19 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Jan 13-16 | 26 | 17 | 39 | 15 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 27 | 12 | 42 | 16 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1998 Jan 16-18 | 23 | 16 | 42 | 17 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Nov 6-9 | 26 | 15 | 40 | 17 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Aug 12-13 | 22 | 12 | 48 | 15 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 25 | 13 | 43 | 15 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1995 Sep 22-24 | 31 | 14 | 39 | 12 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1995 Feb 24-26 | 32 | 9 | 41 | 15 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1994 Sep 6-7 | 33 | 13 | 38 | 13 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?
Trend from polls in which pro-life/pro-choice was asked after question on legality of abortion
| Pro-choice | Pro-life | Mixed/Neither (vol.) | Don’t know what terms mean (vol.) | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 48 | 48 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 May 3-7 | 49 | 46 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 47 | 46 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 50 | 44 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 47 | 46 | 3 | 3 | * | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 May 2-7 | 45 | 48 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 48 | 44 | 3 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 May 3-6 | 41 | 50 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 47 | 47 | 2 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 46 | 48 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 May 5-8 | 49 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 May 3-6 | 45 | 47 | 2 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 Jul 17-19 | 46 | 47 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 May 7-10 | 42 | 51 | 2 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 50 | 44 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 49 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 May 8-11 | 51 | 41 | 4 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 48 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 49 | 44 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Oct 24-26 | 48 | 45 | 3 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 5-7 | 48 | 45 | 2 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 May 6-9 | 47 | 46 | 3 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Aug 10-12 | 46 | 46 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 48 | 42 | 4 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Mar 26-28 | 47 | 41 | 4 | 6 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 48 | 43 | 2 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 48 | 42 | 3 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1998 Jan 16-18 | 48 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Nov 6-9 | 51 | 40 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Aug 12-13 | 47 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 53 | 36 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1995 Sep 22-24 | 56 | 33 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?
Trend from polls in which pro-life/pro-choice was NOT asked after questions on legality of abortion
| Pro-choice | Pro-life | Mixed/Neither (vol.) | Don’t know what terms mean (vol.) | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 Jun 1-13 | 49 | 45 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 Oct 7-11 | 49 | 44 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Sep 24-27 | 47 | 46 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 Mar 26-28 | 45 | 46 | 4 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 Nov 20-22 | 48 | 45 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 Sep 5-7 | 51 | 43 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 Jun 11-14 | 51 | 43 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 Jun 1-3 | 52 | 39 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 Jan 6-8 | 53 | 42 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Aug 28-30 | 54 | 38 | 3 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Jul 22-24 | 51 | 42 | 3 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 Oct 14-16 | 52 | 41 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Aug 3-5 | 52 | 39 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Jul 10-11 | 50 | 40 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 Feb 9-11 | 55 | 38 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Oct 6-9 | 47 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Jul 14-16 | 50 | 40 | 4 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 18-21 | 48 | 40 | 5 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Mar 15-17 | 56 | 37 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, we’d like to know how you feel about the state of the nation in each of the following areas. For each one, please say whether you are — very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. If you don’t have enough information about a particular subject to rate it, just say so. How about — the nation’s policies regarding the abortion issue?
| Very satisfied | Somewhat satisfied | Somewhat dissatisfied | Very dissatisfied | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 9 | 27 | 23 | 28 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 10 | 27 | 24 | 27 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 11 | 28 | 24 | 24 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 9 | 24 | 22 | 33 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 10 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 10 | 28 | 19 | 27 | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 12 | 32 | 21 | 25 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 10 | 29 | 21 | 25 | 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 12 | 31 | 23 | 20 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 12 | 29 | 22 | 25 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 | 11 | 29 | 22 | 26 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 | 13 | 29 | 21 | 26 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 | 12 | 33 | 22 | 24 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 22 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 | 11 | 37 | 19 | 24 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 11 | 32 | 21 | 26 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Asked of those dissatisfied with nations’s policies on abortion) Would you like to see abortion laws in this country made more strict, less strict or remain as they are?
Combined responses: Satisfaction with abortion policies + follow-up of those dissatisfied
| Total satisfied | Dissatisfied, want stricter | Dissatisfied, want less strict | Dissatisfied, remain same | No opinon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 36 | 21 | 18 | 11 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 37 | 22 | 19 | 10 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 39 | 23 | 15 | 10 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 33 | 29 | 13 | 13 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 34 | 24 | 12 | 12 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 38 | 25 | 13 | 8 | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 44 | 27 | 8 | 11 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 39 | 28 | 9 | 9 | 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 43 | 23 | 11 | 10 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 41 | 24 | 13 | 10 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 | 41 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 | 42 | 25 | 11 | 11 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 | 45 | 27 | 10 | 9 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 | 42 | 27 | 9 | 9 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 | 47 | 27 | 9 | 7 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 43 | 26 | 8 | 13 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?
| Yes, overturn | No, not overturn | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 Jul 2-8 | 28 | 64 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 29 | 53 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 33 | 52 | 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 35 | 53 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 May 8-11 | 32 | 55 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 Jan 20-22 | 25 | 66 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Jul 7-10 ^ | 28 | 63 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 Mar 22-24 | 36 | 60 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Aug 13-14 | 34 | 60 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Oct 5-8 | 33 | 61 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Jul 6-7 | 31 | 58 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ^ Asked of a half sample | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some organizations. Is your overall opinion of [RANDOM ORDER] very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable? Next, how about … Planned Parenthood?
| Very favorable | Mostly favorable | Mostly unfavorable | Very unfavorable | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 Jun 1-13 | 31 | 31 | 14 | 20 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 Oct 7-11 | 28 | 31 | 14 | 23 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1993 Mar 12-14 | 40 | 41 | 8 | 5 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1989 Feb 28-Mar 2 | 29 | 50 | 7 | 4 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about — [RANDOM ORDER]?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In the first three months of pregnancy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 60 | 34 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 61 | 31 | 6 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 62 | 35 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 66 | 29 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 65 | 31 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 64 | 30 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In the second three months of pregnancy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 28 | 65 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 27 | 64 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 24 | 71 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 25 | 68 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 24 | 69 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 26 | 65 | 7 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In the last three months of pregnancy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 13 | 81 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Dec 27-30 | 14 | 80 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 10 | 86 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 10 | 84 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 8 | 86 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 13 | 82 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered in the FIRST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy. Thinking specifically about the FIRST trimester, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about … [RANDOM ORDER]?
Asked of half sample
| Legal | Illegal | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the woman’s life is endangered | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 83 | 15 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 82 | 15 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born mentally disabled | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 56 | 41 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 50 | 46 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born with a life-threatening illness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 67 | 31 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 60 | 35 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 77 | 21 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 72 | 24 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the woman does not want the child for any reason | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 45 | 53 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 41 | 56 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born with Down Syndrome | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 49 | 48 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered in the LAST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy. Thinking specifically about the THIRD trimester, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about … [RANDOM ORDER]?
Asked of half sample
| Legal | Illegal | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the woman’s life is endangered | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 75 | 22 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 75 | 22 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born mentally disabled | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 35 | 61 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 38 | 56 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born with a life-threatening illness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 48 | 49 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 48 | 47 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 52 | 42 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 59 | 39 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the woman does not want the child for any reason | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 20 | 77 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 19-21 | 24 | 74 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When the child would be born with Down Syndrome | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 29 | 68 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, I’m going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about abortion?
| Morally acceptable | Morally wrong | Depends on situation (vol.) | Not a moral issue (vol.) | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 May 1-10 | 43 | 48 | 7 | — | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 May 3-7 | 43 | 49 | 7 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 43 | 47 | 9 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 45 | 45 | 8 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 42 | 48 | 8 | * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 May 2-7 | 42 | 49 | 8 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 May 3-6 | 38 | 51 | 9 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 May 5-8 | 39 | 51 | 7 | * | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 May 3-6 | 38 | 50 | 9 | * | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 May 7-10 | 36 | 56 | 6 | * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 40 | 48 | 10 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 40 | 51 | 7 | * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 May 8-11 | 43 | 44 | 11 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 40 | 51 | 8 | – | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 40 | 50 | 8 | * | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 May 5-7 | 37 | 53 | 9 | * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 May 6-9 | 38 | 53 | 8 | * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 42 | 45 | 11 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| *Less than 0.5%; (vol.) = Volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thinking about how the abortion issue might affect your vote for major offices, would you — [ROTATED: only vote for a candidate who shares your views on abortion (or) consider a candidate’s position on abortion as just one of many important factors (or) not see abortion as a major issue]?
| Candidate must share views | One of many important factors | Not a major issue | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Registered voters | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 20 | 51 | 27 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 19 | 49 | 28 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 19 | 49 | 27 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Sep 24-27 | 17 | 45 | 34 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 16 | 60 | 23 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 Oct 14-16 | 17 | 46 | 35 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 14 | 46 | 39 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 21 | 52 | 25 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 14 | 52 | 32 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 19 | 52 | 26 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 15 | 53 | 30 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 18-21 | 17 | 50 | 30 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jun 29 | 13 | 46 | 36 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| National adults | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 May 4-8 | 20 | 49 | 28 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 May 6-10 | 21 | 46 | 27 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 May 8-11 | 19 | 48 | 28 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 Sep 24-27 | 18 | 44 | 33 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 May 8-11 | 13 | 49 | 37 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 16 | 59 | 23 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 Oct 14-16 | 17 | 46 | 35 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 May 2-4 | 14 | 45 | 39 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 20 | 51 | 27 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 15 | 49 | 33 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 19 | 51 | 27 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 16 | 51 | 30 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 18-21 | 18 | 48 | 30 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would — Allow females of any age to purchase the “Morning After” pill, a form of emergency contraception, without a prescription?
| Vote for | Vote against | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 Jun 15-16 | 49 | 48 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is your impression of how most Americans feel about abortion — do you think most Americans are pro-choice or pro-life?
| Pro-choice | Pro-life | Mixed/Neither (vol.) | Don’t know what terms mean (vol.) | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 May 2-7 | 51 | 35 | 7 | 2 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 69 | 28 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 78 | 19 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 74 | 22 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 73 | 23 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 71 | 27 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Nov 11-13 | 69 | 28 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 73 | 24 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 74 | 23 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 70 | 23 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a “partial birth abortion,” except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 64 | 31 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 70 | 25 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Oct 25-28 | 63 | 35 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 66 | 29 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Jan 13-16 | 64 | 31 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1999 Apr 30-May 2 | 61 | 34 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1998 Jan 16-18 | 61 | 36 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1997 Mar 24-26 | 55 | 40 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Apr 25-28 | 57 | 39 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring doctors to inform patients about certain possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 87 | 11 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving any federal funds
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 40 | 57 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law allowing pharmacists and health providers to opt out of providing medicine or surgical procedures that result in abortion
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 46 | 51 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring women seeking an abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before the procedure
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jul 15-17 | 50 | 46 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Nov 11-13 | 64 | 34 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 72 | 26 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 70 | 26 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 73 | 25 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 Nov 11-13 | 37 | 61 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 38 | 59 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 38 | 59 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 42 | 56 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1984 | 50 | 46 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 88 | 11 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-28 | 86 | 11 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1992 Jan 16-19 | 86 | 12 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When the woman’s life is endangered?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 83 | 13 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 85 | 11 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 84 | 12 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 88 | 7 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When the woman’s physical health is endangered?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 82 | 15 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 77 | 17 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 81 | 15 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 82 | 11 | 5 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When the woman’s mental health is endangered?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 61 | 35 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 63 | 32 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 64 | 29 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 66 | 27 | 5 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 50 | 45 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 56 | 37 | 4 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 53 | 39 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 53 | 37 | 7 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 51 | 46 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 55 | 39 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 53 | 40 | 4 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 54 | 36 | 7 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 75 | 22 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 76 | 19 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 78 | 19 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 77 | 18 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about — When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child?
| Should be legal | Should be illegal | Depends (vol.) | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 Jun 9-12 | 36 | 61 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 35 | 61 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 | 34 | 62 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1996 Jul 25-26 | 32 | 62 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (vol.)=volunteered response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now I would like to ask your opinion about a specific abortion procedure known as “late term” abortion or “partial birth” abortion, which is sometimes performed on women during the last few months of pregnancy. Do you think that this procedure should be legal or illegal?
| Legal | Illegal | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 May 10-13 | 22 | 72 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Oct 24-26 | 25 | 68 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that would ban all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother?
| Favor | Oppose | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 Mar 10-12 | 36 | 60 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is your impression of how most Americans feel about abortion — do you think most Americans feel — [ROTATED: abortions should be legal under any circumstances, abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances or abortions should be illegal in all circumstances]?
| Legal under any | Legal under certain | Illegal in all | No opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 13 | 67 | 16 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 May 10-14 | 16 | 66 | 11 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now thinking about future nominees to the United States Supreme Court, how important is it to you, personally, that they share your views on the abortion issue — very important, somewhat important, not too important or not important at all?
| Very important | Somewhat important | Not too important | Not important at all | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 May 2-5 | 45 | 31 | 15 | 8 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As you may know, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark decision on abortion known as Roe versus Wade. Do you think that decision was a — [ROTATED: good thing (or a) bad thing] — for the country?
| Good thing | Bad thing | No opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 Jan 10-12 | 53 | 30 | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alabama governor signs near-total abortion ban into law
The Most Important Question About Abortion
Ben Shapiro Destroys The Abortion Argument
The Silent Scream (Full Length)
What Is Roe V. Wade? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC
Roe v. Wade Summary | quimbee.com
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Why Supreme Court got Roe v. Wade wrong
Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade
Justice Scalia On Life Part 2
Clarke Forsythe on Fox News “Special Report” talking about “UNSAFE” Report
Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade
Based on 20 years of research, including an examination of the papers of eight of the nine Justices who voted in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Abuse of Discretion is a critical review of the behind-the-scenes deliberations that went into the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions and how the mistakes made by the Justices in 1971-1973 have led to the turmoil we see today in legislation, politics, and public health. Why do the abortion decisions remain so controversial after almost 40 years, despite more than 50,000,000 abortions, numerous presidential elections, and a complete turnover in the Justices? Why did such a sweeping decision — with such important consequences for public health, producing such prolonged political turmoil — come from the Supreme Court in 1973?
Abuse of Discretion – Book Launch
Tucker: Voters in Alabama decided for their state
“Heartbeat bill” in Georgia would ban abortions after heartbeat detected
Hollywood protest of Georgia’s ‘heartbeat’ law fizzles
Life in the womb (9 months in 4 minutes) HD – Presented to You from PSNX
Pro-choice or pro-life? 39% of Americans don’t pick a side
Is There Ever A Right Time To Have A Baby? | The Seven Ages of Pregnancy (Full Documentary)
Is There A Right Method To Parenting? | Cherry’s Parenting Dilemmas (Full Documentary)
Life Before Birth – In the Womb
7 Amazing Things Unborn Babies Can Do in the Womb
What Actually Happens When You Have An Abortion?
Can we expect a Supreme Court showdown over Alabama’s abortion ban?
The battle over abortion: Alabama ban opens new chapter in bitter fight
Pro and anti-abortion rights activists on future of Alabama abortion bill
Alabama passes strictest abortion ban in the US
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey Signs U.S.’s Strictest Abortion Ban Into Law
Alabama BANS Abortion
Abortions after about 6 weeks will now be illegal in Georgia
More states are passing laws to make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned
Access Restricted: Abortion in Texas – Fault Lines
Abortion frontline of America: life and death in Texas
Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion: Both Sides of the ‘Heartbeat’ Bill
What Happens If The U.S. Outlaws Abortion? | AJ+
NY Bishop Calls Out Cuomo Over State’s New Abortion Law: ‘It Goes Way Beyond Roe vs. Wade’
What So-Called Pro-Choicers Cannot Watch From Start To Finish
The Silent Scream (Full Length)
FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts
Abby Johnson Exposes The Lie of Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Attempt To Dismiss Viral Video Backfires!
Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Harvesting Babies Organs
Die Wannseekonferenz (1984)
A real time recreation of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which leading SS and Nazi Party officials led by SS-General Reinhard Heydrich gathered to discuss the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.
MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST
Abortion Inc: Promoting Black Genocide in US?
A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America
Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report
Sex Control Police State, Eugenics, Galton, Kantsaywhere, Mind Control Report
Mind Control Hate Propaganda, Hate Speech & Crime, Black PR
Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)
Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade
Auschwitz The Nazis and the Final Solution complete
Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (1/5)
AUSHWITZ:THE FINAL SOLUTION CLIP 2/5
Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (3/5)
Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (4/5)
Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (5/5)
Science and the Swastika: The Deadly Experiment
Sterilizing Undesirables: Did The USA Inspire The Nazis?
Keeping Dems Honest: CNN’s Anderson Cooper Puts Truth First and Challenges DNC Abortion Lies
Glenn Beck : Agenda 21 is not a fiction, it’s implemented right now in US and all over the World !
Glenn Beck – Ted Cruz Discusses the Evils of Agenda 21
Bill Whittle What We Believe Full Version
Brenda Lee – I’m Sorry (Live from Canada 1980)
Alabama governor signs bill authorizing near total ban on abortions in the state in a bid to challenge Roe v Wade in Trump’s conservative Supreme Court
- Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on Wednesday afternoon
- Law will ban nearly all abortions in the state with no rape or incest exceptions
- Doctors who provide abortions in Alabama could face up to life in prison
- Law will draw immediate lawsuits and could end up before the Supreme Court
- Democrat presidential candidates are drawing battle lines on the issue for 2020
- Klobuchar called it ‘unconstitutional’ and Biden said ‘Roe v. Wade is settled law’
- ‘This is a war on women, and it is time to fight like hell,’ said Kirsten Gillibrand
Alabama’s governor has signed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation.
Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed the measure on Wednesday. The law will make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison.
The law contains an exception for when the pregnancy creates a serious health risk for the woman, but not an exception for rape or incest.
There would be no punishment for the woman receiving the abortion, only for the abortion provider.
‘Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act,’ Ivey said in a statement.
‘To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,’ she continued.
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey discusses the bill while visiting a car factory at Montgomery, Alabama on Wednesday shortly before signing it into law
The bill passed the state senate 25-6, after being approved by the state’s lower house 75-3.
The new law will not go into effect for six months, and in the interim abortions will remain legal in Alabama, which has three abortion clinics.
The law will likely to be challenged immediately in court, potentially setting up a case which could allow anti-abortion groups to force a Supreme Court hearing in which they would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Democrats accused Alabama Republicans of leading a charge to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
A series of the 2020 presidential candidates warned that Republican-controlled legislatures around the country may follow suit, emboldened by President Donald Trump’s two conservative justices and a warning from one of the liberal justices that abortion rights were now in play.
Democrats say that abortion opponents are hoping that the 5-4 conservative majority on the court – put in place by Trump installing Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – will rule in their favor, and tear up the 1973 ruling which makes abortion a federal right.
Conservative court: Chief Justice John Robert now presides over a court with five justices – himself included – seen as anti-abortion, two of them Trump’s picks: Brett Kavanaugh (top right), and Neil Gorsuch (top left)
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning what the bill’s authors have readily admitted, that the legislation is meant to be a mechanism to get abortion before the Supreme Court again
Under the Alabama law, the only legal abortions would be those performed to protect a woman’s life.
Doctors could face 10 years in prison for attempting an abortion in any other circumstance, and 99 years for actually carrying out the procedure.
Other Republican-controlled states, including Ohio, have passed less restrictive ‘heartbeat bills’ which effectively ban abortion after six weeks. Roe v. Wade established it was legal in the first and second trimesters.
Many pro-life groups have acknowledged they are looking for a case which would allow them to directly challenge Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
Anti-abortion activists hope the high court will be willing to reconsider Roe.
‘It is clearer than ever that Roe is far from being settled law in the eyes and hearts of the American people, and this is increasingly reflected in state legislatures,’ said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. ‘The American people want a fresh debate and a new direction.’
The Supreme Court affirmed women’s constitutional right to abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. President Donald Trump has added two conservative members to the court, changing its dynamic in a way that could end the case’s authority.
Legal fights are likely ahead over the Alabama measure if Ivey signs it into law.
Similar abortion restrictions are under consideration or already enacted in other conservative-leaning states.
Republican state Senator Clyde Chambliss, arguing in favor of the Alabama bill, said the point was ‘so that we can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade.’
Republican lawmaker Terri Collins, who sponsored the legislation, said: ‘Our bill says that baby in the womb is a person.’
Courts this year have blocked restrictive abortion laws in Kentucky and Iowa. But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life for the unborn child transcends other rights, an idea they would like tested.
In the case of Alabama, if passed, the law is certain to be challenged in federal court in the state and almost surely will be blocked because it plainly conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
Review by the federal appeals court in Atlanta would come next, and only then would the Supreme Court be asked to weigh in. Emergency appeals by either side could put the issue before the justices sooner, but that would not be a full-blown review of the law.
Abortion-rights activists say they have no alternative but to file lawsuits challenging every tough abortion ban passed.
‘Were we not to challenge them, they would go into effect,’ said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. ‘There’s no strategy of ‘Maybe we leave this one and challenge that one.”
The ACLU and its allies expect lower-level federal courts to honor Roe by blocking the abortion bans. The ultimate question, Dalven said, is whether the Supreme Court will decide to revisit Roe by agreeing to hear an appeal from one or more of the states whose ban was blocked.
‘It would be an extraordinary thing for the Supreme Court to take away an individual constitutional right,’ she said.
Justice Stephen Breyer offered the latest recognition of the difficulty his liberal side of the court faces in a dissent in a case unrelated to abortion that the court decided Monday, one in which the five conservatives voted to overturn a 1979 decision.
Breyer, joined by liberal colleagues Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, cited the 1992 abortion decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in a dissent that concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.’
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member on record as supporting overruling the court’s abortion precedents. In his most recent comments on the topic in February, also in a case unrelated to abortion, Thomas likened Roe to the court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans weren’t citizens. Both, he wrote, were ‘notoriously incorrect.’
But Chief Justice John Roberts also has a track record of preferring smaller bites before making significant changes in constitutional law.
‘You do see consistently in the chief justice’s career a willingness to go incrementally and only decide what the court needs to resolve in the case before it,’ said Michael Moreland, a Villanova University law professor.
Roberts also is aware of the questions the court would face if a conservative majority of justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, were to reverse the abortion decisions, Moreland said.
Still, Roberts has, with one exception, favored abortion restrictions. His provisional vote to block the Louisiana clinic law was the only time he voted in support of abortions rights in more than 13 years on the court.
The Alabama vote set off outrage among Democrats.
‘This is wrong. This is unconstitutional,’ Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar tweeted.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wrote on Twitter: ‘We will fight these dangerous efforts with everything we’ve got in legislatures across the country.’
Former vice president Joe Biden, the early Democratic front-runner, touted his anti-abortion credentials, tweeting on Wednesday: ‘Republicans in AL, FL, GA, and OH are ushering in laws that clearly violate Roe v Wade and they should be declared unconstitutional. Roe v Wade is settled law and should not be overturned. This choice should remain between a woman and her doctor.’
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticized Alabama lawmakers for ‘ignoring science, criminalizing abortion, and punishing women.’
‘Instead, the government’s role should be to make sure all women have access to comprehensive affordable care, and that includes safe and legal abortion,’ he wrote.
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told CNN on Tuesday: ‘It’s certainly the intention of President Trump and the Republican Party to overturn Roe v. Wade.’
Gillibrand observed on Twitter that that Alabama bill includes ‘[n]o exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors could face 99 years in prison for providing abortions.’
‘This is a war on women, and it is time to fight like hell,’ she added.
Alabama senate challenges Roe v Wade with abortion ban bill
Gillibrand also claimed in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday that the public won’t stand for any interference with legal abortion rights.
‘This is not something the American people support. Seventy percent of Americans want safe, legal abortion to be available to women when they need it,’ she claimed.
‘This ban is dangerous and exceptionally cruel – and the bill’s authors want to use it to overturn Roe v. Wade,’ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote Tuesday night.
‘I’ve lived in that America and let me tell you: We are not going back – not now, not ever. We will fight this. And we will win.’
‘I say to Gov. Ivey: Veto this cruel bill,’ tweeted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. ‘Stop the attack on women’s rights.’
Alabama Democratic state Senator Linda Coleman-Madison called the Republicans hypocritical for advocating small government that ought to stay out of private matters but ‘now you want in my womb; I want you out.’13
Anti-abortion protesters are hopefully awaiting a day when Roe v. Wade can be reopened in light of 46 years of shifting public sentiments on abortion rights
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wrote on Twitter: ‘We will fight these dangerous efforts with everything we’ve got in legislatures across the country’
Anti-abortion protesters demonstrated this week in front of the Alabama State House in Montgomery
Alabama house votes to BAN abortion with doctors facing up to 99 years in jail if they carry out the procedure in the state including cases of rape or incest
- Alabama’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a near-total abortion ban
- Politicians in the statehouse voted against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest
- If passed into law, the legislation would criminalize abortion, classifying it as a Class A felony in Alabama
- A doctor caught performing abortions in the state would face up to 99 years jail
- The text of the Alabama bill likens legalized abortion to history’s greatest atrocities, including the Holocaust
- Because federal law supersedes state law, Alabama would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution if lawmakers attempted to implement the legislation
- The bill will now move to the Senate where it will be debated and voted upon
- The legislation is purposely designed to conflict with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationally
The Alabama House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to outlaw almost all abortions in the state as conservatives took aim at the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
The Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted 74-3 for legislation that would make it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy.
The proposal passed after Democrats walked out of the chamber after sometimes emotional debate with opponents and supporters crowding the gallery. The bill now moves to the Alabama Senate.
Supporters said the bill is intentionally designed to conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationally, hoping to spark court cases that might prompt the justices to revisit Roe.
The bill contains an exemption for situations in which there is a serious risk to the mother’s health, but not for rape and incest.
+11
Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, from left,Kari Crowe and Margeaux Hardline, dressed as handmaids, take part in a protest against HB314, the abortion ban bill, at Alabama State House
Abortion rights protesters painted the window in the House Gallery during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on Tuesday
Women’s heath clinic escorts, from left Mia Raven, Margeaux Hartline and Kari Crowe walk into the gallery to watch debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery,
Travis Jackson holds signs during a protest against, the abortion ban bill
Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon gavels in the session at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery
‘The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,’ said Republican Rep. Terri Collins of Decatur.
Republicans in the chamber applauded after the bill was approved after more than two hours of sometimes emotional debate.
Collins acknowledged that such a ban would likely be struck down by lower courts, but she said the aim is eventually to get to the Supreme Court.
Without the numbers to stop the bill, Democrats walked off the House floor ahead of the vote, calling the proposal both extreme and fiscally irresponsible.
They said the ban would cost the state money for a potentially expensive legal fight that could be spent on other needs.
Rep. Louise Alexander, a Democrat, said the choice to give birth to a child should be left up to a woman, and the decision should not be made on the floor of the Alabama Legislature.
A protest is held against the abortion ban bill, at the Alabama State House in Montgomery
Rep. Terri Collins answers questions during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama
Rep. Merika Coleman, center, and members of the Democratic caucus walk out of the debate on the abortion ban bill to hold a press conference explaining their opposition to the bill
‘You don’t know why I may want to have an abortion. It may be because of my health. It may be because of many reasons.
Until all of you in this room walk in a woman’s shoes, y’all don’t know,’ Alexander said.
Emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court, abortion opponents in several states are seeking to incite new legal fights in the hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade.
The Alabama bill comes on the heels of several states considering or approving bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs in about the sixth week of pregnancy.
The Alabama bill attempts to go farther by banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
House Republicans voted down Democrats’ attempt to amend the bill to add an exemption for rape and incest. Representatives voted 72-26 to table the proposed amendment.
Rep. Terri Collins talks on the house floor. The bill contains an exemption for the mother’s health but not for rape or incest. Collins is the sponsor of the abortion ban bill
Rep. Terri Collins, R-Alabama, gets a standing ovation after her near total ban on abortion bill
‘They would not even allow an exception for rape and incest. … What does that say to the women in this state,’ House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels.
Collins argued that adding exemptions would weaken the intent of the bill as a vehicle to challenge Roe. She said if states regain the ability to decide abortion access, Alabama lawmakers could come back and decide what exemptions to allow.
The bill drew a crowd of opponents and supporters to the House gallery. A group of abortion clinic escorts wore their rainbow-colored vests in the House gallery.
A demonstrator was arrested on disorderly conduct charges after shouting ‘dumb,’ attempting to write on the glass window overlooking to the House chamber and throwing paint at legislative security officers, House spokesman Clay Redden said.
Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, dressed as a handmaid, takes part in a protest against the bill
Rep. Rolanda Hollis, a Birmingham Democrat, read a poem that criticized Republicans’ embrace of gun rights but not abortion rights, and later referred to the state as ‘Ala-Backwards.’
The text of the Alabama bill likens legalized abortion to history’s greatest atrocities, including the Holocaust.
Tuscaloosa Republican Rep. Rich Wingo, a supporter of the bill, likened abortion to murder and read statistics that estimate that there have been 60 million abortions since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.
‘I believe this chamber, this body, will never make a greater decision than today… protecting the life of an unborn child,’ Wingo said.
Alabama law moves abortion to the center of 2020 campaign
yesterday
1 of 3
WASHINGTON (AP) — Alabama’s new law restricting abortion in nearly every circumstance has moved one of the most polarizing issues in American politics to the center of the 2020 presidential campaign.
The state’s legislation — the toughest of several anti-abortion measures that have passed recently, with the only exception being a serious risk to the woman’s health — prompted an outcry from Democratic presidential candidates, who warned that conservatives were laying the groundwork to undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The White House, meanwhile, didn’t comment on the Alabama bill, signed into law Wednesday by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, as President Donald Trump tries to balance his conservative base against the potential of antagonizing women who are already skeptical of his presidency.
The furor over abortion quickly took over on the Democratic campaign trail. Rallying supporters in New Hampshire, Sen. Kamala Harris said she would back a legal challenge to Alabama and Georgia’s restrictive abortion laws. She also vowed to make a commitment to upholding the Roe decision a “significant factor” in any Supreme Court nominees she might choose as president, though she declined to go as far as presidential rival Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has promised to only nominate judges ready to preserve the 1973 ruling that established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
“I respect every woman’s right to make a decision about what’s in the best interest of herself and her family,” Harris said.
Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved abortion bans once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. None of these laws are yet in force, either because of later effective dates or legal challenges that have blocked them. But supporters have openly predicted that the laws could spark court fights that will eventually lead the Supreme Court to revisit its Roe decision.
Gillibrand plans to fly to Atlanta on Thursday to meet with women protesting Georgia’s state law.
Sen. Cory Booker told The Associated Press that backers of the Alabama measure are “saying that they designed this bill with certain provisions — like not having any exceptions for rape or incest — specifically designed so that they can lead a fight to the Supreme Court” to “undermine other freedoms and liberties of women to control their own bodies.”
Booker said it’s not enough to hope that Roe will be upheld, adding: “We cannot wait to see if this gets worse.”
Several Democratic presidential candidates sought to use their high-profile positions to boost organizing against the state-level abortion laws. Harris emailed her campaign supporters offering to “split a donation” to four advocacy groups working to defend abortion rights. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, directed his supporters by email to the abortion-rights group NARAL.
Among the other Democratic candidates who took to Twitter to blast Alabama’s law and other state-level restrictions were Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, as well as former Vice President Joe Biden and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.
Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL, lauded the Democrats for their support. But she urged them to go further than pro-abortion-rights rhetoric, calling instead for “articulated plans about how we’re going to address and get out of this crisis.”
The Democratic pushback comes as Trump makes his selection of conservative judges a centerpiece of his political stump speech, part of a long-running courtship of social conservatives whose support he needs to win reelection next year. Republicans have long believed that the politics of abortion have shifted somewhat in their favor in recent years. But the near-absolutist nature of the most recent bills has sparked some concern among the president’s team that it could energize Trump critics and female voters, with whom the president has long struggled.
Polling suggests that the issue of abortion has the potential to stoke political engagement among both parties. The General Social Survey released last year found 64% of Democrats, but just 35% of Republicans, saying a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason.
Other surveys have found majority support for legalized abortion in “all or most cases.” A Pew Research Center survey in September 2018 found 58% of Americans saying abortion should be legal in at least most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal in all or most cases.
Trump won the White House in 2016 in part because of strong support from socially conservative Republicans who wanted to ensure that a conservative justice got named to the Supreme Court seat that had been occupied by Antonin Scalia — a seat held open by the GOP’s refusal to confirm President Barack Obama’s pick for the lifetime post. Since his first campaign began, Trump has supported a ban on abortions at the point that a fetus is believed to feel pain and publicly released a list of conservative judges from which he would select a nominee for the nation’s highest court.
The president’s selection of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has emboldened conservative allies of the White House who believe the time is ripe for a court case to challenge Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh assured senators before his confirmation last year that he viewed Roe as precedent, but Democratic senators pointed to a 2003 memo he wrote that suggested it wasn’t necessary to call the landmark abortion-rights ruling “settled law” because the “Court can always overrule its precedent.”
The Trump campaign deferred to the White House on whether Trump supported the Alabama measure or other restrictive bills passed by other states. White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere touted Trump’s record on abortion, noting that he “is protecting our most innocent and vulnerable, defending the dignity of life, and called on Congress to prohibit late-term abortions.”
___
Associated Press writers Hunter Woodall in Nashua, N.H., and Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.
Why America’s strict new anti-abortion laws could backfire
Joel Mathis
Illustrated | nezezon2/iStock, beakraus/iStock
May 16, 2019
The anti-abortion laws passed in recent days by legislatures in Alabama and Georgia seem designed for one purpose: to get the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Waderuling that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. The Court — more solidly conservative now than ever thanks to the recent addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — may well uphold those new laws.
Will voters do the same?
Maybe not. There is plenty of evidence that citizens of conservative states are, to some extent, actually protective of abortion rights. It may not be something they proclaim in their offices, at church, or to pollsters — but their secret beliefs can become quite evident once they enter the voting booth. This should make the legislators who passed the new bills very nervous.
ADVERTISEMENT
My home state of Kansas has been a hotbed of abortion-related activism for more than a generation. Most memorable, perhaps, were the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests in Wichita, where thousands of protesters flooded the city to blockade an abortion clinic operated by Dr. George Tiller; over the course of six weeks and more than 2,600 people were arrested. Anti-abortion protests in Kansas have, on occasion, congealed into violence: Tiller’s clinic was firebombed in 1986; he was shot and injured by an abortion opponent in 1993; he was shot and killed by another abortion opponent in 2009.
But the state’s record on abortion is more mixed than Tiller’s story might suggest. Take, for example, the story of Phill Kline, someone you’ve likely never heard of but whose rise and fall could be a warning sign for anti-abortion legislators in Kansas and other red states today. Kline spent a decade as a culture warrior in the Kansas legislature before being elected the state’s attorney general in 2002. He used the perch to go on an anti-abortion crusade, ultimately bringing more than 30 misdemeanor charges against Tiller in 2006. A judge threw out those charges; Tiller was acquitted in a follow-up case the following year.
But voters in the famously red state of Kansas had enough: Kline lost his re-election campaign, badly, with just 41 percent of the vote. He managed to get himself appointed as district attorney in Johnson County, home to prosperous Kansas City suburbs, only to lose a primary election two years after that. These days, he’s on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia, having lost his law license for misconduct during the abortion investigations.
Kansas is hardly a progressive state, but voters here often tire quickly of extremists. The same is probably true in other conservative states. While America’s abortion politics are polarized, many citizens are closer to the mushy middle on abortion — morally squeamish about it, but sometimes willing to suspend those qualms when faced with difficult decisions for themselves or their family members.
Across the nation as a whole, just 17 percent of Americans say Roe should be overturned entirely, and this reality is reflected at the state level: In 2008, voters in the solidly-Republican state of South Dakota overwhelmingly rejected a statewide ban on abortion — and repeated the feat two years later, even after exceptions for incest and rape were added to the proposed law. In 2011, Mississippi voters rejected a similar referendum by an even larger margin. Back in my home state of Kansas, the state Supreme Court last month ruled — shockingly — that the state constitution protects the right to an abortion.
“There’s a lot of public pressure to be anti-abortion,” Marvin Buehner, a South Dakota OB-GYN said at the time of the 2008 proposal. “People are more likely to answer the poll that they’ll support [a ban]. Then they get into the ballot booth and decide they just can’t vote for something like that.”
These sweeping new laws do very little to assuage the concerns of such voters. Alabama’s bill, for example, makes no exception for incest or rape. Georgia’s law would grant personhood protections to fetuses just six weeks after conception. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the laws, the examples from Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota suggest that legislators who passed these new bills could find themselves suddenly vulnerable.
Of course, that won’t satisfy pro-choice women and men who believe the right to abortion is just that — a right, to be defended by government, not compromised by it. “Today’s women can only thrive in a state that protects their most basic rights — the right to choose when and whether to start a family,” Andrea Young, executive director of Georgia’s ACLU, said last week, pledging to challenge the state’s new law.
Despite the high stakes of the coming court battles over the new anti-abortion laws, the Supreme Court is not the end of the line. In politics, few battles are ever completely won or lost. Nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade, the fight may just be beginning anew.
https://theweek.com/articles/841763/why-americas-strict-new-antiabortion-laws-could-backfire
Roe v. Wade
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Roe v. Wade | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973 |
|
| Full case name | Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County |
| Citations | 410 U.S. 113 (more)
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Reargument | Reargument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp.1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972) |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 410 U.S.959 (1973) |
| Holding | |
| Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell |
| Concurrence | Burger |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Dissent | White, joined by Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196 |
|
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It also ruled that this “right to privacy” is not absolute and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life.[2][3] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: the Court ruled that during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.[4] Because the Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as “fundamental”, the decision required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the “strict scrutiny” standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[5]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[6][7] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wadereshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
Roe was criticized by some in the legal community,[8] with the decision being seen as a form of judicial activism.[9] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[8][9] the American legal scholar John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[10] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[11]
In 1992, the Supreme Court modified the legal principles in Roe in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[12] In Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe‘s holding that a woman’s right to abort a nonviable fetus is constitutionally protected, but abandoned Roe‘s trimester framework in favor of a standard based on fetal viability, and overruled Roe‘s requirement that government regulations on abortion be subjected to the strict scrutiny standard.[2][13]The Roe decision defined “viable” as “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”[14] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[15]
Contents
Background
History of abortion laws in the United States
According to the Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” Providing a historical analysis on abortion, Justice Harry Blackmun noted that abortion was “resorted to without scruple” in Greek and Roman times.[16] Blackmun also addressed the permissive and restrictive abortion attitudes and laws throughout history, noting the disagreements among leaders (of all different professions) in those eras and the formative laws and cases.[17] In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[18] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[19] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have “roots in the English common-law tradition.”[20] Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider’s business.[21][22]
In 1971, Shirley Wheeler was charged with manslaughter after Florida hospital staff reported her illegal abortion to the police. She received a sentence of two years’ probation and, under her probation, had to move back into her parents’ house in North Carolina.[21] The Boston Women’s Abortion Coalition held a rally for Wheeler in Boston to raise money and awareness of her charges as well as had staff members from the Women’s National Abortion Action Coalition (WONAAC) speak at the rally.[23] Wheeler was possibly the first woman to be held criminally responsible for submitting to an abortion.[24] Her conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.[21]
History of the case
In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the incorrect assumption that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). This scheme would also fail because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. In any case, the Texas statute allowed abortion only ”for the purpose of saving the life of the mother”. She attempted to obtain an Illegal abortion, but found that the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[25][26] (McCorvey would end up giving birth before the case was decided, and the child was put up for adoption.)[27]
In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District AttorneyHenry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was a result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[28][29] “Rape” is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in the case.[30]
On June 17, 1970, a three-judge panel of the District Court, consisting of Northern District of Texas Judges Sarah T. Hughes, William McLaughlin Taylor Jr. and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Irving Loeb Goldberg, unanimously[30] declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. In addition, the court relied on Justice Arthur Goldberg‘s 1965 concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court, however, declined to grant an injunction against enforcement of the law.[31]
Issues before the Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1970. The justices delayed taking action on Roe and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, until they had decided Younger v. Harris (because they felt the appeals raised difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction) and United States v. Vuitch (in which they considered the constitutionality of a District of Columbia statute that criminalized abortion except where the mother’s life or health was endangered). In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, though in doing so, it treated abortion as a medical procedure and stated that physicians must be given room to determine what constitutes a danger to (physical or mental) health. The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.[32]
Arguments were scheduled by the full Court for December 13, 1971. Before the Court could hear the oral arguments, Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired. Chief Justice Warren Burger asked Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Blackmun to determine whether Roe and Doe, among others, should be heard as scheduled. According to Blackmun, Stewart felt that the cases were a straightforward application of Younger v. Harris, and they recommended that the Court move forward as scheduled.[33]
In his opening argument in defense of the abortion restrictions, attorney Jay Floyd made what was later described as the “worst joke in legal history.”[34] Appearing against two female lawyers, Floyd began, “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.” His remark was met with cold silence; one observer thought that Chief Justice Burger “was going to come right off the bench at him. He glared him down.”[35][36]
After a first round of arguments, all seven justices tentatively agreed that the Texas law should be struck down, but on varying grounds.[37] Burger assigned the role of writing the Court’s opinion in Roe (as well as Doe) to Blackmun, who began drafting a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law’s vagueness.[38] (At this point, Black and Harlan had been replaced by Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., but they arrived too late to hear the first round of arguments.) But Blackmun felt that his opinion did not adequately reflect his liberal colleagues’ views.[39] In May 1972, he proposed that the case be reargued. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order (he and the other liberal justices were suspicious that Rehnquist and Powell would vote to uphold the statute), but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.[40][41] The case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers replaced Jay Floyd for Texas.[citation needed]
Blackmun continued to work on his opinions in both cases over the summer recess, even though there was no guarantee that he would be assigned to write them again. Over the recess, he spent a week researching the history of abortion at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he had worked in the 1950s. After the Court heard the second round of arguments, Powell said he would agree with Blackmun’s conclusion but pushed for Roe to be the lead of the two abortion cases being considered. Powell also suggested that the Court strike down the Texas law on privacy grounds. Justice Byron White was unwilling to sign on to Blackmun’s opinion, and Rehnquist had already decided to dissent.[42]
Prior to the decision, the justices discussed the trimester framework at great length. Justice Powell had suggested that the point where the state could intervene be placed at viability, which Justice Thurgood Marshall supported as well.[43] In an internal memo to the other justices before the majority decision was published, Justice Blackmun wrote: “You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.”[44]Roe supporters are quick to point out, however, that the memo only reflects Blackmun’s uncertainty about the timing of the trimester framework, not the framework or the holding itself.[45] In his opinion, Blackmun also clearly explained how he had reached the trimester framework – scrutinizing history, common law, the Hippocratic Oath, medical knowledge, and the positions of medical organizations.[46] Justice Blackmun’s trimester framework was later rejected by the O’Connor–Souter–Kennedy plurality in Casey, in favor of the “undue burden” analysis still employed by the Court.[47] Contrary to Blackmun, Justice Douglas preferred the first-trimester line.[48] Justice Stewart said the lines were “legislative” and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun’s decision.[49] Justice William J. Brennan Jr. proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[48]
Supreme Court decision
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Roe that struck down Texas’s abortion ban as unconstitutional. In addition to the majority opinion, Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart each filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger’s, Douglas’s, and White’s opinions were issued along with the Court’s opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade).
