Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders lead the delegate race after the first two contests of the primary season, according to the Associated Press. The vast majority of delegates are awarded after February. Super Tuesday, when a third of all delegates are allocated in a single day, looms large with 16 contests at the beginning of March. Here is a look at when every state goes to the polls and where the largest troves of delegates are at stake.
Another key early state with a high-turnout caucus, and the first one with a significant Hispanic population.
36
Clinton
29Sat.
South Carolina primary
This state will offer the first real indication of the candidates’ strengths with black voters.
54
Clinton
March 2020
DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES
2016 PRIMARY WINNER
3Tue.
Alabama primary
Alabama is one of 16 contests on Super Tuesday, when a third of delegates are allocated.
52
Clinton
American Samoa caucus
6
Clinton
Arkansas primary
31
Clinton
California primary
Because it has the largest delegate trove in the country, California is key to Super Tuesday.
415
Clinton
Colorado primary
67
Sanders
Democrats abroad primary
13
Sanders
Maine primary
24
Sanders
Massachusetts primary
91
Clinton
Minnesota primary
75
Sanders
North Carolina primary
110
Clinton
Oklahoma primary
37
Sanders
Tennessee primary
64
Clinton
Texas primary
The second-largest delegate trove of Super Tuesday.
228
Clinton
Utah primary
29
Sanders
Vermont primary
16
Sanders
Virginia primary
99
Clinton
10Tue.
Idaho primary
20
Sanders
Michigan primary
Midwestern powerhouses like Michigan will test the candidates’ appeal among suburbanites, African-Americans and working-class white voters. If the race is not decided on Super Tuesday, this could be a line of demarcation.
125
Sanders
Mississippi primary
36
Clinton
Missouri primary
68
Clinton
North Dakota primary
14
Sanders
Washington primary
89
Sanders
14Sat.
Northern Marianas convention
6
Clinton
17Tue.
Arizona primary
67
Clinton
Florida primary
219
Clinton
Illinois primary
155
Clinton
Ohio primary
136
Clinton
24Tue.
Georgia primary
105
Clinton
29Sun.
Puerto Rico primary
51
Clinton
April 2020
DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES
2016 PRIMARY WINNER
4Sat.
Alaska primary
15
Sanders
Hawaii primary
24
Sanders
Louisiana primary
54
Clinton
Wyoming caucus
14
Sanders
7Tue.
Wisconsin primary
84
Sanders
28Tue.
Connecticut primary
60
Clinton
Delaware primary
21
Clinton
Maryland primary
96
Clinton
New York primary
This may be the last big delegate day of the race. If one candidate dominates every state this late in the primary, party leaders will most likely move to get behind that person and seek to bring the race to an end.
2020 United States presidential primary election results
Live
Updated at 2:53 PM CST
DEMOCRATIC
Delegates · 64 delegates declared
1,990 delegates needed to win the nomination
Candidate
Delegates
Pete Buttigieg
22
Bernie Sanders
21
Elizabeth Warren
8
Amy Klobuchar
7
Joe Biden
6
Andrew Yang
0
Deval Patrick
0
John Delaney
0
Michael Bennet
0
Michael Bloomberg
0
Tom Steyer
0
Tulsi Gabbard
0
Uncommitted
0
Other candidates
0
Sanders edges Buttigieg in NH, giving Dems 2 front-runners
By STEVE PEOPLES, KATHLEEN RONAYNE and HUNTER WOODALL
Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s presidential primary, edging moderate rival Pete Buttigieg and scoring the first clear victory in the Democratic Party’s chaotic 2020 nomination fight.
In his Tuesday night win, the 78-year-old Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, beat back a strong challenge from the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The dueling Democrats represent different generations, see divergent paths to the nomination and embrace conflicting visions of America’s future.
As Sanders and Buttigieg celebrated, Amy Klobuchar scored an unexpected third-place finish that gives her a road out of New Hampshire as the primary season moves on to the string of state-by-state contests that lie ahead.
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden posted disappointing fourth and fifth place finishes respectively and were on track to finish with zero delegates from the state.
The New Hampshire vote gives new clarity to a Democratic contest shaping up to be a battle between two men separated by four decades in age and clashing political ideologies. Sanders is a leading progressive voice, having spent decades demanding substantial government intervention in health care and other sectors of the economy. Buttigieg has pressed for more incremental change, preferring to give Americans the option of retaining their private health insurance while appealing to Republicans and independents who may be dissatisfied with Trump.
Their disparate temperaments were on display Tuesday as they spoke before cheering supporters.
“We are gonna win because we have the agenda that speaks to the needs of working people across this country,” Sanders declared. “This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.”
Buttigieg struck an optimistic tone: “Thanks to you, a campaign that some said shouldn’t be here at all has shown that we are here to stay.”
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg addresses supporters at a rally at Nashua Community College Tuesday in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Both men have strength heading into the next phase of the campaign, yet they face very different political challenges.
While Warren made clear she will remain in the race, Sanders, well-financed and with an ardent army of supporters, has cemented his status as the clear leader of the progressive wing of the party.
Meanwhile, Buttigieg must prove he can attract support from voters of color who are critical to winning the nomination. And unlike Sanders, he still has multiple rivals in his own ideological wing of the party to contend with. They include Klobuchar, whose standout debate performance led to a late surge in New Hampshire and a growing national following. While deeply wounded, Biden promises strength in upcoming South Carolina. And though former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was not on Tuesday’s ballot, he looms next month when the contest reaches states offering hundreds of delegates.
After a chaotic beginning to primary voting last week in Iowa, Democrats hoped New Hampshire would help give shape to their urgent quest to pick someone to take on Trump in November. At least two candidates dropped out in the wake of weak finishes Tuesday night: moderate Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and political newcomer Andrew Yang, who attracted a small but loyal following over the past year and was one of just three candidates of color left in the race.
The struggling candidates still in the race sought to minimize the latest results.
Warren, who spent months as a Democratic front-runner, offered an optimistic outlook as she faced cheering supporters: “Our campaign is built for the long haul, and we are just getting started.”
Having already predicted he would “take a hit” in New Hampshire after a distant fourth-place finish in Iowa, Biden essentially ceded the state. He traveled to South Carolina Tuesday as he bet his candidacy on a strong showing there later this month boosted by support from black voters.
Still, history suggests that the first-in-the-nation primary will have enormous influence shaping the 2020 race. In the modern era, no Democrat has ever become the party’s general election nominee without finishing first or second in New Hampshire.
Sanders and Buttigieg were on track to win the same number of New Hampshire delegates with most of the vote tallied, with Klobuchar a few behind. Warren, Biden and the rest of the field were shut out, failing to reach the 15% threshold needed for delegates.
Results from New Hampshire’s Democratic primary. (AP Graphic)
The AP allocated nine delegates each to Sanders and Buttigieg and six to Klobuchar.
The action was on the Democratic side, but Trump easily won New Hampshire’s Republican primary. He was facing token opposition from former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.
With most of the vote in, Trump already had amassed more votes in the New Hampshire primary than any incumbent president in history. His vote share was approaching the modern historical high for an incumbent president, 86.43% set by Ronald Reagan in 1984. Weld received about 9% of the vote of New Hampshire Republicans.
The political spotlight quickly shifts to Nevada, where Democrats will hold caucuses on Feb. 22. But several candidates, including Warren and Sanders, plan to visit other states in the coming days that vote on Super Tuesday, signaling they are in the race for the long haul.
___
Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Zeke Miller in Washington, Will Weissert, Holly Ramer and Thomas Beaumont contributed from New Hampshire.
Country Joe McDonald, whose rock band Country Joe and the Fish appeared at the Woodstock festival, remembers how strained his life was growing up in a communist family.
Joan Sokoloff, a 48-year-old therapist, grew up in Boston in the 1950s. But she might as well have spent her childhood on another planet. While other children were watching ″Father Knows Best,″ Sokoloff, the daughter of communists, was contemplating world change.
″I couldn’t care less if they were investigated as communists or not,″ said McDonald, who grew up in Southern California. ″All I cared about was when I went to a Cub Scout meeting or went to play baseball. … I didn’t feel comfortable anymore.″
Said Sokoloff: ″They (my parents) always used to say that the revolution is just around the corner. So there was always a sense that we were working toward something imminent.″
McDonald and Sokoloff are two of five so-called ″red diaper babies,″ the children of communists, who appear in ″Children of the Left,″ a new documentary by filmmaker Eric Stange. The 60-minute film traces the evolution of children raised as communists who are now adults in a conservative America.
The topic is a hot one. ″Loyalties – a Son’s Memoir,″ a new book by former Washington Post investigative reporter Carl Bernstein, is the story of Bernstein’s childhood in a communist family.
Bernstein writes about the conflicting legacy left by communist parents. His story is woven out of what he says are the torn loyalties and lasting repercussions of a communist childhood.
Stange found that communist parents left a mixed legacy. Some of their children remained communists. One became a Reagan conservative. But almost all remain political and most vote.
Stange, 35, a former reporter and editor for the Boston Herald, had made one previous documentary, ″The Pitch of Grief,″ when he decided to make a film about the children of communists. He knew several as friends and found out about others through them. A network exists among them as adults, he said, formed from childhood when communist families often sent their children to the same progressive summer camps and schools.
But Stange said that even now, many who grew up in communist households were still hesitant going public about the experience.
″The penalties were too great in the ’50s,″ he said.
Stange spoke to 50 former ″red diaper babies,″ interviewed 15 on tape and culled five for his film. The term ″red diaper babies″ has several rumored origins. One is that communist parents in the ’20s were so poor that they used the red flags they received in return for their party dues to diaper their babies.
″I found an incredible mixture of pride and anger,″ he said. ″It was a way of looking at the world that was much more open and diverse and worldly than what most American kids were getting.″
The film, which premiered last month in Cambridge and was co-produced with the Newton Television Foundation, also will be shown at New York’s Public Theater this month and in Los Angeles in June.
The stories that unfold on camera are generally happy ones. Though they participated in one of the most tumultuous periods in American history, Stange’s subjects recall their childhoods with more pleasure than pain.
Eugene Dennis Jr., son of the former general secretary in the American Communist Party, was a longshoreman for many years and is now a historian. In the film, tears come to his eyes as he recalls how ″safe″ he felt, held in the arms of singer-actor-writer Paul Robeson at one point during the worst of the communist witch hunts in the ’50s.
David Horowitz, the son of public schoolteachers in New York, edited the leftist magazine Ramparts in the ’60s. He has since become a best-selling author of biographies with David Collier and a conservative Republican. Richard Healey, whose mother was a high-ranking communist leader in Southern California, edits an anti-nuclear magazine.
The film uses archival footage to trace the relatively swift downfall of the Communist Party in the United States, which had formed in 1919 and enjoyed peak years in the ’30s and early ’40s.
″Children of the Left″ also outlines the turmoil that marked the party’s rapid decline, beginning with the Red Scare initiated in the ’50s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 and revelations in 1956 that Soviet leader Josef Stalin was a murderous dictator.
Several subjects of the film recall their parents were jailed regularly. Joan Sokoloff remembers the day one of her mother’s arrests made the front page of The Boston Globe, her struggle to overcome her own embarrassment and her eventual pride in her parents’ work.
Healey recalls his childhood years at Communist Party meetings and picnics as ″the happiest moments of my life.″
″Growing up with ideals like that, with a world view of wanting a better life for people, it was still a very rich way of life,″ said Sokoloff.
Story 2: The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) Hunt Down Deplorables — Socialist Satire — Coming To A Theater Nearest You March 13, 2020 — Friday The 13th –Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. American Winners — Videos
The Wreck called Hillary Clinton
How voters are responding to Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ remark
Clinton: Trump supporters in ‘basket of deplorables…
Deplorables: Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses
Tucker: American elites more comfortable with attacking US
1. America’s Ruling Class
Angelo Codevilla – Does America Have a Ruling Class?
Universal cancels release of film where elites hunt ‘deplorables’
The Hunt – Official Trailer [HD]
Why The Hunt Is Finally Being Released with a New Marketing Campaign
The Hunt – Trailer Reaction – New Release Date of March 13th
The film was originally scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. However, following the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings in early August 2019, Universal Pictures decided to shelve the release of the film.[2] The decision came a day after criticism regarding the film came from United States President Donald Trump.[3] It has since been rescheduled for a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4][5]
Premise
Loosely based on the 1924 short story The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell,[6] the film follows 12 strangers who mysteriously wake up in a clearing.[2][7][8] They do not know where they are or how they got there. They discover that they have been chosen to be hunted in a game devised by a group of people from the rich elite.[2][9] The hunters gather in a remote facility called the Manor House, but their sport gets derailed when one of the hunted, Crystal (Betty Gilpin), fights back and starts killing them one by one.[10]
Though some reports indicated the original title of the film was Red State vs. Blue State (after the U.S. political term red states and blue states), Universal issued a statement denying that the film had ever had that as its working title.[13]
Casting
In March 2019, Emma Roberts, Justin Hartley, Glenn Howerton, Ike Barinholtz and Betty Gilpin were announced as being cast in the film.[14][15][16] In April 2019, Amy Madigan, Jim Klock, Charli Slaughter, Steve Mokate and Dean West joined the cast of the film.[17][18]Hilary Swank was announced as being cast in July.[19]
Filming
Filming began on February 20, 2019, in New Orleans and was due to finish on April 5.[20]
Release
The film was scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. It was, for a time, moved back to October 18 before shifting back to its original release date of September 27.[21]
On August 7, 2019, Universal announced that in the wake of the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings, they would be suspending the film’s promotional campaign.[22][23] Several days later, the film was pulled from the studio’s release schedule.[24][25] An international release is still a possibility.[26]
On February 11, 2020, it was announced the film would receive a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4]
Reception
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that there were a pair of test screenings for the film which had “negative reactions”. The second screening was held on August 6, 2019, in Los Angeles, in which “audience members were again expressing discomfort with the politics” of it, an issue Universal had not foreseen (although other studios had initially passed on the script for that very reason). In a statement to Variety, Universal pushed back on a report that test audiences had been uncomfortable with the film’s political slant, and also countered claims that the script had originally had a politically explosive title.[26] “While some outlets have indicated that test screenings for The Hunt resulted in negative audience feedback; in fact, the film was very well-received and tallied one of the highest test scores for an original Blumhouse film,” a Universal spokesperson said. “Additionally, no audience members in attendance at the test screening expressed discomfort with any political discussion in the film. While reports also say The Hunt was formerly titled Red State vs. Blue State, that was never the working title for the film at any point throughout the development process, nor appeared on any status reports under that name.”[26]
Prior to the film’s shelving, the film attracted criticism from some of the media as an alleged portrayal of liberal elitists hunting supporters of Donald Trump.[23][27] Trump issued a tweet on August 9, 2019, calling “Liberal Hollywood” “[r]acist at the highest level” and writing: “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos”, adding “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others”. Although Trump did not specify the name of the film, news vehicles believed that was most likely a reference to The Hunt.[27][28][29]
“The Most Dangerous Game“, also published as “The Hounds of Zaroff“, is a short story by Richard Connell,[1] first published in Collier’s on January 19, 1924.[2] The story features a big-game hunter from New York City who falls off a yacht and swims to what seems to be an abandoned and isolated island in the Caribbean, where he is hunted by a Russian aristocrat.[3] The story is inspired by the big-game hunting safaris in Africa and South America that were particularly fashionable among wealthy Americans in the 1920s.[4]
Sanger Rainsford and his friend, Whitney, are traveling to the Amazon rainforest to hunt the region’s big cat: the jaguar. After a discussion about how they are “the hunters” instead of “the hunted”, Whitney goes to bed and Rainsford hears gunshots. He climbs onto the yacht’s rail and accidentally falls overboard, swimming to Ship-Trap Island, which is notorious for shipwrecks. On the island, he finds a palatial chateau inhabited by two Cossacks: the owner, General Zaroff, and his gigantic deaf-mute servant, Ivan.
Zaroff, another big-game hunter, knows of Rainsford from his published account of hunting snow leopards in Tibet. After inviting him to dinner, General Zaroff tells Rainsford he is bored of hunting because it no longer challenges him; he has moved to Ship-Trap in order to capture shipwrecked sailors. Any captives who can elude Zaroff, Ivan, and a pack of hunting dogs for three days are set free. Zaroff reveals that no one has lasted that long, although a couple of sailors had come close. Zaroff also says that he offers sailors a “choice”; should they decline to be hunted they will be handed over to Ivan, who had once been official knouter for The Great White Czar. Rainsford denounces this as barbarism. Zaroff reacts in a cosmopolitan manner that “life is for the strong“. Realizing he has no way out, Rainsford reluctantly agrees to be hunted.
During his three-hour head start, Rainsford lays an intricate trail in the forest and then climbs a tree. Zaroff finds him easily, but decides to play with him like a cat would a mouse, standing underneath the tree Rainsford is hiding in, smoking a cigarette, and then abruptly departing. After the failed attempt at eluding Zaroff, Rainsford builds a Malay man-catcher, a weighted log attached to a trigger. This contraption injures Zaroff’s shoulder, causing him to return home for the night, but before doing so shouts that if Rainsford is within earshot, his trap was commendable as few could pull it off. The next day Rainsford creates a Burmese tiger pit, which kills one of Zaroff’s hounds. He sacrifices his knife and ties it to a sapling to make a Ugandan knife trap; Ivan is killed when he stumbles into this trap and the knife plunges into his heart. To escape Zaroff and his approaching hounds, Rainsford dives off a cliff into the sea; Zaroff, disappointed at Rainsford’s apparent suicide, returns home. Zaroff smokes a pipe by his fireplace, but two issues keep him from peace of mind: first, the difficulty of replacing Ivan; and second, the uncertainty of whether Rainsford did indeed perish.
Zaroff locks himself in his bedroom and turns on the lights, only to find Rainsford waiting for him; he had swum around the island in order to sneak into the chateau without the dogs finding him. Zaroff congratulates him on winning the “game”, but Rainsford decides to fight him, saying he is still a beast-at-bay and that the original hunt is not over. Accepting the challenge, Zaroff says that the loser will be fed to the dogs, while the winner will sleep in his bed. The story ends with Rainsford enjoying the comfort of Zaroff’s bed.
Analysis
“The Most Dangerous Game” is a popular read within middle and high school curricula due to the strength of the themes within the story. The first and foremost question that the story bears is that of justifiable murder. Rainsford justifies his hunting of animals because he believes that man is superior to animals because animals do not feel. To contradict, General Zaroff believes that men are superior because they are able to reason. Zaroff uses his reasoning to explain why men are the most interesting game to hunt; men can reason, and thus provide a challenge that no animal can contend with. The story simultaneously highlights through the experience of Rainsford, as he is hunted, the fears that animals must experience while being hunted.
Zaroff himself is a contradiction because his exquisite manners are juxtaposed with his heartless brutality in killing men. The idea of a man who is proper in all aspects, but still contains a desire to kill, is a suggestion by Connell that men possess murderous instincts that can only be subdued by the presence of society and law. Zaroff is only able to partake in his “hobby” because he does not live within a civilization.
The ending of the story bears questions about the true nature of Rainsford, who is implied to have killed Zaroff in order to secure his own safety. By killing Zaroff, he thus took part in the “game” that Zaroff wanted him to play.[8]
The first major film adaption was RKO Pictures‘ film released in 1932, The Most Dangerous Game. Joel McCrea stars as Rainsford; Leslie Banks portrays Zaroff. The adaptation by James Ashmore Creelman adds two other principal characters, brother-and-sister pair Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray) and Martin Trowbridge (Robert Armstrong), who are castaways from a shipwreck. The Most Dangerous Game was co-directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack and Irving Pichel; also with a score by Max Steiner, the film was a favorite project of producer Merian C. Cooper. The production shared several sets with King Kong (1933), a simultaneous RKO project that also involved Schoedsack, Cooper, Wray, Armstrong, Creelman, and Steiner. The Most Dangerous Game was a modest success.[9][10][11]:51
RKO produced a remake titled A Game of Death (1945), directed by Robert Wise, from a screenplay Norman Houston wrote. This film stars John Loder and Audrey Long, with Edgar Barrier as the mad hunter.[11]:206 In order to keep with events of that time, A Game of Death changed Zaroff into “Erich Kreiger”, a Nazi, and was set in the aftermath of the Second World War.[12]
Also in 1972, The Suckers, tells a sexploitation version of the story, with the hunter using models as his prey.[16] In 1973, The Perverse Countess was released.[17] The 1982 Australian film Turkey Shoot has similar elements.[18]
The 1987 film, Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity, transports the story to an alien world using scantily clad women as the hunted and a mad scientist, Zed as the Zaroff character.[17][19]
John Woo‘s first Hollywood directorial effort, the Jean-Claude Van Damme thriller Hard Target (1993), was loosely based on the same story. The locale was shifted to 1990s New Orleans, with homeless Vietnam war veterans voluntarily serving (in return for potential payment from a shady businessman) as human prey. It was followed by Hard Target 2, a direct-to-video sequel released in 2016.
In Surviving the Game (1994), a homeless man is hired as a survival guide for a group of wealthy businessmen on a hunting trip in the mountains. He is unaware that they are killers who hunt humans for sport, and that he is their new prey. Directed by Ernest R. Dickerson, the film stars Rutger Hauer, Ice-T, and Charles S. Dutton.
The Pest (1997) is a comedic parody of the story, with German huntsman Gustav Shank accidentally bringing Puerto Rican teenage hustler Pestario “Pest” Vargas to his island instead of the skilled man he had intended to hunt, only to decide to hunt the Pest anyway due to his sheer obnoxiousness. Shank’s ambition is to have a head of a warrior of every ethnicity in his Trophy Room. He also rigs the “game” by having his prey unknowingly drink a slow-acting poison before the hunt, making sure that they die even if they escape him.
In The Eliminator (2004), seven captured people are hunted at night for sport on an island as a betting game for the wealthy.
The 2019-produced film The Hunt follows a similar premise. It will release in March 13, 2020 and was originally going to be released in September 27, 2019. It was originally cancelled due to Daytona and El Paso mass shootings in early August 2019.
Radio
“The Most Dangerous Game” was presented four times as a radio play.
On February 1, 1945, it was presented with J. Carrol Naish as Zaroff and Joseph Cotten as Rainsford.[20] Both Suspense productions presented an adaptation by Jack Finke in which Rainsford narrates the story in retrospect as he waits in Zaroff’s bedroom for the final confrontation.[6][17]
On October 1, 1947, another adaption was used for the CBS radio program, Escape.[21]
In Have Gun Will Travel episode “The Black Bull” Paladin is forced to play the part of a black bull against an insane matador (Ned Romero)
In The Wild Wild West episode, 1/4 “The Night of Sudden Death”, Jim West and a circus girl are trapped inside an Africa Reserve wild animal Park in Colorado and are hunted by an insane big-game hunter Warren (Robert Loggia).
In the Get Smart episode, “Island of the Darned”, Agents 86 and 99 are trapped on an island with a mad KAOS killer, Hans Hunter (Harold Gould).
This trope was used in the season 3 (1968), episode 22 of I Spy, “The Name of the Game”.
In the Gilligan’s Island episode “The Hunter”, big-game hunter Jonathan Kincaid (Rory Calhoun) turned his sights on Gilligan when he realized there were no wild animals on the island.
In the series finale of Bonanza, entitled “The Hunter”, a deranged killer, Corporal Bill Tanner (Tom Skerritt), who was formerly a tracker for the United States Army, hunts Little Joe (Michael Landon).
In the 1974 TV movie “Savages” after a young man accidentally witnesses a murder, he must survive both the desert and being hunted by the killer (Andy Griffith).[23]
In the 1977 pilot episode of Fantasy Island, a big-game hunter comes to the island to be hunted by a man, an interesting twist on the usual version in which the hunted participates against his will.
The Canadian series Relic Hunter had an episode called “Run Sydney Run” that was very closely based on “The Most Dangerous Game”, with Peter Stebbings acting as General Tsarlov.[citation needed]
The Simpsons Halloween special “Treehouse of Horror XVI” contained a segment titled “Survival of the Fattest” which parodied the story closely. In this segment Mr. Burns invited much of the cast to his hunting lodge on a private island, only to reveal that he intended to hunt them all for sport. Another episode makes a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” when Rainier Wolfcastle says that he bought a YMCA to demolish it and install a hunting ground dedicated to “hunt the most dangerous animal of all… Man”.
In an episode of the animated sitcom American Dad!, the Smith family and a young woman become stranded on an island after Francine jumps off a cruise. Stan goes up to the mansion on this island to ask for help, but the inhabitants say that they are going to hunt the family. The Smiths and the young woman become trapped in a cave, where the young woman dies and they eat her to survive. The hunters then break into the cave and shoot the family. Stan sits up, realizing it is paint. At a party later, the hunters reveal that nobody really dies on The Most Dangerous Game Island.
The Incredible Hulk episode “The Snare” has Banner trapped on a private island owned by an insane hunter who not only craves the challenge of hunting humans, but considers the discovery of Banner’s powerful Hulk form as a sign of a particularly appealing quarry.
In Season 2, Episode 21 of Criminal Minds, “Open Season”, two brothers capture people stranded in a remote region of the wilderness outside Challis, Idaho, release them into the hills, and hunt them with compound bows for sport, referring the men as “bucks” and the women as “does”.
In Season 13, Episode 15 of Law and Order: SVU, “Hunting Ground”, a serial rapist and killer lures female escorts after their date to a remote area where he sets them free while he hunts them down to recapture them again.
In the Disney animated series The Mighty Ducks “The Most Dangerous Duck Hunt” episode, the heroes are trapped on an island and hunted.
In a “Dial M for Monkey” segment of the animated series Dexter’s Laboratory, the hero Monkey is trapped by an alien big-game hunter named “Huntor”, who also makes a cameo among a league of Hunters of “Sumarai Jack” in the Cartoon Network cartoon series Samurai Jack.
In Season 1, Episode 15 of Supernatural, “The Benders”, a family has been behind disappearances in a city. The family snatches victims to hunt and kill. Sam and a police officer are taken, but Dean finds them and helps them subdue the family before it can cause them any harm.
In Season 7, Episode 12 of Futurama, “31st Century Fox“, Bender becomes the target of a fox hunting club and is referred to as ‘the most dangerous game.’
In Season 2 Episode 6 of The Blacklist, Elizabeth Keen and her FBI task force encounter a family in Idaho who trained the mother’s youngest son to hunt and kill humans kidnapped by the eldest son.
The Outer Limits 1998 episode “The Hunt” is a story in which the hunting of animals has been banned by environmentalists, and black market hunting of obsolete androids takes its place.
In the Season 3, Episode 5 episode of Archer, “El Contador”, Lana and Archer are hunted by a drug lord.
In Season 3, Episode 22 episode of Riverdale, “Chapter Fifty-Seven: Survive the Night”
In Season 4, Episode 2 of Game of Thrones, there is a scene in which Ramsay Bolton hunts a woman (one of his former lovers). She is cornered by the hunting party and eaten alive by Ramsay’s dogs. It is implied that this was not the only time Ramsay indulged in human hunting “for sport.”
In Season 3, Episodes 21 and 22 of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Ahsoka Tano and Chewbacca are hunted on an island.
An episode of the animated series Johnny Bravo entitled “Hunted!” is an obvious parody of the story. The titular Johnny is forced to go through the same ordeal, but his stupidity and foolishness greatly frustrates the hunter, who eventually allows him to leave.
Season 6 episode 11 of Xena: Warrior Princess, “Dangerous Prey”, is also inspired by The Most Dangerous Game. In this episode, Prince Morloch is a hunter who has grown bored of hunting animals, saying he’s “killed one of every creature that walks this earth”. He started hunting Amazons which grabbed the attention of Xena.
In season 3 of Wrecked, the plane crash survivors land on another island, where four wealthy men make them hunt each other, then hunting the survivor.
In the anime series Psycho-Pass, episodes 10 and 11 feature a wealthy cyborg tycoon who dons gentleman’s hunting gear and hunts people in an underground maze with his robotic hounds.
In the video game Hitman: Contracts, the mission “Beldingford Manor” takes inspiration from this story.
In the video game Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc, the character Razoff takes inspiration from General Zaroff, even sharing similar names.
In the comic-book story “The Second Most Dangerous Game” (serialized in Martian Comics #8–10), Martians possess humans to continue their tradition of hunting other humans, after the practice has been outlawed. Richard Connell is a character.
In the comic book issue Daredevil #4 Daredevil fights a mad manhunter on a remote island.
In Clive Cussler’s book DRAGON Dirk Pitt is chased by “Kamatori” on Soseki Island.
In the online game Poptropica, the five-part Survival Island features the player in a situation much like the one in the original story. At the end of the third episode, the player is rescued by a hunter known as Myron van Buren. The fourth episode revolves around the player in van Buren’s cabin, finding out that van Buren plans to hunt them. In the fifth episode, the player teams up with another victim of van Buren to defeat him by trapping him in a waterwheel.
In the video game Psychonauts, Vernon, one of the campers, references to hunting the most dangerous game while playing hide and seek.
In 2006, The Onion parodied the premise, positing that humans would actually make rather pitiful prey.[24]
In Don Pendleton’s The Executioner series, book #441, called Murder Island has a similar plot to the book. The protagonist, Mack “The Executioner” Bolan (a vigilante/government agent) encounters a rich businessman hunter on an island while on a mission and ends up in a similar position as the Rainsford character, while the rich hunter takes a similar role as Zaroff.
In a song called “Fly on the Wall” by Joey Pecoraro, the opening interaction between Rainsford and General Zaroff is used as a prelude to the actual song.
In 1987, American Metal band Laaz Rockit retold the story in their song “Most Dangerous Game” on their album Know Your Enemy. [25]
The Rooster Teeth series “Let’s Play Minecraft” featured an adaptation of the story into a game played by the show’s cast members in the video game Minecraft, where one player was given a map and hunted by the other five in and around the in-game world created by the Achievement Hunter cast members.
A translated version was published in Malayalam as an audio book by Kathacafe in 2017.[26]
In the video game West of Loathing a hunter’s ghost challenges the player to play “the most dangerous game”. After the player character shows disgust at hunting people the ghost says that wasn’t what he meant.
Real-life parallels
Robert Hansen, a serial killer who was active in the early 1980s, would kidnap women and release them in Alaska’s Knik River Valley. He would then hunt them, armed with a knife and a Ruger Mini-14 rifle.[27][28] A 2003 American crime drama film The Frozen Ground starring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage is based on this case.[29] Hanson was arrested and imprisoned for life where he died of an undisclosed illness.
In 1976, Hayes Noel, Bob Gurnsey, and Charles Gaines discussed Gaines’s recent trip to Africa and his experiences hunting African buffalo. Inspired in part by “The Most Dangerous Game”, they created paintball in 1981—a game where they would stalk and hunt each other—to recreate the same adrenaline rush from hunting animals.[30]
There is a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” in letters the Zodiac Killer wrote to San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in his three-part cipher: “Man is the most dangerous animal of all to kill”.[31]The Most Dangerous Game film is also mentioned a number of times in the context of the Zodiac Killer in the 2007 film, Zodiac.[32]
Story 3: U.S. Houshold Debt Rising To Over $14,000,000,000 While Federal Reserve Continues To Expand Liquidity By Over $1,000,000,000 in Repo Market — Videos
The Credit Card Crisis
Fed keeps rates unchanged
Powell hinting Federal Reserve will remain on sidelines in 2020
WATCH LIVE: Fed Chair Powell testifies on coronavirus, state of economy
Fed expects inflation to move closer to 2% in coming months: Fed chairman
Economic language was downgraded in Fed decision: Portfolio manager
Stocks close near session lows after the Fed keeps interest rates unchanged
More Investors are starting to assume the Fed may be cutting rates by the end of the year: Economist
What is ACTUALLY going on in the repo market and what do Hedge Funds have to do with it?
What Caused the Repo Blowup in 2019? | Explained in 3 Minutes
What is the Repo Market? | Explained in 3 Minutes
U.S. Household Debt Exceeds $14 Trillion for the First Time
(Bloomberg) — Americans increased their borrowing for the 22nd straight quarter as more households took out loans to buy homes or refinance existing mortgages, according to a report released today from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Total U.S. household debt rose by $601 billion in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, or 1.4%, surpassing $14 trillion for the first time, the New York Fed’s quarterly household credit and debt report showed. That’s $1.5 trillion above the previous peak in the third quarter of 2008. Overall household debt is now 26.8% above the second-quarter 2013 trough.
Mortgage borrowing rose by $120 billion to $9.56 trillion. The rate for a 30-year mortgage has fallen by about 100 basis points over the past year, adding to home purchasers’ buying power. For example, a $500,000, 30-year loan costs about $300 less per month.
“Mortgage originations, including refinances, increased significantly in the final quarter of 2019,” Wilbert Van Der Klaauw, vice president at the New York Fed, said in a statement.
Mortgage loans for young adults age 18 to 29 rose to a the highest level since the third quarter of 2007. Originations for 30-year-olds rose to $210.1 billion last quarter — the highest level since the end of 2005.
Total debt for people ages 18 to 29 rose to a record $1.04 trillion.
Student debt increased to $1.51 trillion from $1.46 trillion at the end of 2018. More than $100 billion in student debt is held by those age 60 and over. Auto loans rose to $1.33 trillion, while credit card debt rose to a record $930 billion.
Auto debt, which has risen for 35 consecutive quarters, increased $16 billion from the previous quarter. Almost 5% of auto loans are 90 days of more delinquent. This is the highest percentage since the third quarter of 2011.
Credit card delinquencies rose to 8.36% an 18-month high.
Among student debt, one in nine borrowers were 90+ days delinquent or in default in 2019, and this figure may be understated. About half of student loans are currently in deferment, in grace periods or in forbearance and therefore temporarily not in the repayment cycle. Once these loans enter that cycle, delinquency rates are projected to be roughly twice as high, according to the Fed report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Tanzi in Washington at atanzi@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah McGregor at smcgregor5@bloomberg.net, Anita Sharpe
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
Story 1: United States Declares Public Health Emergency for Novel Coronavirus (2019 n Cov) — The Real Threat in Influenza Type B Epidemic Becomes Pandemic — Videos —
100 years ago, celebrations marking the end of the First World War were cut short by the onslaught of a devastating disease – the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. Its early origins and initial geographical starting point still remain a mystery but in the Summer of 1918, there was a second wave of a far more virulent form of the influenza virus than anyone could have anticipated. Soon dubbed ‘Spanish Flu’ after its effects were reported in the country’s newspapers, the virus rapidly spread across much of the globe to become one of the worst natural disasters in human history.To mark the centenary and to highlight vital scientific research, the University of Cambridge has made a new film exploring what we have learnt about Spanish Flu, the urgent threat posed by influenza today, and how scientists are preparing for future pandemics.
PrepTalks: John M. Barry “The Next Pandemic: Lessons from History”
US bars foreigners coming from China for now over virus fear
By KEN MORITSUGU and ZEKE MILLER
The United States on Friday declared a public health emergency and took drastic steps to significantly restrict entry into the country because of a new virus that hit China and has spread to other nations.
President Donald Trump has signed an order that will temporarily bar foreign nationals, other than immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, who have traveled in China within the last 14 days. The new restrictions, which take effect at 5 p.m. EST on Sunday, were announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who is coordinating the U.S. response.
“It is likely that we will continue to see more cases in the United States in the coming days and weeks, including some limited person-to-person transmissions,” Azar said. “The American public can be assured the full weight of the U.S. government is working to safeguard the health and safety of the American people.”
Americans returning from China will be allowed into the country, but will face screening at select ports of entry and required to undertake 14 days of self-screening to ensure they don’t pose a health risk. Those returning from Hubei province, the center of the outbreak, will be subject to up to 14 days of mandatory quarantine.
Beginning Sunday, the U.S. will also begin funneling all flights to the U.S. from China to seven major airports where passengers can be screened for illness.
The virus has infected almost 10,000 people globally in just two months, a troublesome sign that prompted the World Health Organization to declare the outbreak a global emergency. The death toll stood at 213, including 43 new fatalities, all in China.
A public health emergency in the U.S. allows the government to tap additional resources to send to states, such as emergency funding and if necessary drugs or equipment from the national stockpile, and to suspend certain legal requirements.
Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that while the risk in the U.S. is low, “I want to emphasize that this is a significant global situation and it continues to evolve.”
There are seven cases of this virus in the U.S. and all were travelers except for a Chicago man who caught it from his wife, who had been in China.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious diseases chief at the National Institutes of Health, said one reason the U.S. stepped up its quarantine measures was an alarming report from Germany that a traveler from China had spread the virus despite showing no symptoms. Fauci contrasted it with the response to recent outbreaks of Ebola, which can’t be spread unless someone is very ill.
At the same time, federal health authorities were recognizing that the test they’re using to detect the virus isn’t always dependable. Redfield said when it was used on some of the people currently in isolation, they’d test positive one day and negative another.
Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University expert on public health law, said putting a large number of people under quarantine “is virtually unprecedented in modern American history.”
Declaring a public health emergency “gives HHS added powers, and is warranted. Quarantine of those returning from Hubei is also reasonable given the high risk of exposure to coronavirus in that province,” he said.
He did note that travelers from other parts of China don’t pose as high a risk. “We need to use the least restrictive measure necessary to safeguard the population,” Gostin said.
Deputy Secretary of State Steve Biegun offered America’s “deepest compassion” to the Chinese, noting that the deadly outbreak came during the peak of their holiday season, when everyone would ordinarily be celebrating and not living in fear of contracting the virus.
Biegun said the U.S. is working hard to find donors of supplies and making arrangements for a “robust effort to help the Chinese people get their arms around this outbreak.”
The announcement came hours after the State Department issued a level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory, the highest grade of warning, and told Americans in China to consider departing using commercial means. “Travelers should be prepared for travel restrictions to be put into effect with little or no advance notice,” the advisory said.
Hours later, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines announced they were suspending all flights between the U.S. and China, joining several international carriers that have stopped flying to China as the virus outbreak continues to spread.
Meanwhile, U.S. health officials issued a two-week quarantine order for the 195 Americans evacuated earlier this week from the Chinese city of Wuhan, provincial capital of Hubei province. It was the first time a federal quarantine has been ordered since the 1960s, when one was enacted over concern about the potential spread of smallpox, the CDC said.
None of the Americans being housed at a Southern California military base has shown signs of illness, but infected people don’t show symptoms immediately and may be able to pass on the virus before they appear sick.
One of the evacuees, Matthew L. McCoy, a theme park designer who lives in China, said the group was very relieved by the quarantine order.
“All of us really want to stay here and make sure we’re all medically clear and the public safe,” he said from the military base.
China counted 9,692 confirmed cases Friday, the vast majority in Hubei province.
The National Health Commission reported 171 cases of people who have been “cured and discharged from hospital.” WHO has said most people who got the illness had milder cases, though 20% experienced severe symptoms. Symptoms include fever and cough, and in severe cases, shortness of breath and pneumonia.
China has placed more than 50 million people in the region under virtual quarantine.
American Airlines said it was halting all flights starting Friday and running through March 27. Delta plans to wait until Feb. 6 to suspend China operations to help travelers in China leave the country. It said the stoppage will continue through April 30. United Airlines announced that it will suspend flights to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu but continue flights to Hong Kong.
The U.S. screening airports are John F. Kennedy International in New York, San Francisco International in California, Seattle-Tacoma International in Washington, O’Hare International in Chicago, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International in Georgia, and Daniel K. Inouye International in Hawaii.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average skidded more than 600 points Friday as the outbreak continued to widen, stoking fears that the travel restrictions and other uncertainties caused by the health emergency in the world’s second-largest economy could dent global growth.
Since China informed WHO about the new virus in late December, at least 23 countries have reported cases, as scientists race to understand how exactly the virus is spreading and how severe it is.
Experts say there is significant evidence the virus is spreading among people in China, and WHO noted with its emergency declaration Thursday it was especially concerned that some cases abroad also involved human-to-human transmission. It defines an international emergency as an “extraordinary event” that poses a risk to other countries and requires a coordinated international response.
“The main reason for this declaration is not because of what is happening in China but because of what is happening in other countries,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters in Geneva. “Our greatest concern is the potential for this virus to spread to countries with weaker health systems which are ill-prepared to deal with it.”
A declaration of a global emergency typically brings greater money and resources, but may also prompt nervous governments to restrict travel and trade to affected countries. The announcement also imposes more disease reporting requirements on countries.
The last time the U.S. government ordered a quarantine was in 1963 when a woman named Ellen Siegel was held in quarantine for up to 14 days because she did not present a valid certificate of vaccination against small pox. Siegel had visited Sweden when it still had a case of smallpox and although she had been revaccinated about two months earlier, the vaccination was said to be unsuccessful.
On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said it was authorizing the departure of family members and all non-emergency U.S. government employees from Beijing and the consulates in the cities of Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenyang. Staff from the Wuhan consulate departed earlier this week.
The decision was made “out of an abundance of caution related to logistical disruptions stemming from restricted transportation and availability of appropriate health care,” the embassy said.
Mike Wester, a businessman in Beijing who has lived in China for 19 years, said he has no plans to leave.
“I feel safer self-quarantining myself here at home than I do risking travel,” Wester said.
He pointed to potential risks from crowds at airports and being required to remove a mask for passport and security checks.
Japan and Germany also advised against non-essential travel and Britain did as well, except for Hong Kong and Macao. Popular holiday and shopping destination Singapore barred Chinese from traveling there, becoming the first Southeast Asian nation to do so.
Tedros said WHO was not recommending limiting travel or trade to China.
“There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade,” he said. He added that Chinese President Xi Jinping had committed to help stop the spread of the virus beyond its borders.
Although scientists expect to see limited transmission of the virus between people with close contact, like within families, the instances of spread to people who may have had less exposure to the virus is worrying.
In Japan, a tour guide and bus driver became infected after escorting two tour groups from Wuhan. In Germany, five employees of a German auto parts supplier became ill after a Chinese colleague visited, including two who had no direct contact with the woman, who showed no symptoms of the virus until her flight back to China. On Friday, Germany confirmed a sixth case, a child of one of the people already infected.
“That’s the kind of transmission chain that we don’t want to see,” said Marion Koopmans, an infectious diseases specialist at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands and a member of WHO’s emergency committee.
This article was last updated on Jan. 31, 2020.Jan. 24, 2020 — News about the coronavirus outbreak that started in Wuhan, China, is changing rapidly. The respiratory infection, which is closely related to SARS and MERS, has been spreading across China, and cases have been diagnosed in several other countries, including the United States. We’ll provide the latest updates on cases, deaths, travel restrictions, and more here.
What is the latest news?
Foreigners who have traveled to China in the past two weeks will be barred from entering the United States, the government said Friday, as the White House declared a national public health emergency over the new coronavirus.
As part of that proclamation, any citizen returning to the U.S. who have been to Hubei province in China in the past 14 days will be under mandatory quarantine for 14 days, which is thought to be the incubation period for the virus. Any citizen who’s been to the rest of China within the past 2 weeks will get a health screening when they get back to the U.S. They’ll then be asked to self-quarantine for 14 days. Their movements will be monitored.
These restrictions take effect beginning at 5 p.m. Sunday.
“The actions we have taken and continue to take compliment the work of China and the World Health Organization to contain the outbreak within China,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said.
“This is a significant global situation, but I want to emphasize at this time that the risk to the American public is low,” said CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the strict precautions are warranted because of “the issue now with this is that there are a lot of unknowns.”
He pointed out that the number of cases “has steeply inclined each and every day.”
We now know for certain that a person without symptoms can transmit the disease, Fauci said.
A new case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, describes how a woman from China infected 4 co-workers at a German company before she showed any symptoms of the disease herself.
The U.S. measures follows the WHO’s declaration on Thursday that the 2019-nCoV outbreak is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or PHEIC and come the same day the CDC issued federal quarantine orders for all 195 U.S. citizens who recently returned to the U.S. after living in China. The quarantine will last 14 days from the date the plane left Wuhan.These are the first federal quarantine orders issued in 50 years, the last coming in the 1960s for smallpox evaluations, CDC officials said.The CDC’s move follows a quarantine issued by Riverside County, CA, after one of the passengers tried to leave March Air Reserve Base Wednesday morning without being cleared by health officials.“This legal order is part of an aggressive public health response, the goal of which is to prevent, as much as possible, community spread of this novel virus in the United States,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.”If we take strong measures now, we may be able to blunt the impact of the virus on the United States,” she said.Better to over-prepare, she said.”We are preparing as if this were the next pandemic. But we are hopeful still that this is not, and will not be the case.”Health officials also clarified the distinctions between isolation and quarantine. Isolation is used to keep a person who’s already sick from infecting others. Quarantines restrict the movement of someone who is exposed, but not yet sick.
How many people have been diagnosed with the virus, and how many have died?
According to European CDC, the majority of the confirmed cases – 9,723 – are in China. Another 11 cases are confirmed outside of China in 20 countries. Countries with the most confirmed cases include Thailand and Japan with 14 each. All reported deaths have been in China, and include 17 healthcare workers. Several media outlets are reporting the first two confirmed cases in the U.K. in members of the same family. These cases are not yet reflected in the CDC numbers.
What do we know about cases in the United States?
The six U.S. cases are in Illinois, Washington, California and Arizona. The CDC in total has 241 persons under investigation for coronavirus from 36 states. In addition to the 6 confirmed positive, 114 have tested negative.
On Thursday, a man in Illinois became the first case of person-to-person transmission of the virus in the U.S, the CDC said. He is the sixth confirmed case in the country overall. The man in the most recent case in Illinois is the husband of a Chicago woman diagnosed with the virus after returning from Wuhan. He is hospitalized in isolation and is stable. His wife, who is in her 60s, is also in isolation and in good condition. The Chicago Department of Public Health reported that she had visited China in December and returned to Chicago earlier this month.
In all other U.S. cases so far, patients had recently traveled to Wuhan.
Worldwide there are now more than 9,900 cases and 222 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University. While the majority of cases center in China, it has been found in the U.S. and these countries: Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, Macau, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, France, Canada, Vietnam, Nepal, Cambodia, Germany, India, the Philippines, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Sri Lanka, Italy, and Great Britain. There have been no deaths outside China.
California has two patients, one in Los Angeles County and one in Orange County. The patient from Orange County is a man in his 50s. He is in a local hospital in isolation and is in good condition, according to the Orange County Health Care Agency. Los Angeles County officials did not provide additional details about the patient there.
Arizona’s Department of Health Services said its patient is a Maricopa County resident and member of the Arizona State University community who did not live in student housing. The patient is not severely ill and is being kept in isolation.
The first U.S. patient is a man in his 30s from Washington state. He had traveled from Wuhan and entered the country before the screening was in place. He started having symptoms and contacted his doctor. He is in good condition and is in isolation at Providence Regional Medical Center.
The CDC is prioritizing the testing based on a person’s risk.
Nancy Messonnier, MD, Director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said they had posted the blueprints for their diagnostic test on a public server and were working “as fast as we can” to get test kits out to states.
Right now, all the testing for the new coronavirus is taking place at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta.
What are public officials doing to contain the virus?
Fears about the virus’ spread led the World Health Organization on Thursday to declare the outbreak a global public health emergency. Soon after, the U.S. State Department issued a level 4 travel advisorytelling people not to travel to China because of the outbreak.
The CDC and State Department have issued strong warnings about travel to and from China, and several airlines, including Delta, United and American, have announced they are ending service to China until the outbreak wanes.
But, commercial flights continue to come and go between the U.S. and China, and the CDC said it was currently evaluating whether or not to restrict the movement of passengers coming in on those flights.
“At this point we’re evaluating the appropriate strategy in light of the new information. There’s really nothing new to share at this point,” said Martin Cetron, MD, Director for the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine at CDC.
Chinese officials have shut down all public transportation to 10 cities, affecting 35 million people. The first was Wuhan, which has a population of about 11 million. In Wuhan, that includes buses, subways, trains, and the airport.
On Wednesday, CDC medical officers and others met a group of about 210 U.S. citizens evacuated from China. Their plane landed at March Air Reserve Base in California, where the evacuees will be monitored for coronavirus symptoms for several days. Anyone showing signs of the disease will be taken to the hospital. The passengers are not officials quarantined for up to two weeks.
In the U.S., the number of airports that will screen passengers from China for symptoms has expanded to 20.
When did the outbreak start?
China first reported the outbreak in Wuhan on Dec. 30, 2019.
Is travel to China safe?
The U.S. State Department issued a level 4 travel advisory telling people not to travel to China because of the outbreak. Some cities in China, such as Wuhan, are closed to travelers.
Travelers who do go should:
Avoid contact with sick people.
Avoid animals, animal markets, and products that come from animals.
Wash their hands often with soap and water, or use an alcohol-based sanitizer if that’s not available.
Seek medical care right away for a fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Tell a health care professional about any travel.
What are the symptoms, and how is the virus diagnosed?
China created a test for the virus and shared that information with other countries. The CDC has developed its own test.
Symptoms include a fever, coughing, and shortness of breath. They may appear 2 to 14 days after you’re exposed to the virus.
What is the source of the virus, and how is it spread?
Health officials are not sure of the source of the virus yet or how easily it can spread. Coronaviruses are found in many different animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. One research paper also suggested snakes as a possible source. The new virus may be linked to a seafood and live animal market in Wuhan that has since been closed
The virus can spread from person to person. Health officials are seeing this happen most often where people are close together and in health care settings. To date, 16 health care workers have been infected.
The CDC believes that severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), two other types of coronavirus, are spread through droplets when someone coughs or sneezes.
Is there a vaccine?
There is no vaccine, but the National Institutes of Health is working on one and hopes to begin testing in several months. That testing would be for safety. If it’s safe, there would be testing to see how well it works.
How is it treated?
There is no specific treatment for the virus. Patients are generally given supportive care for their symptoms, such a fluids and pain relievers. Hospitalized patients may need support with breathing.
A coronavirus is a kind of common virus that causes an infection in your nose, sinuses, or upper throat. Most coronaviruses are not dangerous. Some types of coronaviruses are serious, though. About 858 people have died from Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which first appeared in 2012 in Saudi Arabia and then in other countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe. In April 2014, the first American was hospitalized for MERS in Indiana and another case was reported in Florida. Both had just returned from Saudi Arabia. In May 2015, there was an outbreak of MERS in Korea, which was the largest outbreak outside of the Arabian Peninsula. In 2003, 774 people died from a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. As of 2015, there were no further reports of cases of SARS.But In early 2020, following a December 2019 outbreak in China, the World Health Organization identified a new type, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).Often a coronavirus causes upper respiratory infection symptoms like a stuffy nose, cough, and sore throat. You can treat them with rest and over-the-counter medication. The coronavirus can also cause middle ear infections in children.
What Is a Coronavirus?
Coronaviruses were first identified in the 1960s, but we don’t know where they come from. They get their name from their crown-like shape. Sometimes, but not often, a coronavirus can infect both animals and humans.
Most coronaviruses spread the same way other cold-causing viruses do: through infected people coughing and sneezing, by touching an infected person’s hands or face, or by touching things such as doorknobs that infected people have touched.
Almost everyone gets a coronavirus infection at least once in their life, most likely as a young child. In the United States, coronaviruses are more common in the fall and winter, but anyone can come down with a coronavirus infection at any time.
Common Symptoms of Coronavirus
The symptoms of most coronaviruses are similar to any other upper respiratory infection, including runny nose, coughing, sore throat, and sometimes a fever. In most cases, you won’t know whether you have a coronavirus or a different cold-causing virus, such as rhinovirus.
The Dow dropped 603.41 points, or 2.1%, to 28,256.03 in the 30-stock average’s worst day since August. The S&P 500 had its worst day since October, falling 1.8% to 3,225.52. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 1.6% to 9,150.94.
On Friday, the U.S. declared the coronavirus a public health emergency within the country. Delta, American and United suspended all flights between China and the U.S.
The virus, which was first discovered in the Chinese city of Wuhan, has now spread to at least 18 other countries and has dampened sentiment over global economic growth. China’s National Health Commission confirmed on Friday that there have been 9,692 confirmed cases of the coronavirus, with 213 deaths.
“There’s fear going into the weekend,” said Ilya Feygin, senior strategist at WallachBeth Capital. “The theme coming into this year was the Fed and Trump are going to bail us out of any problems, but the virus is something neither one can do anything about. That’s a reason to become more fearful.”
Las Vegas Sands, a proxy stock for the coronavirus given the company’s exposure to the Chinese market, fell more than 1%. Airline stocks such as American and United dropped more than 3% each while Delta slid 2.4%. Travel stocks also got hit as the Trump administration imposed tighter travel restrictions to China.
The WHO recognized the deadly pneumonia-like virus as a global health emergency on Thursday, citing concern that the outbreak continues to spread to other countries with weaker health systems. WHO’s designation was made to help the United Nations health agency mobilize financial and political support to contain the outbreak.
“The outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks,” said Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, said in a note. “Viruses often become less lethal as they mutate because a virus that kills its host is also a virus that kills itself. Unfortunately, in a world of mass travel, a virus can spread across the globe before it has time to lose potency.”
Members of the Thai Airways crew prepare themselves before disinfecting the cabin of an aircraft of the national carrier during a procedure to prevent the spread of the coronavirus at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi International Airport, Thailand, January 28, 2020.
Athit Perawongmetha | Reuters
Caterpillar shares fell 3% after the industrial giant’s CEO warned about “global economic uncertainty” in the company’s latest quarterly earnings report, in part a reference to the virus. Caterpillar also issued disappointing earnings guidance for 2020.
On the positive side, Amazon shares surged 7.4% after the company posted a quarterly profit and revenue that easily beat analyst expectations. Amazon Web Services, the company’s cloud business, saw stronger-than-expected revenues.
Investors are nearly halfway through the corporate earnings season. More than 70% of the 226 S&P 500 companies that have reported have beaten analyst earnings expectations, FactSet data shows.
Volatile January
The major averages saw an uptick in volatility this month as investors grappled with rising tensions between Iran and the U.S., trade worries with China and the recent coronavirus scare.
The S&P 500 closed marginally lower for January, snapping a four-month winning streak. The Dow also had its first monthly loss since August. The Nasdaq posted a 2% gain in January, its fifth-straight monthly advance.
The Cboe Volatility Index (VIX), widely considered to be the best fear gauge in the market, rose to just around 19 this month from 13.78, a gain of more than 37%.
Stocks could face some seasonal headwinds next month. February has not been the market’s best month historically. Data from The Stock Trader’s Almanac shows the S&P 500 averages a gain of just 0.1%. Investors will also face a number of obstacles in the new month, including worries over how the U.S. presidential election shakes out. Coronavirus fears could also persist in February.
“That’s going to hurt China,” said Tom Martin, senior portfolio manager at GLOBALT. “For an economy that is increasingly trying to transition to the consumer, it’s definitely a headwind.”
“When you start seeing real actions on the part of multinational companies, as well as people trying to put a number on it, it’s no longer something that is not going to have an impact at all,” Martin said.