Opinion of the Court
Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Seven justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun. The Court began by exhaustively reviewing the legality of abortion throughout the history of Roman law and the Anglo-American common law up until the 20th century.[50] It also reviewed the developments of medical procedures and technology to perform abortions safely.[50]
Right to privacy
With its historical survey as background, the Court centered its opinion around the notion of a constitutional “right to privacy” that was intimated in earlier cases involving family relationships and reproductive autonomy.[50] After reviewing these cases, the Court proceeded, “with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value”,[5] to rule that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman’s decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[3]
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment‘s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or … in the Ninth Amendment‘s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[51]
The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman’s right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children “may force upon the woman a distressful life and future”; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother’s physical and mental health; and because there may be “distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”[52] However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman’s right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state’s interest in protecting “prenatal life.”[53]
The Court acknowledged that states had two interests that were sufficiently “compelling” to permit some limitations on the right to choose to have an abortion: their interests in protecting the mother’s health and protecting the life of the fetus. The Court had rejected Roe’s argument that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion should be absolute, and it also rejected Texas’s argument that total bans on abortion were justifiable because “life” begins at the moment of conception.[5] The Court found that there was no indication that the Constitution’s uses of the word “person” were meant to include fetuses, and so it rejected Texas’s argument that a fetus should be considered a “person” with a legal and constitutional right to life.[54] It noted that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a “person”.[54]
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[55]
The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman’s ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[5] After the first trimester, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[5] At the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from the beginning of the third trimester on through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.[5]
Justiciability
An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court’s disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe’s appeal was “moot” because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked “standing” to assert the rights of other pregnant women.[56] As she did not present an “actual case or controversy” (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion.
The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”[57] This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC.[58] Blackmun’s opinion quoted McKenna and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: “If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied.”[59]
Concurrences
Several other members of the Supreme Court filed concurring opinions in the case. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated that even though the Constitution makes no mention of the right to choose to have an abortion without interference, he thought the Court’s decision was a permissible interpretation of the doctrine of substantive due process, which says that the Due Process Clause‘s protection of liberty extends beyond simple procedures and protects certain fundamental rights.[54] Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion in which he described how he believed that while the Court was correct to find that the right to choose to have an abortion was a fundamental right, it would be better to derive it from the Ninth Amendment – which states that the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution shall not be construed to mean that American people do not possess it – rather than through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.[54]
Dissents
Byron White was the senior dissenting justice.
Only two justices dissented from the Court’s decision, but their dissents touched on the points that would lead to later criticism of the Roe decision.[5]
Justice Byron White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he stated his belief that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children. He wrote:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting).
White asserted that the Court “values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Though he suggested that he “might agree” with the Court’s values and priorities, he wrote that he saw “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.” White criticized the Court for involving itself in the issue of abortion by creating “a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.” He would have left this issue, for the most part, “with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”
Justice William Rehnquist also dissented from the Court’s decision. In his dissenting opinion, he compared the majority’s use of substantive due process to the Court’s repudiated use of the doctrine in the 1905 case Lochner v. New York.[5] He elaborated on several of White’s points, asserting that the Court’s historical analysis was flawed:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”
Reception
Political
A statistical evaluation of the relationship of political affiliation to pro-choice and anti-abortion issues shows that public opinion is much more nuanced about when abortion is acceptable than is commonly assumed.[63] The most prominent organized groups that mobilized in response to Roe are the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee.
Support
Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women’s rights, personal freedom, bodily integrity, and privacy. Advocates have also reasoned that access to safe abortion and reproductive freedom generally are fundamental rights. Some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:
When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[64]
Supporters of Roe contend that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation in the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the fundamental right to abortion is found elsewhere in the Constitution but not in the articles referenced in the decision.[64][65]
Opposition
Protestors at the 2009 March for Life rally against Roe v. Wade
Every year, on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., in the March for Life.[66] Around 250,000 people attended the march until 2010.[67][68] Estimates put the 2011 and 2012 attendances at 400,000 each,[69] and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.[70]
Opponents of Roe assert that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[71] Like the dissenters in Roe, they maintain that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[72]
A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.[73]
In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent or parental notification for minors to obtain abortions; spousal mutual consent laws; spousal notification laws; laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals, not clinics; laws barring state funding for abortions; laws banning intact dilation and extraction, also known as partial-birth abortion; laws requiring waiting periods before abortions; and laws mandating that women read certain types of literature and watch a fetal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.[74] In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down some state restrictions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).[75]
Some opponents of abortion maintain that personhood begins at fertilization or conception, and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;[65] the dissenting justices in Roe instead wrote that decisions about abortion “should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”[76]
Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself: In 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she had become pro-life, and from then until her death in 2017, she was a vocal opponent of abortion.[77]
Legal
Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career.[78] Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision’s chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[79] Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[80] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[81]
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, “it might have been much more acceptable” from a legal standpoint.[82] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[83]Ginsburg has also faulted the Court’s approach for being “about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best…. It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered.”[84] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: “[Roe‘s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.”[85]
In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[9] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[86] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[87] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[88] Cass Sunstein,[89] and Kermit Roosevelt[90] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.
Jeffrey Rosen[91] and Michael Kinsley[92] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”[93] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”[94] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who “loved Roe‘s author like a grandfather,” wrote: “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible…. Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”[95]
The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.[96] The “viability” criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[97]
Public opinion
Americans have been equally divided on the issue; a May 2018 Gallup poll indicated that 48% of Americans described themselves as pro-choice and 48% described themselves as pro-life. A July 2018 poll indicated that only 28% of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, while 64% did not want the ruling to be overturned.[98]
A Gallup poll conducted in May 2009 indicated that 53% of Americans believed that abortions should be legal under certain circumstances, 23% believed abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and 22% believed that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. However, in this poll, more Americans referred to themselves as “Pro-Life” than “Pro-Choice” for the first time since the poll asked the question in 1995, with 51% identifying as “Pro-Life” and 42% identifying as “Pro-Choice”.[99] Similarly, an April 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed a softening of support for legal abortion in all cases compared to the previous years of polling. People who said they support abortion in all or most cases dropped from 54% in 2008 to 46% in 2009.[100]
In contrast, an October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade asked the following question:
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[101]
In reply, 56% of respondents indicated favour while 40% indicated opposition. The Harris organization concluded from this poll that “56 percent now favours the U.S. Supreme Court decision.” Anti-abortion activists have disputed whether the Harris poll question is a valid measure of public opinion about Roe‘s overall decision, because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.[102][103] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe since 1973:[101][104]
Regarding the Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[105] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe drops.[105][106]
Role in subsequent decisions and politics
Opposition to Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan, who supported legislative restrictions on abortion, began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus test: “I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We’ve had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating.”[107]
In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor began dissenting from the Court’s abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was “unworkable.”[108] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be “reexamined”;[109] the associate justice who filled Burger’s place on the Court – Justice Antonin Scalia – vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork‘s nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony Kennedy.
The Supreme Court of Canada used the rulings in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton as grounds to find Canada’s federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R. v. Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[110]
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
In a 5–4 decision in 1989’s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because “none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution.”[111] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[111]
In concurring opinions, O’Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O’Connor for not overruling Roe.[111] Blackmun – author of the Roe decision – stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were “callous” and “deceptive,” that they deserved to be charged with “cowardice and illegitimacy,” and that their plurality opinion “foments disregard for the law.”[111] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was “warped.”[109]
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
During initial deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn Roe. Kennedy changed his mind after the initial conference,[112] and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[113] saying, “Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. […] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”[114] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Casey.[78]
Scalia’s dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of “great importance to many women”, but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: “[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.”[115]
Stenberg v. Carhart
During the 1990s, the state of Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called dilation and evacuation abortions. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, “this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only ‘a method of performing abortion’.”[116] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.
Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5–4 Casey decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[116] In his dissent, Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit, and thus argued that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called “partial birth abortion.”[116]
The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg – Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas – disagreed again with Roe: “Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so.”
Gonzales v. Carhart
 |
This section does not cite any sources. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state’s ban on “partial birth abortion” was unconstitutional because such a ban did not have an exception for the health of the woman. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O’Connor, respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the Stenberg case.
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy’s opinion did not reach the question of whether the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart remained valid, and instead the Court stated that the challenged statute remained consistent with those past decisions whether or not those decisions remained valid.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the majority. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act possibly exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,[117][118][119] the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain “admitting privileges” at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions “facially” from the law at issue – that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures.[120]
Activities of Norma McCorvey
Norma McCorvey became a member of the anti-abortion movement in 1995; she supported making abortion illegal until her death in 2017.[121] In 1998, she testified to Congress:
It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the “right” to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, “Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn’t have been possible.” Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[29]
As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[122] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey’s appeal ended.
Activities of Sarah Weddington
After arguing before the Court in Roe v. Wade at the age of 26, Sarah Weddington went on to be a representative in the Texas House of Representatives for three terms.[123] Weddington has also had a long and successful career as General Counsel for the United States Department of Agriculture, Assistant to President Jimmy Carter, lecturer at Texas Wesleyan University, and speaker and adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin.[123]
Presidential positions
President Richard Nixon did not publicly comment about the decision.[124] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said “There are times when an abortion is necessary,… .”[125][126] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.”[125]
Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,[127] Ronald Reagan,[128] and George W. Bush.[129] President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[130][131]
President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[132] Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton.[133] President Barack Obama has taken the position that “Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.”[134]
President Donald Trump has publicly opposed the decision, vowing to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.[135] Upon Justice Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace him, and he was confirmed by the Senate in October 2018. A central point of Kavanaugh’s appointment hearings was his stance on Roe v. Wade, of which he said to Senator Susan Collins that he would not “overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided”.[136] Despite Kavanaugh’s statement, there is concern that with the Supreme Court having a strong conservative majority, that Roe v. Wade will be overturned given an appropriate case to challenge it. Further concerns were raised following the May 2019 Supreme Court 5-4 decision along ideological lines in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. While the case had nothing to do with abortion rights, the decision overturned a previous 1979 decision from Nevada v. Hall without maintaining the stare decisis precedent, indicating the current Court makeup would be willing to apply the same to overturn Roe v. Wade.[137] Pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood are planning on how they will operate should Roe v. Wade be overturned.[138]
State laws regarding Roe
Since 2010 there has been an increase in state restrictions on abortion.
Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[139] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[140]
Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[139]
The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion unfeasible without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi law as of 2012 was being challenged in federal courts and was temporarily blocked.[141]
Alabama House Republicans passed a law on April 30, 2019 that will criminalize abortion if it goes into effect.[142] It offers only two exceptions: serious health risk to the mother or a lethal fetal anomaly. Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on May 14, primarily as a symbolic gesture in hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.[143][144][145]
See also
Footnotes …
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia.[1] The Supreme Court’s decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.[2]
Contents
Background
The Georgia law in question permitted abortion only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a three-member special committee that either (1) continued pregnancy would endanger the pregnant woman’s life or “seriously and permanently” injure her health; (2) the fetus would “very likely be born with a grave, permanent and irremediable mental or physical defect”; or (3) the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.[3][4] In addition, only Georgia residents could receive abortions under this statutory scheme: non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances.
The plaintiff, a pregnant woman who was given the pseudonym “Mary Doe” in court papers to protect her identity, sued Arthur K. Bolton, then the Attorney General of Georgia, as the official responsible for enforcing the law in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The anonymous plaintiff has since been identified as Sandra Cano, a 22-year-old mother of three who was nine weeks pregnant at the time the lawsuit was filed. Cano, who died in 2014, described herself as pro-life and claimed her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, lied to her in order to have a plaintiff.[5][6]
On October 14, 1970, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consisting of Northern District of Georgia Judges Albert John Henderson, Sidney Oslin Smith Jr., and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lewis Render Morgan unanimously declared the conditional restrictions portion of the law unconstitutional, though upheld the medical approval and residency requirements.[7] The court also declined to issue an injunction against enforcement of the law, similarly to the district court in the case Roe v. Wade. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court under a statute, since repealed, permitting bypass of the circuit appeals court.
The oral arguments and re-arguments followed the same schedule as those in Roe. Atlanta attorney Hames represented Doe at the hearings, while Georgia assistant attorney general Dorothy Toth Beasley represented Bolton.
Opinion of the Court
The same 7-2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade, invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected “right to privacy,” which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained “the sensitive and emotional nature” of the issue and “the deep and seemingly absolute convictions” on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”[3][4]
Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]
Definition of health
The Court’s opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined “health” as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, “an abortion is necessary” is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
Subsequent developments
In 2003, Sandra Cano filed a motion to re-open the case claiming that she had not been aware that the case had been filed on her behalf and that if she had known she would not have supported the litigation.[8] The district court denied her motion, and she appealed. When the appeals court also denied her motion,[9] she requested review by the United States Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear Sandra Cano’s suit to overturn the ruling.[10] Sandra Cano died on September 30, 2014.[6]
See also
- Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Morgentaler finding Canada’s abortion law unconstitutional
- German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410
References
- ^ Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
- ^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d Goldstein, Leslie (1994). Contemporary Cases in Women’s Rights. Madison: The University of Wisconsin. pp. 16–17.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 189.
- ^ White, Gayle. “Roe v. Wade Role Just a Page in Rocky Life Story”, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (2003-01-22).
- ^ Jump up to:a b Wetzstein, Cheryl (October 1, 2014). “Sandra Cano, the ‘Mary Doe’ of landmark abortion case, dies”. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2018-02-01.
- ^ Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970).
- ^ “’Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton Files Motion To Overturn Companion Case to Roe v. Wade” Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, (2003-08-27).
- ^ Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006).
- ^ Mears, Bill. “Court won’t rethink ‘Mary Doe’ abortion case”, CNN (2006-10-10).
External links
Works related to Doe v. Bolton at Wikisource- Text of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- United States Senate Committee of the Judiciary Testimony of Sandra Cano
Griswold v. Connecticut
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Griswold v. Connecticut | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Argued March 29, 1965 Decided June 7, 1965 |
|
| Full case name | Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. Connecticut |
| Citations | 381 U.S. 479 (more)
85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282
|
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendants convicted, Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit, 1-2-62; affirmed, Circut Court, Appellate Division, 1-7-63; affirmed, 200 A.2d 479 (Conn.1964) |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg |
| Concurrence | Goldberg, joined by Warren, Brennan |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Concurrence | White |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Black |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, IV, V, IX, XIV; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-32, 54–196 (rev. 1958) | |
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in the United States about access to contraception. The case involved a Connecticut “Comstock law” that prohibited any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that “the clear effect of [the Connecticut law …] is to deny disadvantaged citizens … access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control.” By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy“, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.”
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention “privacy”, Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents
Background
Griswold v. Connecticut originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The law made it illegal to use “any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception…”. Violators could be “… fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.”[1] By the 1950s, Massachusetts and Connecticut were the only two states that still had such statutes, although they were almost never enforced.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, physicians in the United States largely avoided the publication of any material related to birth control, even when they often recommended or at least gave advice regarding it to their married patients. Then in 1914, Margaret Sanger openly challenged the public consensus against contraception.[2] She influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL) and helped to develop the eventual concept of the Planned Parenthood clinics.
The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in Hartford. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, including information about artificial contraception and other methods to plan the growth of their families. Several clinics were opened in Connecticut over the following years, including the Waterbury clinic that led to the legal dispute. In 1939, this clinic was compelled to enforce the 1879 anti-contraception law on poor women patients. This caught the attention of the CBCL leaders, who remarked on the importance of birth control for cases in which the lives of the patients depended upon it.[3]
During the 1940s, several cases arose from the provision of contraception by the Waterbury clinic, leading to legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Comstock law, but these failed on technical grounds. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the law on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of his patients. Yale School of Medicine gynecologist C. Lee Buxton and his patients brought a second challenge to the law in Poe v. Ullman (1961). The Supreme Court again dismissed the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ripe: the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, so there was no actual controversy for the Court to resolve.
The polemic around Poe led to the appeal in Griswold v. Connecticut, primarily based on the dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Poe, one of the most cited dissents in Supreme Court history.
(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms in the United States; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
— Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissent in Poe v. Ullman.[4]
He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter, he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. On the basis of this interpretation, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution.
After Poe was handed down on June 1961, the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge the law again. Estelle T. Griswold served on the PPLC as Executive Director from 1954 to 1965.[5]Struggling through legal battles against birth control restrictions in Connecticut, Griswold and PPLC made an initial effort to financially support women who wanted contraceptives to bus to cities in New York and Rhode Island.[5] PPLC Executive Director Estelle Griswold[6] and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer),[7] opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut,[8] “thus directly challeng[ing] the state law.”[5] The clinic opened on November 1, 1961, and that same day received its first ten patients and dozens of appointment requests from married women who wanted birth control advice and prescriptions. Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each.[9] The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court.[10]
Court’s decision on relationship with the right to privacy
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
Griswold appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Connecticut statute was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws,” (Amendment 14 Section 1).[11] By a 7–2 majority, on June 7, 1965 the Supreme Court concluded that the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional.
Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority of the court, recognized the right to privacy, even though not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the freedom of association clause of the First Amendment. The right to privacy is seen as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.” Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling, reasoning that the right of privacy was retained by the people. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II also wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments by his fellow justices. Justice Stewart called the Connecticut statute “an uncommonly silly law” but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.
The final decision of the court was later used in other cases related to sexual practices and other personal, often considered private, decisions for the American citizens.
Precedent for later cases
Later decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts.
Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the “right of privacy” in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships.[12] The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).[13] Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked “irrational discrimination” if not extended to unmarried couples as well.
Right to abortion for any woman, 1973
The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in the concurring opinion by Associate Justice Potter Stewart in support of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[14] The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion.[15] The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion became legalized for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the approximate time of fetal viability). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with exception for the mother’s health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.
Right to contraception for juveniles at least 16 years of age, 1977
![[icon]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} |
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (August 2018)
|
Right to homosexual relations, 2003
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas sodomy law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the “Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” Justice O’Connor, who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy‘s majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched “upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home,” and attempted to “control a personal relationship that … is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished.” Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the “right to privacy” found in Griswold as the “most pertinent beginning point” in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.[16]
Right to same-sex marriage, 2015
Griswold was also cited in a chain of cases that led the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges.
See also
References
- ^ Jump up to:a b Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
- ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University of Kansas. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
- ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University of Kansas. pp. Chapter 2. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
- ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University Press of Kansas. pp. Chapter 5. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c Cheek, Jeannette Bailey (March 17, 1976). “Estelle Griswold oral history interview about her part in Griswold v. Connecticut, legal challenge to Connecticut birth control law”. Women’s Studies Manuscript Collections from the Schlesinger Library: Voting Rights, National Politics, and Reproductive Rights – via ProQuest History Vault.
- ^ “Estelle Griswold”. Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame.
- ^ “1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Contraception as a right of privacy? The Supreme Court says, ‘Yes!‘“. Action Speaks Radio. 2012.
- ^ Garrow, David J. (Spring 2011). “Human Rights Hero. The Legacy of Griswold V. Connecticut” (PDF). Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities.
- ^ Alex McBride (December 2006). “EXPANDING CIVIL RIGHTS Landmark Cases Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)”. PBS.
- ^ Laura Carroll (July 2012). The Baby Matrix. LiveTrue Books. ISBN 0-615-64299-3.
- ^ “Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — Ratified 1868”. pbs.org. 2007.
- ^ Frances Kissling, Jonathan D. Moreno; The Nation (March 22, 2012). “The Nation: Still Fighting ‘Eisenstadt v. Baird‘“. npr.org.
- ^ Sheraden Seward (2008-12-03). “Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)”. embryo.asu.edu. Arizona State University.
- ^ Cornell University Law School. “Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18) 314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part. STEWART, J., Concurring Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES”. law.cornell.edu.
- ^ University of Missouri-Kansas City (January 22, 1973). “ROE v. WADE 410 U.S. 113 (1973)”. umkc.edu.
- ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Further reading
- Bailey, Martha J. (2010). “‘Momma’s Got the Pill’: How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped US Childbearing”. American Economic Review. 100 (1): 98–129. doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.98.
- Garrow, David J. “Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of Griswold v. Connecticut“.” Human Rights (2011): 26-25.
- Hasian Jr, Marouf. “Vernacular Legal Discourse: Revisiting the Public Acceptance of the “Right to Privacy” in the 1960s.” Political Communication 18, no. 1 (January 2001): 89-105. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2 29, 2015).
- Helscher, David (1994). “Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy”. Northern Illinois University Law Review. 15: 33. ISSN 0734-1490.
- Kalman, Laura; Garrow, David (1994). “Review: The Promise and Peril of Privacy”. Reviews in American History. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 22 (4): 725–731. doi:10.2307/2702826. JSTOR 2702826.
- Lockhart, Andrea (1997). “Griswold v. Connecticut: A Case Brief”. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. 14: 35. ISSN 0896-5595.
- Loewy, Arnold H. (2003). “Morals Legislation and the Establishment Clause”. Alabama Law Review. 55 (1): 159–182. ISSN 0002-4279.
- Johnson, John W. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth control and the constitutional right of privacy. University Press of Kansas, 2005.
- Tushnet, Mark (2008). I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 179–190. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.
External links
- Works related to Griswold v. Connecticut at Wikisource
- Text of Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Griswold v. Connecticut from C-SPAN‘s Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1258
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show 1213, February 21, 2019, Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos — Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos — Story 3: Under Communist China’s Social Credit System Jussie Smollett Would Be Labeled As Untrustworthy And Unable To Travel Because of A Low Social Credit Score Due To Criminal Behavior and Blacklist Banning — Vast Surveillance Facial Recognition System — Safe, Secure, State Socialism in The Police Surveillance State of Communist China — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018
Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos
Chicago Police Chief: Jussie Smollett Faked Attack ‘To Promote His Career’ | NBC News
Chicago PD Labels Jussie Smollett “Despicable”
Jussie Smollett Arrested in Hate Crime Attack | E! News
BAIL SET: Jussie Smollett’s Bail Set At $100,000
Jussie Smollett staged attack because he was ‘dissatisfied’ with his salary, police say
Jussie Smollett denies all allegations in court hearing
Jussie Smollett FULL Interview on alleged attack | ABC News Exclusive
PICTURED: Jussie Smollett leaves jail after posting $100k bail after prosecutor details video evidence against him and reveals he’d previously bought DRUGS from the brothers he paid to attack him after texting ‘might need your help on the low’
- The actor’s siblings, Jazz, Jocqui, Jake, and Jojo were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing on Thursday afternoon
- A judge set Smollett’s bond at $100,000, which he will have to pay a portion of, and told him to give up his passport
- Prosecutors shared an extremely detailed timeline of the night of the attack and the days beforehand
- Smollett sent himself a threatening, racist and homophobic letter on January 22 to get more money from 20th Century Fox, police said Thursday
- When that did not work, he hired brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo to attack him on January 25
- On January 27, he took them to the exact location where he wanted it to happen and pointed out surveillance cameras nearby
- Smollett was in contact with them an hour before the incident, an hour afterwards and when they were in Nigeria, laying low for two weeks
- When they returned on February 13, they were picked up by police and later confessed ‘the entire plot’
- Smollett paid $10,000, ten percent of his bond, and agreed to surrender his passport
- The 36-year-old will return to court on March 14 to face a felony charge of filing a false police report
ussie Smollett has been freed after posting $10,000 bond and agreeing to surrender his passport at a court hearing where he was supported by his family and prosecutors shared more details of his relationship with the two Nigerian brothers he allegedly paid to stage an attack on him in the hope that it would boost his profile.
The actor was hurried out of the Cook County Jail shortly before 5pm on Thursday and said nothing as he fought his way through photographers to get into a waiting car. He was flanked by bodyguards and driven away immediately.
Three of the actor’s five famous siblings, Jazz, Jocqui and Jake, were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing wearing sunglasses. They were later joined by their brother Jojo but their other sister Jurnee and mother Janet were not seen.
They left the court before Smollett once the hearing was over, fighting their way through a scrum of photographers to get into a waiting van parked outside without answering any questions.
Smollett’s bail was set at $100,000 – the amount he gets paid for one episode of Empire. He paid 10 percent of it to win back his freedom and will return to court on March 14 to face a felony charge of filing a false police report.
Scroll down for video
Jussie Smollett was ushered out of county jail on Thursday by police officers and body guards after posting $10,000, ten percent of his $100,000 bond, and agreeing to surrender his passport. He clung on to his security guard’s shoulders as he followed him out to a waiting car
Smollett said nothing and held on to his security guard who led him through a crowd of photographers outside the jail
Smollett was sandwiched between security guards as he made his way to the car. He has to return to the court March 14
Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets
Even before he reached the scrum of photographers, Smollett placed his hands on his security guard’s shoulders
After the hearing, prosecutors gave a detailed description of how he allegedly put the hoax together.
Police say he knew Abel Osundairo, one of the brothers, because he bought ‘designer drugs’ from him. In text messages that predate the hoax attack, he asked Abel for ‘Molly’ – the street name for ecstasy – multiple times. The pair are believed to have met when Abel was a stand-in on Empire.
On January 25, he convinced Abel and his brother Ola to ‘simulate’ an attack on him, giving them specific instructions about which words to use and how to rough him up but not hurt him too severely, according to police.
His alleged motive was that he did not get enough attention over a letter he is said to have sent himself a week earlier and he thought that painting himself as
Smollett took them to the location where he wanted the attack to happen outside his apartment, according to prosecutors, and even pointed to a surveillance camera he believed would capture it.
The claims came after a blistering press conference during which furious police bosses alleged that he mailed himself a threatening letter then staged a hoax attack because he was unhappy with his $1.8million Empire salary.
Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday
A sketch from inside the courtroom shows Smollett appearing before Cook County Judge John Fitzgerald to have his bond set. The judge said that if true, the allegations against him are ‘utterly outrageous’. He was particularly disturbed by the use of a noose in the attack, saying it is an image which ‘conjures up such evil in this country’s history’
Jocqui (in beige coat), Jake (in black, right) and Jazz Smollett (center in fur-trimmed coat) arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie’s bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor’s mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo
Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts
Jazz, Jocqui and Jake entered the courthouse without speaking on Thursday. Their other two siblings, Jojo and Jurnee, did not join them
Surveillance footage emerged on Wednesday showing Ola and Abel Osundairo buying ski masks the day before the attack. Smollett gave them a $100 bill to pay for the bleach, ski masks, red hat and gloves that they used, according to prosecutors
After his bail hearing, the state’s attorney gave a press conference where she described in painstaking detail how the hoax came together.
On January 25, he texted Abel asking him when he was planning to go to Nigeria, a trip that had been prearranged.
Jussie Smollett is shown in his mugshot on Thursday morning. The Empire actor handed himself in at 5am on charges of filing a false police report. Police now say he concocted the fake attack because he wanted a raise
They were familiar with one another because Abel had once filled in as a character on Empire who was a love interest of Smollett’s character, Jamal Lyon.
Abel replied that he and his brother were leaving on January 29 to which Smollett replied: ‘Might need your help on the low.
‘You around to meet up and talk face to face?’
That afternoon, they met up at the CineSpace studio and Smollett drove Abel home.
During the car ride, he told him about his ‘displeasure’ over 20th Century Fox’s reaction to the letter he allegedly sent himself days earlier.
He said he wanted to stage an attack and suggested that Ola, Abel’s younger brother, get involved.
Once they got to the brothers’ home, they summoned Ola outside and Smollett asked the pair if he could trust them.
Smollett then allegedly laid out what he wanted them to do and gave them a $100 bill to buy ski masks, a red hat, gloves, rope and bleach to use.
‘He stated that he wanted the brothers to catch his attention by calling him an Empire f****t Empire n****r. He detailed that he wanted Abel to attack him but not to hurt him too badly and give him a chance to fight back.
‘He also included that he wanted Ola to place a rope around his neck, pour gasoline on him and yell: “This is MAGA country” and “Make America Great Again,”‘ a proffer that was released by the State’s Attorney’s office said.
Police have found surveillance footage of the ride and have phone records which put Smollett in the area of the brothers home at the time.
On January 27, he picked the brothers up from their home and drove them to where he wanted the attack to happen in the late morning.
He warned them not to bring their cell phones with them and showed them a surveillance camera on the corner which he believed would capture the incident.
Smollett drove the brothers home and provided them with a $3500 personal check made payable to Abel, which was backdated to January 23, 2019.
He then flew to New York City to take part in a reading of a play.
The attack was scheduled to take place at 10pm on January 28 but was set back several hours by Smollett’s delayed flight from New York to Chicago on the day of the incident.
His flight landed at 12.30am, January 29.
At 12.49am, he called Abel and their conversation lasted three minutes. During this call, he instructed him to carry out the attack at 2am.
Abel then ordered an Uber to pick the pair up at their home and take them to the crime scene.
They took the Uber part of the way but then got out and hopped in a taxi to take them the remainder of the distance.
At 1.22am, they arrived within three blocks of it. At 1.45am, Smollett left his apartment building to go to a Subway and the brothers made their way towards the intended spot.
Smollett, however, was late. They did not cross paths until 2.04am which is when they carried out the attack. At the exact moment it was occurring, an NBC News employee was getting out of her car nearby. She told police later that she did not hear anything suspicious, despite Smollett alleging that the attackers yelled racial slurs.
The attack only lasted 45 seconds and was ‘just outside the view of the desired nearby camera that Smollett had pointed out to the brothers approximately 15 hours earlier.’
The brothers then ran away on foot, heading southbound towards the Chicago River. They then got in a taxi at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
Fifteen minutes later, they got out of the cab a few blocks from their house.
Two minutes later, at 2.27am, Smollett’s manager reported it to police and police arrived at Smollett’s apartment at 2.42am, 12 minutes later.
While being interviewed, he not only described the attack but claimed to have received a phone call on January 26 from someone who said ‘hey you little f****’ and hung up. He said the call happened near a camera and that it captured the attack. It was the same camera he pointed out to the brothers in the hope that it would capture their staged ambush.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson abhorred him as a ‘troubled young man’ who has ‘taken advantage of the pain and anger of racism to further his career’ by allegedly lying that he was attacked by racist and homophobic assailants on January 29.
Smollett makes $100,000 per episode on Empire, according to an associate who spoke to DailyMail.com, and there are 18 episodes in the current season which earns him $1.8million.
He also has a record deal with Columbia Records but, according to police, was ‘dissatisfied’ and wanted to boost his profile.
When police learned that Smollett’s motive was to get more money, it ‘p****d everybody off’, Superintendent Johnson said, adding that Smollett’s repeated ‘lies’ were ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’.
He called for ‘absolute justice’ which he said amounted to Smollett apologizing and offering to pay for the police resources he wasted.
20th Century Fox, which defended the actor on Wednesday, is now ‘considering its options’ in light of his arrest.
President Trump has also called for Smollett to apologize for making it appear as though he was being targeted by one of his supporters.
This is the state’s case against Smollett, as laid out in their bond proffer that was submitted in court on Thursday
Police say they have found phone records which prove Smollett spoke with brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo an hour before the attack, an hour afterwards and while they were in Nigeria, keeping their heads down, while the case gained global attention.
Prosecutor Risa Lanier laid bare the allegations in a press conference after the bond hearing
They also say they have the check that Smollett used to pay them $3,500.
The brothers ‘confessed’ to the ‘entire plot’ once they were in custody on Thursday.
It began on January 22 when Smollett allegedly mailed himself a threatening letter to the Empire studio in Chicago which had ‘MAGA’ written on it and included racist and homophobic slurs.
It read: ‘Smollett Jussie, you will die’ and included a drawing of a stick figure with a gun pointed towards it.
He reported it to the police along with producer Dennis Hammer.
When that did not win him a pay rise from 20th Century Fox, however, he allegedly hired the brothers to attack him at 2am on January 29 in what he then told police was a random, racist and homophobic attack.
The attack did happen but was not caught on camera. According to the brothers, they punched him after meeting at an arranged spot and time then ran away and got into a taxi.
President Trump tweeted on Thursday after the details of his arrest emerged to demand an apology from the actor who said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’
Smollett then went home to his friend, 60-year-old Frank Gatson, who was in the apartment and told him that he had been jumped by two masked assailants who shouted: ‘Empire f****t n****r’, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and screamed: ‘This is MAGA country!’
Police say that the actor gave himself the scratches on his face that were visible in a hospital-bed selfie he took after reporting it.
The same day, the brothers went to the airport and boarded a flight to Nigeria.
While Smollett received an outpouring of sympathy from politicians, celebrities and public figures around the world, they laid low but were allegedly in contact with the star.
As the police investigation heated up, officers honed in on them by tracking taxis that were in the area at around the time of the incident.
In particular, a ride-share the brothers took to the location gave police their details.
They were then picked up when they returned to Chicago on February 13.
Once in custody, they told police that Smollett had hired them and said it was because he wanted a higher salary.
Smollett, a vocal Trump critic, said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’ and later suggested he was targeted because he is so critical of the president
He paid them a reported $3,500 to carry out the attack, they said, and promised them $500 more when they returned from their trip.
Smollett is in custody awaiting his first court appearance on felony charges of filing a false police report. He will appear before a judge at 1.30pm.
His lawyers issued a statement on Wednesday to protest his innocence and condemn the police for leaking so many details of the investigation.
During the press conference, Superintendent Johnson revealed Smollett went from being treated as the victim in the case to a suspect when the brothers ‘confessed’ the ‘entire plot’ in the final hour of a 48 hour hold.
That is when they, in their lawyer’s words, ‘manned up’ and revealed that they had been hired to carry out the attack by the actor himself.
Smollett actually furthered the investigation along by going on Good Morning America and confirming that the two people in a grainy surveillance footage still were the men who attacked him.
He was unaware when he made the remark that Chicago PD had identified those men as the Osundairo brothers and that they had them in custody.
‘I come to you today not only as the Superintendent of Chicago Police Department but as a black man who has spent his entire life living in the city of Chicago.
‘I know the racial divide. I know how hard it has been for our city and our nation to come together.
‘Empire actor Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.
‘I’m left hanging my head and asking why? Why would anyone, especially an African American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations?
Another map shows where the assailants were dropped off in a ride-share, top right, then walked to the attack and fled to get in another taxi afterwards
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’
‘How could someone look at the hatred and suffering associated with that symbol and see it as an opportunity to manipulate his own public profile?’ Superintendent Johnson said, adding it was a ‘slap in the face ‘ to ‘everyone’ in Chicago.
‘I love the city of Chicago, warts and all, but this publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve.
‘The accusations within this phony attack received national attention for weeks…Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor,’ he went on.
When we discovered the actual motive, it p****d everybody off
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson
He added that he was ‘angry and offended’ and said it was a travesty that other crimes do not garner as much attention.
‘I just wish that the families of the victims of gun violence in this city got as much attention. That is who really deserves this amount of attention.’
He was emphatic, later, about the fact that no other investigations suffered as a result of Smollett’s claims, but said: ‘Bogus police reports cause real harm.
‘They do harm to ever legitimate victim who is in need of support by police.’
Johnson finished his remarks by saying: ‘I’ll continue to pray for this troubled young man who resorted to both drastic and illegal tactics to gain attention.
Police say Smollett cut his own cheek to make it look like he had suffered injuries in the attack. He is shown in a hospital bed selfie FaceTiming Lee Daniels, the show’s creator, hours after the attack
‘I’ll also continue to pray for our city asking that we can move forward from this and begin to heal.’
Police examined footage from 55 surveillance cameras, obtained more than 50 search warrants and conducted more than 100 interviews.
If convicted, Smollett may be asked to repay the money that was spent investigating the crime.
Smollett has not made any statements since he was taken into custody.
His lawyers said on Wednesday night that he would fight the charges with an ‘aggressive defense’.
In previous statements, his representatives have angrily hit out at the media and insisted that he is the victim.
Within hours of him being charged, Smollett’s attorneys arranged for him to hand himself in quietly at Chicago’s 1st District afterwards.
He appeared in his mugshot wearing a black puffer jacket, staring blankly at the camera.
After being processed at the station, he was transferred to the Cook County courthouse where he will appear at 1.30pm. He is being held separately from other detainees.
20th Century Fox, which released a statement hours before he was charged to say it was standing by him, is now reportedly suspending the actor.
20th Century Fox said on Thursday that it was now considering its options. It had been standing by the actor
A press conference is scheduled for 9am CT during which detectives will give more details about the arrest. It is not yet known where he was or what time he was taken into custody.
‘Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked,’ the actor’s attorneys Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson said.
‘Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense.’
The Osundairo brothers testified before the grand jury for about two and a half hours on Wednesday.
Addressing reporters outside afterwards, their attorney Gloria Schmidt said they’d ‘manned up’ by speaking out against Smollett.
The rope they put around Smollett’s neck was bought in this hardware store
They have not been arrested or charged and their lawyer said they had not been offered any form of immunity deal in exchange for testifying against Smollett.
‘There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said: “We’re gonna correct this.”
‘Plea deal, immunity, all of that — they don’t’ care about that.’
She said that Smollett was lying, and that she didn’t know how his conscience could let him sleep at night.
There was a point where this story needed to be told and they manned up and they said, “we’re going to correct this”
Gloria Schmidt, lawyer for two Nigerian brothers
‘I think Jussie’s conscience is not letting him sleep right now and he should unload that conscience and come out and tell the American people what happened,’ she added.
‘I think the biggest thing for the American people to know. Is that this story, has a lot of complications to it.
‘We’re not trying to hide anything from the press. But we wanted to make sure that everything checked out.
‘When I say that the police spent countless man-hours trying to piece this together, I mean that, I absolutely mean that.
‘When I say that my clients spent countless hours getting their story out there to the police so that they could do their work, I mean that, too,’ she said.
The brothers’ testimony came after footage emerged of them buying ski masks, a red hat and gloves in a store the day before the attack.
The brothers said Smollett also sent himself this letter to the Fox studio where Empire is filmed a week before the attack. If he did, he faces another 5-10 years in prison on a federal mail fraud charge
Abel and Ola Osundairo’s lawyers said on Wednesday night that they ‘manned up’ by telling police that Smollett paid them. Ola once appeared on the show as an extra. He is shown with creator Lee Daniels, right
It was taken on January 28 and shows brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo inside what looks like a drug store buying the masks and one hat.
Smollett told police that he was attacked by two masked assailants who punched him, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and called him ‘Empire n****r f****t’.
No footage has ever emerged of the incident itself.
In the video taken inside the store the day earlier, the brothers look calm as they bring the items to the register.
Smollett follows the brothers’ joint Instagram account where they post videos and photographs of themselves working out
Abel, whose full name is Abimbola, is dressed in a blue plaid jacket. About 30 seconds into the video, he puts his hood up while standing at the register.
His younger brother Ola, who once appeared on Empire as an extra, is in a green jacket.
The brothers were picked up by police at Chicago O’Hare Airport on Wednesday night as they returned from Nigeria.
Police seized a red hat from the brothers’ home along with ski masks when they raided it last week. Smollett said his attackers were wearing masks but there was not a description of a red hat in the initial reports.
Police have since shared their belief that at least one of them was wearing a red hat at the time of the attack.
Smollett’s family, many of whom are also actors, have spoken out repeatedly in support of him since the January 29 attack as have many of his co-stars on Empire.
Among them is Gabby Sidibe, his roommate at one time, who said on Instagram on Wednesday: ‘I know him. I believe him.’
Fox also insisted that he was not being written out of the show, as had been claimed, and called him a ‘consummate professional’ in a statement.
Smollett’s lawyers include Mark Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Colin Kaepernick, in the past.
When news of the attack first emerged on January 29 and 30, Smollett was inundated with support across the political spectrum.
Among those who tweeted their condemnation of him were Democratic presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
But as days went by with no suspects on the horizon, details about the case and the police’s investigation into it began to cast doubt on Smollett’s version of events.
One of the earliest sources of speculation was the fact that Smollett waited 42 minutes to call the police then refused to hand over his phone to the police for them to verify his story.
He then handed over redacted files that police described as ‘insufficient’.
Frustrated with the coverage of his case, he hit out at the media for reporting on leaked information coming from within the Chicago police department and insisted he was the victim.
He then went on Good Morning America to protest his innocence.
In an hour-long interview with Robin Roberts, he wept as he recalled the attack and abhorred the reaction to it.
CELEBRITIES REACT TO JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S ARREST
Celebrities have lashed out at Empire actor Jussie Smollett following his arrest after many of them publicly voiced support for him when he first claimed he had been targeted in a racist and homophobic attack.
Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth.
Perry added that the evidence seemed to contradict Smollett’s version and that he was ‘lost for words’.
‘I have personally spoken to Jussie, and he is adamant that he’s telling the truth. Also, everyone that I know who knows him says that he is not the kind of person who would make up such a horrible and awful thing,’ he said.
50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’
Snoopdog posted a Scooby Doo cartoon with Smollett’s face edited in
‘Yet the evidence seems to state otherwise. I’m lost for words. To stoke fears and raise racial tensions is wrong in every situation on ALL SIDES! Yet my prayers are still with him and his family and our Nation.’
Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments.
‘What upsets me about this Jussie situation is that people were genuinely worried about you man. And the things that you said happened could have led to some serious outcomes. People were prepared to fight for you bruh. Things coulda got ugly…… and you made it up.
‘The world has plenty of real monsters. You don’t have to make up any. And what for? Just further dividing people for personal gain? It sucks for the people who actually have to deal with that type of hate.
‘And why did you call yourself the gay Tupac. What does Tupac have to do with anything that happened to you? Did you do this to sell records bro? Did you fake a hate crime, Enrage the Black community. The LBGT community and anti-Trump community just to sell records bruh?
Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth but later added that the evidence seemed to tell a different story
Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments
‘People could’ve gotten hurt. Thinking they’re protesting and standing up for you. This is not a game.’
Smollett had compared himself to Tupac during a performance in West Hollywood earlier this month. He ended his set saying he fought back against his so-called attackers and said he was ‘the gay Tupac’.
50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’.
Andy Cohen tweeted that his ‘head is exploding’ following news of Smollett’s arrest before calling the story ‘pathetic’.
Actor Patton Oswalt retweeted a tweet from President Donald Trump, saying: ‘Way to go Jussie. You just handed this racist dips**t a ‘Get Out Of Race-Baiting Free’ card that he’s gonna wave around like a soiled diaper until he’s re-elected.’
Trump had tweeted: ‘.@JussieSmollett – what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA’.
Choking back tears, he explained when asked why it took so long for him to contact the authorities: ‘There is a level of pride there.
‘We live in a society where as a gay man you are considered somehow to be weak and I am not weak. I am not weak and we as a people are not weak.’
Later, he added how desperate he was for them to find footage of the attack.
‘I want that video found so badly because, for probably four reasons.
‘Number one, I want them to find the people that did it.
‘Number two, I want them to stop being able to say ‘alleged’ attack.
‘Number three, I want them to see that I fought back,’ he continued, welling-up.
‘I want a little gay boy who might watch this to see that I fought the f*** back. They ran off,’ I didn’t,’ he said.
After it emerged that Smollett knew the brothers and may have been involved in the staging of the attack, the celebrities and politicians who rushed to support him walked back their claims.
Nancy Pelosi deleted her tweet about it and Cory Booker said he would now be ‘withholding judgement’ until more information emerged.
Kamala Harris said, when questioned about her tweet that it was a ‘modern day lynching’, that she was ‘very concerned’.
Key moments in reported attack on actor Jussie Smollett
January 29, 2019
Smollet is seen with a cut cheek on Jan. 29
Jussie Smollett tells Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while walking home from getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2am.
The black and openly gay actor tells authorities the men used racial and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured an ‘unknown substance’ on him.
Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in ‘MAGA country,’ an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan, which some critics of Trump have claimed is a racist dog whistle.
January 30
Chicago police say they’ve reviewed hundreds of hours of surveillance camera footage, including of Smollett walking downtown, but none of the videos show the attack.
Police obtain and release images of two people they would like to question.
Reports of Smollett’s attack draw outrage and support on social media, including from U.S. Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.
Both Booker and Harris called the incident a ‘modern day lynching’.
Joe Biden said: ‘We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts.’
Police released this image of ‘persons of interest’ taken near the reported attack
January 31
Trump tells reporters at the White House that he saw a story the night before about Smollett and that, ‘It doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.’
Smollett’s family issues a statement calling the attack a racial and homophobic hate crime.
Smollett’s family says he ‘has told the police everything’ and ‘his story has never changed,’ disputing assertions leveled on social media that he has been less than cooperative and changed his story.
February 1
Smollett issues a statement telling people that he is OK and thanking them for their support.
He says he is working with authorities and has been ‘100 percent factual and consistent on every level.’
February 2
Smollett gives sold-out concert in West Hollywood, California, opening with an emotional speech, saying he had to play the show because he couldn’t let his attackers win.
At the end of the set, he announces that he fought back against his attackers, calling himself ‘the gay Tupac’.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is in attendance at the concert.
Smollet is seen performing on February 2, where he called himself ‘the gay Tupac’
February 5th: Chicago PD releases incident report which reveals Smollett did not want to call police. There is no mention of the MAGA country remark which he gave in a follow-up interview
Brandon Z. Moore, his manager, gives police a screenshot to prove their call.
February 11th: Smollett finally hands over redacted phone records to prove the phone call but police label them ‘insufficient’.
His neighbors say they don’t believe his version of events.
February 12th: Smollett’s rep releases statement to say he is the victim and that he has been telling the truth
February 14th: Good Morning America airs the full interview with Smollett, in which he blasts speculation that the attack was staged as itself racist and hateful.
Hours later, it emerges that two Nigerian brothers were picked up at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on their return from Nigeria the night before.
Cops identify the two men as the individuals seen in the surveillance images released from the night of January 29 but will not share their names.
Two television stations in Chicago simul report the widespread belief among investigators that Smollett staged the attack as a hate hoax.
Chicago’s police superintendent later said that he had no evidence to prove that the attack was a hoax.
Producers of ‘Empire’ dispute media reports that Smollett’s character was being written off the show.
High-powered criminal defense attorney Michael Monico reveals that he is representing Smollett.
Brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25, were detained by police on February 13
Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers’ Chicago home
February 15
DailyMail.com confirms they are brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25.
Later, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielimi says the two ‘persons of interest’ are now considered suspects. He says the men are in custody but have not been charged with a crime.
Chicago police release two men without charges after arresting them on suspicion of assaulting Smollett and holding them for nearly 48 hours.
A police spokesman said the two are no longer considered suspects and that investigators have ‘new evidence’ to consider as a result of questioning them.
February 16
A police spokesman said that the investigation had ‘shifted’ after detectives questioned the two brothers about the attack and released them without charges.
Smollett hired Michael Cohen’s high-powered criminal defense attorney, Michael Monico, as the police investigation into the attack he reported last month took a sudden shift amid allegations of a hoax.
Smollett’s lawyers said on Saturday the actor felt ‘victimized by reports he played a role in the assault, and that Smollett would continue cooperating with police.
February 17
A police spokesman said that Chicago police have told Smollett’s attorneys they want to do a follow-up interview with the actor.
A spokesperson for Smollett’s lawyers said she couldn’t comment on whether Smollett had agreed to another interview.
This is the letter Smollett allegedly received at the Fox studio, a week before the January 29 incident. No photographs of it emerged until after the alleged attack. He reported the letter to the police when he received it along with Empire producer Dennis Hammer
February 18
Stars and politicians who spoke out in support of Smollett walk back their condemnation of the attack amid growing suspicion that it is a hate hoax
February 19
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the Smollett case
The Osundairo brothers speak with police and prosecutors in Chicago but are halted at the last minute before going to testify before a grand jury.
Smollett hires Colin Kaepernick’s attorney Mark Geragos and his legal team present a ‘hail Mary’ piece of evidence which stops the brothers’ testimony
State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx recuses herself from the case citing her ‘familiarity with potential witnesses’
Leaked information from the brothers’ meetings with prosecutors and police emerges. They reportedly claimed Smollett was involved in sending himself the letter on January 22
February 20
Fox says Smollett is not being written out of Empire contrary to reports and Smollett’s co-stars speak out in support of him.
He is named as a suspect later in the afternoon and the brothers are seen entering grand jury offices at the courthouse.
Smollett is criminally charged with filing a false police report, a Class 4 felony which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.
February 21
Smollett hands himself in to police at 5am.
Prosecutor: Actor Gave Detailed Instructions For Fake Attack
CHICAGO (AP) — “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett gave detailed instructions to two brothers who helped him stage a racist, anti-gay attack on himself, including giving them specific slurs to yell, telling them to shout “MAGA country” and pointing out a surveillance camera that he thought would record the beating, a prosecutor said Thursday.
Police said Smollett planned the hoax because he was unhappy with his salary and wanted to promote his career. Before the attack, he also sent a letter that threatened him to the Chicago studio where “Empire” is shot, police said.
Smollett, who is black and gay, turned himself in to face accusations that he filed a false police report last month when he told authorities he was attacked in downtown Chicago by two masked men who hurled racist and anti-gay slurs and looped a rope around his neck, police said.
The actor “took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career,” police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said.
“This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve,” he added.
As part of the instructions, Smollett also told the brothers to put the rope around his neck, Assistant State’s Attorney Risa Lanier told a news conference.
His plans for the surveillance camera were thwarted. Police say it was pointed another way and did not have a view of the beating.
At Smollett’s first court appearance, a judge set bond at $100,000, meaning that he had to post $10,000 to be released. Smollett’s attorneys asked for him to be freed on his own recognizance, but the judge, who is also black, rejected that idea and said he was particularly bothered by the allegations involving the noose.
Smollett, who was released a couple of hours after the hearing, said little during the proceedings, except to state his name. The actor, his attorneys and supporters left without speaking to reporters.
One of the attorneys, Jack Prior, told the judge that Smollett “maintains these are outrageous allegations” and denies they are true.
The FBI has been investigating the threatening letter. Johnson would not say whether Smollett could face additional charges for that.
The companies that make “Empire,” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television, issued a statement Thursday saying that they were “evaluating the situation” and “considering our options.”
In less than a month, Smollett went from being the seemingly sympathetic victim of a hate crime to being accused of fabricating the entire thing. The 36-year-old was charged Wednesday with felony disorderly conduct, a charge that could bring up to three years in prison and force the actor to pay for the cost of the investigation into his report of a Jan. 29 beating.
Police treated Smollett as a victim until the two brothers , who had been taken into custody for questioning, admitted to helping him stage the attack, Johnson said.
It was the brothers who also explained Smollett’s motive to detectives. Authorities have a check for $3,500 that Smollett paid the brothers, he said.
Smollett, who plays a gay character on the show that follows a black family as they navigate the ups and downs of the recording industry, said he was attacked as he was walking home from a downtown Subway sandwich shop. He said the men yelled “This is MAGA country” — an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” — before fleeing.
In describing what police believe actually happened, Johnson made it sound as if Smollett was casting and directing a short movie.
“He probably knew he needed somebody with bulk,” he said of Smollett’s decision to hire the two muscular brothers. Police have said at least one of the brothers worked on “Empire,” and Smollett’s attorneys said one of the men is the actor’s personal trainer.
The brothers, who are not considered suspects, wore gloves during the staged attack and “punched him a little bit,” Johnson said. The scratches and bruising Smollett had on his face were “most likely self-inflicted,” Johnson said.
Detectives found the two brothers after reviewing hundreds of hours of video. They released images of two people they said they wanted to question and last week picked up the pair at O’Hare Airport as they returned from Nigeria. Police questioned the men and searched their apartment.
The brothers, who were identified by their attorney as Abimbola “Abel” and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, were held for nearly 48 hours on suspicion of assaulting Smollett.
The two appeared before a grand jury on Wednesday to “lock in their testimony,” according to police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi. Smollett was charged by prosecutors, not the grand jury.
Speaking outside the courthouse where the grand jury met, the brothers’ attorney said the two men testified for about two and a half hours.
“There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said we’re going to correct this,” Gloria Schmidt said.
She said her clients did not care about a plea deal or immunity. “You don’t need immunity when you have the truth,” she said.
Smollett has been active in LBGTQ issues, and initial reports of the assault drew outrage and support for him on social media, including from Sen. Kamala Harris of California and TV talk show host Ellen DeGeneres.
Referring to a published account of the attack, Trump said last month that “it doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.” On Thursday, he tweeted to Smollett: “What about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA.”
Hate crime
Jump to navigationJump to search
 |
This article needs to be updated. (March 2017)
|
| Part of a series on |
| Discrimination |
|---|
| Specific forms |
 Discrimination portal |
A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime[1]) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.
Examples of such groups can include and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called “bias incidents“.
“Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]
A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.[6] Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech laws exist in many countries. In the United States, hate crime laws have been upheld by both the Supreme Court [7] and lower courts, especially in the case of ‘fighting’ words and other violent speech, but they are thought by some people to be in conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but hate crimes are only regulated through threats of injury or death.[8]
History
The term “hate crime” came into common usage in the United States during the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively in order to describe events which occurred prior to that era.[9] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by both individuals and governments long before the term was commonly used.[4] A major part of defining a crime as a hate crime is that it is directed toward a historically oppressed group.[10][11]
As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onwards, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence.[citation needed] During the past two centuries, typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, largely in the South, and lynchings of Mexicans and Chinese in the West; cross burnings to intimidate black activists or to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods both during and after Reconstruction; assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods; assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues; and xenophobic responses to a variety of minorityethnic groups.[12]
Postcard of the Duluth lynchings of African-American men on June 15, 1920
The verb “to lynch” is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tory sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally, the term referred to extrajudicial organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside “ordinary justice.” It is highly associated with white suppression of African Americans in the South, and periods of weak or nonexistent police authority, as in certain frontier areas of the Old West.[4]
The murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre were not classified as “hate crimes” by U.S. investigative officials or the media. In the early 21st century, conservative commentators David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin (Fox News channel and author) and Stuart Taylor Jr. (journalist) did describe these events as “hate crimes against whites by blacks.”[13]
Psychological effects
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[14] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[15]
- Impact on the individual victim
- psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim’s identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime’s degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
- Effect on the targeted group
- generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
- Effect on other vulnerable groups
- ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
- Effect on the community as a whole
- divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma.[16]
A review of European and American research indicates that terrorist bombings cause Islamophobia and hate crimes to flare up but, in calmer times, they subside again, although to a relatively high level.[17] Terrorist’s most persuasive message is that of fear and fear, a primary and strong emotion, increases risk estimates and has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary Muslims.[17] Widespread Islamophobic prejudice seems to contribute to anti-Muslim hate crimes, but indirectly: terrorist attacks and intensified Islamophobic prejudice serve as a window of opportunity for extremist groups and networks.[17]
Laws
Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
- laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
- criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
- laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
- laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[18] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Eurasia
European Union
Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.[19]
Andorra
Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person’s dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or gender (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[18]
Armenia
Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[18]
Austria
Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others’ helpless states, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[20]
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[18]
Belarus
Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[18][21]
Belgium
Belgium‘s Act of 25 February 2003 (“aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of gender, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also “provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination.”[18] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 (“on strengthening legislation against racism”), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[18]
Bosnia and Herzegovinavina (enacted 2003) “contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”[22]
Bulgaria
Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions “have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria.”[23]
Croatia
The Croatian Penal Code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as “any crime committed out of hatred for someone’s race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute”.[24] On 1 January 2013, a new Penal Code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on “race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity”.[25]
Czech Republic
The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:
- a circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
- a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
- general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)
Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.[26]
Denmark
Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, “section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender’s motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence.”[27] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[18][28]
Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[18]
Estonia
Under section 151 of the Criminal Code of Estonia of 6 June 2001, which entered into force on 1 September 2002, with amendments and supplements and as amended by the Law of 8 December 2011, “activities which publicly incite to hatred, violence or discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, or financial or social status, if this results in danger to the life, health or property of a person, are punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention”.[29]
Finland
Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes “committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group” an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[18][30] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of
- illegal violence directed against a foreign country or its citizens,
- systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
- public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
- public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[31]
Nepal
France
In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[18][32]
Georgia
“There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia.”[18]
Germany
The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that “the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission.”[33] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.[34]
Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU “Report on Racism” finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18,142 incidences for 2006, of which 17,597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.[35] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.[36] Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.[37]
Greece
Article Law 927/1979 “Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds.”[38] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[39]
Hungary
Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim’s actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[18] This article was added to the Code in 1996.[40]
Iceland
Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states “Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years.”[41]
India
In past few years, a number of hate crimes in India against minority communities especially against Muslims and Christians rise tremendously. To monitor this rising trend of hate crime based on religious identity a web portal is launched name DOTO Database to track these incidents.[42]
From the 3035 reported incidents August 2018, 1892 were Muslims. That is 62% of the total violence and 740 were Christians. That is 24% of the total violence.[43]
Ireland
“The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989″ makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group.”[18]
Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[18]
Italy
Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, sex/gender, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[18]
Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[18]
Kyrgyzstan
In Kyrgyzstan, “the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes.”[44]
Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[18][45]
Russia
Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.[46]
Spain
Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.[18]
Sweden
Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or “other similar circumstance” of the victim.[18][47]
Ukraine
I. “Constitution of Ukraine“ :
The most important law of the Ukraine country : the “Constitution of Ukraine” guarantees protection against Hate crime :
Article 10 : “In Ukraine, free development, use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine are guaranteed”.
Article 11 : “The state shall promote the development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine”.
Article 24 :”There can be no privileges or restrictions on the grounds of race, color of the skin, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”.[48]
II. “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :
in Ukraine, all criminal punishments for crimes committed under the law are required to be registered in only one law, it is the only one: “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE”
The crimes committed for Hate crime reinforce the punishment in many articles of the criminal law. There are also separate articles on punishment for Hate crime.
“CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :
Article 161 : “Violations of equality of citizens depending on their race, nationality, religious beliefs, disability and other grounds
1. Intentional acts aimed at incitement to national, racial or religious hatred and violence, to humiliate national honor and dignity, or to repulse citizens’ feelings due to their religious beliefs, as well as direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment of direct or indirect privileges citizens on the grounds of race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, disability, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”(Maximum criminal sentence of up to 8 years in prison)
Article 300 : “Importation, manufacture or distribution of works promoting a cult of violence and cruelty, racial, national or religious intolerance and discrimination” (Maximum criminal sentence of up to 5 years in prison)[49]
United Kingdom
For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[50] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.[51] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[52] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated, and to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:
- (a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
- (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
- (ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
- (b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) reported in 2013 that there are an average of 278,000 hate crimes a year with 40% being reported according to a victims survey, although police records only identified around 43,000 hate crimes a year.[55] It was widely reported that police recorded a 57% increase in hate crime complaints in the four days following the UK’s European Union membership referendum, however a press release from the National Police Chief’s Council stated that “this should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent”.[56][57]
In 2013, Greater Manchester Police began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.[58]
On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field. The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.[59]
Crown Prosecution Service guidance issued on 21 August 2017 stated that online hate crimes should be treated as seriously as offences in person.[60]
Perhaps the most high-profile hate crime in modern Britain occurred in Eltham, London, on 24 April 1993, when 18-year-old black student Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death in an attack by a gang of white youths. Two white teenagers were later charged with the murder, and at least three other suspects were mentioned in the national media, but the charges against them were dropped within three months after the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. However, a change in the law a decade later allowed a suspect to be charged with a crime twice if new evidence emerged after the original charges were dropped or a “not guilty” verdict was delivered in court. Gary Dobson, who had been charged with the murder in the initial 1993 investigation, was found guilty of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in January 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as was David Norris, who had not been charged in 1993. A third suspect, Luke Knight, had been charged in 1993 but was not charged when the case came to court nearly 20 years later.
Scotland
Under Scottish Common law[citation needed] the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment, prejudice relating to religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.[61] A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[62] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[63] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[64]
Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws[edit]
A photograph of the famous fresco Bathing of the Christ, after being vandalized by a Kosovo Albanian mobduring the 2004 unrest in Kosovo
Albania, Cyprus, San Marino, Slovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.[18]
North America
Canada
“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. [65]
In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.” [65]
A vast majority (84 per cent) of hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).” [66] “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” [67]
As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and homosexuals (Silver et al., 2004).[67]
During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.[65]
The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”[67]
United States
Shepard (center), Louvon Harris (left), Betty Bryd Boatner (right) with President Barack Obama in 2009 to promote the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime[68] laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin.” However, “The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.”.[69]
The first state hate-crime statute, California’s Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four “protected status” categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include age, marital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.[70]
Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assault, assault and battery, vandalism, rape, threats and intimidation, arson, trespassing, stalking, and various “lesser” acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.[71]
Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, “A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.” In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.[72]
According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 32% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[73]
However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[74] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[75]
Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop “violence masquerading as political activism”.[76]
The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.[77]
In 2015, the Hate Crimes Statistics report identified 5,818 single-bias incidents involving 6,837 offenses, 7,121 victims, and 5,475 known offenders[78]
Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi’s decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP.[79] This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.[80]
According to a November 2016 report issued by the FBI hate crime statistics are on the rise in the United States.[81] The number of hate crimes increased from 5,850 in 2015, to 6,121 hate crime incidents in 2016, an increase of 4.6 percent.[82][83][84]
Victims in the United States
One of the largest waves of hate crimes took place during the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 1960s, both violence and threats of violence were common against African Americans, and hundreds of lives were lost due to such acts. Members of this social class faced violence from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as well as violence from individuals who were committed to maintaining segregation.[85] At the time, civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and their supporters fought hard for the right of African Americans to vote as well as for equality in their everyday lives. African Americans have been the target of hate crimes since the Civil War,[86] and the humiliation of this social class was also desired by many Anti-black individuals. Other frequently reported bias motivations were bias against a religion, bias against a particular sexual orientation, and bias against a particular ethnicity/national origin.[87] At times, these bias motivations overlapped, because violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.[88]
Analysts have compared groups in terms of the per capita rate of hate crimes committed against them, to allow for differing populations. Overall, the total number of hate crimes committed since the first hate crime bill was passed in 1997 is 86,582.[89] David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act
| Hate Crimes in the US (2008–2012) by Population Group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population Group | Estimated Population | Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012)[90][91][92][93][94] | Rate (per 100,000 people) | Violent Hate Crimes Against[95] | Rate (per 100,000 people) | |
| Jewish | 5,248,674[96] | 4,457 | 84.9 | 411 | 7.8 | |
| LGBT | 9,000,000[97] | 7,231 | 66.9 | 3,849 | 35.6 | |
| Muslim | 1,852,473[96] | 761 | 41.1 | 258 | 13.9 | |
| Black | 38,929,319[98] | 13,411 | 34.4 | 4,356 | 11.2 | |
| Aboriginal | 2,932,248[98] | 364 | 12.4 | 161 | 5.5 | |
| Hispanic | 50,477,594[98] | 3,064 | 6.1 | 1,482 | 2.9 | |
| Asian & Pacific Islander | 15,214,265[98] | 798 | 5.2 | 276 | 1.8 | |
| White | 223,553,265[98] | 3,459 | 1.5 | 1,614 | 0.7 | |
| Catholic | 67,924,018[99] | 338 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.0 | |
| Atheist & Agnostic | 17,598,496[99] | 47 | 0.3 | 5 | 0.0 | |
| Protestant | 148,197,858[99] | 229 | 0.2 | 17 | 0.0 | |
Among the groups currently mentioned in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the largest number of hate crimes are committed against African Americans.[100] During the Civil Rights Movement, some of the most notorious hate crimes included the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the 1964 murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, the 1955 murder of Emmett Till,[86] as well as the burning of crosses, churches, Jewish synagogues and other places of worship of minority religions. Such acts began to take place more frequently after the racial integration of many schools and public facilities.[100]
High-profile murders targeting victims based on their sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy’s murder was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while he advocated such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled, and military personnel and their family members.[101][citation needed] This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]
Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crimes. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre in Quebec, as hate crimes.[102][103][104]
In May 2018, ProPublica reviewed police reports for 58 cases of purported anti-heterosexual hate crimes. ProPublica found that about half of the cases were anti-LGBT hate crimes that had been miscategorized, and that the rest were motivated by hate towards Jews, blacks or women or that there was no element of a hate crime at all. ProPublica found not a single case of a hate crime spurred by anti-heterosexual bias.[105]
South America
Brazil
In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[106] and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.[107] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as “hideous crimes” (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[108]
The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[109] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by “elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person“.[110] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers “crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin”.[111]
In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a “fundamental goal of the Republic” (Article 3rd, clause IV) “to promote the well-being of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination”.[112]
Chile
In 2012, the Anti-discrimination law amended the Criminal Code adding a new aggravating circumstance of criminal responsibility, as follows: “Committing or participating in a crime motivated by ideology, political opinion, religion or beliefs of the victim; nation, race, ethnic or social group; sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, affiliation, personal appearance or suffering from illness or disability.”[113][114]
Middle East
Israel is the only country in the middle east who has hate crime laws. Hate crime, as passed by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), is defined as crime for reason of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation
Support for and opposition to hate crime laws
Support[edit]
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.[citation needed] It is said[115] that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.[citation needed] Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[12] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[116] Whilst in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court defined “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”[117]
Opposition
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[118] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[119][120] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crimes criminalize certain dispositions yet do not show why hate is a morally worse disposition for a crime than one motivated by jealousy, greed, sadism or vengeance or why hatred and bias are uniquely responsive to criminal sanction compared to other motivations. Hurd argues that whether or not a disposition is worse than another is case sensitive and thus it is difficult to argue that some motivations are categorically worse than others.[121]
In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[122] Jacobs and Potter also argued that hate crime legislation can end up only covering the victimization of some groups rather than all, which is a form of discrimination itself and that attempts to remedy this by making all identifiable groups covered by hate crime protection thus make hate crimes co-terminus with generic criminal law. The authors also suggest that arguments which attempt to portray hate crimes as worse than normal crimes because they spread fear in a community are unsatisfactory, as normal criminal acts can also spread fear yet only hate crimes are singled out.[122] Indeed it has been argued that victims have varied reactions to hate crimes, so it is not necessarily true that hate crimes are regarded as more harmful than other crimes.[123][124] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crime represents an effort by the state to encourage a certain moral character in its citizen and thus represents the view that the instillation of virtue and the elimination of vice are legitimate state goals, which she argues is a contradiction of the principles of liberalism. Hurd also argues that increasing punishment for an offence because the perpetrator was motivated by hate compared to some other motivation means that the justice systems is treating the same crime differently, even though treating like cases alike is a cornerstone of criminal justice[125]
Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[126] American forensic psychologist Karen Franklin said that the term hate crime is somewhat misleading since it assumes there is a hateful motivation which is not present in many occasions;[127] in her view, laws to punish people who commit hate crimes may not be the best remedy for preventing them because the threat of future punishment does not usually deter such criminal acts.[128] Some on the political left have been critical of hate crime laws for expanding the criminal justice system and dealing with violence against minority groups through punitive measures.[6]
See also
- Bashing (pejorative)
- Communal violence
- Disability hate crime
- Documenting Hate
- Fighting Discrimination
- Hate group
- Racial hoax
- Racism in the United States
- Thoughtcrime
- Violence against LGBT people
References
Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos
Six illegal immigrants linked to notorious Mexican drug cartel are arrested for trafficking meth and cocaine after police sting
- Cops arrested Oscar, Regulo, Raul, and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez in a raid
- They also busted Francisco Garcia-Martinez and Rodolfo Martinez in the bust
- The gang transported huge amounts of cocaine and meth to Charlotte, NC
Six illegal immigrants linked to one of Mexico‘s most dangerous cartels have been arrested in North Carolina during a drug trafficking operation – it has been revealed.
Police documents revealed by WSOC show that the operation involved the transportation of large amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine to Charlotte, North Carolina.
The suspects were identified as Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez, Regulo Rangel-Gutierrez, Francisco Garcia-Martinez, Rodolfo Martinez, Raul Rangel-Gutierrez and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez.
Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez (left), Rodolfo Martinez (center), and Regulo Rangel Gutierrez (right)
Federal officials said more than 1,800 grams of meth were delivered from Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez’s home in Statesville in August and October last year
‘Members of the investigative team believe – based on wire intercepts, surveillance and other facts discovered from the investigation – that Oscar and Regulo transport illicit proceeds, derived from the sales of narcotics, when they travel from Myrtle Beach to Charlotte,’ the court documents read.
Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally..
The person who lived there, Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez, is an alleged high-level cartel member.
Francisco Garcia-Martinez (left), Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez (center) and Raul Rangel-Gutierrez (right)
Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally
Misty Joyner, who reportedly lived near the home in Charlotte where investigators said Rangel-Gutierrez stored drug money, was in disbelief about her neighbors.
‘Just devastating,’ Joyner told WSOC. ‘They were good people.’
The group were said to have been affiliated with the Jalisco New Generation cartel which has been engaged in a blood feud with ‘El Chapo’s’ infamous Sinaola cartel.
Sinaloa’s leader, Guzman, was convicted last Tuesday in New York, likely meaning he will spend decades behind bars in the United States.
The group were said to have links to El Chapo who was convicted by a New York court last week
China: facial recognition and state control | The Economist
Trust and consequences: China’s evolving ‘social credit system’
Everyone In China Is Getting A ‘Social Credit Score’
China bans millions with low ‘social credit’ from rail, air travel | Al Jazeera English
China Behavior Rating System V/S Sweden Microchip implants | Must watch technology
China rolls out social credit system to spy on population
Inside China’s High-Tech Dystopia
China’s social credit system shows its teeth, banning millions from taking flights, trains
- Annual report shows the businesses and individuals added to trustworthiness blacklist as use of the government system accelerates
- System aims to pressure citizens to avoid bad behaviour, although human rights advocates argue it does not take into account individual circumstances
Updated: Tuesday, 19 Feb, 2019 10:39am
About 17.46 million “discredited” people were restricted from buying plane tickets and 5.47 million were restricted from purchasing high-speed train tickets, the reportsaid. Photo: Handout
Millions of Chinese individuals and businesses have been labelled as untrustworthy on an official blacklist banning them from any number of activities, including accessing financial markets or travelling by air or train, as the use of the government’s social credit system accelerates.
The annual blacklist is part of a broader effort to boost “trustworthiness” in Chinese society and is an extension of China’s social credit system, which is expected to give each of its 1.4 billion citizens a personal score.
The social credit system assigns both positive and negative scores for individual or corporate behaviour in an attempt to pressure citizens into behaving.
Human rights advocates, though, worry that the arbitrary system does not take into account individual circumstances and so often unfairly labels individuals and firms as untrustworthy.
Over 3.59 million Chinese enterprises were added to the official creditworthiness blacklist last year, banning them from a series of activities, including bidding on projects, accessing security markets, taking part in land auctions and issuing corporate bonds, according to the 2018 annual report released by the National Public Credit Information Centre.
The centre is backed by the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, to run the credit rating system.
According to the report, the authorities collected over 14.21 million pieces of information on the “untrustworthy conduct” of individuals and businesses, including charges of swindling customers, failing to repay loans, illegal fund collection, false and misleading advertising, as well as uncivilised behaviour such as taking reserved seats on trains or causing trouble in hospitals.
About 17.46 million “discredited” people were restricted from buying plane tickets and 5.47 million were restricted from purchasing high-speed train tickets, the report said.
China to bar people with bad ‘social credit’ from trains, planes
Besides restrictions on buying tickets, local authorities also used novel methods to put pressure on untrustworthy subjects, including preventing people from buying premium insurance, wealth management products or real estate, as well as shaming them by exposing their information in public.
A total of 3.51 million untrustworthy individuals and entities repaid their debts or paid off taxes and fines last year due to pressure from the social credit system, the report said.
The report highlighted untrustworthy problems at peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms and recent high-profile scandals in medical care that have caused public anger.
A total of 3.51 million untrustworthy individuals and entities repaid their debts or paid off taxes and fines last year due to pressure from the social credit system, the report said. Photo: Xinhua
A total of 1,282 P2P operators, more than half located in Zhejiang, Guangdong and Shanghai, were placed on the creditworthiness blacklist because they could not repay investors or were involved in illegal fundraising.
Health care product maker
and vaccine maker
were added to the creditworthiness blacklist because of their involvement in major health sector scandals.
From drones to social credits, 10 ways China watches its citizens
Quanjian was accused of making false marketing claims about the benefits of a product that a four-year-old cancer patient drank, while Changsheng, the major Chinese manufacturer of rabies vaccines, was fined US$1.3 billion in October after it was found to have fabricated records.
Lawyers worry that the accelerated use of the creditworthiness system will violate an individuals right to privacy.
“Many people cannot pay their debt because they are too poor but will be subject to this kind of surveillance and this kind of public shaming,” a lawyer said. “It violates the rights of human beings.”
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1213
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1208, February 14, 2019, Story 1: President Trump To Declare A National Emergency and Keeps Big Government Open Instead of Downsizing and Laying Off Permanently Non-essential Government Employees and Closing Departments– Trump Sides With Rollover Republicans and Radical Extremist Democrats– American People vs. Washington Political Elitist Establishment — Democrats and Republicans Continue To Betray Their Voter Base By Siding With Drug Cartels Massive Smuggling of Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Into United States — Time For New Viable Political Party — Videos — Story 2: When Will Trump Order The Investigation and Prosecution of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — The Greatest Scandal in United States History! — Twelve of Never or Will Attorney General Bill Barr Bust All The Conspirators? — Statue of Limitations Is Running — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch! — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018
Story 1: President Trump To Declare A National Emergency and Keeps Big Government Open Instead of Downsizing and Laying Off Permanently Non-essential Government Employees and Closing Departments– Trump Sides With Rollover Republicans and Radical Extremist Democrats– American People vs. Washington Political Elitist Establishment — Democrats and Republicans Continue To Betray Their Voter Base By Siding With Drug Cartels Massive Smuggling of Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Into United States — Time For New Viable Political Party — Videos —
BREAKING NEWS: White House says Trump will sign spending bill to avoid shutdown but will declare border emergency TOO – as Pelosi warns GOP a future Democratic president could use the same tactic to impose gun control
- President’s approval is required to avoid another government shutdown
- Trump said he was ‘not happy’ with the compromise but White House signals he will accept it
- White House said Trump ‘will sign the government funding bill’
- But at the same time he will declare a national emergency to build the wall
- Pelosi didn’t rule out legal action to block the move
- She warned Republicans of the precedent it could set for the future
- Rep. James C. Clyburn of South Carolina said he’s ‘sure’ it will pass
- Deal must be signed into law by midnight Friday to avoid another shutdown
- Senate adopted the measure by a vote of 83-16
- House was set to vote Thursday evening on $328 billion package
President Donald Trump will sign a bipartisan spending deal – but will declare a ‘national emergency’ in an effort to procure funds to build a border wall, the White House said Thursday.
The move drew both statements of relief from lawmakers who wanted to avoid another government shutdown – and a threat from Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the emergency declaration.
Pelosi called it an ‘end-run around the will of the people,’ speaking to reporters minutes after news of Trump’s position broke, while warning it could come back to bite Republicans.
‘We will review our options, we’ll be prepared to respond appropriately to it,’ Pelosi said, asked about Trump’s planned emergency declaration.
President Donald Trump has expressed misgivings about a bipartisan deal, but will sign it, the White House said
She also brandished the threat a future Democratic president could use the same tactic of Trump moves forward
‘I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say. Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,’ she said.
‘You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,’ Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.
‘That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,’ she threatened.
Within minutes after the White House announced its support, the Senate adopted the legislative package by a vote of 83-16. The House was to follow suit Thursday night.
Sen. Mitch McConnell updated colleagues on his conversation with Trump, saying he ‘indicated’ he is ‘prepared to sign’ the budget bill minutes before the White House announced his support
‘The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans,’ said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
But Pelosi, even while touting the package as the product of compromise, bristled at Trump’s stated move to get around strict funding limits it included, namely $1.4 billion for border fencing.
‘So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans. And of course we will respond accordingly when we review our options,’ Pelosi said.
Pelosi also blasted Trump for ‘making an end run around Congress.
‘The power of the purse, the power to declare war … and of course the responsibility to have oversight.’ Although she said Democrats would ‘review our options,’ and did not commit to filing a lawsuit against the move.
Pelosi said Congress maintains ‘the power of the purse, the power to declare war … and of course the responsibility to have oversight.’
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York blasted the move in even more scathing language. ‘Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act – a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for the wall,’ Schumer told colleagues moments after the deal passed the Senate.
‘It would be another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law and congressional authority. Congress just debated this very issue. There was not support for the president’s position on this issue,’ Schumer said, pointing to the legislative history that a court would likely consider.
‘For the president to declare an emergency now would be an unprecedented subversion of Congress’s constitutional prerogative,’ he said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told fellow senators Thursday that Trump was ‘prepared to sign’ the budget deal, and the White House soon confirmed it with stronger language.
Said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders in a statement: ‘President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country,’ she added.
With the flurry of action Thursday afternoon, the Senate and House were set to vote in sequence on the $328 billion package.
McConnell made his announcement on the Senate floor after signals of indecision from the White House were once again raising fears of a government shutdown after Friday.
Declaring a national emergency will allow Trump to repurpose billions of dollars Congress approved last year for other projects at the Pentagon and other agencies. The White House and Democrats have indicated that they expect interest groups to sue, challenging the president’s power to sidestep lawmakers’ power of the purse.
With Washington on edge a day before another shutdown deadline with no clear signal from the White House, McConnell told colleagues: ‘I’ve just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump, and he would, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he’s prepared to sign the bill.’
‘He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I’ve indicated to him that I’m going to prepare – I’m going to support the national emergency declaration. So for all of my colleagues, the President will sign the bill. We’ll be voting on it shortly,’ McConnell said.
A top Democrat immediately blasted the move to declare an emergency for funds Congress would not approve.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland intruded on an NBC live broadcast to say ‘declaring a national emergency when there is no national emergency is not good for a President to do, and frankly I don’t think it’s good for precedent for future Presidents.’
A leading Senate Republican opened Thursday’s session with a prayer that President Trump would have the ‘wisdom’ to sign a bipartisan spending deal – after another day of mixed signals from the White House.
‘Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,’ said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who has been a powerful defender of Trump’s but who also is pushing to make sure Special Counsel Mueller’s report gets shared with Congress.
Grassley’s appeal to a higher authority came hours after a senior Trump advisor said only that Trump was ‘taking a look’ at the legislation, which a bipartisan panel of House and Senate lawmakers agreed to Wednesday night.
Vice President Mike Pence, traveling in Poland, said Trump is ‘not happy’ with the deal – which includes just a quarter of the amount he wanted for a border wall, with funds restricted to existing forms of fencing.
‘I think he’s been very clear that he’s not happy with it. Seeing less than $ 1.4 billion dollars in border wall funding I know is a disappointment to the president, but he’s considering the bill,’ Pence said.
The president himself was circumspect, tweeting: ‘Reviewing the funding bill with my team at the @WhiteHouse!’
Trump’s earlier Twitter effort was even less revealing. It said simply ‘funding bill’, and was an apparent typo.
Other senior Republicans were taking a wait-and-see approach to avoid getting out ahead of the president. Prominent voices on the right came out Thursday to urge Trump not sign onto the deal.
‘This bill must NOT be signed by @realDonaldTrump,’ wrote conservative host Laura Ingraham. She added: ‘This bill is tantamount to an illegal immigration ‘stimulus’ — de facto amnesty to any ‘sponsor,’ family member or ‘potential sponsor’ of an unaccompanied minor. #ChainMigrationAmnesty,’ and in another swipe, wrote: ‘This 1,169 page monstrosity will green light more ‘family units’ crossing illegally—without a doubt.’
‘Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,’ said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa
The president said only he was ‘reviewing’ the bill
TAKE ONE: Trump deleted his initial tweet
On Thursday morning, the White House had yet to signal Trump was certain to sign the deal, after high-profile conservative commentators balked at the arrangement, which gives the president far less than the $5.7 billion he demanded for a border wall.
White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters Thursday Trump was still ‘looking at’ the compromise that finally reached written form late Wednesday.
‘He’s looking at it. I think it came in very late last night. He’s taking a look at that, you’ll hear more about it when he’s ready,’ Kudlow said.
Lawmakers released the text of the 1,159-page bill Wednesday night.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he is ‘sure’ the deal will pass
‘I think he’s been very clear that he’s not happy with it,’ Vice President Mike Pence said of Trump
White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters Thursday Trump was still ‘looking at’ the compromise that finally reached written form late Wednesday
The deal restricts fencing to existing types already in use
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama tweeted Wednesday that Trump ‘was in good spirits,’ and once again called the bill a ‘down-payment’ on the wall. Trump has indicated he will use other methods to procure wall funds.
Following the 35-day shutdown, Trump allowed a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both parties to negotiate a compromise. Pulling away from it could once again tag Trump with producing a shutdown.
The agreement provides $1.4 billion for border fencing, but not the $5.7 Trump demanded for wall construction. Trump has been tweaking his rhetoric as the deal approached. His Tuesday rally at the Texas border city of El Paso had banners that said ‘finish the wall,’ and Trump says repeatedly that it is already being built.
Trump said Wednesday he is taking a ‘very serious’ look at a bipartisan compromise deal to give him just a quarter of the $5.7 billion he wants for a border wall – following reports sourced to his advisors that he is preparing to sign it.
Government funding legislation is once again hinging on President Trump’s support for a border wall.
‘A pretty good deal’: Senators react to border spending bill
‘We haven’t gotten it yet,’ Trump said, in reference to the bipartisan compromise that has yet to be turned into final bill language. ‘We’ll take a very serious look at it,’ Trump added during a meeting with the president of Colombia.
He said he would look for ‘landmines’ surreptitiously buried in the legislation negotiated by Republicans and Democrats from both chambers of Congress, but would not formally commit to signing it.
There was a last minute standoff over back-pay for federal contractors who lost millions during the shutdown that began in December.
Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said he was told the president would not back the effort.
Senate Appropriations chair Richard Shelby of Alabama says he told Trump the wall funding was a ‘down payment’
A bipartisan compromise would provide $1.37 billion for new border fencing
‘We’ll be looking for landmines, because you could have that,’ Trump said, indicating his advisors would be scrubbing legislation to fund the government in search of any surprises. Trump said he would take a ‘very serious’ look at bipartisan legislation to fund the government
‘I’ve been told the president won’t sign that,’ Blunt said Wednesday, adding ‘I guess federal contractors are different in his view than federal employees.’ Negotiators left the proposal out of the final compromise.
‘I’m sure it’s going to pass. I don’t know of any drama,’ said House Democrats’ chief vote-counter, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told the Associated Press.
President Donald Trump hasn’t given his final signal that he will sign a bipartisan compromise with $1.37 billion for border fencing, after a lengthy shutdown where he was demanding $5.7 billion for wall construction, though he is expected to do so
By accepting the compromise, Trump avoided yet another shutdown after the 35-day partial federal shutdown that began in December, battering Trump and Republicans in public opinion polls.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6703509/Border-security-brawl-near-serene-resolution.html
Trump will sign border bill, McConnell says, and declare national emergency
The Senate and House have voted to approve the measure.
6:30In a surprise development Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on the Senate floor that President Donald Trump told him he would sign a border security funding bill that would avert a government shutdown, but also would declare a national emergency in order to get more funding for his proposed border wall.
McConnell’s announcement caught Capitol Hill off guard. The Senate then voted to overwhelmingly approve the measure 83-16, sending it to the House for a vote late Thursday. The House approved the measure 300-128.
ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration.
A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction budget.
Many Republicans, including McConnell, had advised the president against declaring a national emergency, which is a challenge to Congress’ “power of the purse” — the power to decide how and where taxpayer money is spent. However, McConnell, in announcing the president’s decision Thursday afternoon, said he now supported the move.
“I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the President’s emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “The Judiciary Committee will also use its authority to hold the Administration to account and determine the supposed legal basis for the President’s actions.”
Democrats and some Republicans came out against the president’s plans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a joint statement, said the declaration would be a “lawless act” and a “gross abuse of the power of the presidency.”
“It is yet another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law,” their statement said, calling it “a desperate attempt to put taxpayers on the hook” for his border wall, adding that Congress “will defend our constitutional authorities.”
In a statement late Thursday, Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said, “If President Trump declares a national emergency to fund his border wall, I’m prepared to introduce a resolution to terminate the President’s emergency declaration.”
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday afternoon, “This approach does set a very bad precedent for future presidents, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, to feel that they can get around Congress’s constitutional role to allocate funding.
“It’s very serious and troubling to me,” she added.
Senior House Democrats and aides were waiting for Trump’s emergency declaration Thursday before deciding on how to best respond, but one aide said the House could take up and pass a joint resolution disapproving of any national emergency declaration — a move that would force Republican senators to go on the record on Trump’s controversial move.
“We’re going to fight him,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Rules Committee, said of Trump’s plans. “I think he’s going well beyond his constitutional powers, and he’s in for a hell of a fight.”
The spending deal crafted by top appropriators funding for the Department of Homeland Security and a handful of other federal agencies impacted by the 35-day government shutdown last month.
It includes $1.375 billion to build a physical barrier on the southern border – enough to construct about 55 miles of new fencing in new geographic areas, but less than the proposal rejected by the president late last year ahead of the shutdown.