Each year CDC estimates the burden of influenza in the U.S. CDC uses modeling to estimate the number of influenza illnesses, medical visits, flu-associated hospitalizations, and flu-associated deaths that occur in the U.S. in a given season. The methods used to calculate these estimates are described on CDC’s webpage, How CDC Estimates the Burden of Seasonal Influenza in the U.S.
CDC uses the estimates of the burden of influenza in the population and the impact of influenza vaccination to inform policy and communications related to influenza.
search icon
How CDC Estimates the Burden of Flu
presentation icon
Why CDC Estimates the Burden of Flu
table solid icon
Past Season Estimates
question icon
Frequently Asked Questions about Estimated Flu Burden
Preliminary In-season Disease Burden Estimates
Weekly preliminary cumulative in-season estimates of flu cases, medical visits, hospitalizations for the 2019-2020 season.
Flu Burden Averted from Vaccination
CDC estimates the burden of flu and the impact of annual flu vaccination in the U.S using a model that estimates the numbers of flu illnesses, medical visits and hospitalization prevented by vaccination.
Figure 1: Estimated Range of Annual Burden of Flu in the U.S. since 2010
The burden of influenza disease in the United States can vary widely and is determined by a number of factors including the characteristics of circulating viruses, the timing of the season, how well the vaccine is working to protect against illness, and how many people got vaccinated. While the impact of flu varies, it places a substantial burden on the health of people in the United States each year.
CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.
Table 1: Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Season — United States, 2010-11 through 2018-19 Influenza Seasons
Three of the four types of influenza viruses affect humans: Type A, Type B, and Type C.[2][7] Type D has not been known to infect humans, but is believed to have the potential to do so.[7][8] Usually, the virus is spread through the air from coughs or sneezes.[1] This is believed to occur mostly over relatively short distances.[9] It can also be spread by touching surfaces contaminated by the virus and then touching the mouth or eyes.[5][9] A person may be infectious to others both before and during the time they are showing symptoms.[5] The infection may be confirmed by testing the throat, sputum, or nose for the virus.[2] A number of rapid tests are available; however, people may still have the infection even if the results are negative.[2] A type of polymerase chain reaction that detects the virus’s RNA is more accurate.[2]
Frequent hand washing reduces the risk of viral spread.[3] Wearing a surgical mask is also useful.[3] Yearly vaccinations against influenza are recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for those at high risk,[1] and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for those six months of age and older.[10] The vaccine is usually effective against three or four types of influenza.[1] It is usually well-tolerated.[11] A vaccine made for one year may not be useful in the following year, since the virus evolves rapidly.[1]Antiviral drugs such as the neuraminidase inhibitoroseltamivir, among others, have been used to treat influenza.[1]The benefit of antiviral drugs in those who are otherwise healthy do not appear to be greater than their risks.[12] No benefit has been found in those with other health problems.[12][13]
Influenza spreads around the world in yearly outbreaks, resulting in about three to five million cases of severe illness and about 290,000 to 650,000 deaths.[4][1] About 20% of unvaccinated children and 10% of unvaccinated adults are infected each year.[14] In the northern and southern parts of the world, outbreaks occur mainly in the winter, while around the equator, outbreaks may occur at any time of the year.[11] Death occurs mostly in high risk groups—the young, the old, and those with other health problems.[1] Larger outbreaks known as pandemics are less frequent.[2] In the 20th century, three influenza pandemics occurred: Spanish influenza in 1918 (40–50million deaths), Asian influenza in 1957 (two million deaths), and Hong Kong influenza in 1968 (one million deaths).[15] The World Health Organization declared an outbreak of a new type of influenza A/H1N1 to be a pandemic in June 2009.[16] Influenza may also affect other animals, including pigs, horses, and birds.[17]
All three findings, especially fever, were less sensitive in people over 60 years of age.
Symptoms of influenza,[19][20] with fever and cough the most common symptoms.[18]
Approximately 33% of people with influenza are asymptomatic.[21][22]
Symptoms of influenza can start quite suddenly one to two days after infection. Usually the first symptoms are chills and body aches, but fever is also common early in the infection, with body temperatures ranging from 38 to 39°C (approximately 100 to 103°F).[23] Many people are so ill that they are confined to bed for several days, with aches and pains throughout their bodies, which are worse in their backs and legs.[24]
It can be difficult to distinguish between the common cold and influenza in the early stages of these infections.[29] Influenza symptoms are a mixture of symptoms of common cold and pneumonia, body ache, headache, and fatigue. Diarrhea is not usually a symptom of influenza in adults,[18] although it has been seen in some human cases of the H5N1 “bird flu”[30] and can be a symptom in children.[26] The symptoms most reliably seen in influenza are shown in the adjacent table.[18]
The specific combination of fever and cough has been found to be the best predictor; diagnostic accuracy increases with a body temperature above 38 °C (100.4 °F).[31] Two decision analysis studies[32][33] suggest that during local outbreaks of influenza, the prevalence will be over 70%.[33] Even in the absence of a local outbreak, diagnosis may be justified in the elderly during the influenza season as long as the prevalence is over 15%.[33]
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains an up-to-date summary of available laboratory tests.[34] According to the CDC, rapid diagnostic tests have a sensitivity of 50–75% and specificity of 90–95% when compared with viral culture.[35]
Occasionally, influenza can cause severe illness including primary viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia.[36][37] The obvious symptom is trouble breathing. In addition, if a child (or presumably an adult) seems to be getting better and then relapses with a high fever, that is a danger sign since this relapse can be bacterial pneumonia.[38]
Sometimes, influenza may have abnormal presentations, like confusion in the elderly and a sepsis-like syndrome in the young.[39]
Structure of the influenza virion. The hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) proteins are shown on the surface of the particle. The viral RNAs that make up the genome are shown as red coils inside the particle and bound to ribonuclearproteins (RNP).
These viruses are only distantly related to the human parainfluenza viruses, which are RNA viruses belonging to the paramyxovirus family that are a common cause of respiratory infections in children such as croup,[42] but can also cause a disease similar to influenza in adults.[43]
A fourth family of influenza viruses was identified in 2016 – Influenza D.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] The type species for this family is Influenza D virus, which was first isolated in 2011.[8]
Influenzavirus A
This genus has one species, influenza A virus. Wild aquatic birds are the natural hosts for a large variety of influenza A.[51] Occasionally, viruses are transmitted to other species and may then cause devastating outbreaks in domestic poultry or give rise to human influenza pandemics.[51] The influenza A virus can be subdivided into different serotypes based on the antibody response to these viruses.[52] The serotypes that have been confirmed in humans are:
This genus has one species, influenza B virus. Influenza B almost exclusively infects humans[52] and is less common than influenza A. The only other animals known to be susceptible to influenza B infection are the seal[58] and the ferret.[59] This type of influenza mutates at a rate 2–3 times slower than type A[60] and consequently is less genetically diverse, with only one influenza B serotype.[52] As a result of this lack of antigenic diversity, a degree of immunity to influenza B is usually acquired at an early age. However, influenza B mutates enough that lasting immunity is not possible.[61] This reduced rate of antigenic change, combined with its limited host range (inhibiting cross species antigenic shift), ensures that pandemics of influenza B do not occur.[62]
Influenzavirus C
This genus has one species, influenza C virus, which infects humans, dogs and pigs, sometimes causing both severe illness and local epidemics.[63][64] However, influenza C is less common than the other types and usually only causes mild disease in children.[65][66]
Influenzavirus D
This genus has only one species, influenza D virus, which infects pigs and cattle. The virus has the potential to infect humans, although no such cases have been observed yet.[8]
Structure, properties, and subtype nomenclature
Influenzaviruses A, B, C, and D are very similar in overall structure.[8][67][68] The virus particle (also called the virion) is 80–120 nanometers in diameter such that the smallest virions adopt an elliptical shape.[69] The length of each particle varies considerably, owing to the fact that influenza is pleomorphic, and can be in excess of many tens of micrometers, producing filamentous virions.[70] However, despite these varied shapes, the viral particles of all influenza viruses are similar in composition.[71] These are made of a viral envelopecontaining two main types of glycoproteins, wrapped around a central core. The central core contains the viral RNAgenome and other viral proteins that package and protect this RNA. RNA tends to be single stranded but in special cases it is double.[72] Unusually for a virus, its genome is not a single piece of nucleic acid; instead, it contains seven or eight pieces of segmented negative-sense RNA, each piece of RNA containing either one or two genes, which code for a gene product (protein).[71] For example, the influenza A genome contains 11 genes on eight pieces of RNA, encoding for 11 proteins: hemagglutinin (HA), neuraminidase (NA), nucleoprotein (NP), M1 (matrix 1 protein), M2, NS1 (non-structural protein 1), NS2 (other name is NEP, nuclear export protein), PA, PB1 (polymerase basic 1), PB1-F2 and PB2.[73]
Hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) are the two large glycoproteins on the outside of the viral particles. HA is a lectin that mediates binding of the virus to target cells and entry of the viral genome into the target cell, while NA is involved in the release of progeny virus from infected cells, by cleaving sugars that bind the mature viral particles.[74] Thus, these proteins are targets for antiviral drugs.[75] Furthermore, they are antigens to which antibodies can be raised. Influenza A viruses are classified into subtypes based on antibody responses to HA and NA. These different types of HA and NA form the basis of the H and N distinctions in, for example, H5N1.[76] There are 18 H and 11 N subtypes known, but only H 1, 2 and 3, and N 1 and 2 are commonly found in humans.[77][78]
Replication
Host cell invasion and replication by the influenza virus. The steps in this process are discussed in the text.
Viruses can replicate only in living cells.[79] Influenza infection and replication is a multi-step process: First, the virus has to bind to and enter the cell, then deliver its genome to a site where it can produce new copies of viral proteins and RNA, assemble these components into new viral particles, and, last, exit the host cell.[71]
The intracellular details are still being elucidated. It is known that virions converge to the microtubule organizing center, interact with acidic endosomes and finally enter the target endosomes for genome release.[82]
Once inside the cell, the acidic conditions in the endosome cause two events to happen: First, part of the hemagglutinin protein fuses the viral envelope with the vacuole’s membrane, then the M2 ion channel allows protons to move through the viral envelope and acidify the core of the virus, which causes the core to disassemble and release the viral RNA and core proteins.[71] The viral RNA (vRNA) molecules, accessory proteins and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase are then released into the cytoplasm (Stage 2).[83] The M2 ion channel is blocked by amantadine drugs, preventing infection.[84]
These core proteins and vRNA form a complex that is transported into the cell nucleus, where the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase begins transcribing complementary positive-sense vRNA (Steps 3a and b).[85] The vRNA either is exported into the cytoplasm and translated (step 4) or remains in the nucleus. Newly synthesized viral proteins are either secreted through the Golgi apparatus onto the cell surface (in the case of neuraminidase and hemagglutinin, step 5b) or transported back into the nucleus to bind vRNA and form new viral genome particles (step 5a). Other viral proteins have multiple actions in the host cell, including degrading cellular mRNA and using the released nucleotides for vRNA synthesis and also inhibiting translation of host-cell mRNAs.[86]
Negative-sense vRNAs that form the genomes of future viruses, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and other viral proteins are assembled into a virion. Hemagglutinin and neuraminidase molecules cluster into a bulge in the cell membrane. The vRNA and viral coreproteins leave the nucleus and enter this membrane protrusion (step 6). The mature virus buds off from the cell in a sphere of host phospholipid membrane, acquiring hemagglutinin and neuraminidase with this membrane coat (step 7).[87] As before, the viruses adhere to the cell through hemagglutinin; the mature viruses detach once their neuraminidase has cleaved sialic acid residues from the host cell.[80] After the release of new influenza viruses, the host cell dies.
Because of the absence of RNA proofreading enzymes, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that copies the viral genome makes an error roughly every 10 thousand nucleotides, which is the approximate length of the influenza vRNA. Hence, the majority of newly manufactured influenza viruses are mutants; this causes antigenic drift, which is a slow change in the antigens on the viral surface over time.[88] The separation of the genome into eight separate segments of vRNA allows mixing or reassortment of vRNAs if more than one type of influenza virus infects a single cell. The resulting rapid change in viral genetics produces antigenic shifts, which are sudden changes from one antigen to another. These sudden large changes allow the virus to infect new host species and quickly overcome protective immunity.[76] This is important in the emergence of pandemics, as discussed below in the section on epidemiology.
Mechanism
Transmission
When an infected person sneezes or coughs more than half a million virus particles can be spread to those close by.[89] In otherwise healthy adults, influenza virus shedding (the time during which a person might be infectious to another person) increases sharply one-half to one day after infection, peaks on day 2 and persists for an average total duration of 5 days—but can persist as long as 9 days.[21] In those who develop symptoms from experimental infection (only 67% of healthy experimentally infected individuals), symptoms and viral shedding show a similar pattern, but with viral shedding preceding illness by one day.[21] Children are much more infectious than adults and shed virus from just before they develop symptoms until two weeks after infection.[90] In immunocompromised people, viral shedding can continue for longer than two weeks.[91]
Influenza can be spread in three main ways:[92][93] by direct transmission (when an infected person sneezes mucus directly into the eyes, nose or mouth of another person); the airborne route (when someone inhales the aerosols produced by an infected person coughing, sneezing or spitting) and through hand-to-eye, hand-to-nose, or hand-to-mouth transmission, either from contaminated surfaces or from direct personal contact such as a handshake. The relative importance of these three modes of transmission is unclear, and they may all contribute to the spread of the virus.[9] In the airborne route, the droplets that are small enough for people to inhale are 0.5 to 5μm in diameter and inhaling just one droplet might be enough to cause an infection.[92] Although a single sneeze releases up to 40,000 droplets,[94] most of these droplets are quite large and will quickly settle out of the air.[92] How long influenza survives in airborne droplets seems to be influenced by the levels of humidity and UV radiation, with low humidity and a lack of sunlight in winter aiding its survival.[92]
As the influenza virus can persist outside of the body, it can also be transmitted by contaminated surfaces such as banknotes,[95] doorknobs, light switches and other household items.[24] The length of time the virus will persist on a surface varies, with the virus surviving for one to two days on hard, non-porous surfaces such as plastic or metal, for about fifteen minutes on dry paper tissues, and only five minutes on skin.[96] However, if the virus is present in mucus, this can protect it for longer periods (up to 17days on banknotes).[92][95]Avian influenza viruses can survive indefinitely when frozen.[97] They are inactivated by heating to 56°C (133°F) for a minimum of 60 minutes, as well as by acids (at pH <2).[97]
Pathophysiology
The different sites of infection (shown in red) of seasonal H1N1 versus avian H5N1. This influences their lethality and ability to spread.
The mechanisms by which influenza infection causes symptoms in humans have been studied intensively. One of the mechanisms is believed to be the inhibition of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) resulting in lowered cortisol levels.[98] Knowing which genes are carried by a particular strain can help predict how well it will infect humans and how severe this infection will be (that is, predict the strain’s pathophysiology).[64][99]
For instance, part of the process that allows influenza viruses to invade cells is the cleavage of the viral hemagglutinin protein by any one of several human proteases.[81] In mild and avirulent viruses, the structure of the hemagglutinin means that it can only be cleaved by proteases found in the throat and lungs, so these viruses cannot infect other tissues. However, in highly virulent strains, such as H5N1, the hemagglutinin can be cleaved by a wide variety of proteases, allowing the virus to spread throughout the body.[99]
The viral hemagglutinin protein is responsible for determining both which species a strain can infect and where in the human respiratory tract a strain of influenza will bind.[100] Strains that are easily transmitted between people have hemagglutinin proteins that bind to receptors in the upper part of the respiratory tract, such as in the nose, throat and mouth. In contrast, the highly lethal H5N1 strain binds to receptors that are mostly found deep in the lungs.[101] This difference in the site of infection may be part of the reason why the H5N1 strain causes severe viral pneumonia in the lungs, but is not easily transmitted by people coughing and sneezing.[102][103]
Common symptoms of the flu such as fever, headaches, and fatigue are the result of the huge amounts of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (such as interferon or tumor necrosis factor) produced from influenza-infected cells.[29][104] In contrast to the rhinovirus that causes the common cold, influenza does cause tissue damage, so symptoms are not entirely due to the inflammatory response.[105] This massive immune response might produce a life-threatening cytokine storm. This effect has been proposed to be the cause of the unusual lethality of both the H5N1 avian influenza,[106] and the 1918 pandemic strain.[107][108] However, another possibility is that these large amounts of cytokines are just a result of the massive levels of viral replication produced by these strains, and the immune response does not itself contribute to the disease.[109] Influenza appear to trigger programmed cell death (apoptosis).[110]
The influenza vaccine is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for high-risk groups, such as pregnant women, children aged less than five years, the elderly, health care workers, and people who have chronic illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, or are immunocompromised among others.[111][112] The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the influenza vaccine for those aged six months or older who do not have contraindications.[113][10] In healthy adults it is modestly effective in decreasing the amount of influenza-like symptoms in a population.[114] In healthy children over the age of two years, the vaccine reduces the chances of getting influenza by around two-thirds, while it has not been well studied in children under two years.[115] In those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease vaccination reduces exacerbations,[116] it is not clear if it reduces asthma exacerbations.[117] Evidence supports a lower rate of influenza-like illness in many groups who are immunocompromised such as those with: HIV/AIDS, cancer, and post organ transplant.[118] In those at high risk immunization may reduce the risk of heart disease.[119] Whether immunizing health care workers affects patient outcomes is controversial with some reviews finding insufficient evidence[120][121] and others finding tentative evidence.[122][123]
Due to the high mutation rate of the virus, a particular influenza vaccine usually confers protection for no more than a few years. Each year, the World Health Organization predicts which strains of the virus are most likely to be circulating in the next year (see Historical annual reformulations of the influenza vaccine), allowing pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that will provide the best immunity against these strains.[124] The vaccine is reformulated each season for a few specific flu strains but does not include all the strains active in the world during that season. It takes about six months for the manufacturers to formulate and produce the millions of doses required to deal with the seasonal epidemics; occasionally, a new or overlooked strain becomes prominent during that time.[125] It is also possible to get infected just before vaccination and get sick with the strain that the vaccine is supposed to prevent, as the vaccine takes about two weeks to become effective.[126]Vaccines can cause the immune system to react as if the body were actually being infected, and general infection symptoms (many cold and flu symptoms are just general infection symptoms) can appear, though these symptoms are usually not as severe or long-lasting as influenza. The most dangerous adverse effect is a severe allergic reaction to either the virus material itself or residues from the hen eggs used to grow the influenza; however, these reactions are extremely rare.[127]
A 2018 Cochrane review of children in good general health found that the live immunization seemed to lower the risk of getting influenza for the season from 18% to 4%. The inactivated vaccine seemed to lower the risk of getting flu for the season from 30% to 11%. Not enough data was available to draw definite conclusions about serious complications such as pneumonia or hospitalization.[115]
For healthy adults, a 2018 Cochrane review showed that vaccines reduced the incidence of lab-confirmed influenza from 2.3% to 0.9%, which constitutes a reduction of risk of approximately 60%. However, for influenza-like illness which is defined as the same symptoms of cough, fever, headache, runny nose, and bodily aches and pains, vaccine reduced the risk from 21.5% to 18.1%. This constitutes a much more modest reduction of risk of approximately 16%. The difference is most probably explained by the fact that over 200 viruses cause the same or similar symptoms as the flu virus.[114] Another review looked at the effect of short and long term exercise before the vaccine, however, no benefits or harms were recorded.[128]
The cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination has been widely evaluated for different groups and in different settings.[129] It has generally been found to be a cost-effective intervention, especially in children[130] and the elderly,[131] however the results of economic evaluations of influenza vaccination have often been found to be dependent on key assumptions.[132][133]
by direct transmission (when an infected person sneezes mucus directly into the eyes, nose or mouth of another person);
the airborne route (when someone inhales the aerosols produced by an infected person coughing, sneezing or spitting);
through hand-to-eye, hand-to-nose, or hand-to-mouth transmission, either from contaminated surfaces or from direct personal contact such as a hand-shake.
Reasonably effective ways to reduce the transmission of influenza include good personal health and hygiene habits such as: not touching your eyes, nose or mouth;[134] frequent hand washing (with soap and water, or with alcohol-based hand rubs);[135] covering coughs and sneezes; avoiding close contact with sick people; and staying home yourself if you are sick. Avoiding spitting is also recommended.[136] Although face masks might help prevent transmission when caring for the sick,[137][138] there is mixed evidence on beneficial effects in the community.[136][139] Smoking raises the risk of contracting influenza, as well as producing more severe disease symptoms.[140][141]
Since influenza spreads through both aerosols and contact with contaminated surfaces, surface sanitizing may help prevent some infections.[142]Alcohol is an effective sanitizer against influenza viruses, while quaternary ammonium compounds can be used with alcohol so that the sanitizing effect lasts for longer.[143] In hospitals, quaternary ammonium compounds and bleach are used to sanitize rooms or equipment that have been occupied by people with influenza symptoms.[143] At home, this can be done effectively with a diluted chlorine bleach.[144]
Social distancing strategies used during past pandemics, such as closing schools, churches and theaters, slowed the spread of the virus but did not have a large effect on the overall death rate.[145][146] It is uncertain if reducing public gatherings, by for example closing schools and workplaces, will reduce transmission since people with influenza may just be moved from one area to another; such measures would also be difficult to enforce and might be unpopular.[136] When small numbers of people are infected, isolating the sick might reduce the risk of transmission.[136]
Diagnosis
29 yr old with H1N1 confirmed
There are a number of rapid tests for the flu. One is called a Rapid Molecular Assay, when an upper respiratory tract specimen (mucus) is taken using a nasal swab or a nasopharyngeal swab.[147] It should be done within 3–4 days of symptom onset, as upper respiratory viral shedding takes a downward spiral after that.[39]
People with the flu are advised to get plenty of rest, drink plenty of liquids, avoid using alcohol and tobacco and, if necessary, take medications such as acetaminophen (paracetamol) to relieve the fever and muscle aches associated with the flu.[148][149] In contrast, there is not enough evidence to support corticosteroids as add on therapy for influenza.[150] It is advised to avoid close contact with others to prevent spread of infection.[148][149] Children and teenagers with flu symptoms (particularly fever) should avoid taking aspirin during an influenza infection (especially influenza type B), because doing so can lead to Reye’s syndrome, a rare but potentially fatal disease of the liver.[151] Since influenza is caused by a virus, antibiotics have no effect on the infection; unless prescribed for secondary infections such as bacterial pneumonia. Antiviral medication may be effective, if given early (within 48 hours to first symptoms), but some strains of influenza can show resistance to the standard antiviral drugs and there is concern about the quality of the research.[152] High-risk individuals such as young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems should visit the doctor for antiviral drugs. Those with the emergency warning signs should visit the emergency room at once.[40]
Overall the benefits of neuraminidase inhibitors in those who are otherwise healthy do not appear to be greater than the risks.[12] There does not appear to be any benefit in those with other health problems.[12] In those believed to have the flu, they decreased the length of time symptoms were present by slightly less than a day but did not appear to affect the risk of complications such as needing hospitalization or pneumonia.[13] Increasingly prevalent resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors has led to researchers to seek alternative antiviral drugs with different mechanisms of action.[156]
M2 inhibitors
The antiviral drugsamantadine and rimantadine inhibit a viral ion channel (M2 protein), thus inhibiting replication of the influenza A virus.[84] These drugs are sometimes effective against influenza A if given early in the infection but are ineffective against influenza B viruses, which lack the M2 drug target.[157] Measured resistance to amantadine and rimantadine in American isolates of H3N2 has increased to 91% in 2005.[158] This high level of resistance may be due to the easy availability of amantadines as part of over-the-counter cold remedies in countries such as China and Russia,[159] and their use to prevent outbreaks of influenza in farmed poultry.[160][161] The CDC recommended against using M2 inhibitors during the 2005–06 influenza season due to high levels of drug resistance.[162]
Prognosis
Influenza’s effects are much more severe and last longer than those of the common cold. Most people will recover completely in about one to two weeks, but others will develop life-threatening complications (such as pneumonia). Thus, influenza can be deadly, especially for the weak, young and old, those with compromised immune systems, or the chronically ill.[76] People with a weak immune system, such as people with advanced HIV infection or transplant recipients (whose immune systems are medically suppressed to prevent transplant organ rejection), suffer from particularly severe disease.[163] Pregnant women and young children are also at a high risk for complications.[164]
According to the World Health Organization: “Every winter, tens of millions of people get the flu. Most are only ill and out of work for a week, yet the elderly are at a higher risk of death from the illness. We know the worldwide death toll exceeds a few hundred thousand people a year, but even in developed countries the numbers are uncertain, because medical authorities don’t usually verify who actually died of influenza and who died of a flu-like illness.”[166] Even healthy people can be affected, and serious problems from influenza can happen at any age. People over 65 years old, pregnant women, very young children and people of any age with chronic medical conditions are more likely to get complications from influenza, such as pneumonia, bronchitis, sinus, and ear infections.[167]
In some cases, an autoimmune response to an influenza infection may contribute to the development of Guillain–Barré syndrome.[168] However, as many other infections can increase the risk of this disease, influenza may only be an important cause during epidemics.[168][169] This syndrome has been believed to also be a rare side effect of influenza vaccines. One review gives an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations.[170] Getting infected by influenza itself increases both the risk of death (up to 1 in 10,000) and increases the risk of developing GBS to a much higher level than the highest level of suspected vaccine involvement (approx. 10 times higher by recent estimates).[171][168]
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Children of any age with neurologic conditions are more likely than other children to become very sick if they get the flu. Flu complications may vary and for some children, can include pneumonia and even death.”[172]
Influenza encephalitis MRI
Neurological conditions can include:
Disorders of the brain and spinal cord
Cerebral palsy
Epilepsy (seizure disorders)
Stroke
Intellectual disability
Moderate to severe developmental delay
Muscular dystrophy
Spinal cord injury
These conditions can impair coughing, swallowing, clearing the airways, and in the worst cases, breathing. Therefore, they worsen the flu symptoms.[172]
Seasonal risk areas for influenza: November–April (blue), April–November (red), and year-round (yellow).
Influenza reaches peak prevalence in winter, and because the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have winter at different times of the year, there are actually two different flu seasons each year. This is why the World Health Organization (assisted by the National Influenza Centers) makes recommendations for two different vaccine formulations every year; one for the Northern, and one for the Southern Hemisphere.[124]
A long-standing puzzle has been why outbreaks of the flu occur seasonally rather than uniformly throughout the year. One possible explanation is that, because people are indoors more often during the winter, they are in close contact more often, and this promotes transmission from person to person. Increased travel due to the Northern Hemisphere winter holiday season may also play a role.[173] Another factor is that cold temperatures lead to drier air, which may dehydrate mucus particles. Dry particles are lighter and can thus remain airborne for a longer period. The virus also survives longer on surfaces at colder temperatures and aerosol transmission of the virus is highest in cold environments (less than 5°C) with low relative humidity.[174] The lower air humidity in winter seems to be the main cause of seasonal influenza transmission in temperate regions.[175][176]
However, seasonal changes in infection rates also occur in tropical regions, and in some countries these peaks of infection are seen mainly during the rainy season.[177] Seasonal changes in contact rates from school terms, which are a major factor in other childhood diseases such as measles and pertussis, may also play a role in the flu. A combination of these small seasonal effects may be amplified by dynamical resonance with the endogenous disease cycles.[178]H5N1 exhibits seasonality in both humans and birds.[179][180]
An alternative hypothesis to explain seasonality in influenza infections is an effect of vitamin D levels on immunity to the virus.[181] This idea was first proposed by Robert Edgar Hope-Simpson in 1965.[182] He proposed that the cause of influenza epidemics during winter may be connected to seasonal fluctuations of vitamin D, which is produced in the skin under the influence of solar (or artificial) UV radiation. This could explain why influenza occurs mostly in winter and during the tropical rainy season, when people stay indoors, away from the sun, and their vitamin D levels fall.
As influenza is caused by a variety of species and strains of viruses, in any given year some strains can die out while others create epidemics, while yet another strain can cause a pandemic. Typically, in a year’s normal two flu seasons (one per hemisphere), there are between three and five million cases of severe illness and around 650,000 deaths worldwide,[4][1][183] which by some definitions is a yearly influenza epidemic.[1] Although the incidence of influenza can vary widely between years, approximately 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations are directly associated with influenza every year in the United States.[184][185] One method of calculating influenza mortality produced an estimate of 41,400 average deaths per year in the United States between 1979 and 2001.[186] Different methods in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a range from a low of about 3,300 deaths to a high of 49,000 per year.[187]
Roughly three times per century, a pandemic occurs, which infects a large proportion of the world’s population and can kill tens of millions of people (see pandemics section). One study estimated that if a strain with similar virulence to the 1918 influenza emerged today, it could kill between 50 and 80million people.[188]
Antigenic shift, or reassortment, can result in novel and highly pathogenic strains of human influenza
New influenza viruses are constantly evolving by mutation or by reassortment.[52] Mutations can cause small changes in the hemagglutinin and neuraminidaseantigens on the surface of the virus. This is called antigenic drift, which slowly creates an increasing variety of strains until one evolves that can infect people who are immune to the pre-existing strains. This new variant then replaces the older strains as it rapidly sweeps through the human population, often causing an epidemic.[189] However, since the strains produced by drift will still be reasonably similar to the older strains, some people will still be immune to them. In contrast, when influenza viruses reassort, they acquire completely new antigens—for example by reassortment between avian strains and human strains; this is called antigenic shift. If a human influenza virus is produced that has entirely new antigens, everybody will be susceptible, and the novel influenza will spread uncontrollably, causing a pandemic.[190] In contrast to this model of pandemics based on antigenic drift and shift, an alternative approach has been proposed where the periodic pandemics are produced by interactions of a fixed set of viral strains with a human population with a constantly changing set of immunities to different viral strains.[191]
The generation time for influenza (the time from one infection to the next) is very short (only 2 days). This explains why influenza epidemics start and finish in a short time scale of only a few months.[192]
From a public health point of view, flu epidemics spread rapidly and are very difficult to control. Most influenza virus strains are not very infectious and each infected individual will only go on to infect one or two other individuals (the basic reproduction number for influenza is generally around 1.4). However, the generation time for influenza is extremely short: the time from a person becoming infected to when he infects the next person is only two days. The short generation time means that influenza epidemics generally peak at around 2 months and burn out after 3 months: the decision to intervene in an influenza epidemic therefore has to be taken early, and the decision is therefore often made on the back of incomplete data. Another problem is that individuals become infectious before they become symptomatic, which means that putting people in quarantine after they become ill is not an effective public health intervention.[192] For the average person, viral shedding tends to peak on day two, whereas symptoms peak on day three.[21]
The word Influenza comes from the Italian language meaning “influence” and refers to the cause of the disease; initially, this ascribed illness to unfavorable astrological influences. It was introduced into English in the mid-eighteenth century during a pan-European epidemic.[193] Archaic terms for influenza include epidemic catarrh, la grippe (from the French, first used by Molyneaux in 1694),[194]sweating sickness, and Spanish fever (particularly for the 1918 flu pandemic strain).[195]
The difference between the influenza mortality age distributions of the 1918 epidemic and normal epidemics. Deaths per 100,000 persons in each age group, United States, for the interpandemic years 1911–1917 (dashed line) and the pandemic year 1918 (solid line).[196]
Thermal imaging camera and screen, photographed in an airport terminal in Greece during the 2009 flu pandemic. Thermal imaging can detect elevated body temperature, one of the signs of swine flu.
The symptoms of human influenza were clearly described by Hippocrates roughly 2,400 years ago.[197][198] Although the virus seems to have caused epidemics throughout human history, historical data on influenza are difficult to interpret, because the symptoms can be similar to those of other respiratory diseases.[199][194] The disease may have spread from Europe to the Americas as early as the European colonization of the Americas, since almost the entire indigenous population of the Antilles was killed by an epidemic resembling influenza that broke out in 1493, after the arrival of Christopher Columbus.[200][201]
The first convincing record of an influenza pandemic was of an outbreak in 1580, which began in Russia and spread to Europe via Africa. In Rome, over 8,000 people were killed, and several Spanish cities were almost wiped out. Pandemics continued sporadically throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, with the pandemic of 1830–1833 being particularly widespread; it infected approximately a quarter of the people exposed.[194]
The most famous and lethal outbreak was the 1918 flu pandemic (Spanish flu pandemic) (type A influenza, H1N1 subtype), which lasted from 1918 to 1919. It is not known exactly how many it killed, but estimates range from 50 to 100million people.[196][202][203] This pandemic has been described as “the greatest medical holocaust in history” and may have killed as many people as the Black Death.[194] This huge death toll was caused by an extremely high infection rate of up to 50% and the extreme severity of the symptoms, suspected to be caused by cytokine storms.[203] Symptoms in 1918 were so unusual that initially influenza was misdiagnosed as dengue, cholera, or typhoid. One observer wrote, “One of the most striking of the complications was hemorrhage from mucous membranes, especially from the nose, stomach, and intestine. Bleeding from the ears and petechial hemorrhages in the skin also occurred.”[202] The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza, but the virus also killed people directly, causing massive hemorrhages and edema in the lung.[204]
The 1918 flu pandemic was truly global, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. The unusually severe disease killed between two and twenty percent of those infected, as opposed to the more usual flu epidemic mortality rate of 0.1%.[196][202] Another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old.[205] This is unusual since influenza is normally most deadly to the very young (under age 2) and the very old (over age 70). The total mortality of the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but it is estimated that 2.5% to 5% of the world’s population was killed. As many as 25million may have been killed in the first 25 weeks; in contrast, HIV/AIDS has killed 25million in its first 25 years.[202]
Later flu pandemics were not so devastating. They included the 1957 Asian Flu (type A, H2N2 strain) and the 1968 Hong Kong Flu (type A, H3N2 strain), but even these smaller outbreaks killed millions of people. In later pandemics antibiotics were available to control secondary infections and this may have helped reduce mortality compared to the Spanish flu of 1918.[196]
The main types of influenza viruses in humans. Solid squares show the appearance of a new strain, causing recurring influenza pandemics. Broken lines indicate uncertain strain identifications.[228]
The first significant step towards preventing influenza was the development in 1944 of a killed-virus vaccine for influenza by Thomas Francis, Jr. This built on work by Australian Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who showed that the virus lost virulence when it was cultured in fertilized hen’s eggs.[229] Application of this observation by Francis allowed his group of researchers at the University of Michigan to develop the first influenza vaccine, with support from the U.S. Army.[230] The Army was deeply involved in this research due to its experience of influenza in World War I, when thousands of troops were killed by the virus in a matter of months.[202] In comparison to vaccines, the development of anti-influenza drugs has been slower, with amantadine being licensed in 1966 and, almost thirty years later, the next class of drugs (the neuraminidase inhibitors) being developed.[231]
Influenza produces direct costs due to lost productivity and associated medical treatment, as well as indirect costs of preventative measures. In the United States, seasonal influenza is estimated to result in a total average annual economic cost of over $11 billion, with direct medical costs estimated to be over $3billion annually.[232] It has been estimated that a future pandemic could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs.[233] However, the economic impacts of past pandemics have not been intensively studied, and some authors have suggested that the Spanish influenza actually had a positive long-term effect on per-capita income growth, despite a large reduction in the working population and severe short-term depressive effects.[234] Other studies have attempted to predict the costs of a pandemic as serious as the 1918 Spanish flu on the U.S. economy, where 30% of all workers became ill, and 2.5% were killed. A 30% sickness rate and a three-week length of illness would decrease the gross domestic product by 5%. Additional costs would come from medical treatment of 18million to 45million people, and total economic costs would be approximately $700billion.[235]
Preventative costs are also high. Governments worldwide have spent billions of U.S. dollars preparing and planning for a potential H5N1 avian influenza pandemic, with costs associated with purchasing drugs and vaccines as well as developing disaster drills and strategies for improved border controls.[236] On 1 November 2005, United States PresidentGeorge W. Bush unveiled the National Strategy to Safeguard Against the Danger of Pandemic Influenza[233] backed by a request to Congress for $7.1billion to begin implementing the plan.[237] Internationally, on 18 January 2006, donor nations pledged US$2billion to combat bird flu at the two-day International Pledging Conference on Avian and Human Influenza held in China.[238][239]
In an assessment of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic on selected countries in the Southern Hemisphere, data suggest that all countries experienced some time-limited and/or geographically isolated socio/economic effects and a temporary decrease in tourism most likely due to fear of 2009 H1N1 disease. It is still too early to determine whether the H1N1 pandemic has caused any long-term economic impacts.[240]
Dr. Terrence Tumpey examining a laboratory-grown reconstruction of the 1918 Spanish flu virus in a biosafety level 3 environment.
Research on influenza includes studies on molecular virology, how the virus produces disease (pathogenesis), host immune responses, viral genomics, and how the virus spreads (epidemiology). These studies help in developing influenza countermeasures; for example, a better understanding of the body’s immune system response helps vaccine development, and a detailed picture of how influenza invades cells aids the development of antiviral drugs. One important basic research program is the Influenza Genome Sequencing Project, which was initiated in 2004 to create a library of influenza sequences and help clarify which factors make one strain more lethal than another, which genes most affect immunogenicity, and how the virus evolves over time.[241]
The sequencing of the influenza genome and recombinant DNA technology may accelerate the generation of new vaccine strains by allowing scientists to substitute new antigens into a previously developed vaccine strain.[242] Growing viruses in cell culture also promises higher yields, less cost, better quality and surge capacity.[243] Research on a universal influenza A vaccine, targeted against the external domain of the transmembrane viral M2 protein (M2e), is being done at the University of Ghent by Walter Fiers, Xavier Saelens and their team[244][245][246] and has now successfully concluded Phase I clinical trials. There has been some research success towards a “universal flu vaccine” that produces antibodies against proteins on the viral coat which mutate less rapidly, and thus a single shot could potentially provide longer-lasting protection.[247][248][249]
A number of biologics, therapeutic vaccines and immunobiologics are also being investigated for treatment of infection caused by viruses. Therapeutic biologics are designed to activate the immune response to virus or antigens. Typically, biologics do not target metabolic pathways like anti-viral drugs, but stimulate immune cells such as lymphocytes, macrophages, and/or antigen-presenting cells, in an effort to drive an immune response towards a cytotoxic effect against the virus. Influenza models, such as murine influenza, are convenient models to test the effects of prophylactic and therapeutic biologics. For example, lymphocyte T-cell immunomodulator inhibits viral growth in the murine model of influenza.[250]
Influenza infects many animal species, and transfer of viral strains between species can occur. Birds are thought to be the main animal reservoirs of influenza viruses.[251] Most influenza strains are believed to have originated after humans began their intensive domestication of animals about 10,000 years ago.[252] Sixteen forms of hemagglutinin and nine forms of neuraminidase have been identified. All known subtypes (HxNy) are found in birds, but many subtypes are endemic in humans, dogs, horses, and pigs; populations of camels, ferrets, cats, seals, mink, and whales also show evidence of prior infection or exposure to influenza.[61] Variants of flu virus are sometimes named according to the species the strain is endemic in or adapted to. The main variants named using this convention are: bird flu, human flu, swine flu, horse flu and dog flu. (Cat flu generally refers to feline viral rhinotracheitis or feline calicivirus and not infection from an influenza virus.) In pigs, horses and dogs, influenza symptoms are similar to humans, with cough, fever and loss of appetite.[61] The frequency of animal diseases are not as well-studied as human infection, but an outbreak of influenza in harbor seals caused approximately 500 seal deaths off the New England coast in 1979–1980.[253] However, outbreaks in pigs are common and do not cause severe mortality.[61]Vaccines have also been developed to protect poultry from avian influenza. These vaccines can be effective against multiple strains and are used either as part of a preventative strategy, or combined with culling in attempts to eradicate outbreaks.[254]
Bird flu
Flu symptoms in birds are variable and can be unspecific.[255] The symptoms following infection with low-pathogenicity avian influenza may be as mild as ruffled feathers, a small reduction in egg production, or weight loss combined with minor respiratory disease.[256] Since these mild symptoms can make diagnosis in the field difficult, tracking the spread of avian influenza requires laboratory testing of samples from infected birds. Some strains such as Asian H9N2 are highly virulent to poultry and may cause more extreme symptoms and significant mortality.[257] In its most highly pathogenic form, influenza in chickens and turkeys produces a sudden appearance of severe symptoms and almost 100% mortality within two days.[258] As the virus spreads rapidly in the crowded conditions seen in the intensive farming of chickens and turkeys, these outbreaks can cause large economic losses to poultry farmers.
An avian-adapted, highly pathogenic strain of H5N1 (called HPAI A(H5N1), for “highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1”) causes H5N1 flu, commonly known as “avian influenza” or simply “bird flu”, and is endemic in many bird populations, especially in Southeast Asia. This Asian lineage strain of HPAI A(H5N1) is spreading globally. It is epizootic (an epidemic in non-humans) and panzootic (a disease affecting animals of many species, especially over a wide area), killing tens of millions of birds and spurring the culling of hundreds of millions of other birds in an attempt to control its spread. Most references in the media to “bird flu” and most references to H5N1 are about this specific strain.[259][260]
HPAI A(H5N1) is an avian disease and there is no evidence suggesting efficient human-to-human transmission of HPAI A(H5N1). In almost all cases, those infected have had extensive physical contact with infected birds.[261] H5N1 may mutate or reassort into a strain capable of efficient human-to-human transmission. The exact changes that are required for this to happen are not well understood.[262] Due to the high lethality and virulence of H5N1, its endemic presence, and its large and increasing biological host reservoir, the H5N1 virus was the world’s pandemic threat in the 2006–07 flu season, and billions of dollars are being raised and spent researching H5N1 and preparing for a potential influenza pandemic.[236]
Chinese inspectors on an airplane, checking passengers for fevers, a common symptom of swine flu
In March 2013, the Chinese government reported three cases of H7N9 influenza infections in humans. Two of whom had died and the third was critically ill. Although the strain of the virus is not thought to spread efficiently between humans,[263][264] by mid-April, at least 82 persons had become ill from H7N9, of which 17 had died. These cases include three small family clusters in Shanghai and one cluster between a neighboring girl and boy in Beijing, raising at least the possibility of human-to-human transmission. WHO points out that one cluster did not have two of the cases lab confirmed and further points out, as a matter of baseline information, that some viruses are able to cause limited human-to-human transmission under conditions of close contact but are not transmissible enough to cause large community outbreaks.[265][266][267]
Swine flu
In pigs swine influenza produces fever, lethargy, sneezing, coughing, difficulty breathing and decreased appetite.[268] In some cases the infection can cause abortion. Although mortality is usually low, the virus can produce weight loss and poor growth, causing economic loss to farmers.[268] Infected pigs can lose up to 12 pounds of body weight over a 3- to 4-week period.[268] Direct transmission of an influenza virus from pigs to humans is occasionally possible (this is called zoonotic swine flu). In all, 50 human cases are known to have occurred since the virus was identified in the mid-20th century, which have resulted in six deaths.[269]
In 2009, a swine-origin H1N1 virus strain commonly referred to as “swine flu” caused the 2009 flu pandemic, but there is no evidence that it is endemic to pigs (i.e. actually a swine flu) or of transmission from pigs to people; instead, the virus spreads from person to person.[270][271] This strain is a reassortment of several strains of H1N1 that are usually found separately, in humans, birds, and pigs.[272]
References…
Further reading
General
Beigel JH, Farrar J, Han AM, Hayden FG, Hyer R, de Jong MD, et al. (September 2005). “Avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans”. The New England Journal of Medicine. 353 (13): 1374–85. CiteSeerX10.1.1.730.7890. doi:10.1056/NEJMra052211. PMID16192482.
Kamps BS, Hoffmann C, Preiser W (2006). “Influenza Report”. Flying Publisher. p. 225.
Levine AJ (1992). Viruses. New York: Scientific American Library. ISBN978-0-7167-5031-4.
World Health Organization (September 2006). Influenza research at the human and animal interface : report of a WHO working group, Geneva, Switzerland 21-22 September 2006 (Report). World Health Organization (WHO). hdl:10665/69391. WHO/CDS/EPR/GIP/2006.3.
Story 2: World Health Organization Declares Global Health Emergency for Coronvirus — Videos
China Coronavirus: Global Emergency
WHO declares coronavirus outbreak ‘global health emergency’
The Coronavirus Blame Game, Explained by Chris Chappell | The China Report
Coronavirus outbreak: Confirmed cases soaring in China; new case in Canada
Chinese Virus Spreads | Hong Kong Anti-Communist Rally
What’s the economic impact of China’s coronavirus outbreak? | Inside Story
Story 3: Airlines Ban Flights To and From China — Videos
British Airways Suspends All Flights To Beijing And Shanghai
Airlines begin suspending China flights amid coronavirus outbreak
Airlines suspend China flights over coronavirus
Coronavirus: Flight carrying Americans out of Wuhan lands in California
Coronavirus: Airlines suspend flights, some Starbucks, KFC, McDonald’s locations closed in China
Story 4: Senate Votes 51 to 49 to Reject Calls For New Witnesses and Documents in Trump Impeachment Trial — Senate Expected To Vote For Trump Acquittal Wednesday, 5 February — Videos
Rep. Meadows: Schiff knows he’s not winning this trial
Newt Gingrich calls out Schiff’s ‘lies’ as ‘deranged’
Mark Steyn: Impeachment trial a ‘stinker’ from beginning to end
Klobuchar speaks out after Senate blocks new witnesses in impeachment trial
Senate rejects motion to call witnesses, 51-49
Senate votes on final framework for impeachment trial
Senate votes against allowing new documents, witnesses in impeachment trial
Senate votes against witnesses in impeachment trial
Tucker: What you’re missing during the impeachment saga
Ingraham: The shiny object impeachment
Hannity: President Trump will be acquitted
Tucker: John Bolton has always been a snake
Senators Reject Witnesses in Trump Impeachment Trial
Republican majority, by a 51-49 vote, keeps new evidence from being introduced
By Andrew Duehren
Senate Republicans rejected Democrats’ demands to call new witnesses and documents in President Trump’s impeachment trial, clearing the way for an acquittal on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges next week.
The 51-49 vote late Friday afternoon represented a major victory for Republican leadership, which has sought to complete the trial as quickly as possible and avoid testimony that could be politically damaging. Democrats had spent weeks calling for the Senate to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton and other officials, seeking testimony about Mr. Trump’s efforts to press Ukraine to launch investigations that could benefit him politically.
Two Republicans, Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, joined every Democrat to vote for the Senate to call in new witnesses. The GOP controls 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats.
Under a separate resolution that Republicans approved along party lines, the impeachment trial will break for the weekend and resume Monday at 11 a.m. EST for four hours of arguments. After those arguments, the trial will adjourn again, giving senators the opportunity to speak on the floor about the charges before returning for a vote on the articles of impeachment at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.
Democrats shortly after the vote on witnesses suggested that any acquittal of Mr. Trump would be tainted.
“America will remember this day, unfortunately, where the Senate did not live up to the responsibilities, where the Senate turned away from truth and went along with a sham trial,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) told reporters. Democrats also offered a series of amendments to the rules again calling for evidence and each failed.
Democratic hopes to extend the trial were dashed in the final 24 hours before the vote, when two Republicans who were on the fence about new evidence said they would oppose the motion. Late Thursday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said he believed the president acted improperly but that his actions didn’t rise to impeachable conduct. And on Friday, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she didn’t “believe the continuation of this process will change anything.”
The delay until next week will place Mr. Trump’s fate in an unusual procedural purgatory. While he is all but certain to be cleared of impeachable offenses in the Republican-controlled Senate, he may have to wait days before an official acquittal, during a hectic time in U.S. politics.
Voters in Iowa will caucus on Monday in the first contest of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, in which several members of the Senate are competing, and Mr. Trump is set to give his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Republicans said holding the vote on Wednesday was the easiest way to reach the preordained conclusion without a time-consuming procedural battle with Democrats.
“The outcome is certain but the pain and suffering are optional. We decided to eliminate as much of the optional pain and suffering as possible,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.)
“It’s a fait accompli,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said. “We know how it’s going to turn out.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) called the president before he introduced the resolution setting the vote for Wednesday, said a person familiar with the matter, and Mr. Trump signed off on it.
One idea floated at a closed-door GOP meeting late Friday was that if the final impeachment vote is delayed until Wednesday, Mr. Trump could request to move the date of his State of the Union until after that vote, two people familiar with the matter said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would need to formally extend an invitation for a new date.
While a simple majority was necessary to consider more evidence, two-thirds of the Senate would be needed to vote to convict Mr. Trump for him to be removed from office.
The question of bringing in new evidence was at the heart of the nine days of arguments and questioning, pitting Democrats—who want to acquire additional material to bolster their case—against Republicans who have sought to quickly vote to acquit Mr. Trump.
In their final arguments on Friday, Democrats warned that moving forward with the trial without considering additional evidence could set a dangerous precedent for future attempts at Congressional investigations into the executive branch.
“This will set a new precedent, this will be cited in impeachment trials from this point until the end of history,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who served as the lead impeachment manager. “If the Senate allows President Trump’s obstruction to stand, it effectively nullifies the impeachment power. It will allow future presidents to decide whether they want their misconduct to be investigated or not.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with his chief of staff after Friday’s Senate vote.PHOTO:JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republicans and White House lawyers sharply criticized Democratic demands for evidence in the Senate trial, arguing that House Democrats should have collected material when they were conducting the investigation in their chamber. Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin warned that the Senate should not “prolong matters further by trying to redo work that the House failed to do.”
Democrats pointed out that House committees issued 71 categories of document requests or subpoenas last year to the White House and other parts of the executive branch but that the White House blocked all of the requests.
Revelations last Sunday about Mr. Bolton’s unpublished book fueled efforts to open the trial to additional evidence. In leaked manuscript,
Mr. Bolton wrote that Mr. Trump told him he was freezing security aid to Ukraine until it opened investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, and other matters. Mr. Bolton had said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.
The charge that Mr. Trump linked the hold on roughly $400 million in security aid this summer to opening investigations was at the center of the House impeachment inquiry. Mr. Trump has denied that the two were related, saying he held the aid to both investigate corruption in Ukraine and ensure other countries were contributing to its defense; he has called the impeachment case against him a partisan attack. The aid was released in September amid bipartisan complaints from Congress.
Mr. Trump and his allies have argued that it was corrupt for Mr. Biden during the Obama administration to seek the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had once investigated a Ukrainian gas company where Mr. Biden’s son Hunter sat on the board. Mr. Biden sought the prosecutor’s removal as part of a broad international effort to combat corruption in Ukraine. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing. Hunter Biden has said it was poor judgment on his part to serve on the Burisma board, which paid him $50,000 a month, while his father was involved with Ukraine policy as vice president.
Testimony from Mr. Bolton is one piece of evidence Democrats have demanded in the Senate trial. They have also sought a trove of documents from the administration and the testimony of several other top administration officials, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
While the first article of impeachment accuses Mr. Trump of abusing his power when he requested the investigations, the second charges him of obstructing Congress when the administration didn’t turn over material to the House impeachment inquiry.
Story 1: President Trump’s Impeachment Trial Legal Team Exposes The Many Lies of Adam Schiff, Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists (REDS) and The Big Lie Media Mob– The American People Are Not Amused By Progressive Propaganda Stunt of The REDS — Vote All Democrats Out of Power In November 2020 — Power Back To The American People — Videos
Gowdy reacts to ‘unprecedented’ calls for Schiff to resign
Mar 28, 2019
Jordan picks apart Dems’ impeachment case in searing remark
Dec 9, 2019
Ratcliffe: Trump didn’t get caught, Schiff got caught with the whistleblower
Dec 12, 2019
Watch tensions erupt on House floor as Gohmert shouts at Nadler
Dec 18, 2019
Trump defense presents arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 5
Senate Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump: Day 5 | USA TODAY
WATCH: Trump ‘did absolutely nothing wrong,’ White House lawyer argues | Trump impeachment trial
TIME TO END THIS: Jay Sekulow TEARS Into Democrats Case On President Trump Impeachment
President Donald Trump’s legal team argued before the U.S. Senate on Jan. 25 that the notes released from the Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president shows he “did nothing wrong.” Michael Purpura, a member of Trump’s defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, said the president did not link U.S. military aid for Ukraine to an investigation into the Bidens. “The truth is simple, and it’s right before our eyes. The president was at all times acting in our national interesting and pursuant to his oath of office,” Purpura said, arguing that Trump was concerned about combating corruption and about the lack of aid from other European nations. Trump’s legal team began its defense on Saturday, after House managers were given 24 hours over three days to make their case for why the president should be removed from office. The defense will be given the same amount of time to make its arguments. The House of Representatives impeached Trump in December on two articles of impeachment–abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial will determine whether Trump is acquitted of those charges or convicted and removed from office.
WATCH: Trump lawyer: White House justified in not complying with House | Trump impeachment trial
The White House was justified in not complying with House requests for documents and witness testimony during the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, the president’s legal team argued on Jan. 25 before the U.S. Senate. Patrick Philbin, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, argued the House did not take the proper steps to issue valid subpoenas as part of the impeachment probe. He also worked to argue that the House did not allow Trump enough opportunity to defend himself during the House inquiry. The House of Representatives impeached Trump in December on two articles of impeachment–abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial will determine whether Trump is acquitted of those charges or convicted and removed from office.
YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO: President Trump Lawyer Says Democrats LIE All THE TIME
Day five highlights as Republicans make their defence in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump
Lawmakers speak as Trump legal team presents its case
Byron York on Trump defense team at impeachment trial
Members of Trump’s defense team blast House managers’ impeachment case
Rick Scott: Schiff got kneecapped, there was no quid pro quo
Sen. Ted Cruz reacts to latest in impeachment trial
Sen. Hawley slams Schiff, says hysteria motivating this impeachment inquiry
Rudy Giuliani responds to accusations made by House impeachment managers
Is Adam Schiff A Psychopath? Yes
Is Donald Trump A Psychopath? No, Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Proof Trump Has Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Tucker: Adam Schiff practices his theatrics
Sociopath vs Psychopath – What’s The Difference?
This is Narcissistic Personality Disorder
How to speak to a narcissist
Narcissist, Psychopath, or Sociopath: How to Spot the Differences
Rep. Adam Schiff: Hard to Feel Sympathy Carter Page
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff’s full opening statement on whistleblower complaint | DNI hearing
Trump accuses Adam Schiff of ‘making up’ conversation with Ukraine
Schiff slammed for ‘parody’ of Trump call transcript
Rep. Schiff on PBS Firing Line: The Body of Evidence Against President Trump Continues to Grow
The psychology of narcissism – W. Keith Campbell
Narcissist, Psychopath, or Sociopath: How to Spot the Differences
7 Signs You’re Dealing With a Psychopath
features and assessment of psychopathy
A Scientist’s Journey Through Psychopathy | Google Zeitgeist
James Fallon, PhD: The Psychopath Inside
I,Psychopath – Documentary – [part 7] Extended Version
Narcissists – Full documentary
Narcissist’s Pathological Space: His Kingdom
Trump: Narcissist in the White House?
Gaslighting and Ambient Abuse
Abuse in Relationships: gaslighting (ambient), overt, covert, by proxy
Bill Whittle: Gaslighting
10 Gaslighting Signs in an Abusive Relationship
How to deal with gaslighting | Ariel Leve
Gaslighting – How A Narcissist Destroys You By Eroding Your Sanity
Gas Lighting and Psychopaths ~ A Short Film
READ: Trump Legal Filing Accuses Democrats Of ‘Dangerous Perversion’ Of Constitution
January 20, 202011:39 AM ET
Updated at 12:58 p.m. ET
The White House is offering a fiery legal response to the articles of impeachment, in an executive summary of a legal brief obtained by NPR.
Decrying a “rigged process” that is “brazenly political,” President Trump’s legal team accuses House Democrats of “focus-group testing various charges for weeks” and says that “all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong.”
They sum up the impeachment as “a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”
The full brief, totaling 110 pages, was sent in response to a Senate summons ahead of the trial, set to begin Tuesday.
“It’s been a substantial project,” said a source working with the president’s legal team who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s a Supreme Court caliber brief.”
The brief expands upon arguments made in a document released over the weekend answering the articles of impeachment, dealing with both process and substance. They argue that the president cannot be impeached for an abuse of power short of a crime and that the president didn’t abuse his power anyhow.
“Abuse of power isn’t a crime,” said the source.
Democrats argue abuse of power is the very thing the Framers had in mind and that “high crimes and misdemeanors” spelled out in the Constitution isn’t meant literally, but is a term of art. Over time, federal officials have been impeached without criminal accusations. But Trump’s legal team says no president has been impeached without a criminal offense and charging abuse of power is simply too subjective. “It would alter the separation of powers to allow this sort of vague standard to be used, to impeach the president,” the source said.
The brief also argues that the article of impeachment for obstructing Congress is invalid because of standing executive branch protections and because the House didn’t pursue judicial recourse to force cooperation.
House Democratic impeachment managers responded to the Trump legal team’s arguments on Monday. “The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances,” they wrote. “That President Trump believes otherwise, and insists he is free to engage in such conduct again, only highlights the continuing threat he poses to the Nation if allowed to remain in office.”
Donald Trump’s defense lawyers accuse the Democrats of ‘massive’ election interference, call Adam Schiff a liar, demand to know where the whistleblower is but only mention the Bidens ONCE in their opening – after the president blamed ‘dumb’ AOC
Trump’s defense team began their case for his acquittal on Saturday
They follow three days of Democratic arguments for impeachment
Trump’s team argued he did nothing wrong and broke no law
‘The president has done absolutely nothing wrong,’ White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told Senators in his opening remarks
Saturday’s session was a short one – around three hours
Donald Trump‘s defense team began their case for the president’s acquittal on Saturday after Democrats spent three days outlining their arguments for impeachment – rolling out his greatest hits but surprisingly barely mentioning Joe and Hunter Biden by name.
Instead they sought to undercut the Democrats legal arguments and portrayed the president as a victim of political enemies who wanted to undercut his election and denied him due process during the House investigation.
‘The president has done absolutely nothing wrong,’ White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said.
‘They’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history,’ Cipollone noted. ‘And we can’t allow that to happen.’
Trump’s team isn’t showing its hand as to whether the Bidens will make an appearance when the trial resumes on Monday.
‘I’m not going to get into what we are presenting in court,’ said a source working on the president’s legal team in a call with reporters when asked about the Bidens.
President Trump weighed in on the trial a few hours after it concluded, arguing he’s been ‘unfairly’ treated and the victim of a ‘totally partisan Impeachment Hoax.’
‘Any fair minded person watching the Senate trial today would be able to see how unfairly I have been treated and that this is indeed the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax that EVERYBODY, including the Democrats, truly knows it is. This should never be allowed to happen again!,’ he wrote.
The president also laid out his lawyers’ attack line in a tweet ahead of the trial – saying his lawyers will go after prominent Democrats Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who had no formal role in the making the impeachment case before the Senate.
‘Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!,’ Trump tweeted Saturday morning about 20 minutes before the trial began.
Ocasio-Cortez joined the majority of Democrats in voting for the two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of justice – against the president. But she was not a member of either House committee that led the inquiry or questioned witnesses.
It was Schiff who bore the brunt of hits from Team Trump.
Deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura opened his part of the defense by playing the video of Schiff’s parody of Zelensky call at one of the House impeachment hearing – a move that infuriated the president and one Trump has repeatedly criticized.
‘That’s fake,’ Purpura noted.
President Trump’s defense team began their case for his acquittal on Saturday
‘The president has done absolutely nothing wrong,’ White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said
Trump attacked Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who had no formal role in the making the impeachment case before the Senate
Adam Schiff leads the House impeachment managers to the Senate to hear Trump’s defense team
And Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin accused Schiff of lying about his contact with the whistleblower, whose revelations of the details of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sparked the formal impeachment inquiry in the House.
Schiff’s staff on the Intelligence committee had contact with the whistleblower and referred him to a lawyer. Schiff says he’s never met the whistleblower.
The Democratic congressman from California, who served as House Democrats’ led impeachment manager, accused the president’s lawyers of ‘trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth.’
‘After listening to the President’s lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations: They don’t contest the facts of Trump’s scheme. They’re trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses,’ Schiff tweeted after the trial ended for the day.
He also charged the president’s lawyers with going after the House impeachment managers because they don’t have a case.
‘They just want to attack the House managers. Look, that’s what you do. And, you know, as a prosecutor I’ve seen it time and time again, when your client is guilty when your client is dead to rights. You don’t want to talk about your clients, guilt, you want to attack the prosecution. It is a fairly elemental strategy,’ Schiff said at a press conference after the trial.
‘I don’t even know who the whistleblower is,’ he noted.
Schiff was observed by a DailyMail.com reporter spending the sitting at the Democrats’ desk in the well of the Senate, taking notes on a white legal pad and listening intently to the president’s case.
Trump’s private attorney Jay Sekulow also attacked the managers
‘This entire impeachment process is about the House managers’ insistence that they are able to read everybody’s thoughts,’ Sekulow said. ‘They can read everybody’s intention. Even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.’
Philbin did not name the whistleblower when he made the president’s case to the 100 senators but he did say suggest the person had political bias against the president.
‘We don’t know exactly what the political bias was because the inspector general testified in the House committees in executive session and that transcript is still secret,’ he said. The inspector general met with the whistleblower and revealed the person’s complaint about Trump’s call.
‘You think you’d want to find out something about the complainant that started all of it,’ Philbin said. ‘Because motivations, bias, reason to bring the complainant could be relevant.’
He noted public reports on the person suggested it was an intelligence staffer who worked with Joe Biden when he was vice president on Ukraine matters.
Trump’s attorney: Overwhelming evidence of the president’s innocence
Adam Schiff said Trump’s lawyers attacked the House impeachment managers because they have no case
President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow, center, stands with his son, Jordan Sekulow, left, and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone when they arrive at the Capitol on Saturday morning
Public reports on the whistleblower indicate the person is male and a CIA staffer who was detailed to the Trump White House but is now back at the agency. The person also could have been detailed to the Obama White House when Biden was vice president but it’s unclear if that is the case. DailyMail.com has not independently verified the whistleblower’s identity.
Trump’s Republican allies came out of the president’s first day of defense praising his legal team’s work at undercutting the Democrats’ case.
Democrats countered that the lawyers had shown the need to call more witnesses.
Schiff pointed out that the president’s team – who talked about several staffers who testified in the House impeachment inquiry – didn’t mention acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney or former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Democrats want to hear from both men.
But there was relief on both sides of the aisle that it was a short day – a little more than three hours – after 12-plus hours the first three days of Trump’s trial.
And senators showed relief the president’s legal team took a professional respectful tone in their opening arguments. There was fear of an aggressive attack.
‘Definitely a palpable nervousness as the POTUS lawyers began. Many Dem Senators were worried that their tone would be abrasive and over-the-top. It wasn’t. That’s a good thing. But will it continue?,’ Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted after the trial.
Deputy White House counsels Michael Purpura and Pat Philbin countered the Democrats’ case
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow will take the lead on the president’s defense
House impeachment managers filed a 28,578-page trial record with the Senate
There was barely any mention of Hunter and Joe Biden by Trump’s defense
Sen. Lindsey Graham – carrying a cup of coffee – heads toward the Senate for Saturday’s hearing
There was also barely mention of Joe and Hunter Biden, who the president attacks frequently on his Twitter account and at campaign rallies.
Joe Biden was popular among his fellow senators and many of them sitting as jurors to Trump served with Biden in the Senate.
The majority of the president’s defense focused on process and procedure.
Cipollone began by using Trump’s favorite argument – that senators should read the call of the president’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
‘They didn’t talk a lot about the transcript of the call which I would submit is the best evidence,’ Cipollone said of the Democrats.
He charged Democrats with not presenting all the evidence, including items that would act in the president’s defense that he said the defense team would show.
‘Ask yourself why didn’t I see this in the first three days,’ Cipollone told senators. ‘As House managers really their goal should be to show you all of the facts.’
Trump’s defense team also are portraying Trump as the victim of Democrats trying to undo the 2016 election.
‘They’re asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but – as I’ve said – before they’re asking you to remove president trump from the ballot of an election occurring in nine months,’ Cipollone said, adding Democrats are trying to ‘take that decision away from the American people.’
‘They’re asking you to tear up all the ballots across this country on their own initiative,’ he noted.
Deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura also painted the leaking of details about the Zelensky-Trump call – and national security staff reports of their concerns to the White House legal team – as merely policy differences between the president and staff instead of an abuse of power.
He argued there was no evidence Trump made security assistance to the Ukraine contingent upon that country launching an investigation into the Bidens and noted the Ukraine didn’t even know the money was ‘paused’ until shortly before it was released.
‘Most of the Democratic witnesses have never spoken to the president at all, let alone about Ukraine security assistance,’ he said of the House impeachment hearings.
Democrats argue Trump deliberately held up the aid to pressure the Ukraine and released it once details of his phone call with Zelensky were leaked.
Saturday’s short day is expected to give way to a longer day on Monday when the presidents’ lawyers return to make their case for acquittal.
Trump’s lawyers are expected to try and flip it back on Democrats, arguing it is them who accepted foreign help in 2016 via the infamous – and unproven – Steele dossier.
Based upon research from former British spy Christopher Steele, and paid for by lawyers who also did work for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the dossier claimed the Russians had blackmail material on Trump.
Trump has denied this.
Trump’s lawyers will also point to a recent report criticizing the FBI for the way it obtained a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Democrats wrapped their case Friday evening and warned President Trump will continue to abuse his executive power unless Congress intervenes.
‘Give America a fair trial,’ said Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager, in his closing argument. ‘She’s worth it.’
THE TRUMP DREAM TEAM: WHO’S DEFENDING PRESIDENT IN SENATE
Lead counsel: Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel
Millionaire conservative Catholic father-of-10 who has little courtroom experience. ‘Strong, silent,’ type who has earned praise from Trump’s camp for resisting Congress’ investigations of the Ukraine scandal. Critics accused him of failing in his duty as a lawyer by writing ‘nonsense letters’ to reject Congressional oversight. His background is commercial litigation and as White House counsel is the leader of the Trump administration’s drive to put conservative judges in federal courts. Trump has already asked aides behind the scenes if he will perform well on television.
Jay Sekulow, president’s personal attorney
Millionaire one-time IRS prosecutor with his own talk radio show. Self-described Messianic Jew who was counsel to Jews for Jesus. Longtime legal adviser to Trump, but he is himself mentioned in the Ukraine affair, with Lev Parnas saying that he knew about Rudy Giuliani’s attempts to dig dirt on the Bidens but did not approve. Michael Cohen claimed that Sekulow and other members of Trump’s legal team put falsehoods in his statement to the House intel committee; Sekulow denies it. The New York Times reported that he voted for Hillary Clinton.
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor
Shot to worldwide fame for his part in the ‘dream team’s’ successful defense of OJ Simpson but was already famous for his defense of Claus von Bulow, the British socialite accused of murdering his wife in Rhode Island. Ron Silver played Dershowitz in Reversal of Fortune. In 2008 he was a member of Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team which secured the lenient plea deal from federal prosecutors. But Dershowitz was a longtime friend of Epstein and was accused of having sex with two of Esptein’s victims. He denies it and is suing one of them, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, for libel, saying his sex life is ‘perfect.’ He admits he received a massage at Epstein’s home – but ‘kept my underwear on.’ Registered Democrat who spoke out against Trump’s election and again after the Charlottesville violence. Has become an outspoken defender of Trump against the Robert Mueller probe and the Ukraine investigation.
Ken Starr, former Whitewater independent counsel
Famous and reviled in equal measure for his Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s finances in Arkansas which eventually led him to evidence of Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. He was a federal appeals judge and George H.W. Bush’s solicitor general before that role. He later became president and chancellor of Baylor University in Waco but was removed as president in May 2016 for mishandling the investigation into allegations of multiple sexual assaults by football players and other students, then quit voluntarily as chancellor. Is the second Jeffrey Epstein defender on the team; he was present in 2008 when the plea deal with prosecutor Alex Acosta was made which let Epstein off with just 13 months of work release prison.
Pam Bondi, White House attorney
Florida’s first female attorney general and also a long-time TV attorney who has been a Fox News guest host – including co-hosting The Five for three days in a row while still attorney general. Began her career as a prosecutor before moving into elected politics. Has been hit by a series of controversies, among them persuading then Florida governor Rick Scott to change the date of an execution because it clashed with her re-election launch, and has come under fire for her association with Scientology. She has defended it saying the group were helping her efforts against human trafficking; at the time the FBI was investigating it over human trafficking. Went all-in on Trump in 2016, leading ‘lock her up’ chants at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Joined the White House last November to aid the anti-impeachment effort.
Robert Ray, Ken Starr’s successor
Headed the Office of the Independent Counsel from 1999 until it closed for business in 2002, meaning it was he, not Ken Starr, who wrote the final words on the scandals of the Clinton years. Those included the report on Monica Lewinsky, the report on the savings and loan misconduct claims which came to be known as Whitewater, and the report on Travelgate, the White House travel office’s firing and file-gate, claims of improper access to the FBI’s background reports. Struck deal with Clinton to give up his law license. Went into private practice. Was charged with stalking a former lover in New York in 2006 four months after she ended their relationship. Now a frequent presence on Fox News.
Jane Raskin, private attorney
Part of a husband-and-wife Florida law team, she is a former prosecutor who specializes in defending in white collar crime cases. Their connection to Trump appears to have been through Ty Cobb, the former White House attorney. She and husband Martin advised Trump on his response to Mueller and appear to have been focused on avoiding an obstruction of justice accusation. That may be the reason to bring her in to the impeachment team; Democrats raised the specter of reviving Mueller’s report in their evidence to the impeachment trial.
Patrick Philbin and Michael Purpura, Deputy White House Counsels
Lowest-profile of the team, they work full-time for Cipollone in the White House. Philbin (left) was a George W. Bush appointee at the Department of Justice who helped come up with the system of trying Guantanamo Bay detainees in front of military commissions instead of in U.S. courts. He was one a group of officials, led by James Comey, who rushed to seriously-ill John Ashcroft’s bedside to stop the renewal of the warrant-less wiretap program. Unknown if Trump is aware of his links to Comey. Purpura (right) is also a Bush White House veteran who shaped its response to Congressional investigations at a time when there were calls for him to be impeached over going to war in Iraq. His name is on letters telling State Department employees not to testify. Has been named as a possible Trump nominee for federal court in Hawaii.
Senators baffled by half-empty spectator gallery during week one of impeachment trial
The Senate spectator gallery was unexpectedly half-empty throughout the first week of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, baffling senators who are shocked people who pass on the historic hearings.
The Senate trial began on January 16 after Trump was impeached on two articles stemming from accusations that he withheld military aid money from US ally Ukraine until they conducted an investigation into presidential hopeful Joe Biden.
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma told New York Post: ‘I’m really surprised at that because this is kind of historic and I would think this would be an opportunity for people to get in there regardless of whose side you are on.’
The Senate spectator gallery gives interested individuals a bird’s eye view of the senators debating whether Trump should become the third president to be formally removed from office.
Journalists are not allowed to bring cameras or cell phones into the gallery, so the low audience turnout is only known by people who have direct access to the chamber.
Senators are shocked that the gallery inside the chamber was at least half-empty during the first week of the impeachment trial
Republican Sen. James Inhofe (center) said he’s shocked that people are missing this ‘historic’ impeachment trial and ‘he would think this would be an opportunity for people to get in there regardless of whose side you are on’
A handful of Republicans blame the lackluster turn out on the tedious opening remarks from their Democratic colleagues.
‘Well, if I had a choice I’d probably be home watching Chicago PD,’ said Sen. Pat Roberts, who underwent back surgery in August.
He added: ‘No, don’t put that in there or that would make me sound terrible.’
Sen. Rand Paul, who’s taken up crossword puzzles to entertain himself, said: ‘You know, 28 hours of hearing the same thing over and over again isn’t all that exciting. ‘
On Wednesday, Paul tweeted a photo of a gallery ticket and invited Trump to be his guest.
Republican Sen. Paul Rand (pictured): ‘You know, 28 hours of hearing the same thing over and over again isn’t all that exciting’
Some Democrats say televising the proceedings and accessibility are playing a role in the empty gallery seats.
Sen. Jack Reed said: ‘Because it’s on television, it’s a convenient alternative to coming in.’
‘I don’t think the average person thinks that it would be easy to come and watch,’ Sen. Chris Coons said.
Pictured: The US Senate chamber room with a view of the spectator gallery overhead
Most Senate gallery tickets are distributed through individual Senate Offices that get between three to five tickets that allows audiences to watch in half-hour seating blocks.
The tickets can be used by multiple people, including constituents and staff, who use shifts. Some Senate offices say they have a strong interest and offer shifts up to one hour.
Sen. Patrick Leahy revealed his tickets ‘have all been used.’
Democrats warn that Trump will abuse his office again if not removed
The Senate Sergeant at Arms determines rules for Senate chamber, but did not say how gallery seating is managed.
Some seats have had very little guests this week, including both corners in the east side of the chamber.
According to a Senate aid, a section that seats around 100 people and is known as the family gallery is usually reserved for relatives of senators. It’s possible Senate offices have varying policies for those tickets.
Republican Sen. Mike Rounds points towards a ban on not-taking outside a press section was unappealing to to Senate staff.
‘They can do more work in the office where they have an ability to take notes,’ Rounds said.
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware wishes the Senate gallery would be more accessible to the public and says experiencing the trial in person is different than watching on TV
Brown said: ‘I’ve gotta think, a lot of student groups are here, a lot of individuals are here, tourists are here. People would love to be part of this.’
Coons added that while the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police ‘have a job to keep us safe’, ‘the gallery should be accessible.’
‘I have four tickets and we’re happy to rotate them out. I’ve had a whole bunch of Delawareans come down and watch in the gallery,’ Coons said.
‘And that’s encouraging because it is a different experience watching it in the chamber than watching it on TV.’
Although the impeachment trial will continue into into the following weeks, it is widely speculated that Trump will be acquitted.
Republicans hold the majority of seats, with many of them having already announced their intentions to acquit the president.
Trump Team, Opening Defense, Accuses Democrats of Plot to Subvert Election
President Trump’s lawyers argued against his removal in the Senate impeachment trial, saying Democrats are “asking you to tear up all of the ballots” by convicting him of high crimes and misdemeanors.
President Trump’s legal defense team mounted an aggressive offense on Saturday as it opened its side in the Senate impeachment trial by attacking his Democratic accusers as partisan witch-hunters trying to remove him from office because they could not beat him at the ballot box.
After three days of arguments by the House managers prosecuting Mr. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors, the president’s lawyers presented the senators a radically different view of the facts and the Constitution, seeking to turn the Democrats’ charges back on them while denouncing the whole process as illegitimate.
“They’re asking you to tear up all of the ballots all across the country on your own initiative, take that decision away from the American people,” Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, said of the House managers. “They’re here,” he added moments later, “to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history, and we can’t allow that to happen.”
The president’s team spent only two of the 24 hours allotted to them so that senators could leave town for the weekend before the defense presentation resumes on Monday, but it was the first time his lawyers have formally made a case for him since the House opened its inquiry in September. The goal was to poke holes in the House managers’
While less combative than their famously combustible client, the lawyers relentlessly assailed the prosecution’s interpretation of events, accusing House Democrats of cherry-picking the facts and leaving out contrary information to construct a skewed narrative. They maintained that none of what the Democrats presented the Senate justified the first eviction of a president from the White House in American history.
“They have the burden of proof,” Mr. Cipollone said, “and they have not come close to meeting it.”
After the session, Democrats contended that the White House arguments actually bolstered their demand to call witnesses like John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, and Mick Mulvaney, his acting White House chief of staff, as well as require documents be turned over, all of which the Republican majority so far has rejected.
“They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, told reporters. “But there are people that have eyewitness accounts. The very four witnesses, and the very four sets of documents that we have asked for.”
The abbreviated weekend session wrapped up five days of presentations and arguments on the Senate floor in the country’s third presidential impeachment trial. With Mr. Trump’s fate on the line, the trial, unfolding less than 10 months before he faces re-election, has come to encapsulate the pitched three-year struggle that has consumed Washington since he took office determined to disrupt the existing order, at times in ways that crossed longstanding lines.
While he did not attend Saturday’s opening of his defense, as he had previously suggested he might, Mr. Trump watched from the White House and weighed in on Twitter with attacks on prominent Democrats including Mr. Schumer, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead prosecutor for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, portraying the day as a chance to put them on trial instead.
“Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M.,” he wrote.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!
With the odds stacked against him in the Democratic-run House, Mr. Trump refused to send lawyers to participate in Judiciary Committee hearings last month, complaining that he was not given due process. But he faced a more receptive audience in the Senate, where the White House has been working in tandem with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader.
President Trump’s defense team will draw a more receptive audience in the Republican-controlled Senate, where the White House has been working in tandem with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
Even after the prosecution’s presentation, Mr. Trump appeared certain to win acquittal in a trial that requires the support of two-thirds of senators for conviction. So the main priority for the president’s legal team as it opened its arguments was not to undermine its own advantage or give wavering moderate Republican senators reasons to support Democratic requests for witnesses and documents.
A vote on that question will not come until next week, and it remained the central question of the impeachment trial, with the potential to either prolong the process and yield new revelations that could further damage Mr. Trump, or bring the proceeding to a swift conclusion. But after long days of exhaustive arguments by the House managers, there was little indication that there would be enough Republican support to consider new evidence, even as a 2018 recording was made public later Saturday in which Mr. Trump appeared to order the firing of the United States ambassador to Ukraine.
Republican senators seemed relieved to finally have the president’s side of the debate presented on the floor.
“They completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters afterward.
Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who joined Mr. Trump onstage to address abortion opponents at the March for Life on Friday, said the president’s lawyers showed that the managers were selective in their presentation of the facts.
“It happened over and over again for three days where they really cherry-pick one part of a sentence and then would not read the full part of the sentence,” he said. “Today we got a chance to see the whole sentence.”
Mr. Trump faces two articles of impeachment, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, stemming from his effort to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into his Democratic rivals while withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally approved security aid, a decision that a government agency called a violation of law.
The House managers have argued the president’s actions amounted to a corrupt scheme to invite foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election, and part of a dangerous pattern of behavior by Mr. Trump of using the machinery of government for his own benefit.
But Mr. Cipollone belittled the weight of the allegations, suggesting the Constitution’s framers had in mind something more consequential when they created the impeachment clause than what the House managers had presented.
“They’ve come here today and they’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with the Ukraine,’ ” he said.
The president’s lawyers maintained that he had every right to set foreign policy as he saw fit and that he had valid concerns about corruption in Ukraine and burden-sharing with Europe that prompted him to suspend the aid temporarily. They also argued that he was protecting presidential prerogatives when he refused to allow aides to testify or provide documents in the House proceedings.
Michael Purpura, a deputy White House counsel, noted that Mr. Trump did not explicitly link American aid to his demand for investigations during his July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, and pointed to Mr. Zelensky’s public statements that he did not feel pressured. Mr. Purpura added that there could not have been an illicit quid pro quo, because the Ukrainians did not know about the aid freeze until a month later. But American and Ukrainian officials have said in fact they did know as early as the day of the presidents’ call.
Michael Purpura, a deputy White House counsel, leaving the Capitol on Saturday.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Mr. Purpura dismissed much of the prosecution evidence as hearsay, and played video clips of former officials saying they knew of no quid pro quo. He also played a succession of clips of Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, testifying that he “presumed” there was a link between the suspended aid and the demand for investigations but did not actually know it for a fact.
Yet in parts of Mr. Sondland’s testimony that the president’s lawyers did not show, the ambassador said he had been involved in a pressure campaign on Ukraine aimed at getting the country to announce investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals, directed by the president himself. Mr. Sondland also said there had been a clear “quid pro quo,” conditioning a White House meeting for the Ukrainian president to his willingness to announce the investigations Mr. Trump wanted, and that “everyone was in the loop” about the arrangement.
Following the president’s lead, his lawyers targeted Mr. Schiff, replaying video from a hearing last year in which he embellished Mr. Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s leader for dramatic effect and said he was describing the “sum and character” of what the president had tried to communicate.
“That’s fake,” Mr. Purpura said after the clip ended. “That’s not the real call. That’s not the evidence here.”
Under the trial rules, the House managers had no speaking opportunity on the floor on Saturday, but they delivered a 28,578-page trial record to the secretary of the Senate that served as the foundation of their case.
Image
Representative Adam B. Schiff leads the House managers and aides on Saturday in delivering a trial record to the secretary of the Senate.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times
At a news conference following the arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Mr. Schiff offered a point-by-point rebuttal and said the attacks on him and his colleagues were just an attempt to distract from the evidence.
“When your client is guilty or your client is dead to rights, you don’t want to talk about your client’s guilt,” said Mr. Schiff, a former prosecutor. “You want to attack the prosecution.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, another manager, dismissed as “nonsense” the allegation that Democrats were trying to improperly steal an election.
“The point of the impeachment provision in the Constitution is to deal with dangerous presidents who cheat on elections and try to cheat in stealing the election as this president did, and is trying for the next time,” Mr. Nadler said.
The White House arguments on Saturday were meant to be what Jay Sekulow, another of the president’s lawyers, called a “sneak preview” before being resumed on Monday.
Like the managers before them, the White House lawyers have 24 hours over as many as three days to present their side, but said they will not use all of that, playing to the exhaustion of senators who grew weary as the House team used nearly all of its time, going late into the evening night after night, often repeating many of the same arguments.
After the president’s defense is complete, the senators themselves will enter the trial for the first time, although even then without speaking. They will have up to 16 hours over a couple of days to submit questions in writing that will be read by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial.
The Senate will then consider any motions to dismiss the case or to call witnesses and demand documents. The House managers need at least four Republican senators to join the Democrats to call witnesses. If no witnesses are called and no motion to dismiss the case is passed, the Senate would then move to final deliberations on conviction or acquittal, with a verdict possible as early as next week.
Michael D. Shear and Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.
Intercept Co-Founder Shreds Adam Schiff As A ‘Sociopath’ After These Remarks About Carter Page
If there is one thing that is never in short supply with the Democratic Party, it’s arrogance. And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the starting quarterback for the Donald Trump impeachment game, is full of it. As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiffy decided to set up the big top to this circus that’s engulfed the Hill by holding secret impeachment hearings. There were scores of witnesses who testified behind closed doors and he released selective transcripts that only bolstered the Democratic cause for impeachment. It was crap. And when the House vote made the inquiry official and this whole thing came out of the basement—the reasons to impeach collapsed. Much like the Russian collusion myth, once the public saw the evidence, they balked. It’s just too evident that the Democrats have been planning this for years. They cannot hide their hatred. Meanwhile, in normal America, economic opportunities have been growing, paychecks have been getting bigger, and things are overall just not apocalyptic. Impeachment is not popular in the swing states and this whole fiasco has only increased President Trump’s approval ratings and pushed these key states further out of reach for Democrats.
Yet, while conservative media has torched Schiff, his minions, and this whole charade, The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey, formerly of The Young Turks, have also ripped the liberal media for their peddling of Russian collusion hysteria. They were skeptical of this myth from the get-go. They’re appalled at how the Trump dossier, which was proven to be totally false, was weaponized to secure spy warrants on Trump officials based on fairy tale evidence. If you want to know why some people fear a large federal government, this is why. And like most arrogant government workers, they’ll never admit when they’re wrong. If you’re the chair of the House Intel. Committee, you bet you’re not apologizing. In a recent interview with Margaret Hooper on PBS Firing Line, Schiff pretty much said he doesn’t feel bad that Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign who was targeted by the FBI, had his life destroyed.
Schiff had written a memo pretty much absolving the FBI of any wrongdoing, adding that FISA process was not abused. Yeah, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General report by Michael Horowitz trashed all of Schiff’s points in his fake memo rebutting his colleague Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who was chair of the House Intelligence Committee before Democrats retook the House in 2018 (via Fox News):
Firing Line with Margaret Hoover
✔@FiringLineShow
.@RepAdamSchiff is unsympathetic to Carter Page, telling @FiringLineShow that Page “denied things that we knew were true” in testimony, admitted to being an advisor to the Kremlin & “was apparently both targeted by the KGB, but also talking to the United States and its agencies.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is not expressing any remorse for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who was swept up in the yearslong Russia investigation.
In an interview clip released on Friday, “Firing Line” host Margaret Hoover read quotes from Page about how the Russia probe had such a negative impact, including how the FBI spying into his life “ruined his good name” and that he will “never completely have his name restored.”
“Do you have any sympathy for Carter Page?” Hoover asked.
“I have to say, you know, Carter Page came before our committee and for hours of his testimony, denied things that we knew were true, later had to admit them during his testimony,” Schiff responded. “It’s hard to be sympathetic to someone who isn’t honest with you when he comes and testifies under oath. It’s also hard to be sympathetic when you have someone who has admitted to being an adviser to the Kremlin.”
Yea, Page worked with the CIA, something that was omitted in the FISA process when securing the spy warrant against him. Greenwald said this response was sociopathic.
“If you don’t feel sympathy for someone who was wrongly smeared for years as being a traitor, and who was spied on by his own government due to FBI lying & subterfuge, then you’re not only unqualified to wield power but probably also a sociopath,” wrote Greenwald. “In other words: Adam Schiff.”
Glenn Greenwald
✔@ggreenwald
If you don’t feel sympathy for someone who was wrongly smeared for years as being a traitor, and who was spied on by his own government due to FBI lying & subterfuge, then you’re not only unqualified to wield power but probably also a sociopath.
.@RepAdamSchiff is unsympathetic to Carter Page, telling @FiringLineShow that Page “denied things that we knew were true” in testimony, admitted to being an advisor to the Kremlin & “was apparently both targeted by the KGB, but also talking to the United States and its agencies.”
Tracey mocked Schiff for speaking about the KGB in the present tense. And people wonder why the Trump-Kremlin collusion myth was never taken seriously. I mean besides the fact that there is zero evidence proving such a tall tale.
.@RepAdamSchiff is unsympathetic to Carter Page, telling @FiringLineShow that Page “denied things that we knew were true” in testimony, admitted to being an advisor to the Kremlin & “was apparently both targeted by the KGB, but also talking to the United States and its agencies.”
Page is somewhat lucky in the sense that he had a vehicle to push back and allies that we’re willing to challenge this absurd theory about him being a foreign agent in a Russian collusion scheme. At the same time, Schiff’s remarks should also serve as a reminder to Republicans. This is war. Democrats are willing to destroy innocent lives in order to remove Trump. Not saying we should do the same, but our defense should be just as brutal, methodical, and devastating as what Democrats have doled out for the past three years. It is a take no prisoners election cycle. We have to get mean. Never apologize—that’s an action reserved for honorable people, respectable people. We’re fighting the slime of the earth. The most abhorrent sub-human creatures in politics. And every single one of them has “Democrat” next to their name. don’t trust them. Don’t be friends with them. Let them wallow in their own filth, that appalling aura of self-righteousness that buoys their confidence that they’ll beat Trump in 2020. And when Trump is re-elected, enjoy the meltdown…again. It’s going to get nasty. Schiff’s actions are a reminder of that. Act accordingly.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s beliefs.[1][2]
Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorientating the victim. The term originated from the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gas Light and its 1940 and 1944 film adaptations (both titled Gaslight), in which a character tries to make his wife believe that she has gone insane to cover his criminal activities. When he turns up the gas-fueled lights in the upstairs apartment in order to search for a murdered woman’s jewels, the gaslights in his own apartment grow dimmer but he convinces his wife that she is imagining the change. The term has been used in clinical and research literature, as well as in political commentary.[3]:31–46[4][5][6]
The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in the 1938 stage play Gas Light,[7] and known as Angel Street in the United States, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944.[8] In the story, a husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes. The play’s title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions. He also uses the lights in the sealed-off attic to secretly search for jewels belonging to a woman whom he has murdered. He makes loud noises as he searches, including talking to himself. The wife repeatedly asks her husband to confirm her perceptions about the dimming lights, noises and voices, but in defiance of reality, he keeps insisting that the lights are the same and instead it is she who is going insane.[9] He intends on having her assessed and committed to a mental institution, after which he will be able to gain power of attorney over her and search more effectively.
The term “gaslighting” has been used colloquially since the 1960s[10] to describe efforts to manipulate someone’s perception of reality. The term has been used to describe such behaviour in psychoanalytic literature since the 1970s.[11] In a 1980 book on child sexual abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor‘s Gaslight (1944) based on the play and wrote, “even today the word [gaslighting] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another’s perception of reality.”[12]
Nature
Psychiatrist Theodore Dorpat described two characteristics of gaslighting: that the abuser wants full control of feelings, thoughts, or actions of the victim, and that the abuser emotionally abuses the victim, discreetly, but in hostile, abusive, or coercive ways.[13] He described this as an example of projective identification.[2]
Psychoanalysts Victor Calef and Edward Weinshel argued that gaslighting involves the projection and introjection of psychic conflicts from the perpetrator to the victim: “this imposition is based on a very special kind of ‘transfer’ … of potentially painful mental conflicts”.[14] The authors explored a variety of reasons why the victims may have “a tendency to incorporate and assimilate what others externalize and project onto them”, and concluded that gaslighting may be “a very complex highly structured configuration which encompasses contributions from many elements of the psychic apparatus.”
Signs and methods
As described by Patricia Evans, seven “warning signs” of gaslighting are the observed abuser’s:[15]
Withholding information from the victim;
Countering information to fit the abuser’s perspective;
Blocking and diverting the victim’s attention from outside sources;
Trivializing (“minimising”) the victim’s worth; and,
Undermining the victim by gradually weakening them and their thought processes.
Evans considers it necessary to understand the warning signs in order to begin the process of healing from it.[15]
In a popular treatment, psychologist Elinor Greenberg has described three common methods of gaslighting:[16]
Hiding. The abuser may hide things from the victim and cover up what they have done. Instead of feeling ashamed, the abuser may convince the victim to doubt their own beliefs about the situation and turn the blame on themselves.
Changing. The abuser feels the need to change something about the victim. Whether it be the way the victim dresses or acts, they want the victim to mold into their fantasy. If the victim does not comply, the abuser may convince the victim that he or she is in fact not good enough.
Control. The abuser may want to fully control and have power over the victim. In doing so, the abuser will try to seclude them from other friends and family so only they can influence the victim’s thoughts and actions. The abuser gets pleasure from knowing the victim is being fully controlled by them.
An abuser’s ultimate goal, as described by the divorce process coach Lindsey Ellison, is to make their victim second-guess their choices and to question their sanity, making them more dependent on the abuser.[17] One tactic used to degrade a victim’s self-esteem is the abuser alternating between ignoring and attending to the victim, so that the victim lowers their expectation of what constitutes affection, and perceives themselves as less worthy of affection.[17][verification needed]
Where gaslighting is used
Personality disorders
Sociopaths[18] and narcissists[16] frequently use gaslighting tactics to abuse and undermine their victims. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[18] Some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners by flatly denying that they have been violent.[4] Gaslighting may occur in parent–child relationships, with either parent, child, or both lying to the other and attempting to undermine perceptions.[19]
Gender
According to philosophy professor Kate Abramson, the act of gaslighting is not specifically tied to being sexist, although women tend to be frequent targets of gaslighting compared to men who more often engage in gaslighting.[20] Abramson explained this as a result of social conditioning, and said “it’s part of the structure of sexism that women are supposed to be less confident, to doubt our views, beliefs, reactions, and perceptions, more than men. And gaslighting is aimed at undermining someone’s views, beliefs, reactions, and perceptions. The sexist norm of self-doubt, in all its forms, prepares us for just that.”[20] Abramson said that the final “stage” of gaslighting is severe, major, clinical depression.[20]
With respect to women in particular, philosophy professor Hilde Lindemann said that in such cases, the victim’s ability to resist the manipulation depends on “her ability to trust her own judgements”. Establishment of “counterstories” may help the victim reacquire “ordinary levels of free agency”.[21]
In psychiatry
Gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[22]
In a 1996 book, Dorpat claimed that “gaslighting and other methods of interpersonal control are widely used by mental health professionals as well as other people” because they are effective methods for shaping the behavior of other individuals.[3]:45 Gaslighting depends on “first convincing the victim that his thinking is distorted and secondly persuading him that the victimizer’s ideas are the correct and true ones.”[3]:45
In politics
Columnist Maureen Dowd was one of the first to use the term in the political context.[5][23] She described the Bill Clinton administration’s use of the technique in subjecting Newt Gingrich to small indignities intended to provoke him to make public complaints that “came across as hysterical”.[23][24]
In his 2008 book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, psychologist Bryant Welch described the prevalence of the technique in American politics beginning in the age of modern communications, stating:
To say gaslighting was started by the Bushes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Fox News, or any other extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them.[6]
Journalist Frida Ghitis used the term “gaslighting” to describe Russia’s global relations. While Russian operatives were active in Crimea, Russian officials continually denied their presence and manipulated the distrust of political groups in their favor.[25]
Journalists at the The New York Times Magazine, BBC and Teen Vogue, as well as psychologists Bryant Welch, Robert Feldman and Leah McElrath, have described some of the actions of Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election and his term as president as examples of gaslighting.[23][26][27][28][29] Journalism professor Ben Yagoda wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2017 that the term gaslighting had become topical again as the result of Trump’s behavior, saying that Trump’s “habitual tendency to say ‘X’, and then, at some later date, indignantly declare, ‘I did not say “X”. In fact, I would never dream of saying “X”‘” had brought new notability to the term.[5]
In romantic relationships
Gaslighting can be experienced in romantic relationships. The psychological manipulation may include making the victim question their own memory, perception, and sanity. The abuser may invalidate the victim’s experiences using dismissive language: “You’re crazy. Don’t be so sensitive. Don’t be paranoid. I was just joking! … I’m worried; I think you’re not well.”[20]
Psychologists Jill Rogers and Diane Follingstad said that such dismissals can be detrimental to mental health outcomes. They described psychological abuse as “a range of aversive behaviors that are intended to harm an individual through coercion, control, verbal abuse, monitoring, isolation, threatening, jealousy, humiliation, manipulation, treating one as an inferior, creating a hostile environment, wounding a person regarding their sexuality and/or fidelity, withholding from a partner emotionally and/or physically”.[30]
Gaslighting has been observed in some cases of marital infidelity: “Therapists may contribute to the victim’s distress through mislabeling the [victim’s] reactions. […] The gaslighting behaviors of the spouse provide a recipe for the so-called ‘nervous breakdown‘ for some [victims] [and] suicide in some of the worst situations.”[19][31]
In their 1988 article “Gaslighting: A Marital Syndrome”, psychologists Gertrude Zemon Gass and William Nichols studied extramarital affairs and their consequences on men’s spouses. They described how a man may try to convince his wife that she is imagining things rather than admitting to an affair: “a wife picks up a telephone extension in her own home and accidentally overhears her husband and his girlfriend planning a tryst while he is on a business trip.” His denial challenges the evidence of her senses: “I wasn’t on the telephone with any girlfriend. You must have been dreaming.”[31]
Rogers and Follingstand examined women’s experiences with psychological abuse as a predictor of symptoms and clinical levels of depression, anxiety, and somatization, as well as suicidal ideation and life functioning. They concluded that psychological abuse affects women’s mental health outcomes, but the perceived negative changes in one’s traits, problematic relationship schemas, and response styles were stronger indicators of mental health outcomes than the actual abuse.[30]
Gaslighting in the workplace is when people do things that cause colleagues to question themselves and their actions in a way that is detrimental to their careers.[32] The victim may be excluded, made the subject of gossip, persistently discredited or questioned to destroy their confidence. The perpetrator may divert conversations to perceived faults or wrongs.[33] Gaslighting can be committed by anyone and can be especially detrimental when the perpetrator has a position of power.[34]
In popular culture
In the 2008 article “Falsifying Reality, Spawning Evil”,[35] writer David Shasha attempted to discover how one becomes a victim of gaslighting as he dissected the 1944 film Gaslight. Shasha compared gaslighting to the less extreme “rhetorical slight-of-hand” called pilpul in Hebrew. According to Shasha’s literary analysis, the gaslighters first choose a target that is vulnerable, mentally weak, easily defeated and manipulated. The victim’s ability to defend themselves is usually minimal. In relationships, the victim’s honesty and love is manipulated and exploited in the process of gaslighting.
The 2016 American mystery film and psychological thriller The Girl on the Train explored the direct effects that gaslighting had on Rachel, the protagonist of the story.[23] The perpetrator in the film was in fact Rachel’s ex-husband Tom who was the violent abuser. Rachel suffered from severe depression and alcoholism. When Rachel would black out drunk, he consistently told her that she had done terrible things that she was incapable of remembering.[36]
Gaslighting was the main theme of a 2016 plotline in BBC‘s radio soap opera, The Archers. The story concerned the emotional abuse of Helen Archer by her partner and later husband, Rob Titchener, over the course of two years, and caused much public discussion about the phenomenon.[37]
For several months during 2018, gaslighting was a main plotline in NBC‘s soap opera Days of Our Lives, as character Gabi Hernandez was caught gaslighting her best friend Abigail Deveroux after Gabi was framed for a murder Abigail had committed in the series.[38]
Portnow, Kathryn (1996). Dialogues of Doubt: The Psychology of Self-Doubt and Emotional Gaslighting in Adult Women and Men. Harvard Graduate School of Education. OCLC36674740. (thesis/dissertation) (offline resource)
Santoro, Victor (1994-06-30). Gaslighting: How to Drive Your Enemies Crazy. Loompanics Unlimited. ISBN978-1-55950-113-2. OCLC35172282. (offline resource)
Sarkis, Stephanie (2018-10-01). Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People and Break Free. Da Capo Press. ISBN978-0738284668. OCLC5214974857. (offline resource)
Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda: Part 1
Repeat a lie often enough and people will come to believe it.
Posted Jan 22, 2020
his is part 1 of a 2-part series on the illusory truth effect and its use in political propaganda.
“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer… And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”
—Hannah Arendt
“The truth is always something that is told, not something that is known. If there were no speaking or writing, there would be no truth about anything. There would only be what is.”
—Susan Sontag, The Benefactor
Source: Pixabay
The Illusory Truth Effect
Many of us are familiar with the quotation, “Repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually come to believe it.”
Not ironically, the adage — often attributed to the infamous Nazi Joseph Goebbels — is true and has been validated by decades of research on what psychology calls the “illusory truth effect.” First described in a 1977 study by Temple University psychologist Dr. Lynn Hasher and her colleagues, the illusory truth effect occurs when repeating a statement increases the belief that it’s true even when the statement is actually false.1
Subsequent research has expanded what we know about the illusory truth effect. For example, the effect doesn’t only occur through repetition but can happen through any process that increases familiarity with a statement or the ease by which it’s processed by the brain (what psychologists in this context refer to as a statement’s “fluency”). For example, the perceived truth of written statements can be increased by presenting them in bold, high-contrast fonts2 or when aphorisms are expressed as a rhyme.3
According to a 2010 meta-analytic review of the truth effect (which applies to both true and false statements),4 while the perceived credibility of a statement’s source increases perceptions of truth as we might expect, the truth effect persists even when sources are thought to be unreliable and especially when the source of the statement is unclear. In other words, while we typically evaluate a statement’s truth based on the trustworthiness of the source, repeated exposure to both information and misinformation increases the sense that it’s true, regardless of the source’s credibility.
The illusory truth effect tends to be strongest when statements are related to a subject about which we believe ourselves to be knowledgeable,5 and when statements are ambiguous such that they aren’t obviously true or false at first glance.4 It can also occur with statements (and newspaper headlines) that are framed as questions (e.g. “Is President Obama a Muslim?”), something called the “innuendo effect.”6
But one of the most striking features of the illusory truth effect is that it can occur despite prior knowledge that a statement is false7 as well as in the presence of real “fake news” headlines that are “entirely fabricated…stories that, given some reflection, people probably know are untrue.”8 It can even occur despite exposure to “fake news” headlines that run against one’s party affiliation. For example, repeated exposure to a headline like “Obama Was Going to Castro’s Funeral—Until Trump Told Him This” increases perceptions of truth not only for Republicans but Democrats as well.8 And so, the illusory truth effect occurs even when we know, or want to know, better.
In summary, psychology research has shown that any process that increases familiarity with false information — through repeated exposure or otherwise — can increase our perception that the information is true. This illusory truth effect can occur despite being aware that the source of a statement is unreliable, despite previously knowing that the information is false, and despite it contradicting our own political affiliation’s “party line.”
Big Brother is Watching
Source: The Thought Police, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
That said, the use of repetition and familiarity to increase popular belief and to influence behavior is hardly a new phenomenon. The use of catchy slogans or songs, regardless of their veracity, has always been a standard and effective component of advertising. For example, “puffing” is an advertising term that refers to baseless claims about a product that, despite leaving a company liable to false advertising litigation, no doubt often remains profitable in the long run.
In politics, repeating misinformation and outright lies have been powerful tools to sway public opinion long before the illusory truth effect was ever demonstrated in a psychology experiment. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler famously wrote about the ability to use the “big lie” — a lie so outlandish that it would be believed on the grounds that no one would think anyone would lie so boldly — as a tool of political propaganda. Goebbels, the head of Nazi propaganda quoted earlier, is said to have likewise favored the repetition of lies in order to sell the public on Hitler and the Nazi party’s greatness.
Consequently, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt characterized the effectiveness of lying as a political tool in her seminal post-war classic The Origins of Totalitarianism:
“Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance to be believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgment, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but also presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how many times he has been demonstrably wrong. Hitler, who knew the modern chaos of opinions from first-hand experience, discovered that the helpless seesawing between various opinions and ‘the conviction that everything is balderdash’ could best be avoided by adhering to one of the many current opinions with ‘unbendable consistency.’
…the propaganda of totalitarian movements which precede and accompany totalitarian regimes is invariably as frank as it is mendacious, and would-be totalitarian rules usually start their careers by boasting of their past crimes and carefully outlining their future ones.”
In the novel 1984, George Orwell likewise portrayed a fictitious dystopia inspired by the Soviet Union under Stalin in which a totalitarian political party oppresses the public through “doublethink” propaganda epitomized in the slogan, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.” “Doublethink,” Orwell wrote, consists of “the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction to plain facts…it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.” In 1984, this is achieved through a constant contradiction of facts and revision of history to the point that people are left with little choice but to resign themselves to accept party propaganda:
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Needless to say, “doublethink,” along with Orwell’s description of “newspeak,” gave rise to the modern term “doublespeak” defined by Merriam-Webster as “language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.”
1. Hasher L, Goldstein D, Topping T. Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1977; 16:107-112.
2. Reber R, Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal 1999; 8:338-342.
3. McGlone MS, Tofighbakhsh J. Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science 2000; 11:424-428.
The Justice Department concluded there was insufficient evidence to authorize the extended electronic surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
In a letter delivered to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December, the agency said it found “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power” in justifying the two final FISA warrant renewals.
FISA court presiding Judge James Boasberg acknowledged the lack of evidence in a court order, made public on Thursday, writing that the government concluded, “in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the court’s authorizations … were not valid.”
The revelations come after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report that lambasted the agency and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to its wiretapping of Page, stretching from October 2016 to summer 2017, and relying on British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier. The watchdog also determined that the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation was justified, which was disputed by the Justice Department.
The FISA court order does not reveal whether the Justice Department found the first two orders were flawed in the same way.
Representatives for the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment for this report.
Page was one of a handful of Trump campaign aides under FBI scrutiny as part of the broader counterintelligence investigation dubbed Crossfire Hurricane. In making their case to the FISA court, the bureau said they believed Page, a U.S. citizen, had been “the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government” to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
Page was never charged with any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller, who took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017. He released a statement on Thursday, saying, “Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system. I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.”
Following Horowitz’s investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered more than 40 “corrective steps” to address the watchdog’s report, including 12 reforms related to the FISA process.
In a rare public order, the FISA court criticized the FBI’s handling of the Page applications as “antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above” and demanded an evaluation from the bureau. The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page in the third renewal process. He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a prosecutor from Connecticut who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry.
In a Jan. 10 response to the court, Wray said he “deeply regrets” the FBI’s failures in the Page FISA process and offered a timetable of reforms and training the bureau is undertaking. But the FISA court’s pick to advise it on the reform process, Obama administration lawyer David Kris, submitted a brief last week that pushed for improved communications between FBI and DOJ attorneys on FISA matters beyond what the bureau has proposed.
In the order revealed on Thursday, the FISA court demanded feedback from the government, including a “detailed description of the steps taken or to be taken to restrict access to such information in unminimized form,” plus the completion of a declassification review by the end of the month.
Republicans have raised concerns about Kris, citing how he talked up Mueller’s Russia investigation, criticized the House Intelligence Committee’s 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses, and heralded Horowitz’s report for how it “repudiates the claims of a coup and related deep-state conspiracies in the FBI as advanced by President Trump and his supporters.” With three FISA provisionsexpected to sunset in March, GOP lawmakers threatened to make a stand against Kris, as some talk about begrudgingly abolishing the FISA court if their concerns about it being used to target political opponents are not addressed.
On the Democratic side, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler requested the Justice Department and the FBI share FISA-related documents with the panel as it considers potential reforms.
A number of high-ranking officials at the Justice Department and the FBI signed off on the Page FISA warrant applications, including FBI Director James Comey. Horowitz criticized the FBI’s “entire chain of command” in the Page FISA process and said, “The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this.”
In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Comey took responsibility for the “sloppiness” revealed in Horowitz’s report.
Story 1: Real Abuse of Power — 17 Major Errors, Mistakes and Omissions — Mislead The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court — Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy Revealed — Big Lie Media Lied to American People and Still Lying — Videos
FISA ISSUES: IG Michael Horowitz Outlines BIAS Against President Trump
Lindsey Graham rips FBI over Russia probe: full video
FBI EXPOSED: Lindsey Graham DETAILS Massive FBI Bias Against President Trump
Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation | NBC News
Cruz on spying: This wasn’t Jason Bourne, this was ‘Beavis and Butt-head
The Five’ breaks down IG report hearing’s biggest bombshells
Graham sends warning to FBI officials responsible for FISA abuse
Tucker: Media silent on the lies they spread
IG report hearing part 1: Lindsey Graham’s opening statement
IG report hearing part 2: Dianne Feinstein’s opening statement
IG report hearing part 3: Michael Horowitz’s opening statement
IG report hearing part 4: Lindsey Graham questions Michael Horowitz
IG report hearing part 5: Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy question Michael Horowitz
IG report hearing part 6: Chuck Grassley, Patrick Leahy question Michael Horowitz
IG report hearing part 7: Senators question Michael Horowitz
IG report hearing part 8: Senators continue to question Michael Horowitz
PART 1: Inspector General FISA Investigation President Trump – Senate Hearing
PART 2: Inspector General FISA Investigation President Trump – Senate Hearing
Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz Testifies to Senate | NowThis
3 of the spies Obama used to set up Trump!
Obama’s CIA chief and FBI director used spies (Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper) in an attempt to infiltrate Trump’s campaign through Papadopoulos and others to help set up the Russian collusion probe. Why wasn’t any of this mentioned in the Mueller Report?
Spy vs. Spy: Operation Boomerang has begun! 🕵 Pt 2 of 2 (5/3/2019)
Key source in Russia probe has Clinton connection
Australian diplomat that prompted Russia probe linked to Clintons
Mark Humphries reveals the Alexander Downer plot to bring down Donald Trump | 7.30
Alexander Downer has put Australia in a diabolical position’
IG’s Report Reveals 4 Spurious Allegations as Basis for FBI Spying on Trump Campaign Aide
Senior Legal Fellow & Manager, National Security Law Program
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Horowitz’s report exposes 17 flagrant errors, omissions, and misstatements in the four FISA applications related to Page, any one of which is inexcusable.
The fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was apparently misused to target a presidential campaign is shocking.
It seems reasonable to conclude that this unprecedented FBI intelligence operation against a presidential campaign should never have been opened in the first place.
A shocking report by the Justice Department’s inspector general lays bare the FBI’s “serious performance failures” in conducting a counterintelligence operation in 2016 against the Trump campaign.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 434-page report details numerous mistakes, errors, and omissions by FBI personnel in four applications for special warrants to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Horowitz released his long-awaited report Monday on the FBI’s four applications for the FISA warrants to conduct electronic eavesdropping on Page as part of the bureau’s investigation into potential collusion between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
Horowitz’s report says he did not find any “documentary or testimonial evidence” that political bias influenced the FBI’s decision to seek authority to surveil Page in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name the FBI gave to the investigation.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court considers applications by the U.S. government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. The court’s proceedings are secret, and the federal judges that sit on the court are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is such a powerful tool and given the potential for abuse, FBI policy mandates that case agents ensure that all factual statements in an application for a FISA warrant be “scrupulously accurate”—an understandably high bar.
Yet Horowitz’s report exposes 17 flagrant errors, omissions, and misstatements in the four FISA applications related to Page, any one of which is inexcusable.
In fact, those mistakes, errors, and omissions were so serious that we have serious doubts as to whether any of the four FISA court judges would have approved any of the warrant applications in the first place, had they been provided the full and complete information in the hands of the FBI.
Flashback to Russia’s Meddling in 2016 Campaign
Before getting into the devastating findings of the IG report, it is important to step back and think about what was happening in 2016.
According to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, the Russian government “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion.” By mid-2016, the Russian operations began to surface.
That June, the Democratic National Committee announced that Russian hackers had compromised the party’s computer network. Releases of hacked materials via WikiLeaks began that same month. WikiLeaks released additional materials in July, October, and November.
In July 2016, an official with a foreign government, reported to be Alexander Downer, the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom at the time, contacted the FBI about a conversation he had at a bar two months beforehand with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Downer claimed that Papadopoulos “suggested” that the Trump campaign had received “some kind of suggestions” from the Russian government that it could assist the Trump campaign by releasing damaging information against rival Hillary Clinton. Pretty vague stuff.