It also includes hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for new border security and inspection technology at points of entry, and humanitarian relief, along with additional funding to increase the number of immigrant detention beds.
The increase in funding for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was enough for a handful of prominent progressive House Democrats to oppose the deal.
“We want to be abundantly clear: this is not a rebuke of federal workers or those who depend on the services they provide, but a rejection of the hateful policies, priorities, and rhetoric of the Trump Administration,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said in a statement.
Hours later, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also said she would vote against the deal.
“Congress must pass a strong DHS appropriations bill to bring accountability and humanity to our detention system. Unfortunately, this bill did not accomplish this and that is why I will vote no,” she wrote.
ABC News’ Sarah Kolinovsky and Trish Turner contributed to this report.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/landmines-border-bill-trump-hell-sign/story?id=61047358
The bipartisan spending binge is now worse than under Bush and Obama
· February 15, 2019
We’re now $22 trillion in debt, yet despite all that red ink, the Mexican cartels have control of our border and we’re not one bit closer to spending money on our own security. We’ve gone into deep debt for everything except the core function of the federal government.
It feels like it was yesterday when I was watching the news as a kid with my parents in 1995, listening to Newt Gingrich, during the infamous shutdown fight, warn about the dire consequences of crossing the $5 trillion debt milestone. It feels like it was yesterday when I was writing press releases for candidates in “the year of the Tea Party” on how Obama and the Pelosi Congress took the debt to $14 trillion in such a short period of time. Now, over eight years into varying degrees of GOP control of Congress and the White House, we have crossed the $22 trillion mark, expanding the debt more rapidly than at any time in our history. Whereas the debt exploded by $5 trillion during Bush’s eight-year tenure, a shocking figure at the time, it has now increased $8 trillion just since Republicans controlled the House in 2011 and by $4 trillion over the past four years, since they controlled at least two of the three political organs of government.
Now, the only question Republicans have is how many pennies of border security they will fight for, while refusing to challenge any of the nonessential and even harmful programs of the federal government. The GOP platform on debt and spending is a lie from top to bottom, as Republicans plan to pass more budget bills allowing us to blow through the budget caps without any effort to systemically reform the way we budget.
Now that Republicans are planning to cave on border funding, can they at least force a confrontation with Democrats over spending levels for functions of government that are nowhere near as important as border security? Thus, departments like HUD, which were able to completely shut down for a month with nobody noticing, will continue to enjoy record spending. We will continue to provide security for Kabul and Baghdad with the beefed-up military budget since last year’s budget deal, but no funding for our border or meaningful use of the military to protect our own sovereignty from the daily incursions by the most brutal cartels on earth.
Why even have a Republican Party any more?
Even more indefensible, unlike during the end of Bush’s years and the beginning of Obama’s tenure, when we first began accruing trillion-dollar annual deficits, we are not facing a deep recession. In fact, we are enjoying the most robust period of job growth since the late 1990s, and revenue is at a record high baseline.
Let it be known for all of time that dire predictions of revenue slumping as a result of the tax cuts were fake news. The entirety of the current deficit problem is due to increased spending. According to the latest monthly report released by the Treasury Department yesterday, spending was up 9.6 percent for the first three months of fiscal year 2019 relative to the first three months of FY 2018. What about revenues? They actually rose slightly by 0.2 percent, despite some declines in certain revenue categories. This is an important statistic, because it is the first clean metric we have comparing a period of time with the tax cuts in full implementation to a period before the tax cuts.
Moreover, some of the increased tax revenue from more payroll taxes likely would not have occurred without the job creation spawned by the tax cuts. If you isolate the revenue tallies for individual and corporate taxes, the government obviously did lose some revenue in certain categories, but it was made up by a $15 billion increase in payroll tax revenue (FICA, Social Security taxes), in addition to increased revenue from excise taxes.
The annual deficit after just three months stood at $319 trillion, well on pace to smash the trillion-dollar deficit mark for the first time in a booming economy.
Thus, this bipartisan era of debt is worse than anything we’ve seen this generation, and it is all happening with record revenue and a booming economy – with no world war consuming our economy and budget.
Thanks to Republican-approved budget deals, for the first three months of the fiscal year, outlays for HHS are up 12.5 percent, outlays for the Department of Education spiked 23 percent, and outlays for the Department of Commerce have doubled! Meanwhile, outlays on Homeland Security have actually been down by 30 percent because of less disaster spending under FEMA than last year. But it’s not like we went on a spending binge for Border Patrol and ICE. Outlays on military spending are up 8.45 percent, but again, what is the purpose of the military if we use it everywhere else in the world except against those who most directly harm us at our own border?
All of this spending is creating a crisis with interest payments on the debt. Net interest payments for the first quarter are up to $100 billion. That is an annualized pace of $400 billion, almost twice the level it has been in recent years. And this is just the beginning.
What is driving the most debt? The issue where Republicans now agree with Democrats: socialized medicine. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is now bashing the Freedom Caucus for opposing the key element of Obamacare responsible for driving up the cost of insurance, thereby generating the massive spending and the monopoly created by the health care industry.
Health care is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Federal spending on health care (not including state expenditures) is projected to be $17 trillion over the next 10 years, dwarfing the cost of Social Security and the military. By 2047, health care spending will be about 25 percent greater than the insolvent and crushing cost of Social Security. As such, health care in itself is the largest driver of the other great crisis, as noted: the mushrooming cost of the interest on the debt itself. Health care spending alone will be greater than all the revenue from payroll taxes and corporate income taxes combined and almost as large as individual income tax revenue.
This is all going to the creation of a monopoly in a circuitous death spiral of price inflation and increased government spending. It’s no mystery why our national expenditures on health care have popped from $27 billion in 1960 to over $3.3 trillion today. Assuming health care would rise at the same rate as the rest of the economy, that number would be under $250 billion today. If we flushed $1.6 trillion down the toilet every year, we’d come out with a better result because we’d just waste money. Now, we are taking that wasted money and artificially inflating the cost of health care to the point that nobody can afford it without government continuing the death spiral of spending, monopolizing, and price inflation.
Yet Republicans have acquiesced to every degree of this baseline and are only debating how much more socialized medicine they will countenance while fake-fighting the rest. Then they will say we have to agree to the new socialized medicine in order to fight the next plan. Rinse and repeat.
Now, instead of looking to cut spending elsewhere, Republican senators met with Ivanka Trump to see how they can create a new entitlement of paid family leave like they have in Europe, but of course without adding to the deficit and distorting our job market! They will find a “conservative way” to agree to Democrats.
With the deficits for FY 2019 skyrocketing just as much as the illegal immigration numbers, at some point conservatives need to asses their rate of return on the Republican Party.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/bipartisan-spending-binge-now-worse-bush-obama/
Story 2: When Will Trump Order The Investigation and Prosecution of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — The Greatest Scandal in United States History! — Twelve of Never or Will Attorney General Bill Barr Bust All The Conspirators? — Statue of Limitations Is Running — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch! — Videos Videos
Andrew McCabe tells “60 Minutes” why he opened investigations involving Trump
DOJ’s Bruce Ohr shared intel from dossier author with prosecutors now on Mueller’s team
Joe diGenova on Trump Attorney General William Barr Dec 12 2018
Tom Fitton: The Clintons, President Trump, & the Scandal of Our Generation
Perkins Coie is going to be sued: Joe diGenova
Grand Jury impaneled to probe fired FBI director Andrew McCabe: report
BREAKING: They’re All Flipping On Comey And McCabe – Will Testify
Joe diGenova: Walls closing in on Obama DOJ officials
3/19/18 Joe Digenova Goes After Dirty Cops Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan
Joe diGenova – How Can Sessions Not See A Coup d’état?
Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges
DiGenova: There was brazen plot to frame Trump
Former US attorney Joe DiGenova says there was a brazen plot within the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing and to frame Trump of a falsely constructed crime if she lost the presidential election. DiGenova also says the ‘lost’ texts beteween two FBI agents can be recovered
McCabe: There were 25th Amendment discussions at DOJ to remove Trump from office
.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says that after President Trump fired his boss, FBI Director James Comey, there were discussions within the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
Last year, the New York Times reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.
McCabe confirmed the report in a new interview with “60 Minutes” host Scott Pelley, who relayed what McCabe told him on “CBS This Morning” Thursday.
“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said.
In a statement released by the Justice Department, Rosenstein said McCabe’s account of a discussion of invoking the 25th amendment was “inaccurate and factually incorrect.”
Trump responded in a pair of tweets later Thursday morning.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax – a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won….
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
….Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign – he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
The discussions occurred between the time of Comey’s firing in May of 2017 and the appointment eight days later of special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
According to the Times, Rosenstein also suggested that he secretly record Trump in the White House. Rosenstein disputed the account, and a Justice Department official said he made the remark sarcastically. But McCabe told Pelley that Rosenstein’s offer to wear a wire was made more than once and that he ultimately took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss.
McCabe, who was named acting director of the bureau after Comey’s firing, launched obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.
He told Pelley he did so in order to preserve the FBI’s Russian probe in case there was an effort by Trump to terminate it.
“I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”
Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and President Trump. (Photo Illustration: Yahoo News; photos; Alex Wong/Getty Images, AP)
More
McCabe’s comments come ahead of the release of his new book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” due out next week.
In an excerpt of the book published Thursday in the Atlantic, McCabe describes a phone call he received from Trump on his first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI. According to McCabe, Trump told him that he had “hundreds of messages from FBI people [saying] how happy they are that I fired [Comey].”
“You know — boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying,” Trump said, according to McCabe. “Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?”
McCabe was eventually fired in March 2018, less than two days before he would have collected a full early pension for his FBI career.
“Andrew McCabe FIRED,” Trump tweeted on the day of McCabe’s dismissal. “A great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy.”
Trump has since railed against McCabe dozens of times on Twitter. “He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey – McCabe is Comey!” he exclaimed last April. “No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!”
https://news.yahoo.com/mccabe-25th-amendment-discussions-doj-remove-trump-office-140646145.html
Johnny Mathis – The Twelfth Of Never (Live)
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1208
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1150, October 3, 2018 — Story 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces The United States Termination of Treaty of Amity With Islamic Republic of Iran — Long Overdue — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser At Rally and FBI Sends Supplemental Background on Judge Kavanaugh To White House and Senate — Expect Senate Confirmation Vote Saturday — Videos — Story 3: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Views on U.S. Economy and Monetary Policy — Videos — Story 4: Job Market Booming With Private Payroll Surge of 230,000 in September 2018 — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018
Story 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Announces The United States Termination of Treaty of Amity With Islamic Republic of Iran — Long Overdue — Videos —
The United Nation’s Top Court Ordered The Trump Administration To Lift Sanctions On
Iran | TIME
USA: US to cancel 1955 treaty with Iran on economic ties, consular rights – Pompeo
Bolton: Iran made a mockery of the Treaty of Amity
John Bolton Says U.S. Will Review All Agreements That Expose It To The World Court
UN court orders US to lift some Iran sanctions
USA: US to cancel 1955 treaty with Iran on economic ties, consular rights – Pompeo
Watch Now: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo holds press conference, live stream
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Order in the case of Iran v. USA
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Order in the case of Iran v. USA
Iran Seeks Ruling of UN’s Highest Court to Lift US Sanctions
Iran today takes the USA to the Court of Justice in the Hague for imposing sanctions
US and Iran wait for the world court ruling on the legitimacy of US sanctions against Iran
Nigel Farage reacts to Trump trading barbs with Iran
Iran nuclear deal will remain valid regardless of U.S. decision, says EU policy chief
What comes next for the Iran nuclear deal?
The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Future of the JCPOA
Trump clashes with EU over Iran sanctions
Trump no nonsense approach on Iran is the right strategy: Gen. Jack Keane
Trump sanctions may spell the end for Iranian Revolution: John Hannah
President Donald Trump Delivers Remarks On Iran Deal – May 8, 2018 | CNBC
What is the International Court of Justice? The Role and Activities of the ICJ
US urges World Court to dismiss Iran’s lawsuit
Iran ‘Violated Its Obligations,’ U.S. Says As It Defends Sanctions | NBC News
US calls ruling a defeat for Iran, ends treaty
The United States on Wednesday called an international court ruling against its Iran sanctions a defeat for Tehran as it terminated a 1955 treaty on which the case was based.
The International Criminal Court ordered the United States to lift sanctions on medicine, food and civilian airplane spare parts, just as President Donald Trump tries to squeeze Iran’s economy.
But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that the UN court did not rule more broadly against US sanctions and he insisted that the United States already exempted humanitarian goods from the sanctions.
“The court’s ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran’s baseless requests,” Pompeo told reporters.
Accusing Iran of “abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes,” Pompeo announced that the United States was ending a friendship treaty signed when Iran was ruled by the pro-US shah.
“This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue,” Pompeo said, referring to the time since the 1979 Islamic revolution transformed Iran from one of the closest allies to a determined foe.
“Given Iran’s history of terrorism, ballistic missile activity and other malign behaviors, Iran’s claims under the treaty are absurd,” he said.
The Treaty of Amity with Iran, signed in 1955 and ratified by the US Senate a year later, lays out practicalities for unfettered economic relations and consular rights between the two countries.
The US withdrawal will have limited direct effect, with the two countries not even having diplomatic relations.
But Iran has repeatedly cited the treaty to press claims from the United States, including when the US Navy shot down an Iran Air civilian plane in 1988, killing 290 people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6236363/US-calls-ruling-defeat-Iran-ends-treaty.html
The U.S. Just Tore Up a Six-Decade-Old Treaty With Iran
nistration has been tightening the screws on Iran ever since the U.S. withdrew in May from the nuclear deal. It has imposed sanctions, increased its hostile rhetoric, and threatened its own allies for working with Tehran. Now comes one more item on that list: On Wednesday, the Trump administration tore up the little-known, Eisenhower-era Treaty of Amity with the Islamic Republic on the same day the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that U.S. sanctions on Iran must exempt humanitarian items.
Play The Atlantic Crossword
Our mini puzzle gets bigger and more challenging each day. See if you can solve your way through the week.
In announcing the decision concerning the 1955 treaty, Mike Pompeo, the U.S. secretary of state, said at the State Department, “This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue.”
The more than six-decade-old accord survived the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran that was followed by the takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and the hostage-taking of 52 Americans, including diplomats, for 444 days. It also survived what has mostly been low after low in the intervening decades, including near weekly chants of “Death to America” in the Islamic Republic, round after round of crippling U.S. sanctions, and even the shooting down, by the U.S. military, of an Iranian airliner with 290 people on board. As Farshad Kashani wrote in The National Interest, the two countries have used the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanism, which relies on the ICJ, at various times since 1988, when the Iran Air flight was shot down—most recently in July.
The Trump administration is meanwhile preparing to impose more punitive measures on the Islamic Republic next month. At the United Nations last week, Donald Trump asked “all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues.”
It’s Trump versus everyone else on Iran.
The Trump administration says it wants countries that buy Iranian oil to reduce their imports to zero, and has even threatened to sanction its partners who do business with Iran if they don’t stop. Those partners, which include European countries, Russia, and China, are working to devise their own system to work with Iran in order to keep the Islamic Republic in the nuclear agreement under which it agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for political and economic incentives. Additionally, the administration has set up an Iran Action Group whose work is centered on nuclear activities, terrorism, and the detention of American citizens in Iran.
The U.S. is developing a new way to weaken Iran.
The U.S. says the nuclear agreement rewarded Iran despite its malign activities. It accuses the Islamic Republic of supporting terrorism, of pursuing a ballistic-missile program, of supporting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime, and of fomenting unrest in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. Indeed, Iran’s influence in Iraq has become a key point of friction between the two countries as the fragile Iraqi state tries to form a government. Both countries have a strong influence in Iraq that they are keen to preserve. In past years, they have maintained a tacit understanding on their respective allies in the country.
Read about Trump’s warning to Iran’s activity in Iraq.
But last week, the U.S. pulled American diplomats from the consulate in Basra, just days after accusing Iran of not preventing rockets being fired at the facility. On Wednesday, Pompeo repeated those remarks, holding Tehran responsible.
“Iran is the origin of the current threat to Americans in Iraq,” he said. “Our intelligence in this regard is solid. We can see the hand of the ayatollah and his henchmen supporting these attacks on the United States.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/pompeo-iran-treaty-of-amity/572050/
Pompeo announces termination of 1955 treaty with Iran after sanctions ruling
Last Updated Oct 3, 2018 2:14 PM EDT
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Wednesday that the United States would be terminating a 1955-era treaty of amity with Iran that regulates economic and consular ties between the two countries. Pompeo called it a move that was “39 years overdue.”
Ties between the two nations have been strained for decades but have come to a head since the Trump administration moved to pull out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The administration has admonished Iran and the regime’s leadership for its “malign behavior” and for pursuing nuclear ambitions.
The move to end the treaty comes after the United Nations’ top court on Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on “humanitarian” goods to Iran that Mr. Trump re-imposed after pulling out of the nuclear pact. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously ruled that Washington “shall remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on May 8 to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities” as well as airplane parts, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf wrote.
The court said sanctions on goods “required for humanitarian needs… may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran.”
Pompeo said Iran had brought a “meritless case” to the ICJ, alleging violations of the 1955 pact, and he suggested Iran wants to challenge the U.S. decision to pull out of the nuclear deal.
“Iran has attempted to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions as necessary to protect our national security and Iran is abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes,” said Pompeo.
Pompeo said in the meantime, the U.S. will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people, but called on Iranian leadership to spend money on its own people, instead of “fomenting terror around the world.”
“Those are dollars the Iranian leadership is squandering, they could be providing humanitarian assistance to their own people but have chosen a different path,” he said.
In addition to leaving the amity treaty, national security adviser John Bolton announced during Wednesday’s press briefing that the U.S. will also withdraw from the Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in connection with a case brought by the Palestinians to the ICJ challenging the United States’ embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem earlier this year.
“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the US to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice — admin will conduct a review of all its involvement with the International Court of Justice,” he said.
Bolton told reporters that the U.S. remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, “and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.”
The administration’s latest comments came after President Trump chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council last week and emphasized the importance of keeping the world free of the scourge of chemical weapons. The meeting focused on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in Iran.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pompeo-speaks-to-reporters-at-state-department-live-stream/
Bolton calls U.N. world court ‘politicized,’ U.S. to limit exposure
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States is taking steps to avoid exposure to binding decisions by the International Court of Justice, the U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday as he accused the U.N. court of being “politicized and ineffective.”
U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton answers a question from a reporter about how he refers to Palestine during a news conference in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S.,
October 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier on Wednesday said that Washington was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran, after the International Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, did not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation.
The ICJ, based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, is the United Nations’ venue for resolving disputes between nations.
There have been mounting concerns among U.S. allies about the Trump administration’s commitment to multilateralism.
In the nearly two years since being elected, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a nuclear agreement between six powers and Iran, pulled out of a global climate accord, left the U.N. cultural agency, and threatened NATO military allies that the United States would “go its own way” if members did not spend more on defense.
U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton answers questions from reporters after announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Vienna protocol and the 1955 “Treaty of Amity” with Iran as White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders looks on during a news conference in the White House briefing room in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis
Wednesday’s ruling by the International Court handed a small victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the Trump administration violated the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.
Bolton, citing what he called “Iran’s abuse of the ICJ,” said that the United States would withdraw from the “optional protocol” under the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations.
“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction, dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” Bolton said on Wednesday. “The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.”The decision to withdraw from the optional protocol follows a complaint brought by the Palestinians in September, which challenged Washington’s decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The Vienna Convention is an international treaty setting out diplomatic relations between states. It is often cited as a means to provide diplomatic immunity.
In 2005, the Bush administration took issue with the ICJ after it ruled that the execution of a Mexican national in Texas breached U.S. obligations under international law.
The Palestinians argued that the U.S. government’s placement of its embassy in Jerusalem violated an international treaty and that it should be moved.
“This really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which we think is politicized and ineffective,” Bolton said.
He added: “I’d like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.”
Palestine was recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 2012 as a non-member observer state, though its statehood is not recognized by either Israel or the United States.
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (United States–Iran)
Jump to navigationJump to search
 |
This article may be affected by a current event. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was signed in Tehran on August 15, 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957.[1]
On 3 October 2018, following on the same day of a ruling by the International Court of Justice, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States “is terminating” the treaty.[2] On the same day, the termination of the treaty with the Pahlavi Iran was reiterated by John Bolton.[3]
References
- Jump up^ United Nations Publications (2009). Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders of the International Court of Justice, 2003-2007. p. 27. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
- Jump up^ “Pompeo pulls out of treaty with Iran, in response to UN court ruling”. Fox News. 3 October 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
- Jump up^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFv-WIyTSe8
International Court of Justice
Jump to navigationJump to search
| International Court of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Cour internationale de justice | |
International Court of Justice Seal
|
|
| Established | 1945 (PCIJ dissolved in 1946) |
| Country | Worldwide, 193 state parties |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands |
| Coordinates | 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″ECoordinates: 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″E |
| Authorized by | |
| Judge term length | 9 years |
| No. of positions | 15 |
| Website | www.icj-cij.org |
| President | |
| Currently | Abdulqawi Yusuf |
| Since | 6 February 2018 |
| Lead position ends | 5 February 2020 |
| Vice President | |
| Currently | Xue Hanqin |
| Since | 6 February 2018 |
| Lead position ends | 5 February 2020 |
| United Nations System |
|---|
 |
| Principal Organs |
| United Nations Secretariat |
| United Nations Security Council |
| United Nations General Assembly |
| International Court of Justice |
| United Nations Economic and Social Council |
| United Nations Trusteeship Council |
The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ; commonly referred to as the World Court)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.[2]
Activities
The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, seat of the ICJ
Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the court.[3]
The court’s workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After the court ruled that the United States‘s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[4] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case.[5]
Composition
Public hearing at the ICJ.
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of people nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term.
No two judges may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the court is supposed to represent the “main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world”. Essentially, that has meant common law, civil law and socialist law (now post-communist law).
There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed by geographic regions so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states (including one judge of francophone civil law, one of Anglophone common law and one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin American and Caribbean states.[6] For most of the court’s history, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge serving, thereby occupying three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. Exceptions have been China not having a judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, during which time it did not put forward a candidate, and British judge Sir Christopher Greenwood being withdrawn as a candidate for election for a second nine-year term on the bench in 2017, leaving no judges from the United Kingdom on the court.[7] Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly.[7] Indian judge Dalveer Bhandari instead took the seat.[7]
Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be “elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character” who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 16–18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post or act as counsel. In practice, members of the court have their own interpretation of these rules and allow them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of the other members of the court.[8] Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua case, the United States issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the court because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc states.[9]
Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Advisory Opinions are by majority, and, in the event of an equal division, the President’s vote becomes decisive, which occurred in the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Opinion requested by WHO), [1996] ICJ Reports 66. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions.
Ad hoc judges[
Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases before the court. The system allows any party to a contentious case (if it otherwise does not have one of that party’s nationals sitting on the court) to select one additional person to sit as a judge on that case only. It is thus possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case.
The system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases. For example, if a state knows that it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state’s perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in favour of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.[10]
Chambers
Generally, the court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years, it has on occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26–29 of the statute allow the court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993, a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with environmental matters (although it has never been used).
Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (Canada/US).[11] In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the court appointed judges to the chamber acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may either less authority than full Court judgments or diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage greater recourse to the court and thus enhance international dispute resolution.[12]
Current composition
As of 22 June 2018, the composition of the court is as follows:[13][14]
| Name | Nationality | Position | Term began | Term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf |  Somalia |
Presidenta | 2009 | 2027 |
| Xue Hanqin |  China |
Vice-Presidenta | 2010 | 2021 |
| Yuji Iwasawa |  Japan |
Member | 2018 | 2021 |
| Peter Tomka |  Slovakia |
Member | 2003 | 2021 |
| Mohamed Bennouna |  Morocco |
Member | 2006 | 2024 |
| Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade |  Brazil |
Member | 2009 | 2027 |
| Nawaf Salam |  Lebanon |
Member | 2018 | 2027 |
| Ronny Abraham |  France |
Member | 2005 | 2027 |
| Joan E. Donoghue |  United States |
Member | 2010 | 2024 |
| Giorgio Gaja |  Italy |
Member | 2012 | 2021 |
| Julia Sebutinde |  Uganda |
Member | 2012 | 2021 |
| Dalveer Bhandari |  India |
Member | 2012 | 2021 |
| James Crawford |  Australia |
Member | 2015 | 2024 |
| Kirill Gevorgian |  Russia |
Member | 2015 | 2024 |
| Patrick Lipton Robinson |  Jamaica |
Member | 2015 | 2024 |
| Philippe Couvreur |  Belgium |
Registrar | 2014 | 2021 |
| a 2018–2021. | ||||
Presidents
| # | President | Start | End | Country |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | José Gustavo Guerrero | 1946 | 1949 |  El Salvador |
| 2 | Jules Basdevant | 1949 | 1952 | France |
| 3 | Arnold McNair | 1952 | 1955 |  United Kingdom |
| 4 | Green Hackworth | 1955 | 1958 | United States |
| 5 | Helge Klæstad | 1958 | 1961 |  Norway |
| 6 | Bohdan Winiarski | 1961 | 1964 |  Poland |
| 7 | Percy Spender | 1964 | 1967 | Australia |
| 8 | José Bustamante y Rivero | 1967 | 1970 |  Peru |
| 9 | Muhammad Zafarullah Khan | 1970 | 1973 |  Pakistan |
| 10 | Manfred Lachs | 1973 | 1976 | Poland |
| 11 | Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga | 1976 | 1979 |  Uruguay |
| 12 | Humphrey Waldock | 1979 | 1981 | United Kingdom |
| 13 | Taslim Elias | 1982 | 1985 |  Nigeria |
| 14 | Nagendra Singh | 1985 | 1988 | India |
| 15 | José Ruda | 1988 | 1991 |  Argentina |
| 16 | Robert Jennings | 1991 | 1994 | United Kingdom |
| 17 | Mohammed Bedjaoui | 1994 | 1997 |  Algeria |
| 18 | Stephen Schwebel | 1997 | 2000 | United States |
| 19 | Gilbert Guillaume | 2000 | 2003 | France |
| 20 | Shi Jiuyong | 2003 | 2006 | China |
| 21 | Rosalyn Higgins | 2006 | 2009 | United Kingdom |
| 22 | Hisashi Owada | 2009 | 2012 | Japan |
| 23 | Peter Tomka | 2012 | 2015 | Slovakia |
| 24 | Ronny Abraham | 2015 | 2018 | France |
| 25 | Abdulqawi Yusuf | 2018 | Somalia |
Jurisdiction
|
Parties upon becoming a UN member
Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93
UN observer states that are not parties
|
As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the court’s statute.[15] Non-UN members may also become parties to the court’s statute under the Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and Nauru became a party in 1988.[16] Once a state is a party to the court’s statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the three types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.[17]
Contentious issues
First gathering after Second World War, Dutch newsreel from 1946
In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases although the court may receive information from public international organizations. That does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if a state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in cases of “diplomatic protection”, bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.[18]
Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the court in contentious cases. (See Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the court’s jurisdiction may be founded:
- First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the court (jurisdiction founded on “special agreement” or “compromis“). This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the court’s jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court and are thus more likely to comply with the court’s judgment.
- Second, 36(1) also gives the court jurisdiction over “matters specifically provided for… in treaties and conventions in force”. Most modern treaties contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ.[19]Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and did not comply with the judgment.[20] Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.[21]
- Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations accepting the court’s jurisdiction. The label “compulsory” sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes (“ratione materia“).[22] The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force.[23] Of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration. In the court’s early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the Nicaragua Case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the court since the 1980s.[citation needed] Industrialized countries, however, have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Examples include the United States, as mentioned previously, and Australia, which modified its declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, which gained their independence two months later).[24]
- Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice‘s statute. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
- In addition, the court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (forum prorogatum). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction is established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (1949), in which the court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.
Incidental jurisdiction
Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute. One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. In the Frontier Dispute Case, both parties to the dispute, Burkina Faso and Mali submitted an application to the court to indicate interim measures.[25] Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of the Statute of it.[26] Such as the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. The ICJ has competence to indicate interim measures only if the prima facie jurisdiction is satisfied.
Advisory opinions
Audience of the “Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo”
An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council a power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Other organs of the UN rather than GA and SC may not request an advisory opinion of the ICJ unless the General Assembly authorizes them. Other organs of the UN only request an advisory opinion of the court regarding the matters falling into the scope of their activities.[27] On receiving a request, the court decides which states and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the court’s help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.
In principle, the court’s advisory opinions are only consultative in character but they are influential and widely respected. Certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, but inherently, they are non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the court’s authoritative views on important issues of international law. In arriving at them, the court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.
An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.[28]
Advisory opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section advisory opinions in the List of International Court of Justice cases article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the Nuclear Weapons Case.
ICJ and the Security Council
Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the United States’ noncompliance with the court’s decision before the Security Council.[9] Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done that so far.
The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered by the court in 1992 in the Pan Am case. The court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom and United States. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted in a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial function of the court. The court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, could not be prima facieregarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless, the court declared the application admissible in 1998.[29] A decision on the merits has not been given since the parties (United Kingdom, United States, and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003.
There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the Council. The court stated in the Nicaragua case that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council and adjudication by the ICJ. However, when there is room for conflict, the balance appears to be in favour of the Security Council.
Should either party fail “to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court”, the Security Council may be called upon to “make recommendations or decide upon measures” if the Security Council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the court’s powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the court’s ruling and by the Security Council’s unwillingness to impose consequences. However, in theory, “so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal”, and “by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.”
For example, the United States had previously accepted the court’s compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after Nicaragua v. United States, withdrew its acceptance following the court’s judgment that called on the US to “cease and to refrain” from the “unlawful use of force” against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was “in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua” and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.[9]
Examples of contentious cases
- A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law.[30]
- A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.[31]
- A complaint by Iran after the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser.[32]
- A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.[33]
- A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 because of lack of jurisdiction, the FRY not being a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application.[34]
- A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece is, by vetoing its accession to NATO, in violation of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995[35] between the two countries. The complaint was decided in favour of Macedonia on 5 December 2011.[36]
- A complaint by the Democratic Republic of the Congo that the DRC’s sovereignty had been violated by Uganda and that DRC had lost billions of dollars worth of resources,[37] was decided in favour of the DRC.[38]
- A complaint by the Republic of India regarding death penalty awarded to Indian citizen by a Pakistani military court. [39] Pakistan arrested Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian citizen for alleged espionage and subversive activities.
Law applied
When deciding cases, the court applies international law as summarized in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which provides that in arriving at its decisions the court shall apply international conventions, international custom and the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” It may also refer to academic writing (“the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations”) and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law although the court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. Article 59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The court’s decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the court may consider its own previous decisions.
If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono (“in justice and fairness”),[40] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. That provision has not been used in the court’s history. So far, the International Court of Justice has dealt with about 130 cases.
Procedure
The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[12]
Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant, which files a written memorial setting out the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the court’s jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case.
Preliminary objections
A respondent that does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the court may raise preliminary objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the court can address the merits of the applicant’s claim. Often, a separate public hearing is held on the preliminary objections and the court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction, such as the fact that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a “legal dispute”.
In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the court. If the case necessarily requires the court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction, the court does not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits.
If the court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent then is required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant’s claim. Once all written arguments are filed, the court holds a public hearing on the merits.
Once a case has been filed, any party (usually the applicant) may seek an order from the court to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in United States law. Article 41 of the statute allows the court to make such orders. The court must be satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before it grants provisional measures.
Applications to intervene
In cases in which a third state’s interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state “with an interest of a legal nature” may apply; however, it is within the court’s discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare, and the first successful application occurred only in 1991.
Judgment and remedies
Once deliberation has taken place, the court issues a majority opinion. Individual judges may issue concurring opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No appeal is possible, but any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the court’s judgment.[41]
Criticisms
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2015)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with criticisms of the United Nations, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:[42][43][44]
- “Compulsory” jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
- Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court or appeal a national supreme court’s ruling. UN agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, may not have appropriate backing by a state.
- Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
- The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound.[45] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.
See also
- International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
- International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
- List of International Court of Justice cases
- List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice
- Supranational aspects of international organizations
- Universal jurisdiction
Notes …
Further reading
- Dunne, Michael. “Isolationism of a Kind: Two Generations of World Court Historiography in the United States,” Journal of American Studies (1987) 21#3 pp 327–351.
- Rosenne S., “Rosenne’s the world court: what it is and how it works 6th ed (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003).
- Kwiatkowska, Barbara, “Decisions of the World Court Relevant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”. Relevant to the UNCLOS, dedicated to Former ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel (Brill, 2010)
- Van Der Wolf W. & De Ruiter D., “The International Court of Justice: Facts and Documents About the History and Work of the Court” (International Courts Association, 2011)
- Wilde, Ralph and Charlesworth, Hilary and Schrijver, Nico and Krisch, Nico and Chimni, B. S. and Gowlland-Debbas, Vera and Klabbers, Jan and Yee, Sienho and Shearer, Ivan, United Nations Reform Through Practice: Report of the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform (December 11, 2011).
- Kolb, Robert, The International Court of Justice (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2013).
- Bowett, D W. The International court of justice : process, practice and procedure (British Institute of International and Comparative Law: London, 1997).
- Sienho Yee, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases, 7 Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2016), 472–498.
- Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2d. ed. October 2012, Oxford University Press).
External links
|
Wikimedia Commons has media related to International Court of Justice. |
- International Court of Justice, Official site
- ICJ Multimedia Gallery (photos, videos, webstreaming)
- List of cases ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in 1946
- Peace Palace Library – ICJ Research Guide
- The Statute of the International Court of Justice on the United Nations AVL: summary of the procedural history, list of selected preparatory documents and audiovisual material related to the negotiations and adoption of the Statute.
- Hague Justice Portal: Academic gateway to The Hague organizations concerning international peace, justice and security.
- International Criminal Court : See also, a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression
Lectures
- The ICJ in the Service of Peace and Justice, Conference organized on the Occasion of the Centenary of the Peace Palace
- Lecture by Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh entitled Reflections on the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Mohamed Bennouna entitled La Cour internationale de Justice, juge des souverainetés? in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Philippe Couvreur entitled La Cour internationale de Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Vera Gowlland-Debbas entitled The International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Mariko Kawano entitled Some Salient Features of the Contemporary International Disputes in the Precedents of the International Court of Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Mariko Kawano entitled International Court of Justice and Disputes Involving the Interests of Third Parties to the Proceedings or the Common Interests of the International Community as a Whole or of the Community Established by a Convention in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Edward McWhinney entitled Judicial Activism and the International Court of Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Alain Pellet entitled Conseil devant la Cour internationale de Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Jiuyong Shi entitled The Present and Future Role of the International Court of Justice in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
Story 2: President Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser At Rally and FBI Sends Supplemental Background on Judge Kavanaugh To White House and Senate — Expect Senate Confirmation Vote Saturday — Videos —
Trump mocks Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate testimony
At a “Make America Great Again” rally Tuesday night in Mississippi, President Trump mocked testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who is Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s most prominent accusers of sexual assault. Ford appeared Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Kavanaugh report could be finished tomorrow, FBI says
Tucker on claims made by Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend
Kavanaugh hearings have energized our base: RNC Chair
Ronna McDaniel: Republicans are going on offense and defense
Can FBI be trusted in Kavanaugh investigation?
Dershowitz: Rules have been called off on Kavanaugh
Ingraham: Academic resistance to Kavanaugh
What the FBI might be looking for in the Brett Kavanaugh probe
Trump expands scope of FBI probe into Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh rejects classmate’s ‘belligerent’ characterization of college years
Republican Sen. Kennedy Wants Kavanaugh’s FBI Report Made Public
Exclusive: Ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks out
RECAP: All 3 ‘Witnesses’ Named By Ford And Questioned By FBI Deny Knowledge Of Party
Trump governs from a centrist view: Tucker Carlson
The Vicious Treatment of Judge Kavanaugh Guarantees Red Wave Devastation in Midterms and Trump 2020
The FBI confidential Kavanaugh report: Who’s allowed to read it and where
All 100 senators will have secure access to the new information, but not their staffs. They can’t speak publicly about what’s in the file.
by Frank Thorp V and Garrett Haake /
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., leaves a closed meeting in the Capitol’s secure room on Russia sanctions on July 31, 2018.Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
WASHINGTON — The FBI’s supplemental background investigation will be delivered soon to Capitol Hill and added to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s current background investigation file.
What will be delivered, according to aides and senators, are the “302” forms of the FBI interviews, which summarize the contents of the interviews. The FBI will not be delivering findings or a conclusion as to who’s telling the truth in the case.
All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There also are 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report — there are no pdf’s or emails of it. And it will not be made public.
OCT.03.201806:58
When the supplemental background investigation is delivered, it’s unclear how the information will be disseminated to all 100 Senators in a timely fashion considering that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to vote this week.
There are not multiple copies of the background investigation file, and senators cannot go pick it up and bring it home with them. They need to either go to a secure area designated in the Judiciary Committee offices, or a designated staffer can bring it to a senator and then return it.
Republican senators said Wednesday that the file will be held in the Senate SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), which is the classified area of the Capitol Visitor’s Center. The SCIF could be used so more senators can be accommodated than in the Judiciary Committee offices, which are fairly small.
According to committee aides and a document dictating how the file is to be handled, “The Security Manager shall maintain in a locked safe a log that reflects the date, time, and particular FBI background investigation report received by the Committee.”
The information in the background investigation file is not marked top secret or classified, but it is not to be leaked to even characterized. Senators are “not allowed to share any details whatsoever,” a committee aide said.
That rule will likely be tested.
Trump’s Mocking of Kavanaugh Accusers Stuns Senators Before Vote
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump mocked two of the women who have come forward with claims that Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexual assault and other misconduct in the 1980s, earning bipartisan criticism from U.S. senators currently weighing the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation.
Speaking Tuesday night at a rally in Southaven, Mississippi, Trump attacked the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford, who last week testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh drunkenly assaulted her during a high school party more than 30 years ago.
The president, who days ago said Ford’s testimony was “very credible,” ridiculed her memory to cheers in the audience, suggesting certain details she didn’t recall were evidence that she wasn’t telling the truth.
“How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where was the place? I don’t remember,” Trump said, mocking Ford’s answers during last week’s hearing.
The remarks drew a rebuke Wednesday not just from Democrats but also Senator Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who forced an additional FBI investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh by threatening to withhold his vote for confirmation.
Flake said Trump’s comments were “kind of appalling” in an interview with NBC News.
“There is no time and no place for remarks like that,” Flake said. “But to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right.”
Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and key undecided vote in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle, was also critical of Trump.
“The president’s comments were just plain wrong,” Collins said in a statement.
A third undecided Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was asked whether Trump’s comments would affect her decision on whether to back Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
“I am taking everything into account and I think the comments by the president yesterday mocking Dr. Ford were wholly inappropriate,” Murkowski said.
Their remarks echoed those of Democrats, who condemned Trump as insensitive to Ford and women who had faced sexual harassment and assault. Ford, a California psychology professor, told the Senate that she is “100 percent” certain Kavanaugh was her attacker.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer assailed Trump’s comments.
“President Trump’s outright mockery of a sexual assault survivor, riddled as it was with falsehoods, was reprehensible, beneath the office of the presidency and beneath common decency from one person to another,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “He’s ruining the norms of America. He’s so degrading the way people treat each other.”
Beto O’Rourke, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, tweeted that Ford “should be treated with dignity and respect — not demeaned and belittled by the President of the United States.”
Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, tweeted that the remarks were “sadly what we expect from the president.”
“For a brief moment this week, I respected his relatively good comments about having a full investigation,” Jayapal said. “That lasted for a nanosecond.”
And Angus King, an independent U.S. senator from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, said in an interview with CNN that Trump’s comments “made me feel sort of sick.” The senior senator from King’s state, Republican Susan Collins, is seen as a crucial swing vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Ford’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, called the president’s comments “a vicious, vile and soulless attack.”
“Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well?” he tweeted. “She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice.”
GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong backer of Kavanaugh, offered a milder criticism of the president while speaking to the Atlantic Festival on Wednesday. “President Trump went through a factual rendition that I didn’t particularly like, and I would tell him, knock it off. You’re not helping,” the senator said.
‘Scary Time’
On Monday, Trump said Kavanaugh’s testimony last week — which immediately followed Ford’s — showed that the nominee had “a little bit of difficulty” with alcohol when he was younger, undercutting Kavanaugh’s own portrayal of his drinking habits in high school and college.
Earlier Tuesday, the president previewed his change in tone as he departed the White House, saying “it’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of.” When asked whether he had a message for American women, Trump said: “Women are doing great.”
At the Mississippi rally, where Trump was promoting the candidacy of Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, Trump also turned his ire toward Julie Swetnick, who claims Kavanaugh took part in efforts at parties during high school to get girls intoxicated so that groups of boys could have sex with them.
“This woman had no clue what was going on, and yet she made the most horrible charges,” Trump said, pointing out that Kavanaugh went to Yale as apparent evidence that the claims were spurious.
Kavanaugh has denied Swetnick and Ford’s claims.
Midterm Effect
The controversy around Kavanaugh’s nomination has erupted just a month before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Trump is logging multiple trips each week to rally support for Republican candidates he needs to win, and on Tuesday showed he’s ready to stoke voters by vociferously fighting for his nominee amid an FBI investigation into the allegations.
It isn’t clear how Trump’s mockery of the women will play politically. The Kavanaugh hearing crystallized what has become a central divide in American politics. On one side: women who for decades have suffered as their stories of sexual assault and harassment went ignored or ridiculed. On the other: conservative men aggrieved by a system they see as rigged against them and rife with unfair and reputation-destroying accusations.
Opinions of Ford’s testimony — on social media and television networks — were that she was powerful and believable. Her vivid, specific and heartbreaking account invited contrast with the angry bickering over Senate rules and procedures by lawmakers, as well as Kavanaugh’s subsequent combative testimony.
Kavanaugh’s repeated references to liking beer — and initial attempts to avoid answering a question on whether he had ever blacked out from alcohol use — have been the subject of parody, including a skit on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” Yale University classmate Charles Ludington released a statement saying Kavanaugh’s testimony — in which he eventually said he’d never blacked out — was a “blatant mischaracterization.”
The White House agreed on Monday to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation question more people in connection with the allegations that Kavanaugh was sexually abusive toward women following growing criticism that the probe was too constrained. But the bureau isn’t doing its own deep dive into the nominee’s alcohol use or whether he gave false testimony to a Senate panel last week, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has said the Senate will hold a confirmation vote for Kavanaugh this week.
McConnell vows Republicans won’t be intimidated by Kavanaugh protesters
Senate majority leader cites harassment at airports, homes
ReutersSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushed back at protesters who are confronting Republicans over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying members of the GOP won’t be prevented from taking a vote on President Donald Trump’s pick.