So in 2016, our government and our FBI knew that Russia was trying to interfere with our presidential election, and that, quite possibly, the Russians were in contact with a member of the Trump campaign. Rather than providing a defensive briefing to high-level members of the Trump campaign about this innuendo of an innuendo, the FBI opted to initiate a full-blown investigation of members of the campaign whom it thought might be implicated, including Page, who has said he never met Donald Trump.
Embarking down the path of investigating the campaign of a major party’s candidate for president is, of course, a momentous and potentially perilous undertaking. If there were ever a time for the FBI director, and senior members of his inner circle, to take personal ownership of a case and abide by and exceed the “scrupulously accurate” standard for FISA applications, that was the time.
But that didn’t happen. In fact, the opposite happened, as Horowitz makes clear in his report. This was a monumental failure by then-FBI Director James Comey and his subordinates.
The 4 Disputed ‘Facts’ in the Steele ‘Dossier’ Targeting Trump
At the center of the four FISA applications targeting Page was opposition research work done by Christopher Steele—a former British intelligence officer who had previously provided information to the FBI—at the behest of Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence company that was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
The so-called Steele dossier was actually a series of reports provided directly to the FBI by Steele beginning in September 2016. After the FBI officially terminated Steele as an approved “confidential source,” the reports were provided through Bruce Ohr, a high-ranking Justice Department official, whose wife worked for Fusion GPS. Ohr continued to meet with Steele and pass along information from him to the FBI, in violation of departmental policy.
The information that Steele provided clearly implicated the Trump campaign in illegal activity with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. But was it accurate? According to the inspector general, the Steele dossier played a “central and essential role in the FBI’s and [Justice] Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.” And it’s easy to see how.
Although the FBI considered filing an application after receiving the information from Downer in July, FBI attorneys declined to do so because they did not believe that the requisite “probable cause” existed to justify issuing a FISA warrant. According to FBI officials, the information they received from Steele in September “pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line,” and they applied for the warrant.
Critical to the application was the explosive allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 presidential election activities, and was, therefore, acting as a foreign agent. For this, the FBI “relied entirely” on four “facts” that Steele had reported:
1. The Russians had been compiling information about Hillary Clinton for years and had been feeding that information to the Trump campaign for an extended period of time.
2. During a trip to Moscow in July 2016, Page met with the head of a Russian energy conglomerate (Igor Sechin) and a highly placed Russian official (Igor Divyekin) to discuss sharing derogatory information about Clinton with the Trump campaign in exchange for future cooperation and the lifting of Ukraine-related U.S. sanctions against Russia.
3. Page was an intermediary between Russia and Paul Manafort, chairman of the Trump campaign from June to August 2016, as part of a “well-developed conspiracy” of cooperation that led to Russia disclosing hacked Democratic National Committee emails via WikiLeaks and to the campaign’s decision to “sideline” Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.
4. Russia’s release of the DNC emails was designed to help the Trump campaign and was “an objective conceived and promoted by Page.”
As it is, the FBI had in its possession, or would shortly obtain, information undercutting all four of these allegations, which the FBI never brought to the attention of the FISA court in its original application against Page or in any of the three applications to renew surveillance.
IG Identifies 7 ‘Significant Inaccuracies and Omissions’ by FBI
Horowitz’s report says he found seven “significant inaccuracies and omissions”—glaring errors, really—in the first FISA application to surveil Page.
First, the FBI failed to inform the FISA court that it had been notified by another government agency (presumably within the intelligence community) that Page had provided information to that agency (and to the FBI) about some of his contacts with Russian intelligence agents and had been approved to have “operational contact” with those Russian agents.
In other words, the very contacts that the FBI cited in the FISA application to establish that Page was really a clandestine foreign agent were known to and had been approved by another U.S. intelligence agency. The IG report also states that an FBI lawyer—reported to be Kevin Clinesmith—subsequently altered a document he received from the other agency to indicate, falsely, that Page was not a source for that other agency.
Second, to bolster Steele’s credibility, the application stated that his prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.” But in fact, most of that information had not been corroborated, and none of it had been used in a criminal proceeding.
Third, while Steele informed the FBI that the critical information he was reporting about Page came from a “sub-source,” the FISA application left out the fact that Steele described this source as a “boaster” and an “egoist” who “may engage in some embellishment.”
Fourth, to bolster Steele’s credibility, the FISA application stated that some of the information that Steele reported had appeared in an article in Yahoo News, and that Steele was not the source for that story. This implied that somebody else had the same information Steele had and could serve as independent corroboration. However, it turns out that Steele was the source for that story, and that the FBI either knew it or easily could have learned it.
Fifth, the FISA application included the information that the FBI had received from Downer about his conversation with Papadopoulos. But it did not include the fact that during a subsequent secretly recorded conversation in September with an FBI confidential source, Papadopoulos explicitly denied that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with the Russians or any other outside group, including WikiLeaks, with respect to the disclosed DNC emails.
Sixth, although the FBI included the four allegations above, it did not include the fact that during a later secretly recorded conversation in August with an FBI confidential source, Page said that he never had met or spoken to Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of his emails.
And seventh, in another secretly recorded conversation with an FBI source in October, Page denied meeting the Russians Sechin and Divyekin, and denied even knowing who Divyekin was.
10 More Errors in FBI Applications to Spy on Carter Page
The IG report also concludes that after the FISA court approved the first warrant application, the FBI learned more information—some of it from secretly recorded conversations by its own confidential informants—that cast serious doubt on the facts contained in that application.
Yet the FBI didn’t bring this information to the attention of the FISA court, and the errors were repeated in the three renewal applications to continue surveilling Page.
The 10 additional errors—17 in all—included these facts:
—The FBI eventually interviewed Steele’s sub-source, who undercut many factual statements that Steele had attributed to him.
—The FBI spoke to some individuals who had professional dealings with Steele who said he demonstrated “poor judgment” and “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value.”
—The individual (Joseph Mifsud) who allegedly told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton denied having said that or having suggested that the Trump campaign received an offer of assistance from the Russians.
—Bruce Ohr, the high-ranking Justice Department official, had specifically informed the FBI that Steele’s information was being provided to the Clinton campaign, and that Steele was “desperate and passionate about [Trump] not being the U.S. President.”
Horowitz concluded that all of these “factual misstatements and omissions [when] taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.”
‘Basic Errors’ Raise Questions About FBI Chain of Command
Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that this unprecedented FBI intelligence operation against a presidential campaign should never have been opened in the first place.
The IG report paints a damning picture of everyone involved in this case, from the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team to Comey, and everyone in between. The report notes:
That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI … raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process.
Later, the report soberly concludes: “ … this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.”
Those trying to minimize the shocking findings in this report have focused on the IG’s statement that he could not “find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct,” or that “political bias or improper motivation” influenced the decision to open the investigation. But the IG also said he “did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems” that he identified in the FBI’s work.
Moreover, this may not be the last word on the subject. Horowitz candidly admits in the report that “[b]ecause the activities of other agencies were not within the scope of this review, we did not seek to obtain records from them that the FBI never received or reviewed, except for a limited amount of State Department records relating to Steele.”
The IG says his office “did not seek to assess the actions taken by or information available to U.S. government agencies outside the Department of Justice, as those agencies are outside our jurisdiction.”
Attorney General Finds ‘Clear Abuse of the FISA Process’
Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, who has been tasked by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a criminal investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe, is not similarly constrained.
Following release of the IG report Monday, Durham stated:
[O]ur investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.
Barr also weighed in on the IG’s findings. In a press release Monday, Barr said the IG report “makes clear the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” In fact, from the very beginning, Barr added, “the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.”
In the strongest condemnation of the FBI in recent memory by an attorney general, Barr said that in their “rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance” of individuals involved in the Trump campaign, “FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.”
What happened, Barr said, “reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.”
As the attorney general said, “FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people.” It is a tool we need for national security purposes to protect us from foreign espionage.
The fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was apparently misused to target a presidential campaign is shocking, and Barr promises that he will take “whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward.”
At the very least, Horowitz has uncovered a massive failure of leadership at all levels of the FBI with respect to one of the most important investigations in the agency’s history. Whether there is more to this story will depend, in part, on what Durham uncovers.
This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal
Lindsey Graham unloads on James Comey’s FBI accusing it of a ‘vast criminal conspiracy’ for using Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier to get eavesdropping warrant during Trump-Russia probe
Sen. Lindsey Graham opened Judiciary hearing by tearing into the Dossier’s unproven claims
He says John McCain showed him the dossier after it was handed to him in 2016
Says he said ‘Oh my God’ and concluded either Russians have something on Trump or could be ‘disinformation’
Blasted FBI leadership and read through anti-Trump texts of FBI lovers
Said FBI director Wray: ‘You got a problem’
‘It is stunning it is damning it is salacious, and it’s a bunch of crap’
Sen. John Kennedy on IG report revelations: ‘It made me want to heave’
Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham opened a high-stakes hearing with the Justice Department’s inspector general by blasting ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s ‘golden showers’ dossier and the FBI for using it.
Graham said when he first saw the dossier during the 2016 campaign, it initially confronted him with the possibility Russians ‘have something’ on Donald Trump. Otherwise, he said, there could have been a Russian ‘disinformation campaign’ going on.
The South Carolinian Republican also revealed that the late Sen. John McCain, who obtained the dossier during the campaign after attending a security conference in Canada, shared it with him. Graham ran for president in 2016 as one of a bevy of Republicans.
He accused the FBI of a ‘vast criminal conspiracy’ for its handling of the FISA warrant to monitor Carter Page, a one-time Trump campaign staffer.
‘What has been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy over time to defraud the FISA court, to illegally surveil an American citizen and keep an operation open against a sitting president of the United States — violating every norm known to the rule of law,’ he said.
He said the code name for the FBI investigation, ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ was an apt title ‘because that’s what we ended up with – a “Crossfire Hurricane.”‘
‘What happened here is the system failed. People in the highest levels of government took the law into their own hands,’ said Graham, a close Trump ally.
Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted what he called the ‘golden showers’ dossier, and called it a bunch of ‘crap’
He said McCain learned about the dossier while attending a December 2016 conference.
‘John McCain puts it in his safe, he gives it to me and I read it,’ Graham said in an angry speech before IG Michael Horowitz, who testified on his report Wednesday.
‘And the first thing I thought of was, ‘Oh my god,’ said Graham. ‘This could be Russia disinformation and they may have something on Trump.’
Graham, who has become one of Trump’s closest GOP allies in the Senate, used the term ‘golden showers’ to reference an unproven allegation from Steele’s dossier, which cited ‘perverted’ conduct inside a Moscow hotel room during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) holds up the Steel dossier as Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the Justice Department, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee
U.S. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz arrives to testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ‘Examining the Inspector General’s report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)’ on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 11, 2019
Graham also tore into Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who wrote what became the dossier
Donald Trump and Olivia Culpo attend the red carpet at Miss Universe Pageant Competition 2013 on November 9, 2013 in Moscow, Russia. The IG found additional information that undermined Steele’s sub-source who informed him about the unproven allegations against Trump
The DOJ’s Inspector General included the information in his report
President Donald Trump tweeted out a smiling photo of himself with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday
Miss USA 2013 Erin Brady and Donald Trump (C), co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization, look on as Aras Agalarov, father of Russian singer Emin Agalarov, speaks during a news conference after the 2013 Miss USA pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada June 16, 2013
The IG’s staff met with Steele this summer and obtained information that undermined the claim – including that a sub-source didn’t stand by it, said a western hotel worker couldn’t confirm it, and said the information was obtained over drinks.
Graham fumed: ‘It is stunning, it is damning, it is salacious, and it’s a bunch of crap.’
Russian President Vladimir Putin
‘This is not normal. Don’t judge the FBI and the Department of Justice by these characters,’ Graham said, referencing FBI officials involved in the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ probe who have come under scrutiny.
Graham spent a long stretch of his opening remarks tearing into the ‘FBI lovers’ Peter Strzrok and Lisa Page. He read through their anti-Trump texts, while the witness listened and C-span cameras rolled.
He blasted the decision to probe members of Trump’s foreign policy team who had had Russia contacts, even before Horowitz testified the probe was started ‘in compliance with Department and FBI policies’ and that he didn’t uncover evidence ‘that political bias or improper motivation’ influenced the decision.
‘This national security team was literally picked up off the street,’ Graham thundered.
He wanted to know why Trump didn’t get informed about the use of investigative techniques against his campaign. ‘Why didn’t they tell Trump? We’ll figure that out later. But I think it’s a question that needs to be asked,’ Graham said.
In addition to testifying that that probe was properly predicated under FBI procedures, Horowitz testified that the Russia probe team obtained information from Steele’s primary sub-source in January 2017 ‘that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used in the Carter Page’ surveillance warrant.
Graham accused James Comey’s FBI of a ‘vast criminal conspiracy’
Horowitz’s testimony came during a political charged hearing, with lawmakers spit upon party lines on the same day the House Judiciary committee was taking up articles of impeachment against President Trump accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
‘I think the activities we found don´t vindicate anybody,’ said Horowitz.
Horowitz defended the need to keep whistle-blowers anonymous under questioning by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
‘Whistle-blowers have a right to expect complete full confidentiality in all circumstances … and it’s a very important provision’, Horowitz said. He said it was a legal obligation set in statute.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana used his usual home-spun language to express astonishment about what was uncovered about FBI conduct.
‘After about 15 per cent of the way through, it made me want to heave. After about 20 percent of the way through I thought I’d dropped acid. It’s surreal,’ he said.
Graham issued his pronouncements even while acknowledging the reality of Russian interference to hurt Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
‘We know the Russians were screwing around with the Democrats, right?’ Graham said.
Democrats tried to get Horowitz to defend his 480-page probe from criticism by Attorney General Bill Barr, who blasted its conclusions in TV interviews but failed to take the traditional route of attaching written objections.
Horowitz tried not to play along. Asked about Barr’s trips abroad to assist a separate probe by prosecutor John Durham, he said: ‘I think you’d have to ask the attorney general about those meetings.’
Federal prosecutor John Durham told Horowitz his view that the FBI should have opened a limited probe than the one it did open. Horowitz told lawmakers. he didn’t agree.
‘None of the discussions changed our findings,’ he said.
Republicans bashed the FBI for having a Crossfire Hurricane agent participate in a security briefing provided to the Trump campaign – then file notes on what participants including Mike Flynn said. Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators.
Sen. John Cornyn brought up Comey’s post-election briefing of Trump about the dossier in Trump tower, and asked if he told the president ‘anything he said can be used against him.’
Sen. Sheldon White House (D-R.I.) addressed one reason why the FBI resisted telling Trump officials. He said investigators ‘did not then now how far Russian penetration into the Trump campaign went.’
‘We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams, on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations, after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI,’ Horowitz said.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz slams ‘failure’ by FBI leaders who used Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier and tells Senate of ‘basic and fundamental errors’ in Russia probe
The Justice Department’s internal watchdog told Congress on Wednesday that he is concerned that ‘so many basic and fundamental errors’ were made by the FBI as it investigated ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Michael Horowitz’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee comes two days after the release of a report that identified significant problems with applications to receive and renew warrants to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide in 2016 and 2017.
Despite those problems, the report also found that the FBI’s actions were not motivated by partisan bias and that the investigation was opened for a proper cause.
Horowitz will tell senators that the FBI failed to follow its own standards for accuracy and completeness when it sought a warrant to monitor the communications of ex-campaign aide Carter Page.
Scathing: Michael Horowitz, the Judiciary Inspector General, outlined a series of criticisms of the FBI as he gave evidence on his report into the Trump-Russia probe, which was codenamed Crossfire Hurricane
Team: Michael Horowitz was flanked by investigators from the 18-month probe, which resulted in Monday’s report, which ran to more than 400 pages
Concern: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham brandishes the Steele dossier, which Horowitz said FBI leaders relied on despite knowing about concerns over it
Horowitz’s statement largely echoed his scathing Monday report on the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe.
He told the committee that the FBI relied on Christopher Steele’s dossier to get a FISA warrant to monitor Carter Page, a one-time Donald Trump campaign aide.
But when it found out that the dossier was flawed and were advised of some of the flaws by a Department of Justice attorney, it did not tell the FISA court which issued the warrant.
‘We found that members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ”scrupulously accurate,” he said.
There were four applications for a warrant on Page.
But Horowitz said: ‘We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications: 7 in the first FISA application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application.
‘For example, the Crossfire Hurricane team obtained information from Steele’s Primary Sub-source in January 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used in the Carter Page FISA applications.
‘This was particularly noteworthy because the FISA applications relied entirely on information from the Steele reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities.
‘However, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to share the information about the Primary Sub-source’s information with the Department, and it was therefore omitted from the three renewal applications.’
Horowitz did not name any FBI leaders in his statement to senators, but had already outlined in his report that James Comey, the FBI director, Andrew McCabe, his deputy, and other senior FBI leaders were involved in supervising the Crossfire Hurricane probe
Key figures: James Comey’s FBI opened the probe into one-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The FBI obtained a FISA warrant which relied on the Steele dossier
‘FBI leadership supported relying on Steele’s reporting to seek a FISA order targeting Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns expressed by a Department attorney that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with a rival candidate or campaign,’ he said.
Horowitz also raised questions over the FBI’s policies on FISA use generally.
‘We also identified what we believe is an absence of sufficient policies to ensure appropriate Department oversight of significant investigative decisions that could affect constitutionally protected activity,’ Horowitz said, according to his prepared remarks as released by the committee before the hearing.
The report has produced sharp partisan divisions. Democrats seized on the finding that the probe was not tainted by political motivations. But Republicans say the findings show the investigation was fatally flawed. Attorney General William Barr, a vocal defender of President Donald Trump, said the FBI investigation was based on a ‘bogus narrative.’
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the committee and another ally of Trump, echoed that sentiment in his opening statement. He said the code name for the FBI investigation, ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ was an apt title ‘because that’s what we ended up with – a `Crossfire Hurricane.”
‘What happened here is the system failed. People in the highest levels of government took the law into their own hands,’ Graham said.
MICHAEL HOROWITZ’S FULL SENATE STATEMENT ON HIS TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE
Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and Members of the Committee
Thank you for inviting me to testify at today’s hearing to examine the report that my office issued yesterday entitled, ‘Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.’
In July 2016, three weeks after then FBI Director James Comey announced the conclusion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) ‘Midyear Exam’ investigation into presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of government emails during her tenure as Secretary of State, the FBI received reporting from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) that, in a May 2016 meeting with the FFG, Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos ‘suggested the Trump team had received some kind of a suggestion’ from Russia that it could assist in the election process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.
Days later, on July 31, the FBI initiated the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that is the subject of our report.
As we noted last year in our review of the Midyear investigation, the FBI has developed and earned a reputation as one of the world’s premier law enforcement agencies in significant part because of its tradition of professionalism, impartiality, non-political enforcement of the law, and adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms.
It was precisely these qualities that were required as the FBI initiated and conducted Crossfire Hurricane.
However, as we describe in this report, our review identified significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised, particularly the FBI’s failure to adhere to its own standards of accuracy and completeness when filing applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority to surveil Carter Page, a U.S. person who was connected to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign.
We also identified what we believe is an absence of sufficient policies to ensure appropriate Department oversight of significant investigative decisions that could affect constitutionally protected activity.
In my statement today, I highlight some of the most significant findings in our report.
A more detailed overview of our findings can be found in the report’s Executive Summary.
Our findings are the product of a comprehensive review that examined more than one million documents in the Department’s and FBI’s possession, including documents that other U.S. and foreign government agencies provided the FBI during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Our team conducted over 170 interviews involving more than 100 witnesses, and we documented all of our findings in a 417-page report.
I want to commend the work of our review team for conducting rigorous and effective oversight, and for producing a report and recommendations that we believe will improve the FBI’s ability to most effectively utilize the national security authorities analyzed in this review, while also striving to safeguard the civil liberties and privacy of impacted U.S. persons.
The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the Use of Confidential Human Sources Following receipt of the FFG information, a decision was made by the FBI’s then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD), E.W. ‘Bill’ Priestap, to open Crossfire Hurricane and reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials.
We concluded that AD Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision.
While the information in the FBI’s possession at the time was limited, in light of the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.
However, we also determined that, under Department and FBI policy, the decision whether to open the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation, which involved the activities of individuals associated with a national major party campaign for president, was a discretionary judgment call left to the FBI.
There was no requirement that Department officials be consulted, or even notified, prior to the FBI making that decision.
We further found that, consistent with this policy, the FBI advised supervisors in the Department’s National Security Division (NSD) of the investigation after it had been initiated.
As we detail in Chapter Two, high level Department notice and approval is required in other circumstances where investigative activity could substantially impact certain civil liberties, and that notice allows senior Department officials to consider the potential constitutional and prudential implications in advance of these activities.
We concluded that similar advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those that were present here.
Shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the FBI conducted several consensually monitored meetings between FBI confidential human sources (CHS) and individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, including a high-level campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation.
We found that the CHS operations received the necessary approvals under FBI policy; that an Assistant Director knew about and approved of each operation, even in circumstances where a first-level supervisory special agent could have approved the operations; and that the operations were permitted under Department and FBI policy because their use was not for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations.
Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.
However, we are concerned that, under applicable Department and FBI policy, it would have been sufficient for a first-level FBI supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic CHS operations undertaken in Crossfire Hurricane, and that there is no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of a decision to task CHSs to consensually monitor conversations with members of a presidential campaign.
Specifically, in Crossfire Hurricane, where one of the CHS operations involved consensually monitoring a high-level official on the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation, and all of the operations had the potential to gather sensitive information of the campaign about protected First Amendment activity, we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any Department officials before conducting the CHS operations—and no policy requiring the FBI to do so.
We therefore believe that current Department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that requiring Department consultation, at a minimum, would be appropriate.
The FISA Applications to Conduct Surveillance of Carter Page One investigative tool for which Department and FBI policy expressly require advance approval by a senior Department official is the seeking of a court order under the FISA.
When the Crossfire Hurricane team first proposed seeking a FISA order targeting Carter Page in midAugust 2016, FBI attorneys assisting the investigation considered it a ‘close call’ whether they had developed the probable cause necessary to obtain the order, and a FISA order was not requested at that time.
However, in September 2016, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane team received reporting from Christopher Steele concerning Page’s alleged recent activities with Russian officials, FBI attorneys advised the Department that the team was ready to move forward with a request to obtain FISA authority to surveil Page.
FBI and Department officials told us the Steele reporting ‘pushed [the FISA proposal] over the line’ in terms of establishing probable cause, and we concluded that the Steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a FISA order.
FBI leadership supported relying on Steele’s reporting to seek a FISA order targeting Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns expressed by a Department attorney that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with a rival candidate or campaign.
The authority under FISA to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches targeting individuals significantly assists the government’s efforts to combat terrorism, clandestine intelligence activity, and other threats to the national security.
At the same time, the use of this authority unavoidably raises civil liberties concerns.
FISA orders can be used to surveil U.S. persons, like Carter Page, and in some cases the surveillance will foreseeably collect information about the individual’s constitutionally protected activities, such as Page’s legitimate activities on behalf of a presidential campaign.
Moreover, proceedings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)—which is responsible for ruling on applications for FISA orders—are ex parte, meaning that unlike most court proceedings, the government is the only party present for the proceedings.
In addition, unlike the use of other intrusive investigative techniques (such as wiretaps under Title III and traditional criminal search warrants) that are granted in ex parte hearings but can potentially be subject to later court challenge, FISA orders have not been subject to scrutiny through subsequent adversarial proceedings.
In light of these concerns, Congress through the FISA statute, and the Department and FBI through policies and procedures, have established important safeguards to protect the FISA application process from irregularities and abuse.
Among the most important are the requirements in FBI policy that every FISA application must contain a ‘full and accurate’ presentation of the facts, and that agents must ensure that all factual statements in FISA applications are ‘scrupulously accurate.’
These are the standards for all FISA applications, regardless of the investigation’s sensitivity, and it is incumbent upon the FBI to meet them in every application.
That said, in the context of an investigation involving persons associated with a presidential campaign, where the target of the FISA is a former campaign official and the goal of the FISA is to uncover, among other things, information about the individual’s allegedly illegal campaignrelated activities, members of the Crossfire Hurricane investigative team should have anticipated, and told us they in fact did anticipate, that these FISA applications would be subjected to especially close scrutiny.
Nevertheless, we found that members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ‘scrupulously accurate.’
We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications: 7 in the first FISA application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application.
For example, the Crossfire Hurricane team obtained information from Steele’s Primary Sub-source in January 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used in the Carter Page FISA applications.
This was particularly noteworthy because the FISA applications relied entirely on information from the Steele reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities.
However, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to share the information about the Primary Sub-source’s information with the Department, and it was therefore omitted from the three renewal applications.
All of the applications also omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers (one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application), and that an employee of the other agency assessed that Page had been candid.
As a result of the 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions we identified, relevant information was not shared with, and consequently not considered by, important Department decision makers and the court, and the FISA applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.
We also found basic, fundamental, and serious errors during the completion of the FBl’s factual accuracy reviews, known as the Woods Procedures, which are designed to ensure that FISA applications contain a full and accurate presentation of the facts.
We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omission, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome.
Nevertheless, the Department’s decision makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a U.S. person associated with a presidential campaign.
That did not occur, and as a result, the surveillance of Carter Page continued even as the FBI gathered information that weakened the assessment of probable cause and made the FISA applications less accurate.
We determined that the inaccuracies and omissions we identified in the applications resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to Department attorneys and failing to identify important issues for discussion.
Moreover, we concluded that case agents and Supervisory Special Agents (SSA) did not give appropriate attention to facts that cut against probable cause, and that as the investigation progressed and more information tended to undermine or weaken the assertions in the FISA applications, the agents and SSAs did not reassess the information supporting probable cause.
Further, the agents and SSAs did not follow, or even appear to know, certain basic requirements in the Woods Procedures.
Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted NSD’s Office of Intelligence (OI) in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information.
We found that the offered explanations for these serious errors did not excuse them, or the repeated failures to ensure the accuracy of information presented to the FISC.
We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny.
We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.
We do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior leaders to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed.
However, especially in the FBl’s most sensitive and high-priority matters, and especially when seeking court permission to use an intrusive tool such as a FISA order, it is incumbent upon the entire chain of command, including senior officials, to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility.
Such oversight requires greater familiarity with the facts than we saw in this review, where time and again during OIG interviews FBI managers, supervisors, and senior officials displayed a lack of understanding or awareness of important information concerning many of the problems we identified.
In the preparation of the FISA applications to surveil Carter Page, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to comply with FBI policies, and in so doing fell short of what is rightfully expected from a premier law enforcement agency entrusted with such an intrusive surveillance tool.
In light of the significant concerns identified with the Carter Page FISA applications and the other issues described in this report, the OIG has initiated an audit that will further examine the FBI’s compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations.
We also made the following recommendations to assist the Department and the FBI in avoiding similar failures in future investigations.
Recommendations
For the reasons fully described in our report, we recommend the following:
1. The Department and the FBI should ensure that adequate procedures are in place for the Office of Intelligence (OI) to obtain all relevant and accurate information, including access to Confidential Human Source (CHS) information, needed to prepare FISA applications and renewal applications. This effort should include revising:
a. the FISA Request Form: to ensure information is identified for OI: (i) that tends to disprove, does not support, or is inconsistent with a finding or an allegation that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, or
(ii) that bears on the reliability of every CHS whose information is relied upon in the FISA application, including all information from the derogatory information sub-file, recommended below;
b. the Woods Form: (i) to emphasize to agents and their supervisors the obligation to re-verify factual assertions repeated from prior applications and to obtain written approval from CHS handling agents of all CHS source characterization statements in applications, and
(ii) to specify what steps must be taken and documented during the legal review performed by an FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) line attorney and SES level supervisor before submitting the FISA application package to the FBI Director for certification;
c. the FISA Procedures: to clarify which positions may serve as the supervisory reviewer for OGC; and d. taking any other steps deemed appropriate to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information provided to OI.
2. The Department and FBI should evaluate which types of Sensitive Investigative Matters (SIM) require advance notification to a senior Department official, such as the Deputy Attorney General, in addition to the notifications currently required for SIMs, especially for case openings that implicate core First Amendment activity and raise policy considerations or heighten enterprise risk, and establish implementing policies and guidance, as necessary.
3. The FBI should develop protocols and guidelines for staffing and administrating any future sensitive investigative matters from FBI Headquarters.
4. The FBI should address the problems with the administration and assessment of CHS
s identified in this report and, at a minimum, should: a. revise its standard CHS admonishment form to include a prohibition on the disclosure of the CHS’s relationship with the FBI to third parties absent the FBI’s permission, and assess the need to include other admonishments in the standard CHS admonishments;
b. develop enhanced procedures to ensure that CHS information is documented in Delta, including information generated from Headquarters- led investigations, substantive contacts with closed CHSs (directly or through third parties), and derogatory information. We renew our recommendation that the FBI create a derogatory information sub-file in Delta;
c. assess VMU’s practices regarding reporting source validation findings and non-findings;
d. establish guidance for sharing sensitive information with CHSs;
e. establish guidance to handling agents for inquiring whether their CHS participates in the types of groups or activities that would bring the CHS within the definition of a ‘sensitive source,’ and ensure handling agents document (and update as needed) those affiliations and any others voluntarily provided to them by the CHS in the Source Opening Communication, the ‘Sensitive Categories’ portion of each CHS’s Quarterly Supervisory Source Report, the ‘Life Changes’ portion of CHS Contact Reports, or as otherwise directed by the FBI so that the FBI can assess whether active CHSs are engaged in activities (such as political campaigns) at a level that might require re-designation as a ‘sensitive source’ or necessitate closure of the CHS; and
f. revise its CHS policy to address the considerations that should be taken into account and the steps that should be followed before and after accepting information from a closed CHS indirectly through a third party.
5. The Department and FBI should clarify the following terms in their policies: a. assess the definition of a ‘Sensitive Monitoring Circumstance’ in the AG Guidelines and the FBI’s DIOG to determine whether to expand its scope to include consensual monitoring of a domestic political candidate or an individual prominent within a domestic political organization, or a subset of these persons, so that consensual monitoring of such individuals would require consultation with or advance notification to a senior Department official, such as the Deputy Attorney General; and
b. establish guidance, and include examples in the DIOG, to better define the meaning of the phrase ‘prominent in a domestic political organization’ so that agents understand which campaign officials fall within that definition as it relates to ‘Sensitive Investigative Matters,’ ‘Sensitive UDP,’ and the designation of ‘sensitive sources.’ Further, if the Department expands the scope of ‘Sensitive Monitoring Circumstance,’ as recommended above, the FBI should apply the guidance on ‘prominent in a domestic political organization’ to ‘Sensitive Monitoring Circumstance’ as well.
6. The FBI should ensure that appropriate training on DIOG § 4 is provided to emphasize the constitutional implications of certain monitoring situations and to ensure that agents account for these concerns, both in the tasking of CHSs and in the way they document interactions with and tasking of CHSs.
7. The FBI should establish a policy regarding the use of defensive and transition briefings for investigative purposes, including the factors to be considered and approval by senior leaders at the FBI with notice to a senior Department official, such as the Deputy Attorney General.
8. The Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility should review our findings related to the conduct of Department attorney Bruce Ohr for any action it deems appropriate. Ohr’s current supervisors in the Department’s Criminal Division should also review our findings related to Ohr’s performance for any action they deem appropriate.
9. The FBI should review the performance of all employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers, supervisors, and senior officials in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, for any action deemed appropriate.
After reviewing a draft of this report and its recommendations, FBI Director Christopher Wray accepted each of the recommendations above, and we were told ordered more than 40 corrective actions to date to address our recommendations.
However, more work remains to be done by both the FBI and the Department.
As I noted above, we believe that implementation of these recommendations, including those that seek individual accountability for the failures identified in our report, will improve the FBI’s ability to more carefully and effectively utilize its important national security authorities like FISA, while also striving to safeguard the civil liberties and privacy of impacted U.S. persons.
The OIG will continue to conduct independent oversight on these matters in the months and years ahead. This concludes my prepared statement, and I am pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
At Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on investigative abuses in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation (codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”), Democrats continued an effort begun ten days ago to hoodwink the public into believing Horowitz is in a bitter dispute with Attorney General William Barr over a key finding in the report.
The dispute allegedly stems from what is portrayed as Barr’s dissent from the IG’s conclusion that the probe was properly predicated – i.e., that there were sufficient factual grounds to open an investigation of whether the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s cyberespionage attack on Democratic party email accounts.
In point of fact, as discussed in my Fox News Opinion column on Wednesday, the two men have less a difference of opinion than a difference in focus – the distinction between what may be done and what should be done.
I’m tempted to say there is no real dispute, but let’s leave it at saying the dispute is wildly overstated.
A cautionary note: People should be suspicious about media coverage of the attorney general. For decades, Bill Barr has enjoyed a well-earned reputation for legal acumen and personal integrity. But he is now working for Donald Trump.
Hence, there has for months been an energetic media-Democrat effort to discredit him – in particular, to undermine the investigation he has appointed Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham to conduct into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe (not just Crossfire Hurricane, but the related investigations involving other domestic and foreign government agencies).
A transparent motivation fuels this effort: The Mueller probe found no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, notwithstanding the indefatigable “collusion” narrative (explored at length in my book “Ball of Collusion“).
Now the Horowitz IG report has found major abuses in the FBI’s investigation of Trump. The question naturally arises: Why did the Obama administration use the intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus of the government to investigate its political opposition?
Democrats and their media confederates are determined to protect Obama’s legacy from Nixonian taint. Barr, therefore, must be subjected to character assassination.
The specter of political spying, that bane of the Watergate era, is manifest. That is what Barr and Durham are exploring.
Democrats and their media confederates are determined to protect Obama’s legacy from Nixonian taint. Barr, therefore, must be subjected to character assassination.
You know the drill: He is Trump’s lawyer, not America’s. His investigation is politicized, not in good faith and so on.
Yes, the same people who lionized Mueller’s team of partisan Democrats, now feign outraged disbelief at the suggestion that the FBI could possibly have been just a tad political.
That would be the same Bureau that helped whitewash the Clinton emails caper; scorched the earth to find a non-existent conspiracy against Trump; brought us the charming Strzok-Page texts; and has, in just the last two years, been the subject of not one but two voluminous IG reports examining the anti-Trump animus of top investigators.
That is why the Barr-Horowitz contretemps must be exaggerated.
Typical of IG reports, Horowitz’s latest features admirably comprehensive fact-finding but conclusions framed in lawyerly gobbledygook that lend themselves to easy distortion.
As night follows day, the anti-Trump forces pounced: We’re to believe the IG concluded that the Trump-Russia investigation’s commencement was unimpeachable and that there was no political bias in the FBI’s decision-making.
That is not what Horowitz actually said. Since it is important that the public be given accurate information about the Justice Department’s position, the AG has spoken out to clarify what the IG concluded and how DOJ regards these conclusions.
In press coverage, this has been portrayed as a blistering attack on Horowitz.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats picked up the theme: Horowitz heroically struggles to uphold the rule of law and standards of impartial fact-finding, but Barr, that diabolical Trumpkin, is determined to bring him down for refusing to brand Crossfire Hurricane a hoax.
Even as this narrative first took wing, there was a clue that it was deceptive, though you had to dig a little to find it.
On December 2, a week before the IG report became public, the Washington Post kicked off the Barr vs. Horowitz tale with a story claiming, based on anonymous sources, that the AG was disputing the IG’s “key” finding that the FBI had enough information to justify launching the probe.
Seven paragraphs in, though, there was an on-the-record statement from a named official: Kerri Kupec, Barr’s spokeswoman. Far from conveying rancor, Ms. Kupec issued a gushing tribute to Horowitz. His investigation, she said: “Is a credit to the Department of Justice. His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves. Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Yes, that’s right. In relating the supposedly intense infighting over the report between Barr and Horowitz, the Post was compelled to note that the only statement traceable to Barr was an enthusiastic endorsement of Horowitz’s work and an encouragement to Americans to read the report and watch the testimony.
What a scurrilous attack!
When Horowitz finally released the report on Monday, Barr himself made a statement. Relying on the IG’s work, rather than contradicting it, the AG observed that the FBI had, “launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. [Emphasis added.]
Barr did not disagree with Horowitz on the commencement of the investigation. Horowitz had found that the FBI’s written procedures provide a very low bar in terms of the suspicion that may justify the opening of an investigation.
Barr did not dispute this; he said the investigation was opened “on the thinnest of suspicions.” That is both true and, as Horowitz points out, sufficient.
Barr thinks it was unwise to open so significant an investigation on such thin evidence. Horowitz is not claiming it was prudent; he is saying the regulations permitted it.
More to the point, Barr’s beef was less with the opening of the investigation than with “the steps taken” after the investigation was opened.
This, plainly, is a reference to the use of intrusive investigative techniques – in particular, confidential informants and FISA surveillance warrants.
Barr’s point is that, given the norm against permitting the incumbent government’s investigative powers to intrude on our political process, it was wrong to use such aggressive tactics given the threadbare basis for suspicion.
Horowitz is not disputing that. He is saying that it is not his place to second-guess discretionary judgment calls about investigative tactics as long as the probe is legitimately opened. And clearly, the IG report is a testament to the abuse of those tactics: the misrepresentations to the FISA court, and the fact that, although the use of informants generated exculpatory evidence, the Bureau inexplicably continued investigating a U.S. political campaign.
“Fake News” is an overused and oft-abused term. In the case of the reported Barr vs. Horowitz controversy, however, it might just be apt.
There are many things to be said about the 476-page FISA abuse report filed by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz – too many to say in a single column. So we’ll try to take them in small bites. Let’s start with an IG’s finding that the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation was properly “predicated.”
To understand what (as in how little) the report actually says on predication, Horowitz’s two baseline assumptions must be considered.
First, regarding the quantum of fact-based suspicion necessary before an investigation may properly be opened, the FBI sets the bar so low it is illusory.
Essentially, a hunch will do for purposes of opening a preliminary investigation. Something only slightly less nebulous, such as a suspicion that can be articulated reasonably (though not convincingly), will do for a full-blown investigation.
The idea is that, **legally,** the FBI must be given the widest of berths to enforce the law and protect national security. Practically, the expectation is that the agency’s focus will be confined to serious cases, not bogus ones, due to the guidance of its supervisors.
Second, it is not the IG’s job to review discretionary judgments by government officials, only to determine if laws, rules, policies, or procedures have been violated.
The interplay between these two assumptions renders meaningless the IG’s determination that the investigation was properly predicated.
Essentially, the IG is saying that, underwritten procedures rather than day-to-day common sense, there are no significant impediments to the FBI’s opening of any investigation.
Sure, there are a few obvious no-nos. A probe may not be opened, even preliminarily, based on invidious discrimination (race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc.). It must not be opened for a non-law-enforcement or national security reason – e.g., an agent may not snoop around financial institutions because he’s curious about how much money his neighbors make.
But there’s not much more to it than that. If a person of no known background, or even a track record of deception, tips an FBI agent that Donald Trump is an agent of the Kremlin, the IG is not going to say it would be improper for the FBI to poke around.
He is apt to accept the Bureau’s self-serving claim that, even if the grounds of suspicion were not strong, the nature of the allegation was so disturbing that it would have been irresponsible not to investigate.
Logically, of course, that means no allegation, no matter how thinly supported, is beyond the pale if it sounds sensational enough.
Add to that the IG’s caveat that reviewing discretionary decisions is not in his purview. In other words, as long as judgment calls are made within the context of a case that has been opened legitimately (as that concept is forgivingly defined in FBI regs), it is not the IG’s function to assess those judgment calls – including the decision to open the investigation in the first place.
The IG is not there to tell us whether a decision was appropriate, much less prudent, or at least carefully considered. If the predication is adequate, then the IG tells us he cannot second-guess the investigation’s commencement.
As a result, the IG may not (or at least does not) tell us the only thing that matters: Was it appropriate under the circumstances to open an investigation of the Trump campaign?
This is the nub of Attorney General William Barr’s disagreement with the report.
We have a norm in the United States against the incumbent administration’s use of the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus in the service of domestic politics.
Moreover, counterintelligence powers, which are vital to protecting our nation from terrorist attacks, hinge on public and congressional support. They will lose that support if they are exploited for political purposes.
Consequently, if the FBI is going to breach that norm, it must have strong evidence to believe a political campaign is conspiring with a foreign power.
That is Barr’s point. He is not talking about what the FBI may do in a run-of-the-mill case under its ever-elastic predication guidelines. He is talking about what it must do in order to make responsible decisions in light of the stakes involved.
The Horowitz review does not account for that. It simply says the investigation was properly predicated under the FBI’s low-bar standards for opening cases.
It does not say it was appropriate for the FBI to open a case on sparse evidence in light of the possibility that the Bureau would interfere in, and potentially even swing, an American election.
The Horowitz report confirms that the bureau deceived FISA judges with the Steele dossier.
By The Editorial Board
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in June 2018.PHOTO: MANUEL BALCE CENETA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The press corps is portraying Monday’s report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as absolution for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but don’t believe it. The report relates a trail of terrible judgment and violations of process that should shock Americans who thought better of their premier law-enforcement agency.
Readers can look at the detailed executive summary and decide for themselves. But our own initial reading confirms the worst of what we feared about the bureau when it was run by James Comey. The FBI corrupted the secret court process for obtaining warrants to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page. And it did so by supplying the court with false information produced by Christopher Steele, an agent of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
***
How can anyone, most of all civil libertarians, pass this off as no big deal? The absolution is supposedly that Mr. Horowitz concludes that the FBI decision to open a counter-intelligence probe against the Trump campaign in July 2016 “was sufficient to predicate the investigation” under current FBI rules.
Yet Mr. Horowitz also notes that these rules amount to a “low threshold for predication.” John Durham, the U.S. Attorney investigating these matters for Attorney General William Barr, said Monday he disagrees with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions on predication, albeit without elaboration for now.
Mr. Horowitz confirms what the FBI had already leaked to friendly reporters, which is that the bureau’s alarm in July 2016 was triggered by a conversation that former Trump aide George Papadopoulos had with Australian Alexander Downer. But we learn for the first time that the FBI immediately ramped up its counter-intelligence probe to include four Trump campaign officials: Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn.
The bureau quickly moved to a full-scale investigation it called Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI’s justification, as related to Mr. Horowitz, is that the risk of Russian disruption of the 2016 election was too great to ignore.
Yet the bureau never told anyone in the Trump campaign, or even Donald Trump, whom or what it was investigating so he could reduce the danger or distance himself from those advisers. The FBI was investigating the campaign but wouldn’t tell the candidate who would soon be elected.
***
The FBI abuses escalated when it was presented with the now infamous Steele dossier. Mr. Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, the oppo-research outfit hired by a law firm for the Clinton campaign. Mr. Horowitz confirms that the FBI then used the Steele dossier to trigger its application to the FISA court to spy on Mr. Page.
“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order,” Mr. Horowitz says. This confirms what Rep. Devin Nunes and House Republicans first disclosed in February 2018, which was denied by Rep. Adam Schiff and sneered at by the press at the time.
Mr. Horowitz also finds that the FBI told the FISA court that Mr. Steele was credible without having tried to confirm the details or verify his sources. Mr. Horowitz found no fewer than seven key “errors or omissions” in the FBI’s original FISA application, and 10 more in the three subsequent applications. The latter were especially egregious because they ignored information that the FBI’s own Crossfire Hurricane team had later gathered that cast doubt on the Steele claims.
The omissions include the stunner that Mr. Page had been working as an “operational contact” for what Mr. Horowitz calls another U.S. agency from 2008-2013. Mr. Page has said this is the CIA, which Mr. Horowitz doesn’t confirm, though he does say that Mr. Page was reporting on his Russian contacts, which the agency deemed credible.
In other words, the FBI was using Mr. Page’s Russian contacts as evidence against him to the FISA court even as the other agency considered his reports on those Russians to be helpful to the U.S. Mr. Horowitz says the FBI never disclosed this information to the FISA judges.
“Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the [FISA] applications,” the report says. This is the Inspector General’s bland way of saying that the FBI deceived four FISA judges.
Democrats and the press are making much of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusion that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced FBI decisions. But his report does show that political bias was conveyed to the FISA court from the Clinton campaign via the Steele dossier through the FBI.
It was conveyed by Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official whose wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS. Mr. Horowitz may not have found a memo with the words “let’s get Trump,” but his evidence shows that getting Mr. Trump was the goal of Mr. Steele and Fusion GPS. Mr. Ohr met 13 times with the FBI to discuss the Steele findings.
Even if you buy the “no bias” line, all of this had major political consequences. Fusion GPS used its media contacts to spread word of the Steele dossier’s accusations, and news of the FBI’s use of that dossier became a media hook to suggest the accusations were credible. This became another part of the false Russia collusion narrative played up by the press and the likes of former CIA director John Brennan.
r. Horowitz says Crossfire Hurricane investigators never verified any of the Steele dossier allegations against Mr. Page. Even a year after the first FISA warrant, in September 2017, the report says the FBI had only “corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting.” Robert Mueller later spent two years looking for proof of collusion and found nothing, while the Trump Presidency was besieged.
The Horowitz report should not be the end of this tawdry tale. Whether or not there are prosecutions, Messrs. Barr and Durham should release the entire FISA record to the public. The GOP Senate also needs to call the FISA judges to tell their story under oath.
The FISA process was established in the 1970s as a check on FBI abuse, though we and others warned that it would hurt accountability instead. So it has played out in this case. The U.S. doesn’t need a process that uses Article III judges as political cover to justify abusive wiretaps on innocent Americans, much less on presidential campaigns.
Story 2: House Judiciary Committee Passes Two Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump — Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress in Partisan 23 Democrats Vote Yes and 17 Republican Vote No — No Crime — No Evidence — No Sense — Not Guilty Videos —
WATCH: Articles of impeachment against Trump approved by House Judiciary Committee
House Judiciary passes two articles of impeachment against Trump
House Judiciary Committee passes articles of impeachment against President Trump
Democrats admit they expect more defections from vulnerable House members who will vote AGAINST impeaching Donald Trump
As many as a half dozen Democrats could break rank and vote alongside Republicans during next weeks expected full House impeachment vote
Earlier this week a group of moderate Democrats floated censuring President Trump instead of impeaching him
A number of moderate Democrats have yet to reveal how they plan to vote, with Democratic leadership vowing not to whip votes beforehand
Democrats anticipate several more moderate members may break rank and vote against President Trump‘s impeachment.
One source told DailyMail.com that as many as six Democrats could vote no during the expected full House impeachment vote next week. The Hill aide would be ‘shocked’ if more than 10 voted alongside Republicans.
On Halloween, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi first had the House vote on impeachment Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota voted against the resolution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is likely to see several more Democrats break rank and vote against impeachment. She’s said she doesn’t plan to whip the caucus for votes prior to the expected full House floor vote next week
The Democrats who have the most to lose are ones who won seats in districts that voted for President Trump, pictured at his Pennsylvania rally Tuesday night, in 2016, and could face tough re-election bids if they vote to impeach the president
Reps. Collin Peterson (left) and Jeff Van Drew (right) were the only two Democrats to vote alongside Republicans during House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s first impeachment vote, which took place on Halloween
Democrats reveal two articles of impeachment against Trump
All the Republicans voted together – against it – while former Republican-turned-independent Rep. Justin Amash voted alongside Democrats to proceed.
Now with impeachment proceedings nearing a conclusion in the House there have been some tells that moderates have the jitters.
For one, Politico reported that a number of moderate Democrats gathered Monday night to talk about censuring the president as opposed to impeachment.
That effort didn’t get off the ground.
‘It never had life to begin with,’ quipped the Hill aide. ‘I can’t tell how sincere the push for censure is,’ remarked another who works for a moderate Democratic member.
Politico named just four members in the story – Reps. Josh Gottheimer, Kurt Schrader, Anthony Brindisi and Ben McAdams – but said as many as 10 participated in the gathering.
A lot of moderates simply aren’t showing their hand yet.
Peterson’s spokesperson told the Star Tribune that he’s undecided – despite being one of those two Democratic no votes.
Another moderate Democrat from Minnesota, Rep. Angie Craig, told the paper she also hasn’t made a decision.
‘This has really been a somber time to me,’ Craig told reporters, according to the Star Tribune. ‘No one runs for Congress wanting to ever have to face the question of whether to vote on articles of impeachment. But at the same time, you know, I have to weigh the evidence and the facts and fulfill my Constitutional duty and I will certainly be very thoughtful and deliberate as I make that decision.’
A spokesman for Rep. Max Rose, a Democrat from New York, who was formerly a hold-out said ‘he hasn’t made an announcement either way yet.’
Brindisi, another New York Democrat and an attendee of the censure meeting, hasn’t responded to requests for comment about his position.
They’ve had the benefit of not being a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where members announced their positions publicly Wednesday night.
Moderate member Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat who represents a previously red Georgia district, split the difference in her speech.
‘I promised I would work with the president when his policies were right for Georgia, and stand up to him when they are not. And I am proud of our progress … I am proud to have written a bill that was signed into law by President Trump,’ she said.
‘But I am not proud of the president’s actions that bring us here tonight,’ she added, telling the crowd she backed impeachment.
The Hill aide told DailyMail.com that it helped that Pelosi kept the impeachment narrowly focused. Moderate Democrats wanted impeachment to be about Ukraine and Ukraine only.
Other members of the caucus, including even House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, had advocated widening the scope to include articles related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference.
Liberals, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had even suggested that the articles stretch as wide as Trump violating the Emoluments Clause.
And Democratic leadership has vowed not to whip the vote prior to next week’s big decision.
‘This is one of those issues where members have to come to their own conclusions, it’s just too consequential,’ Rep. Dan Kildee, a Democrat from Michigan, told the Washington Post. Kildee is a deputy whip. ‘I think this is one of those votes where people are going to be remembered for a long time for how they voted on it.’
‘High crimes and misdemeanors:’ Trump impeachment charges read out
Story 3: House Minority Leader McCarthy on Impeachment — Videos
Rep. McCarthy on impeachment: We wouldn’t be here if we had a fair process
Donald Trump claims ‘the people are DISGUSTED’ and his fundraising is ‘through the roof’ as Democrats pass two articles of impeachment in just seven minutes and set up full House vote next week
Donald Trump praised the fiery Republicans lawmakers who defended him during Thursday’s marathon 14-hour impeachment hearing
Two articles passed on party-line votes of 23 to 17
Impeachment articles are on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress
‘The unity & sheer brilliance of these Republican warriors, all of them, was a beautiful sight to see,’ the president tweeted
Move sets up a likely House floor vote on Wednesday
That would bring an impeachment trial in the Senate in January
Angry Republican lawmakers were hopping mad at Jerry Nadler when he scheduled vote on articles of impeachment for Friday morning
Nadler did not hold it Thursday night when the hearing wrapped
President Donald Trump teed off on the Democratic impeachment effort Friday, claiming Americans are ‘disgusted’ and showing no evidence of being constrained by the effort to move ahead with his potential removal from office.
‘The people are disgusted,’ the president said, soon after the House Judiciary voted out two articles against him. He called the impeachment a ‘scam’ – even as he said it had a political upside for himself.
‘It’s a very sad thing for our country but it seems to be very good for me politically … The polls have gone through the roof for Trump,’ Trump said.
‘This has been a wild week,’ the president said. ‘It’s a witch hunt, it’s a sham, it’s a hoax. Nothing was done wrong, zero was done wrong,’ he said of his conduct toward Ukraine, which earned him an ‘abuse of power’ vote in the Democratic-controlled Judiciary panel.
President Donald Trump called impeachment a ‘scam’ not long after the House Judiciary Committee voted two articles against him
‘I think it’s a horrible thing to be using the tool of impeachment, which is supposed to be used in an emergency and it would seem many many many years apart. They’re using this for a perfect phone call,’ Trump said. He was referencing his July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a push that was at the heart of the Democratic impeachment push.
He also unloaded on the FBI following the release of an inspector general’s report that both found the Russia probe was sufficiently predicated but also found agents acted improperly when pushing for surveillance of Trump campaign officials over Russia.
‘When you look at the IG report and these horrible FBI people,’ Trump told reporters inside the Oval Office soon after the impeachment vote.
As for his preferences for his looming Senate trial, where his senior legal aides are already huddling with Senate leadership, Trump said: ‘I’ll do whatever I want.’
‘We did nothing wrong. So I’ll do long, or short. I’ve heard Mitch, I’ve heard Lindsey. I think they are very much in agreement on some concept. I’ll do whatever they want to do. It doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t mind the long process, because I’d like to see the whistleblower, who’s a fraud.’
The House Judiciary Committee voted out two articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump on Friday in a brief early morning session following angry marathon debates this week.
Momet of history: Jerry Nadler became only fourth House Judiciary committee chairman to oversee articles of impeachment being adopted against a president
Both articles – on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, passed on party-line votes of 23 to 17 – keeping an impeachment effort now being orchestrated by Democratic party leaders on its brisk schedule, with a House floor vote set for Wednesday.
Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler announced the decision in an ornate House hearing room after a process that took less than seven minutes Friday morning.
In a procedure that was free of the theatrics that characterized Thursday’s 14-hour session, the presidential impeachment vote – just the fourth in U.S. history in the committee – the committee voted out both articles and immediately adjourned.
The votes sets up a House floor vote next week, where a handful of Democrats have signaled they will defect but passage is considered likely. The White House has already turned its attention to the Senate, where an impeachment trial will follow.
Members were solemn as they shouted out their votes – aye or nay – one at a time, in a cavernous Ways & Means Committee hearing room that has been specially outfitted with seven TV cameras for the occasion.
Split: Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman, and Doug Collins, the Republican ranking member, each saw their sides united in voting on party lines
Brief: It took just seven minutes for the two articles of impeachment to be approved Friday morning, ending three days of debate
History in the making: The Democratic side as the House Judiciary Committee votes for two articles of impeachment
Moment of history: Martha Roby, an Alabama Republican, brought her son George with her as she voted against the articles of impeacment
What it’s all about: The clerk’s copy of the articles of impeachment were left on her desk after the vote
How they voted: The clerks’ copies of the vote tally show how the vote went through on party lines 23-17
Defeat: Republican ranking member heads for the door after the Democratic majority vote through through the two articles of impeachment
House Judiciary Committee approves two articles of impeachment
Most simply stated their preference. Some, like retiring Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, barked out their ‘No’ votes with force.
The White House quickly mocked the effort in a blistering statement. ‘This desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end. The President looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House,’ said White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.
In a further show of defiance, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani – a central player in the impeachment who Democrats describe as a key figure in the ‘shakedown’ effort of Ukraine – was pictured heading into the White House Friday.
During the vote, one lawmaker, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, asked after the abuse of power vote whether his own preference had been properly recorded. ‘Yeah want to make sure,’ he quipped to chuckles in the room.
Hearings that started out as the hottest ticket in political Washington ended with a fizzle. A bank of two rows of leather seats reserved for lawmakers had not a single elected occupant. Staff could be heard telling a few ordinary citizens to grab any seat they liked form the bloc.
Republicans were the first to race to the microphones outside the hearing room when it was over.
‘Everybody got dressed up, really no place to go. We voted on a provision, an allegation of abuse of power. There was an abuse of power at the Department of justice,’ said Gohmert.
‘There was an abuse of power at the FBI. There was an abuse of power at the FISA court. There was an abuse of power in our intel community. There was an abuse of power, even DOD was paying money to help set up the president,’ he said, echoing Trump’s defenses. The president had fired off more than 100 tweets Thursday in his own defense.
‘I have never in my entire life seen such an unfair, rigger, railroad job against the President of the United States,’ fumed Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona.
Said Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana: ‘I think the American people are going to militate against this. … I think there’s going to be a huge political price paid by the Democrats next year.’
Rep. Matt Gaetz – who on Thursday stunned onlookers by bringing up Hunter Biden’s cocaine use, prompting calls for civility by Democrats, compared impeachment to a ‘drug’ for Democrats.
‘For Democrats, impeachment is their drug. It is their obsession. It is their total focus. And it is deeply disappointing that they failed to meet the standard that they set for themselves.’
How they voted: Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, held up a copy of the Constitution as she voted ‘aye’
Aftermath: Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, a Trump ultra-loyalist, voiced anger at the outcome of the hearing after Republicans lost a 23-17 party lines vote
In the spotlight: Florida Republican Matt Gaetz used the debate Thursday to highlight Hunter Biden’s history of drug abuse to fury from Democrats
Gaetz had offered an amendment mentioning Hunter Biden and Ukrainian energy company Burisma, then read from an article about how Vice President Joe Biden’s son crashed a rental car where drug paraphernalia was later discovered. Gaetz himself was arrested for Driving Under the Influence as a younger man, although charges were dropped.
House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerold Nadler was brief in his public remarks after the votes were over. ‘Today is a solemn and sad day. For the third time in a little over a century and a half, the House Judiciary Committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House will act expeditiously,’ Nadler said. ‘Thank you, he added, without taking questions from reporters.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer released a statement confirming next week’s vote expressing the solemnity of the occasion.
‘This is a solemn and somber day for our country. For only the fourth time in our nation’s history, the House Judiciary Committee has recommended articles of impeachment against the President of the United States,’ he said.
‘The responsibility of impeaching the president for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is one the House takes very seriously; it is a responsibility that must not be avoided when demanded by the overwhelming evidence presented.,’ he continued.
‘Over the course of the past several weeks, the House and the American people have heard overwhelming evidence that President Donald Trump attempted to bribe a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf, thereby abusing his power for personal and political gain. In addition, he harmed America’s national security and undermined Americans’ right to a free and fair election next year,’ Hoyer said.
At the microphones: Jerry Nadler speaks after the history house vote
Frenzy of interest: Jerry Nadler is the center of attention for reports after the historic House vote
We’re off: Democrats Sylvia Garcia and Lou Correa pack up and head for the exits after the rapid vote on the articles of impeachment
He said Republicans ‘argued against President Trump’s impeachment not because they deny his wrongdoing but because they contend that it is not impeachable unless the President effectively declares that he is committing a crime while being caught in the act.’
‘Next week, these two articles of impeachment – on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – will come to the House Floor for consideration. The representatives of the American people will then vote on whether to send this case against the President to the Senate for trial,’ he said.
The president, in a continuation of his effort to demonstrate he can work through the impeachment, Tweeted immediately after the vote that ‘We have agreed to a very large Phase One Deal with China.’
Trump had blasted Democrats for tying a U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal to impeachment timing, which they denied.
‘Take note @SpeakerPelosi – this is what real leadership looks like. President @realDonaldTrump never stops working and continues to make successful deals that benefit this country,’ wrote White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.
The action will soon head to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News host Sean Hannity he is cooperating with the White House on the trial set-up.
McConnell says there is ‘zero chance’ Trumpwill be removed from office following the impeachment trial – and said he is in ‘total coordination’ with Trump’s White House lawyers.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally who was a House manager during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, called the House impeachment a ‘sad, ridiculous sham in the U.S. House of Representatives. This needs to come to a quick end.’
Said Rep. Eric Swalwell in a statement: ‘Today, I voted to send articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives that will hold President Donald Trump accountable for his ongoing abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Fortunately, America’s Founders did not leave the people helpless to an executive’s abuses. Our Constitution provides the power of impeachment and removal. President Trump is on a constitutional crime spree, jeopardizing our national security and the integrity of our elections. We have no choice but to act.’
Top Judiciary Republican Doug Collins of Georgia accused Swalwell of conducting a tryout to be one of his party’s impeachment managers in the Senate trial.
Collins in his own statement accused Democrats of abuse of power for how they conducted the impeachment inquiry. Republicans have bashed it for being conducted ‘in secret’ in a ‘basement’ Capitol room where the House Intelligence Committee meets.
‘This abuse of power doesn’t just undermine the integrity of our chamber or the independence of future presidencies. Democrats have sacrificed core American tenets of due process, fairness and the presumption of innocence on the altar of a 2016 election that they lost three years ago,’ said Collins, who also fumed that Nadler postponed the vote from late Thursday night to Friday morning.
‘Rather than help Americans move into the future with confidence, Democrats are attempting to knee-cap our democracy. They’re telling millions of voters that Democrats will work to overturn the will of the people whenever it conflicts with the will of liberal elites,’ Collins said.
Trump on Friday morning praised the fiery Republicans lawmakers who defended him during Thursday’s marathon 14-hour impeachment hearing and touted his strong position among voters ahead of Friday’s morning’s vote.
Angry Republican lawmakers were hopping mad at Jerry Nadler when the Judiciary Committee chairman closed out Thursday night’s hearing without holding a vote on the formal articles of impeachment against the president.
Trump praised his loyalists for their defense of him.
‘The Republicans House members were fantastic yesterday. It always helps to have a much better case, in fact the Dems have no case at all, but the unity & sheer brilliance of these Republican warriors, all of them, was a beautiful sight to see. Dems had no answers and wanted out!,’ the president wrote in an early morning tweet on Friday.
He returned to Twitter later in the morning to ponder the upcoming vote against him.
‘How do you get Impeached when you have done NOTHING wrong (a perfect call), have created the best economy in the history of our Country, rebuilt our Military, fixed the V.A. (Choice!), cut Taxes & Regs, protected your 2nd A, created Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and soooo much more? Crazy!,’ he mused.
Donald Trump praised the fiery Republicans lawmakers who defended him during Thursday’s marathon 14-hour impeachment hearing
Nadler shocked the panel on Thursday night when he closed out the hearing without calling for a vote on the impeachment articles, opting to bring lawmakers back at 10 am on Friday to decide the matter.
‘It is now very late at night,’ Nadler said. ‘I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these past two days and to search their consciences before they cast their final votes.”
The Republicans called Nadler’s move a stunt and accused him of wanting to get television time by scheduling the vote for Friday morning instead of holding it near midnight when the committee session wrapped up.
Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the panel, accused Nadler of running a ‘kangaroo court’ and said it was ‘the most bush league stunt I’ve ever seen in my entire life.’
Democrats, in return, charged Republicans with dragging out the proceedings well into the night with amendment after amendment, all of which were doomed to fail in the Democratic-controlled panel.
The committee members will reconvene to vote on the two charges against Trump – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Both are expected to pass the Democratically-controlled panel.
The Judiciary panel is stacked with partisan warriors on both sides, and when Democrats pushed through procedures on impeachment in the full House, only two party members defected.
The vote will guarantee that Trump will become the third president in U.S. history to be impeached and sets up a vote in the full House for next week.
The president fired off five tweets in quick succession Friday morning to slam the ‘do nothing Democrats’ for their ‘hoax’ of an impeachment and argue the move won’t play well among voters in the crucial swing states during next year’s election.
Trump has been unusually active on Twitter – his favorite method of communication – in the past week, some days sending out up to a hundred retweets of people supporting him.
‘The Do Nothing Democrats have become the Party of lies and deception! The Republicans are the Party of the American Dream!,’ Trump wrote in an attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party Friday morning.
‘Poll numbers have gone through the roof in favor of No Impeachment, especially with Swing States and Independents in Swing States. People have figured out that the Democrats have no case, it is a total Hoax. Even Pelosi admitted yesterday that she began this scam 2 1/2 years ago!,’ he noted.
Polls show Americans to be divided on impeachment – a divisive topic that has caused fury on both sides of the political aisle, one of the reasons Democratic leadership is teeing up a vote for early next week to get the issue done by the end of the year.
Republicans are expected to hold the line and vote not to impeach the president.
‘My Approval Rating in the Republican Party is 95%, a Record. Thank you! #2020Election,’ Trump tweeted Friday morning.
‘The Republican Party is more united now than at any time in its history – by far!,’ he added.
Democratic lawmakers are also expected to by and large vote in favor of the formal articles of impeachment. A few moderates who won their House seats in districts carried by Trump in the 2016 election could waver.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, stunned Republicans by abruptly ending Thursday’s 14-plus-hour impeachment hearing and announcing that the panel would vote on two impeachment articles Friday morning
But Pelosi said Thursday that she is not lobbying those lawmakers to toe the party line.
‘People have to come to their own conclusions,’ the speaker said.
But Thursday’s hearing was the longest and one of the most cantankerous to date in the impeachment process.
Its purpose was to allow amendments to the nine-page resolution outlining the charges against Trump.
But it saw Republican lawmakers leveling angry charges against the Democrats, who swatting away attempts to amend the impeachment road map in a hearing that ran throughout the day and closed out near midnight.
Democrats uniformly tore into Trump while Republicans loyally defended him, in a day-long confrontation that ultimately would come to encompass such topics as the 2020 elections, Stormy Daniels, Trump University, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, Hunter Biden, the Steele dossier, and the energy company Burisma – along with the meaning of the Constitution’s ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’
By late Thursday, the squabbles had lasted beyond lunch, dinner, and an event for lawmakers at the White House. Some members had had enough.
‘Dare I state the obvious: I have not heard a new point or an original thought from either side in the last three hours,’ said Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and top Republican Doug Collins during opening statements that kicked off Thursday’s 14-hour hearing
Judiciary Committee Democrats expect a party-line vote that will pass the impeachment articles to the full House of Representatives next week
A furious Rep. Doug Collins (above) railed against Nadler after the hearing Friday night, saying Democrats had railroaded them by blocking their witnesses and steamrolling the process forward to get it over with before Christmas
President Donald Trump, pictured at the Congressional Ball held at the White House while the rancorous hearing proceeded, is unlikely to be removed from office since Republicans hold a Senate majority and two-thirds of senators would have to vote against him
The debate centered on a series of amendments by Republicans, which all were voted down on party-line votes, clearly establishing that the Democrats would prevail on the larger vote to come.
In the most explosive moment of the long day, Republicans turned the second day of Judiciary impeachment hearings into a direct attack on Joe Biden’s son Hunter—citing his cocaine use and ugly public divorce as they tried to amend the Democrats’ articles of impeachment.
Just minutes after the panel voted down a GOP amendment to strike down an abuse of power article, Trump loyalist Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced a three-line amendment that explicitly mentioned Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
The amendment would have changed the articles of impeachment to allege that Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president was seeking information on Hunter Biden, not his father Joe – which would undermine the allegation that it was an abuse of power. It would mention a ‘well-known corrupt company, Burisma, and its corrupt hiring of Hunter Biden.’
‘Hunter Biden and Burisma, that’s an interesting story. And I think just about every American knows there’s something up with that,’ Gaetz, one of Trump’s most prominent defenders on Capitol Hill, said.
‘$86,000 a month, no experience, working for some foreign government while your dad is the Vice President of the United States? Is there anyone who believes this is okay?’
Impeachment hearing turns into MARATHON clash over Donald Trump
But it was not just the complex Ukraine dealings of the former vice president’s son that Gaetz raised – he immediately referenced Hunter’s struggles with cocaine use, a problem that got him kicked out of the U.S. Navy.
The Florida Republican referenced a New Yorker magazine article that cataloged how a Hertz rental agent had told a reporter of finding drug paraphernalia after a Hunter Biden rental car wreck.
‘It’s a little hard to believe that Burisma would hire Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car,’ said Gaetz.
After Gaetz spoke, Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia condemned the effort.
‘Pot calling the kettle black is not something that should do,’ Johnson said.
‘I don’t know what members, if any, have any problem with substance abuse,’ he He continued. But he cautioned against ‘character assassination.’
Gaetz was himself arrested for Driving Under the Influence in 2008 when he was 26 years old. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Gaetz admitted drinking two beers, refused a field sobriety test. However the charges were dropped. At the time his father Don was a Republican state senator in Florida.
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a Donald Trump loyalist, introduced an amendment inserting Hunter Biden’s name into an impeachment article – then brought up his past cocaine use
Rebuke: Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, told Gaetz: ‘I don’t know what members, if any, have any problem with substance abuse,’ he continued. But he cautioned against ‘character assassination.’ Gaetz was arrested for a DUI but charges were dropped. At the time of the arrest, Gaetz’s father, Don, was a Republican member of the Florida state senate
Republicans introduced an amendment that would name Hunter Biden (above) and Burisma in an impeachment article Democrats brought against President Donald Trump
The full-frontal attack on Hunter Biden came as House Republicans repeatedly sought to undermine the Democratic effort to impeach Trump by mocking the charges leveled against him and denying he tried to foist a ‘quid pro quo’ on the president of Ukraine.
Thursday’s bitterness is expected to set off another round of partisan rambling when lawmakers return on Friday morning.
But Trump is expected to be formally impeached when the full House votes next week.
Then the matter moves to trial in the Senate. The Republican-led chamber is unlikely to vote to find the president guilty and remove him from office.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone and legislative liaison Eric Ueland met on Thursday afternoon with Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader to discuss the potential for a Senate trial.
McConnell has said an impeachment trial would not happen until January.
Story 1: The Day of Reckoning Is Approaching And Not A Word Is Spoken — National Debt More Than $23 Trillion — Plus Unfunded Obligations Estimates Over $100 Trillion to Over $200 Trillion — Videos —
Deficits and debt | AP Macroeconomics | Khan Academy
Story 2: Democrats Trying To Talk & Tank The Economy Into a Recession — Big Failure — Economy Still Growing — Videos
Ingraham: An animated series of failures
How the Fed creates free money for big banks, CEOs and billionaires
Trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and hardly a voice of caution to be heard
BY ALBERT HUNT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/01/19 11:30 AM EST 2,649
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
In the old days, a decade or so ago, Democrats would have assailed Donald Trump‘s failure on federal deficits; instead of eliminating it, as promised, the deficit has doubled to a trillion dollars as far as the eye can see.
Republicans would be in full fury over the spending schemes of Democratic presidential candidates; even the mainstream moderates propose huge increases for health care, education and the social safety net for the disadvantaged.
Yet deficits, as a political issue, are dead.
The political impact always was exaggerated, but out-of-control deficits were a staple of opposition rhetoric. There invariably was some budget-balancing blue-ribbon group, the most famous being the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
For Democrats, the pressing urgency of unmet needs in health care, education, infrastructure and the social safety net far outweigh any rising debt. They favor tax hikes, mainly on the rich, to reverse the huge 2017 Republican tax cuts, but there’s less premium on the green eyeshade test of paying for all spending initiatives.
Most Republicans strongly want to keep those tax cuts — the only significant achievement of three years of party rule — and have little interest in tackling politically popular entitlements. In the years the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, it focused only on gutting the Affordable Care Act.
This has become the Trump Party, which overshadows the old Republican battle lines between budget balancers and tax cutters. This Republican executive is a tax cutter and budget buster.
As well as the politics, Democrats have a strong policy basis for their position. Early this year, the two most prominent Democratic economists — former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, both under Barack Obama — wrote an influential article citing structural declines in interest rates. This means that “policymakers should reconsider the traditional fiscal approach that has often wrong-headedly limited worthwhile investments in such areas as education, health care and infrastructure,” they said.
“Politicians and policymakers should focus on urgent social programs, not deficits,” they advised.
They don’t go as far as the Modern Monetary Theorists who basically argue the sky is the limit on debt unless inflation takes off. Instead, Summers and Furman claim a key is that the federal debt — as a percentage of the economy — stays at a relatively stable 3 percent to 4 percent, where it has been for the past five years.
The Republican deficits hawks, most recently former House Speaker Paul Ryan, have been rendered obsolete, as least as long it’s the party of Trump.
Even back in the 1970s, however, some Republicans embraced what supply-side propagandist Jude Wanniski called the “Two-Santa Theory” — namely, to counter Democrats’ support for popular spending programs, Republicans should favor huge tax cuts without concern for the deficit. (Ronald Reagan once joked he didn’t worry about the deficit, as it was “big enough to take care of itself.”)
Moreover, the Republican cries about the evils of big deficits have been more rhetorical than real, although the general perception of Democrats as more fiscally profligate is a canard.
The deficit also soared under George W. Bush, especially at the end of his term, with the economic crisis.
Obama inherited a massive $1.4 trillion shortfall and in eight years cut it by 60 percent.
The shortfall has doubled under Trump.
As a percentage of the economy, however, it has risen from 3 percent in the final Obama year to a bit more than 4 percent now.
Even Washington’s most stalwart and consistent fiscal hawk, Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, acknowledges the budget deficit isn’t a top policy concern right now “as low interest rates buy us some time.”
However, she cautions that the fiscal situation “is the worst it has been since just after World War II,” adding, “No one knows when the tipping point is or what it looks like, but those are questions we shouldn’t want to find the answers to.”
Albert R. Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for the Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter-century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then the International New York Times and Bloomberg View. Follow him on Twitter @alhuntdc.
Story 3: Federal Reserve Intervenes and Adds More Liquidity or Money Into Economy — Overnight and 42-Day Term Repos Madness Bubble — Return of Quantitative Easing? –Videos —
Fed is in a ‘lose, lose, lose situation,’ says Mohamed A. El-Erian
Repo Madness: Up to $300 Billion Per Day As First 42 Day Term Repo Kicks In Going Into 2020!
Repo: How Roughly $1 Trillion Moves Overnight | WSJ
How the Fed creates free money for big banks, CEOs and billionaires
The ‘repo’ market explained
The Central Banks’ Monetary Policy Is Backfiring (w/ Simon White)
New York Fed Adds Liquidity Amid Heavy Demand for Year-End Funding
Interventions ensure markets have enough liquidity and short-term borrowing rates remain well-behaved
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York intervened in financial markets again Monday. PHOTO: EDUARDO MUNOZ/REUTERS
By
Michael S. Derby
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York again saw very strong demand for liquidity aimed at helping financial markets navigate the turn of the year.
The demand once again arrived as the Fed added temporary liquidity to financial markets Monday. All together the central bank pumped in $97.9 billion in two parts. One was via overnight repurchase agreements, or repos, that totaled $72.9 billion. The other was via 42-day repos.
While the Fed took all the securities that dealers offered it for the overnight repo, the longer-term operation saw eligible banks offer $42.55 billion in securities versus the $25 billion the Fed took. That level of interest was a replay from the last 42-day repo operation held Nov. 25, when eligible banks submitted $49.05 billion in securities against the $25 billion the central bank accepted.
The robust demand for year-end liquidity could alter the path of future longer-term Fed interventions and induce the central bank to increase their size. Central banks want to ensure that markets remain well behaved over year end, and they have signaled they will be flexible in achieving that. The Fed has already increased the size of other temporary operations, making it possible future term operations could be bigger as well.
The Repo Market, Explained
The repo market shook the financial world in September when an unexpected rate spike choked short-term lending, spurring the Federal Reserve to intervene. WSJ explains how this critical, but murky part of the financial system works, and why some banks say the crunch could have been prevented. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds for The Wall Street Journal
Fed repo interventions take in Treasury and mortgage securities from eligible banks in what is effectively a short-term loan of central-bank cash, collateralized by the securities.
The Fed’s interventions are aimed at ensuring that the financial system has enough liquidity and that short-term borrowing rates remain well-behaved, with the central bank’s federal-funds rate staying within the 1.5%-to-1.75% target range. The effective fed-funds rate stood at 1.56% on Friday. The broad general collateral rate for repo trading stood at 1.62%, also for Tuesday.
The Fed has been intervening in markets in the current fashion since mid-September, when short-term rates unexpectedly shot up on a confluence of factors, although it has used similar operations for decades to manage short-term rates.
Since the large interventions started, money-market rates have been well-behaved. The Fed is using temporary operations to tamp down any possible volatility, while purchasing Treasury bills to build up reserves in the banking system. It hopes that by buying Treasury bills it will be able to cut back on repo interventions at the start of next year.
The Fed currently expects to buy Treasury bills through the middle of next year.
Story 4: Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz Report Will Be Released on December 9 and Horowitz Will Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee December 11, 2019 — Videos —
‘They Tried to Overthrow the Presidency’: Trump Says Results of IG’s Report Could be ‘Historic’
FBI official allegedly altered document in Russia probe: Report
DOJ Inspector General to testify on alleged 2016 campaign spying
IG Horowitz to testify on Russia probe, FISA abuse
TRUMP PROBE REPORT AND HEARING – DECEMBER 9/11, 2019
DiGenova: Comey, Clapper and Brennan will have to pay the ‘Barr bill’
Jason Chaffetz: FBI deep state clear – will FISA report finally lead to action?
Jason Chaffetz By Jason Chaffetz | Fox News
PROGRAMMING ALERT: Watch Jason Chaffetz discuss this op-ed and much more on “Mornings with Maria” on Monday, December 2.
Following a series of four damning inspector general reports over the last two years, there is little doubt the senior leadership of the Obama-era FBI was weaponized in the service of the Democratic Party. But as America awaits what many expect to be the most damning investigation of all, it’s fair to ask what has been done to rein in our rogue FBI.
The report on FISA abuse set for release on Dec. 9 is expected to show how the FBI used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on American citizens affiliated with the Trump campaign in 2016. As damning as such a conclusion would be, it will only be the latest in a series of explosive revelations from the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, some of which got muted coverage from the mainstream press. Advance leaks suggest the upcoming report will, at a minimum, show an FBI lawyer illegally altered documents to justify a FISA application.
Even before next week’s anticipated release, we already have IG reports implicating the FBI director, assistant director, deputy assistant director, and chief of the counterintelligence section. Though none of them remain at the bureau, we have seen little reassurance from current FBI Director Christopher Wray that the culture they created has changed.
Thus far, no one has been prosecuted, despite a long string of damaging reports and referrals. An IG can make a recommendation but it is up to the DOJ to prosecute, even if it is one of their own.
A 63-page report released last month found “numerous issues” with the FBI’s use of confidential sources during a period that included the 2016 election. That report revealed that the FBI lacked appropriate procedures to vet and maintain oversight of sources like the ones used against the Trump campaign. This created a security risk for the United States. Yet no prosecutions have been announced.
Last August, an even more serious finding was released when the IG determined that the FBI director himself had violated FBI policy and the terms of his own employment agreement in disseminating classified information for release to the media. Though the DOJ could have prosecuted based on the report’s findings, it declined to do so.
A May 2019 IG report implicated the FBI deputy assistant director for unauthorized contacts with the media, illegally disclosing sealed court documents and other sensitive information to the media, and accepting gifts from the media. The DOJ declined to prosecute. But why? The IG recommended prosecution.
The IG’s June 2018 probe into the Hillary Clinton email investigation implicated the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, of repeatedly articulating a strong political bias even as he headed up the investigation of Clinton’s exposure of classified information. The 500-page report, which reviewed 1.2 million documents and included interviews with more than 100 witnesses, documented numerous questionable decisions that benefited Clinton or damaged Trump, though the IG acknowledged the parties denied their political bias impacted their decisions.
The FBI is in shambles and there has been little to no public acknowledgment of the crisis by the current director. No work by him to stem this tide of political bias is evident to the public.
The report also highlighted an interoffice affair between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, both of whom worked on the Clinton and Trump investigations. Next week’s IG report is also expected to document an affair between two other FBI lawyers who worked together on the FISA applications.
What is going on at the FBI and why no consequences for such blatant violations of internal policy and the law? And why did these vulnerabilities exist for so long without detection? No doubt adversarial intelligence agencies could have figured this out quite easily, making our intelligence operations vulnerable to exploitation.
Finally, an April 2018 report implicated FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe of inappropriately authorizing the disclosure of sensitive information to a reporter and repeatedly lying to investigators about it. The report found McCabe lied four times, three under oath, and that it was done “in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.” Though McCabe was fired, he wasn’t prosecuted.
What message does it send when the Justice Department protects its own?
The FBI is in shambles and there has been little to no public acknowledgment of the crisis by Director Wray. No work by him to stem this tide of political bias is evident to the public.
With the release of next week’s FISA report, we must demand action by Wray. Given the well-documented wrongdoing by the previous FBI director, deputy director, deputy assistant director, the chief of counterintelligence, and evidently DOJ counsel, the American people are right to question the legitimacy of America’s federal law enforcement apparatus.
If the American people are going to regain confidence in the senior leadership of the FBI, the Justice Department will need to prosecute wrongdoing as they would if it weren’t one of their own. Until then, questions of imbalance, favoritism and bias in one direction will persist. Certainly, we deserve better.
Story 4: Lisa Page Role in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court Warrant Application Process? — Videos
Lisa Page Breaks Silence On Trump’s DISGUSTING Behavior
Trump viciously mocks Strzok, Page at Minneapolis rally
Rep. Biggs: Lisa Page once engaged in FBI cabal, now playing the victim
Whitaker: Lisa Page made calculated move to front run IG report
Lisa Page Speaks: ‘There’s No Fathomable Way I Have Committed Any Crime at All’
STRIKING BACK
The former FBI lawyer and ongoing Trump target breaks two years of silence in this exclusive interview. And she has quite a lot to say.
Molly Jong-Fast
It’s not often that you interview a subject who has no interest in being famous. But recently, I did just that when I sat down with Lisa Page the week before Thanksgiving in my hotel room in Washington, D.C. Page, of course, is the former FBI lawyer whose text-message exchanges with agent Peter Strzok that belittled Donald Trump and expressed fear at his possible victory became international news. They were hijacked by Trump to fuel his “deep state” conspiracy.
For the nearly two years since her name first made the papers, she’s been publicly silent (she did have a closed-door interview with House members in July 2018). I asked her why she was willing to talk now. “Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she says. The president called out her name as he acted out an orgasm in front of thousands of people at a Minneapolis rally on Oct. 11.
That was the moment Page decided she had to speak up. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse,” she says. “It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”
She is also about to be back in the news cycle in a big way. On Dec. 9, the Justice Department inspector general report into Trump’s charges that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign will come out. Leaked press accounts indicate the report will exonerate Page of the allegation that she acted unprofessionally or showed bias against Trump.
How does it feel after all this time to finally have the IG apparently affirm what she’s been saying all along? She said she wouldn’t discuss the findings until they were officially public, but she did note: “While it would be nice to have the IG confirm publicly that my personal opinions had absolutely no bearing on the course of the Russia investigations, I don’t kid myself that the fact will matter very much for a lot of people. The president has a very loud megaphone.”
Page, 39, is thin and athletic. She speaks in an exceedingly confident, clear, and lawyerly way. But having been through the MAGA meat grinder has clearly worn her down, not unlike the other women I’ve met who’ve been subjected to the president’s abuse. She is just slightly crumbly around the edges the way the president’s other victims are.
My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again.
“It’s almost impossible to describe” what it’s like, she told me. “It’s like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening.”
“But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”
Does it affect you in your normal day-to-day life?
“I wish it didn’t,” she said. “I’m someone who’s always in my head anyway—so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning. Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.”
Rising Through the Ranks
Lisa Page did not aspire to fame or fortune. She was, she says, “one of those nerdy kids who from very early on knew I wanted work for the government and make the world a better place.” Born in the San Fernando Valley, she and her family moved to Ohio in her teens. She went to American University in Washington, D.C., and then moved back home to central Ohio to attend law school, living with her parents so she could save money.
After graduating from law school, she was one of an elite group selected for admission in the Department of Justice Honors Program in 2006—and the only woman in her class of five entering the Criminal Division. She worked as a federal prosecutor for six years before moving across the street to the FBI’s office of general counsel. Soon after her arrival, the deputy general counsel over national-security law hired her for a new special-counsel-type position in 2013.
Once there, her path begins to be set.
“I start [in the role] in early 2013, and there are two big events that kind of set the trajectory for the rest of my career at the FBI: the Boston bombing in April 2013, and Edward Snowden’s leaks in June of the same year,” she told me. “And those are both significant in their own ways, because the Boston bombing introduces me to Andy McCabe, who at the time was the head of the counterterrorism division at the FBI. Two months later, the Snowden leaks hit, which became a transformative moment for the intelligence community, setting off a series of reforms by the Obama administration with respect to the legal authorities that we rely on to collect intelligence.”
Eventually, she was asked to lead that effort, “which gives me a lot of exposure to senior FBI executives, as well as leaders through the IC, DOJ, and White House.”
Page continued to rise through the ranks of the FBI and was assigned to more significant and substantive work. She became close with McCabe. Eventually she became McCabe’s special counsel.
Story 1: Disgraceful Democrat Coup And Cover-up Collapsing As Big Lie Media’s Lies Exposed in Impeachment Hearing — American People No Longer Trust Corrupt Congress and Big Lie Media — Trump: ‘I Wanted Nothing From Ukraine” — Democrats Got Caught — Coup Collapses — Is That All There Is? — Videos
Impeachment Inquiry: Here’s What Nobody Understands About the Rules of Evidence, Hearsay and Perjury
Trump responds to Sondland’s testimony: ‘I turned off the television’
Trump vehemently denies quid pro quo after Sondland testimony: ‘I want nothing’
Tucker’s big takeaways from the Trump impeachment saga
Ingraham: Storytime with Adam Schiff
Ambassador Gordon Sondland Complete Opening Statement
WATCH: All the key moments from Gordon Sondland’s Trump impeachment hearing in 15 minutes (Day 4)
WATCH: Republican counsel’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Devin Nunes’ full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
Rep. Maloney and Ambassador Sondland have tense exchange
WATCH: Rep. Peter Welch’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Elise Stefanik’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Sondland declines to say whether he believed Trump when he said ‘no quid pro quo’
CONTRADICTING TESTIMONIES: Mike Turner RIPS into Amb. Sondland
WATCH: Rep. John Ratcliffe’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counsel’s full questioning of Gordon Sondland | Trump impeachment hearings
Sondland Screws Trump
Rep. Adam Schiff Closing Statement: “Is there any accountability?”
WATCH: Sondland testimony provides ‘zero evidence’ of Trump crimes in Ukraine, Nunes says
Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the testimony by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, provided “zero evidence of any of the crimes that have been alleged” of President Donald Trump with regard to Ukraine. In closing statements after Sondland testified in a public hearing on Nov. 20, Nunes accused Democrats of contributing to a “conspiracy theory” against Trump. Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” in which U.S. aid and a White House meeting were contingent on Ukraine agreeing to investigate the 2016 elections and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, Hunter, sat on the board.
Sondland was born to a Jewish family[4][5] in Mercer Island, Washington,[6] the son of Frieda (Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland.[7][8] His mother fled Germany before the Second World War[9] to Uruguay, where after the war she reunited with his father, who had served in the French Foreign Legion. In 1953, the Sondlands relocated to Seattle where they opened a dry-cleaning business.[10] Sondland has a sister 18 years his senior.[10] He attended the University of Washington but dropped out and became a commercial real estate salesman.[10]
Career
In 1985, Sondland raised $7.8 million from friends and his wealthy brother-in-law and purchased the Roosevelt Hotel, a bankrupt Seattle hotel.[10]
In 1998, Sondland purchased and redeveloped four hotels in Seattle, Portland, and Denver including Seattle’s Alexis Hotel in partnership with Bill Kimpton. Sondland also is a principal in Seattle’s Paramount Hotel.[12][13] Through Provenance Hotels, Sondland is developing hotel projects throughout the US, including in Seattle, Hermosa Beach, CA and Los Angeles, CA. Provenance Hotels specializes in adaptations of old buildings such as with the Hotel Murano in Tacoma, WA, which used to be a conference Sheraton, but now includes glass art by 46 artists including Seattle’s Dale Chihuly.[14] Provenance is also known for designing or remodeling each hotel around themes that contain elements that relate to a location’s history, art, culture, and local businesses.[15][16]
In 2013, Sondland and Provenance completed a renovation of Portland’s historic Governor Hotel, renaming it Sentinel.[17] In December 2015, Sondland and Provenance announced the establishment of the company’s first real estate investment fund, Provenance Hotel Partners Fund I. The $525 million fund was created specifically for hotel real estate investment and, at the time of its announcement, was the fourth largest fund ever launched in the state of Oregon.[18]
Following his appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union by President Trump, Sondland’s name was removed from the Provenance Hotels’ website and replaced with that of his wife, who is now listed as the chairman.[19]
Political involvement
Sondland was a member of the transition team for OregonDemocraticGovernorTed Kulongoski‘s administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor’s Office of Film & Television.[20] He was appointed the commission’s chair in 2002 and has served in that capacity until 2015.[21] During his tenure on the film board, Sondland was instrumental in bringing the production of such television series as Leverage, The Librarians, and Grimm to Oregon[22] and presided over the state securing the production of feature-length films such as Wild starring Reese Witherspoon, Thumbsucker starring Tilda Swinton, and The Ring Two starring Naomi Watts. At the 2015 Oregon Film Annual Governor’s Awards, Sondland received the “Achievement in Film Service Award” for his role in growing Oregon’s film industry.[23]
Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House. As an advisor to Kulongoski, Sondland suggested appointing Ted Wheeler as state treasurer, which Kulongoski did in 2010.[24] In 2007, President George W. Bush appointed Sondland as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows.[25] Sondland collaborated with President Bush and Jay Leno on an annual charitable auction of an autographed vehicle, with proceeds benefitting the Fisher House Foundation and the George W. Bush Foundation’s Military Service Initiative.[26] He was a bundler for Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney‘s presidential transition team.[2]
Sondland at the United States–EU Energy Council meeting in Brussels on July 12, 2018
In March 2018, it was reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union.[30][31][32][3][33] Sondland’s nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing and he was confirmed on June 28, 2018.[4][4][5]
As ambassador, Sondland has said that strengthening US-EU trade relations is a top priority.[34] He has supported using a strong US-EU economic partnership to counter what Sondland has called “economic aggression and unfair trade practices” from China.[35][36] In pursuit of this end, Sondland has promoted the idea of giving European governments access to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to allow them to better screen investors.[34]
Sondland has worked on data protection rules regarding U.S. compliance with the EU-US privacy shield.[37] He has also pledged to work with the EU to address global security threats.[38] He has been the Trump Administration’s lead in talks with EU member countries on the U.S.’s decertification and withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal.[39][40] Sondland has repeatedly criticized EU member countries’ creation of a “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) to bypass reimposed U.S. sanctions on Iran, calling the SPV a “paper tiger.”[39][41][42]
Sondland has been a vocal opponent of the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would transport gas across the Baltic Sea to the EU.[43] He has argued that the pipeline would leave the EU dependent upon Russia for its energy needs and increase Russia’s leverage on key U.S. allies in NATO.[44] Sondland argued that “Putin uses energy as a political weapon. The EU should not rely on a bare-chested version of the Harry Potter villain Lord Voldemort as a supplier, even if his gas is a bit cheaper.”[45]
On September 26, 2019, the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the unclassified text of the whistleblower complaint regarding the interactions between United States President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.[46] In this document, Ambassador Sondland, along with U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador Kurt Volker were described as having “provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ‘navigate’ the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelensky”.[47] After further investigation, The Washington Post concluded that Sondland had “seized control of the Ukraine portfolio to help Trump.”[48]
[12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/2019, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.[49]
Three weeks later on November 5, and following the testimony of other senior national security officials who told lawmakers that security assistance was also used to try to compel the Ukrainians to open investigations that might be of benefit to the Trump 2020 campaign, Sondland provided updated testimony stating that he did in fact view delivery of the aid package as contingent upon the Ukrainian government publicly opening an investigation of Trump’s political rivals as desired by the President. According to the testimony, he relayed this position to Ukrainian government officials.[57]
In early November, Fiona Hill testified that Sondland, as a newcomer unaccustomed to diplomatic protocols, exhibited behavior that was “comical” but “deeply concerning,” and his lack of adherence to security protocols made him a “counterintelligence risk.” Hill testified that in July, Sondland attended a meeting with Ukrainian officials and told them that an Oval Office meeting with Trump would occur if investigations began. She testified, “Ambassador Sondland blurted out: ‘Well, we have an agreement with the Chief of Staff (Mick Mulvaney) for a meeting if these investigations in the energy sector start,'” and that John Bolton ended the meeting abruptly and later told her, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.”[58]
On November 13, William Taylor, the acting head of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, testified that a staff member who was later identified as David Holmes told him that he overheard a phone conversation about Ukraine “investigations” between Sondland and the president at a restaurant in Kyiv. The call was made the day following Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which he asked Zelenskiy to investigate corruption. Taylor said there were two other people having lunch in the restaurant, and they heard the conversation as well.[59] Appearing in a closed-door inquiry on November 15, in a written opening statement Holmes said he heard Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” and Sondland replied, “he’s gonna do it” adding Zelensky will do “anything you ask him to.” Holmes also testified that Sondland later told him that Trump “did not give a shit about Ukraine” and “only cared about the big stuff … the big stuff that benefits the president like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.” In the same conversation, Sondland was also heard to characterize President Zelensky’s strongly favorable view of President Trump, informing the latter that Zelenskiy “loves [his] ass.” [60] U.S. security experts were alarmed by the fact that Sondland called a U.S. president on an unsecured line in a public place, particularly in Ukraine, where calls are assumed to be monitored by Russia.[61]
On November 16, the House impeachment investigators released the closed-door testimony of former National Security Council official Tim Morrison. Morrison voiced concerns saying that during the time that he had worked with Sondland he was not following the normal diplomatic process as used by other personnel but rather was on “a second track,” chiefly led by Sondland, “where Rudy Giuliani’s name would come up.” Morrison also testified that he had heard from Sondland that “US aid to Ukraine was conditioned on the country announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.” Morrison said that on September 7, Sondland told him of a phone call he’d had from Trump in which the president said, “that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”[62] During his public testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives on November 19, 2019, Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and Sondland told him this following a telephone conversation Sondland had with Ukraine official Andriy Yermak on September 1, 2019.[63]
In his public testimony on November 20, Sondland said it was at the “express direction of the president” that he, Kurt Volker, and Rick Perry, commonly referred to as “the three amigos,” worked with Giuliani on Ukraine matters even though they were uncomfortable with Giuliani’s role. He said that the leadership of the State Department and the National Security Council, including Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, were fully informed of their activities and Giuliani’s, adding “Everyone was in the loop.”[64] He said that Trump, through Giuliani, was clearly demanding a public commitment by Zelensky to investigate Bursima (a Ukrainian gas company where Vice President Joe Biden’s son had sat on the board) and the 2016 election as a prerequisite to receive a White House invitation or phone call. “Was there a ‘quid pro quo? The answer is yes,” he said in his opening remarks.[65] He said it was “his personal guess” that the aid to Ukraine was also being withheld to achieve that goal, but that he never heard Trump say so. Sondland also confirmed that he had conversed by phone with Trump on July 26, as previously reported by other witnesses, adding that he “had no reason to doubt” that the subject had included investigations but “had no recollection” of discussing the Bidens.[64] Sondland testtified to Deven Nunas that he remains “a proud member of the three amigos,” and said that he would have objected to the Bursima investigation if he had connected it to the Bidens. In her testimony on the following day Fiona Hill was asked, “Is it credible to you that Mr. Sondland was completely in the dark about this [connection] all summer?” she replied, “It is not credible to me that he was oblivious.”[66]
Philanthropy
Sondland founded the Gordon Sondland and Katherine J. Durant Foundation in 1999, which was established to “help families and boost communities”; it has given money to various non-profits including $1,000,000 to the Portland Art Museum to endow permanent access for children under the age of eighteen.[67] The Foundation helped establish a Distinguished Chair in Spine for pediatric orthopedic spine research at the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children in 2012.[citation needed] In 2014, the Foundation gave a $1,000,000 endowment to Oregon Health & Science University to establish the Sondland-Durant Distinguished Research Conference, a cancer research summit to begin in 2016.[68] In 2017, the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Duke University was created with the support of the Foundation.[citation needed]
In November 2019, the Portland Business Journal noted that following Sondland’s appointment as Ambassador, the Gordon D. Sondland and Katherine J. Durant Foundation modified its website by removing a biography tab for Sondland and adding two new ones for the couple’s children.[69]
Personal life
In 1993, Sondland married Katherine Durant,[10] who is the founder and managing partner of Atlas/RTG, a holding company with a portfolio of shopping centers throughout Oregon.[citation needed] Until 2016, Durant was the Chairperson of the Oregon Investment Council, the body that oversees the over $85 billion Public Employees Retirement System Fund.[70] They have two children, Max and Lucy.[71]
Washington Post Super Bowl message: Democracy Dies in Darkness
Story 1: Ukraine Government Officials Were Interfering in United States 2016 Election For Clinton and Democrat National Committee (DNC) And President Trump Wants This Interference Investigated by Current Ukraine General Prosecutor — Many Countries Including United States Provide Other Countries Aid (Quid) Provided They Meet Certain Conditions (Que) Such As Publicly Acknowledging There Will Be An Investigation of 2016 Election Interference and Ukraine Natural Gas Company Burisma — Videos
Iconic Quid Pro Quo
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired
What Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker said about U.S. aid to Ukraine
Hannity: I have never talked to anyone from Ukraine
Biden sidesteps questions about son’s foreign work
Joe Biden’s son’s firm linked to Chinese government: New book
Testimony suggests “quid pro quo” relationship between Trump and Ukraine
Dems set to release new transcripts from two key impeachment figures
PBS News Hour full episode November 5, 2019
First excerpts of Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker transcripts released
Story 2: Ukraine Natural Gas Company Burisma Lobbied State Department To Stop Being Investigated By Invoking Hunter Biden’s Name — Videos —
NEW MEMO ON UKRAINE: Hunter Biden & associates used State Department to kill Burisma investigation
Glenn Beck Lays Out the Case Against The Media
Biden’s Ukraine Scandal Explained I Glenn Beck
Big Lie Media Propaganda Exposed
Glenn Beck Presents: Democracy Does Die In Darkness
Glenn heads back to the chalkboard to explain how the media is intentionally misleading and, in some cases, blatantly lying to absolve the Democrats from what they’ve been doing in Ukraine. Glenn breaks down their case against President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, and he shows why that isn’t the real story. Glenn devastatingly dismantles the medias disinformation campaign brick by brick.
A look at Hunter Biden’s time in Ukraine
Everything You Need to Know About Hunter Biden
Biden’s son booted from Navy after a positive cocaine…
Hunter Biden’s Ukraine Gas Firm Urged Obama Admin To End Corruption Allegations, Report Says
A new report released on Monday night alleges that the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, that employed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, pressed the Obama administration to end the corruption allegations against them during the 2016 election year.
In February 2016, a representative from Burisma sought to meet with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss the allegations of corruption that the U.S. government was making toward the company, according to memos obtained by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon.
“Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election,” Solomon wrote. “Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting.”
A February 24, 2016, email between State Department officials stated:
Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption. She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt. According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered. Would appreciate any background you may be able to provide on this issue and suggested TPs for U/S Novelli’s meeting.
“Tramontano was a lawyer working for Blue Star Strategies, a Washington firm that was hired by Burisma to help end a long-running corruption investigation against the gas firm in Ukraine,” Solomon added. “Tramontano and another Blue Star official, Sally Painter, both alumni of Bill Clinton’s administration, worked with New York-based criminal defense attorney John Buretta to settle the Ukraine cases in late 2016 and 2017.”
Solomon notes that a meeting was scheduled for March 1, 2016, between Tramontano and Novelli, although it was not known whether or not the meeting actually occurred.
However, a meeting was reportedly secured between Hunter Biden’s business partner and fellow Burisma board member, Devon Archer, and Secretary of State John Kerry.
This entire ordeal surrounding the actions of former Vice President Biden and his son have cast a cloud over the Biden campaign that has undoubtedly at least partially contributed to his fall in the polls against his Democratic rivals.
Last year, Biden bragged to an audience about how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that if he did not fire the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma that he would withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from the country.
Iconic Quid Pro Quo
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukrainian Prosecutor Fired
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden told the audience. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”
President Donald Trump and his campaign have hammered Biden over his remarks, which were recorded on video, in advertisements on social media and in targeted markets.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
This is the real corruption that the Fake News Media refuses to even acknowledge!
Former Vice President Joe Biden (L) and his son Hunter Biden at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington on Jan. 30, 2010. (Nick Wass/AP Photo)
7 CommentsNovember 5, 2019Updated: November 5, 2019
The Ukrainian gas firm that hired Hunter Biden lobbied the Department of State in early 2016, just one month before then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the same company, according to documents obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
On Feb. 24, 2016, a State Department official sent an email discussing an overture from a representative for Burisma, the Ukrainian gas firm, to Undersecretary of State Catherine Novelli. The Burisma representative argued that the allegations against the company were baseless, according to an email chain released as part of a lawsuit filed by investigative journalist John Solomon. The Burisma representative specifically cited Hunter Biden’s name as the reason for why the allegations should stop.
Earlier that month in 2016, Ukrainian authorities seized the property of Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, according to Interfax Ukraine. The seizure included several of Zlochevsky’s homes and a Rolls-Royce Phantom car.
“Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” the email between State Department officials, whose names are blacked out, stated. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member).
“Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt. According to Tramontano, there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.”
At the time the email was sent, Novelli was the third-highest-ranking official at the State Department. Karen Tramontano was the CEO of Bluestar Strategies, a consulting firm retained by Burisma to address the corruption charges against it in Ukraine.
The email chain shows that Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016. While it’s unclear if that meeting took place, on the following day, March 2, 2016, Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, met with Secretary of State John Kerry, another email obtained by Solomon shows.
“Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3pm—need someone to meet/greet him at C Street,” an email from Kerry’s office manager states.
Archer’s meeting with Kerry is notable because Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, recently told The Washington Post that he advised Archer and Biden “that working with Burisma was unacceptable.”
“The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper.
Hunter Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma in 2014. Bank records released as part of an unrelated lawsuit show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a firm operated by Archer, received more than $160,000 per month from Burisma starting in May 2016. Rosemont Seneca Bohai regularly sent funds to Hunter Biden, the records show.
The seizure of Zlochevsky’s assets took place on Feb. 2, 2014. At the time, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin led the probe.
On the day of the seizure, Hunter Biden followed Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on his Twitter account, another email obtained by Solomon shows.
Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian Parliament, told Reuters that Zlochevsky came up with the idea to appoint Hunter Biden to the board “to protect [the company].”
Weeks after Burisma lobbied the State Department and Archer met with Kerry, Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees; Biden bragged about the move during a videotaped speech on a panel last year.
In a sworn statement, Shokin said that he was fired under pressure from Biden because he, Shokin, refused to drop the Burisma investigation.
The allegations about Joe and Hunter Biden are in the public spotlight because of the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. An anonymous whistleblower’s complaint that triggered the inquiry alleged that Trump may have pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
According to a transcript of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump referenced Shokin’s firing when asking the Ukrainian leader to investigate the younger Biden.
The whistleblower alleged that Trump’s request to Zelensky may have amounted to a campaign finance violation. The Department of Justice reviewed the complaint and determined that no further action was necessary.
In an interview with ABC News, Hunter Biden admitted that joining Burisma was a political error, but defended his work. Biden stepped down from the board of Burisma in April, according to a statement from his lawyer.
“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday. “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”
Durham has been Barr’s right hand as the two look into the complicated and classified issues surrounding how an investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties with Russia — dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane” — got its start, though the U.S. attorney from Connecticut has been virtually silent since his selection.
The DOJ’s statement comes as the White House released a transcript of the controversial July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump suggests that Ukraine should investigate Biden and his son Hunter, who was on the board of a company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was being investigated by top prosecutor Viktor Shokin, though it is in dispute how serious that investigation was. Trump also suggested that Ukraine should look into issues surrounding the alleged involvement of some Ukrainians in interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
Biden boasted in 2018 that, as vice president, he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine didn’t fire Shokin, which Trump’s allies have said was because of the investigation, but Democrats have said was part of a U.S. and European effort to oust Shokin as ineffective and a hindrance to Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigations. Ukraine removed Shokin in 2016.
DOJ also made it clear that Trump never told Barr to contact Ukraine about any investigation of Biden, nor did Barr ever discuss these issues with Ukraine or with Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Trump gave Barr “ full and complete authority to declassify information” related to the origins of the Trump-Russia probe in May after Barr had infuriated Democrats when he said “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign and refused to backtrack. Republicans have alleged that foreign intelligence agencies, like those in Western Europe, may have played a role in eavesdropping on or otherwise monitoring Trump campaign associates in 2016.
Durham’s investigation is separate from the one that was just finished by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The DOJ watchdog investigated allegations of abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the DOJ and FBI, and Horowitz has spoken with Durham, who is handling any criminal referrals from Horowitz’s investigation.
Joe Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch
Hunter Biden at a campaign event in 2008. He sits on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies.Credit…Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.traveled to Kiev, Ukraine, on Sunday for a series of meetings with the country’s leaders, one of the issues on his agenda was to encourage a more aggressive fight against Ukraine’s rampant corruption and stronger efforts to rein in the power of its oligarchs.
But the credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was Ukraine’s ecology minister under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych before he was forced into exile.
Hunter Biden, 45, a former Washington lobbyist, joined the Burisma board in April 2014. That month, as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing $23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky.
Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, specifically forbade Mr. Zlochevksy, as well as Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer and another company owned by Mr. Zlochevsky, to have any access to the accounts.
But after Ukrainian prosecutors refused to provide documents needed in the investigation, a British court in January ordered the Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets. The refusal by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to cooperate was the target of a stinging attack by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who called out Burisma’s owner by name in a speech in September.
“In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people,” Mr. Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.”
Mr. Pyatt went on to call for an investigation into “the misconduct” of the prosecutors who wrote the letters. In his speech, the ambassador did not mention Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma.
But Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine.
“Now you look at the Hunter Biden situation, and on the one hand you can credit the father for sending the anticorruption message,” Mr. Chow said. “But I think unfortunately it sends the message that a lot of foreign countries want to believe about America, that we are hypocritical about these issues.”
Speaking during a visit to Ukraine, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. urged the country to weed corruption out of its system.CreditCredit…Mikhail Palinchak/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service
“Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer,” she said. “The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company. The vice president has pushed aggressively for years, both publicly with groups like the U.S.-Ukraine Business Forum and privately in meetings with Ukrainian leaders, for Ukraine to make every effort to investigate and prosecute corruption in accordance with the rule of law. It will once again be a key focus during his trip this week.”
Ryan F. Toohey, a Burisma spokesman, said that Hunter Biden would not comment for this article.
It is not known how Mr. Biden came to the attention of the company. Announcing his appointment to the board, Alan Apter, a former Morgan Stanley investment banker who is chairman of Burisma, said, “The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.”
Joining the board at the same time was one of Mr. Biden’s American business partners, Devon Archer. Both are involved with Rosemont Seneca Partners, an American investment firm with offices in Washington.
Mr. Biden is the younger of the vice president’s two sons. His brother, Beau, died of brain cancer in May. In the past, Hunter Biden attracted an unusual level of scrutiny and even controversy. In 2014, he was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. He received a commission as an ensign in 2013, and he served as a public affairs officer.
Before his father was vice president, Mr. Biden also briefly served as president of a hedge fund group, Paradigm Companies, in which he was involved with one of his uncles, James Biden, the vice president’s brother. That deal went sour amid lawsuits in 2007 and 2008 involving the Bidens and an erstwhile business partner. Mr. Biden, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School, also worked as a lobbyist before his father became vice president.
Burisma does not disclose the compensation of its board members because it is a privately held company, Mr. Toohey said Monday, but he added that the amount was “not out of the ordinary” for similar corporate board positions.
Asked about the British investigation, which is continuing, Mr. Toohey said, “Not only was the case dismissed and the company vindicated by the outcome, but it speaks volumes that all his legal costs were recouped.”
In response to Mr. Pyatt’s criticism of the Ukrainian handling of Mr. Zlochevsky’s case, Mr. Toohey said that “strong corporate governance and transparency are priorities shared both by the United States and the leadership of Burisma. Burisma is working to bring the energy sector into the modern era, which is critical for a free and strong Ukraine.”
Vice President Biden has played a leading role in American policy toward Ukraine as Washington seeks to counter Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine. This week’s visit was his fifth trip to Ukraine as vice president.
Ms. Bedingfield said Hunter Biden had never traveled to Ukraine with his father. She also said that Ukrainian officials had never mentioned Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma to the vice president during any of his visits.
“I’ve got to believe that somebody in the vice president’s office has done some due diligence on this,” said Steven Pifer, who was the American ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000. “I should say that I hope that has happened. I would hope that they have done some kind of check, because I think the vice president has done a very good job of sending the anticorruption message in Ukraine, and you would hate to see something like this undercut that message.”
Burisma Holdings Limited (Ukrainian: Бурісма Холдингс; Greek: Μπουρίσμα Χόλντιγκς) is a holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies. It is based in Kyiv, Ukraine, though registered in Limassol, Cyprus. Burisma Holdings has operated in the Ukrainian natural gas market since 2002. It is one of the largest private natural gas producers in Ukraine.[3][4] It is owned by Mykola Zlochevsky through his company Brociti Investments Limited (Ukrainian: Бросіті Інвестментс Лімітед).