‘I want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my members around the hall here, or harassing them at the airports, or going to their homes: we will not be intimidated.’
Kentucky Republican McConnell made his vow from the floor Wednesday as senators prepare to vote on the nomination of Kavanaugh this week. The judge has been accused of sexual assault, and the vote was delayed to allow for an FBI investigation. He has denied the charges.
The Hill reports McConnell and Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, were both confronted at Reagan National Airport outside Washington on Monday by women who said they were survivors of sexual assault. Protesters have also followed senators coming in and out of hearings this week.
Republicans hold a slim 51-seat majority in the Senate, so Kavanaugh’s nomination can afford no more than one GOP defection. In the event of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence would vote.
On Tuesday night, Trump mocked college professor Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Key GOP senators condemned the president’s comments.
Kaitlan Collins
✔@kaitlancollins
What the key senators think of President Trump ridiculing Christine Blasey Ford:
Flake: “Kind of appalling.”
Collins: “Just plain wrong.”
Murkowski: “Wholly inappropriate and unacceptable.”
But will it affect their votes on Kavanaugh? Flake says it won’t his.
Story 3: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Views on U.S. Economy and Monetary Policy — Videos —
LIVE: Fed Chair Jerome Powell Speaks at the Atlantic Festival – Oct. 3, 2018
What keeps US Fed’s Powell up at night? Everything
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell doesn’t get much sleep worrying about potential risks to the economy
Is inflation about to rise? Are interest rates too high? Or too low? Are economic risks lurking? These are the fears that keep US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell from getting a good night’s sleep.
While he was generally upbeat about the US economy, predicting that the good news could continue “effectively indefinitely,” when asked Wednesday what keeps him up at night, Powell said, “Basically everything.”
“Nobody wants a central banker who sleeps well. What good is that?” Powell told a forum hosted by The Atlantic.
Concerns about getting monetary policy right top the list but Powell said, “It’s a world full of risk. I probably lose sleep over different things every night.”
But even so, he noted that the US economy was seeing very low, and falling, unemployment along with moderate inflation.
“There is really no reason to think this cycle can’t continue for quite some time,” he said.
Whenever the next crisis comes, he predicted it will not look like the last one — and there are no signs of financial instability or banking issues — but would be something like a cyber-attack or global event.
Rising protectionism and slowing of an important economy like China would be “bad for American workers and the American economy,” he said.
But if President Donald Trump’s trade confrontations — which so far include cranking up tariffs on half of the goods imported from China — result in lower tariffs and better trade rules, “that will be good for us.”
Jerome Powell
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Jerome Powell | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| 16th Chairman of the Federal Reserve | |
| Assumed office February 5, 2018 |
|
| President | Donald Trump |
| Deputy | Richard Clarida |
| Preceded by | Janet Yellen |
| Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors | |
| Assumed office May 25, 2012 |
|
| President | Barack Obama Donald Trump |
| Preceded by | Frederic Mishkin |
| Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance | |
| In office 1992–1993 |
|
| President | George H. W. Bush |
| Preceded by | Robert R. Glauber |
| Succeeded by | Frank N. Newman |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Jerome Hayden Powell February 4, 1953 Washington, D.C., U.S. |
| Political party | Republican[1] |
| Spouse(s) |
Elissa Leonard (m. 1985)
|
| Children | 3 |
| Residence | Chevy Chase, Maryland, U.S. |
| Education | Princeton University (AB) Georgetown University (JD) |
| Net worth | $112 million[2][3] |
Jerome Hayden “Jay” Powell (born February 4, 1953) is the 16th and current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, serving in that office since February 2018. He was nominated to the Fed Chair position by President Donald Trump, and confirmed by the United States Senate.[4][5]
Powell earned a degree in politics from Princeton University in 1975 and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 1979. He moved to investment banking in 1984, and has since worked for several financial institutions. He briefly served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance under President George H. W. Bush in 1992. More recently, he was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center from 2010 to 2012. He has served as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since 2012.
Early life and education
Powell was born on February 4, 1953 in Washington, D.C., as one of six children to Patricia (née Hayden; 1926–2010)[6] and Jerome Powell (1921–2007),[7] a lawyer in private practice and a World War II veteran.[8][9] His maternal grandfather, James J. Hayden, was Dean of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America and later a lecturer at Georgetown Law School.[10] He had five siblings, Susan, Matthew, Tia, Libby and Monica.[8]
In 1972, Powell graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit university-preparatory school. He received a Bachelor of Arts in politics from Princeton University in 1975, where his senior thesis was titled “South Africa: Forces for Change.”[11] In 1975–76, he spent a year as a legislative assistant to Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker (R),[12][13] who had been named by Ronald Reagan as his probable vice presidential running mate on the 1976 ticket, had Reagan succeeded in securing the GOP nomination.
Powell earned a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1979, where he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Law Journal.[14]
Career
In 1979, Powell moved to New York City and became a clerk to Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 1981 to 1983, Powell was a lawyer with Davis Polk & Wardwell, and from 1983 to 1984, he worked at the firm of Werbel & McMillen.[13]
From 1984 to 1990, Powell worked at Dillon, Read & Co., an investment bank, where he concentrated on financing, merchant banking, and mergers and acquisitions, rising to the position of vice president.[13][15]
Between 1990 and 1993, Powell worked in the United States Department of the Treasury, at which time Nicholas F. Brady, the former chairman of Dillon, Read & Co., was the United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1992, Powell became the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance after being nominated by George H. W. Bush.[13][15][12] During his stint at the Treasury, Powell oversaw the investigation and sanctioning of Salomon Brothers after one of its traders submitted false bids for a United States Treasury security.[16] Powell was also involved in the negotiations that made Warren Buffett the chairman of Salomon.[17]
In 1993, Powell began working as a managing director for Bankers Trust, but he quit in 1995 after the bank got into trouble when several customers suffered large losses due to derivatives. He then went back to work for Dillon, Read & Co.[15]
From 1997 to 2005, Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group, where he founded and led the Industrial Group within the Carlyle U.S. Buyout Fund.[14][18]
After leaving Carlyle, Powell founded Severn Capital Partners, a private investment firm focused on specialty finance and opportunistic investments in the industrial sector.[19]
In 2008, Powell became a managing partner of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity and venture capital firm that invests in sustainable energy.[19]
Between 2010 and 2012, Powell was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he worked on getting Congress to raise the United States debt ceiling during the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. Powell presented the implications to the economy and interest rates of a default or a delay in raising the debt ceiling.[18] He worked for a salary of $1 per year.[2]
Federal Reserve Board of Governors]
.jpg)
Powell speaks in 2015
In December 2011, along with Jeremy C. Stein, Powell was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Barack Obama. The nomination included two people to help garner bipartisan support for both nominees since Stein’s nomination had previously been filibustered. Powell’s nomination was the first time that a president nominated a member of the opposition party for such a position since 1988.[1] He took office on May 25, 2012, to fill the unexpired term of Frederic Mishkin, who resigned. In January 2014, he was nominated for another term, and, in June 2014, he was confirmed by the United States Senate in a 67-24 vote for a 14-year term ending January 31, 2028.[20]
In 2013, Powell made a speech regarding financial regulation and ending “too big to fail“.[21] In April 2017, he took over oversight of the “too big to fail” banks.[22]
Chair of the Federal Reserve[edit]
.jpg)
Powell sworn in as chair in 2018
On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[23]
On December 5, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee approved Powell’s nomination to be Chair in a 22–1 vote, with Senator Elizabeth Warren casting the lone dissenting vote.[24] His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on January 23, 2018 by a 84–13 vote.[25] Powell assumed office as Chair on February 5, 2018.
Economic philosophy
Monetary policy
A survey of 30 economists in March 2017 noted that Powell was slightly more of a monetary dove than the average member of the Board of Governors.[citation needed] However, The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (i.e. neither a hawk nor a dove). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation.[26]
Financial regulation
.jpg)
Powell testifies before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2018
Powell “appears to largely support” the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, although he has stated that “we can do it more efficiently”.[26] In an October 2017 speech, Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks.[26]
Housing finance reform
In a July 2017 speech, Powell said that, in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the status quo is “unacceptable” and that the current situation “may feel comfortable, but it is also unsustainable”. He warned that “the next few years may present our last best chance” to “address the ultimate status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past”. Powell expressed concerns that, in the current situation, the government is responsible for mortgage defaults and that lending standards were too rigid, noting that these can be solved by encouraging “ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities”.[27]
Personal life
In 1985, Powell married Elissa Leonard.[9] They have three children[14] and live in Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, where Elissa is vice chair of the board of managers of the village.[28] In 2010, Powell was on the board of governors of Chevy Chase Club, a country club.[29]
Based on public filings, Powell’s net worth is estimated to be as much as $112 million.[2][3] He is the richest member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.[30]
Powell has served on the boards of charitable and educational institutions including DC Prep, a public charter school, the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University, and The Nature Conservancy. He was also a founder of the Center City Consortium, a group of 16 parochial schools in the poorest areas of Washington, D.C.[18]
Powell is a registered Republican.[1]
References …
Story 4: Job Market Booming With Private Payroll Surge of 230,000 in September 2018 — Videos
ADP payrolls data doesn’t take Hurricane Florence into account, says Moody’s Mark Zandi
What Are Non Farm Payrolls?
U.S. Private Employers Boost Hiring; Activity Accelerates
ADP Research Institute®
September 2018: ADP Employment Reports
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
230,000
Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment
SMALL BUSINESS REPORT
56,000
Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees
-5,700
Previous ADP Employment Reports
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment |
SMALL BUSINESS REPORT
Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees |
NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT
Change in U.S. franchise employment |
|
AUGUST 2018
163,000
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment |
SMALL BUSINESS REPORT
Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees |
NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT
Change in U.S. franchise employment |
|
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment |
SMALL BUSINESS REPORT
Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees |
NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT
Change in U.S. franchise employment |
|
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
Change in U.S. nonfarm private sector employment |
SMALL BUSINESS REPORT
Change in employment among small businesses with 1-49 employees |
NATIONAL FRANCHISE REPORT
Change in U.S. franchise employment |
|
About the Employment Reports
The ADP Research Institute® works in close collaboration with Moody’s Analytics and its experienced team of labor market researchers to publish monthly employment reports.
‘Rip-roaring hot’ jobs market sees private payrolls surge by 230,000, highest since February
- Private payrolls rose by 230,000 in September, according to the most recent count by ADP and Moody’s Analytics.
- That was well ahead of expectations for 185,000 and the 168,000 jobs reported in August.
- Moody’s economist Mark Zandi said the current pace suggests an unemployment rate of close to 3 percent in a year.
CNBC.com
ADP September payrolls up 230,000
Job growth surged in September to its highest level in seven months as the economy put up another show of strength, according to a report Wednesday from ADP and Moody’s Analytics.
Private companies added 230,000 more positions for the month, the best level since the 241,000 jobs added in February and well ahead of the 168,000 jobs added in August.
The total was well ahead of the 185,000 jobs expected by economists surveyed by Refinitiv (formerly Thomson Reuters).
Construction grew by 34,000 as goods-producing industries overall contributed 46,000 to the final count.
“This labor market is rip-roaring hot,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told CNBC. “The risk that this economy overheats is very high, and this is one more piece of evidence of that.”
If the current pace continues, Zandi said he expects the unemployment rate to fall near 3 percent over the next year. The headline jobless rate currently is at 3.9 percent.
The ADP/Moody’s count comes two days ahead of the Labor Department’s closely watched nonfarm payrolls report. Economists also expect that report to show job growth of 185,000.
The jump came despite the disruption of Hurricane Florence, which ravaged the Carolinas and was expected to dent the jobs count. The nature of ADP’s methodology is such that it doesn’t include the storm victims because it only counts employees on payroll and doesn’t account for those displaced by temporary events.
“This overstates the case a little bit,” Zandi said. He added that the actual count could come down about 25,000 once the storm impact is considered.
Job gains were spread across industries, as services led with 184,000. Professional and business services contributed 70,000, while education and health services was next with 44,000, and trade, transportation, and utilities added 30,000. Leisure and hospitality and financial services each saw growth of 16,000.
There were several weak notes, however. Manufacturing added just 7,000, its weakest reading in a year, while Zandi said retail and mortgage banking also were weak.
Businesses with between 51 and 499 employees added the most by size, with 99,000 new hires. Large businesses added 75,000 while small firms contributed 56,000.
The August private payrolls count was revised up by 5,000.
The report comes at a strong time for the economy, which is coming off 4.2 percent GDP growth in the second quarter a number that could be above 4 percent for the third quarter as well. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in a speech Tuesday characterized the economy outlook among forecasters as “remarkably positive.”
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018, Story 1: Remnants of Slow Moving Tropical Storm Florence — Flooding and Cleanup With Roads and Airports Closed and Electrical Outages Widespread — 31 Deaths — Looting — Stay Home and Safe — Here Comes The Sun — Videos — Story 2: High Tech Lynching 2.0 By Desperate Democrats Delaying Confirmation Vote of Judge Brett Kavanaugh With An Allegation of Sexual Assault In High School Over 35 Years Ago By Professor Christine Ford — False and Faulty Eyewitness Memory — Allegations Are Not Evidence and Way Beyond The Statue of Limitations — Uncertainty, Bias, Confidence Problems With Eyewitness Testimony — Senate Hearing Scheduled For September 24 — Kavanaugh Confirmed Soon — Resistance Is Futile — Videos — Story 3: South Korean President Moon Meets North Korean Chairman Kim Tuesday for 2018 Summit Meeting — Denuclearization of Korea On Agenda — U.S. Accuses Russia of Violating U.N. Sanctions On North Korea — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018
Story 1: Remnants of Slow Moving Tropical Storm Florence — Flooding and Cleanup With Roads and Airports Closed and Electrical Outages Widespread — 23 Deaths — Looting — Stay Home and Safe — Here Comes The Sun — Videos —
Post-Florence, could we see Category 6 hurricanes in the future?
Florence death toll rises as floodwaters surge in Carolinas
Biggest flooding in North Carolina, USA (Sept 17, 2018)
Hurricane Florence Death Toll Rises As New Evacuations Ordered | TODAY
Watch Live: North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper gives update on Florence | September 17, 2018
Hurricane Florence: Slow-moving storm brings ‘tremendous’ flooding to eastern U.S.
Tracking Florence: Flooding cleanup already underway
Hurricane Florence Causes At Least 18 Deaths
Hurricane Looters Just Got Priceless Surprise As Florence Rips Through North Carolina
Flooding from Hurricane Florence’s remnants the biggest concern
Hurricane Florence: Drone video captures devastating flooding across North Carolina
Officials report Florence-related death in South Carolina
All-Day Rescues As Tropical Storm Florence Ravages North Carolina | NBC Nightly News
The Weather Channel’s hurricane graphics are blowing our minds
Here Comes The Sun – The Beatles Tribute
Thousands of people line up for water and food as rising floodwaters cut off an entire North Carolina city to create an ‘island’ as death toll from storm Florence rises to 17
- Storm Florence lashed the south east of the US on Thursday and hit thousands in North Carolina on Sunday
- Officials plan to airlift food and water to thousands holed up in the cut off coastal city of Wilmington, NC
- So far over 400 people have been rescued from the area, which has no power and has become an island
- Residents have been waiting for hours outside stores and restaurants for basic necessities like water
- The death toll has now hit 17 after a mother and her baby died in Wilmington and woman was hit by tree
Thousands have been cut off by rising floodwaters as storm Florence batters North Carolina, bringing the death toll to 17.
Officials plan to airlift food and water to thousands holed up in the coastal city of Wilmington, which has been totally cut off from the rest of the state.
So far more than 400 people have been rescued from the area, which has no power and has been described as an island.
Residents have been waiting for hours outside stores and restaurants for basic necessities like water. Police are guarding the doors, only letting in 10 people at a time to avoid rushes and overcrowding.
Residents have been waiting for hours outside stores and restaurants in North Carolina for basic necessities like water. Police are guarding the doors, only letting in 10 people at a time
People wait in line to buy food and supplies at one of the few places open in Wilmington North Carolina after Hurricane Florence traveled through the area Sunday
Marcus Dipaola helps five-year-old Ember Kelly off a rescue boat carrying her sisters and mother from rising flood waters in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence, in Leland, North Carolina
Officials have warned evacuated residents to stay away amid fears of further flash flooding over the next two days.
Wilmington has a population of 120,000 but it is not clear how many chose not to leave before the storm hit.
‘Do not come here,’ New Hanover County Commission Chairman Woody White said.
‘Our roads are flooded, there is no access into Wilmington…We want you home, but you can’t come yet.’
Hurricane Florence, downgraded to a tropical depression, claimed more lives on Sunday, with at least 17 people confirmed dead.
Florence is expected to weaken on Monday before re-intensifying as it transitions to an extratropical cyclone Tuesday and Wednesday, the US National Hurricane Center said on Monday.
The tropical depression continues to produce widespread heavy rains over parts of North Carolina and north-eastern South Carolina into western Virginia and flash flooding will continue over portions of the western mid-Atlantic region, it said.
Florence is located about 145 miles (230 km) west-northwest of Greensboro, North Carolina packing maximum sustained winds of 30 miles per hour.
The Waffle House outside of downtown Wilmington, NC was open on Sunday as thousands became stranded from the rest of the state
An abandoned car’s hazard lights continue to flash as it sits submerged in a rising flood waters during pre-dawn hours after Hurricane Florence struck in Wilmington, North Carolina
Bryan Stirling, director of the department, chose not to evacuate the inmates from several prisons, with a spokesman saying: ‘In the past, it’s been safer to leave them there.’ Pictured: Sandbanks outside a South Carolina prison
‘Not only are you going to see more impact across North Carolina… but we’re also anticipating you are about to see a lot of damage going through West Virginia, all the way up to Ohio as the system exits out,’ Brock Long of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Sunday on Fox News.
About 70 miles away from Wilmington, residents near the Lumber River stepped from their homes directly into boats floating in their front yards.
River forecasts showed the scene could be repeated in towns as far as 250 miles inland as waters rise for days.
Radar showed parts of the sprawling storm over six states, with North and South Carolina in the bull’s-eye.
On Monday, the South Carolina Department of Corrections posted pictures of prisoners preparing sandbags to defend their facilities from flooding.
Bryan Stirling, director of the department, chose not to evacuate the inmates from several prisons, with a spokesman saying: ‘In the past, it’s been safer to leave them there.’
Cars try to navigate a flooded road leading to Interstate 40 in Castle Hayne, NC, after damage from Hurricane Florence cut off access to Wilmington
Meanwhile, half way around the world, Typhoon Mangkhut barreled into southern China on Sunday after lashing the Philippines with strong winds and heavy rain that left dozens dead.
More than 2.4 million people were evacuated from China’s southern Guangdong province ahead of the massive typhoon, the strongest to hit the region in nearly two decades.
In North Carolina, fears of what could be the worst flooding in the state’s history led officials to order tens of thousands to evacuate, though it wasn’t clear how many had fled or even could.
President Donald Trump said federal emergency workers, first responders and law enforcement officials were ‘working really hard.’ As the storm ‘begins to finally recede, they will kick into an even higher gear. Very Professional!’ he declared in a tweet.
The storm’s death toll climbed to 17 when authorities said a 3-month-old child was killed when a tree fell on a mobile home in North Carolina. Three people died in weather-related traffic accidents, officials said.
Victor Merlos was overjoyed to find a store open for business in Wilmington since he had about 20 relatives staying at his apartment, which still had power. He spent more than $500 on cereal, eggs, soft drinks and other necessities, plus beer.
‘I have everything I need for my whole family,’ said Merlos. Nearby, a Waffle House restaurant limited breakfast customers to one biscuit and one drink, all take-out, with the price of $2 per item.
Kenneth Campbell had donned waterproof waders intending to check out his home in Lumberton , but he didn’t bother when he saw the Coast Guard and murky waters in his neighborhood.
‘I’m not going to waste my time. I already know,’ he said.
As rivers swelled, state regulators and environmental groups were monitoring the threat from gigantic hog and poultry farms located in low-lying, flood-prone areas.
A man walks along the street with his dog as people return to their houses after the passing of Hurricane Florence in New Bern, North Carolina, US September 16, 2018
Motorists drive through floodwaters in Hampstead, N.C. Sunday as Tropical Storm Florence continued to pelt the area with rain and wind
A boat sits in a backyard after the passing of Hurricane Florence in New Bern, North Carolina on Sunday
Some stream gauges used to monitor river levels failed when they became submerged, but others showed water levels rising steadily, with forecasts calling for rivers to at or near record levels. The Defense Department said about 13,500 military personnel were assigned to help relief efforts.
Authorities ordered the immediate evacuation of up to 7,500 people living within a mile of a stretch of the Cape Fear River and the Little River, about 100 miles from the North Carolina coast. The evacuation zone included part of the city of Fayetteville, population 200,000.
Near the flooded-out town of New Bern , where about 455 people had to be rescued from the swirling flood waters, water completely surrounded churches, businesses and homes. In the neighboring town of Trenton, downtown streets were turned to creeks full of brown water.
The rain was unrelenting in Cheraw, a town of about 6,000 people in northeastern South Carolina. Streets were flooded and Police Chief Keith Thomas warned people not to drive, but the local food and gas store had customers.
‘As you can tell, they’re not listening to me,’ he said.
On Sunday the death toll from the hurricane-turned-tropical depression climbed to 15 when a 23-year-old man drowned after a pickup truck flipped into a drainage ditch along a flooded road in South Carolina.
Earlier, authorities said two people died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a generator in their South Carolina home during the storm.
Members of the North Carolina Task Force urban search and rescue team wade through a flooded neighborhood looking for residents who stayed behind as Florence continues to dump heavy rain in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Sunday
A man wades across a bridge flooded by Hurricane Florence in Pollocksville, North Carolina, Sunday
A home is damaged after a large tree fell on it Sunday in Wilmington, North Carolina. So far, 15 deaths have been reported
The North Carolina fatalities also include three who died ‘due to flash flooding and swift water on roadways,’ the Duplin County Sheriff’s Office reported.
Horry County Chief Deputy Coroner Tamara Willard said 63-year-old Mark Carter King and 61-year-old Debra Collins Rion were killed by breathing in carbon monoxide.
Their bodies were found in a Loris home Saturday afternoon, but they likely died the day before as the heavy rains and winds from former hurricane-turned-Tropical Depression Florence were moving onshore.
Governor Roy Cooper says the storm has ‘never been more dangerous’ than it is now for areas extending from Fayetteville and Lumberton, across the Sandhills, to the central part of North Carolina and into the mountains.
About 740,000 homes and businesses remained without power in the Carolinas, and utilities said some could be out for weeks.
Sunday’s heavy rains have made major roads, including parts of the I-95, impassable.
Roads were quickly submerged on Sunday morning and blocked off by police cars and fire trucks. Some drivers in raised trucks slowly navigated the flooding while others made U-turns and looked for other routes. Smaller country roads were washed over with water as streams and rivers nearby burst their banks, leaving drivers at risk of being trapped.
The roads were fairly busy as drivers attempted to return home to assess damage on areas where areas where evacuation orders were lifted.
Radar showed parts of the sprawling storm over six states, but North and South Carolina were in the bull’s-eye.
The head of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brock Long, said officials were still focused on finding and rescuing people.
‘We’ll get through this. It’ll be ugly but we’ll get through it,’ he told Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet The Press.
Long said: ‘Well, unfortunately, the event is still unfolding for the next 48 hours.’
Maggie Belgie of The Cajun Navy carries a child evacuating a flooding trailer community during Hurricane Florence in Lumberton, North Carolina Saturday
A downed tree uprooted by Hurricane Florence lies next to homes in New Bern, North Carolina Saturday
Robert Dolman walks past a Cadillac that has been crushed by a tree Sunday in North Carolina
The next stage of the disaster comes with widespread river flooding, pictured a Coast Guard member Saturday
US Marine Corp aid in evacuating the local populace in Jacksonville, North Carolina, Saturday
Apartment complex are evacuated due to Hurricane Florence
Officials on Sunday warned rivers were swelling toward record levels, forecasters now warn, and thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate for fear that the next few days could bring the most destructive round of flooding in North Carolina history.
Stream gauges across the region showed water levels rising steadily, with forecasts calling for rivers to crest Sunday and Monday at or near record levels: The Little River, the Cape Fear, the Lumber, the Neuse, the Waccamaw and the Pee Dee were all projected to burst their banks, possibly flooding nearby communities.
Authorities ordered the immediate evacuation of up to 7,500 people living within a mile of a stretch of the Cape Fear River and the Little River, about 100 miles from the North Carolina coast. The evacuation zone included part of the city of Fayetteville, population 200,000
On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump issued a disaster declaration for parts of the state that will make the rebuilding process easier for residents in some counties.
Trump, who plans a visit to the region next week, tweeted his ‘deepest sympathies and warmth’ to the families and friends of those who had lost their lives.
Saturday afternoon, the White House released a photo of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence receiving a phone briefing on disaster response efforts.
John Rose owns a furniture business with stores less than a mile from the river. Rain-soaked furniture workers helped him quickly empty more than 1,000 mattresses from a warehouse in a low-lying strip mall.
‘It’s the first time we’ve ever had to move anything like this,’ Rose said. ‘If the river rises to the level they say it’s going to, then this warehouse is going to be under water.’
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence received an emergency preparedness update call on Hurricane Florence in the Treaty Room of the White House on Saturday
The next stage of the disaster comes with widespread river flooding – which could make history in North Carolina
An updated map from Sunday morning shows Florence’s status
Certain areas of North Carolina are experiencing record-breaking major flooding
A Sunday morning map shows the three to five inches of rain in parts of North and South Carolina
A woman leaves a flooded home with her dog in a neighborhood inundated by water in Lumberton on Sunday
A partially submerged car is pictured on a flooded street after Hurricane Florence struck Piney Green, North Carolina Sunday
On U.S. Route 401 nearby, rain rose in ditches and around unharvested tobacco crops along the road. Ponds had begun to overflow, and creeks passing under the highway churned with muddy, brown water.
Farther along the Cape Fear River, grass and trees lining the banks were partly submerged, still well below a highway bridge crossing it.
‘It’s hard to believe it’s going to get that high,’ says Elizabeth Machado, who came to the bridge to check on the river.
Fayetteville’s city officials, meanwhile, got help from the Nebraska Task Force One search and rescue team to evacuate 140 residents of an assisted-living facility in Fayetteville to a safer location at a church.
Already, more than two feet of rain has fallen in places, and forecasters are saying there could be an additional 1½ feet before Sunday is out.
‘I cannot overstate it: Floodwaters are rising, and if you aren’t watching for them, you are risking your life,’ Gov. Roy Cooper said.
A pickup truck drives on a flooded road past a farm house that is surrounded by flooded fields from tropical storm Florence in Hyde County, North Carolina, Saturday
Rescue personnel help a flood victim and her animals to dry land from heavy rains from Florence in North Carolina
Officials were warning residents not only to stay off the roads but also to avoid using GPS systems.
‘As conditions change, GPS navigation systems are not keeping up with the road closures and are directing people onto roads that are confirmed closed and/or flooded,’ the state Transportation Department said on Twitter.
Florence weakened to a tropical depression early Sunday and was crawling west at 8 mph. At 5am, the storm was centered about 20 miles southwest of Columbia, South Carolina. Its winds were down to 35 mph.
In Goldsboro, North Carolina, home of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, roads that frequently flood were already closed Saturday by rushing water.
Dozens of electric repair trucks massed to respond to damage expected to hit central North Carolina as rainwater collected into rivers headed to the coast. Hundreds of thousands of outages have been reported.
A creek that feeds into the Neuse was rushing over a road near Phil Eubanks’ home Saturday. Another creek backed up into their basement Friday, but based on past experience Eubanks and his wife think the worst is over for them.
‘I didn’t sleep last night. It was creeping up those steps’ from the basement, said his jittery wife, Ellen. ‘It came up. It went down today. I think we’re OK.’
Coast Guard FN Tyler Elliott, from Louisville, Kentucky, helps rescue one of ten beagles from a flooded home in Columbus North Carolina Sunday
Members of the Coast Guard help a stranded motorist in the flood waters caused by Hurricane Florence in Lumberton, North Carolina, Sunday
A Dillon County rescue crew boat works in a flooded area near a stuck car in Latta, South Carolina, on Sunday
A man is pictured walking through a flooded street after Florence struck Piney Green, North Carolina
On Saturday evening, Duke Energy said heavy rains caused a slope to collapse at a coal ash landfill at a closed power station outside Wilmington, North Carolina. Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said about 2,000 cubic yards (1,530 cubic meters) of ash were displaced at the Sutton Plant and that contaminated storm water likely flowed into the plant’s cooling pond.
Sutton was mothballed in 2013 and the company has been excavating ash to remove to safer lined landfills. The ash left behind when coal is burned contains toxic heavy metals, including lead and arsenic.
In New Bern, along the coast, homes were completely surrounded by water, and rescuers used inflatable boats to reach people Saturday.
Kevin Knox and his family were rescued by boat from their flooded brick home with the help of Army Sgt. Johan Mackie, whose team used a phone app to locate people in distress.
‘Amazing. They did awesome,’ said Knox, who was stranded with seven others.
New Bern spokeswoman Colleen Roberts said 455 people were safely rescued in the town of 30,000 residents. She called damage to thousands of buildings ‘heart-wrenching.’
Spirits were high, though, at the Trent Park Elementary School in New Bern, where 44-year-old Cathy Yolanda Wright took shelter after being rescued from her flooded home Saturday. Wright, who sings in the choir at Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist, led residents at the shelter in an energetic singalong.
People clapped and shouted, ‘Amen!’ and ‘Thank you, Lord.’
Across the Trent River from New Bern, Jerry and Jan Andrews returned home after evacuating to find carp flopping in their backyard near the porch stairs.
Coast Guard helicopters took off across the street to rescue stranded people from rooftops and swamped cars.
The Marines rescued about 20 civilians from floodwaters near Camp Lejeune, using Humvees and amphibious assault vehicles, the base reported.
The dead included a mother and baby killed by a falling tree in Wilmington, North Carolina. South Carolina recorded its first death from the storm, with officials saying a 61-year-old woman was killed when her car hit a tree that fell across a highway.
Three died in one inland county, Duplin, because of water on roads and flash floods, authorities said. A husband and wife died in a storm-linked house fire, officials said, and an 81-year-old man died after falling while packing to evacuate.
Story 2: High Tech Lynching 2.0 By Desperate Democrats Delaying Confirmation Vote of Judge Brett Kavanaugh With An Allegation of Sexual Assault In High School Over 35 Years Ago By Professor Christine Ford — False and Faulty Eyewitness Memory — Allegations Are Not Evidence and Way Beyond The Statue of Limitations — Uncertainty, Bias, Confidence Problems With Eyewitness Testimony — Senate Hearing Scheduled For September 24 — Kavanaugh Confirmed Soon — Resistance Is Futile — Videos —
Flashback: Clarence Thomas responds to Anita Hill
Judge Napolitano on if Kavanaugh’s nomination is in jeopardy
Tucker Carlson Tonight 9/17/18 | Fox News september 17, 2018
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser Speaks Out About Alleged Sexual Assault | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC
As Blasey Ford Alleges Kavanaugh Assaulted Her, Will Senate Repeat Mistakes Made with Anita Hill?
Tammy Bruce to Dianne Feinstein: Shame on you
Brett Kavanaugh Accuser Came Forward Out Of ‘Civic Responsibility’ | Kasie DC | MSNBC
Uncertainty grows over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation
Lawyer: Kavanaugh accuser willing to testify before Congress
Kavanaugh Strongly Denies Allegation Of Sexual Misconduct Handed Over By Top Dem | NBC Nightly News
#LionelNation🇺🇸Immersive Live Stream: The Electronic (Re)Lynching of Brett Kavanaugh
The Kavanaugh #MeToo Moment | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 623
BREAK!NG NEWS TRUMP 9/17/18 | WHITE HOUSE STANDS BY KAVANAUGH AMID ACCUSATIONS
LEVIN: Some important questions about Dianne Feinstein’s referral of Brett Kavanaugh letter to FBI
Democrats threaten to delay hearings for SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh
Ted Cruz: Dems Delaying Kavanaugh Confirmation Because They Want to ‘Re-Litigate’ 2016 Election
Scott Adams – False Memories, Brett Kavanaugh, Peacocks, Lie Detectors, and the Simulation
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Scott Fraser: The problem with eyewitness testimony
Why eyewitnesses fail | Thomas Albright | TEDxSanDiego
How memory plays us: Elizabeth Loftus at TEDxOrangeCoast
The Power of Suggestion: How to Implant False Memories
Implanting False Memories
Is Your Memory Just an Illusion? | A Tua Memória é Apenas Uma Ilusão? | Julia Shaw | TEDxPorto
How False Memories Corrupt Our Identities, Politics, and Justice System | Julia Shaw | TEDxBergen
Time To Rethink Evil | Julia Shaw | TEDxOxford
Resistance is Futile!
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER IS AN ANTI-TRUMP LEFTIST WHO ATTENDED WOMEN’S MARCH, DONATED TO DNC
Attempt to derail nomination is a blatant political ploy
Judge Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford is an anti-Trump leftist who participated in the Women’s March and donated to the DNC, revelations that make the attempt to delay Kavanaugh’s nomination look increasingly like a desperate political ploy.
Ford, now a professor at Palo Alto University in California, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down on a bed and groping her at a house party in Maryland in the early 80’s when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford was 15.
Ford asserts that the attack was so severe, she thought Kavanaugh was going to “inadvertently” kill her, claiming, “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
The professor says that the assault only came to a stop when a third person, Mark Judge, intervened and jumped on top of them.
However, Judge has completely denied that the incident ever took place. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was also first made aware of the allegations back in July but concealed all information relating to them for weeks.
It has since emerged that Ford has a history of left-wing political activism;
– She signed a letter attacking Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, asserting that it was “violating fundamental human rights”.
– Ford attended a women’s march event and even wore a version of the infamous “pussy hat” made to look like a brain.
– Records show that Ford donated to the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Friends Of Bernie Sanders.
– Perhaps in an attempt to hide her motives, Ford scrubbed her social media presence before the allegations came to light.
Ryan Saavedra
✔@RealSaavedra
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has donated money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Friends Of Bernie Sanders.
Despite top Democrats calling for the vote on Kavanaugh to be postponed until Ford’s claims can be properly vetted, the FBI has refused to open an investigation.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) office also sent out a letter on Friday morning on behalf of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh when he was in high school asserting, “For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”
“It’s disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July,” a Republican spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said Sunday. “If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier.”
Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.
Rejoice, Democrats: Your Next High-Tech Lynching Has Arrived!
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault
Christine Blasey Ford is willing to testify after her letter leaked alleging Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s.
While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
[Republican senators rush to Kavanaugh’s defense after sexual misconduct allegation]
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.
In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.
On Sunday, the White House sent The Post a statement Kavanaugh issued last week, when the outlines of Ford’s account became public: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”
Through a White House spokesman, Kavanaugh declined to comment further on Ford’s allegation and did not respond to questions about whether he knew her during high school. The White House had no additional comment.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh denied committing sexual or physical harassment as an adult when asked by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) on Sept. 5.
Reached by email Sunday, Judge declined to comment. In an interview Friday with The Weekly Standard, before Ford’s name was known, he denied that any such incident occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge said. He told the New York Times that Kavanaugh was a “brilliant student” who loved sports and was not “into anything crazy or illegal.”
Christine Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. Her work has been widely published in academic journals.
She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.
Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.
She engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases. On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.
By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said.
Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
Feinstein soon released a statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
The FBI redacted Ford’s name and sent the letter to the White House to be included in Kavanaugh’s background file, according to a Judiciary Committee aide. The White House sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, making it available to all senators.
As pressure grew, the New York Times reported that the incident involved “possible sexual misconduct.”
By then, Ford had begun to fear she would be exposed. People were clearly learning her identity: A BuzzFeed reporter visited her at her home and tried to speak to her as she was leaving a classroom where she teaches graduate students. Another reporter called her colleagues to ask about her.
On Friday, the New Yorker reported the letter’s contents but did not reveal Ford’s identity. Soon after, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) released a letter from 65 women who say they knew Kavanaugh when he attended high school from 1979 to 1983 at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in North Bethesda.
“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” the women wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”
As the story snowballed, Ford said, she heard people repeating inaccuracies about her and, with the visits from reporters, felt her privacy being chipped away. Her calculation changed.
“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said, explaining her decision to come forward. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”
Katz said she believes Feinstein honored Ford’s request to keep her allegation confidential, but “regrettably others did not.”
“Victims must have the right to decide whether to come forward, especially in a political environment that is as ruthless as this one,” Katz said. “She will now face vicious attacks by those who support this nominee.”
After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.
At the time, Ford said, she knew Kavanaugh and Judge as “friendly acquaintances” in the private-school social circles of suburban Maryland. Her Holton-Arms friends mostly hung out with boys from the Landon School, she said, but for a period of several months socialized regularly with students from Georgetown Prep.
Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident. She said she often spent time in the summer at the Columbia Country Club pool in Chevy Chase, where in those pre-cellphone days, teenagers learned about gatherings via word of mouth. She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there.
Ford said she remembers that it was in Montgomery County, not far from the country club, and that no parents were home at the time. Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party. Those individuals did not respond to messages on Sunday morning.
She said she recalls a small family room where she and a handful of others drank beer together that night. She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated.
In his senior-class yearbook entry at Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh made several references to drinking, claiming membership to the “Beach Week Ralph Club” and “Keg City Club.” He and Judge are pictured together at the beach in a photo in the yearbook.
Judge is a filmmaker and author who has written for the Daily Caller, the Weekly Standard and The Post. He chronicled his recovery from alcoholism in “Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk,” which described his own blackout drinking and a culture of partying among students at his high school, renamed in the book “Loyola Prep.” Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the book, but a passage about partying at the beach one summer makes glancing reference to a “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who “puked in someone’s car the other night” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”
Through the White House, Kavanaugh did not respond to a question about whether the name was a pseudonym for him.
Ford said that on the night of the party, she left the family room to use the bathroom, which was at the top of a narrow stairway. She doesn’t remember whether Kavanaugh and Judge were behind her or already upstairs, but she remembers being pushed into a bedroom and then onto a bed. Rock-and-roll music was playing with the volume turned up high, she said.
She alleges that Kavanaugh — who played football and basketball at Georgetown Prep — held her down with the weight of his body and fumbled with her clothes, seemingly hindered by his intoxication. Judge stood across the room, she said, and both boys were laughing “maniacally.” She said she yelled, hoping that someone downstairs would hear her over the music, and Kavanaugh clapped his hand over her mouth to silence her.
At one point, she said, Judge jumped on top of them, and she tried unsuccessfully to wriggle free. Then Judge jumped on them again, toppling them, and she broke away, she said.
She said she locked herself in the bathroom and listened until she heard the boys “going down the stairs, hitting the walls.” She said that after five or 10 minutes, she unlocked the door and made her way through the living room and outside. She isn’t sure how she got home.
Ford said she has not spoken with Kavanaugh since that night. And she told no one at the time what had happened to her. She was terrified, she said, that she would be in trouble if her parents realized she had been at a party where teenagers were drinking, and she worried they might figure it out even if she did not tell them.
“My biggest fear was, do I look like someone just attacked me?” she said. She said she recalled thinking: “I’m not ever telling anyone this. This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.”
Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.
“I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She struggled academically and socially, she said, and was unable to have healthy relationships with men. “I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships.”
She also said that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled.
She married her husband in 2002. Early in their relationship, she told him she had been a victim of physical abuse, he said. A decade later, he learned the details of that alleged abuse when the therapist asked her to tell the story, he said.
He said he expects that some people, upon hearing his wife’s account, will believe that Kavanaugh’s high school behavior has no bearing upon his fitness for the nation’s high court. He disagrees.
“I think you look to judges to be the arbiters of right and wrong,” Russell Ford said. “If they don’t have a moral code of their own to determine right from wrong, then that’s a problem. So I think it’s relevant. Supreme Court nominees should be held to a higher standard.”
Beth Reinhard, Seung Min Kim, Alice Crites and Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Mark Judge, the other man named in Christine Ford’s Brett Kavanaugh allegations, explained
Ford alleges Judge was in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her — and that he played along.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61432731/1026737400.jpg.0.jpg)
The sexual assault allegation from Christine Blasey Ford that have upended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing aren’t just about Kavanaugh. They also mention a friend of Kavanaugh’s who Ford says was in the room when the assault took place: Mark Judge.
Ford describes Judge as watching Kavanaugh’s alleged assault, occasionally egging him on, and eventually jumping on top of her and Kavanaugh — a move that allowed her to escape.
Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations as “completely false.” Judge denied themto the Weekly Standard on Friday. (He declined to comment to the Washington Post for its article published Sunday.)
Judge was a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Preparatory School in Maryland and is now a conservative writer who has written for publications such as the Daily Caller and the American Spectator.
He’s floated some controversial ideas in his writings — including asking in 2006 whether gay people are perverts and longing for the days when President George W. Bush could give his wife, Laura, a “loving but firm pat on the backside in public” as a show that he “knew who was boss.” He’s also the author of several books, including one recounting his teenage years of alcoholism and addiction.
He is now at the center of the brewing storm over Ford’s allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while at a party during the early 1980s, when they were both in high school. The accusations could derail confirmation of President Donald Trump’s second Supreme Court nomination, which Democrats have asked to be delayed, even as many Republicans and the White House seem determined to forge ahead.
Ford alleges that Judge was in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her — and that he played along
Ford alleges that at sometime during the early 1980s, she was at a party when Kavanaugh and Judge, both drunk, corralled her into a bedroom. Ford says that while Judge watched, Kavanaugh “pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding her body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it,” according to an account written by Emma Brown at the Washington Post, who interviewed Ford.
Kavanaugh, accuser say they’re ready to testify _ but how?
Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of a decades-old sexual assault both indicated Monday they would be willing to testify to a Senate panel as the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee shifted from seemingly painless to problematic.
However, top Republicans seemed to be trying to limit any new testimony by Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, to telephone interviews. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said he was trying to arrange to hear Ford in “an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner.”
The Iowa Republican said standard procedure for late-breaking information would involve follow-up phone calls with “at least” Kavanaugh and Ford. No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas backed him, lauding Grassley for seeking a process that “respects confidentiality.”
Kavanaugh was seen arriving at the White House, with no immediate reason given, while all 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Grassley asking him to postpone a scheduled Thursday vote on the nominee to give the FBI more time to investigate.
Democrats and some Republican senators have expressed concern over Ford’s private-turned-public accusation that a drunken Kavanaugh groped her and tried to take off her clothes at a party when both were teenagers at high schools in suburban Maryland.
Kavanaugh released a new statement calling the allegation “completely false” and saying he “had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself” on Sunday to The Washington Post.
“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity,” Kavanaugh said.