Burisma’s subsidiaries include Esko-Pivnich, Pari, Persha Ukrainska Naftogazova Kompaniya, Naftogaz Garant, KUB-Gas and Astroinvest-Ukraine.[5][6][7]
History
Burisma was founded in 2002.[8][9] Consolidation of the Burisma Group took place mainly in 2006 and 2007.[1] It became a major shareholder of Sunrise Energy Resources, a Delaware Corporation, which in 2004 acquired Ukrainian companies Esko-Pivnich (Ukrainian: Еско-Північ) and Pari (Ukrainian: Парі), which owned natural gas exploration licences.[10] In 2009, shares in these companies were transferred to Millington Solutions Limited.[10] However, shortly thereafter Millington ceased to exist, and Burisma claimed ownership of those two companies. In 2012, Persha Ukrainska Naftogazova Kompaniya (First Ukrainian Oil and Gas Company, Ukrainian: Перша Українська нафтогазова компанія), Naftogaz Garant (Oil and Gas Guarantee, Ukrainian: Нафтогаз гарант), and KrymTopEnergoServis (CrimeaTopEnergoService, Ukrainian: Кримтопенергосервіс) became a part of the Burisma Group.[11][12][13]
In 2014, Burisma signed a cooperation agreement with KazMunayGas, the national oil and gas company of Kazakhstan.[14] In 2016, Burisma bought two hydraulic fracturing (fracking) fleets.[15] In 2017, it bought a 3,000-horsepower Service King Manufacturing SK 3000 drilling rig for $40 million (USD); it was the most powerful drilling rig in Eastern Europe at the time.[16]
In February 2016, Burisma acquired a 70% stake in KUB-Gas (КУБ-Газ).[5] In 2017, it bought a majority stake in Diloretio Holdings Limited, a company which owned Ukrainian gas companies SystemOilEngineering (Ukrainian: Системойлинжиниринг), Naftogazopromyslova geologiya, (Oil and Gas Industrial Geology, Ukrainian: Нафтогазпромислова геологія), and Tehnokomservis (TechnoComService, Ukrainian: Технокомсервіс).[17] Also in 2017, Burisma bought Nadragasvydobuvannya (Subsoil Gas Extraction, Ukrainian: Надрагазвидобування)[18] and GasOilInvest (Гасоілінвест).[19] In April 2019, Burisma acquired Astroinvest Ukraine (Астроінвест-Україна), a natural gas trader.[6]
Burisma’s primary operations are in Ukraine, supplemented by activities in Germany, Mexico, Italy, and Kazakhstan.[15] It holds 35 gas production licences in Ukraine in the Dnieper-Donets, Carpathian, and Azov–Kuban Basins.[5][8] Exploration and production activities are carried out at eight sites in five regions.[23] Burisma also provides natural gas well services, including hydraulic fracturing.[15] Burisma plans to build a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) plant in Kharkiv with a capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year.[7]
In 2016, Burisma was the second largest privately owned natural gas producer in Ukraine after DTEK,[4] accounting for 26% of all natural gas produced by privately owned companies and more than 5% of total gas production in Ukraine.[4][24] According to the company, it produced 1.3 billion cubic metres (4.6×1010 cubic feet) of natural gas in Ukraine in 2018.[8]
In Kazakhstan, the company has provided drilling services to KazMunayGas and its subsidiaries, including at the Urikhtau gas field.[25] In Italy, Burisma develops three geothermal power projects in partnership with Gesto Investimento e Gestão.[25]
Burisma Holdings is owned by Brociti Investments Limited, a Cyprus-based company owned by Ukrainian former politician and businessman Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine.[29] Brociti Investments acquired Burisma Holdings in 2011.[30] Before that acquisition, Mykola Zlochevsky and Mykola Lisin each owned a 50% interest in Burisma Holdings.[10][30][31] Lisin, a Ukrainian politician, died in a traffic accident in 2011.[31]
Burisma Holdings does not disclose its financial results.[8][15] It has been calculated, based on a minimal natural gas price, that the company’s revenue in 2018 may have totaled at least US$400 million.[8]
Investigations
Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) have conducted in total 15 investigations on Burisma’s owner Zlochevsky.[38] In 2016, former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko accused Burisma subsidiaries of conspiracy and tax evasion about one billion hryvnias (US$70 million) in 2014–2015, but later during investigation subsidiaries of Burisma were not mentioned.[39] Tax audit of Esko-Pivnich by the State Fiscal Service found some violations in 2016. As a result, 50 million hryvnias (US$1.9 million) of additional taxes was paid to eliminate criminal charges.[39] In total, Burisma paid additional 180 million hryvnias (US$7.44 million) of taxes to avoid further criminal proceedings.[8][23] A criminal investigation was conducted if natural resources extraction licenses were issued to Burisma subsidiaries legally during the period Zlochevsky held government office. Although violations of the procedure were established by NABU, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office missed procedural deadlines for a lawsuit and the case for nullifying licesenses was dismissed by the court.[39] In October 2019, Prosecutor General Ruslan Riaboshapka announced that all 15 investigation cases will be reviewed.[38]
This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Ukrainian. (September 2019) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
In 2002, he co-founded the largest independent oil and natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Ukrainian businessman Mykola Lisin [uk].[5][6] Through his sole ownership of Cyprus-registered Burisma Holdings, he owns the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments.[7][8][9][10][11][12][excessive citations]
At the end of 2014, Zlochevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self enrichment and legalization of funds (Article 368-2, Criminal Code of Ukraine) during his tenure in public office.[13] At the end of 2016 the Central Criminal Court in London released $23 million that were blocked on accounts of Zlochevsky.[13][14] The Serious Fraud Office stated that the funds were released due to inadequate evidence.[13]
Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burisma Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.[10][15]
On June 15, 2018, after the Solomyansky District Court in Kyiv had annulled the ruling of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) to close a criminal proceeding against him in 2017, Zlochevsky was accused of having illegally issued, while he was Ecology Minister in 2010–2012, oil and gas licenses to the companies that belonged to him.[18]
As of 2019, Zlochevsky is reported to live in Monaco.[14]
In 1998, Sondland purchased and redeveloped four hotels in Seattle, Portland, and Denver including Seattle’s Alexis Hotel in partnership with Bill Kimpton. Sondland also is a principal in Seattle’s Paramount Hotel.[4][5]Through Provenance Hotels, Sondland is developing hotel projects throughout the US, including in Seattle, Hermosa Beach, CA and Los Angeles, CA. Provenance Hotels specializes in adaptations of old buildings such as with the Hotel Murano in Tacoma, WA, which used to be a conference Sheraton, but now includes glass art by 46 artists including Seattle’s Dale Chihuly.[6] Provenance is also known for designing or remodeling each hotel around themes that contain elements that relate to a location’s history, art, culture, and local businesses.[7]
In 2013, Sondland and Provenance completed a renovation of Portland’s historic Governor Hotel, renaming it Sentinel.[8] In December 2015, Sondland and Provenance announced the establishment of the company’s first real estate investment fund, Provenance Hotel Partners Fund I. The $525 million fund was created specifically for hotel real estate investment and, at the time of its announcement, was the fourth largest fund ever launched in the state of Oregon.[9]
In 2017, Provenance Hotels expanded its practice of revitalizing and rebranding hotels with locally-inspired art and design as a service to other hoteliers.[10]
United States ambassador to the European Union
Sondland at the United States–EU Energy Council meeting in Brussels on July 12, 2018
Sondland donated $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump.[11] On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union.[12] On May 10, 2018, the White House announced that Sondland’s nomination had been sent to the U.S. Senate.[13] He was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2018.[2] On July 9, 2018, Sondland presented his credentials at the European Commission and to President of the European Council Donald Tusk.[14]
Sondland’s nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[15] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[16] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s “family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U.,” noting how his Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany before coming to the United States.[15][17]
As ambassador, Sondland has made strengthening US-EU trade relations a top priority.[18] He has supported using a strong US-EU economic partnership to counter what Sondland has called “economic aggression and unfair trade practices” from China.[19][20] In pursuit of this end, Sondland has promoted the idea of giving European governments access to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to allow them to better screen investors.[18]
Sondland has also pledged to work with the EU to address global security threats.[21] He has been the Trump Administration’s lead in talks with EU member countries on the U.S.’s decertification and withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal.[22][23] Sondland has repeatedly criticized EU member countries’ creation of a “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) to bypass reimposed U.S. sanctions on Iran, calling the SPV a “paper tiger.”[22][24][25]
Sondland has also been a vocal opponent of the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would transport gas across the Baltic Sea to the EU.[26] He has argued that the pipeline would leave the EU dependent upon Russia for its energy needs and increase Russia’s leverage on key U.S. allies in NATO.[27] Sondland argued that “Putin uses energy as a political weapon. The EU should not rely on a bare-chested version of the Harry Potter villain Lord Voldemort as a supplier, even if his gas is a bit cheaper.”[28]
Sondland has also worked on data protection rules regarding U.S. compliance with the EU-US privacy shield.[29]
Gordon Sondland as part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of Volodymyr Zelensky.
On September 26, 2019, the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the unclassified text of the whistleblower complaint regarding the interactions between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.[30] In this document, Ambassador Sondland, along with the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Ambassador Kurt Volker, were described as having “provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ‘navigate’ the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy”.[31] After further investigation, The Washington Post concluded that Sondland had “seized control of the Ukraine portfolio to help Trump.”[32]
In the complaint released by the US Select committee on Intelligence, Sondland’s involvement in President Donald Trump’s alleged criminal activity was outlined in a text conversation with the interim US chargé d’affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor:
[9/9/2019, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/2019, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.[33]
It took Sondland approximately 5 hours to reply to Taylor’s text message, and it was later revealed that Sondland had called Trump prior to writing a response, in which the president repeated the phrase “no quid pro quo” several times.[34]
On November 5, the New York Times reported that Sondland had provided updated testimony stating that he did in fact view delivery of the aid package as contingent upon the Ukrainian government publicly opening the anticorruption investigation desired by the Trump administration. According to the testimony, he relayed this position to Ukrainian government officials.[42]
Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council staff Fiona Hill viewed Sondland as a U.S. national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job, but did not accuse Sondland of acting maliciously or intentionally putting the country at risk, describing him during impeachment testimony as a Trump donor-turned-ambassador.[43]
Political involvement
Sondland was a member of the transition team for OregonDemocraticGovernorTed Kulongoski‘s administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor’s Office of Film & Television.[44] He was appointed the commission’s chair in 2002 and has served in that capacity until 2015.[45] During his tenure on the film board, Sondland was instrumental in bringing the production of such television series as Leverage, The Librarians and Grimm to Oregon[46] and presided over the state securing the production of feature-length films such as Wild starring Reese Witherspoon, Thumbsucker starring Tilda Swinton and The Ring Two starring Naomi Watts. At the 2015 Oregon Film Annual Governor’s Awards, Sondland received the “Achievement in Film Service Award” for his role in growing Oregon’s film industry.[47]
Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House. As an advisor to Kulongoski, Sondland suggested appointing Ted Wheeler as state treasurer, which Kulongoski did in 2010.[48] In 2007 President George W. Bush appointed Sondland as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows.[49] Sondland collaborated with President Bush and Jay Leno on an annual charitable auction of an autographed vehicle, with proceeds benefitting the Fisher House Foundation and the George W. Bush Foundation’s Military Service Initiative.[50] He was a bundler for Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney‘s presidential transition team.[1]
During the 2016 United States presidential election, Sondland initially supported Donald Trump, but cancelled a fundraiser and repudiated Trump for his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan.[1] In April 2017, it was revealed that 4 companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee.[51][52][53]
Sondland founded the Gordon Sondland and Katherine J. Durant Foundation in 1999, which was established to “help families and boost communities”; it has given money to various non-profits including $1,000,000 to the Portland Art Museum to endow permanent access for children under the age of eighteen.[54] The Foundation helped establish a Distinguished Chair in Spine for pediatric orthopedic spine research at the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children in 2012.[citation needed] In 2014, the Foundation gave a $1,000,000 endowment to Oregon Health & Science University to establish the Sondland-Durant Distinguished Research Conference, a cancer research summit to begin in 2016.[55] In 2017, the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Duke University was created with the support of the Foundation.[citation needed]
Personal life
Sondland was born in Seattle, Washington, the son of Frieda (Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland.[56] He is married to Katherine Durant, who is the founder and managing partner of Atlas/RTG, a holding company with a portfolio of shopping centers throughout Oregon.[citation needed] Sondland is Jewish.[15][17] Until 2016, Durant was the Chairperson of the Oregon Investment Council, the body that oversees the over $85 billion Public Employees Retirement System Fund.[57] They have two children.
Example: Memorandum of conversation of meeting led by Brent Scowcroft (1976)
Memorandum of conversation (abbrev.: MEMCON) and also memorandum of a conversation and memo to the file refers to a method of contemporaneous documentation of a conversation in the form of a memorandum used by the United States federal government.[1][2]
The Weekly Standard characterized the use of the tactic in the U.S. government as among “the most basic ways of Washington”.[2]
Method
Typically an individual will document the events of the conversation as soon as possible after the occurrence.[1] All material statements and discussed items are quoted and described as accurately as possible soon after the discussion and filed for future reference.[1] Memcons function as documentation of historical events, such as conversations between heads of state and law enforcement officials.[3] Specific developments discussed, the time of the meeting, location, and individuals in attendance are all documented in-depth within the memo.[1][2]
United States Department of Justice attorneys and Federal Bureau of Investigationspecial agents commonly make use of memoranda of conversation.[1] A majority of intermediate-rank managerial staff and bureaucrats within the U.S. federal government consistently make use of the method. The creation of a memorandum of understanding allows federal employees to memorialize and keep a record of their conversations and transactions.[2]
Memoranda to file are used in investigations in the private sector. For example, the fraud unit of a large corporation may use memoranda to file, to report individual interviews and significant telephone conversations. Generally, “the memorandum will show the name of the author, date of preparation, the case name or number, and the specific subject covered. It will also contain the detailed narrative of the event, interview, or other investigative activity described and should be written as close in time as circumstances permit to those events.”[4]
History
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
^Sennewald, Charles A.; Tsukayama, John K. (2015), The Process of Investigation: Concepts and Strategies for Investigators in the Private Sector (4th ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 189–90, ISBN978-0128001660
Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
Why I Left Greenpeace
The Truth about CO2
Princeton physicist: There’s a ‘cult’ building around climate scientists
Climate field ‘craziness’ too much for climatologist
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
Why climate change has run its course
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree
Global warming: why you should not worry
Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?
Climate Change: What’s So Alarming?
Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are “Absurd”
Can We Rely on Wind and Solar Energy?
The True Cost of Wind | Ryan M. Yonk
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
Economics of climate change innovation | Bjørn Lomborg
2018 Annual GWPF Lecture – Prof Richard Lindzen – Global Warming For The Two Culture
DEMYSTIFIED: What’s the difference between weather and climate? | Encyclopaedia Britannica
The United States has begun the process of pulling out of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, it was announced Monday.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that he submitted a formal notice to the United Nations. That starts a withdrawal process that does not become official for a year. His statement touted America’s carbon pollution cuts and called the Paris deal an ‘unfair economic burden’ to the U.S. economy.
Nearly 200 nations signed the climate deal in which each country provides its own goals to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases that lead to climate change.
‘In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model – backed by a record of real world results – showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy,’ Pompeo said in a statement.
The U.S. started the process with a hand-delivered letter, becoming the only country to withdraw. The United Nations will soon set out procedural details for what happens next, UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said.
Agreement rules prevented any country from pulling out in the first three years after the Nov. 4, 2016, ratification. The U.S. withdrawal doesn’t become complete until the day after the 2020 election.
President Donald Trump has been promising withdrawal for two years, but Monday was the first time he could actually do it.
Out: Donald Trump’s administration formally started the process of leaving the Paris Climate accord signed by Obama in 2015
+4
Opposed: Mike Pompeo was on the receiving end of criticism for his decision to pull the U.S. out of Paris, with one environmentalist group saying the next president will have to rejoin it
Trump’s decision was condemned as a reckless failure of leadership by environmental experts, activists and critics such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
‘Donald Trump is the worst president in history for our climate and our clean air and water,’ said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club. ‘Long after Trump is out of office his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement will be seen as a historic error.’
The agreement set goals of preventing another 0.9 degrees (0.5 degrees Celsius) to 1.8 degrees (1 degree Celsius) of warming from current levels. Even the pledges made in 2015 weren’t enough to prevent those levels of warming.
The deal calls for nations to come up with more ambitious pollution cuts every five years, starting in November 2020. Because of the expected withdrawal, the U.S. role in 2020 negotiations will be reduced, experts said.
Climate change, largely caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, has already warmed the world by 1.8 degrees (1 degree Celsius) since the late 1800s, caused massive melting of ice globally, triggered weather extremes and changed ocean chemistry. And scientists say, depending on how much carbon dioxide is emitted, it will only get worse by the end of the century, with temperatures jumping by several degrees and oceans rising by close to 3 feet (1 meter).
Trump has been promising to pull out of the Paris deal since 2017, often mischaracterizing the terms of the agreement, which are voluntary. In October, he called it a massive wealth transfer from America to other nations and said it was one-sided.
That’s not the case, experts said.
For example, the U.S. goal – set under President Barack Obama – had been to reduce carbon dioxide emission in 2025 by 26% to 28% compared with 2005 levels. This translates to about 15% compared with 1990 levels.
The European Union’s goal was to cut carbon pollution in 2030 by 40% compared with 1990 levels, which is greater than America’s pledge, said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor and chairman of the Global Carbon Project. The United Kingdom has already exceeded that goal, he said.
Many critics of the Paris agreement say America is the leader in cutting carbon emissions, but that’s not true.
Since 2005, the United States isn’t in the top 10 in percentage of greenhouse gas emission reductions. The United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Hungary, Greece, the Czech Republic and other nations have done better, said Jackson, who tracks emissions.
‘The U.S. agreement is not a tax on the American people. There is no massive wealth transfer,’ said Climate Advisers CEO Nigel Purvis, who was a lead State Department climate negotiator in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. ‘In fact, the agreement obligates no country to make any financial payments.’
It will be inconvenient: Former Vice President Al Gore, who made climate change his signature issue, characterized the decision as a mistake but said there was still reason for hope. ‘No one person or party can stop our momentum to solve the climate crisis,’ he said
Pompeo said U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13% from 2005 to 2017 ‘even as our economy grew over 19 percent.’
Then, in 2018, carbon dioxide emissions increased 2.7%, according to the Energy Information Administration, mostly due to extreme weather and the economy.
The reason for the long-term emissions drop is because the U.S. is using less coal and has tightened air quality standards, while Trump is pushing for more coal and loosening those standards, said Michael Gerrard, who heads Columbia Law School’s climate change legal center.
For the U.S. – the second biggest carbon polluter – to be in line with Paris goals greenhouse gas emissions have to drop 80%, not 13%, Gerrard said.
‘The Trump Administration’s abandonment of action on climate change gives other countries an excuse not to act either. They ask – if the richest country, the one that has contributed the most to the load of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, isn’t willing to act, why should we?’ Gerrard said. ‘If someone other than Donald Trump is elected, he or she will almost certainly rejoin Paris, and the rest of the world will welcome us back with open arms.’
Former Vice President Al Gore, who made climate change his signature issue, characterized the decision as a mistake but said there was still reason for hope.
‘No one person or party can stop our momentum to solve the climate crisis,’ Gore said. ‘But those who try will be remembered for their complacency, complicity, and mendacity in attempting to sacrifice the planet for their greed.’
The Trump administration has formally notified the United Nations that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. The withdrawal will be complete this time next year, after a one-year waiting period has elapsed.
“We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Monday.
Nearly 200 countries signed on to the agreement in 2015 and made national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each country set its own goals, and many wealthy countries, including the U.S., also agreed to help poorer countries pay for the costs associated with climate change.
The U.S. is now the only country to pull out of the pact.
“The United States is not cooperating with the rest of the world on dealing with climate change,” says Andrew Light, a former climate official in the State Department who helped develop the Paris Agreement.
The agreement was designed to be easier to join than to leave. The U.S. even helped spearhead language that would hold countries accountable for the promises they made, in part to help guard against regime changes and other global political turmoil.
Indeed, in the years since the pact was created, many key international players, including Brazil, China, Japan and India, have experienced economic or political upheaval, but none has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement as a result.
President Trump originally announced his intention to withdraw from the deal in the summer of 2017, shortly after he took office. At the time he said, “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation” of the agreement, including federal policies meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as U.S. contributions to the international climate fund for poorer nations.
“These agreements are just only as good as the commitments from each country,” Light says.
The U.S. had pledged to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by about a quarter by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. The country is not on track to achieve that goal.
In the intervening years, the Trump administration has systematically attempted to roll back federal limits on carbon emissions, including rules about how much pollution can be emitted by power plants, cars and trucks.
“The reality is, to really deliver on our climate goals, we do need strong federal action,” says Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The unfortunate reality is U.S. carbon emissions actually rose last year.”
GETTING TO ZERO CARBON: THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE
Global Carbon Emissions Continue To Rise Despite Efforts To Cut Them
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has reneged on an international climate agreement. The U.S. failed to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol despite being instrumental in its creation. In this case, the U.S. became a signatory to the agreement but almost immediately signaled that it didn’t intend to pursue its responsibilities.
In both cases, the U.S. was instrumental in developing the international strategy.
“That’s one of the ironies of all this,” Light says. When the Paris Agreement was being negotiated, the U.S. delegation pushed for more transparency and accountability to make sure the countries that signed on would actually do what they promised.
“Even though we’re the ones who have been pointing to these potential scenarios for problems with other countries, we seem to be the biggest problem,” Light says.
“If we were a tiny country with small emissions, it wouldn’t matter so much,” he says. “But we’re not. We’re a big country with a lot of power and a lot of influence around the world. And so for us to be the exception on this issue is holding the world back.”
A formal withdrawal is reversible, however, if a future administration chooses to rejoin the Paris Agreement and pick up where the U.S. left off with its emissions reduction promises.
Story 1: FIve Day Cease Fire or Pause Before Turkey Genocide of Kurds in Syrian Buffer Zone? — 200,000 Civilians Fled Zone — Massive Prison Break of Islamic State Possible as Kurds Flee — Long Range Consequences of United States Interventionist Foreign Policy: Million of Refugees and Deaths — Regime Change Roulette — Videos —
Syria, Turkey, Kurds, ISIS & Trump & Putin, and how the Middle East unravelled in murderous chaos
Turkey in northern Syria explained
The US, Daesh and the PKK: Explaining Turkey’s operation in Syria
Turkey backed Syrian forces move into Tal Abyad
Turkish, Kurdish forces accuse each other of violating cease-fire
How the Kurds became a key player in Syria’s war
The PKK explained
The PKK-YPG connection
The Kurds
The Kurds: The Most Famous Unknown People in the World | Stephen Mansfield | TEDxNashville
Turkish and Kurdish forces clash despite ceasefire
Syria: Kurds’ fury as Trump orders US troop withdrawal
War in Syria: Can the Kurdish forces fight back?
Turkey invades Syria: Who are the players and what do they want? | DW News
What’s next for the Kurds? | ITV News
Why the world is worried about Turkey
PBS NewsHour West live show October 18, 2019
Top U.S. & World Headlines — October 18, 2019
Bashar al-Assad: ‘Turkey will pay a heavy price’ for Syrian involvement
Al-Assad’s troops enter northern towns to confront offensive
Assad forces are moving into towns and villages once held by the Kurds | ITV News
Race to the border: Syrian Kurds call in Assad against Turkey offensive
An Interview with PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan
The war against Assad in Syria
Civil war in Syria has already claimed the lives of more than 60.000 people. The prospect that there will soon be an end to the murdering is bad. “Assad listens to no one”, suggests Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov when describing his experiences with the Syrian president. The former UN negotiator Kofi Annan, who attempted to mediate between the fronts for several months, always had the feeling that “Assad will not accept reality”. At the same time, Annan makes the USA and the Syrian opposition jointly responsible for the disaster: “Those calling for Assad to resign as a precondition for talks make negotiations impossible”. In an exclusive interview, Syria’s President, Bashar al Assad, defended attacks by his air force on rebels in Syrian cities, which also massively effect his own people, said: “We have to defend ourselves as the tactics of the enemy force us to”. In the same interview, which was recorded at the end of 2012 for this documentary,
Assad also made “foreign terrorists responsible for the situation in his country”. In his documentary, Grimme award winner Hubert Seipel analyses the dangerous situation in Syria. Apart from his meeting with Assad, he conducted exclusive interviews with Kofi Annan and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Seipel illuminated a conflict in which not only Kalashnikovs and missiles, but also the Internet plays the central role in public opinion. “False information and psychological warfare make up a very large part of the Syrian Civil War. It is significantly worse than in previous wars that I had ever been involved in”, added Kofi Annan, describing the massive disinformation. Whoever has control of the images of war, has the power to influence political decisions. Massacre marketing is a powerful weapon.
Frontline – The Battle for Syria
2012 documentary on the Syrian Civil War by Frontline
The Boy who started the Syrian War | Featured Documentary
The Cost of the Syrian War
Syria’s child refugees: ‘You feel that they have lost their hearts
Syrians Return Home After Humiliating Refugee-Life in Europe | The Quint
The Ingraham Angle 10/18/19 | Fox Breaking News Laura Ingraham October 18, 2019
Rand Paul Discusses Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria | The View
Neoconservatives vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11
Ron Paul: Americans Are Forced to Pay for U.S. Government’s Interventionist Foreign Policy
Ron Paul’s 2003 House speech about the danger of neoconservatism
The PKK was founded in 1978 in the village of Fis (near Lice) by a group of Kurdish students led by Abdullah Öcalan[19] and 1979 it made its existence known to the public.[20] The PKK’s ideology was originally a fusion of revolutionary socialism and Kurdish nationalism, seeking the foundation of an independent Communist state in the region, which was to be known as Kurdistan. The initial reasons given by the PKK for this were the oppression of Kurds in Turkey and capitalism.[21][22] By then, the use of Kurdish language, dress, folklore, and names were banned in Kurdish-inhabited areas.[23] The words “Kurds”, “Kurdistan“, or “Kurdish” were officially banned by the Turkish government.[failed verification][24] Following the military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[25] Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested, imprisoned, tortured or killed.[26] The PKK was then formed, as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey’s ethnic Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish minority.[27]
Since the PKK’s foundation, it has been involved in armed clashes with Turkish security forces. The full-scale insurgency, however, did not begin until 15 August 1984, when the PKK announced a Kurdish uprising. Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 have died, most of whom were Kurdish civilians through Turkish military actions.[28]
In 1999, PKK leader Öcalan was captured and imprisoned.[29] In May 2007, former members of the PKK helped form the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella organisation of Kurds from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In 2013, the PKK declared a ceasefire agreement and began slowly withdrawing its fighters to the Kurdistan Region of northern Iraq as part of the solution process between the Turkish state and the Kurdish minority.
Since July 2015, when the ceasefire broke down,[30] violent actions inside Turkey from the government against the PKK and vice versa kept occurring, supplemented with Turkish military action in 2018 against PKK fighters in Iraq, and both in January 2018 and October 2019 against Kurdish political groups (PYD) and forces (YPG and YPJ) in Syria which according to Turkey and some observers[31] are strongly tied to the PKK (see ‘clashing’ details in: Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)#2015–present).
PKK supporters at 2003 march opposing the Iraq War, London
In the early 1970s, the organization’s core group was made up largely of students led by Abdullah Öcalan (“Apo“) in Ankara. By then, the use of Kurdish language, dress, folklore, and names were banned in Kurdish-inhabited areas.[23] In an attempt to deny their existence, the Turkish government categorized Kurds as “Mountain Turks” until 1991.[23][32][33][34] The words “Kurds”, “Kurdistan“, or “Kurdish” were officially banned by the Turkish government.[24] Following the military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[25] Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested and imprisoned.[26] The PKK was then formed, as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey’s ethnic Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish minority.[27] The group focused to the large oppressed Kurdish population in south-east Turkey. A meeting on 25 November 1978, in a tea house near Diyarbakır is considered the founding meeting.[35] On 27 November 1978, the group adopted the name Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Espousing a Marxist ideology, the group took part in violent conflicts with right-wing entities as a part of the political chaos in Turkey at the time. The group tried to assassinate the Kurdish tribal leader Mehmet Celal Bucak in 1979. According to the PKK sources, he was exploiting the peasants, and collaborated with Turkey in oppressing the Kurds. It is believed that this marked a period of intense urban warfare among other political elements.
Turkish sources claimed that the 1980 Turkish coup d’état pushed the organization to another stage, with members being executed, doing jail time, being subject to capital punishment, or fleeing to Syria. On 10 November 1980, it was claimed that the PKK bombed the Turkish Consulate in Strasbourg, France in a joint operation with the Armenian radical group ASALA, which they claimed as the beginning of a “fruitful collaboration.”[36] The PKK didn’t take responsibility despite a numerous of accusations.
Starting in 1984, the PKK transformed into a paramilitary group, using training camps in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and France. At the same time, some of its members started to get training by the members of the Palestine Liberation Organization who themselves were trained by Soviet personnel in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in Syrian-controlled camps. According to the U. S. government reports, the PKK received significant support by Syria, which allowed it to maintain headquarters in Damascus, as well as by Iran, Iraq, and Libya. It later began to launch attacks and bombings against Turkish governmental installations, the military, and various institutions of the state. The organization focused on attacks against Turkish military targets in Turkey, although civilian targets were also hit. The group started to gain publicity after committing political killings and massacres.[37][38][39][40]
From the mid-1990s, the organization began to lose the upper hand in its operations as a consequence of a change of tactics by Turkey and Syria’s steady abandonment of support for the group. The group also had lost its support from Saddam Hussein.[41] At the same time, the government started to use more violent methods to counter Kurdish militants. From 1996 to 1999, the organization began to use suicide bombers, VBIED and ambush attacks against military and police bases. The role of suicide bombers, especially female ones were encouraged and mythologised by giving them the status of a “goddess of freedom”, and shown as role models for other women after their death. On 30 July 1996, Zeynep Kınacı, a female PKK fighter, carried out the organization’s first suicide attack, killing 8 soldiers and injuring 29 others. The attacks against the civilians, especially the Kurdish citizens who refused to cooperate with them were also reported at the same years. On 20 January 1999, a report published by HRW, stated that the PKK was believed to have been responsible for more than 768 executions. The organization had also reportedly committed 25 massacres, killing more than 300 people. More than hundred victims were children and women.[42][42][43][44][45]
The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for human rights abuses during the conflict.[49][50] Some judgements are related to executions of Kurdish civilians,[51] torturing,[52] forced displacements,[53]destroyed villages,[54][55][56]arbitrary arrests,[57] murdered and disappeared Kurdish journalists, activists and politicians.[58][59][60] As a result of increasing Kurdish population and activism, the Turkish parliament began a controlled process of dismantling some anti-Kurdish legislation, using the term “normalization” or “rapprochement,” depending on the sides of the issue. It partially relaxed the bans on broadcasting and publishing in the Kurdish language, although significant barriers remain.[61] At the same time, the PKK was blacklisted in many countries. On 2 April 2004, the Council of the European Union added the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations. Later that year, the US Treasury moved to freeze assets of branches of the organization. The PKK went through a series of changes, and in 2003 it ended the unilateral truce declared when Öcalan was captured.[62]
On 20 March 2016, the PKK announced the establishment of Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement, a coalition of Maoists, Marxists-Leninists, Apoists, Communists and Hoxhaistswhich aim to attain “democracy and a free future” for “peoples against Imperialism, Capitalism, Chauvinism, Fascism and Racism”, by working towards the overthrow of the ruling AKP government, who they deem collaborative fascist.[63]
Ideology, aims
The organization originated in the 1970s from the radical left and drew its membership from other existing leftist groups, mainly Dev-Genç.[64]:127 During the 1980s, the movement included and cooperated with other ethnic groups, including ethnic Turks, who were following the radical left.[64]:127[64]:129 The organization initially presented itself as part of the worldwidecommunist revolution. Its aims and objectives have evolved over time towards the goal of national autonomy,[65] and democratic confederalism.[66][67][68]
Around 1995, the PKK ostensibly changed its aim from independence to a demand for equal rights and Kurdish autonomy within the Turkish state,[69][70][71] though all the while hardly suspending their military attacks on the Turkish state except for ceasefires in 1999–2004 and 2013–2015. In 1995, Öcalan said: “We are not insisting on a separate state under any condition. What we are calling for very openly is a state model where a people’s basic economic, cultural, social, and political rights are guaranteed”.[70]
Whilst this shift in the mid-nineties has been interpreted as one from a call for independence to an autonomous republic,[72] some scholars have concluded that the PKK still maintains independence as the ultimate goal, but through society-building rather than state-building.[73][74]
The organization has adapted the new Democratic confederalist views of its arrested leader, which aim to replace the United Nations, Capitalism and Nation State with the Democratic Federalism which is described as a “system of popularly elected administrative councils, allowing local communities to exercise autonomous control over their assets, while linking to other communities via a network of confederal councils.[76]
Followers of Öcalan and members of the PKK are known, after his diminutive name, as Apocu (Apo-ites) under his movement, Apoculuk (Apoism).[77]
Organization
The PKK has multiple heads in various countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia and West European countries.[78] However, Abdullah Öcalan was the unchallenged leader of the organization. After the capture of Öcalan, authorities induced him to publicly plead for a ceasefire.[79] Though serving life imprisonment, Öcalan is still considered the honorary leader and figurehead of the organization.[80]
Murat Karayılan led the organization from 1999 to 2013. In 2013 Cemil Bayik and Besê Hozat assumed as the first joint leadership.[81] Cemil Bayik, beside Abdullah Öcalan, Kesire Yildirim Öcalan and Haki Karer was one of the core leaders. The organization appointed “Doctor Bahoz,” the nom de guerre of Fehman Huseyin, a Syrian Kurd, in charge of the movement’s military operations signifying the long-standing solidarity among Kurds from all parts of Kurdistan.[82]
Wings[
Umbrella organization
In 1985, the National Liberation Front of Kurdistan (Kurdish: Eniye Rizgariye Navata Kurdistan, ERNK) was established by the PKK as its popular front wing, with the role of both creating propaganda for the party, and as an umbrella organization for PKK organizations in different segments of the Kurdish population, such as the peasantry, workers, youth, and women. It was dissolved in 1999, after the capture of Abdullah Öcalan.[83][84]
Armed wing
The PKK has an armed wing, originally formed in 1984 as the Kurdistan Freedom Brigades (Kurdish: Hazen Rizgariya Kurdistan, HRK),[85] renamed to the People’s Liberation Army of Kurdistan (Kurdish: Arteshen Rizgariya Gelli Kurdistan, ARGK) in 1986,[83] and again renamed to the People’s Defense Forces (Kurdish: Hêzên Parastina Gel, HPG) in 1999.[86]
Women’s armed wing
The Free Women’s Units of Star (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Jinên Azad ên Star,[87] YJA-STAR) was established in 2004 as the women’s armed wing of the PKK, emphasizing the issue of women’s liberation.[14]
Training camps
The first training camps were established in 1982 in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and also in Beqaa Valley with the support of the Syrian government.[88][89] After the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish civil war, the PKK moved all its camps to Northern Iraq in 1998. The PKK had also completely moved to Qandil Mountains from Beqaa Valley, under intensive pressure, after Syria expelled Öcalan and shut down all camps established in the region.[89] At the time, Northern Iraq was experiencing a vacuum of control after the Gulf War-related Operation Provide Comfort. Instead of a single training camp which could be easily destroyed, the organization created many small camps. During this period the organization set up a fully functioning enclave with training camps, storage facilities, and reconnaissance and communications centers.
In 2007, the organization was believed to have camps strung out through the mountains that straddle the border between Turkey and Iraq, including in Sinaht, Haftanin, Kanimasi and Zap.[90] The organization developed two types of camps. The mountain camps, located in Turkey, Iraq and Iran, are used as forward bases from which militants carry out attacks against Turkish military bases. The units deployed there are highly mobile and the camps have only minimal infrastructure.[90] The other permanent camps, in the Qandil Mountains of Iraq, have more developed infrastructure—including a field hospital, electricity generators and a large proportion of the PKK’s lethal and non-lethal supplies.[90] The organization is also using the Qandil mountain camps for its political activities.
It was claimed in 2004 that there was another political training camp in Belgium, evidence that the organization had used training camps in Europe for political and ideological training.[91]
The organization had sympathizer parties in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey beginning in the early 1990s. The establishment of direct links to the organization has been a question. In sequence HEP/DEP/HADEP/DEHAP/DTP and the BDP, which later changed its name to Democratic Regions Party (DBP) on 11 July 2014,[92] as well as the HDP have been accused of sympathizing with the PKK, since they have refused to brand it as a terrorist group.
Political organizations established in Turkey are banned from propagating or supporting separatism. Several political parties supporting Kurdish rights have been allegedly banned on this pretext. The constitutional court claimed to find direct links between the HEP/DEP/HADEP and the PKK. In 2008 the DTP-party was prosecuted by the constitutional court. It is reported that Turkey has used the PKK as an excuse to close Kurdish political parties.
Turkish-Kurdish politician and conspiracist Abdülmelik Fırat had claimed the Democratic Society Party (DTP) was founded by the PKK, and that 80 percent of Kurds do not vote for this party.[93] Senior DTP leaders maintain that they support a unified Turkey within a democratic framework. Aysel Tuğluk published an article in Radikal in May 2007 as the co-president of DTP, to prove that claim.[94]
Several parliamentarians and other elected representatives have been jailed for speaking in Kurdish, carrying Kurdish colors or otherwise allegedly “promoting separatism”, most famous among them being Leyla Zana.[95]The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for arresting and executing Kurdish writers, journalists and politicians in numerous occasions. Between 1990 and 2006 Turkey was condemned to pay 33 million euros in damages in 567 cases. The majority of the cases were related to events that took place in southeastern Anatolia[96] Politicians of the HDP are often accused and prosecuted for being members of the PKK.[97] In Iraq the political party Tevgera Azadî is said to have close to the PKK.[98]
During the controversial Ergenekon trials in Turkey, allegations have been made that the PKK is linked to elements of the Turkish intelligence community.
Şamil Tayyar, author and member of the ruling AK Party, claimed that Öcalan was released in 1972 after just three months’ detention on the initiative of the National Intelligence Organization (Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı, MİT), and that his 1979 escape to Syria was aided by elements in MİT.[99] Öcalan has admitted making use of money given by the MIT to the PKK, which he says was provided as part of MIT efforts to control him.[100]
Former police special forces member Ayhan Çarkın alleged that the state, using the clandestine Ergenekon network, colluded with militant groups such as the PKK, Dev-Sol and Turkish Hezbollah, with the goal of profiting from the war.[101]
A witness to the trials testified that General Levent Ersöz, former head of JITEM, had frequent contact with PKK commander Cemîl Bayik.[102]
According to official figures, it was claimed that nearly 2000 PKK members became itirafçı (“confessors”) after their arrest. Some were persuaded or coerced to play an active role in the conflict, particularly under the direction of the Turkish Gendarmerie‘s unofficial JİTEMunit.[citation needed]
Activities
During its establishment in the mid-1970s, amid violent clashes country-wide, the organization used classic violent methods, such as the alleged failed assassination of Mehmet Celal Bucak as a propaganda-of-the-deed.[64] After the 1980 military coup, the organization developed into a paramilitary organization using resources it acquired in Syria, Russia, Europe and Beqaa Valley in part of ex-Syrian-controlled Lebanon. After 1984, PKK began also to use the Maoist theory of people’s war.[103][104]
In the first phase (1978–1984), the PKK tried to gain the support of the Kurdish population. It attacked the machinery of government and distributed propaganda in the region. PKK tactics were based on ambush, sabotage, riots, protests, and demonstrations against the Turkish government. During these years, the PKK also fought a turf war against other radical Islamist Kurdish and Turkish organisations in Turkey. Turkish newspapers claimed that the PKK effectively used the prison force to gain appeal among the population which PKK has denied.[109][110] In the whole Turkey, this period was characterized by violent clashes which culminated in the 1980 military coup.
During this time, the organization argued that its violent actions against the government forces were explained by the need to defend Kurds in the context of what it considered as the massive cultural suppression of Kurdish identity (including the 1983 Turkish Language Act Ban) and cultural rights carried out by other governments of the region.[111] Turkey also used violent and oppressive methods against its Kurdish citizens to stop them supporting the PKK.
Armed rebellion 1984–1999
In the second phase (1984–1999), which followed the return of civilian rule in 1983, escalating attacks were made on the government’s military and vital institutions all over the country. The objective was to destabilize the Turkish authority through a long, low-intensity confrontation. In addition to skirmishing with Turkish military and police forces and local village guards, the PKK has conducted bomb attacks on government and police installations.[112]Kidnapping and assassination against government and military officials and Kurdish tribal leaders who were named as puppets of the state were performed as well. Widespread sabotages were continued from the first stage. Turkish sources had also claimed that the PKK carried out kidnappings of tourists, primarily in Istanbul, but also at different resorts. However, the PKK had in its history arrested 4 tourists and released them all after warning them to not enter the war zone. The vast majority of PKK’s actions have taken place mainly in Turkey against the Turkish military, although it has on occasions co-operated with other Kurdish nationalist paramilitary groups in neighboring states, such as Iraq and Iran.[113] The PKK has also attacked Turkish diplomatic and commercial facilities across Western Europe in the late 1980s. In effect, the Turkish state has led a series of counter-insurgency operations against the PKK, accompanied by political measures, starting with an explicit denunciation of separatism in the 1982 Constitution, and including proclamation of the state of emergency in various PKK-controlled territories starting in 1983 (when the military relinquished political control to the civilians). This series of administrative reforms against terrorism included in 1985 the creation of village guard system by the then prime minister Turgut Özal. Öcalan, in presence of PUK leader Jalal Talabani declared a unilateral cease fire in 1993, and said the PKK did not want to separate from Turkey, but Turkey did not respond to it.[114] Turkey was involved in serious human rights violations during the 1990s. The ECHR has condemned Turkey for executions of Kurdish civilians, torturing, forced displacements and massive arrests.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, in an effort to win increased support from the Kurdish peasantry, the PKK altered its leftist secular ideology to better accommodate and accept Islamic beliefs. The group also abandoned its previous strategy of attacking Kurdish and Turkish civilians who were against them, focusing instead on government and military targets.[115] In its campaign, the organization has been accused of carrying out atrocities against both Turkish and Kurdish civilians and its actions have been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International[116] and Human Rights Watch[117][citation needed]. Similar actions of the Turkish state have also been criticized by these same groups.
Cease fire 1999–2004
The third phase (1999–2012), after the capture of Öcalan, PKK reorganized itself and new leaders were chosen by its members. The PKK wasn’t active between 2000 and 2003. The organization made radical changes to survive, such as changing its ideology and setting new goals. At the same time, the PKK continued to recruit new members and sustain its fighting force.
According to Turkish sources, in April 2002 at its 8th Party Congress, the PKK changed its name to the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK) and proclaimed a commitment to nonviolent activities in support of Kurdish rights. A PKK/KADEK spokesman stated that its armed wing, The People’s Defense Force, would not disband or surrender its weapons for reasons of self-defense. This statement by the PKK/KADEK avowing it would not lay down its arms underscores that the organization maintained its capability to carry out armed operations. PKK/KADEK established a new ruling council in April, its membership virtually identical to the PKK’s Presidential Council. The PKK/KADEK did not conduct an armed attack in 2002; however, the group periodically issued veiled threats that it will resume violence if the conditions of its imprisoned leader are not improved and its forces are attacked by Turkish military, and it continued its military training like before.
In November 2003, another congress was held which lead to renaming itself as the People’s Congress of Kurdistan or Kongra-Gel (KGK). The stated purpose of the organizational change was to leave behind nationalistic and state-building goals, in favor of creating a political structure to work within the existing nation-states.[118] Through further internal conflict during this period, it is claimed that 1500 militants left the organization,[118] along with many of the leading reformists, including Nizamettin Taş and Abdullah Öcalan‘s younger brother Osman Öcalan[119]
Second insurgency 2004–2012
Kongra-Gel called off the cease-fire at the start of June 2004, saying Turkish security forces had refused to respect the truce. Turkish security forces were increasingly involved in clashes with Kurdish separatist fighters. Ankara claimed that about 2,000 Kurdish fighters had crossed into Turkey from hideouts in mountainous northern Iraq in early June 2004.
While the fight against the Turkish security forces between 2004 and 2010 continued, the PKK and its ancillary organizations continued to enjoy substantial support among the Kurds of Turkey. In 2005, the original name of the organization PKK was restored, while the Kongra-Gel became the legislature of the Koma Komalên Kurdistan.[120][121] Turkey’s struggle against the Kongra-Gel/PKK was marked by increased clashes across Turkey in 2005. In the Southeast, Turkish security forces were active in the struggle against the Kongra-Gel/PKK. There were bombings and attempted bombings in resort areas in western Turkey and Istanbul, some of which resulted in civilian casualties. A radical Kurdish separatist group calling itself the Kurdish Freedom Hawks (TAK) claimed responsibility for many of these attacks. The TAK is a rival to PKK that since 2006 repeatedly damaged the PKK’s efforts to negotiate cease-fires and unlike the PKK, is seeking to establish independent Kurdistan.[122] In 2006 alone, the PKK claimed over 500 victims. In October 2006, the PKK allegedly declared a unilateral cease-fire that slowed the intensity and pace of its attacks, but attacks continued in response to Turkish security forces significant counterinsurgency operations, especially in the southeast. On 21 October 2011 Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi announced Iran would co-operate with Turkey in some military operations against the PKK.[123]
2012 was the most violent year in the armed conflict between the Turkish State and PKK since 1999. At least 541 individuals lost their lives as a result of the clashes including 316 militants and 282 soldiers. In contrast, 152 individuals lost their lives in 2009 until the Turkish government initiated negotiations with the PKK leadership.[124] The failure of this negotiations contributed to violence that were particularly intensified in 2012. The PKK encouraged by the rising power of the Syrian Kurds increased its attacks in the same year.
During the Syrian Civil War, the Kurds in Syria have established control over their own region with the help of the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party as well as with support from the Kurdistan Regional Government in Erbil, under President Masoud Barzani.[125]
In late 2012, the Turkish government began secret talks with Öcalan for a ceasefire.[126] To facilitate talks, government officials transmitted letters between Öcalan in jail to PKK leaders in northern Iraq.[127] On 21 March 2013, a ceasefire was announced.[128] On 25 April, it was announced that the PKK would leave Turkey. Commander Murat Karayılan remarked “As part of ongoing preparations, the withdrawal will begin on May 8, 2013. Our forces will use their right to retaliate in the event of an attack, operation or bombing against our withdrawing guerrilla forces and the withdrawal will immediately stop.”[129] The semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq welcomed the idea of refugees from its northern neighbor.[130] The BDP held meetings across the region to explain the pending withdrawal to concerned citizens. “The 8th of May is a day we both anticipate and fear,” explained party leader Pinar Yilmaz. “We don’t trust the government at all. Many people here are afraid that once the guerrillas are gone, the Turkish military will crack down on us again.”[128]
The withdrawal began as planned with groups of fighters crossing the border from southeastern Turkey to northern Iraq.[126] Iraqi leadership in Baghdad, however, declared that it would not accept armed groups into its territory. “The Iraqi government welcomes any political and peaceful settlement”, read an official statement. “[But] it does not accept the entry of armed groups to its territories that can be used to harm Iraq’s security and stability.”[130] The prospect of armed Kurdish forces in northern Iraq threatens to increase tensions between the region and Baghdad who are already at odds over certain oil producing territory. PKK spokesman Ahmet Deniz sought to ease concerns stating the plan would boost democracy. “The [peace] process is not aimed against anyone,” he said “and there is no need for concerns that the struggle will take on another format and pose a threat to others.”[130]
It is estimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 PKK fighters resided in Turkey at the time.[citation needed] The withdrawal process was expected to take several months even if Iraq does not intervene to try to stop it.[130] On 14 May 2013, the first groups of 13 male and female fighters entered Iraq’s Heror area near the Metina mountain after leaving Turkey. They carried with them Kalashnikov assault rifles, light machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers before a welcoming ceremony.[131]
Kurdish PKK guerilla, 23 March 2014
On 29 July 2013, the PKK issued an ultimatum in saying that the peace deal would fail if reforms were not begun to be implemented within a month.[132] In October, Cemil Bayik warned that unless Turkey resumed the peace process, the PKK would resume operations to defend itself against it. He also accused Turkey of waging a proxy war against Kurds during the Syrian Civil War by supporting other extremist rebels who were fighting them.[133]
Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani backed the initiative saying, alongside Erdogan: “This is a historic visit for me … We all know it would have been impossible to speak here 15 or 20 years ago. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has taken a very brave step towards peace. I want my Kurdish and Turkish brothers to support the peace process.”[134]
2014 action against Islamic State and renewed tensions in Turkey
The PKK engaged the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) forces in Syria in mid-July 2014[135] as part of the Syrian Civil War. In August the PKK engaged IS in Northern Iraq and pressured the Government of Turkey to take a stand against IS.[136][137] PKK forces helped tens of thousands of Yazidis escape an encircled Mount Sinjar.[138] In September 2014, during the Siege of Kobanî, the PKK, receiving direct U.S. military support,[139] engaged with Islamic State forces in Syria who were attacking Kurdish city Kobane, which resulted in conflicts with Turks on the border and an end to a cease-fire that had been in place over a year.[140] The PKK accused Turkey of supporting ISIS. The PKK participated in many offensives against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.[141]
A number of Turkish Kurds rallied in large-scale street protests, demanding that the government in Ankara take more forceful action to combat IS and to enable Kurdish militants already engaged against IS to more freely move and resupply. These protests included a PKK call for its supporters to turn out.[142] Clashes between police and protesters killed at least 31 people. The Turkish government continued to restrict PKK-associated fighters’ movement across its borders, arresting 260 People’s Protection Units fighters who were moving back into Turkey. On 14 October, Turkish Air Force fighter-bombers attacked PKK positions in the vicinity of Daglica, Hakkari Province.[143]
Turkish military statements claimed that the bombings were in response to PKK attacks on a Turkish military outpost in the area. The Firat news agency, which Al Jazeera describes as “close to the PKK”, claimed that Turkish forces had been shelling the PKK positions for days beforehand and that the PKK action had itself been retaliation for those artillery strikes.[144] The PKK had already reported several Turkish attacks against their troops months before Turkish bombing started.
Percentage of the popular vote won by the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) in the 2015 Turkish general election. “The HDP’s elections results, which are a proxy indicator of popular support for the PKK, show that the group has followers throughout the country.”[145]
In the months before the parliamentary election of 2015, as the “Kurdish-focused” HDP’s likelihood of crossing the 10% threshold for entry into the government seemed more likely, Erdogan gave speeches and made comments that repudiated the settlement process and the existence of a Kurdish problem and refusing to recognize the HDP as having any role to play despite their long participation as intermediaries.[146] These announcements increased distrust of the government’s good faith among Kurdish leaders. In July 2015, Turkey finally became involved in the war against ISIL. While they were doing so, they decided to bomb PKK targets in Iraq.[147] The bombings came a few days after PKK was suspected of assassinating two Turkish police officers in Ceylanpınar, Şanlıurfa, accused by the PKK of having links with ISIS after the 2015 Suruç bombing.[148][149] The PKK has blamed Turkey for breaking the truce by bombing the PKK in 2014 and 2015 continuously.
In August 2015, the PKK announced that they would accept another ceasefire with Turkey only under US guarantees.[150] PKK announced a one-sided ceasefire in October 2015 near election time, but the government refused.[citation needed] The leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan has condemned the Turkish air strikes in its autonomous region in the north of Iraq.[151]
The number of casualties since 23 July was claimed by Turkish government to be 150 Turkish officers and over 2,000 Kurdish rebels killed (by September).[152] In December 2015, Turkish military operation in southeastern Turkey has killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands and caused massive destruction in residential areas.[153][154]
The areas in which the group operates are generally mountainous rural areas and dense urban areas. The mountainous terrain offers an advantage to members of the PKK by allowing them to hide in a network of caves.[citation needed]
Recruiting[
PKK female fighters
Since its foundation, the PKK has recruited new fighters mainly from Turkey, but also from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Western countries using various recruitment methods, such as using nationalist propaganda and its gender equality ideology. At its establishment, it included a small number of female fighters but over time, however, the number increased significantly and by the early 1990s, 30 percent of its 17,000 armed fighting forces were women.[155] In much of rural Turkey, where male-dominated tribal structures, and conservative Muslim norms were commonplace, the organization increased its number of members through the recruitment of women from different social structures and environments, also from families that migrated to several European countries after 1960 as guest workers.[155] It was reported by a Turkish university that 88% of the subjects initially believed that equality was a key objective, and that they joined the organization based on this claim.[156] In 2007, approximately 1,100 of 4,500–5,000 total members were women.[155]
In its early stages, the PKK recruited young women by kidnapping them. This forced families whose children were already a member of the organization to cooperate and thus turning them into accomplices, which increased the number of women joining the group, according to the publication, published by the Jamestown Foundation.[155][157][158]
The organization is also actively recruiting child soldiers and it has been accused of abducting more than 2,000 children by Turkish Security Forces. The independent reports by the Human Rights Watch (HRW), the United Nations(UN) and the Amnesty International have confirmed the recruitment and use of child soldiers by the organization and its armed wings since the 1990s.[107][159][160][161]
According to the TEPAV think-tank which did research on the identities of 1,362 PKK fighters who lost their lives between 2001 and 2011, 42% of the recruits were under 18, with over a quarter of these being under 15 years of age at the time of recruiting. The organization is also believed to have used the children in the drug trade.[162]
On 22 December 2016, a report published by Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that the HPG, the armed wing of the PKK, and the YBS, a Yazidi militia affiliated with the PKK, had actively recruited child soldiers since the 2015. The report stated that more than 29 cases had been documented, and some recruited children were under 15 when they had been recruited, which is a war crime under international law.[159]
Weapons
In July 2007, the weapons captured between 1984 and 2007 from the PKK operatives and their origins published by the Turkish General Staff indicates that the operatives erased some of the serial numbers from their weapons. The total number of weapons and the origins for traceable ones were:[163]
The choice and origin of the traceable weapons (July 2007)[163]
60.8% from Italy, 28.3% from Russia, 6.2% from Germany
Turkish authorities claimed that four members of the organization, who handed themselves over to authorities after escaping from camps in northern Iraq, claimed they had seen two U.S. armored vehicles deliver weapons, which was widely reported and further stoked suspicions about U.S. policy in Iraq.[164] The US envoy denied these claims.[165] The arms were claimed to be part of the Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling allegations. The probe of organization’s weapons and the investigation of Blackwater employees were connected.[166] The PKK also denied these claims.