Debra S. Katz, the attorney for the accuser, said Ford was willing to tell her story publicly to the Judiciary panel but no lawmakers had yet contacted her. Katz denied that Ford, a Democrat, was politically motivated.
“She believes that if it were not for the severe intoxication of Brett Kavanaugh, she would have been raped,” Katz told NBC’s “Today.” Explaining Ford’s initial reluctance to come forward, Katz said, “No one in their right mind regardless of their motives would want to inject themselves into this process and face the kind of violation that she will be subjected to by those who want this nominee to go though.”
The Judiciary Democrats, in their letter to Chairman Grassley of Iowa, said serious questions have been raised about Kavanaugh’s “record, truthfulness and character.”
Currently a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, widely viewed as the nation’s second most powerful court, Kavanaugh seemed to be on a smooth confirmation track until the new allegation emerged.
Kavanaugh, 53, “categorically and unequivocally” denied the allegation when it came out anonymously last week.
“This has not changed,” said White House spokesman Kerri Kupec on Monday. “Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement.”
Still, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said of Ford: “She should not be insulted. She should not be ignored. She should testify under oath, and she should do it on Capitol Hill.”
Conway, who said she had discussed the situation with Trump, said both Ford and Kavanaugh should testify, but made clear it was up to the Judiciary Committee. She said Sen. Lindsey Graham had told her it could happen as soon as Tuesday and the White House will “respect the process.”
Stressing that Kavanaugh had already testified and undergone FBI background checks, Conway said: “I think you have to weigh this testimonial evidence from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh along with the considerable body of evidence that is already there about the judge’s temperament and qualifications and character.”
Initially the sexual misconduct allegation was conveyed in a private letter, without revealing Ford’s name. With a name and disturbing details, the accusation raised the prospect of congressional Republicans defending Trump’s nominee ahead of midterm elections featuring an unprecedented number of female candidates and informed in part by the #MeToo movement.
Ford said Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” she says — corralled her in a bedroom at a Maryland party in the early 1980s when she was around 15 and Kavanaugh was around 17. She says Kavanaugh groped her over her clothes, grinded his body against hers and tried to take off her one-piece swimsuit and the outfit she wore over it. Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream, she says, and she escaped when the friend, Mark Judge, jumped on them.
Kavanaugh attended a private school for boys in Maryland while Ford attended a nearby school.
A split over the nomination seemed to be emerging among the GOP.
Two committee Republicans — all on the GOP side are men — Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said they wanted to hear more from Ford. Flake went as far as to say he was “not comfortable” voting for Kavanaugh for the time being.
A potential “no” vote from Flake would complicate the judge’s prospects because Republicans control the committee by just 11-10.
A Republican not on the committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, said the vote should be postponed until the committee heard from Ford. GOP Maine Sen. Susan Collins tweeted that she wanted Kavanaugh and Ford to both testify under oath to the committee, but when she was contacted Sunday by CNN she wouldn’t say if the vote should be postponed.
Grassley said that so far, the Judiciary committee’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, has refused to help schedule telephone interviews. A committee spokesman had said Sunday that Grassley was trying to arrange those phone calls but only for aides to Grassley and Feinstein before Thursday’s scheduled vote.
The allegation against Kavanaugh first came to light late last week in the form of a letter that had been for some time in the possession of Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee and one of its four female members. On Sunday, the Post published an interview with Ford.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, 51, a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
In the interview, Ford says she didn’t reveal what had happened until 2012, when she and her husband sought couples therapy. Ford’s husband, Russell Ford, said he recalled his wife using Kavanaugh’s last name and expressing concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might someday be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Grassley could invite Ford to testify, likely in closed session before Thursday. Kavanaugh would also probably be asked to appear before senators. The panel would also likely seek testimony from Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate who Ford says jumped on top of her. Judge has denied that the incident happened.
With Republicans narrowly controlling the Senate 51-49, the views of Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would be key.
Both are under enormous pressure from outside groups who want them to oppose Kavanaugh on grounds that as a justice he could vote to undercut the Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion.
___
Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Zeke Miller contributed to this report.
Eyewitness testimony
Jump to navigationJump to search
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness’ point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. Due to this, many countries and states within the US are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.
Reliability
Psychologists have probed the reliability of eyewitness testimony since the beginning of the 20th century.[1] One prominent pioneer was Hugo Münsterberg, whose controversial book On the Witness Stand (1908) demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness accounts, but met with fierce criticism, particularly in legal circles.[2] His ideas did, however, gain popularity with the public.[3] Decades later, DNA testing would clear individuals convicted on the basis of errant eyewitness testimony. Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that many DNA-based exonerations involved eyewitness evidence.[4]
In the 1970s and ’80s, Bob Buckhout showed inter alia that eyewitness conditions can, at least within ethical and other constraints, be simulated on university campuses,[2] and that large numbers of people can be mistaken: “Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong” was the title of one paper.[5]
The mechanisms by which flaws enter eyewitness testimony are varied and can be quite subtle.
One way is a person’s memory being influenced by things seen or heard after the crime occurred. This distortion is known as the post-event misinformation effect (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). After a crime occurs and an eyewitness comes forward, law enforcement tries to gather as much information as they can to avoid the influence that may come from the environment, such as the media. Many times when the crime is surrounded by much publicity, an eyewitness may experience source misattribution. Source misattribution occurs when a witness is incorrect about where or when they have the memory from. If a witness cannot correctly identify the source of their retrieved memory, the witness is seen as not reliable.
While some witnesses see the entirety of a crime happen in front of them, some witness only part of a crime. These witnesses are more likely to experience confirmation bias. Witness expectations are to blame for the distortion that may come from confirmation bias. For example, Lindholm and Christianson (1998) found that witnesses of a mock crime who did not witness the whole crime, nevertheless testified to what they expected would have happened. These expectations are normally similar across individuals due to the details of the environment.
Evaluating the credibility of eye-witness testimony falls on all individual jurors when such evidence is offered as testimony in a trial in the United States.[6] Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony. “Jurors” often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony. An overview of this research by Laub and Bornstein shows this to be an inaccurate gauge of accuracy.[7]
Research
Research on eyewitness testimony looks at systematic variables or estimator variables. Estimator variables are characteristics of the witness, event, testimony, or testimony evaluators. Systematic variables are variables that are, or have the possibility of, being controlled by the criminal justice system. Both sets of variables can be manipulated and studied during research, but only system variables can be controlled in actual procedure.[1]
Estimator variables
Age of Witness
Among children, suggestibility can be very high. Suggestibility is the term used when a witness accepts information after the actual event and incorporates it into the memory of the event itself. Children’s developmental level (generally correlated with age) causes them to be more easily influenced by leading questions, misinformation, and other post-event details. Compared to older children, preschool-age children are more likely to fall victim to suggestions without the ability to focus solely on the facts of what happened.[8]
In addition, a recent meta-analysis found that older adults (over age 65) tend to be more susceptible to memory distortion brought about by misleading post-event information, compared to young adults.[9]
Reconstructive memory
Many of the early studies of memory demonstrated how memories can fail to be accurate records of experiences. Because jurors and judges do not have access to the original event, it is important to know whether a testimony is based on actual experience or not.[10]
In a 1932 study, Frederic Bartlett demonstrated how serial reproduction of a story distorted accuracy in recalling information. He told participants a complicated Native American story and had them repeat it over a series of intervals. With each repetition, the stories were altered. Even when participants recalled accurate information, they filled in gaps with information that would fit their personal experiences. His work showed long term memory to be adaptable.[11] Bartlett viewed schemas as a major cause of this occurrence. People attempt to place past events into existing representations of the world, making the memory more coherent. Instead of remembering precise details about commonplace occurrences, a schema is developed. A schema is a generalization formed mentally based on experience.[12] The common use of these schemas suggests that memory is not an identical reproduction of experience, but a combination of actual events with already existing schemas. Bartlett summarized this issue, explaining
[M]emory is personal, not because of some intangible and hypothetical persisting ‘self ’, which receives and maintains innumerable traces, restimulating them whenever it needs; but because the mechanism of adult human memory demands an organisation of ‘schemata’ depending upon an interplay of appetites, instincts, interests and ideas peculiar to any given subject. Thus if, as in some pathological cases, these active sources of the ‘schemata’ get cut off from one another, the peculiar personal attributes of what is remembered fail to appear.[13]
Further research of schemas shows memories that are inconsistent with a schema decay faster than those that match up with a schema. Tuckey and Brewer found pieces of information that were inconsistent with a typical robbery decayed much faster than those that were schema consistent over a 12-week period, unless the information stood out as being extremely unusual. The use of schemas has been shown to increase the accuracy of recall of schema-consistent information but this comes at the cost of decreased recall of schema-inconsistent information.[14]
Misinformation effect
Elizabeth Loftus is one of the leading psychologists in the field of eyewitness testimony. She provided extensive research on this topic, revolutionizing the field with her bold stance that challenges the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court. She suggests that memory is not reliable and goes to great lengths to provide support for her arguments. She mainly focuses on the integration of misinformation with the original memory, forming a new memory. Some of her most convincing experiments support this claim:
- In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal Information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.[15]
- Loftus conducted more experiments to prove the reliability of expert psychological testimony versus the accepted basic eyewitness testimony. It was found that jurors who hear about a violent crime are more likely to convict a defendant than of one from a nonviolent crime. To reduce this tendency for a juror to quickly accuse, and perhaps wrongly accuse, choosing to utilize expert psychological testimony causes the juror to critically appraise the eyewitness testimony, instead of quickly reaching a faulty verdict.[16]
- Also, it has been shown that intelligence and gender has a role in the ability of accurate memory recall. Participants were measured in eyewitness performance in two areas: 1) the ability to resist adding misinformation to the memory and 2) accuracy of recalling the incident and person. It showed that when a woman was recalling information about a woman, the resistance to false details was higher and the recall was more accurate. If a man was recalling an incident involving a man, similarly the recall was more accurate. However, when dealing with opposite genders, the participants gave into the suggestibility (misinformation) more easily and demonstrated less accuracy.[17]
- Facial recognition is a good indicator of how easily memories can be manipulated. In this specific experiment, if a misleading feature was presented, more than a third of the participants recalled that detail. With a specific detail, almost 70% of people claimed that it had been there, when it had not been present.[18]
Systematic variables
Type of questioning
As early as 1900, psychologists like Alfred Binet recorded how the phrasing of questioning during an investigation could alter witness response. Binet believed people were highly susceptible to suggestion, and called for a better approach to questioning witnesses.[19]
Studies conducted by Crombag (1996) discovered that in an incident involving a crew attempting to return to the airport but were unable to maintain flight and crashed into an 11-story apartment building. Though no cameras caught the moment of impact on film, many news stations covered the tragedy with footage taken after impact.[20] Ten months after the event, the researchers interviewed people about the crash. According to theories about flashbulb memory, the intense shock of the event should have made the memory of the event incredibly accurate. This same logic is often applied to those who witness a criminal act. To test this assumption, participants were asked questions that planted false information about the event. Fifty-five percent of subjects reported having watched the moment of impact on television, and recalled the moment the plane broke out in flames-even though it was impossible for them to have seen either of these occurrences. One researcher remarked, “[V]ery critical sense would have made our subjects realize that the implanted information could not possibly be true. We are still at a loss as to why so few of them realized this.”
A survey of research on the matter confirm eyewitness testimony consistently changes over time and based on the type of questioning.[21] The approach investigators and lawyers take in their questioning has repeatedly shown to alter eyewitness response. One study showed changing certain words and phrases resulted in an increase in overall estimations of witnesses.[22]
Improving eyewitness testimony
Law enforcement, legal professions, and psychologists have worked together in attempts to make eyewitness testimony more reliable and accurate. Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, and Holland saw much improvement in eyewitness memory with an interview procedure they referred to as the cognitive interview. The approach focuses on making witness aware of all events surrounding a crime without generating false memories or inventing details. In this tactic, the interviewer builds a rapport with the witness before asking any questions.[23] They then allow the witness to provide an open ended account of the situation. The interviewer then asks follow up questions to clarify the witness’ account, reminding the witness it is acceptable to be unsure and move on.[1] This approach guides the witness over a rigid protocol. When implemented correctly, the CI showed more accuracy and efficiency without additional incorrect information being generated.[24]
Currently, this is the U.S. Department of Justice’s suggested method for law enforcement officials to use in obtaining information from witnesses.[25] Programs training officers in this method have been developed outside the U.S. in many European countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.[26]
While some analysis of police interviewing technique reveals this change towards CI interviewing is not put into effect by many officials in the U.S.A. and the U.K., it is still considered to be the most effective means of decreasing error in eyewitness testimony.[1][27]
Procedural reforms
Experts debate what changes need to occur in the legal process in response to research on inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Jury guidelines
It has been suggested that the jury be given a checklist to evaluate eyewitness testimony when given in court. R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:
-
- How well could the eyewitness observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military)?
- When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?
- Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?
- Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
- Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
- Are there inner contradictions in the testimony? [28]
Judge guidelines
In 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court created new rules for the admissibility of eyewitness testimony in court. The new rules require judges to explain to jurors any influences that may heighten the risk for error in the testimony. The rules are part of nationwide court reform that attempts to improve the validity of eyewitness testimony and lower the rate of false conviction.[29]
See also
- Anecdotal evidence
- Confabulation (false memory)
- Eyewitness identification
- Eyewitness memory
- Legal psychology
- Forensic psychology
- Mistaken identity
References
False memory
Jump to navigationJump to search
A false memory is a psychological phenomenon where a person recalls something that did not happen. There is a growing body of evidence that false memories are created whenever memories are recalled.[1][2][3][4]
False memory is often considered regarding childhood sexual abuse.[5][6][7][8] This phenomenon was initially investigated by psychological pioneers Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud. Freud wrote The Aetiology of Hysteria, where he discussed repressed memories of childhood sexual trauma in their relation to hysteria.[9] Elizabeth Loftus has, since her debuting research project in 1974,[10] been a lead researcher in memory recovery and false memories.
False memory syndrome recognizes false memory as a prevalent part of one’s life in which it affects the person’s mentality and day-to-day life. False memory syndrome differs from false memory in that the syndrome is heavily influential in the orientation of a person’s life, while false memory can occur without this significant effect. The syndrome takes effect because the person believes the influential memory to be true.[11] However, its research is controversial and the syndrome is excluded from identification as a mental disorder and, therefore, is also excluded from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. False memory is an important part of psychological research because of the ties it has to a large number of mental disorders, such as PTSD.[12]
Contents
Manipulation of memory recall through language
In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted a study to investigate the effects of language on the development of false memory. The experiment involved two separate studies.
In the first test, 45 participants were randomly assigned to watch different videos of a car accident, in which separate videos had shown collisions at 20 miles per hour, 30 miles per hour, and 40 miles per hour. Afterwards, participants filled out a survey. The survey asked the question, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” The question always asked the same thing, except the verb used to describe the collision varied. Rather than “smashed”, other verbs used included “bumped”, “collided”, “hit”, or “contacted”. Participants estimated collisions of all speeds to average between 35 miles per hour to just below 40 miles per hour. If actual speed were the main factor in estimate, it could be assumed that participants would have lower estimates for lower speed collisions. Instead, the word being used to describe the collision seemed to better predict the estimate in speed rather than the speed itself.[10]
The second experiment also showed participants videos of a car accident, but the critical thing was the verbiage of the follow-up questionnaire. 150 participants were randomly assigned to three conditions. Those in the first condition were asked the same question as the first study using the verb “smashed”. The second group was asked the same question as the first study, replacing “smashed” with “hit”. The final group was not asked about the speed of the crashed cars. The researchers then asked the participants if they had seen any broken glass, knowing that there was no broken glass in the video. The responses to this question had shown that the difference between whether broken glass was recalled or not heavily depended on the verb used. A larger sum of participants in the “smashed” group declared that there was broken glass.
In this study, the first point brought up in discussion is that the words used to phrase a question can heavily influence the response given.[10] Second, the study indicates that the phrasing of a question can give expectations to previously ignored details, and therefore, a misconstruction of our memory recall. This indication supports false memory as an existing phenomenon.
Article adjustment on eyewitness report
|
|
This section does not cite any sources. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
Loftus’ meta-analysis on language manipulation studies suggested the phenomenon effects taking hold on the recall process and products of the human memory. Even the smallest adjustment in a question, such as the article preceding the supposed memory, could alter the responses. For example, having asked someone if they’d seen “the” stop sign, rather than “a” stop sign, provided the respondent with a presupposition that there was a stop sign in the scene. This presupposition increased the number of people responding that they had indeed seen the stop sign.
Adjective implications on eyewitness report
Select adjectives can imply characteristics about an object. Including said adjectives in a prompt can alter participant responses. Harris’ 1973[citation needed] study looks at the differences in answers on the height of a basketball player. Respondents were randomly assigned to have either answered to, “How tall was the basketball player?” or “How short was the basketball player?” Rather than asking participants simply for the height of the basketball player, they used adjectives that had an implication for the numerical results. The difference in height averages that were predicted was 10 inches (250 mm). The adjective provided in a sentence can cause a respondent to exaggerate.
Word lists
One can trigger false memories by presenting subjects a continuous list of words. When subjects were presented with a second type of the list and asked if the words had appeared on the previous list, they find that the subjects did not recognize the list correctly. When the words on the two lists were semantically related to each other (e.g. sleep/bed), it was more likely that the subjects did not remember the first list correctly and created false memories (Anisfeld & Knapp).[13]
Staged naturalistic events
Subjects were invited in an office and were told to wait there. After this they had to recall the inventory of the visited office. Subjects recognized objects consistent with the “office schema” although they did not appear in the office. (Brewer & Treyens, 1981)[13]
Response to meta-analysis
It has been argued[by whom?] that Loftus and Palmer did not control for outside factors coming from individual participants, such as participants’ emotions or alcohol intake, along with many other factors. Despite criticisms such as this, this particular study is extremely relevant to legal cases regarding false memory. The Loftus and Palmer automobile study allowed for the Devlin Committee to create the Devlin Report, which suggested that eyewitness testimony is not reliable standing on its own.
Reliability of memory recall
Presuppositions
Presuppositions are an implication through chosen language. If a person is asked, “What shade of blue was the wallet?” The questioner is, in translation, saying, “The wallet was blue. What shade was it?” The question’s phrasing provides the respondent with a supposed “fact”. This presupposition provides two separate effects: true effect and false effect.
True effect says that the object implied to have existed does exist. With that, the respondent’s recall is strengthened, more readily available, and easier to extrapolate from. In true effect, presuppositions make a detail more readily recalled. For example, it would be less likely that a respondent would remember a wallet was blue if the prompt did not say that it was blue. False effect is that the object implied to have existed never was present. Despite this, the respondent is convinced otherwise and allows it to manipulate their memory. It can also alter responses to later questions to keep consistency. Regardless of the effect being true or false, the respondent is attempting to conform to the supplied information, because they assume it to be true.[citation needed]
Construction hypothesis
Construction hypothesis has major implications for explanations on the malleability of memory. Upon asking a respondent a question that provides a presupposition, the respondent will provide a recall in accordance with the presupposition (if accepted to exist in the first place). The respondent will recall the object or detail. The construction hypothesis says that if a true piece of information being provided can alter a respondent’s answer, then so can a false piece of information.[14]
Skeleton theory
Loftus developed the skeleton theory after having run an experiment involving 150 subjects from the University of Washington.[citation needed][15] The skeleton theory explains the idea of how a memory is recalled, which is split into two categories: the acquisition processes and the retrieval processes.
The acquisition processes are in three separate steps. First, upon the original encounter, the observer selects a stimulus to focus on. The information that the observer can focus on compared to the information in the situation is very small. In other words, a lot is going on around us and we only pick up on a small portion. Therefore, the observer must make a selection on the focal point. Second, our visual perception must be translated into statements and descriptions. The statements represent a collection of concepts and objects; they are the link between the event occurrence and the recall. Third, the perceptions are subject to any “external” information being provided before or after the interpretation. This subsequent set of information can alter recall.
The retrieval processes come in two steps. First, the memory and imagery is regenerated. This perception is subject to what foci the observer has selected, along with the information provided before or after the observation. Second, the linking is initiated by a statement response, “painting a picture” to make sense of what was observed. This retrieval process results in either an accurate memory or a false memory.
Relational processing
Memory retrieval has been associated with the brain’s relational processing. In associating two events (in reference to false memory, say tying a testimony to a prior event), there are verbatim and gist representations. Verbatim matches to the individual occurrences (i.e. I do not like dogs because when I was five a chihuahua bit me) and gist matches to general inferences (i.e. I do not like dogs because they are mean). Keeping in line with the fuzzy-trace theory, which suggests false memories are stored in gist representations (which retrieves both true and false recall), Storbeck & Clore (2005) wanted to see how change in mood affected the retrieval of false memories. After using the measure of a word association tool called the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm, the subjects’ moods were manipulated. Moods were either oriented towards being more positive, more negative, or were left unmanipulated. Findings suggested that a more negative mood made critical details, stored in gist representation, less accessible.[16] This would imply that false memories are less likely to occur when a subject was in a worse mood.
Therapy-induced memory recovery
Recovery strategies
Memories recovered through therapy have become more difficult to distinguish between simply being repressed or having existed in the first place. Therapists have used strategies such as hypnotherapy, repeated questioning, and bibliotherapy. These strategies may provoke the recovery of nonexistent events or inaccurate memories.[7][17][18][19] A recent report indicates that similar strategies may have produced false memories in several therapies in the century before the modern controversy on the topic which took place in the 1980s and 1990s.[20] In The Myth of Repressed Memory: False memories and allegations of Sexual Abuse, Elizabeth Loftus writes about how easy it is for her as a therapist to mold people’s memories, or prompt them to recall a nonexistent broken glass.[21]
For her there are different possibilities to create false therapy-induced memory. One is the unintentional suggestions of therapists. For example, a therapist might tell their client that, on the basis of their symptoms, it is quite likely that they had been abused as a child. Once this “diagnosis” is made, the therapist sometimes urges the patient to pursue the recalcitrant memories. It is a problem resulting from the fact that people create their own social reality with external information.[22]
Laurence and Perry conducted a study testing the ability to induce memory recall through hypnosis. Subjects were put into a hypnotic state and later woken up. Observers suggested that the subjects were woken up by a loud noise. Nearly half of the subjects being tested concluded that this was true, despite it being false. Although, by therapeutically altering the subject’s state, they may have been led to believe that what they were being told was true.[23] Because of this, the respondent has a false recall.
A 1989 study focusing on hypnotizability and false memory separated accurate and inaccurate memories recalled. In open-ended question formation, 11.5% of subjects recalled the false event suggested by observers. In a multiple-choice format, no participants claimed the false event had happened. This result led to the conclusion that hypnotic suggestions produce shifts in focus, awareness, and attention. Despite this, subjects do not mix fantasy up with reality.[9]
Therapy-induced memory recovery is a prevalent subcategory of memory recall prompting discussion of false memory syndrome. This phenomenon is loosely defined, and not a part of the DSM. However, the syndrome suggests that false memory can be declared a syndrome when recall of a false or inaccurate memory takes great effect on your life. This false memory can completely alter the orientation of your personality and lifestyle.[9]
The “lost-in-the-mall” technique is another recovery strategy. This is essentially a repeated suggestion pattern. The person whose memory is to be recovered is persistently said to have gone through an experience even if it may have not happened. This strategy can cause the person to recall the event as having occurred, despite its falsehood.[24]
Legal cases
Therapy-induced memory recovery has made frequent appearances in legal cases, particularly those regarding sexual abuse.[citation needed] Therapists can often aid in creating a false memory in a victim’s mind, intentionally or unintentionally. They will associate a patient’s behavior with the fact that they have been a victim of sexual abuse, thus helping the memory occur. They use memory enhancement techniques such as hypnosis dream analysis to extract memories of sexual abuse from victims. According to the FMSF (False Memory Syndrome Foundation), these memories are false and are produced in the very act of searching for and employing them in a life narrative. In Ramona v. Isabella,[citation needed] two therapists wrongly prompted a recall that their patient, Holly Ramona, had been sexually abused by her father. It was suggested that the therapist, Isabella, had implanted the memory in Ramona after use of the hypnotic drug sodium amytal. After a nearly unanimous decision, Isabella had been declared negligent towards Holly Ramona. This 1994 legal issue played a massive role in shedding light on the possibility of false memories’ occurrences.
In another legal case where false memories were used, they helped a man to be acquitted of his charges. Joseph Pacely had been accused of breaking into a woman’s home with the intent to sexually assault her. The woman had given her description of the assailant to police shortly after the crime had happened. During the trial, memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus testified that memory is fallible and there were many emotions that played a part in the woman’s description given to police. Loftus has published many studies consistent with her testimony.[14][25][26] These studies suggest that memories can easily be changed around and sometimes eyewitness testimonies are not as reliable as many believe.
Another notable case of Maxine Berry, Maxine grew up in the custody of her mother, who opposed the father having contact with her (Berry & Berry, 2001). When the father expressed his desire to attend his daughter’s high school graduation, the mother enrolled Maxine in therapy, ostensibly to deal with the stress of seeing her father. The therapist pressed Maxine to recover memories of sex abuse by her father. Maxine broke down under the pressure and had to be psychiatrically hospitalized. She had her tubes tied, so she would not have children and repeat the cycle of abuse. With the support of her husband and primary care physician, Maxine eventually realized that her memories were false and filed a suit for malpractice. The suit brought to light the mother’s manipulation of mental health professionals to convince Maxine that she had been sexually abused by her father. In February 1997 Jennifer Gerrietts, Argus Leader, South Dakota Maxine Berry, sued her therapists and clinic that treated her from 1992-1995 and, she says, made her falsely believe she had been sexually and physically abused as a child when no such abuse ever occurred. The lawsuit, filed in February 1997 in Minnehaha Co. Circuit Court South Dakota, states that therapist Lynda O’Connor-Davis had an improper relationship with Berry, both during and after her treatment. The suit also names psychologist Vail Williams, psychiatrist Dr. William Fuller and Charter Hospital and Charter Counseling Center as defendants. Berry and her husband settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.[citation needed]
Although there have been many legal cases in which false memory appears to have been a factor, this does not ease the process of distinguishing between false memory and real recall. Sound therapeutic strategy can help this differentiation, by either avoiding known controversial strategies or to disclosing controversy to a subject.[7][9][27] In each case, the recovered memory therapy was declared inadmissible and not scientifically sound. The fact that recovered memories cannot necessarily distinguish between true and false meant the quality of evidence was weakened and the cases concluded against the therapists. The objection to therapeutic recovery techniques has been argued by comparing the ethics of memory elimination techniques such as electroconvulsive therapy.[19]
Harold Merskey published a paper on the ethical issues of recovered-memory therapy.[27] He suggests that if a patient had pre-existing severe issues in their life, it is likely that “deterioration” will occur to a relatively severe extent upon memory recall. This deterioration is a physical parallel to the emotional trauma being surfaced. There may be tears, writhing, or many other forms of physical disturbance. The occurrence of physical deterioration in memory recall coming from a patient with relatively minor issues prior to therapy could be an indication of the recalled memory’s potential falsehood.[27]
In children
If a child experienced abuse, it is not typical for them to disclose the details of the event when confronted in an open-ended manner.[28] Trying to indirectly prompt a memory recall can lead to the conflict of source attribution, as if repeatedly questioned the child might try to recall a memory to satisfy a question. The stress being put on the child can make recovering an accurate memory more difficult.[5] Some people hypothesise that as the child continuously attempts to remember a memory, they are building a larger file of sources that the memory could be derived from, potentially including sources other than genuine memories. Children that have never been abused but undergo similar response-eliciting techniques can disclose events that never occurred.[28] If one concludes that the child’s recalled memory is false, it is a type I error. Assuming the child did not recall an existing memory, it is a type II error.
One of children’s most notable setbacks in memory recall is source misattribution. Source misattribution is the flaw in deciphering between potential origins of a memory. The source could come from an actual occurring perception, or it can come from an induced and imagined event. Younger children, preschoolers in particular, find it more difficult to discriminate between the two.[29] Lindsay & Johnson (1987) concluded that even children approaching adolescence struggle with this, as well as recalling an existent memory as a witness. Children are significantly more likely to confuse a source between being invented or existent.[30]
Commonly held false memories
The Bologna station clock, subject of a collective false memory
Similar false memories are sometimes shared by multiple people.[31][32] One such false memory is that the name of the Berenstain Bears was once spelled Berenstein.[33][34] Another example consists of false memories of a 1990s movie titled Shazaam starring comedian Sinbad as a genie, which may be a conflation of memories of the comedian wearing a genie costume during a TV presentation of Sinbad the Sailor movies in 1994,[31][35] and a similarly named 1996 film Kazaam featuring a genie played by Shaquille O’Neal.[31]
A 2010 study examined people who were familiar with the clock at Bologna Centrale railway station, which had been damaged in the Bologna massacre bombing in August 1980. In the study, 92% falsely remembered that the clock had remained stopped since the bombing; in fact, the clock was repaired shortly after the attack but was again stopped 16 years later as a symbolic commemoration of it.[32]
In 2010 the phenomenon of collective false memory was dubbed the “Mandela effect” by self-described “paranormal consultant” Fiona Broome, in reference to a false memory she reports of the death of South African leader Nelson Mandela in the 1980s (when he was in fact still alive), which she claims is shared by “perhaps thousands” of other people.[36] Broome has speculated about alternate realities as an explanation, but most commentators suggest that these are instead examples of false memories shaped by similar factors affecting multiple people,[37][38][31][39][34][40][41] such as social reinforcement of incorrect memories,[42][43] or false news reports and misleading photographs influencing the formation of memories based on them.[44][43]
See also
- False memory syndrome, a condition in which a person’s identity and relationships are affected by strongly believed but false memories of traumatic experiences.
- Source-monitoring error, an effect in which memories are incorrectly attributed to different experiences than the ones that caused them.
- Misinformation effect, false memories caused by exposure to misleading information presented between the encoding of an event and its subsequent recall.
- Confabulation, the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories without the conscious intention to deceive.
- Repressed memory, the idea that traumatic memories can be repressed and also potentially brought back through therapy.
- Jamais vu, the feeling of unfamiliarity with recognised memories.
- Cryptomnesia, a memory that is not recognised as such.
Notes …
References
- Mandela Effect, False Memory and other MMDE phenomena Alternate Memories – Tweed, C. (2016)
- “The women brainwashed by therapists to believe their parents abused them” – Cable, A (2014)
Further reading
- Bjorklund, D. F. (2014). False-memory Creation in Children and Adults: Theory, Research, and Implications. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781138003224
- Conway, M. A. (1997). Recovered Memories and False Memories. Oxford University Press.
- French, C (2003). “Fantastic Memories: The Relevance of Research into Eyewitness Testimony and False Memories for Reports of Anomalous Experiences” (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 10: 153–174. ISSN1355-8250. Archived from the original on 2013-03-13.
- Roediger, Henry L.; Marsh, Elizabeth J. (2009). “False memory”. Scholarpedia. 4 (8): 3858. Bibcode:2009SchpJ…4.3858I. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.3858.
- Schacter, D. L; Curran, T. (1995). “The Cognitive Neuroscience of False Memories”. Psychiatric Annals. 25 (12): 727–731. doi:10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-08.
Story 3: South Korean President Moon Meets North Korean Chairman Kim Tuesday for 2018 Summit Meeting — Denuclearization of Korea On Agenda — U.S. Accuses Russia of Violating U.N. Sanctions On North Korea — Videos
Predictions on Third Inter-Korean Summit
LIVE/NEWSCENTER] 2018 Inter-Korean Summit Pyeongyang D-1: Latest from Main Press Center
Detailed schedule of 2018 Inter-Korean Summit Pyeongyang
Live: Moon Jae-in leaves Seoul for Pyongyang summit韩国总统离开首尔前往会见金正恩
Moon Jae-in, the Republic of Korea president, is leaving Seoul for Pyongyang to meet Kim Jong Un, the top leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), who will greet him at the airport in the DPRK capital.
S. Korean business leaders to attend inter-Korean summit
UN: US accuses Russia of N. Korean ‘sanctions violations’
UN Security Council to hold urgent meeting on Monday on North Korea sanctions implementation
Two Koreas hold high-stakes summit with nuclear talks in jeopardy
South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in is set to cross the heavily militarised border on Tuesday for his third summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, seeking to cement a breakthrough in faltering nuclear talks between Pyongyang and Washington.
The inter-Korean summit will be a litmus test for another meeting Kim has recently proposed to U.S. President Donald Trump, giving clues to whether Kim is serious about denuclearisation, a commitment he made at their first encounter in June.
Trump has asked Moon to be “chief negotiator” between himself and Kim, according to Moon’s aides, after Trump cancelled a trip to Pyongyang by his secretary of state last month.
“I’d like to have frank dialogue with Chairman Kim on how to find a point of contact between U.S. demands for denuclearisation and North Korea’s demands for ending hostile relations and security guarantees,” Moon told a meeting with senior secretaries on Monday.
Moon, himself the offspring of a family displaced by the 1950-53 Korean War, will fly into the North’s capital of Pyongyang, landing at 10 a.m. (0300 GMT), his chief of staff Im Jong-seok told a news briefing on Monday. He is expected to be greeted by Kim before an official welcoming ceremony.
The two leaders will sit down for formal talks after lunch, which will be followed by a musical performance and welcome dinner.
Accompanying corporate executives, including Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Jay Y. Lee and the chiefs of SK Group and LG Group, will meet with North Korean Deputy Prime Minister Ri Ryong Nam in charge of economic affairs, Im said.
On Wednesday, Moon and Kim are expected to unveil a joint statement, and a separate military pact designed to defuse tensions and prevent armed clashes, Im said.
Moon will return home early Thursday.
‘EVERYTHING IN BLANK’
Moon is hoping to help jumpstart nuclear negotiations between Pyongyang and Washington, by engineering a proposal that combines a concrete framework for the North’s denuclearisation and a joint declaration ending the 1950-53 Korean War, Seoul officials said.
The war ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving U.S.-led U.N. forces including South Korea technically still at war with the North.
But U.S. officials remain “unenthusiastic” about declaring an end to the war without any substantial action toward denuclearisation from the North, Seoul officials said.
South Korea is pinning high hopes on Kim’s remarks to Moon’s special envoys earlier this month that he wants to achieve denuclearisation within Trump’s first term in office ending in early 2021, the first time line he has given.
Agreeing on a timetable is a core task for Moon, as it would induce U.S. action, said Lee Jung-chul, a professor at Soongsil University in Seoul.
“Given U.S. scepticism that South Korea may have oversold Kim’s willingness to denuclearise, how President Moon delivers his sincerity toward denuclearisation to Trump would be a key factor for the fate of their second summit,” Lee told a forum on Monday in Seoul.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/two-koreas-hold-high-stakes-summit-nuclear-talks-150704972.html
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1141
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018, Story 1: Home Depot Shooting of Two Police Officers and Employee Loss Prevention Officer — Killer Captured But Dallas Police Officer Died and Two Still in Critical Condition This Morning — Videos –Story 2: Van Driver Alek Minassian Mows Down and Kills 10 and Injures 14 Pedestrians in Toronto, Canada Monday — Deliberate Terrorist Attack? — Police Officer Hero Who Did Not Shoot Killer — Killer Was Woman Hating Incel or Involuntary Celibate — Mentally Disturbed Mass Killer Motivated By Fear of Rejection By Women — Get Over Your Fear of Rejection — Videos — Story 3: Mental Disturbed Shooter Travis Reinking Kills Four in Antioch Tennessee Waffle House — James Shaw, Jr. — Hero Customer Disarms Shooter — Shots
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018
Story 1: Home Depot Shooting of Two Police Officers and Employee — Killer Captured But Dallas Police Officer Died and One Still in Critical Condition This Morning — Videos —
Dallas police officer Rogelio Santander dies from injuries
Dallas Police Host Vigil To Honor Memory Of Officer Santander
Procession for Dallas Police Officer Rogelio Santander
Who is Rogelio Santander? Police officer killed in shooting at Dallas, Texas, Home Depot
Man accused of shooting Dallas police officers is brought into Dallas County Jail
One Officer Dead After Dallas Home Depot Shooting | NBC Nightly News
Grieving Dallas police joined by community to mourn officer fatally shot at Home Depot
2 police officers, employee shot at Home Depot
Dallas police officer, 27, dies a day after Home Depot shooting that also wounded his female partner and a civilian store employee
- Dallas police officer Rogelio Santander, 27, succumbed to gunshot wounds shortly after 8am Wednesday
- Officer Crystal Almeida, 26, and Home Depot loss prevention officer Scott Painter, 26, are both in critical condition but improving
- Painter’s uncle said Scott, who’s a newlywed, was shot four times
- Shooting at the Dallas store happened at around 4.30pm Tuesday
- Loss prevention officer had called police for help when a gunman opened fire
- Cops arrested Armando Juarez, 29, following chase and have him in custody on counts of capital murder and aggravated assault on a public servant
The mayor of Dallas announced on Wednesday the passing of a police officer who was wounded in a shooting at a Home Depot on Tuesday, which also injured another officer and a store employee.
According to Mayor Mike Rawlings, officer Rogelio Santander, 27, succumbed to his wounds at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital shortly after 8am. Santander had been with the police force for three years and is the first Dallas officer to die in the line of duty since 2016.
Another officer, Crystal Almeida, 26, remains in critical condition, as is Scott Painter, 26, a loss-prevention officer for Home Depot who also was shot Tuesday. Both are said to be improving.
Fatality: Dallas officer Rogelio Santander (left), 27, passed away from injuries sustained when police say Armando Juarez (right) opened fired inside a Home Depot store Tuesday
Authorities were able to apprehend the suspected gunman, 29-year-old Armando Juarez, just hours after the shooting following a high-speed chase.
Juarez is being held at the Dallas County jail on $1.1million bond. The charges against him now include capital murder, aggravated assault on a public servant, aggravated assault in retaliation and theft of property up to $32,000.
A police spokesman previously said said officers Santander and Almeida were called to the Home Depot by the loss prevention officer reporting a possible shoplifter at around 4.30pm on Tuesday.
According to an employee, Mercedes Espinosa, the cops tried to arrest the man before ‘around seven shots’ rang out.
Espinosa then saw the police officers in a ‘pool of blood’, he told CBS News.
Juarez, 29, is accused of shooting the cops and a loss prevention officer at around 4.30pm on Tuesday in the Home Depot in Dallas, Texas, before fleeing in a white Ford truck. He is seen in a police mug shot released before his arrest, and in store surveillance camera video
Home Depot employees comfort one another outside the store in Dallas following the shooting on Tuesday
Scott Painter’s uncle, Jon Painter, told the Dallas Morning News his nephew was shot four times. He and wife Scarlett got married in late October.
Police quickly named Armando Juarez as a ‘person of interest’ and dispatched a helicopter and sniffer dogs to look for him.
Heavily armed officers wearing masks were also seen searching a creek bed behind the store.
At around 9.30pm Juarez was brought into custody following a high-speed case that ended at the intersection of Lemmon Avenue and Versailles Avenue, just 10 miles away from the scene of the shooting.
The suspect pleaded guilty of stealing a car last November and was still wanted by police on Tuesday for skipping a sentencing hearing in February, according to court records seen by WFAA.com.
His grandmother, Janie Longoria, told NBC 5 she ‘backed the blue’ before adding, ‘I couldn’t believe that one of my family could have done that’.
Longoria added that Armando is a ‘sweet, lovable person,’ but that his friends are a bad influence.
A Dallas Police officer walks towards Presbyterian Hospital on Tuesday where the three victims are being treated
Ruben Juarez, the suspected cop killer’s father, told The Dallas Morning News, ‘there’s no way … [he] could’ve done this,’ and that he doesn’t think his son even owns a gun.
Governor Gregg Abbot tweeted shortly after the shootings: ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with @DallasPD and the two officers shot and critically wounded.
‘Texas honors all the men and women who protect and serve our communities, and justice will be served.’
The Home Depot is off the 11600 block of Forest Central Drive in Dallas’ northern suburbs.
The Assist the Officer Foundation has opened a fund to help Dallas police officers.
Governor Gregg Abbot tweeted: ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with @DallasPD and the two officers shot and critically wounded’
Dallas Police Department tweeted to confirm two officers and a civilian were injured. NBC DFW later quoted ‘multiple sources’ saying one of the officers had died
Read more:
- Two Officers Shot, One Dead After Shooting Near Home Depot in Northeast Dallas – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth
- wfaa.com | What we know about Armando Juarez, person of interest in shooting of 2 Dallas officers
- Home Depot shooting in Dallas: 2 officers critically wounded, suspect Armando Juarez arrested – CBS News
- Search for ‘Person of Interest’ in Attempted Capital Murder of Two Police Officers Arrested – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth
- ATO Dallas – Donate Now!
- Dallas police officer dies a day after Home Depot shooting that wounded 2 others | Crime | Dallas News
2 Dallas officers, civilian injured in shooting at a Home Depot
Police look for a suspect in the shooting of two police officers in Dallas on Tuesday. Dallas Morning News PHOTO
The Dallas Morning News
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
DALLAS — Two officers and a Home Depot loss prevention officer were shot Tuesday afternoon at one of the stores in Dallas, police said.
The officers were critically wounded in the shooting at the store in the Lake Highlands neighborhood, near U.S. Highway 75 and Forest Lane, police said. The loss prevention officer’s condition was not available.
Police responded to the Home Depot about 4:15 p.m. when an off-duty Dallas police officer working there detained a suspect and called for assistance for the arrest, Dallas Police Chief U. Renee Hall said.
When the other officers arrived, the suspect “produced a handgun” and shot the two responding officers and the Home Depot loss prevention officer, police said.
The three victims were transported by Dallas Fire-Rescue to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, “where we believe they’re getting the best possible care,” Hall said.
Multiple news outlets reported that at least one of the officers was shot in the head. Officials did not provide details about their conditions or injuries at a news conference Tuesday night, but said all three were in surgery.
The suspect, who is thought to be armed, remained at large Tuesday night after a manhunt that began near the wooded area and the creek behind the store.
Armando Luis Juarez, 29, was named a person of interest in the shooting. He left the Home Depot in a white pickup, Hall said.
“If you see anything, if you know anything, please contact the Dallas Police Department,” Hall said.
At the Forest Lane Station, Dallas Area Rapid Transit passengers were temporarily not allowed to get off or on the trains in an attempt to prevent the suspect from leaving the area, DART spokesman Mark Ball said. Service resumed shortly before 7 p.m. as the searched moved elsewhere.
A baseball game being held across the creek at Lutheran High School was placed on lockdown while police searched for the shooter, KXAS-TV.
“Once again Dallas is at the precipice, looking into the hell of heartbreak as our Police Department was attacked this afternoon,” Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said at the news conference.
Council member Adam McGough, who represents the area, said he is praying for the officers and their families.
“It’s just more reminder of what a dangerous job they have,” he said.
Casey Phelps of Garland was on her way to pick up a friend from work when she saw flashing police lights behind her on Forest Lane.