Resources
Funding
Parties and concerts are organized by branch groups.[167] Additionally, it is believed that the PKK earns money through the sale of various publications, as well as receiving revenues from legitimate businesses owned by the organization, and from Kurdish-owned businesses in Turkey, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Western Europe.[168][169] Besides affiliate organizations, it is claimed that there are sympathizer organizations such as the Confederation of Kurdish Associations in Europe and the International Kurdish Businessmen Union which constantly exchanges information and perform legitimate or semi-legitimate commercial activities and donations.[citation needed]
According to the European Police Office (EUROPOL), the organization collects money from its members, using labels like ‘donations’ and ‘membership fees’ which are seen as a fact extortion and illegal taxation by the authorities. There are also indications that the organization is actively involving in money laundering, illicit drugs and human trafficking, as well as illegal immigration inside and outside the EU for funding and running its activities.[170]
Drug trafficking
PKK’s involvement in drug trafficking has been documented since the 1990s.[171] A report by Interpol published in 1992 states that the PKK, along with nearly 178 Kurdish organizations were suspected of illegal drug trade involvement. The British National Criminal Intelligence Service determined that the PKK obtained $75 million from drug smuggling in Europe in 1993 alone.[172] Members of the PKK have been designated narcotics traffickers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[173] The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic security agency, echoed this finding in its 2011 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, stating that despite the U.S Department of Treasury designation, there was “no evidence that the organizational structures of the PKK are directly involved in drug trafficking”.[174]
On 14 October 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) targeted the senior leadership of the PKK, designating Murat Karayılan, the head of the PKK, and high-ranking members Ali Riza Altun and Zübeyir Aydar as foreign narcotics traffickers at the request of Turkey.[173] On 20 April 2011, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the designation of PKK founders Cemîl Bayik and Duran Kalkan and other high-ranking members as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers (SDNT) pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). Pursuant to the Kingpin Act, the designation freezes any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. persons from conducting financial or commercial transactions with these individuals.[175]
According to research conducted by journalist Aliza Marcus, the PKK accepted the support of smugglers in the region. Aliza Marcus claimed that some of those Kurdish smugglers who were involved in the drugs trade, either because they truly believed in the PKK—or because they thought it a good business practice (avoid conflicts)—frequently donated money to the PKK rebels. She also claimed that there were reports of PKK supporters in Europe who used their positions and contacts to trade in drugs—and then handed some of the profits to the PKK. And when PKK activists needed more money, they had no qualms about approaching Kurds who trafficked in narcotics. However, according to Aliza Marcus, it does not seem that the PKK, as an organization, directly produced or traded in narcotics.[176]
Following the SDF capture of Raqqa, YPJ and YPG troops raised a large banner of Abdullah Öcalan in the city centre.[177]
In 2018, the state-run new agency AA claimed that the PKK has successfully kept its drug production and trafficking activities underground, both across the globe and within Turkey, and that the security forces had carried out more than 414 drug trafficking operations against the organization since the 1980. The Turkish authorities have also claimed that the organization gains 1,5 billion USD yearly from drug trafficking.[178][179]
The report, published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), stated that the instability in Iraq has helped the PKK to develop and use Iraq as a transhipment point for Afghan heroin. The PKK was reported to collect taxes per kilogram of heroin trafficked to Turkey from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq borders, with potential profits reaching US$200 million annually.[180]
The EUROPOL which has monitored the organization’s activities inside the EU has also reported the organization’s involvement in the trafficking of drugs and human beings to raise funds for its terrorist activities inside and outside the EU.[170]
On 1 January 2012, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the designation of Moldovan-based individuals Zeyneddin Geleri, Cerkez Akbulut, and Omer Boztepe as specially designated narcotics traffickers for drug trafficking on behalf of the PKK in Europe. According to the OFAC, Zeynedding Geleri was identified as a high-ranking member of the PKK while two others were activists. The OFAC stated that the drug trafficking is still one of the organization’s criminal activities it uses to obtain weapons and materials.[181]
Human resources
In 2008, according to information provided by the Intelligence Resource Program of the Federation of American Scientists the strength of the organization in terms of human resources consists of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 militants of whom 3,000 to 3,500 are located in northern Iraq.[182] With the new wave of fighting from 2015 onwards, observers noted that active support for the PKK had become a “mass phenomenon” in majority ethnic Kurdish cities in the Southeast of the Republic of Turkey, with large numbers of local youth joining PKK-affiliated local militant groups.[183]
International support
At the height of its campaign, the organization received support from many countries. According to Turkey, countries the PKK has previously/currently received support from include: Greece,[184][185] Iran,[186] Iraq,[187] Russia[188] and Syria.[186] The level of support given has changed throughout this period. Official Turkish sources also allege cooperation between the PKK and the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA).[189]
Greece
According to Ali Külebi, president of an Ankara-based nationalist think tank TUSAM, “It is obvious that the PKK is supported by Greece, considering the PKK’s historical development with major support from Greece.” Külebi alleged in 2007 that PKK militants received training at a base in Lavrion, near Athens.[190] Retired Greek L.T. General Dimitris Matafias and retired Greek Navy Admiral Antonis Naxakis had visited the organization’s Mahsun Korkmaz base camp in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley in October 1988 along with parliamentarians from the center-left PASOK.[191] At the time it was reported that the general had assumed responsibility for training. Greeks also dispatched arms through the Republic of Cyprus.[191] In December 1993, Greek foreign affairs minister Theodoros Pangalos was quoted as saying “we must be supportive of the Kurdish people to be free”.[192] Greece declined to join Germany and France and the eleven other members at the EU to ban the organization.[192] During his trial, Öcalan admitted, as quoted in Hürriyet, that “Greece has for years supported the PKK movement. They even gave us arms and rockets. Greek officers gave guerrilla training and explosives training to our militants” at a camp in Lavrion, Greece.[193]
Syria
From early 1979 to 1999, Syria had provided valuable safe havens to PKK in the region of Beqaa Valley. However, after the undeclared war between Turkey and Syria, Syria placed restrictions on PKK activity on its soil such as not allowing the PKK to establish camps and other facilities for training and shelter or to have commercial activities on its territory. Syria recognized the PKK as a terrorist organization in 1998.[194] Turkey was expecting positive developments in its cooperation with Syria in the long term, but even during the course of 2005, there were PKK operatives of Syrian nationality operating in Turkey.[167][195]
Iran
Iran provided PKK with supplies in the form of weapons and funds. However, Iran later listed the PKK as a terrorist organization after Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan used Iran’s supply of resources to the PKK on its own soil.[citation needed]
Armenia
Turkish and Azeri sources have alleged in 2007 that PKK maintains camps in the Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.[196] Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosyan called these allegations “sheer nonsense” in 2008.[197] In May 2008 a commentary in the right-wing newspaper Yeni Şafak claimed that the PKK’s leadership, “perhaps feeling insecure in northern Iraq, was mulling a move to Nagorno-Karabakh.” In response, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry press spokesman Vladimir Karapetian stated, “The unsubstantiated rumors about the intentions on the side of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to move to Nagorno-Karabakh and controlled territories cannot be called anything less than another provocation.”[198]
Former KGB–FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko alleges that PKK’s leader Abdullah Öcalan was trained by KGB–FSB.[199] As of 2008, Russia is still not among the states that list PKK as a terrorist group despite intense Turkish pressure.
United Kingdom
MED TV broadcast for five years in the UK, until its license was revoked by the regulators the Independent Television Commission (ITC) in 1999. The PKK has been listed as a terrorist organization since 29 March 2001. In 2008, the United Kingdom detained members of the PKK and seized the assets of the PKK’s representative in Britain, Selman Bozkur, alias “Dr. Hüseyin”. His assets remain frozen.[200]
Support of various European states
The Dutch police had allegedly raided the ‘PKK paramilitary camp’ in the Dutch village of Liempde and arrested 29 people in November 2004, but all were soon released.[201] Denmark allows Kurdish satellite television stations (such as ROJ-TV), which Turkey claims has links with the PKK, to operate in Denmark and broadcast into Turkey.[202]
Various PKK leaders, including Hidir Yalcin, Riza Altun, Zubeyir Aydar, and Ali Haydar Kaytan all lived in Europe and moved freely. The free movement was achieved by strong ties with influential persons. Danielle Mitterrand, the wife of the former President of FranceFrançois Mitterrand, had active connections during the 1990s with elements of the organization’s leadership that forced a downgrade in relationships between the two states.[203] After harboring him for some time, Austria arranged a flight to Iraq for Ali Rıza Altun, a suspected key figure with an Interpol arrest warrant on his name.. Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül summoned the Austrian ambassador and condemned Austria’s action.[204] On 30 September 1995, while Öcalan was in Syria, Damascus initiated contact with high-ranking German CDU MP Heinrich Lummer and German intelligence officials.
The Chief of the Turkish General Staff during 2007, General Yaşar Büyükanıt, stated that even though the international struggle had been discussed on every platform and even though organizations such as the UN, NATO, and EU made statements of serious commitment, to this day the necessary measures had not been taken.[205] According to Büyükanıt; “this conduct on one side has encouraged the terrorists, on the other side it assisted in widening their activities.[205]“
Sedat Laçiner, of the Turkish think tank ISRO, says that US support of the PKK undermines the US War on Terror.[206]Seymour Hersh claimed that the U.S. supported PEJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK.[207] The head of the PKK’s militant arm, Murat Karayılan, claimed that Iran attempted to recruit the PKK to attack coalition forces, adding that Kurdish guerrillas had launched a clandestine war in north-western Iran, ambushing Iranian troops.[208]
Designation as a terrorist group
The PKK has been placed on Turkey’s terrorist list, as well as a number of allied governments and organizations.[17]
The European Union — which Turkey aspires to join — in 2011 renewed its official listing of the PKK as group or entity subject to “specific [EU] measures to combat terrorism” under its Common Foreign and Security Policy.[209] First designated as such in 2002, the PKK was ordered to be removed from the EU terror list on 3 April 2008 by the European Court of First Instance on the grounds that the EU had failed to give a proper justification for listing it in the first place.[210] However, EU officials dismissed the ruling, stating that the PKK would remain on the list regardless of the legal decision.[211]
France prosecutes Kurdish-French activists and bans organizations connected to the PKK on terrorism-related charges,[216] having listed the group as a terrorist organization since 1993.[217] However, French courts often refuse to extradite captured individuals accused of PKK connections to Turkey due to technicalities in French law, frustrating Turkish authorities[failed verification].[218]
The following other individual countries have listed or otherwise labelled the PKK in an official capacity as a terrorist organization:
States etc. not designating them as terrorist group
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained at a 2019 press conference that “NATO does not have a public list where we list different organisations as terrorist organisations. Some other national organisations have that kind of list, for instance the UN or . . . and EU, but NATO does not have that kind of public list, where we list terrorist organisations.”[232] Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, and fields the group’s second-largest armed contingent.
The PKK has never been designated as a terrorist organization by the UN.
Russia has long ignored Turkish pressure to ban the PKK,[233] and the group is also not included in the official terror blacklist of China (PRC), Brazil, Switzerland, India and Egypt.[234][235]
The government of Switzerland has rejected Turkish demands to blacklist the PKK,[236] though it has taken its own measures to monitor and restrict the group’s activities on Swiss soil, including banning the collection of funds for the group in November 2008.[237]Switzerland considers only those organizations as terrorist organizations which are in the terrorist list of the United Nations.[238]
Flags
Party flags
Flag of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (1978–1995)[239]
Öcalan, Abdullah. Interviews and Speeches [about P.K.K.’s Kurdish cause]. London: Published jointly by Kurdistan Solidarity Committee and Kurdistan Information Centre, 1991. 46 p. Without ISBN
On the eve of today’s dramatic Commons vote on his withdrawal plan, 50 per cent said MPs should back it.
The Survation poll for the Daily Mail showed 38 per cent were against the deal with 12 per cent undecided.
The survey found a surge in support for the Tories following the Prime Minister’s breakthrough at this week’s EU summit. They are now on 32 per cent, five points up on their tally three weeks ago. Optimism was mounting in No 10 last night that MPs will back the agreement. A source said: ‘It is incredibly close, but it is doable.’
However the situation became even more tense when Sir Oliver Letwin tabled a plan to force Mr Johnson to seek another delay to Brexit. The move by the Tory former Cabinet minister, which is set to be backed by Labour and other opposition parties, could deny the PM a clear-cut vote on his deal today.
The survey found a surge in support for the Tories following the Prime Minister’s breakthrough at this week’s EU summit. They are now on 32 per cent, five points up on their tally three weeks ago. Optimism was mounting in No 10 last night that MPs will back the agreement. A source said: ‘It is incredibly close, but it is doable’
On a day of high drama:
France’s Emmanuel Macron piled pressure on Remainer MPs by warning he could veto any further Brexit delay;
Tory aides acknowledged that Sir Oliver’s move could force Mr Johnson to consider seeking another delay;
Seven Labour MPs publicly backed the deal, despite threats that they could be deselected – a further 15 are said to be considering the move.
Campaigners pushing for a second referendum were planning a huge march on Parliament today;
Hardline ‘Spartan’ MPs prepared to meet this morning to decide whether to back Mr Johnson’s deal, amid signs that a hardcore will refuse;
The Governor of the Bank of England threw his weight behind the deal, describing it as ‘good news’;
David Trimble, an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, urged the DUP to drop its opposition;
Mr Johnson held out an olive branch to Labour MPs by pledging an automatic right to vote on whether to adopt future EU laws on workers’ rights;
Socialist leaders across the EU urged Jeremy Corbyn to back the deal;
Today’s poll shows that a total of 47 per cent of people say they support the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, while 38 per cent say they are against it.
Voters were also in no doubt as to who blinked first in the EU talks – with 52 per cent saying the UK gave most ground. Only 20 per cent think Brussels backed down. A total of 47 per cent believe Mr Johnson’s plan should go to a referendum, compared with 44 against the idea.
Mr Johnson held out an olive branch to Labour MPs by pledging an automatic right to vote on whether to adopt future EU laws on workers’ rights
When voters are given a straight choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and remaining in the EU there is a dead heat, with both sides winning 50 per cent.
Remarkably, 29 per cent of Labour voters say they would back Mr Johnson’s deal in such a referendum; 71 per cent say they would not back his deal.
But a different picture emerges if, as argued by Brexiteers, voters are given a third option of leaving with No Deal. Remain gets most support, 45 per cent, based on first preferences – though no option gets over the 50 per cent winning line. The poll showed that most of the extra backing for the Tories was at the expense of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, whose support has fallen by 3 per cent.
The results of the survey heap more humiliation on beleaguered Mr Corbyn. One in five of his own Labour voters would rather see Mr Johnson in Downing Street. Millions of Labour supporters have written off his chances of ever seizing power.
Asked who they thought will win the next election, just 31 per cent of Labour voters think Mr Corbyn: exactly the same number, 31 per cent, say Mr Johnson will beat him.
If Mr Johnson delivers his pledge to leave the EU by October 31, he can expect a further surge in his ratings. A total of 33 per cent say they will be more likely to vote Conservative; 23 per cent say they will be less likely to do so.
A total of 42 per cent say that they will hold Parliament responsible for the delay – twice the number, 21 per cent, who say Mr Johnson will have only himself to blame for the defeat
Boris Johnson: UK will ‘heave sigh of relief’ if Brexit deal passes
Moreover, if MPs throw out his proposal today, voters will not point the finger of blame at him.
A total of 42 per cent say that they will hold Parliament responsible for the delay – twice the number, 21 per cent, who say Mr Johnson will have only himself to blame for the defeat.
More than one in two (52 per cent) say the new deal ‘honours the 2016 referendum’ compared with fewer than one in three (30 per cent) who say it does not.
Asked who has the best Brexit policy, Mr Johnson is way ahead of all the main party leaders; Mr Corbyn trails in last behind Mr Farage in second place, followed by SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson.
The chasm between Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn’s respective personal standing is illustrated by their ratings on ‘charisma’.
Here the Prime Minister scores plus 16 compared with Mr Corbyn’s minus 59.
For ‘intelligence’, Mr Johnson is plus 36 compared with the opposition leader’s minus seven.
A total of 41 per cent oppose the decision by Northern Ireland’s DUP to defy Mr Johnson today; seen as the main obstacle to him succeeding; 28 per cent say the DUP are right to oppose him.
Last night, Mr Johnson said that the showdown in the House of Commons was a ‘very big moment for our country’.
He said: ‘I think that getting it done would be a chance for us to come together as a country and move on and focus on things that really matter to people. I think the sigh of relief that would go up, not just around Britain, but around the world, would be very, very large and passionate.’
The Prime Minister also insisted his deal was the best divorce agreement possible.
Survation interviewed 1,025 adults online on Thursday afternoon and Friday.
Boris Johnson: ‘This is a great deal for the whole United Kingdom’
Time to turn our backs on division and delay, Boris tells MPs
By Jason Groves for the Daily Mail
Boris Johnson urged MPs to turn their backs on ‘division and delay’ last night as he appeared to be within touching distance of a historic victory with his Brexit deal.
Speaking on the eve of his biggest parliamentary battle, the Prime Minister said there was now ‘no better outcome’ to the tortuous process of leaving the EU than MPs approving his deal.
Optimism was mounting in Downing Street last night that Mr Johnson was on course for an against-the-odds win in Parliament this afternoon.
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg (right), the Prime Minister urged MPs to swing behind his Brexit deal on Saturday to avoid any more ‘division and delay’
One source said: ‘It’s been a good day. Things have been shifting in the right direction and there are still some key figures in play. It is incredibly close, but it is doable.’
If passed, the Prime Minister could bring forward the legislation needed to enact withdrawal from the EU as early as Monday, with a view to steering it through Parliament before the end of the month.
Mr Johnson has told EU leaders that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill could be pushed through in just six days if Parliament sits around the clock – a fraction of the six weeks predicted by Theresa May.
In a series of broadcast interviews last night, the Prime Minister struck an emollient tone as he tried to win over a clutch of wavering Labour MPs whose support is needed to put his deal through.
LEADING ‘SPARTAN’ BACKS BORIS
Tory Eurosceptic ‘Spartans’ were torn over whether to back Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal last night – with some seeking assurances that it could still allow a No Deal departure next year.
Members of the European Research Group of Conservative MPs will meet at Westminster this morning to decide whether to support the agreement before today’s crunch vote in the Commons.
As of last night, just 12 of the 28 Spartan MPs had publicly backed Mr Johnson’s deal.
Although none had said they would oppose it, a senior Eurosceptic predicted that a significant hardcore were likely to prove impossible to persuade.
Mark Francois, the deputy chairman of the European Research Group, was among those called in to see the Prime Minister yesterday. He said he still had ‘some concerns’ about specifics of the agreement.
But John Baron, one of 28 ‘Spartan’ MPs who voted against Theresa May’s deal three times, said the terms of the new deal suggested that the UK could still end up with a No Deal Brexit when the transition period finishes in December 2020.
He said: ‘We’re seeking assurances, the devil is in the detail still, but the reason I am inclined to vote for this one is very simple. Theresa May’s backstop could have had us locked into that arrangement indefinitely.
‘Boris Johnson has torn up that backstop, which means if the trade talks are not successful, after we hopefully agree the deal here… we could leave on No Deal terms.’
Remainers leapt on Mr Baron’s statement yesterday, with the People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum claiming it showed that the Government was not sincere about wanting a trade deal.
They suggested hardline Brexiteers were instead preparing for a No Deal Brexit when the transition ended.
The support of the Spartans is critical to the Prime Minister’s hopes of getting the deal through the Commons.
However one senior Eurosceptic was pessimistic about Mr Johnson’s chances yesterday, saying: ‘There will be a hardcore of the hardcore who vote against – probably enough to be fatal.’
Privately, ministers agree that a small number of longstanding Eurosceptics, including the former Cabinet minister Sir John Redwood, will never be persuaded to back the deal.
They fear that others, such as former Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson, may be swayed to vote against the deal by their relationship with the DUP.
Mr Johnson has privately warned MPs that they will have the whip suspended if they fail to back his deal – the same punishment meted out to 21 Tories who voted with Labour to block No Deal last month.
He said: ‘I think it’s a very big moment for our country but also it’s a big moment for our democracy and parliamentarians because I do think we have a choice.
‘We have to consider how long we can delay and seem to frustrate what was a pretty clear democratic expression of the will of the people and I think that it would be a great and a fine thing if we could get it done and come together tomorrow.’
Speaking to the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg, he added: ‘I just kind of invite everybody to imagine what it could be like tomorrow evening if we have settled this and we have respected the will of the people because we will then have a chance to move on.’
Mr Johnson and senior ministers, including the Chancellor Sajid Javid, spent yesterday lobbying wavering Conservatives, among them members of the group of 21 Tories kicked out of the party last month for opposing No Deal.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s political secretary Danny Kruger and chief whip Mark Spencer held discreet conversations with the band of Labour MPs from Leave-supporting seats who have indicated that they could back a deal.
Ministers believe that all but a handful of the hardline ‘Spartan’ MPs will now back the deal, despite the opposition of the DUP.
And there was mounting confidence that a significant number of Labour MPs were on the brink of coming across, opening up the possibility of a remarkable victory.
Downing Street was buoyed by comments by Emmanuel Macron suggesting that he could veto a further Brexit delay.
Ministers believe the threat could give cover to wavering Labour MPs who are opposed to No Deal but nervous about backing a Tory plan.
But there was irritation at Sir Oliver Letwin after he tabled an amendment that could force Mr Johnson to seek a Brexit delay as early as tonight – something he has vowed never to do.
Sir Oliver’s amendment, which looks set to go through, could also deny the Prime Minister a clean vote on his deal.
Mr Johnson went out of his way yesterday to deny claims by Jeremy Corbyn that he plans to use Brexit to trigger a ‘race to the bottom’ on rights by tearing up EU regulations.
He said Britain was a ‘world leader’ in areas such as environmental protection and workers’ rights, adding: ‘There are ways in which we want to go further than the EU.’
The Prime Minister said his deal would unlock the right to strike free trade deals with the rest of the world, but also pledged to do a ‘jumbo free trade agreement’ with the EU as part of a ‘big, big deep and special partnership’.
He added that the deal ‘busts’ the UK out of the controversial Irish backstop, which critics said would keep Britain shackled to the EU for ever and make new trade deals impossible.
‘It busts out of [the] backstop, the previous problem with the deal that kept us locked in the customs union and the single market so, it’s a vast, vast, vast step forward,’ he said.
‘And what it also does, which is good, is it creates a period, a transition period from the end of October, end of this month – there’s a period of standstill giving certainty to business and at the end of that it is perfectly correct that we will move to the new arrangements.’
Mr Johnson also said passing today’s vote, and the withdrawal legislation to come, would help to start healing the divisions created by the Brexit process.
He added a sigh of relief would go up ‘not just around Britain, but around the world’ if MPs finally agreed to back a deal.
He said: ‘Speaking as someone who has to think about the interests of the entire country, I don’t think the way the debate has gone on has been particularly brilliant for our politics, nor has it necessarily shown our politics in the best possible light.
‘I think that getting it done would be a chance for us to come together as a country and move on and focus on things that really matter to people.’
The Letwin Plot: Tory rebel wants to stop Parliament passing the deal until all legislation is approved – so the PM is forced to ask for an extension
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail
There was anger in Downing Street last night over a parliamentary move that could deny Boris Johnson a clean vote on his Brexit deal today.
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin proposed an amendment yesterday that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved.
If passed today, the amendment will prevent MPs from holding the so-called ‘meaningful vote’ on the Prime Minister’s deal.
The Government would also have to ask the EU for an extension to Britain’s withdrawal thanks to the so-called Benn Act, passed by MPs last month, which forces the Prime Minister to apply to delay Brexit until January 31 if his deal is not passed in the Commons.
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin (pictured) proposed an amendment that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved
Last night, Government sources accused supporters of the controversial amendment – which is likely to pass with Labour backing – of trying to frustrate Brexit. One source said: ‘If it passes, it’s an act of sabotage dressed up as reasonableness. MPs are still trying to put off the moment of decision.’
Sir Oliver insisted that he was a supporter of the Prime Minister’s plans and that it was only designed to act as an insurance policy to ensure that the UK did not leave the EU without a deal on October 31.
A GUIDE TO SUPER SATURDAY
What is happening on Super Saturday?
Mr Johnson will formally present his divorce accord to the Commons and ask MPs to vote for it.
The House of Commons usually sits from Monday to Thursday, and on the occasional Friday.
But today there will be an extraordinary sitting of Parliament – the first on a weekend since April 1982 – to discuss Boris Johnson’s new Brexit deal.
On Thursday, MPs approved a motion to hold the first weekend sitting of Parliament since the Falklands conflict.
The day will start with the PM setting out the terms of the agreement in a statement to the House which is due to begin shortly after 9.30am.
Following a lengthy debate MPs will then vote on the deal – and any amendments which are selected by Commons Speaker John Bercow – at approximately 2.30pm.
If Parliament does not vote for the agreement on Saturday, Mr Johnson faces an almighty clash over whether he will request a further Brexit delay from Brussels as he is compelled to under the Benn Act.
What amendments have been tabled and what would they do?
At the moment there are three amendments which have been officially put forward by MPs and which could be put to a vote.
One from an SNP MP would force the government to revoke Article 50 while another from the SNP would reject the PM’s deal and demand a Brexit delay until January 31 in order to make time for an election.
If either of those are selected they are very unlikely to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.
But the third amendment has a much better chance of passing and would represent a major headache for the government.
What happens if MPs vote in favour of the PM’s deal?
This would be the most straight forward option from a ‘what happens next’ perspective.
The final vote on the deal is expected to be very tight and nobody knows for certain which way it will go.
But if the deal were to be agreed by the Commons the government could then bring forward the laws needed to enact the UK’s departure from the EU.
The accord would then be put to the European Parliament to be ratified. Assuming MEPs did not block the deal the UK would then leave the EU with an accord on October 31.
But a Government source said: ‘The amendment is not about conditional approval – it is explicitly withholding approval.
‘The vast majority of the signatories have no intention of ever voting for a deal, and have never done so. They want an extension and a chance for a second referendum.’
The motivation behind the Letwin amendment had apparently been the prospect of Mr Johnson’s deal passing today, only for a No Deal Brexit to happen on October 31.
This would occur if the deal passed the Commons today, only to fall away in the subsequent days when MPs were actually required to pass the legislation that enacts it. Some had feared this could then unlock a route to a No Deal exit on October 31.
Under the terms of the amendment, the Commons withholds approval of the deal until the legislation has passed first. Supporters of the plan said they wanted an insurance policy against a No Deal Brexit.
Some of the 21 former Tory MPs who were kicked out of the party by Boris Johnson said they would back his Brexit deal – provided the amendment was voted through first.
Sir Oliver’s plan appears to suggest many MPs still don’t trust the hardcore Eurosceptics not to run down the clock to a No Deal exit.
Former chancellor Philip Hammond, ex-justice secretary David Gauke and former work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd all indicated they would back the amendment, along with leading Remainers Labour’s Hilary Benn, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts.
Mr Hammond suggested he would vote against the Brexit deal unless the Government ruled out leaving without an agreement in December 2020.
In The Times, he wrote: ‘I haven’t come this far seeking to avoid No Deal in 2019 to be duped into voting for a heavily camouflaged No Deal at the end of 2020.’
Sir Nicholas Soames said he would vote in favour of the deal and that his other 20 colleagues who have had the whip removed would ‘by and large vote for it’.
Last night, No10 sources were bullish and insisted a vote could still take place today on the Prime Minister’s deal despite the amendment, but it is not yet clear what status this would have if the amendment is successful.
Sir Oliver said the purpose of his amendment was to ensure an extension to the negotiations if there were problems in passing the deal’s legislation in Parliament.
‘Basically we are supporting the deal and we are making sure there is an insurance policy to make sure there isn’t a mistake that leads to an unforeseen crashing out,’ he said.
‘We are creating a sustained insurance policy which means if something goes wrong with the legislation, then we will be sure that the country will be in the EU beyond 31 October until we have found some other way of getting out conveniently.’
However, Sir Oliver said the amendment would make it easier for Labour MPs to vote with the Government, adding: ‘They know they won’t find themselves in that crashing out position later in the month if something goes wrong in the legislation process, so I really do think it maximises the chance of the deal going through.’
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin (pictured in the Commons yesterday) proposed an amendment yesterday that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved
Story 3: Hillary Clinton Rampant Russian Delusions, Lying and Paranoia — Russia Dumped Hillary Clinton for Tulsi Gabbard As The Russian Choice For Their Candidate in 2020? — In Your Guts You Know Hillary Is Nuts — Lock Her Up — Videos —
Tucker: Hillary spreads vicious lies about fellow Democrats
Hillary Clinton calls Tulsi Gabbard a “favorite of the Russians”
Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming a Democrat for 2020
Hillary Implies Tulsi Boosted by Russians | The View
Ingraham: Heeere’s Hillary
Hillary Clinton talks about the 2020 presidential election
Tulsi Gabbard: This is what’s so dangerous about Hillary Clinton
Russian to Conclusions: Hillary vs. Tulsi and Jill | The News & Why It Matters | Ep 397
Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming a Democrat for 2020
Tulsi Gabbard fires back at Hillary Clinton’s Russian asset claim
Stein says Clinton promoting ‘unhinged conspiracy theory’
Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton “knows she can’t control me”
Max Blumenthal on why Hillary Clinton smeared Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein
Tulsi Gabbard: 9/11 inspired me to enlist in the military
Tulsi Gabbard rips CNN, NY Times for ‘smearing’ her reputation
Tucker: Not everyone in 2020 Democratic field is a lunatic
The Five 10/18/19 | The Five Fox News October 18, 2019
State Dept. finds nearly 600 violations in Clinton’s email scandal
‘You can’t control me’: Defiant Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary has ‘the blood of thousands on her hands’ and calls her the ‘queen of warmongers’ after 2016 loser accused her of being a Russian asset ready to run as an independent candidate
Tulsi Gabbard bashed Hillary Clinton during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Friday
She said the former Secretary of State is waging a smear campaign against her because ‘she knows she can’t control me’
It comes on the heels of Clinton claiming the Russians were ‘grooming’ a Democratic presidential contender to be a third-party spoiler candidate
‘They’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,’ Clinton said
In response, Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was ‘the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption’
On her appearance on Tucker Carlson, Gabbard also insisted that Clinton has blood on her hands for ‘championing’ the Iraq War
Clinton did not mention Gabbard by name but the Hawaii representative has been accused of being a ‘Russian asset’
Gabbard, in Tuesday’s debate, said that allegation was ‘completely despicable’
7-Year-Old Sells Hot Chocolate to Pay for Trump’s Wall
Trump physical shows he’s in ‘very good health overall’ but clinically obese
Cardiologist weighs in on Trump’s annual physical
1 Gallon Chocolate Milk Chugged in way under a minute!!
National Chocolate Milk Day
National Chocolate Milk Day, Super Bowl Half Time Show, Jessica Simpson Weight Loss
national chocolate milk
Trump Administration Allows More Chocolate Milk
San Francisco bans chocolate milk in schools
NATIONAL CHOCOLATE MILK DAY – September 27
NATIONAL CHOCOLATE MILK DAY
Across the country, folks enjoy a tall, frosty glass on National Chocolate Milk Day, which is observed annually on September 27.
In the late 1680s, an Irish-born physician by the name of Sir Hans Sloane invented the chocolatey beverage. When offered the position of personal physician to an English Duke in Jamaica, Sloane jumped at the opportunity. Jamaica interested the naturalist in him.
While in Jamaica, Sloane encountered a local beverage. The locals mixed cocoa and water together. However, when Sloane tasted it, he reported the flavor to be nauseating. After some experimentation, the doctor found a way to combine cocoa with milk. The creamy combination made it a more pleasant-tasting drink. Years later, Sloane returned to England with the chocolate recipe in hand. Initially, apothecaries introduced the concoction as a medicine.
Generations later, chocolate milk lovers enjoy their treat a variety of ways. It can be purchased premixed by the jug or individual serving. For a custom mix, powders and syrups allow us to make it as chocolatey as we like at home.
HOW TO OBSERVE #ChocolateMilkDay
Do you use powder, premix or syrup? Today we even have skim, 2% and whole milk. Which do you prefer? Mix up some chocolate milk to drink. Invite a friend to enjoy the celebration with you. Besides, the best way to #CelebrateEveryDay is with others. Share your celebration using #ChocolateMilkDay on social media.
There are a variety of dates that have been designated as “Chocolate Day” around the world. The most commonly accepted such date is July 7.[citation needed] Various Chocolate Days have been called Local, National or International/World, including conflicting claims.[citation needed]
The U.S. National Confectioners Association lists four primary chocolate holidays on their calendar[1][improper synthesis?] (Chocolate Day (July 7), two National Chocolate Days (October 28 and December 28), and International Chocolate Day (September 13)[2]), in addition to variants such as National Milk Chocolate Day, National White Chocolate Day, and National Cocoa Day.
^““September 2008 dates to celebrate““. Creative Forecasting. 20 (7–12): 6. Retrieved 7 July 2014. International Chocolate Day – This day celebrates the birth anniversary of Milton Hershey (1857 – 1945)
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty, formally Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles; Russian: Договор о ликвидации ракет средней и меньшей дальности / ДРСМД, Dogovor o likvidatsiy raket sredney i menshey dalnosti / DRSMD) was an arms controltreaty between the United States and the Soviet Union (and its successor state, the Russian Federation). US PresidentRonald Reagan and Soviet General SecretaryMikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty on 8 December 1987.[1][2] The United States Senate approved the treaty on 27 May 1988, and Reagan and Gorbachev ratified it on 1 June 1988.[2][3]
The INF Treaty banned all of the two nations’ land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–1,000 kilometers (310–620 mi) (short medium-range) and 1,000–5,500 km (620–3,420 mi) (intermediate-range). The treaty did not apply to air- or sea-launched missiles.[4][5] By May 1991, the nations had eliminated 2,692 missiles, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections.[6]
Amidst continuing growth of China’s missile forces, US President Donald Trump announced on 20 October 2018 that he was withdrawing the US from the treaty, accusing Russia of non-compliance.[7][8] The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019,[9] and Russia did so on the following day in response.[10] The US formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.[11] On September 4, 2019, President Putin stated that Russia will make new missiles but will not deploy them until the United States does so first. [12]
Contents
Background
In March 1976, the Soviet Union first deployed the RSD-10 Pioneer (called SS-20 Saber in the West) in its European territories, a mobile, concealable intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) containing three nuclear 150-kiloton warheads.[13] The SS-20’s range of 4,700–5,000 kilometers (2,900–3,100 mi) was great enough to reach Western Europe from well within Soviet territory; the range was just below the SALT II minimum range for an intercontinental ballistic missile, 5,500 km (3,400 mi).[14][15][16] The SS-20 replaced aging Soviet systems of the SS-4 Sandal and SS-5 Skean, which were seen to pose a limited threat to Western Europe due to their poor accuracy, limited payload (one warhead), lengthy preparation time, difficulty in being concealed, and immobility (thus exposing them to pre-emptiveNATO strikes ahead of a planned attack).[17] Whereas the SS-4 and SS-5 were seen as defensive weapons, the SS-20 was seen as a potential offensive system.[18]
The US, then under President Jimmy Carter, initially considered its strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft to be adequate counters to the SS-20 and a sufficient deterrent against possible Soviet aggression. In 1977, however, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany argued in a speech that a Western response to the SS-20 deployment should be explored, a call which was echoed by NATO, given a perceived Western disadvantage in European nuclear forces.[16]Leslie H. Gelb, the US Assistant Secretary of State, later recounted that Schmidt’s speech pressured the US into developing a response.[19]
SS-20 launchers
On 12 December 1979, following European pressure for a response to the SS-20, Western foreign and defense ministers meeting in Brussels made the NATO Double-Track Decision.[16] The ministers argued that the Warsaw Pact had “developed a large and growing capability in nuclear systems that directly threaten Western Europe”: “theater” nuclear systems (i.e., tactical nuclear weapons).[20] In describing this “aggravated” situation, the ministers made direct reference to the SS-20 featuring “significant improvements over previous systems in providing greater accuracy, more mobility, and greater range, as well as having multiple warheads”. The ministers also attributed the altered situation to the deployment of the Soviet Tupolev Tu-22Mstrategic bomber, which they believed to display “much greater performance” than its predecessors. Furthermore, the ministers expressed concern that the Soviet Union had gained an advantage over NATO in “Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces” (LRTNF), and also significantly increased short-range theater nuclear capacity.[21]
To address these developments, the ministers adopted two policy “tracks” which Joseph Stalin had created in 1941. One thousand theater nuclear warheads, out of 7,400 such warheads, would be removed from Europe and the US would pursue bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union intended to limit theater nuclear forces. Should these negotiations fail, NATO would modernize its own LRTNF, or intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF), by replacing US Pershing 1a missiles with 108 Pershing II launchers in West Germany and deploying 464 BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCMs) to Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom beginning in December 1983.[15][22][23][24]
Negotiations
Early negotiations: 1981–1983
The Soviet Union and United States agreed to open negotiations and preliminary discussions, named the Preliminary Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Talks,[15] which began in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 1980. On 20 January 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn into office as President after defeating Jimmy Carter in an election. Formal talks began on 30 November 1981, with the US then led by Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union by Leonid Brezhnev. The core of the US negotiating position reflected the principles put forth under Carter: any limits placed on US INF capabilities, both in terms of “ceilings” and “rights”, must be reciprocated with limits on Soviet systems. Additionally, the US insisted that a sufficient verification regime be in place.[25]
Paul Nitze, 1983
Paul Nitze, a longtime hand at defense policy who had participated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), led the US delegation after being recruited by Secretary of State Alexander Haig. Though Nitze had backed the first SALT treaty, he opposed SALT II and had resigned from the US delegation during its negotiation. Nitze was also then a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a firmly anti-Soviet group composed of neoconservatives and conservative Republicans.[19][26] Yuli Kvitsinsky, the well-respected second-ranking official at the Soviet embassy in West Germany, headed the Soviet delegation.[18][27][28][29]
On 18 November 1981, shortly before the beginning of formal talks, Reagan made the Zero Option proposal (or the “zero-zero” proposal).[30] The plan called for a hold on US deployment of GLCM and Pershing II systems, reciprocated by Soviet elimination of its SS-4, SS-5, and SS-20 missiles. There appeared to be little chance of the Zero Option being adopted, but the gesture was well received in the European public. In February 1982, US negotiators put forth a draft treaty containing the Zero Option and a global prohibition on intermediate- and short-range missiles, with compliance ensured via a stringent, though unspecific, verification program.[27]
Opinion within the Reagan administration on the Zero Option was mixed. Richard Perle, then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, was the architect of the plan. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who supported a continued US nuclear presence in Europe, was skeptical of the plan, though eventually accepted it for its value in putting the Soviet Union “on the defensive in the European propaganda war”. Reagan later recounted that the “zero option sprang out of the realities of nuclear politics in Western Europe”.[30] The Soviet Union rejected the plan shortly after the US tabled it in February 1982, arguing that both the US and Soviet Union should be able to retain intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Specifically, Soviet negotiators proposed that the number of INF missiles and aircraft deployed in Europe by one side be capped at 600 by 1985 and 300 by 1990. Concerned that this proposal would force the US to withdraw aircraft from Europe and not deploy INF missiles, given US cooperation with existing British and French deployments, the US proposed “equal rights and limits”—the US would be permitted to match Soviet SS-20 deployments.[27]
There was little convergence between the two sides over these two years. A US effort to separate the question of nuclear-capable aircraft from that of intermediate-range missiles successfully focused attention on the latter, but little clear progress on the subject was made. In the summer of 1982, Nitze and Kvitsinsky took a “walk in the woods” in the Jura Mountains, away from formal negotiations in Geneva, in an independent attempt to bypass bureaucratic procedures and break the negotiating deadlock.[32][18][33] Nitze later said that his and Kvitsinsky’s goal was to agree to certain concessions that would allow for a summit meeting between Brezhnev and Reagan later in 1982.[34]
Protest in Amsterdam against the nuclear arms race between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union
Nitze’s offer to Kvitsinsky was that the US would forego deployment of the Pershing II and continue deployment of GLCMs, but limited to 75 missile launchers. The Soviet Union, in return, would also have to limit itself to 75 intermediate-range missile launchers in Europe and 90 in Asia. Due to each GLCM launcher containing four GLCMs and each SS-20 launcher containing three warheads, such an agreement would have resulted in the US having 75 more intermediate-range warheads in Europe than the Soviet Union, though SS-20s were seen as more advanced and maneuverable than GLCMs. While Kvitsinsky was skeptical that the plan would be well received in Moscow, Nitze was optimistic about its chances in Washington.[34] The deal ultimately found little traction in either capital. In the US, the Office of the Secretary of Defense opposed Nitze’s proposal, as it opposed any proposal that would allow the Soviet Union to deploy missiles to Europe while blocking US deployments. Nitze’s proposal was relayed by Kvitsinsky to Moscow, where it was also rejected. The plan accordingly was never introduced into formal negotiations.[32][18]
Thomas Graham, a US negotiator, later recalled that Nitze’s “walk in the woods” proposal was primarily of Nitze’s own design and known beforehand only to William F. Burns, another arms control negotiator and representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and Eugene V. Rostow, the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In a National Security Council meeting following the Nitze-Kvitsinsky walk, the proposal was received positively by the JCS and Reagan. Following protests by Richard Perle, working within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Reagan informed Nitze that he would not back the plan. The State Department, then led by Alexander Haig, also indicated that it would not support Nitze’s plan and preferred a return to the Zero Option proposal.[18][33][34] Nitze argued that one positive consequence of the walk in the woods was that the European public, which had doubted US interest in arms control, became convinced that the US was participating in the INF negotiations in good faith.[34]
In early 1983, US negotiators indicated that they would support a plan beyond the Zero Option if the plan established equal rights and limits for the US and Soviet Union, with such limits valid worldwide, and excluded British and French missile systems (as well as those of any other third party). As a temporary measure, the US negotiators also proposed a cap of 450 deployed INF warheads around the world for both the US and Soviet Union. In response, Soviet negotiators expressed that a plan would have to block all US INF deployments in Europe, cover both missiles and aircraft, include third parties, and focus primarily on Europe for it to gain Soviet backing. In the fall of 1983, just ahead of the scheduled deployment of US Pershing IIs and GLCMs, the US lowered its proposed limit on global INF deployments to 420 missiles, while the Soviet Union proposed “equal reductions”: if the US cancelled the planned deployment of Pershing II and GLCM systems, the Soviet Union would reduce its own INF deployment by 572 warheads. In November 1983, after the first Pershing IIs arrived in West Germany, the Soviet Union walked out of negotiations, as it had warned it would do should the US missile deployments occur.[35]
Restarted negotiations: 1985–1987
Reagan and Gorbachev shake hands after signing the INF Treaty ratification during the Moscow Summit on 1 June 1988.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher played a key role in brokering the negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1986 to 1987.[36]
In March 1986, negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union resumed, covering not only the INF issue, but also separate discussions on strategic weapons (START I) and space issues (Nuclear and Space Talks). In late 1985, both sides were moving towards limiting INF systems in Europe and Asia. On 15 January 1986, Gorbachev announced a Soviet proposal for a ban on all nuclear weapons by 2000, which included INF missiles in Europe. This was dismissed by the US and countered with a phased reduction of INF launchers in Europe and Asia to none by 1989. There would be no constraints on British and French nuclear forces.[37]
A series of meetings in August and September 1986 culminated in the Reykjavík Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev on 11 and 12 October 1986. Both agreed in principle to remove INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads. Gorbachev also proposed deeper and more fundamental changes in the strategic relationship. More detailed negotiations extended throughout 1987, aided by the decision of West Germany Chancellor Helmut Kohl in August to unilaterally remove the joint US-West German Pershing 1a systems. Initially, Kohl had opposed the total elimination of the Pershing Missiles, claiming that such a move would increase his nation’s vulnerability to an attack by Warsaw Pact Forces.[38] The treaty text was finally agreed in September 1987. On 8 December 1987, the Treaty was officially signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at a summit in Washington and ratified the following May in a 93-5 vote by the United States Senate.[39][40]
Contents
The treaty prohibits both parties from possessing, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500–5,000 km. Possessing or producing ground-based launchers of those missiles is also prohibited. The ban extends to weapons with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but does not cover air-delivered or sea-based missiles.[41]
Existing weapons had to be destroyed, and a protocol for mutual inspection was agreed upon.[41]
Each party has the right to withdraw from the treaty with six months’ notice, “if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests”.[41]
A Soviet inspector examines a BGM-109G Gryphon ground-launched cruise missile in 1988 prior to its destruction.
Accompanied by their NATO counterparts, Soviet inspectors enter a nuclear weapons storage area at Greenham Common, UK, 1989.
By the treaty’s deadline of 1 June 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the US and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.[42] The following specific missiles, their launcher systems, and their transporter vehicles were destroyed:[43]
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the United States considered twelve of the post-Soviet states to be inheritors of the treaty obligations (the three Baltic states are considered to preexist their annexation by the Soviet Union). Of the six having inspectable INF facilities on their territories, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine became active participants in the treaty process, while Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, having less significant INF sites, assumed a less active role.[44]
As provided by the treaty, onsite inspections ended in 2001. After that time, compliance was checked primarily by satellites.[45]
Initial skepticism and allegations of treaty violations
In February 2007, the Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said the INF Treaty should be revisited to ensure security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries.[46] The Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Yuri Baluyevsky contemporaneously said that Russia was planning to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty in response to deployment of adaptable defensive NATO missile system and because other countries were not bound to the treaty.[47]
According to US officials, Russia violated the treaty by testing the SSC-8 cruise missile in 2008.[48] Russia rejected the claim that their SSC-8 missiles violates the treaty, and says that the SSC-8 can travel only up to a maximum of 480 km.[49] In 2013, reports came out that Russia had tested and planned to continue testing two missiles in ways that could violate the terms of the treaty: the SS-25 road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and the newer RS-26 ICBM.[50] The US representatives briefed NATO on a Russian nuclear treaty breach again in 2014[51][52] and 2017,[48][53] and in 2018, NATO formally supported the US accusations and accused Russia of breaking the treaty.[11][54] Russia denied the accusation and Putin said it was a pretext for the US to leave the pact.[11] A BBC analysis of the meeting that culminated in the NATO statement said that “NATO allies here share Washington’s concerns and have backed the US position, thankful perhaps that it includes this short grace period during which Russia might change its mind.”[55]
In 2011, Dan Blumenthal of the American Enterprise Institute wrote that the actual Russian problem with the INF was that China is not bound by it and continued to build up their own intermediate-range forces.[56]
According to Russian officials and academic Theodore Postol, the American decision to deploy the missile defense system in Europe was a violation of the treaty as they claim they could be quickly retrofitted with offensive capabilities;[57][58][59] this accusation has in turn been rejected by US and NATO officials and analyst Jeffrey Lewis.[59][60] Russian experts also stated that the US usage of target missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-4, violated the INF Treaty[61] which has also in turn been rejected by US officials.[62]
The United States declared its intention to withdraw from the treaty on 20 October 2018.[7][63][64] Donald Trump mentioned at a campaign rally that the reason for the pullout was because “they’ve [Russia has] been violating it for many years”.[63] This prompted Putin to state that Russia would not launch first in a nuclear conflict but would “annihilate” any adversary, essentially re-stating the policy of “Mutually Assured Destruction“. Putin claimed Russians killed in such a conflict “will go to heaven as martyrs”.[65]
It was also reported that the United States’ need to counter a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific, including within South China Sea, was another reason for their move to withdraw, because China is not a signatory to the treaty.[7][63][64] US officials extending back to the Obama period have noted this. For example, Kelly Magsamen, who helped craft the Pentagon’s Asian policy under the Obama administration, said China’s ability to work outside of the INF treaty had vexed policymakers in Washington, long before Trump came into office.[66] A Politico article noted the different responses US officials gave to this issue: “either find ways to bring China into the treaty or develop new American weapons to counter it” or “negotiating a new treaty with that country”.[67] The deployment since 2016 of the DF-26 missile system with a range of 4,000 km meant that US forces as far as Guam can be threatened.[66] The United States Secretary of Defense at the time, Jim Mattis, was quoted stating that “the Chinese are stockpiling missiles because they’re not bound by it at all”.[7] Bringing an ascendant China into the treaty, or into a new comprehensive treaty including other nuclear powers, was further complicated by relationships between China, India and Pakistan.[68]
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said a unilateral US withdrawal would have a negative impact and urged the US to “think thrice before acting”. John R. Bolton, US National Security Advisor, said on Echo of Moscow that recent Chinese statements indicate that it wants Washington to stay in the treaty, while China itself is not bound in a treaty.[66] It’s been estimated that 90% of China’s ground missile arsenal would be outlawed if China were a party to the treaty.[67] Bolton said in an interview with Elena Chernenko from the Russian newspaper Kommersant on 22 October 2018: “we see China, Iran, North Korea all developing capabilities which would violate the treaty if they were parties to it. So the possibility that could have existed fifteen years ago to enlarge the treaty and make it universal today just simply was not practical.”[69]
On 26 October 2018, Russia called but lost a vote to get the UN General Assembly to consider calling on Washington and Moscow to preserve and strengthen the treaty.[70] Russia had proposed a draft resolution in the 193-member General Assembly’s disarmament committee, but missed the 18 October submission deadline[70] so it instead called for a vote on whether the committee should be allowed to consider the draft.[70] On the same day, John R. Bolton said in an interview with Reuters that the INF Treaty was a cold war relic and he wanted to hold strategic talks with Russia about Chinese missile capabilities.[71]China has been suggested to be “the real target of the [pull out]”.[67]
Four days later, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to comply with the treaty at a news conference in Norway saying “The problem is the deployment of new Russian missiles”.[72]
Russian president Vladimir Putin announced on 20 November 2018 that the Kremlin was prepared to discuss INF with Washington but would “retaliate” if the United States withdrew.[73]
Starting on 4 December 2018, the United States said Russia had 60 days to comply with the treaty.[74] On 5 December 2018, Russia responded by revealing their Peresvet combat laser, stating they had been deployed to Russia armed forces as early as 2017 “as part of the state procurement program”.[75]
Russia presented the 9M729 (SSC-8) missile and its technical parameters to foreign military attachés at a military briefing on 23 January 2019, held in what it said was an exercise in transparency it hoped would persuade Washington to stay in the treaty.[76] The Russian Defence Ministry said diplomats from the United States, Britain, France and Germany had been invited to attend the static display of the missile, but they declined to attend.[76] The United States had previously rejected a Russian offer to do so because it said such an exercise would not allow it to verify the true range of its warheads.[76]
The summit between US and Russia on 30 January 2019 failed to find a way to preserve the treaty.[77]
The United States suspended its compliance with the INF Treaty on 2 February 2019 following an announcement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo the day prior. In addition the US said there was a six-month timeline for full withdrawal and INF Treaty termination if the Russian Federation did not come back into compliance within those six months given.[78][68] The same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had also suspended the INF Treaty in a ‘mirror response’ to President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend the treaty, effective that day.[10] The next day, Russia started work on new intermediate range (ballistic) hypersonic missiles along with land based (club kalibr – biryuza) systems (both nuclear armed) in response to the USA announcing it would start to conduct research and development of weapons prohibited under the treaty.[79]
Following the six-month period from 2 February suspension from INF, the United States administration formally announced it had withdrawn from the treaty on 2 August 2019. According to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “Russia is solely responsible for the treaty’s demise”.[80] While formally ratifying a treaty requires two-thirds of the Senate to ratify, a number of presidential decisions during the 20th and 21st centuries have set a common legal ground that the President and executive branch can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without congressional approval, as Congress has rarely acted to stop such actions.[81] On the same day of the withdrawal, the United States Department of Defense announced plans to test a new type of missile, one that would have violated the treaty, from an eastern NATO base. Military leaders stated the need for this new missile as to stay ahead of both Russia and China, in response to Russia’s continued violations.[80]
The US’s withdrawal was backed by several of its NATO allies, citing the years of Russia’s non-compliance with the INF treaty.[80] In response to the withdrawal, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov invited the US and NATO “to assess the possibility of declaring the same moratorium on deploying intermediate-range and shorter-range equipment as we have, the same moratorium Vladimir Putin declared, saying that Russia will refrain from deploying these systems when we acquire them unless the American equipment is deployed in certain regions.”[80] This moratorium request was rejected by Stoltenberg who said that it was not credible as Moscow had already deployed such warheads.[82] On August 5, 2019, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated, “As of August 2, 2019 the INF Treaty no longer exists. Our US colleagues sent it to the archives, making it a thing of the past.”[83]
United States test firing a conventionally configured ground-launched medium-range cruise missile on 18 August 2019
On 18 August 2019, the United States conducted a test firing of a missile that would not have been allowed under the treaty.[84][85] The Pentagon said that the data collected and lessons learned from this test would inform its future development of intermediate-range capabilities while the Russian foreign ministry said that it was a cause for regret, and accused the US of escalating military tensions.[84][85]
Reactions to the withdrawal
Numerous prominent nuclear arms control experts, including George Shultz, Richard Lugar and Sam Nunn, urged Trump to preserve the treaty.[86]Mikhail Gorbachev commented that Trump’s nuclear treaty withdrawal is “not the work of a great mind” and that “a new arms race has been announced”.[87][88]
The decision was criticized by chairmen of the United States House of Representatives Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services who said that instead of crafting a plan to hold Russia accountable and pressure it into compliance, the Trump administration has offered Putin an easy way out of the treaty and has played right into his hands.[89] Similar arguments were brought previously, on 25 October 2018 by European members of NATO who urged the United States “to try to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty rather than quit it, seeking to avoid a split in the alliance that Moscow could exploit”.[70]
Stoltenberg has suggested the INF Treaty could be expanded to include countries such as China and India, whose non-inclusion, Stoltenberg said, Russia had previously admonished.[90]
There were contrasting opinions on the withdrawal among American lawmakers. The INF Treaty Compliance Act (H.R. 1249) was introduced to stop the United States from using Government funds to develop missiles prohibited by the treaty.[91][92] while Senators Jim Inhofe and Jim Risch issued statements of support.[93]
On 8 March 2019, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine announced that since the United States and Russian Federation had both pulled out of the INF treaty, it now had the right to develop intermediate-range missiles, citing Russian aggression as a serious threat to the European continent, and the presence of Russian Iskander-M nuclear-capable missile systems in Crimea.[94] Ukraine had about forty percent of Soviet space industry, but never developed a missile with the range to strike Moscow[95] (only having both longer and shorter-ranged missiles). Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko said “We need high-precision missiles and we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the Budapest Memorandum“.[95]
After the United States withdrew from the treaty, multiple sources opined that it would allow the country to more effectively counter Russia and China’s missile forces.[96][97][98]
Story 3: Trump Administration Will Appeal Ruling Barring Indefinite Detention of Illegal Alien Families Thus Ending Catch and Release Under The Flores Agreement — Democrats Want The Invasion of United States To Continue and Citizenship For All Illegal Aliens That Reach The United States — The Majority of American People Want Immigration Laws Enforced and Deportation of All 30-60 Millions Illegal Aliens — American People vs. The REDS (Radical Extremist Democrat Socialists) — Videos
Judge blocks effort to extend migrant children’s detention
Carafano: Trump’s Action On Flores Agreement Much More Humane
News Wrap: House challenges Trump on border national emergency
19 States File Lawsuit Against Government Over Flores Settlement Agreement
Trump Administration To Allow Longer Detention Of Migrant Families
Press conference of the U.S. Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Trump administration ends “loophole” immigration rule that could keep kids in detention for longer
Flores Settlement
U.S. judge blocks Trump rule on migrant child detention
PUBLISHED: 19:42 EDT, 27 September 2019 | UPDATED: 19:42 EDT, 27 September 2019
By Kristina Cooke
LOS ANGELES, Sept 27 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Friday blocked a Trump administration rule that would have allowed indefinite detention of migrant families, saying it was inconsistent with a decades-old court settlement that governs conditions for migrant children in U.S. custody.
The 1997 settlement agreement, which originated in 1985 with a complaint brought on behalf of 15-year-old Salvadoran immigrant Jenny L. Flores, set standards for humane treatment of children in detention and ordered their prompt release in most cases.
The Trump administration had hoped a new rule issued on Aug. 23 would replace the settlement, which had been modified over the years to prevent the long-term detention of families. The administration had said its rule would allow families to be held in humane conditions while their U.S. immigration court cases were decided.
The judge disagreed.
“This regulation is inconsistent with one of the primary goals of the Flores Agreement, which is to instate a general policy favoring release and expeditiously place minors ‘in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs,'” U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles wrote in her ruling.
“The Flores Settlement Agreement remains in effect and has not been terminated,” she wrote.
U.S. President Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigration a hallmark of his presidency, and administration officials have repeatedly referred to the Flores agreement’s standards as “loopholes” that have attracted increasing numbers of mostly Central American families seeking U.S. asylum by forcing authorities to release them into the United States to wait for the outcome of their immigration hearings.
The new regulation would have allowed the administration to hold families indefinitely during court processes that can take months or years because of large court backlogs. It had been due to go into effect next month.
In a court hearing in Los Angeles on Friday, Gee asked Department of Justice Attorney August Flentje how he could argue that the new regulations were not inconsistent with the terms of the Flores agreement.
“Just because you tell me it is night outside, doesn’t mean it is not day,” Gee said.
Lawyers for the Trump administration are expected to appeal. A Department of Justice spokesman said it was “disappointed that the court is continuing to impose the outdated Flores Agreement even after the government has done exactly what the Agreement required: issue a comprehensive rule that will protect vulnerable children, maintain family unity, and ensure due process for those awaiting adjudication of their immigration claims.”
The acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew Albence, said earlier this week that family detention was just one tool available to the administration as it seeks to end what it calls “catch and release”. A policy that began this year of sending border crossers back to Mexico to wait for their immigration hearings is another, he said.
Albence and other administration officials have said the government would not be able to add to its around 3,300 family detention beds without additional funds being made available by the U.S. Congress. (Reporting by Kristina Cooke in Los Angelese and Alexandra Alper in Washington; Editing by Sandra Maler )
113 S. Ct. 1439; 123 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2399; 61 U.S.L.W. 4237; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2028; 93 Daily Journal DAR 3628; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 73
INS regulation—which provides that alien juveniles detained on suspicion of being deportable may be released only to a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult—accords with both the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Jenny Lisette Flores, et al. (Reno v. Flores), 507 U.S. 292 (1993), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the detention and release of unaccompanied minors.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service‘s regulations regarding the release of alien unaccompanied minors did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.[1] The Court held that “alien juveniles detained on suspicion of being deportable may be released only to a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult.” The legacy for which Reno v. Flores became known was the subsequent 1997 court-supervised stipulated settlement agreement which is binding on the defendants (the federal government agencies)[2]—the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement or Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) to which both parties in Reno v. Flores agreed in the District Court for Central California (C.D. Cal.).[3][Notes 1] The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), supervised by C.D. Cal., has set strict national regulations and standards regarding the detention and treatment of minors by federal agencies for over twenty years. It remains in effect until the federal government introduces final regulations to implement the FSA agreement. The FSA governs the policy for the treatment of unaccompanied alien children in federal custody of the legacy INS and its successor—United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the various agencies that operate under the jurisdiction of the DHS. The FSA is supervised by a U.S. district judge in the District Court for Central California.[4]
The litigation originated in the class action lawsuit Flores v. Meese filed on July 11, 1985 by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) and two other organizations on behalf of immigrant minors, including Jenny Lisette Flores, who had been placed in a detention center for male and female adults after being apprehended by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as she attempted to illegally cross the Mexico-United States border.
Under the Flores Settlement and current circumstances, DHS asserts that it generally cannot detain alien children and their parents together for more than brief periods [4]. In his June 20, 2018 executive order, President Trump had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ask the District Court for the Central District of California, to “modify” the Flores agreement to “allow the government to detain alien families together” for longer periods, which would include the time it took for the family’s immigration proceedings and potential “criminal proceedings for unlawful entry into the United States”.[4]:2 In July 9, Judge Gee of the Federal District of California, ruled that there was no basis to amend the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) that “requires children to be released to licensed care programs within 20 days.”[5]
In 2017, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that children who were in custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection lacked “food, clean water and basic hygiene items” and were sleep-deprived. She ordered the federal government to provide items such as soap and to improve the conditions.[6] The federal government appealed the decision saying that the order forcing them to offer specific items and services exceeded the original Flores agreement. The June 18, 2019 hearing became infamous[7] and caused nation wide outrage when a video of the Department of Justice senior attorney arguing against providing minors with toothbrushes and soap, went viral. The federal government lost their appeal when the 3 judge appeals court upheld Judge Gee’s order on August 15, 2019.[6]
Contents
Background and lower court cases
In 1985, Jenny Lisette Flores, an unaccompanied 15-year-old girl from El Salvador, was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) after illegally attempting to cross the Mexico-United States border.[8]:1648 The unaccompanied minor was taken to a detention facility where she was held among adults of both sexes, was daily strip searched, and was told she would only be released to the custody of her parents, who, INS suspected, were illegal immigrants.[9]
On July 11, 1985, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and two other organizations, filed a class action lawsuit Flores v. Meese, No. 85-4544 (C.D. Cal.) on behalf of Flores and “all minors apprehended by the INS in the Western Region of the United States”,[3]:1 against U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, challenging the conditions of juvenile detention and alleging that the “defendants’ policies, practices and regulations regarding the detention and release of unaccompanied minors taken into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the Western Region” were unconstitutional.[3]:1 Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that government’s detention and release policies were in violation of the children’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.[8]:1648[10] The plaintiffs originally directed their complaint at the newly released policy introduced by then director of Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Harold W. Ezell. Under the new policy—83 Fed. Reg. at 45489—which was introduced on September 6, 1984, a detained immigrant minor “could only be released to a parent or legal guardian”. This resulted in minors, such as Flores, being detained in poor conditions for “lengthy or indefinite” periods of time.[11]:33
In late 1987, the C.D. Cal District Court had “approved a consent decree to which all the parties had agreed, “that settled all claims regarding the detention conditions”.[12]
In 1988, INS issued a new regulation— 8 CFR 242.24—that amended the 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 212 and 242 regarding the Detention and Release of Juveniles. The new INS regulation, known as 242.24, provided for the “release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances.”[12] The stated purpose of the rule was “to codify the [INS] policy regarding detention and release of juvenile aliens and to provide a single policy for juveniles in both deportation and exclusion proceedings.”[13]
On May 25, 1988, soon after the 8 CFR 242.24 regulation took effect, C.D. Cal District Judge Kelleher in Flores v. Meese, No. CV 85-4544-RJK (Px) rejected it and removed limitations regarding which adults could receive the minors. Judge Kelleher held that all minors have the right to receive a hearing from an immigration judge.[14][15] Judge Kelleher held that 8 CFR 242.24 “violated substantive due process, and ordered modifications to the regulation.”[13] He ruled that “INS release and bond procedures for detained minors in deportation proceedings fell short of the requirements of procedural due process.” He ordered the INS to provide the minors with an “administrative hearing to determine probable cause for his arrest and the need for any restrictions placed upon his release.”[13] The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the release conditions.[12][16]:35 This “invalidating the regulatory scheme on due process grounds” and ordered the INS to “release any otherwise eligible juvenile to a parent, guardian, custodian, conservator, or “other responsible adult party”. The District Court also required that the juvenile have a hearing with an immigration judge immediately after their arrest, even if the juvenile did not request it.[12][14]
In Flores v. Meese, 681 F. Supp. 665 (C.D. Cal. 1988), U.S. District Judge Robert J. Kelleher found that the INS policy to strip search children was unconstitutional.[17][Notes 2]
In June 1990, in Flores v. Meese, 934 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1990), in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judges John Clifford Wallace and Lloyd D. George, reversed Judge Kelleher’s 1988 ruling. Judge Betty Binns Fletcher dissented.[18][19] In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges concluded that the INS did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating 242.24. They ruled that 242.24 did not violate substantive due process, under the Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. They ruled that a remand was necessary with respect to a procedural due process claim (934 F2d 991).
On August 9, 1991, the Ninth Circuit 11-judge en banc majority in Flores v. Meese, overturned its June 1990 panel opinion and affirmed Judge Kelleher’s 1988 ruling against the government citing federal constitutional grounds including due process.[Notes 3][20] They vacated the panel opinion and affirmed the District Court’s order in all respects (942 F2d 1352).[Notes 4][21] According to Judge Dee’s ruling in Flores v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion to enforce [Paragraph 24A of] the Flores Agreement, holding that nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) or Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA) renders continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, “impermissible.”[22]
On January 17, 1997 both parties signed the class action settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), which is binding on the defendants—the federal government agencies.[2]
USSC Reno v. Flores 1993
…”Where a juvenile has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, where the government does not intend to punish the child, and where the conditions of governmental custody are decent and humane, such custody surely does not violate the Constitution. It is rationally connected to a governmental interest in `preserving and promoting the welfare of the child,’ …and is not punitive since it is not excessive in relation to that valid purpose.” …Because this is a facial challenge, the Court rightly focuses on the Juvenile Care Agreement. It is proper to presume that the conditions of confinement are no longer ” `most disturbing,’ …and that the purposes of confinement are no longer the troublesome ones of lack of resources and expertise published in the Federal Register…but rather the plainly legitimate purposes associated with the government’s concern for the welfare of the minors. With those presumptions in place, “the terms and conditions of confinement…are in fact compatible with [legitimate] purposes,” …and the Court finds that the INS program conforms with the Due Process Clause.”
In Reno v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled on March 23, 1993 that while “detained children in question had a constitutionally protected interest in freedom from institutional confinement”, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ 1991 decision in Flores v. Meese because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulation 8 CFR 242.24 in question, complied with the requirements of due process. The INS regulation—8 CFR 242.24—”generally authorized the release of a detained alien juvenile, in order of preference, to a parent, a legal guardian, or specified close adult relatives of the juvenile, unless the INS determined that detention was required to secure an appearance or to ensure the safety of the juvenile or others”.[23][12] This “meant that in limited circumstances” juveniles could be released to “to another person who executed an agreement to care for the juvenile and to ensure the juvenile’s attendance at future immigration proceedings”. Juveniles who are not released would “generally require” a “suitable placement at a facility which, in accordance with the [1987] consent decree, had to meet specified care standards.”[12][Notes 5][Notes 6]
On March 23, 1993, on certiorari the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, voting 7–2 to reverse the lower court—the Court of Appeals.[24]:A19 Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Byron White, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas, held that the unaccompanied alien children had no constitutional right to be released to someone other than a close relative, nor to automatic review by an immigration judge.[25] In an opinion by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, it was held that the INS policy—242.24—did not violate substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. While lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged in a “novel” way that children have a fundamental right to liberty, in which a child who has “no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the government was responsible” has the right “to be placed in the custody of a willing and able private custodian rather than the custody of a government-operated or government-selected child care institution.” The Court ruled that if that fundamental right existed, “it would presumably apply to state custody over orphaned and abandoned children as well.” They ruled that “under the circumstances” “continued government custody was rationally connected to a government interest in promoting juveniles’ welfare and was not punitive” and that “there was no constitutional need to meet even a more limited demand for an individualized hearing as to whether private placement would be in a juvenile’s “best interests,” so long as institutional custody was good enough.” The Court held that the INS “did not violate procedural due process, under the Fifth Amendment, through failing to require the INS to determine in the case of each alien juvenile that detention in INS custody would better serve the juvenile’s interests than release to some other “responsible adult,” not providing for automatic review by an immigration judge of initial INS deportability and custody determinations, or failing to set a time period within which an immigration judge hearing, if requested, had to be held.” The Court also held that this was not “beyond the scope of the Attorney General’s discretion” because the INS 242.24 “rationally pursued the lawful purpose of protecting the welfare of such juveniles.”[12][Notes 7][26][Notes 8] It held that the juveniles could be “detained pending deportation hearings pursuant” under 8 CFR § 242.24 which “provides for the release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances.”[23]
The Supreme Court justices said that in Reno v. Flores, most of the juveniles detained by INS and the Border Patrol at that time [1980s – early 1990s] were “16 or 17 years old”, and had “telephone contact with a responsible adult outside the INS–sometimes a legal services attorney”. They said that due process was “satisfied by giving the detained alien juveniles the right to a hearing before an immigration judge” and that there was no proof at that time “that all of them are too young or too ignorant to exercise that right when the form asking them to assert or waive it is presented.”[27]
Stevens, joined by Blackmun, dissented, expressing the view that the litigation history of the case at hand cast doubt on the good faith of the government’s asserted interest in the welfare of such detained alien juveniles as a justification for 242.24, and demonstrated the complete lack of support, in either evidence or experience, for the government’s contention that detaining such juveniles, when there were “other responsible parties” willing to assume care, somehow protected the interests of those juveniles; an agency’s interest in minimizing administrative costs was a patently inadequate justification for the detention of harmless children, even when the conditions of detention were “good enough”; and 242.24, in providing for the wholesale detention of such juveniles for an indeterminate period without individual hearings, was not authorized by 1252(a)(1), and did not satisfy the federal constitutional demands of due process.[12]
Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA)
On January 28, 1997, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) and the federal government signed the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement, which is also known as The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), Flores Settlement, Flores v. Reno Agreement.[28][29][30][31] Following many years of litigation which started with the July 11, 1985 filing of class action lawsuit, Flores v. Meese, and included the Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores which was decided in 1993, the consent decree or settlement was reached in the United States District Court for the Central District of California between the parties. The court-supervised settlement, The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), continues to overseen by the District Court for the Central District of California. The Flores Agreement has set strict national regulations and standards regarding the detention and treatment of minors in federal custody since then. Among other things, the federal government agreed to keep children in the least restrictive setting possible and to ensure the prompt release of children from immigration detention.[8]:1650
According to September 17, 2018 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the FSA was “intended as a temporary measure”.[4]:7 By 2001, both parties agreed that the FSA “would remain in effect until 45 days following [the] defendants’ publication of final regulations” governing the treatment of detained, minors.”[4]:7 By 2019, the federal government had “not published any such rules or regulations” so the FSA “continues to govern those agencies that now carry out the functions of the former INS.”[4]:7 With the Flores Settlement in place, the executive branch maintains that it has two options regarding the detention of arriving family units that demonstrate a credible fear of persecution pending the outcome of their removal proceedings in immigration court: (1) generally release family units; or (2) generally separate family units by keeping the parents in detention and releasing the children only.[4]
The Flores Agreement sets nationwide policies and “standards for the detention, release and treatment of minors in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)[31] by prioritizing them for release to the custody of their families and requiring those in federal custody to be placed in the least restrictive environment possible,” according to a 2018 NBC News article.[32]
According to the legal nonprofit Human Rights First, the FSA required that immigration authorities “release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay in order of preference beginning with parents and including other adult relatives as well as licensed programs willing to accept custody”. If a suitable placement is not “immediately available, the government is obligated to place children in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate to their “age and any special needs”.[33] The settlement agreement also required that the government “implement standards relating to the care and treatment of children in immigration detention.[33]
The FSA required immigration officials to provide detained minors with “food and drinking water as appropriate”, “medical assistance if minor is in need of emergency services”, “toilets and sinks”, “adequate temperature control and ventilation”, “adequate supervision to protect minors from others”, “contact with family members who were arrested with the minor and separation from unrelated adults whenever possible.”[34]:3-4[29]
Under the settlement agreement, immigration officials agreed to release minors “without unnecessary delay” when detention isn’t required to protect the safety and well-being of the minor or to secure the timely appearance of the minor at a proceeding before immigration authorities, that is, when officials release the minor to a parent or guardian who agree to appear, and the minor is not a flight risk.[31]
The FSA set a “preference ranking for sponsor types” with parents, then legal guardians as first choices then an “adult relative”, an “adult individual or entity designated by the child’s parent or legal guardian”, a “licensed program willing to accept legal custody”, an “adult or entity approved” by Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).[34]:8[3]:10 or sent to a state-licensed facility.[31][35][36]
Immigration officials agreed to provide minors with contact with family members with whom they were arrested, and to “promptly” reunite minors with their families. Efforts to reunify families are to continue as long as the minor is in custody.[31][30][Notes 9][37]
The Flores settlement does, however, require that “Following arrest, the INS shall hold minors in facilities that are safe and sanitary and that are consistent with the INS’s concern for the particular vulnerability of minors” and “…such minor shall be placed temporarily in a licensed program … at least until such time as release can be effected … Or until the minor’s immigration proceedings are concluded, whichever occurs earlier”.[citation needed]
Subsequent history
The parties agreed the litigation would terminate once the government finalized regulations complying with the settlement. Because the government has not yet finalized any such regulations, the litigation is ongoing. Compliance with the settlement has been the subject of criticism and litigation, resulting in extensions and modifications.[34][38] In 2001 the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General concluded “Although the INS has made significant progress since signing the Flores agreement, our review found deficiencies with the implementation of the policies and procedures developed in response to Flores.”[38]
On July 24, 2015, in “Flores v. Johnson” 2015 C.D. Cal., District Judge Dolly M. Gee ruled found that the consent decree applied equally to accompanied and unaccompanied minors and that immigration officials violated the consent decree by refusing to release accompanied minors held in a family detention facility.[16][43][44][36] The government said an average of 20 days was required for adjudication of “credible fear” and “reasonable fear” claims, among the grounds for asylum in the United States, and on August 21, 2015 Judge Gee clarified the “without unnecessary delay” and “promptly” language in the Flores settlement, ruling that holding parents and children for up to 20 days “may fall within the parameters” of the settlement.[43][45][46] Judge Dee ruled that detained children and their parents who were caught crossing the border illegally could not be held more than 20 days, saying that detention centers in Texas, such as the GEO Group‘s privately run Karnes County Residential Center (KCRC) in Karnes City, Texas, and the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, in Taylor, Texas, had failed to meet Flores standards. Gee expanded Flores to cover accompanied and unaccompanied children.[47] Judge Gee ruled that Flores calls on the government to release children “without unnecessary delay”, which she held was within 20 days.[48][49] The court ordered the release of 1700 families that were not flight risks.[42][50][51]
This was a major change to Flores. Dee was an Obama-appointed federal district court judge.[52][53] Judge Dee said that that the defendants’ “blanket no-release policy with respect to minors accompanied by their mothers is a material breach of the Agreement.”[49]
In 2016, in Flores v. Lynch, Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, joined by Judges Michael J. Melloy and Ronald M. Gould, reversed in part, finding that the Agreement applied to all detained children but that it did not give their parents any affirmative right of release.[54][16][36][55]
District Judge Gee next issued an enforcement order against the government and, on July 5, 2017, in Flores v. Sessions, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, joined by Judges A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha Berzon, affirmed, finding that Congress had not abrogated the Agreement through subsequent legislation.[22][56]:181 Judge Gee ruled that “Congress did not terminate Paragraph 24A of the Flores Settlement with respect to bond hearings for unaccompanied minors” by “[e]nacting the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).”[22] Judge Gee said that the Flores v. Sessions appeal had stemmed from the Flores Settlement Agreement “between the plaintiff class and the federal government that established a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS” and that Paragraph 24A of the Flores Agreement provides that a “minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Gee’s motion to enforce the Flores Agreement, saying that there was “nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the HSA or TVPRA” that rendered “continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, “impermissible.”[22] Because of the ruling in Flores v. Sessions, ORR is required to “inform all unaccompanied children in staff-secure and secure placements of their right to a bond hearing, and schedule one if requested.”[56]:184
In her July 2017 ruling, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that children who were in custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection were sleep-deprived because of inadequate conditions and that their food and water was inadequate, and they lacked “basic hygiene items” which was in violation of the Flores Settlement Agreement.[6] She ordered to federal government to provide an itemized list and improve the conditions.[6] The federal government appealed the decision saying that 1997 Flores Agreement did not mention “allowing children to sleep or wash themselves with soap”.
“Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleep-deprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety.”
Judge Marsha S. Berzon. August 15, 2019. 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals[6]
In June 2019, three judges of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals heard the case, 17-56297 Jenny Flores v. William Barr, in which Sarah Fabian, the senior attorney in the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation requested the Court to overturn Judge Dee’s 2017 order “requiring the government to provide detainees with hygiene items such as soap and toothbrushes in order to comply with the “safe and sanitary conditions” requirement set forth in Flores Settlement. During the June 20, 2019 proceedings, Ninth Circuit Judge William Fletcher said it was “inconceivable” that the United States government would consider it “safe and sanitary” to detain child migrants in conditions where it was “cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminium foil blanket?”[57][58] Fabian said that the Flores agreement mandating “safe and sanitary” conditions for detained migrant children was “vague” which let the federal agencies determine “sanitation protocols.”[7] It was not compulsory for the government to provide toothbrushes, soap or adequate bedding to the minors in their care.[59] Videos of the hearing were widely circulated on social media.[60] One of the justices, Judge A. Wallace Tashima, was detained in an internment camp as a child. According to the Los Angeles Times, the “case stirred nationwide outrage” when videos of the hearing went viral.[6]
On August 15, 2019 the three-judge panel of the federal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Judge Dee’s 2017 “order requiring immigration authorities to provide minors with adequate food, water, bedding, toothbrushes and soap.”[6]
As Presidential candidate, Donald Trump had promised to end what he called the Obama administration’s policy of “catch and release”. It was the second of his top priorities for immigration reform, after walling off Mexico.[61][62] In the first 15 months of the administration of President Trump, nearly 100,000 immigrants apprehended at the United States-Mexico border were released, including more than 37,000 unaccompanied minors and 61,000 family members.[63][64]
On May 26, 2018 Trump tweeted, “Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the border into the U.S.”[65] On May 29, 2018 White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller told reporters, “A nation cannot have a principle that there will be no civil or criminal immigration enforcement for somebody traveling with a child. The current immigration and border crisis, and all of the attendant concerns it raises, are the exclusive product of loopholes that Democrats refuse to close,”[65] such as the Flores Settlement Agreement and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.[35]
By June 2018, the Flores Agreement received increased public attention when Trump, his administration, and supporters cited the FSA and Democratic recalcitrance as justification for the Trump administration family separation policy, in which all adults detained at the U.S.–Mexico border were prosecuted and sent to federal jails while children and infants were placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).[66] In June 2018 Vox Media summarized the administration’s interpretation of the settlement as since the government “cannot keep parents and children in immigration detention together, it has no choice but to detain parents in immigration detention (after they’ve been criminally prosecuted for illegal entry) and send the children to” DHS as “unaccompanied alien children.”[55] Despite the wording of Flores v. Reno, human rights advocates asserted that no law or court order mandated the separation of children from their families.[65][63][41][44] On June 11, 2018 Republican Senator from Texas Ted Cruz said in a Dallas public radio interview “There’s a court order that prevents keeping the kids with the parents when you put the parents in jail.” PolitiFact fact-checked Cruz’s statement, concluding it was “mostly false.”[30] On June 14, 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters, “The separation of illegal alien families is the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats refuse to close. And these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade. The president is simply enforcing them,” Republican Representative from Wisconsin and Speaker of the HousePaul Ryan told reporters “What’s happening at the border in the separation of parents and their children is because of a court ruling,” and Republican Senator from IowaChuck Grassley tweeted “I want 2 stop the separation of families at the border by repealing the Flores 1997 court decision requiring separation of families.” The New York Times said “there is no decades-old law or court decision that requires” separating migrant children from their parents.[41]
On June 19, 2018 White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short told reporters the Trump administration had sought legislative relief from Congress on the Flores Settlement, saying “In each and every one of our negotiations in the last 18 months, all the immigration bills, we asked for resolution on the Flores settlement that is what we view requires 20 days before you have to release children and basically parents been released with children into society.”[32] According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, President Trump’s June 20, 2018 executive order, had directed directed then-United States Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions to ask the Judge Dolly M. Gee of District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, which oversees the Flores Agreement Settlement, to “modify the agreement” to “allow the government to detain alien families together throughout the duration of the family’s immigration proceedings as well as the pendency of any criminal proceedings for unlawful entry into the United States.[4] The executive order reversed the family separation policy, directing the United States Armed Forces to make room available on military bases for family detention and requested that the District Court for the Central District of California be flexible on the provisions of the settlement requiring state licensing of family detention centers and limiting detention of immigrant children to 20 days, in order to detain families for the duration of their immigration court proceedings.[67][68][69] On July 9, 2018, Gee rejected the request, citing that there was no basis to modify the agreement and pointing out that it is an issue the legislative branch has to solve instead.[70]
On September 7, 2018 federal agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would terminate the FSA “so that ICE may use appropriate facilities to detain family units together during their immigration proceedings, consistent with applicable law.”[71]
On August 23, 2019, the administration issued a rule allowing families to be held in humane conditions while their U.S. immigration court cases were decided. On September 27, a judge blocked the rule, stating: “This regulation is inconsistent with one of the primary goals of the Flores Agreement, which is to instate a general policy favoring release and expeditiously place minors ‘in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs’”.[72]
^According to the Congressional Research Service January 18, 2017 report, many of the terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Meese—Stipulated Settlement Agreement (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1997), have been codified at 8 CFR §§236.3, 1236.3.
^Flores v. Meese, 934 F.2d 991, 993 (9th Cir. 1990). According to Flores v. Meese, by 1988, migrant juveniles were detained by INS in the Western region in three sectors, Los Angeles, San Diego, and El Centro.] Particularly in the San Diego sector, these juveniles were routinely strip searched by Border Patrol officers at local Border Patrol stations if the INS makes the decision to detain the juvenile. Attorneys for Flores, said that “the INS policy of routinely strip searching juveniles upon their admission to INS facilities, and after all visits with persons other than their attorneys, violate[d] the Fourth Amendment.”
^Jenny Lisette Flores, a Minor, by Next Friend Mario Hugh Galvez-Maldonado Dominga Hernandez-Hernandez, a Minor, by Next Friend Jose Saul Mira Alma Yanira Cruz-Aldama, a Minor, by Next Friend Herman Perililo Tanchez v. Edwin Meese, III Immigration & Naturalization Service Harold Ezell, 942 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1991) Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: August 9th, 1991 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 942 F.2d 1352 Docket Number: 88-6249 42 F.2d 1352 60 USLW 2125 Jenny Lisette FLORES, a minor, by next friend Mario Hugh GALVEZ-MALDONADO; Dominga Hernandez-Hernandez, a minor, by next friend Jose Saul Mira; Alma Yanira Cruz-Aldama, a minor, by next friend Herman Perililo Tanchez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edwin MEESE, III; Immigration & Naturalization Service; Harold Ezell, Defendants-Appellants. No. 88-6249. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued En Banc and Submitted April 18, 1991. Decided August 9, 1991.
^This reference includes the March 23, 1993 Concurrence, Syllabus, Dissent, and Opinion.
^The Court noted that Reno v. Flore is a “facial challenge to INS regulation 242.24” because the policy has never been applied “in a particular instance”. The District Court invalidated 242.24 a week after it came into effect. When the original lawsuit was filed in 1985, it was directed against the newly released policy introduced in —83 Fed. Reg. at 45489—which was introduced on September 6, 1984 by then director of Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Harold W. Ezell. Under 83 Fed. Reg. at 45489, a detained immigrant minor “could only be released to a parent or legal guardian”. This resulted in minors, such as Flores, being detained in poor conditions for “lengthy or indefinite” periods of time. The Supreme Court said that “We have before us no findings of fact, indeed no record, concerning the INS’s interpretation of the regulation or the history of its enforcement. We have only the regulation itself and the statement of basis and purpose that accompanied its promulgation. To prevail in such a facial challenge, respondents “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [regulation] would be valid.”
^The case began with oral arguments on October 13, 1992. Deputy Solicitor General Maureen Mahoney appeared for the government.
^The March 23, 1993 syllabus for the USSC case Reno v. Flores said that the respondents in Reno v. Meese, are a “class of alien juveniles arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on suspicion of being deportable.”
Story 1: Trump Administration Plan To Detain Illegal Alien Children Indefinitely With Parents — Ending Catch and Release — The Family That Stays Together Gets Deported Together — Videos
DHS’s new immigration rule will end catch-and-release loophole
Trump defends longer detention of migrant families
What Trump’s new immigration rules mean for the detention of migrant children
BREAKING: President Trump MAJOR Immigration Policy Proposal
Fitton: Leftists in Trump State Dept. sabotaged Guatemala deal
Reports detail Stephen Miller’s role in Trump’s tough immigration policies
Trump calls catch-and-release program ‘ridiculous’
Illegal immigrant families in the USA | DW Documentary
DHS secretary denies reintroduction of “catch and release” at border
How to solve the illegal immigration problem
Obama’s DHS Secretary: “We Cannot Have A System Of Catch And Release”
Trump administration rolls out plan to detain migrant children INDEFINITELY and president hails end of ‘catch and release’ – but federal judge needs to approve the move, setting stage for court battle
New regulations will allow the government to hold migrant children in border detention centers indefinitely
The Department of Homeland Security rules would end protections given to minor migrants under the Flores Settlement Agreement
Under Flores, after 20 days children border crossers had to be released to a family member, guardian or at the very least a non-prison-like jail facility
Some claim illegal immigrants have crossed with children with the expectation they will be swiftly released from detention
‘No child should be a pawn in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system,’ Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan said in announcing the new regulations
Donald Trump insists these rules will put an end to ‘catch and release’ immigration practices
PUBLISHED: 10:32 EDT, 21 August 2019 | UPDATED: 13:18 EDT, 21 August 2019
The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a new rule this week which it claims will allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children and their parents who cross the border illegally, its acting boss announced Wednesday.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said the rule would finally replace the Flores Settlement Agreement, which stops children – and by extension their parents – from being detained for more than 20 days.
But it faces an instant legal battle because a federal judge must agree to tearing up the Flores settlement, with immigrant groups already preparing for a fight which is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump hailed the rule, which will not be published until Friday, as the end to ‘catch and release’ immigration practices, and McAleenan claimed it would be a significant deterrent to illegal immigration.
During a press conference Wednesday, McAleenan said the so-called ‘Flores Final Rule’ would keep families together during immigration proceedings, and prevent children from becoming a ‘pawn’ to those who just wish to game the system.
‘No child should be a pawn in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system, which is why the new rules eliminate the incentive to exploit children as a free ticket or… a passport for migration to the United States,’ McAleenan said.
The Trump administration is set to issue new rules that would allow families crossing illegally with children to be detained indefinitely
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said the new rules would prevent human smugglers and illegal border crossers from using children as ‘pawns’ or ‘passports’ to gain entry and release into the U.S.
By quoting the National Border Patrol president, Trump insisted the rules would stop ‘catch and release’ immigration practices
THE RULES ON DETAINING ILLEGAL MIGRANT KIDS TRUMP WANTS TO CHANGE
Since 1997, what happens to children who cross the border illegally has been determined by a court settlement made by the Clinton administration to end a long-running case brought on behalf of a group of children detained at the border in 1985.
It got its name from one of them – Jenny Lisette Flores – and when the Clinton administration ended the federal litigation by negotiation, became known as the Flores Settlement.
It set a 20 day limit on detaining children, and said that they had to be released to their parents or suitable guardians.
The federal government has to offer ‘food and drinking water as appropriate,’ ‘medical assistance if minor is in need of emergency services,’ ‘toilets and sinks,’ ‘adequate temperature control and ventilation,’ ‘adequate supervision to protect minors from others,’ ‘contact with family members who were arrested with the minor and separation from unrelated adults whenever possible.’
If a relative or guardian could not be found, they had to be sent to homes, not other detention centers – ‘the least restrictive environment possible,’ the agreement specified.
The settlement was temporary,
And it contained a poison pill: the only way to end the settlement was to come up with formal immigration rules which met the minimum conditions in the settlement and to which the federal court overseeing the settlement agreed.
Since then it has been back in court repeatedly, with the Bush and Obama administration accused of breaching it.
This month a judge ruled that it guarantees that detained children have a right to toothpaste, after the Trump administration suggested it was optional.
THE CHANGE
The Homeland Security department did not publish the details of its new rule Wednesday but claimed it would be a full-scale replacement of Flores which would allow indefinite detention.
That would mean it has to embrace the other aspects of Flores – meaning the conditions under which children are kept will have to be as described in the deal and subsequent rulings.
How the Department of Homeland Security thinks it will get indefinite detention passed is unclear.
The new rules, he claims, should appeal to those who have decried the immigration enforcement system for breaking up parents and children.
‘Our goal remains, as in the previous administration, to provide an expeditious immigration results, while holding families together, which particularly benefits legitimate asylum seekers with meritorious claims,’ McAleenan said, claiming all migrants were left in a state of limbo for years under the current rules.
Democrats are already pushing back against the rules rollout, claiming the president is trying to justify ‘child abuse.’
‘The Administration is seeking to codify child abuse, plain and simple,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday. ‘Its appalling, inhumane family incarceration plan would rip away basic protections for children’s human rights, reversing decades-long and court-imposed rules and violating every standard of morality and civilized behavior.’
Instead of improving the situation with families and minor migrants, Pelosi insists that indefinite detention would ‘compound the cruelty’ already exhibited in holding facilities at the border.
She also mentioned the ‘worsening conditions for children already forced to sleep on concrete floors, eat inedible food and be denied basic sanitation and standards of care,’ which immigration officials claim is due to the influx in family apprehensions.
McAleenan blamed the more than 450 per cent increase in family unit apprehension this year on the 2015 reinterpretation of the Flores agreement, which led to the rules that required children and their parents be released in 20 days.
The Flores agreement established that when families with children were captured and detained, they had to be released in less than two dozen days to a family member or guardian in the U.S. – and if that was not possible they had to be transferred to a care facility that does not operate like a jail.
The Trump administration insists the limits set by Flores has encouraged illegal immigrants to arrive at the border with children with the expectation of being swiftly released.
‘Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council. ‘This will effectively end Catch and Release and curb illegal entries,” Trump posted to his Twitter Wednesday, quoting the Border Patrol Council president.
In 2018, the administration proposed a similar plan to this one, but the rules were never enacted as there was an influx of migrants arriving at the border and a shortage of bed space.
Although there was a massive dip in illegal border crossing during Trump’s first year in the White House, the frequency spiked in late 2018, and border agents and officials lamented they were not prepared for the influx, leading to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions at many detention facilities.
As of May 2019, there were at least seven documented instances where children died from illness complications after being held in some of these centers.
The rationale for the rules proposed in September 2018 was that the government should be permitted to detain children for longer so they could be treated with ‘dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors,’ as required by the Flores agreement.
It seems the 2018 plan is being reupped now that there has been a drop in border crossings in recent weeks and border facilities are less overwhelmed.
The dip comes after Trump made an agreement with the Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador for the government to deploy Mexican security forces to help crack down on asylum seekers on their side of the border.
It’s likely the rules, which again seeks to ‘terminate’ some of the restrictions in Flores, will be challenged in court.
The entire mass migration to our border and all its cascading ill effects can be traced to one thing: the Flores settlement’s expansion from children to family units by a single district judge. Flores is not a constitutional provision, a statute, or even a court ruling. It is a court settlement, designed as a temporary arrangement, that actually runs contrary to statute and has been used as a catalyst to undermine every bedrock law of sovereignty. After a full year of dithering, the Trump administration is finally using its unquestionable power to modify the settlement to finally end catch-and-release.
The Flores settlement, originally agreed upon in 1997 and modified in 2001, provided that government would only house alien children in “non-secure, state licensed” facilities or release them expeditiously until and unless the federal government writes a regulation to build its own licensing scheme ensuring the safe and sanitary conditions of the facilities. Given that there are no such state-licensed facilities, and the feds, until now, have not created their own scheme, it forced them to release unaccompanied minors expeditiously. In 2015, a California judge applied Flores to children accompanied by a parent as well, an order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit the following year.
Flores is the source of all our border problems
It’s truly difficult to overstate the evil that expanded Flores has done to our security, our fiscal solvency, and Latin American children. By creating a huge market incentive to exploit children for mass migration by adults, it has:
Brought over 1 million Central Americans to our border over the past two years, saddling Americans with the cost of caring for them.
Flooded our hospitals with endless medical bills paid for by taxpayers. Agents have taken 21,000 sick or injured illegal aliens to the hospital since January, consuming 250,000 agent man-hours. This includes those who came to the border specifically for the purpose of taxpayer-funded surgeries for long-term illnesses.
Fueled the growth of MS-13 and other violent groups that grew as a result of young Central American teens coming under such irresponsible circumstances.
Under Flores, Trump has the power to terminate the settlement with a new regulation
This is where today’s announcement of a Flores modification comes into play. The law actually requires that these people be detained under most circumstances and does not place a time constraint on the detention, nor does it make exceptions for children. The constraint on holding children in certain facilities emanated from a court settlement that began in the 1980s and crystalized in 1997 as a temporary arrangement until 45 days after government promulgates a permanent regulation defining the parameters of the holding facilities for children along safe and sanitary guidelines laid out in the settlement.
Until now, courts have lawlessly “legislated” a 20-day deadline for holding children without such certified facilities or else they have to be released. Moreover, Judge Dana Sabraw created a new edict last year contrary to law that children can’t be released alone once they come with an adult and that the adult must be released with them. Thus, the expansion of Flores and Sabraw’s ruling spawned the worst period of migration in our history, where primarily one adult would come with one child, the perfect scam.
With today’s change, the Trump administration is fulfilling one of the options laid out in the Flores settlement by publishing regulations governing the treatment of detained minors. Officials have created a process for certifying the conditions of various facilities they now believe fulfill the conditions of Flores and can be designed to hold children with their parents. Thus, no family separation – and no catch-and-release.
The reality is that very few people will wind up in these holding facilities in the long run, because the minute they hear the scam is over, they simply will not come.
Therefore, it’s simply indefensible for anyone to oppose this move unless they downright want illegal immigration, the empowerment of human and sex smuggling, and all its other odious and cascading social, fiscal, and national security problems.
Trump administration needs to make the legalities stick for enduring change
The expansion of Flores to family units and the 20-day deadline were done by a single California judge, Dolly Gee. As a judge in the Central District of California, she is not even on the border. California is the entry point of only two percent of the family units who come here. The Trump administration needs to make it clear that there is no reason why California should control something that has not just national but catastrophic international effects. A Texas judge has already opined in passing that under these circumstances, catch-and-release of minors is not only not required, but is tantamount to the completion of a criminal conspiracy for the cartels that would get private citizens in trouble if they engaged in what the DHS is doing.
As such, any inevitable lawless injunction from Dolly Gee should be set aside by this administration, at least outside California.
Related to this point is the fact that this new regulation will not close the catch-and-release loophole of Central American children coming here alone without adults. However, as was made clear by Judge Andrew Hanen in 2013, given that many are self-trafficked and most of them are being delivered to their parents or relatives in the country, they do not meet the definition of an unaccompanied alien child described in 8 U.S. Code §1232(b). The law mandates they be turned over to HHS and be treated like refugees only if “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.” (6 U.S. Code §279(g).) What is happening today, as Judge Hanen noted in 2013, is that the “parent initiated the conspiracy to smuggle the minors into the country illegally” and “also funded the conspiracy.” “In each case, the DHS completed the criminal conspiracy, instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, by delivering the minors into the custody of the parent living illegally in the United States.”
Trump should demand that DHS lawyers stop hiding behind the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) as justification for this, and instead write a regulation requiring the deportation of any parents paying to traffic “unaccompanied” children rather than rewarding them with the results of their crime.
Furthermore, the administration needs to fully follow through with its promise to implement expedited removal for everyone at the border, including minors. Even the Ninth Circuit noted last week that part of why it is able to force expanded Flores upon the government is because “the government’s own regulations contemplate that minors in expedited removal proceedings may be considered for release,” mimicking the Flores arrangement. That needs to change along with this new regulation. Once the administration fully implements what Congress envisioned in 1996, Flores becomes unlawful, and all judicial proceedings against detention become moot.
Finally, Trump should push legislation empowering citizens to sue when illegal aliens are becoming a public charge. The reason we are in this position is because every illegal alien gets to sue our laws. Why not have an American “Flores” settlement” where government is forced to settle with the taxpayer by actually enforcing the law?
Overall, the Trump administration is slowly heading in the right direction. In addition to vitiating Flores, it has finally ended the practice of granting bogus asylees work permits pending their delayed adjudications. The key to enduring victories on the border, however, is to more aggressively push back against the judicial amnesty that created this problem in the first place. Trump must remind this very California court of its own adage on presidential powers related to this very issue: “The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” (Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, N.D. Cal. 1996.)
DHS and HHS Announce New Rule to Implement the Flores Settlement Agreement; Final Rule Published to Fulfill Obligations under Flores Settlement Agreement
Release Date:
August 21, 2019
Today, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin K. McAleenan and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar announced a final rule that finalizes regulations implementing the relevant and substantive terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA). Importantly, the rule will allow for termination of the FSA, and allow DHS and HHS to respond to significant statutory and operational changes that have occurred since the FSA has been in place, including dramatic increases in the numbers of unaccompanied children and family units crossing into the United States.
Large numbers of alien families are entering illegally across the southern border, hoping that they will be released into the interior rather than detained during their removal proceedings. Promulgating this rule and seeking termination of the FSA are important steps towards an immigration system that is humane and operates consistently with the intent of Congress.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are issuing final regulations that implement:
The relevant and substantive terms of the FSA (resulting in the termination of the FSA).
The way HHS accepts and cares for unaccompanied alien children.
The requirements that help ensure that all alien children (both accompanied minors and unaccompanied alien children) in the Government’s custody are treated with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.
The ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to maintain family unity by holding families with children in licensed facilities or facilities that meet ICE’s family residential standards, as evaluated by a third-party entity engaged by ICE (in the event that licensing is not available through the State).
A pathway to ensure the humane detention of families while satisfying the goals of the FSA.
The related provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), including the transfer of unaccompanied alien children to HHS within 72 hours of the UAC determination, absent exceptional circumstances.
“Today, the government has issued a critical rule that will permit the Department of Homeland Security to appropriately hold families together and improve the integrity of the immigration system,” said Acting Secretary McAleenan. “This rule allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress and ensures that all children in U.S. government custody are treated with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability.”
“The Department of Health and Human Services, through our Office of Refugee Resettlement, provides quality and compassionate care for unaccompanied alien children who are referred to our custody,” said Secretary Azar. “In this rule, we are implementing the relevant and substantive portions of the Flores Settlement Agreement pertaining to standards for the temporary care, placement, and release of those minors. As before, HHS will continue to protect the safety and dignity of unaccompanied alien children in our custody as we seek to place them with a parent, relative, or other suitable sponsor.”
The FSA always contained provisions for its implementation in regulations and its termination – originally, it was to remain in effect no more than five years; and then, in 2001, the parties agreed it would terminate after a final rulemaking. Beginning in 2005, prior administrations repeatedly announced plans for a rule. No prior administration, however, issued a final rule. With this achievement now complete, the FSA will terminate by its own terms, and the Trump Administration will continue to work for a better immigration system.
President Trump said Wednesday that Jewish Americans who vote for Democratic candidates are “very disloyal to Israel,” expanding on his remarks from the previous day and dismissing criticism that his remarks were anti-Semitic.
“I think if you vote for a Democrat, you are very, very disloyal to Israel and to the Jewish people,” Trump said in an exchange with reporters outside the White House before departing for an event in Kentucky.
On Tuesday, Trump had criticized Democrats over the views of Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Both women have long been fierce critics of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. They support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a global protest of Israel.
He had accused Jewish people of “great disloyalty” if they vote for Democrats, although he did not say at the time disloyalty to whom.
“Where has the Democratic Party gone?” Trump asked reporters Tuesday at the White House. “Where have they gone, where they’re defending these two people over the state of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”
Asked by a reporter Wednesday to clarify his remarks, Trump pointed to his own record, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
“I will tell you this: In my opinion, the Democrats have gone very far away from Israel,” he said. “I cannot understand how they can do that … In my opinion, if you vote for a Democrat, you’re being very disloyal to Jewish people and you’re being very disloyal to Israel. And only weak people would say anything other than that.”
After Trump’s initial remarks Tuesday, critics on both sides of the aisle as well as Jewish organizations immediately pointed out that Trump’s use of the word “disloyalty” echoed anti-Semitic tropes accusing Jews of dual allegiance.
“American Jews — like all Americans — have a range of political views and policy priorities,” David Harris, chief executive of the nonpartisan American Jewish Committee, said in a statement. “His assessment of their knowledge or ‘loyalty,’ based on their party preference, is inappropriate, unwelcome, and downright dangerous.”
Some of Trump’s defenders, meanwhile, argued that he was speaking about Jewish people being disloyal to themselves rather than to Israel.
Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said in an interview Tuesday that the president was talking about “being true to yourself.”
“I don’t think it invokes those [anti-Semitic] tropes,” Brooks said, describing Trump’s message to Jewish people as, “You’re being disloyal to yourself to say, ‘Hey, I support somebody who is known to espouse anti-Semitic comments.’ ”
Brooks declined to comment Wednesday. The RJC, which tweeted Tuesday that Trump was “right” that it “shows a great deal of disloyalty to oneself to defend a party that protects/emboldens people that hate you for your religion,” continued to defend Trump on Wednesday even after he clarified that he meant that Jewish Democrats are disloyal to Israel.
“We take the President seriously, not literally,” the group said in a tweet. “President Trump is pointing out the obvious: for those who care about Israel, the position of many elected Democrats has become anti-Israel.”
While Omar and Tlaib are “questioning American Jews’ loyalty to the United States,” the RJC claimed, Trump is “talking about caring about the survival of the Jewish state.”
Trump’s 2020 campaign also rallied to his defense. Michael Glassner, chief operating officer of Trump’s presidential campaign, said in a statement that “there is no bigger ally to the Jewish community at home and around the world than President Trump.”
“As a Jew myself, I strongly believe that President Trump is right to highlight that there is only one party — the Democrats — excusing and permitting such anti-Jewish venom to be spewed so freely,” he said.
Tuesday was not the first time that Trump’s remarks about Jewish people have prompted criticism that he is invoking dual-loyalty tropes. During an April speech to the RJC, the president told the crowd that he “stood with your prime minister at the White House.” At another point, Trump warned that Democrats’ “radical agenda” in Congress “very well could leave Israel out there all by yourselves.”
And while Trump has condemned Omar for evoking offensive stereotypes about Jews and money, the president had expressed similar sentiments to the RJC in 2015, when he was running for the GOP presidential nomination.
“You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” Trump said then. “But that’s okay. You want to control your own politician.”
Stroy 3: Reigning In Big Tech — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google — Videos
How Should Big Tech Be Reined In? Here Are 4 Prominent Ideas
Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor, believes Facebook should have to shed some of the companies it has bought. “The remedy is straightforward,” he said. CreditCreditValerie Chiang for The New York Times
The Justice Department is investigating them, as is the Federal Trade Commission. Congress and state attorneys general have their sights on the companies, too.
There is no shortage of people arguing that America’s large technology companies — namely Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google — have gotten too big and too powerful. That has helped spur the scrutiny by the government officials.
But what to do about the issue? On that, the industry’s critics are split.
Some would like to see the businesses broken up. Others want more robust regulation. And there are shades of gray on both sides. Here are four of the most prominent prescriptions being debated.
Bright-Line Breakups
This is the most drastic surgery, splitting off large portions of the big tech companies.
The guiding principle is simple. If you own a dominant online marketplace or platform, you cannot also offer the goods, services and software applications sold on that marketplace.
So Amazon could not own the leading e-commerce marketplace and sell Amazon-label goods there. Or Google could not have both the dominant search engine and its Google Shopping service, which shows up in search results. Apple could own an app store that offers music services, but not also its own music service sold there. And so on.
Bundling businesses on top of a dominant platform invites conflicts of interest and discrimination against rivals, thwarting competition, proponents of this countermeasure say.
“The world is going to be better off after we break up these companies,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Open Markets Institute, a research and advocacy group.
A billboard in San Francisco for Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign offers a blunt take on what to do about technology companies.CreditJustin Kaneps for The New York Times
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has embraced the idea of bright-line breakups in her presidential campaign.
But such a sweeping overhaul of the tech industry could bring unknown risks for the companies and shareholders. Many economists are leery of broadly prohibiting companies from entering new businesses, fearing potential losses of efficiency and consumer welfare.
The last big government-mandated breakup targeted AT&T in the early 1980s, and that was the dissolution of a government-granted monopoly.
Still, the idea is not unthinkable. The remedy initially proposed in the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s, endorsed by three leading economists, was to split the Windows operating system business from Microsoft’s Office productivity software business. After George W. Bush was elected president, his administration settled the case without a breakup.
Selective Split-Ups
This is a case-by-case approach to breakups rather than a broad rule applied to all the tech giants. A current example is a plan that would require Facebook to shed Instagram and WhatsApp. A detailed proposal on this, laying out the alleged anticompetitive conduct, was developed by two leading antitrust scholars, Tim Wu of Columbia Law School and Scott Hemphill of New York
Chris Hughes, a founder of Facebook, is pushing to break up the company, working with Professor Wu and Scott Hemphill, a New York University law professor.CreditVincent Tullo for The New York Times
The three have made their presentation to federal and state antitrust regulators and to congressional investigators. They explain that starting about 2010, when mobile computing and photo-sharing services were taking off and Facebook was lagging in those areas, the social network embarked on a years long campaign to buy nascent competitors.
The biggest purchases were of the photo-sharing service Instagram in 2012 and the messaging service WhatsApp in 2014.
Typically, regulators challenge mergers when they give a company a big share of an established market. That was not the case when Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram, a start-up with 13 employees in an emerging field.
Instead, the three argue, the strategy was to buy out budding threats. “We think that’s the better perspective of what was going on — maintenance of monopoly in the social network market,” Mr. Hemphill said.
In Facebook’s case, Mr. Wu said, “the remedy is straightforward: Unwind the acquisitions.”
But an issue in spinning off a unit like Instagram is whether doing so enhances competition. Would a stand-alone Instagram be a real rival to Facebook, or would consumers simply stay with the dominant social network, Facebook, and Instagram suffer?
A New Tech Watchdog
Getting breakups approved by the nation’s courts, which are generally conservative on economic matters, would be a stretch. Besides, some experts argue, a more comprehensive way to police the big tech companies would be with a beefed-up force of regulators.
Image
Executives from Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple testified last month before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the companies’ power and practices.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times
One idea is the creation of a new regulator, a Digital Authority. It would be an expert group to supplement traditional antitrust regulators in the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. It would be able to move faster and have the expertise to constantly track the tech markets and trends.
“Its mandate would be to protect competition,” said Fiona Scott Morton, an economics professor at the Yale University School of Management.
The new regulator was the central recommendation of a recent report about the digital platforms that was sponsored by the Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicago. Ms. Scott Morton led a group of eight antitrust experts and technologists who worked on the study. Since the report was released in May, members of the group have made a series of presentations to policymakers.
In online markets, the flywheel of network effects — the more people who use a service, the more users, developers and advertisers it attracts — is especially powerful, creating dominant companies. Yet even in digital markets, the door to new entrants must remain open, said Ms. Scott Morton, a former senior official in the Justice Department’s antitrust division.
In traditional antitrust, regulators and courts move at a measured pace, slowly and often after the fact. The goal of a new digital regulator, she said, “would be to save the rival before it is killed.”
The authority, Ms. Scott Morton said, could receive a complaint from a competitor and schedule a hearing two weeks later, when both sides would present testimony.
A new regulator? It would be a tough sell in today’s political environment. But we do have specialist federal regulators in many other industries, including banking, aviation, transportation, drugs and agriculture.
Reining in the big tech companies, Ms. Scott Morton said, is increasingly becoming a bipartisan concern. “At some point, society will say this is too much power without real oversight,” she said.
Unlock the Data
There are also narrower, targeted regulatory proposals. Some of these involve rules that would loosen a dominant company’s control of user data, by either forcing that company to share the data with a smaller competitor or giving users more ability to take their data from one service and move it to a competitor. The Stigler Center study cited those data moves in a list of potential regulations and enforcement actions.
The idea, broadly, is that data can be a barrier to competition, and that freeing up the personal information collected by the tech giants could lower that barrier.
The big online platforms are data monetization machines, collecting, analyzing and exploiting information from consumers, merchants, advertisers and others. And the network effect of data is formidable. The more data the companies have, the more fuel to feed the machine-learning algorithms that power their businesses.
“Data is the real trump card these platforms have,” said A. Douglas Melamed, a professor at Stanford Law School and a member of the Stigler Center study team.
Mr. Melamed, a former senior antitrust official at the Justice Department, favors a rule that would require dominant digital platforms to give other companies access to their user data for a fee. That would help level the playing field for new entrants and other rivals, he said, but wouldn’t be free for them, either.
“You let the competitors have access to their back rooms for a reasonable fee,” Mr. Melamed said. Such a solution would require regulatory oversight to set guidelines for fair licensing terms. Data sharing would also entail some privacy risk, since no privacy-protection technique is foolproof.
A related idea is to mandate that tech companies make user data portable. That means consumers could move their information from one service to another, forcing digital businesses to compete with superior offerings rather than data lock-in.
The regulator would need the technical skills to ensure that the consumer data was handed over in a way that would let a competitor use it easily.
“The details are crucial, if you’re really going to give consumers more choice and control,” said Jamie Morgenstern, a computer scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who worked on the study.
Story 4: Epstein Last Minute Estate Planning Puts Assets in Trust — Videos
Epstein may have gamed the system from beyond the grave
PUBLISHED: 19:55 EDT, 21 August 2019 | UPDATED: 02:03 EDT, 22 August 2019
The will that Jeffrey Epstein signed just two days before his jailhouse suicide puts more than $577 million in assets into a trust fund that could make it more difficult for his dozens of accusers to collect damages.
Estate lawyers and other experts say prying open the trust and dividing up the financier’s riches is not going to be easy and could take years.
“This is the last act of Epstein’s manipulation of the system, even in death,” said attorney Jennifer Freeman, who represents child sex abuse victims.
Epstein, 66, killed himself Aug. 10 in New York while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The discovery of the will with its newly created 1953 Trust, named after the year of his birth, instantly raised suspicions he did it to hide money from the many women who say he sexually abused them when they were teenagers.
By putting his fortune in a trust, he shrouded from public view the identities of the beneficiaries, whether they be individuals, organizations or other entities. For the women trying to collect from his estate, the first order of business will be persuading a judge to pierce that veil and release the details.
From there, the women will have to follow the course they would have had to pursue even if Epstein had not created a trust: convince the judge that they are entitled to compensation as victims of sex crimes. The judge would have to decide how much they should get and whether to reduce the amounts given to Epstein’s named beneficiaries, who would also be given their say in court.
FILE – This March 28, 2017, file photo, provided by the New York State Sex Offender Registry, shows Jeffrey Epstein. The will that Epstein signed just two days before his jailhouse suicide on Aug. 10, 2019, puts more than $577 million in assets in a trust fund that could make it more difficult for his dozens of accusers to collect damages. (New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP, File)
Epstein likely buried in unmarked stone crypt in Florida
“Wealthy people typically attempt to hide assets in trusts or other legal schemes. I believe the court and his administrators will want to do right by Epstein’s victims, and if not, we will fight for the justice that is long overdue to them,” attorney Lisa Bloom, who represents several Epstein accusers, said in an email.
She said attorneys for the women will go after Epstein’s estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the will was filed and where he owned two islands.
Bloom said it was “gross negligence” on the part of Epstein’s lawyers and jail personnel to allow him to sign a new will, given that he had apparently attempted suicide a short time before. Bloom called a will “a classic sign of impending suicide for a prisoner.”
The lawyers who handled the will have not returned calls for comment.
The assets listed in the 20-page document include more than $56 million in cash; properties in New York, Florida, Paris, New