“I thought, what did I do?” she said, until she realized they weren’t after her.
She pulled over and got out to see who the officers were chasing and saw a man in a white shirt and shorts emerge from behind a small market nearby.
Seeing the officers, some with guns drawn, he immediately fled back in the other direction, she said.
Aerial footage from the scene showed a man being loaded into an ambulance. At least one person was taken to Texas Health Presbyterian of Dallas.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was also responding to the scene.
Less than an hour before the shooting, police officials were at the Fair Park complex to promote more than a dozen officers to new ranks.
“Grant us success in every good endeavor as we serve our community and our nation and our world. Be with us this hour, each and every day,” a sergeant said during the prayer, as the newly promoted officers, their families and their colleagues bowed their heads. “May the Lord keep you and bless you as you go your merry way, amen.”
In February, a Richardson police officer was shot and killed after responding to a disturbance call. Officer David Sherrard was the first officer killed in the line of duty in the department’s history, and the first on-duty officer to be killed in Texas this year.
Last year, a barricaded gunman in Little Elm unleashed a “hail of gunfire” on Detective Jerry Walker and fellow SWAT officers. Walker was the first Little Elm officer to die in the line of duty.
In spring 2016, Euless Officer David Hofer was fatally ambushed while responding to a report of a gunman at a park.
That same month, Fort Worth Officer Matt Pearce was shot seven times while pursuing two robbery suspects. He survived his injuries and eventually returned to duty.
In July 2016, a gunman opened fire on officers protecting protesters in downtown Dallas. Four Dallas officers and a DART officer were killed, and nine others were injured.
Dallas Officer Josh Burns was shot in 2014 while he and a partner were responding to a domestic disturbance in far northeast Dallas.
Before the ambush, the last Dallas officer to be fatally shot in the line of duty was Norm Smith in 2009.
Dallas police Officers Rogelio Santander and Crystal Almeida were just rookies, but even veteran cops were envious of their chemistry.
He was the one who cracked the jokes. She was the shy one.
The best friends were inseparable as they patrolled the streets of northeast Dallas in one squad car. Santander did most of the driving. Almeida took the lead on writing reports.
Officers Crystal Almeida and Rogelio Santander
“It was a car full of laughs every day,” said Senior Cpl. John Arnold, their class adviser and fellow northeast patrol division officer.
The partnership ended Tuesday afternoon, when police say a shoplifting suspect with no history of violence shot them and a Home Depot loss-prevention officer as they tried to arrest him.
Officer Rogelio Santander was fatally shot Tuesday afternoon while making an arrest at a Home Depot in Dallas.
Santander, 27, died Wednesday. Almeida and Scott Painter, both 26, remained in critical condition but were improving and surprising doctors with their recovery.
Devastated by the shooting, Santander’s and Almeida’s supervisors were even more saddened by the fact that it tore apart one of the tightest pairs in the northeast division.
“Those two were like this,” northeast patrol Sgt. Tim Lewis said, crossing his fingers.
Academy classmates usually go their own way after graduation, sorted into different patrol divisions and paired up with unfamiliar officers.
Not so with Almeida and Santander.
“You would be lucky, lucky if you can make it through a career with one good partner,” said Lewis, who’s been in the department longer than a decade. “The relationship that they had, you would be lucky.”
Santander was raised in Dallas. He made up his mind about becoming a cop after hearing a Dallas police officer talk about dangerous drugs at his elementary school.
He went on to attend Skyline High School and Texas A&M University-Commerce before returning to Dallas to join the Police Department. He wanted to become a community police officer for the area where he grew up, Arnold said.
Almeida was raised in El Paso. She played basketball in high school and was well-liked by her teammates, her coach told the El Paso Times.
Crystal Almeida was badly wounded in Tuesday’s shooting but is recovering.
(Facebook)
“She was always at practice and very dedicated,” Paul Baca told the Times. “No matter what, you can always count on Crystal.”
She’d apply that same dedication to law enforcement.
Almeida worked at a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility in Fort Stockton for two years before applying to the Dallas Police Department, where a few of her relatives were officers.
Santander and Almeida joined the department on the same day: Dec. 3, 2014.
Almeida was the quiet one in their academy class, but she wasn’t as shy when it came to training. She enjoyed Tasing a trainer wrapped in a red protective suit and practicing to use a baton, Arnold said.
Santander was patient, and his trainers said he always wore a grin. He even smiled during the dreaded academy tradition of getting sprayed in the face with Mace.
Three summers ago, the classmates-turned-brother-and-sister stood side by side as they recited the oath that officially made them Dallas police officers.
They were eventually assigned to the northeast division, which tends to be one of the busiest patrol areas in the city, after a bid process that takes officers’ work preferences and the department’s needs into account.
“They were as humble as humble pie,” Lewis said.
He often teased Sgt. Shannon Smith, who supervised the pair, that he would someday poach Santander and Almeida to work for him because of how productive they were on the streets.
Officers Crystal Almeida and Rogelio Santander (both at right) were police academy classmates and best friends who happened to be assigned as partners in the northeast patrol division.
(Senior Cpl. John Arnold)
But they also took time to appreciate the people they worked with. They’d drive downtown to visit their dispatcher and bring her coffee.
Smith shared a moment with them the weekend before they were shot. Over the radio, he asked for someone to bring him a kit to test possible drugs.
“And who shows up?” the sergeant said. “Almeida and Santander.”
The two got to work as soon as they arrived. Santander walked over to the officer who was already there for a rundown of the call as Almeida walked over with the test kit.
“I’ve got some damn good officers,” he told them. “You guys are squared away.”
That was the last time he saw Santander.
Santander and Almeida were shot Tuesday afternoon as they tried to arrest 29-year-old Armando Luis Juarez at a Lake Highlands Home Depot on an outstanding warrant.
Officers arrested Juarez after a five-hour manhunt that ended in a high-speed car chase through the city. He remains in the Dallas County Jail, facing multiple charges that include capital murder, with bail set at just over $4 million.
When Almeida regained consciousness after surgery, the first question she asked was about her partner: How was Rogelio doing?
They had to tell her he didn’t survive.
A private Mass for Santander will be Monday morning at the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe in downtown Dallas. A public visitation is planned from 6 to 9 p.m. at the cathedral, 2215 Ross. Ave.
His funeral will be at 11 a.m. Tuesday at Lake Pointe Church, 701 E. Interstate 30 in Rockwall, followed by burial at Restland Cemetery, 13005 Greenville Ave. in Dallas.
Smith said he got a chance Thursday to sit by Almeida’s bedside and comfort her, but she ended up comforting him.
She waved as soon as her sergeant walked into her hospital room and told him, “I love you, Sarge” as he held her hand. The 47-year-old man burst into tears.
She pulled him in for a hug and told him she loved him repeatedly.
“I finally had to pull myself together and tell her, ‘Hey, I’m here for you!'” Smith said. “It made my day, my week, my year.”
Story 2: Van Driver Alek Minassian Mows Down and Kills 10 and Injures 14 Pedestrians in Toronto, Canada Monday — Deliberate Terrorist Attack? — Police Officer Hero Who Did Not Shoot Killer — Killer Was Woman Hating Incel or Involuntary Celibate — Mentally Disturbed Mass Killer Motivated By Fear of Rejection By Women — Get Over Your Fear of Rejection — Videos —
Jordan Peterson – Don’t Be The Nice Guy
Jordan B. Peterson on 12 Rules for Life
Police name 10 victims of van attack, announce more charges
Victims of van ‘attack’ predominantly women: Police
Investigating van attack suspect Alek Minassian’s past
First court appearance for Toronto van attack suspect Alek Minassian
Toronto police officer being hailed as hero
Developing story: Van hits pedestrians in Toronto
Ken Lam: The cop who arrested Alek Minassian peacefully
10 dead, others injured after van hits pedestrians in Toronto
Toronto Van Attack: New dash cam video shows van narrowly missing pedestrians
Horror in Toronto as van mounts curb, rams pedestrians
Van strikes pedestrians in Toronto
Toronto van attack: Father of suspect Alek Minassian leaves court
People tend to injured pedestrians after Toronto van attack – Daily Mail
Alek Minassian: What we know about the Toronto van attack suspect
The National for Wednesday April 25, 2018 — Toronto Van Attack, Netsweeper, David Suzuki
Incels | What is an Incel? | Intro to Inceldom
What Is An Incel?
“Incel” Terrorists, Or “I Can’t Get Laid” Terrorists, Now A Thing
Incels and extremism: How an involuntary celibate’s frustrations can evolve
Reddit Incels: Where Are They Now?
Friend of Alleged Santa Barbara Shooter Discusses Warning Signs
Isla Vista Shooter’s Childhood Friend: ‘The Guy I Knew Wouldn’t Say A Word’
Santa Barbara Survivor: ‘He Smiles at Me and Just Starts Shooting’
Elliot Rodger’s Father Discusses His Son
Alleged Gunman Elliot Rodger’s Chilling Manifesto
Surveillance Video of Santa Barbara Deadly Rampage
“What is Happening to Men?” Tucker and Jordan Peterson Debut New “Men in America” Series
Jordan Peterson: Why women reject men
Jordan Peterson: These kinds of men attract women
“How Did Boys Get This Way?” Jordan Peterson Explains Modern Masculinity to Tucker
Jordan Peterson – Get Over Your Fear of Rejection!
Jordan Peterson teaches you how to interact with anyone
Jordan Peterson – How Act Mass Murderers
Jordan Peterson meets a Serial Killer in Prison
Jordan Peterson: The danger of antisocial males
Jordan Peterson: Antisocial psy.cho.pathic males
Jordan Peterson LIVE: 12 Rules for Life – An Antidote to Chaos
“Can We Still Be Friends” – Todd Rundgren, Daryl Hall
‘I’m sorry’: Toronto van driver’s father apologizes for his ‘women-hating’ son’s rampage that left 10 dead and 15 injured
- Alek Minassian, 25, is charged with ten counts of first degree murder and 13 of attempted murder for Toronto van attack
- He made his first court appearance Tuesday, dressed in a white jumpsuit and cuffed behind his back
- Sitting in the front row was his father Vahe Minassian who sobbed through the brief hearing
- Vahe told reporters outside court he hadn’t spoken to his son since his arrest
- When asked if he had any message to send to Toronto, he replied: ‘Sorry’
- The first of his ten victims has been named as Anne Marie D’Amico
- Minassian’s online posts reveal a fixation with Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Roger
- He also referred to the rebellion of ‘incels’ – a term used to refer to men who have been made ‘involuntarily celibate’ because women will not have sex with them
- Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says there is ‘no national security’ threat
The tearful father of the Toronto van driver who left ten dead and 15 injured when he drove at a crowd of pedestrians apologized for his son as he left court.
Alek Minassian, 25, made his first court appearance today, wearing a white jumpsuit with his hands cuffed behind him, where was charged with ten counts of first degree murder and 13 of attempted murder.
Sitting in the front row, as the charges were read out against his son, was Vahe Minassian.
Vahe Minassian, father of Alek Minassian, is surrounded by members of the media as he leaves court with a police escort in Toronto on Tuesday
Alek Minassian, 25, (left) named by police as the Toronto attack suspect, was a socially awkward computer whiz, friends said. Meanwhile, the first of his ten victims has been named as Anne Marie D’Amico (right) an employee at Invesco investment management firm
Vahe was seen quietly sobbing to himself during the brief hearing as the courts confirmed that his son was suspected of mass murder. He appears to be the only family member who came to court.
The suspect’s mother Sona Minassian did not appear to be in attendance.
After Alek Minassian was detained, and ordered to return to court on May 10, his father left the caught looking distraught. Mobbed by a large media pack, Vahe told reporters he hadn’t spoken to his son since his arrest.
And when asked if he had any message to send to Toronto, he replied: ‘Sorry’.
Vahe looked distraught as he left the court after his son’s brief hearing on Saturday
Vahe was seen quietly sobbing to himself during the brief hearing as the courts confirmed that his son was suspected of mass murder
In this courtroom sketch, Alek Minassian (wearing a white jumpsuit, second from left) was in court where he was charged with ten counts of first degree murder and 13 of attempted murder. He is pictured next to Duty counsel Georgia Koulis, left, Justice of the Peace Stephen Waisberg (center), and Crown prosecutor Joe Callaghan (right)
Sona Minassian had previously told a local paper in 2009 that her son had Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism.
Social media posts by her son paint a picture of an angry young man, who was furious that women rejected his sexual advances.
Minassian, an Asperger’s sufferer who dropped out of army training after just 16 days, also spoke admiringly of Santa Barbara shooter and fellow women-hating social reject Elliot Rodger and has been described as a socially awkward tech expert.
In one post, he refers to the rebellion of ‘incels’ – a term used to refer to men who have been made ‘involuntarily celibate’ because women will not have sex with them.
He announced: ‘The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys!’
Policeman captures ‘armed van driver’ who ploughed into pedestrians
A work crew in protective clothing cleans a sidewalk a day after a van struck multiple people along a major intersection in north Toronto, Ontario
The front end damage of the van that the driver used to hit several pedestrians in Toronto, Ontario, on Monday
People sign a memorial after a driver plowed a rented van along a crowded sidewalk in Toronto, killing at least 10 people
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau downplayed the terrorism angle this morning, saying that authorities see no national security threat in the case.
He told a news conference that the incident ‘hasn’t changed the overall threat level in Canada,’ even though it occurred as Cabinet ministers from the G7 nations gathered in Toronto.
Trudeau says Canada will do whatever it can to keep its citizens safe, while staying true to its values.
Speaking at a news conference Tuesday, he said, ‘We cannot as Canadians choose to live in fear every single day as we go about our daily business.’
‘The events that took place yesterday in Toronto were a senseless attack and horrific tragedy. On behalf of all Canadians, I offer my deepest heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of all those who were killed and we wish a full recovery to those injured and stand with the families and friends of the victims,’ he added, while speaking in front of the House of Commons Tuesday morning.
‘All Canadians stand united with Toronto today.’
Female finance worker, 20, is first to be identified among 10 who were killed in horrifying Toronto van attack
- Anne Marie D’Amico, 20, worked as analyst for US-based investment management company Invesco
- Two South Korean nationals and a Jordanian national are also among the dead
- Invesco Canada’s offices are located on Yonge Street, not far from where police say Alek Minassian used a rental van to plow into pedestrians
- Midday attack killed 10 people and injured 14 others; Minassian, 25, was captured alive a short time later
One of the 10 people who were mowed down and killed by a van in Toronto on Monday has been identified as an investment analyst working for a US-based firm.
Anne Marie D’Amico, 20, was the first casualty of the van attack to be identified, after the notification of her next of kin.
D’Amico was employed by the American investment management company Invesco, which also has offices on Yonge Street in Toronto, not far from where police say Alek Minassian, 25, deliberately plowed into pedestrians with a white rental van, killing 10 and leaving 14 others injured.
A South Korean news agency reported Tuesday that two Korean nationals are among the dead, and three others are still unaccounted for.
The Yonhap News Agency is citing government officials as saying another Korean national was seriously injured in the incident.
Scroll down for video
Police say Alek Minassian, 25 (left), used a rental van to plow into pedestrians on a busy Toronto street, killing 10 people and injuring 14 others. D’Amico (right) was among the slain
Meanwhile, the Jordanian Embassy confirmed to CBC News that one of their citizens was among the fatalities.
Invesco Canada President Peter Intraligi confirmed D’Amico’s passing on Tuesday but declined to comment further out of the respect for her family.
D’Amico’s colleague Jon Tam told CBC she was warm and caring, was involved in volunteer work and enjoyed travel in her free time.
‘I’ll definitely be missing seeing that smile around the office,’ he said.
Toronto City Councilor Cesar Palacio said D’Amico was a friend of his daughter, and he remembers her as ‘a brilliant young girl’ who was very active and interested in improving society. He spoke with her parents on Tuesday.
According to a 2016 Corporate Social Responsibility Report issued by Invesco Canada, D’Amico’s title at the time was business performance management analyst.
The report indicated that she took part in a humanitarian project in the Dominican Republic, as part of which a group of Invesco workers helped build a new house for a local family.
D’Amico volunteered at a Canada-based international humanitarian charity called Live Different. Dave Hamilton, the charity’s manager of school partnerships, remembered her as ‘super-positive, always smiling, a funny person, always up for a challenge, and really wanted to help people out.’
The front end damage of the van that the driver used to hit several pedestrians in Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, killing 10
Toronto police officer arrests suspect in van attack
‘What I didn’t expect was to have such a deep connection to the family and see first-hand how much this new home truly means to them,’ D’Amico was quoted as saying about her experience.
A white Ryder van was heading south on busy Yonge Street at around 1.30pm and the streets were crowded with people enjoying an unseasonably warm day when the vehicle jumped onto the sidewalk and proceeded to mow down pedestrians along a mile-long stretch, without making any effort to stop.
The driver, a resident of the Richmond Hill section of Toronto, was quickly captured in a tense but brief confrontation with officers.
‘The incident definitely looked deliberate,’ Police Chief Mark Saunders told reporters at a late-night news conference.
Minassian had not been known to police previously. An online social media profile described him as a college student.
Officials would not comment on a possible motive except to play down a possible connection to terrorism, but social media posts attributed to Minassian painted him as a sexually frustrated involuntarily celibate who admired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger.
In one post, Minassian referred to the rebellion of ‘incels’ – a term used to refer to men who have been made ‘involuntarily celibate’ because women will not have sex with them.
In 2014, Rodger, who was also involuntarily celibate, gunned down six people at the University of California Santa Barbara before killing himself.
When a Mass Murderer Has a Cult Following
Unlike other mass murderers — Dylann Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, or even the Unabomber — the suspect in the Toronto van attack that killed ten and wounded 15 others earlier this week didn’t leave behind a manifesto.
Instead, he dropped a brief status update on Facebook: “The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!” To some observers, this must have seemed as cryptic as the Zodiac killer’s coded messages. But to those familiar with the misogynist “incel subculture” the message Alek Minassian was trying to send was crystal clear: his alleged act of terrorism was intended as a tribute of sorts to Elliot Rodger — mass murderer and patron saint of the internet’s “involuntary celibates.”
It’s been nearly four years since Rodger killed six (and then himself) in a rampage in Isla Vista, California — an act that he saw as an act of “retribution” against the women of the world, those “mean, cruel and heartless creatures” who had collectively rejected him, according to his lengthy manifesto, My Twisted World. But the cult of “Saint Elliot” — as his more fervent fans like to call him — is still going strong.
Elliot Rodgers, also known simply as ER by his admirers, has emerged as the patron saint of online misogynists. His likeness has inspired countless memes that straddle the line between lulzy irony and utter sincerity (one widely circulated picture depicts him as a literal saint, his face Photoshopped into a religious painting). ER’s admirers on 4chan and Reddit also celebrate “Saint Elliot Day” on May 23, the anniversary of his murder spree. Others write strange tribute songs to honor their murderous hero. There are Elliot Rodger T-shirts, and Elliot Rodger T-shirt unboxing videos.
The canonization of Elliot Rodger has a certain twisted logic to it. Misogynists, like conservatives more generally, are fans of hierarchy — and tend to believe that those at the top of the heap deserve to be there. This can easily lead to hero worship that strikes everyone else as vaguely absurd: the semi-ironic talk from men of the alt-right about “God Emperor” Trump, or Milo Yiannopoulos’s cringy habit of calling Trump “daddy.” And so it shouldn’t come as a shock that incels feel the same sort of reverence toward Rodger — a guy who went out and did what most incels only dream of doing.
Now, with less than a month to go before this year’s Saint Elliot Day, incels are embracing Minassian as the newest addition to the sainthood. On Tuesday, a commenter on Incels.me posted a picture of a makeshift shrine to the suspected terrorist, complete with a votive candle, hailing him as “our new saint.” “A warrior of incelibacy,” added another commenter, “peace be upon his soul.”
Elsewhere on Incels.me, Minassian’s newly minted fans hailed the newly minted saint for bringing so much media attention to their movement and thereby bringing their darkly misogynist “blackpill” truths to the masses. “Saint Alek’s bravery might have just woken up 1,000’s upon 1,000’s of incels,” one commenter happily proclaimed. “Welcome, men.”
But it’s hard to imagine this new saint taking over Saint Elliot’s top spot. At a time when so much of internet culture is drenched in multiple layers of irony, it’s surprising how dreadfully earnest and dedicated Rodger’s fanboys — and even a few fangirls — tend to be.
In a post from 4chan now circulating as a screenshot, one anonymous channer offered a surprisingly heartfelt tribute to “the Patron Saint of r9k,” a message board on 4chan popular with incels. “Rest in Peace Elliot Rodger,” it began. “Your Day of Retribution was more than a service to society; it was a gift to men like us men who, despite the supposed equality of America, were left to suffer as virgins. The only painful aspect of this otherwise joyous occasion is the knowledge that you’ll never know the extent of the psychological damage you caused. … maybe we can join each other in [the] afterlife and then we’ll have an eternity to spend together discussing the putrid nature of the sluts we so despise.”
The author ended with a poem:
If I should die, think only this of me
That there’s some obscure corner of the internet
That is forever dedicated to Elliot
Rodger’s fans show up in the strangest of places. In the Singles & Dating section of Yahoo! Answers, a young man identifying himself only as Topher wonders aloud if it is somehow wrong that he admires Rodger as much as he does.
“I’ll be 20 years old in November and ever since I was in 6th grade I’ve had trouble getting a girlfriend,” he writes. “It seems that around the time we all hit puberty girls have become picky with the type of guys they’ll go out with. I’m relatively attractive, I have a perfect facial structure with light brown hair that I style with expensive hair products. I have the newest iPhone, I have an Apple Watch, I have a BMW, I have nice clothes and a good amount of money to compliment a girls expensive tastes. Yet for some reason girls are always dating losers who are broke and treat them poorly. … I see happy couples at my college and I want to kill them. … I want to ruin their happiness and kill them all. I know how Elliot felt and I … admire him so much. Is this a bad thing?”
But the creepiest paeans to Rodger are found not on 4chan, not lurking in “some obscure corner of the internet” but rather hiding in plain sight on YouTube, where Elliot Rodger tribute videos have become almost a genre unto themselves. In one such video, Wiz Khalifa’s sentimental “See You Again” from the Furious 7 soundtrack plays over family photos of Rodger, clips from Rodger’s own videos — and surveillance footage of convenience-store customers fleeing in terror as Rodger shot up the store. A YouTuber calling himself Baby Elliot — and using a childhood photo of Rodger as his avatar — has put up no less than three lovingly crafted if decidedly amateur musical tributes to his hero.
In an even more unsettling tribute video, one young Christian explains how much he admires Rodger and understands the murderous impulses that led him to kill — though the video maker assures us that since he has found Christ he won’t himself “go around killing people for fun.”
There are an assortment of original tribute songs — some jokes, some utterly sincere, and still others that could well be either. In one, a man singing so softly he might as well be whispering performs a musical number called “My Twisted World: Official Elliot Rodger Song,” which seems to consist mostly of the phrase “my day of retribution” chanted over and over again. The video from 2015 had garnered 115 views and a single comment: “How stoned were you?”
Rodger is hardly the first murderer with a cult following. He’s not even the first misogynist killer to have been proclaimed a “saint” — that honor goes to “Saint” Marc Lépine, who murdered 14 women in cold blood at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in 1989. But Lépine was never embraced as a “saint” by anyone other than a small handful of extremist Men’s Rights Activists looking to offend as many feminists as possible. Rodger’s fanbase, for better and for worse, is much broader and much less ideological; many of his admirers seem to identify with him much more fully.
This could be in part because he showed us so much of himself in his videos and in his manifesto. When I first saw his videos four years ago in the wake of his attack, he came across as a deeply troubled young man whose manner was a mixture of awkward and arrogant. Watching his videos again today, I can see glimpses of the strange charisma. His awkwardness, to his fans at least, comes across as an appealing sort of vulnerability; his sneering arrogance, no matter how contrived it often seems in these videos, comes across as confidence.
It’s hard to imagine Minassian developing a similarly devoted following. So far he seems a cipher. He left behind no videos that might humanize him to potential fans. His “manifesto” was a short, impersonal paragraph, little more than a mash-up of incel clichés.
Philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach famously argued that religion was in essence a projection of our hopes and desires: “what man wishes to be, he makes his God.” It seems clear that Elliot Rodger’s fans are guilty of a similar sort of projection: in many ways they want to be Elliot, so they have made him their “saint.”
Story 3: Mental Disturbed Shooter Travis Reinking Kills Four in Antioch Tennessee Waffle House — Hero Customer Disarms Shooter — Shots
“Hero” describes wrestling gun away from Waffle House shooter
Waffle House Hero Gets Standing Ovation From Tennessee Lawmakers
4 killed at Tennessee Waffle House as police search for seminude suspect
Manhunt for gunman who killed 4 people at a Tennessee restaurant
Waffle House shooting: FULL press conference with ‘hero’ who stopped gunman
Father Proud Of Son’s Heroic Action
I Saw the Light”- Todd Rundgren, Daryl Hall
‘He was going to have to work to kill me’: ‘Hero’ diner who saved multiple lives by tackling the Waffle House gunman who killed four wipes away a tear at press conference and shows off burn injuries he suffered by grabbing barrel of the suspect’s AR-15
- Travis Reinking, 29, is now wanted for murder in the Sunday morning shooting
- The vehicle the gunman arrived in to the restaurant is registered to Reinking
- James Shaw Jr, 29, wrestled the gun away from the shooter and he fled on foot
- Police said the man was only wearing a green jacket at the time of the shooting
- Taurean Sanderlin, 29, Joe Perez, 20, Akilah Dasilva, 23, and Deebony Groves, 21, have all been identified as victims
- Reinking was arrested by the US Secret Service in July 2017 after being in a restricted area near the White House and his gun license was revoked
- Four of his weapons were seized but his father has admitted to returning them
- Reinking also told cops that Taylor Swift was stalking him and hacking his phone
The 29-year-old man who stopped a naked gunman after he opened fire at a Tennessee Waffle House on Sunday said he doesn’t feel like a hero.
James Shaw Jr has been identified as the man who wrestled with suspected gunman Travis Reinking.
Reinking, 29, killed four people and injured seven others in Antioch on Sunday morning before fleeing.
Authorities identified those killed in the shooting as 29-year-old restaurant worker Taurean C. Sanderlin of Goodlettsville, 20-year-old restaurant patron Joe R. Perez of Nashville, 23-year-old Akilah Dasilva of Nashville and Deebony Groves, a 21-year-old woman from Gallatin, Tennessee.
Sanderlin and Perez were killed outside the restaurant and Dasilva was critically wounded inside and later died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Groves was shot dead inside the restaurant.
Shots rang out at the restaurant (pictured after the shooting) in Antioch, near Nashville, around 3.25am on Sunday, according to the Metro Nashville Police Department
He was added to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s Top 10 Most Wanted List and is described as 6ft 4in and 180 pounds. He is considered armed and dangerous.
He was last seen Sunday around a wooded area near an apartment complex where he lived. Authorities said Reinking could be armed and weren’t ruling out that he had left the area. He was believed to be wearing only pants and no shirt or shoes.
Shaw Jr said he was just trying to stay alive when he tackled the shooter and grabbed his assault rifle, throwing it over the counter.
‘I’m not a hero, I’m just a regular person,’ he said at a press conference on Sunday afternoon while tearing up.
‘I think anybody could have did what I did if they’re just pushed in that kind of cage. You have to either react or you’re going to fold and I chose to react because I didn’t see any other way of me living, and that’s what I wanted to do, I wanted to live.’
Shaw Jr was grazed by a bullet and treated for a minor gunshot wound on his elbow. He has since been released from the hospital
Reinking arrived at the Waffle House parking lot around 3.19am and sat in his pick-up truck for three to four minutes while staring at people inside the restaurant, according to Metropolitan Nashville Police Department spokesman Don Aaron.
Completely naked except for a green jacket, Reinking opened fire with an AR-15 at 3.25am. The green jacket was later found with two magazines containing AR-15 ammunition.
‘He clearly came armed with a lot of firepower intending to devastate the south Nashville area,’ Aaron said.
Reinking first fatally shot two people standing outside the restaurant before he entered.
Shaw Jr, a Nashville native who works at AT&T and is a father to a four-year old girl, had been at a club when he and his best friend decided to get some food, he said.
They initially went to a different Waffle House but it was too packed, so they decided to another two miles away.
Shaw Jr said he saw Reinking sitting in truck as he headed into the restaurant.
When the shots first rang out, Shaw Jr thought a stack of plates had fallen to the ground.
Restaurant worker Taurean C. Sanderlin, 29, and 20-year-old customer Joe R. Perez were among the four shot dead by a gunman at a Nashville Waffle House on Sunday
Deebony Groves, 21, and Akilah Dasilva, 23, were also killed when the gunman stormed in and opened fire with an assault rifle
‘Then the second one happened, then the third one happened, and I saw the Waffle House employees scatter and I saw a person lying on the ground at the entrance of the door,’ he said.
When the gunman entered the restaurant Shaw Jr tried to hide behind a swivel door.
‘He shot through that door and it grazed my arm. That’s when I made up my mind – if it was going to come down to it, he was going to have to work to kill me,’ he said.
Shaw Jr then saw a window of opportunity when the gunman was ‘trying to reload’.
‘I ran through the swivel door, hit him with the swivel door, and the gun was kind of jammed up and pushed down so we were scuffling,’ he said.
‘I managed to get him with one hand on the gun and I grabbed it from him and threw it over the counter.’
Shaw Jr said he didn’t even feel the heat of the barrel when he grabbed the gun. After he got rid of the weapon, he pushed the gunman out of the restaurant.
The gunman fled and Shaw Jr said he didn’t follow because he was scared he might have another gun. Soon after, he flagged down passing drivers to call 911.
Metro Nashville Police Department said Reinking is now wanted for murder and warrants have been prepared
Shaw Jr said he was sorry he couldn’t save more lives.
‘It wasn’t really a process of thinking, it was more so a now, you have to do this now or it’s not…if I let him load that weapon there wasn’t going to be another window,’ he told News Channel 5.
‘There wasn’t going to be another chance. It was pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel, there was a brick wall behind us and nowhere to go.’
Shaw Jr was grazed by a bullet and treated for a minor gunshot wound on his elbow. His hands were also severely burned from grabbing the assault rifle.
After he was released from the hospital, Shaw Jr changed clothes and attended church with his family. He was joined by Nashville Mayor David Briley.
Shaw Jr said that although he is not very religious, he went to church because he felt there was ‘some divine entity’ looking over him during the shooting.
‘In a tenth of a second something was with me to run through that door and get the gun from him,’ he said during the press conference.
‘You could probably do that 10 times and only come out one time with the outcome I came out with. Something, some divine entity, was looking over me.’
Shaw Jr was also adamant in his belief that he was not a hero, despite being lauded by the police, FBI, and Waffle House executives.
‘I just wanted to persevere,’ he said. ‘I don’t want people to think I’m the Terminator or Superman.’
‘I just figured if I was going to die, he was going to have to work for it. I rushed him and it worked out in my favor.’
‘I don’t want this to be the focal point of my life. I don’t want this to be a major moment in my life, even though I know it’s going to be.’
Waffle House CEO Walt Ehmer thanked Shaw Jr and said: ‘You don’t get to meet too many heroes in life but you are my hero’.
Coroners carry out a body from the Waffle House where four died in the early hours of Sunday
Three of the victims died at the scene and a fourth died at the hospital. Coroners could be seen removing bodies from the restaurant on Sunday afternoon
More than 80 Nashville police officers continued to search for Reinking early Monday as disturbing reports about the wanted man’s past behavior came to light.
Reinking, who is from Morton, Illinois, was on the radar of both the FBI and Illinois law enforcement.
He was arrested by the US Secret Service for crossing an exterior security barrier near the White House complex in July 2017 and charged with unlawful entry.
Reinking told Secret Service officials he was trying to set up a meeting with President Donald Trump.
After Reinking was interviewed by the FBI and Tazewell Sheriff’s Department, his Illinois gun license was revoked at the request of the FBI.
Four of his weapons were seized by Tazewell authorities, including the AR-15 used in the Waffle House shooting, and the investigation was closed in October 2017.
The guns, however, were eventually returned to Reinking’s father who has since admitted to giving them back to his son. The AR-15 used in the Waffle House shooting was among the four weapons.
Police recovered three of the four guns that were originally taken from Reinking, but believe he is armed with at least one handgun.
Prior to the White House incident, police reports have previously described Reinking as ‘delusional’ and talked about his ‘mental health issues’.
His parents called 911 in 2016 because their son was convinced Taylor Swift was stalking him and he had spoken of killing himself.
‘Travis is hostile toward police and does not recognize police authority. Travis also possesses several firearms,’ a police report said.
Authorities said a total of eight people were taken to the hospital with injuries, including six who had gunshot wounds
Police said the suspect shot out the front window of the restaurant, leaving many people inside with visible cuts on their faces from glass
Police said the suspect shot out the front window of the restaurant, leaving many people inside with visible cuts on their faces from glass.
Witnesses said he ran to a nearby apartment complex, where he is a resident, and put on black pants before entering the woods barefoot.
A SWAT team swarmed his apartment in the morning with their guns drawn and screamed at nearby residents to ‘get back’.
It was declared cleared at 3pm, with no sight of Reinking.
Reinking had moved into an apartment complex near the Waffle House just two months ago, his neighbor Brianna Bolen told the Tennessean.
Authorities also used helicopters and dogs to search a wooded area near Reinking’s apartment.
Reinking is belived to have moved to Nashville in the fall of 2017 and worked in the construction trade.
Authorities said he was fired three weeks ago from one employer and recently received a job from another.
His new boss said Reinking showed up to work on Monday this week but had not been seen since.
Two of the people who died were killed outside of Waffle House and one person was fatally shot inside the restaurant
Authorities said a man believed to be Reinking was last seen walking at a nearby apartment complex. He was wearing black pants and no shirt
Authorities are currently at the scene of Reinking’s apartment complex (pictured). A neighbor said he just moved in two months ago
Metro Nashville Police used a SWAT team and bomb squad to serve a search warrant at Reinking’s apartment
members with assault weapons could be seen patrolling the neighborhood on Sunday
Witness Chuck Cordero went by the restaurant on Sunday morning to see his friends when the shooting began.
Cordero, 50, said he saw the gunman shoot his friend as well as a man standing at the door of the restaurant.
‘He did not say anything. He pulled up, got out of his car and was all business,’ Cordero told The Tennessean.
‘I couldn’t run, I was so scared. I was crawling on the ground.’
‘From underneath my car I could see that he stood out in front of the restaurant and shot a few shots through the windows, and then he went inside.’
‘I tried to run across the parking lot to get further away and once I got to the other side I looked back and there was a gentleman wrestling with the gunman.’
Cordero called Shaw Jr a ‘hero’.
‘Had that guy had a chance to reload his weapon, there were plenty more people in that restaurant. He really saved some people, I’m positive he did.’
Cordero said there 30 people in the restaurant at the time of the shooting.
FBI investigators arrived at Waffle House as well on Sunday afternoon following the shooting
A fourth person died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where one victim remains in critical condition and another is in critical but stable condition
Witness Chuck Cordero, 50, said he saw the gunman shoot his friend as well as a man standing at the door of the restaurant when the shooting began
Waffle House is ‘very concerned’ and ‘gathering all the details’ surrounding the shooting, spokesman Pat Warner said
Waffle House said it was ‘deeply saddened by this tragic incident’.
‘Right now, our first thoughts are with the victims and their families, and we will be there for them in this most difficult time,’ the statement read.
‘This is a very sad day for the Waffle House family.’
‘This morning our city woke up to tragic news, the fragility of life was brought home to all of us by the death of four innocent Nashvillians,’ he said in a statement.
‘Our heart goes out to all the victims and their families and I ask that Nashville continue to pray and rally around them.’
He also called for increased gun control for assault weapons, citing an earlier shooting at a Nashville church that killed one and injured seven others.
‘It’s been only seven months since we had another mass shooting here in Nashville,’ he said. ‘And that is far too frequent.’
‘If we can all just come together for the greater good, we can take these weapons of war off the streets of our country.’
‘Clearly, the victims of this shooting deserve our prayers and our thoughts, but they also deserve leaders who will step up and take action and do something to take these weapons off our streets.’
Read more:
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1067
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1401, February 24, 2020, Story 1: President Trump “America Loves India” — Videos — Story 2: Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Bernie Sanders Wins in Nevada On Way To Losing To President Trump in November 2020 — Story 3: Stock Market Falls As Coronavirus Spreads Around The World — Videos — Story 4: Movie Mogul Harvey Weinstein Convicted of Committing A Sexual Act and Rape — Faces 4 to 29 Years in Prison — Videos
Posted on February 24, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Abortion, American History, Amy Klobuchar, Banking System, Bernie Sanders, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Climate Change, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Elizabeth Warren, Empires, Employment, Environment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Joe Biden, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Music, News, People, Pete Buttigieg, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Abortion, Public Corruption, Radio, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Russia, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Security, Spying, Subversion, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: 24 February 2020, America, American Empire, Articles, Audio, Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders Wins in Nevada, Biden Fading Fast, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Economic Growth, Economic Impact of China's Virus, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faces 4 to 25 Years in Prison, Faces Four to Twenty Nine Years in Prison, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, India, Individualism, Kills People All Around The World, Knowledge, Law and Orders, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, Movie Mogul Harvey Weinstein Convicted of Committing A Sexual Act and Rape, MPEG3, News, novel Coronavirus, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Donald J. Justice, President Donald J. Trump, President Trump “America Loves India”, President Trump Rocks India, Prosperity, Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS), Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Bernie Sanders Wins In Nevada On Way To Losing To President Trump In November 2020, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Real Threat in Influenza Virus, REDS, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Sexual Predator, Show Notes, Socialism, Stock Market Falls As Coronavirus Spreads Around The World, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1401, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States Military Spending, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Weapons Sales of Helicopters To India, Who enabled Harvey Weinstein?, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019
,
Story 1: President Trump “America Loves India” — Videos
Trump speaks at massive rally during India visit: ‘America loves India’
Trump Takes On Motera Stage, Thanks India For Grand Welcome | Watch Full Speech
US President Trump Discusses Military Deal, Trade Pact with India at Rally
PM, Trump Get To Business, Crucial Bilateral & Trade Talks Today
Donald Trump visits the REAL Taj Mahal (as opposed to his old Atlantic City casino namesake): The Trumps hold hands in front of world famous ‘monument of love’
By EMILY GOODIN, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER IN NEW DELHI FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Donald and Melania Trump stopped by the Taj Mahal Monday evening, capping off their first day in India with a sunset visit to the world’s most famous monument to love.
They held hands as they posed for photographers and spent a few minutes staring at the white marble tomb as the sun started to dip below the horizon.
‘It’s incredible, truly incredible,’ Trump said. ‘Really incredible, an incredible place.’
Melania also weighed in: ‘Lovely, beautiful,’ she said.
The couple signed the guest book and walked through the gardens as part of their tour of the tomb, built by a 16th century emperor for his deceased wife.
‘Taj Mahal inspires awe, a timeless testament to the rich and diverse beauty of Indian culture! Thank you, India,’ the president wrote in the guest book. Melania Trump signed her name under her husband’s.
It is not the president’s first experience of a Taj Mahal; one of his Atlantic City casinos also held the name and after a checkered history of corporate bankruptcy, was sold to Carl Icahn in 2016, closed, and bought for just $50 million by the Seminole Indian tribe of Florida who have re-opened it as a Hard Rock casino and stripped it of its minarets and dome.
One thing appeared to be missing from the visit to the real Taj: monkeys.
There was no sign of the nearly 1,000 rhesus monkeys who live around the tomb and who sparked fears of a diplomatic incident should they act out. India put extra ‘monkey police’ – guards with sling shots – on duty to keep away the animals.
President Trump called the Taj Mahal ‘incredible’ while Melania Trump said it was ‘beautiful’
White House senior advisors Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner pose in front of the Taj Mahal
President Trump and Melania Trump arrived in Delhi Monday night to spend the night
Melania Trump waves from the Beast as the president limo makes it way toward their hotel
Not to be confused with…: Donald Trump had his own Taj Mahal, an Atlantic City casino whose fate ended in being sold to Carl Icahn in 2016 after a checkered career
Inspired by: The Trump Taj Mahal is now a Hard Rock casino which was stripped of its minarets and domes – and Trump branding – after being soold to the Seminole Indian tribe of Florida in 2016
Landmark: The Trump Taj Mahal was designed to invoke the grandeur of the original with a distinct gold theme inside and out. It was opened in 1988 by Trump who brought along Michael Jackson
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner also posed in front of the famous monument to love and then Kushner moved aside so Ivanka could get solo shots in front of the tomb.
Built by a Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1643, the Taj Mahal is a tomb for his wife Mumtaz Mahal. He built it for his favorite wife after she died giving birth to their 14th child. He is also buried there.
President Trump could have a special interest in the Taj. During his building days in the 1980s, he built the Trump Taj Mahal hotel and casino in Atlantic City. It opened in 1990 and cost nearly $1 billion to construct.
It came to closing in 2014 as its parent company went through bankruptcy, but ultimately remained open under the new ownership. It was sold again in October 2016 to the Hard Rock Cafe and reopened under that name.
The Trumps were given a framed photo of themselves in front of the monument when they returned to Air Force One to leave Agra for New Delhi, where they will spend the night.
The sunset trip to India’s most famous location came after the Trumps’ spent the day with Narendra Modi in his home state of Ahmedabad, where the president and prime minister got a raucous welcome when they entered the world’s largest cricket stadium.
The day gave the president the kind of pageantry and adoration he likes to see.
The 110,000 stadium was filled to capacity and Trump acknowledged the spectacle when he addressed the Indian people.
‘America loves India. America respects India. And America will always be faithful and loyal friends to the Indian people,’ the president said to cheers.
‘You have done a great honor to the American people. Melania, my family, we will always remember this remarkable hospitality,’ he said.
He later told reporters it was a ‘fantastic event.’
‘I thought it was fantastic,’ he said on his way to Agra to visit the Taj Mahal. ‘They worked really hard.’
President Trump received the welcome he wanted when he touched down in India Monday morning – a spectacle of Indians lining the streets cheering on his motorcade, guards on camels standing by, and native dancers in bright costumes moving to live music and the beat of the drum.
Modi designed the day to appeal to an audience of one: Trump, wooing the president as the two nations struggle to end a trade war that has damped relations between them.
President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrive for a ‘Namaste Trump’ event at Sardar Patel Stadium
President Donald Trump hugged Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he and Melania arrived in India, which was a rare display of affection from the president and spoke of his affection for Modi
President Trump and Melania Trump – who donned prayer shawls and removed their shoes – visited the home of Gandhi where Trump tried his hand at the loom
The stadium, which was filled with capacity saw people sitting in the sun head out as the two leaders wrapped up their remarks
Melania Trump and President Trump exit Sardar Patel Stadium – the world’s largest cricket stadium – after Trump’s remarks
The colorful and festive arrival ceremony in India featured dancers and live music as the Trumps and Modi walked the red carpet
Thousands lined the streets to welcome the Trumps but it was not the million people the president predicted would come out to greet him
Ivanka Trump and Jared Trump, the president’s daughter and son-in-law who serve as White House advisers, joined the president on the trip
President Trump, for his part, hugged Modi upon his arrival in the country in a rare display of affection that spoke volumes for his fondness for the prime minister.
Their three hours on the ground in Modi’s home state of Ahmedabad brought out thousands of cheering Indians, but not the millions Trump predicted would come out to greet him. Officials estimated about 100,000 people lined the 14-mile route the Trumps took through the city.
The Trumps were headed to the Taj Mahal after their time in Ahmedabad.
In their first stop in India, President Trump and Melania joined Modi for a visit to the home of Mohandas Gandhi, where the president donned a prayer shawl and removed his shoes to learn about the life of the famed independence leader.
Then it was on to the main event – the massive rally Modi had promised Trump, held at the biggest cricket stadium in the world.
Trump, who loves a large crowd, added on to the 110,000 capacity size when he thanked the crowd for its warm welcome.
‘To the hundreds of thousands of everyday citizens who come out and line the streets in a stunning display of Indian culture and kindness, and to the 125,000 people in this great stadium today, thank you for the spectacular welcome,’ he said.
Sardar Patel Stadium was packed to capacity, with thousands wearing white ‘Namaste Trump’ hats and waving masks of Trumps and Modi, cheering as the two leaders entered to the Village Men song ‘Macho Man.’
But the sections of the stadium facing the sun emptied out as the leaders wrapped up their remarks. The day was hot and baking.
Seats in Sardar Patel Stadium started to empty as President Trump and Prime Minister Modi wrapped up their remarks as the day was hot and baking
Prime Minister Modi welcomed President Trump to the world’s largest cricket stadium
First lady Melania Trump, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi stand as the national anthems are played
President Trump praised Prime Minister Modi and American-Indian relations in his remarks
‘India will soon be the home of the biggest middle class anywhere in the world, and within less than ten years, extreme poverty in your country is projected to completely disappear,’ Trump said.
Trump India Schedule
Monday: Trumps arrive in Ahmedabad
They visit the Gandhi Ashram
Event with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Motera Stadium, the world’s largest cricket stadium
Then the first couple will travel to Agra to visit the Taj Mahal
First couple then travels to Delhi, where they will stay the night
Tuesday will include ceremonial events, bilateral meetings, and business event with Indian investors
Trump will have a meet-and-greet with embassy staff
He will have a one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Modi
He will meet with Ram Nath Kovind, the president of India
First couple will attend a state dinner at the presidential palace, called Rashtrapati Bhavan
Trumps depart for the United States on Tuesday evening
He stumbled over Indian names, including over one of their spiritual gurus and famous cricket player Sachin Tendulkar.
The president also hit upon some of the talking points he uses in his campaign rallies, touting the strong U.S. economy, advocating for stronger border control, and bragging about the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
‘Every nation has the right to secure and patrol borders,’ Trump said.
He also discussed relations with Pakistan, India’s neighbor and rival, and said the U.S. was working with them to fight terrorism.
The president also mentioned the trade war that has aggravated relations between Delhi and Washington.
Trade talks are at the top of the agenda even as American officials down played expectations a deal would be reached during Trump’s two-days on the ground.
‘Modi and I will discuss the efforts to expand the economic ties,’ President Trump said. ‘We will be making very very major, the biggest ever trade deals.’
‘I am optimistic that working together the prime minister can reach a fantastic deal that would be good – even great – for both countries,’ he noted and then added: ‘Except he’s a very tough negotiator.’
Modi rallied the crowd by calling out ‘Namaste Trump.’
He praised the U.S.-Indian friendship, saying ‘new history is being created.’
‘Welcome all of you to the world’s biggest democracy,’ Modi said, telling Trump all of India welcomed him, adding that U.S. India relationships are ‘no longer just another partnership.’
The rally was designed to appeal to Trump’s love of big events, a crowd of thousands cheering him on as he and first lady Melania Trump came in.
Modi lavished on the praise to the president and his entire family, calling out the accomplishments of Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. He even mentioned the first lady’s ‘Be Best’ campaign by name and praised the work she has done with children.
Trump has touted his friendship with Modi and he hugged the prime minister when he touched down in India, a rare display of affection.
Indian officials rolled out the red carpet for the Trumps and have dubbed the visit as ‘two dynamic personalities, one momentous occasion.’
Modi was on hand to greet the first couple as they stepped off Air Force One as were an array of dancers in colorful native costumes, who gave a festive start to the visit.
They danced alongside the red carpet amid live music as the prime minister led the Trumps to their car.
Melania Trump wore white pants with a long-sleeved white shirt and green sash around her waist for the arrival.
Trump hugged Modi, a rare display of affection that showed his friendship for the prime minister
It was a festive arrival ceremony with music and dancers in native costume greeting the party as they walked the red carpet
Melania and Donald Trump descend the steps of Air Force One for their two-day visit
President Trump gives his daughter Ivanka a kiss
A woman explains about a charkha, or spinning wheel, to President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump as India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi looks on
The area where President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will speak in the stadium
The stadium holds 110,000 and will be the largest cricket stadium in the world
Trump sent a tweet in Hindi saying he was on his way
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who serve as White House advisers, were also on the trip and watched the arrival festivities from the sidelines.
And the president showed his enthusiasm for the state visit, sending a tweet from Air Force One in Hindi while he was in route that read: ‘We are ready to come to India, we are on our way, we will be meeting everyone in a few hours.’
Modi and the Trumps first stopped at the home of Mahatma Gandhi, where the president tried his hand at a loom – the same type used by the revered Indian leader.
The Trumps took a tour of the small complex made of a series of small houses. Modi explained to them how to use a charkha, a traditional spinning wheel used by Gandhi.
While the Trumps made their way through the city, thousands filled Motera Stadium – which will be the world’s largest cricket stadium after Trump formally opens it Monday – to greet the president.
The massive rally was dubbed ‘Namaste Trump,’ which translates into ‘Greetings Trump.’
The president loves a big show and has bragged this could be the biggest event India has ever seen with millions in attendance. The stadium, which is still under construction, holds 110,000 although many more Indians are expected to line the 14-mile route Trump will traverse from the airport to the rally site.
‘I hear it’s going to be a big event. Some people say the biggest event they’ve ever had in India. that’s what the prime minister told me – this’ll be the biggest event they’ve ever had. So it’s going to be very exciting,’ he told reporters at the White House Sunday as he prepared to leave for India.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attend a welcoming ceremony with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the airport
Native dancers were on hand to greet the president
Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel stand guard at the cricket stadium ahead of Trump’s visit
Billboards welcoming the Trumps have been hoisted around the towns of India they will be visiting
A monkey sits on a billboard featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump
And the place will be spick and span for the president.
Workers cleaned the roads and erected billboards welcoming the first couple. And a four-foot wall has been built to hide the nation’s infamous slums, which house more than 2,000 people, from the Trumps’ view.
Modi loyalists and police will line the road side in Ahmedabad – where the Trumps land Monday – to greet the first couple in the kind of pomp and circumstance the president adores – providing a grand lead-up to the world’s largest largest cricket stadium where Trump will hold the biggest rally of his presidential career.
Trump’s campaign rallies average between 10,000 and 20,000 depending on the venue size.
Trump said last week 7 million people in total would be out to welcome him, which would include the 14-mile route from the Ahmedabad airport to Motera Stadium.
‘He told me we’ll have seven million people between the airport and the event,’ Trump said last Tuesday.
Two days later, he raised crowd estimates.
‘I hear they’re going to have 10 million people,’ he said at a campaign rally. ‘They say anywhere from six to 10 million people are going to be showing up along the route to one of the largest stadiums in the world.’
It’s unclear how many will actually appear to cheer the president on his route but it is unlikely to be 10 million and may not hit six digits.
Ahmedabad has a population of eight million.
Modi’s government is dropping more than $14 million, according to the Associated Press, to woo President Trump as the two countries are embroiled in a trade war that shows no signs of abating.
That includes four-foot brick wall that has been quickly erected close to the stadium with some saying it is being built to block the view of a slum area inhabited by more than 2,000 people.
It will shield the President as he arrives at the event.
The stadium, which was built for $100 million, is a perfectly round venue that promises unobstructed views from every angle. It seats 110,000.
When Modi visited the United States last year, he and President Trump attended a ‘Howdy Modi’ rally in Houston that drew a crowd of 50,000 Indian Americans. Trump compared Modi to Elvis Presley at that event.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html
Story 2: Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Bernie Sanders Wins in Nevada with 46.6% of Vote On Way To Losing To President Trump in November 2020 —
Getting to Know Bernie Sanders | The Daily Show
Bernie wins big in Nevada caucus
Top U.S. & World Headlines — February 24, 2020
Sen. Bernie Sanders wins Nevada Democratic primary | ABC News
Sanders & Socialism: Debate Between Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman & Socialist Economist Richard Wolff
Marianne Williamson’s Endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders for President
Van Jones: Establishment’s jaws are hanging off their faces
Gutfeld on Bernie Sanders’ socialist dreams
Why Democratic Socialism Is Gaining Popularity In The United States
Capitalism vs. Socialism
Socialism Makes People Selfish
Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism
Sweden Not a Socialist Success
Sweden: Lessons for America? – Full Video
Is Denmark Socialist?
Thomas Sowell – From Marxism to Capitalism
Socialism vs Capitalism | Full Debate | Yaron Brooks, Leo Panitch, Kemi Badenoch
Conway says Bernie’s ‘electability’ is no match for Trump’s ‘electricity’
Bernie celebrates huge Nevada caucuses win with ‘future first lady’ Jane: Donald Trump congratulates ‘Crazy’ Sanders for landslide victory and mocks ‘weak’ Democratic opponents struggling to catch the front-runner
By NIKKI SCHWAB, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA and KATELYN CARALLE, U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Bernie Sanders was declared the winner of the Nevada caucuses Saturday despite only a fraction of the vote in.
Sanders had a formidable lead, taking 46.6 per cent of the delegates with 22 per cent of precincts reporting.
‘I’m delighted to bring you some very good news,’ a jovial Sanders announced to a crowd of supporters at his rally in San Antonio, Texas Saturday evening, alongside his wife Jane.
‘I think all of you know we won the popular vote in Iowa. We won the New Hampshire primary. And, according to three networks and the AP, we have now won the Nevada caucus,’ Sanders said as audience members erupted in chants and cheers.
Trump went ahead and congratulated Sanders before most networks had called the race.
‘Looks like Crazy Bernie is doing well in the Great State of Nevada. Biden & the rest look weak, & no way Mini Mike can restart his campaign after the worst debate performance in the history of Presidential Debates,’ Trump said.
‘Congratulations Bernie, & don’t let them take it away from you!’ the president wrote.
In response to the president’s tweet, Sanders told rally-goers not to reveal how much support he had in the country’s most populous red state.
‘Don’t tell anybody, I don’t want to get them nervous, we are going to win the Democratic primary in Texas. And you know, this is also important the president gets very, very upset easily, so don’t tell him we’re going to beat him here in Texas,’ Sanders said.
Bernie Sanders won Nevada, taking 46.6 per cent of the delegates with 22 per cent of precincts reporting. He was pictured with his wife Jane, who he introduced as ‘the future first lady’
Joe Biden, who came in second with 19.25 per cent of the vote, claimed his second place finish was enough to reboot his struggling campaign. In Iowa, Buttigieg beat Sanders in the delegate count by a hair, but placed third in Nevada with 15.38 per cent of the vote
Elizabeth Warren, whose debate performance against newbie Mike Bloomberg dominated the headlines in Nevada all week after Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, took 10.27 per cent of the vote. Amy Klobuchar, who took 4.5 per cent of the vote, headed back to her home state of Minnesota soon after the results were called
Sanders left Nevada before precinct locations had adjourned their caucuses and headed to Texas for two rallies Saturday.
Texas is a state Sanders will likely struggle to gain support in the Democratic primary, since voters are generally more moderate in the Lone Star State.
During his first rally Saturday in border city of El Paso, Texas, Sanders did not bring up his jarring lead.
As Trump tweeted, NBC News said the race was ‘too early to call.’ The network then called the race as Sanders’ rival Joe Biden was speaking in Nevada, claiming his second place finish, with 19.25 per cent of the vote, was enough to reboot his struggling campaign.
‘I know the press is ready to declare people quickly dead,’ Biden told his supporters. ‘We’re alive and we’re coming back and we’re going to win.’
One person loudly yelled that Biden was the ‘comeback kid,’ while Biden boasted he would go on to win South Carolina, where voters will head to the polls in a week.
Sanders is coming off a win in New Hampshire, with Pete Buttigieg coming in a close second in the Granite State. He came third in Nevada, with 15.38 per cent of the vote. In Iowa, Buttigieg beat Sanders in the delegate count by a hair, while the Vermont senator won the popular vote. Biden finished in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire.
Reporting for Nevada started to filter in the early afternoon Saturday, though stayed at 3 per cent for more than an hour, as Democrats tried to avoid having reporting problems like they did in Iowa thanks to a malfunctioning app. CNN reported that some precinct chairs had trouble calling in and reporting the results.
Despite the major momentum for the Vermont senator in the Silver State, the candidate had already left to campaign in Texas before the Nevada caucus sites adjourned.
Sanders is holding two campaign rallies in the Lone Star State Saturday, where a more moderate Democratic electorate could spell trouble for the democratic socialist. He’ll also hold a Houston rally Sunday. Texas votes on March 3, with 13 other ‘Super Tuesday’ states.
Although only 4 per cent of reporting was in by the time of Sanders’ rally, several networks had called the caucus for Sanders as he took a substantial lead with more than 50 per cent
Sanders claimed at his rally in Texas, and on Twitter, that Donald Trump would get ‘nervous’ if he found out how much support he has in Texas – the most populous red state
Buttigieg and Biden stayed in Las Vegas, while Amy Klobuchar – who came fifth with 4.51% of the vote – headed back to her home state of Minnesota for a rally. Minnesota is one of the 14 so-called ‘Super Tuesday’ states.
Buttigieg used his event to both congratulate Sanders and warn Democratic voters about the victor.
‘I congratulate Senator Sanders on a strong showing today, and we certainly celebrate many of the same ideals,’ Buttigieig admitted, although he rarely likens himself to the Democratic socialist candidate.
‘But before we rush to nominate Senator Sanders, in our one shot to take on this president, let’s take a sober look at the consequences – for our party, for our values, and for those with the most at stake,’ he urged.
The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana also reminded the 300 or so audience members that he won against Sanders in Iowa.
‘Ours is the only campaign that has beaten Senator Sanders anywhere in the country,’ he said to a cheering crowd gathered at a the Spring Preservation nature area just five miles from the Vegas strip.
Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire 2020 hopeful who decided to skip the four opening states, had his campaign manager send out a statement also warning of what Sanders win could mean.
‘The Nevada results reinforce the reality that this fragmented field is putting Bernie Sanders on pace to amass an insurmountable delegate lead,’ Bloomberg’s campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said. ‘We are going to need Independents AND Republicans to defeat Trump – attacking your own party is no way to get started. As Mike says, if we choose a candidate who appeals to a small base – like Senator Sanders – it will be a fatal error.’
Bernie Sanders easily won Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, with networks reporting the double-digit win with only a small percentage of precincts reporting
Sanders, however, left Nevada before caucus sites adjourned Saturday for two rallies in Texas, a state where he struggles among more moderate Democratic voters
President Trump sent a back-handed congratulatory tweet to Bernie Sanders before most networks had called the race for the Vermont senator. Trump said Biden and the other Democratic hopefuls looked ‘weak’
The caucuses kicked off at noon on Saturday, though 75,000 Nevada Democrats had participated in early voting.
At the Bellagio Hotel on the iconic Las Vegas strip, 123 people participated in the caucuses, with the room breaking out into chants for Sanders and Biden – as the vast majority only supported those two candidates.
The site consisted of residents from a 2.5 mile radius as well as shift workers from the hotel who wanted to participate in the middle of the work day.
There was a small showing for Elizabeth Warren – who came fourth, with 10.27% – as well, whose debate performance against newbie Bloomberg dominated the headlines in Nevada all week after Wednesday night’s Democratic debate.
At the Bellagio, for candidates to be ‘viable’ at least 19 caucus participants had to back them.
Only Sanders and Biden qualified during the first counting, while seven people came out for Warren.
Bernie Sanders’ supporters at the Bellagio hotel cheered for their candidate, who won that particular caucus site
Bernie Sanders’ supporters raise their hands at the Liberty High School in Henderson, Nevada Saturday afternoon
Vice President Joe Biden greets Democratic caucus-goers Saturday at Cheyenne High School in North Las Vegas
Elizabeth Warren only had a handful of supporters caucus for her at the Bellagio Hotel caucus site
Pete Buttigieg showed up to caucuses being held at Sierra Vista High School on Saturday. Buttigieg and Biden both stuck around in Nevada, while the other top candidates left
us totals were reported on these paper worksheets, one for each precinct. Caucus volunteers had to factor in early vote totals along with totals on-site
e early realignment was announced over the microphone, Sanders’ supporters cheered enthusiastically while Biden supporters booed.
The site only required one realignment, with Sanders ultimately earning 76 total ballots cast for him after one person moved to the senator’s camp and Biden earned support from 45 caucus-goers – earning 6 more after the realignment.
The president of the caucus-site announced that they would send 32 delegates to the county convention for Sanders and 19 for Biden.
The Bellagio is an at-large caucus site, encompassing several hotel and casino workers, and there were tables set up outside of the ballroom where attendees could register to vote.
Ahead of the caucuses, the tables were surrounded by individuals filling out the paperwork to be able to participate.
A rideshare driver on the way to the site told DailyMail.com that he wanted to cast a ballot, but after finding out it was a bigger ordeal than pressing a button, decided he had to work and earn money instead.
At Rancho High School in north Las Vegas two precincts simultaneously caucused in a gymnasium. At both precincts, Sanders was the only viable candidate – and early voters far outnumbered those who showed up to the school.
In one precinct, just 20 people caucused in person, while another 61 had cast early votes. Sanders picked up 46 of those early votes, while another 13 caucused for him Saturday in person, during the precinct’s first alignment.
Happening directly beside that precinct was another that overwhelmingly felt the Bern.
Of the 16 Democrats who came to caucus in person, 12 were there to support the Vermont senator. Sanders was supplemented by an additional 20 early votes.
He won all 13 delegates from that precinct, while earning 24 from the adjacent precinct. No other candidate won any.
However, there were 11 precincts caucusing at Rancho High School overall, with Biden and Steyer also winning some delegates.
Nevada began caucusing in primary contests in 1981, but the state did not earn early primary status until 2008, when the Democratic National Committee made Nevada the second-in-the-nation caucuses following Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary election.
The final two Nevada polls that dropped Friday had shown Sanders with a comfortable lead. And he was leading in entrance polls Saturday as well.
Mike Bloomberg made his debate debut in Nevada Wednesday night, but then headed to Utah – a Super Tuesday state. The billionaire has staked his chances on competing in the 14 states that vote on March 3, instead of competing in the first four, which includes Nevada
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez told DailyMail.com earlier in the week that he couldn’t predict when the results of the Nevada caucus would come out
Democrats are hoping that Nevada’s caucuses go off without a hitch after an app glitch led to chaos in Iowa at the beginning of the month, with Sanders’ campaign still challenging the count that saw Buttigieg win by a tiny fraction.
Earlier in the week, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez told DailyMail.com he couldn’t predict when results would be up for Nevada.
Perez couldn’t guarantee whether the crop of 2020 presidential candidates competing in the Democratic primary would see results by the end of Saturday.
‘I don’t know how many people are going to show up, so that’s an impossible question to answer,’ Perez said. ‘I know we’re going to try to get results as soon as possible. But we want to get results that are accurate and we want to make sure we count every vote.’
While the Nevada Democratic Party is holding its official nominating contest on Saturday, the state experienced days earlier a massive number of participants in its first-ever early voting in Nevada.
Nearly 75,000 people cast early voting ballots, the party announced Friday, which is only 10,000 voters shy of the entire caucus count from 2016, which stood around 84,000.
In the 2016 primaries, around 1.3 million of the 3 million residents in Nevada voted.
The population of the western state is mostly contained to Las Vegas, Henderson and Reno, its three largest cities.
The state ended up voting to nominate Hillary Clinton and in the primaries voted for Clinton by a margin of 2.4 per cent more than Donald Trump.
WHO ARE THE 8 DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020?
urrent role. A University of Delaware and Syracuse Law graduate, he was first elected to Newcastle City Council in 1969, then won upset election to Senate in 1972, aged 29. Was talked out of quitting before being sworn in when his wife and daughter died in a car crash and served total of six terms. Chaired Judiciary Committee’s notorious Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Ran for president in 1988, pulled out after plagiarism scandal, ran again in 2008, withdrew after placing fifth in the Iowa Caucuses. Tapped by Obama as his running mate and served two terms as vice president. Contemplated third run in 2016 but decided against it after his son died of brain cancer.
Family: Eldest of four siblings born to Joe Biden Sr. and Catherine Finnegan. First wife Neilia Hunter and their one-year-old daughter Naomi died in car crash which their two sons, Joseph ‘Beau’ and Robert Hunter survived. Married Jill Jacobs in 1976, with whom he has daughter Ashley. Beau died of brain cancer in 2015. Hunter’s marriage to Kathleen Buhle, with whom he has three children, ended in 2016 when it emerged Hunter was in a relationship with Beau’s widow Hallie, mother of their two children. Hunter admitted cocaine use; his estranged wife accused him of blowing their savings on drugs and prostitutes
Religion: Catholic
Views on key issues: Ultra-moderate who will emphasize bipartisan record. Will come under fire over record, having voted: to stop desegregation bussing in 1975; to overturn Roe v Wade in 1981; for now controversial 1994 Violent Crime Act; for 2003 Iraq War; and for banking deregulation. Says he is ‘most progressive’ Democrat. New positions include free college, tax reform, $15 minimum wage. No public position yet on Green New Deal and healthcare. Pro-gun control. Has already apologized to women who say he touched them inappropriately
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president
Slogan: Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead
MIKE BLOOMBERG
Age on Inauguration Day: 78
Entered race: November 24, 2019
Career: Currently multi-billionaire CEO of Bloomberg PL, the financial information firm he founded in 1981 and which remains a private company. Educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, he became a Wall Street trader at investment bank Salomon Brothers and was laid off in 1981, walking away with $10m in stock which he used to set up his own financial information firm, now one of the world’s largest. Three times mayor of New York 2002 to 2013, running first as Republican then as independent; had to get term limits suspended for final term. Once flirted with running for mayor of London where he has a home; holds an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth. Has spent large amounts on philanthropy in line with his political views as well as on political campaigns
Family: Born in Brookline, MA, to first-generation Jewish immigrant parents whose own parents had fled Russia. Divorced wife of 18 years, Susan Brown-Meyer, in 1993; former couple have daughters Emma, who has a son with her former boyfriend, and Georgina, who has daughter Zelda with her husband Chris Fissora. The child has a portmanteau surname, Frissberg. Partner since 2000 is Diana Taylor, former New York state banking commissioner, 13 years his junior
Religion: Jewish
Views on key issues: Self-professed fiscal conservative, although painted as a Democratic moderate by other conservative groups. Opposed to Medicare for all. Social progressive who backed gay marriage early, but has flip-flopped on marijuana legalization, most recently opposing it.. Wants firm action on climate change. Fiercely in favor of gun control. As New York mayor banned smoking in public places and tried to outlaw large sugary drinks. Backs increased immigration. Apologized for his stop-and-frisk policing strategy as mayor
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president; richest president ever; first New York mayor to become president
Slogan: Fighting For Our Future
PETE BUTTIGIEG
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Announced formation of exploratory committee January 23, 2019. Formally entered race April 14, 2019
Career: Currently mayor of Sound Bend, Indiana. Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar who got a second degree from Oxford before working as a McKinsey management consultant and being commissioned as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer. Elected South Bend mayor in 2011 and served in combat in 2013, won re-election in 2015
Family: Came out as gay during second mayoral run and married husband Chasten Glezman, a middle school teacher in 2018. Parents were University of Notre Dame academics; his father was Maltese-American. Surname is pronounced BOOT-edge-edge
Religion: Raised as a Catholic, now Episcopalian
Views on key issues: Has said Democratic party needs a ‘fresh start’; wrote an essay in praise of Bernie Sanders aged 17; backed paid parental leave for city employees; other policies unknown
Would make history as: First openly gay and youngest-ever president. First veteran of post-World War II conflict
Slogan: A Fresh Start For America
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Still to formally file any papers but said she would run on January 11 2019
Career: Currently Hawaii congresswoman. Born on American Samoa, a territory. Raised largely in Hawaii, she co-founded an environmental non-profit with her father as a teenager and was elected to the State Legislature aged 21, its youngest member in history. Enlisted in the National Guard and served two tours, one in Iraq 2004-2006, then as an officer in Kuwait in 2009. Ran for Honolulu City Council in 2011, and House of Representatives in 2012
Family: Married to her second husband, Abraham Williams, a cinematographer since 2015. First marriage to childhood sweetheart Eduardo Tamayo in 2002 ended in 2006. Father Mike Gabbard is a Democratic Hawaii state senator, mother Carol Porter runs a non-profit.
Religion: Hindu
Views on key issues: Has apologized for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views; wants marijuana federally legalized; opposed to most U.S. foreign interventions; backs $15 minimum wage and universal health care; was the second elected Democrat to meet Trump after his 2016 victory
Would make history as: First female, Hindu and Samoan-American president; youngest president ever
Slogan: Lead with Love
AMY KLOBUCHAR
Age on Inauguration Day: 60
Entered race: Announced candidacy February 10, 2019 at snow-drenched rally in her native Minneapolis
Career: Currently Minnesota senator. Yale and University of Chicago law graduate who became a corporate lawyer. First ran unsuccessfully for office in 1994 as Hennepin, MI, county attorney, and won same race in 1998, then in 2002, without opposition. Ran for Senate in 2006 and won 58-38; re-elected in 2012 and 2018
Family: Married to John Bessler, law professor at University of Baltimore and expert on capital punishment. Daughter Abigail Bessler, 23, works fora Democratic member of New York City council. Father Jim, 90, was a veteran newspaper columnist who has written a memoir of how his alcoholism hurt his family; mom Rose is a retired grade school teacher
Religion: Congregationalist (United Church of Christ)
Views on key issues: Seen as a mainstream liberal: says she wants ‘universal health care’ but has not spelled out how; pro-gun control; pro-choice; backs $15 minimum wage; no public statements on federal marijuana legalization; has backed pro-Israel law banning the ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions’ movement; spoke out against abolishing ICE
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Let’s Get To Work
BERNIE SANDERS
Age on Inauguration Day: 79
Entered race: Sources said on January 25, 2019, that he would form exploratory committee. Officially announced February 19
Career: Currently Vermont senator. Student civil rights and anti-Vietnam activist who moved to Vermont and worked as a carpenter and radical film-maker. Serial failed political candidate in the 1970s, he ran as a socialist for mayor of Burlington in 1980 and served two terms ending in 1989, and win a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990. Ran for Senate in 2006 elections as an independent with Democratic endorsement and won third term in 2018. Challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 but lost. Campaign has since been hit by allegations of sexual harassment – for which he has apologized – and criticized for its ‘Bernie bro’ culture
Family: Born to a Jewish immigrant father and the daughter of Jewish immigrant parents in Brooklyn, New York. First marriage to college sweetheart Deborah Shiling Messing in 1964 ended in divorce in 1966; had son Levi in 1969 with then girlfriend Susan Cambell Mott. Married Jone O’Meara in 1988 and considers her three children, all adults, his own. The couple have seven grandchildren. His older brother Larry is a former Green Party councilor in Oxfordshire, England.
Religion: Secular Jewish
Views on key issues: Openly socialist and standard bearer for the Democratic party’s left-turn. Wants federal $15 minimum wage; banks broken up; union membership encouraged; free college tuition; universal health care; re-distributive taxation; he opposed Iraq War and also U.S. leading the fight against ISIS and wants troops largely out of Afghanistan and the Middle East
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president
Slogan: Not me. Us.
TOM STEYER
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 63
Entered race: July 9, 2019
Career: Currently retired. New York-born to wealthy family, he was educated at elite Phillips Exeter Academy, and Yale, then Stanford Business School. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs banker who founded his own hedge fund in 1986 and made himself a billionaire; investments included subprime lenders, private prisons and coal mines. Stepped down in 2012 to focus on advocating for alternative energy. Longtime Democratic activist and donor who started campaign to impeach Trump in October 2017. Net worth of $1.6 billion has made him one of the Democrats’ biggest single donors
Family: Married Kathryn Taylor in 1986; they have four adult children who have been told they will not inherit the bulk of his fortune. Announced last November he and his wife would live apart. Father Roy was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor
Religion: Episcopalian
Views on key issues: On the left of the field despite being a hedge fund tycoon. Backs single-payer health care, minimum wage rises and free public college. Previously spoke in favor of Bernie Sanders’ agenda. Aggressive backer of climate change action, including ditching fossil fuels
Would make history as: Richest Democratic president ever
Slogan: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
ELIZABETH WARREN
Age on Inauguration Day: 71
Entered race: Set up exploratory committee December 31, 2018
Career: Currently Massachusetts senator. Law lecturer and academic who became an expert on bankruptcy law and tenured Harvard professor. Ran for Senate and won in 2012, defeating sitting Republican Scott Brown, held it in 2018 60% to 36%. Was short-listed to be Hillary’s running mate and campaigned hard for her in 2016
Family: Twice-married mother of two and grandmother of three. First husband and father of her children was her high-school sweetheart. Second husband Bruce Mann is Harvard law professor. Daughter Amelia Tyagi and son Alex Warren have both been involved in her campaigns. Has controversially claimed Native American roots; DNA test suggested she is as little as 1,064th Native American
Religion: Raised Methodist, now described as Christian with no fixed church
Views on key issues: Was a registered Republican who voted for the party but registered as a Democrat in 1996. Pro: higher taxes on rich; banking regulation; Dream Act path to citizenship for ‘dreamers’; abortion and gay rights; campaign finance restrictions; and expansion of public provision of healthcare – although still to spell out exactly how that would happen. Against: U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Syria; liberalization of gambling
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Warren Has A Plan For That
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado senator
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey Senator
STEVE BULLOCK, Montana governor
JULIÁN CASTRO, former Housing Secretary
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York senator
BILL DE BLASIO, New York City mayor
JOHN DELANEY, former Maryland Congressman
MIKE GRAVEL, Former Alaska governor
KAMALA HARRIS,California senator
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Former Colorado governor
JAY INSLEE, Washington governor
WAYNE MESSAM, mayor of Miramar, Florida
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts congressman
RICHARD OJEDA, former West Virginia state senator
BETO O’ROURKE, former Texas congressman
DEVAL PATRICK, former Massachusetts governor
TIM RYAN, Ohio congressman
JOE SESTAK, former Pennsylvania congressman
ERIC SWALWELL, California congressman
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, author
ANDREW YANG, entrepreneur
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8032979/Sanders-strong-showing-Las-Vegas-caucus-sites.html
Delegates Needed to Win the 2020 Democratic Nomination
Summary: The math behind how the Democratic National Committee calculates the number of delegates a candidate needs to win.
First Ballot
A candidate will need 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination on the first ballot. Per the Democratic National Committee, a candidate needs a majority of those eligible to vote on the ballot. Most importantly for the calculation, the candidate needs “a whole unit of delegate above half.”
Half of 3,979 is 1,989.5. As there are no delegates in this round with a half vote, a whole unit of delegate is one. Therefore, the requirement is 1,990.5 (1,989.5 + 1) delegates, which is rounded to 1,991.
Additional Ballots
If no candidate wins on the first ballot, all delegates become unpledged. There are 4,750 delegate votes on the second – and any subsequent – ballot. This total is comprised of the 3,979 formerly-pledged delegates from the first ballot as well as 767 automatic delegates with a full vote and 8 automatic delegates with a half vote.1 This means there are 775 automatic delegates with a total of 771 votes, with 4,750 equal to 3,979 + 771.
Since there are delegates with a half vote, a half vote is considered a whole unit of delegate for any ballot after the first round. Half of 4,750 is 2,375. Therefore, the requirement is 2,375.5 delegates to win the nomination when all delegates are voting.
Note that since automatic delegates are specific people or positions, the number can vary slightly – up or down – over time. For example, all Democratic members of the U.S. House are automatic delegates. If there was to be a new vacancy that remained unfilled at the time of the convention, there would be one less delegate in this category.
A Fine Point
If a candidate earns pledged delegates greater than a majority of all delegate votes (i.e., 2,375.5 or greater) during the primary and caucus contests, that person’s nomination will be a foregone conclusion. In this scenario, all delegates will be able to vote on the first ballot. This outcome seems unlikely given the size of the field and the party’s proportional allocation of delegates in each contest.
https://www.270towin.com/content/delegates-needed-to-win-2020-democratic-nomination
Story 3: Stock Market Falls As Coronavirus Spreads Around The World — Videos —
Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/24/20 FULL | Breaking TRUMP February 24, 2020
Navarro on coronavirus: Trump is focused on moving supply chains to US
Tucker: Coronavirus pandemic is a real fear
Get the facts on coronavirus
How Coronavirus Kills: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) & Treatment
[youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okg7uq_HrhQ]
How does Coronavirus compare to Ebola, SARS, etc?
Comparing the novel coronavirus to past outbreaks SARS & MERS
Dow plunges 1,000 points on coronavirus fears, 3.5% drop is worst in two years
Stocks fell sharply on Monday as the number of coronavirus cases outside China surged, stoking fears of a prolonged global economic slowdown from the virus spreading.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 1,031.61 points lower, or 3.56%, at 27,960.80. The S&P 500 slid 3.35% to 3,225.89 while the Nasdaq Composite closed 3.71% lower at 9,221.28. It was the Dow’s biggest point and percentage-point drop since February 2018. The Dow also gave up its gain for 2020 and is now down 2% for the year. The S&P 500 also had its worst day in two years and wiped out its year-to-date gain as well.
“The second-largest economy in the world is completely shut down. People aren’t totally pricing that in,” said Larry Benedict, CEO of The Opportunistic Trader, adding a 10% to 15% correction in stocks may be starting. He also said some parts of the market, particularly large-cap tech stocks, appear to be over-owned. “It seems like there’s much more to come.”
Coronavirus-impacted names led the way lower. Airline stocks Delta and American were both down more than 6% while United closed 5.4% lower. Shares of casino operators Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts dropped at least 5.2% each. MGM Resorts slid 5.4%.
Chipmakers, which are highly leveraged to the global economy, were also down broadly. Nvidia shares were down 7.1% while Dow-component Intel ended the day down 4%. AMD dipped 7.8%. The VanEck Vectors Semiconductor ETF (SMH) was down by 4.5%.
“The market had been sanguine about the spread of the coronavirus,” said Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist at Prudential Financial. “That sanguine stance is being tested today.”
“Companies are assessing their suppliers and their supply chains and seeing whether or not their revenue is going to slow,” Krosby said. “Because of that, this has become a sell-first, ask-questions later type of market.”
Overseas markets fell sharply. The European Stoxx 600 dropped more than 3% while Korea’s Kospi index slid 3.9%.In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index fell 1.8%.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett said the coronavirus spread has softened up the U.S. economy, but noted growth is still healthy. “Business is down but it’s down from a very good level,” Buffett told CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box.” “You look at car holdings —railcar holdings, moving goods around. And there again, that was affected by the tariffs too because people front-ended purchases, all kinds of things.” Buffett added he still recommends buying stocks for the long term.
The coronavirus outbreak that was first reported in China, but has spread rapidly in other countries especially South Korea and Italy, which reported a spike in the number of confirmed cases in recent days.
South Korea raised its coronavirus alert to the “highest level” over the weekend, with the latest spike in numbers bringing the total infected to more than 800 — making it the country with the most cases outside mainland China.
Meanwhile, outside of Asia, Italy has been the worst affected country so far, with more than 130 reported cases and three deaths.
“There remains a large degree of uncertainty surrounding the virus, and no one knows how this will ultimately play out,” said Keith Lerner, chief market strategist at Truist/SunTrust Advisory. “With stock prices and valuations still near cycle highs, the risk of a worsening virus outbreak has not been priced into the market to a great extent.”
The major averages hit record highs all hit record highs earlier this month despite lingering concerns over the coronavirus.
In the earlier days after the outbreak, many economists had predicted a V-shaped recovery, which describes downturns that see a steep fall before recovering sharply. However, traders are loading up on traditional safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and gold.
The benchmark 10-year note yield fell to 1.369% on Monday, putting the key rate close to it all-time low closing around 1.36%. Yields move inversely to prices. Gold futures jumped 1.7% to around $1,676.60 per ounce and hit its highest level since January 2013.
The Cboe Volatility Index (VIX) — considered to be the best fear gauge on Wall Street — jumped more than 7 points, or about 46%, to 25.04.
“Simply put, the markets were not setup for where we are today,” said Gregory Faranello, head of U.S. rates trading at AmeriVet Securities, in a note. It’s an “extremely dynamic environment. And one which continues to warrant respect and caution.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/24/us-futures-coronavirus-outbreak.html
Story 4: Movie Mogul Harvey Weinstein Convicted of Committing A Sexual Act and Rape — Faces 4 to 29 Years in Prison — Videos
Judge Napolitano: Judge in Weinstein case showing ‘no mercy’
‘The Five’ reacts to Harvey Weinstein’s conviction
Harvey Weinstein Says “But I’m Innocent” After Guilty Verdicts In Rape Trial; Sentencing Set For March 11
By Greg Evans
Greg Evans
Associate Editor/Broadway Critic
February 24, 2020 8:42am
RELATED STORY
Harvey Weinstein Appeal Already Heading To New York Court
Four New York court marshals immediately surrounded Weinstein, seated at the defense table. As many as nine other officers were stationed alongside walls and doors in the Lower Manhattan courtroom as the seemingly stunned former producer was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs.
Weinstein remained immobile throughout the verdict delivery, staring forward toward the judge’s bench.
In a post-verdict press conference, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. called Weinstein “a vicious, serial sexual predator who used his power to threaten, rape, assault, trick, humiliate and silence his victims.” He praised the women who testified as “brave” and “heroic,” saying the accusers, including the trial’s primary complainants Miriam “Mimi” Haley and Jessica Mann, have “changed the course of history.”
“This is the new landscape for sexual assault survivors in America, I believe, and this is a new day, Vance said at a news conference following the verdict announcement. “It’s a new day because Harvey Weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed. The women who came forward courageously and at great risk made that happen. Weinstein is He’s been found guilty of the first degree and will face on that count a state prison sentence of no less than five years and up to 25 years.”
conviction stems from allegations by former Project Runway production assistant Haley that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her at his Soho apartment in 2006. The guilty verdict could see the Miramax co-creator face up to 25 years in prison, with a minimum of four years.
Hollywood Figures React To Harvey Weinstein Verdict: He’ll “Forever Be Known As A Convicted Serial Predator”
The third-degree rape count, based on a 2013 rape allegation by Weinstein’s former hairstylist and aspiring actress Mann, could bring up to four years in prison, though probation on that count is possible. A third-degree rape conviction means the jury found Weinstein guilty of sexual intercourse without consent. A first-degree conviction required the use of physical force or the threat of death or physical injury.
Mann, 34, claimed Weinstein raped her on March 18, 2013 at the DoubleTree Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Her case, like that of Haley’s, presented crucial challenges to the prosecution due to the women’s continued and seemingly affectionate contact with Weinstein following their encounter. Those challenges seem to have been me by the prosecutors, who repeatedly referenced expert testimony indicating that rape victims often maintain contact with their abusers.
Mann provided one of the lengthy trial’s most emotional and dramatic moments when she broke into sobs and left the witness stand during what she described to the judge as a panic attack. Testimony was halted for the day, and she returned to the stand the following morning carrying a squeezable stress ball.
With the 25 year maximum for the criminal sexual act conviction, the verdict could see the 67-year-old Weinstein spend the rest of his life in prison. He also faces a sexual misconduct trial in Los Angeles involving two women, one of whom – Lauren Marie Young – testified in New York to bolster the Haley and Mann cases.
Harvey Weinstein Guilty Verdict “Historic Moment,” Time’s Up Says
The New York jury found Weinstein not guilty on two counts of predatory sexual assault, apparently dismissing or deadlocking on a rape allegation made by actress Annabella Sciorra. In order to convict on the predatory counts, the jury had to find that Weinstein was guilty in the cases of Mann and/or Haley, plus Sciorra.
If the jury had unanimously agreed on either count of the predatory charges, Weinstein could have been sentenced to life in prison.
Asked by Deadline how he read the jury’s verdicts in the charges involving Sciorra, Weinstein attorney Aidala said jurors did not find Sciorra’s allegations “credible beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The criminal sexual assault (against Haley) carries a possible prison sentence of five to 25 years; the third degree rape conviction (in the Mann case) carries a sentence from probation to four years in prison.
Haley, now 42, was a Project Runway production assistant in 2006 when, she says, Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in his Soho apartment on a July night in 2006. (Haley’s account of having sex with Weinstein later that month at the TriBeCa Grand Hotel, under duress but not physically forced, did not produce criminal charges.)
Manhattan D.A. “Not Dissatisfied” With Harvey Weinstein Rape Verdict; Producer Guilty On Two Of Five Counts
Although Sciorra’s rape allegation against Weinstein couldn’t be tried due to exceeding the statute of limitations – she says the incident occurred in her Gramercy Park apartment during the winter of 1993-1994 – New York law allowed her testimony to be used in conjunction with that of Haley and Mann to establish predatory behavior.
Three other women, including Young, testified to their own accounts of sexual misconduct involving Weinstein, as the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office attempted to portray the producer as a longtime abuser who preyed on young woman attempting to gain a foothold in the film industry.
Since deliberations began Feb. 18, jurors repeatedly requested to re-hear testimony and review evidence relating to Sciorra, a possible indication the jury was focusing heavily – and disagreeing – on the predatory sexual abuse charges.
In addition to requesting to re-hear the January 24 testimony of actress Rosie Perez – including her account of a phone call in the early 1990s in which her friend Sciorra spoke of the rape – the jury requested all Sciorra-related emails, including those between Weinstein and his private investigators Black Cube and Guidepost Solutions. The Miramax co-creator hired the companies in 2017 to investigate Sciorra and other women he suspected were co-operating with Ronan Farrow for what turned out to be the journalist’s blockbuster Weinstein exposé in The New Yorker.
Anita Hill Says The Hollywood Commission Intends “To Change The System” That Allows Harassment And Bias
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1400-1401
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392 1399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )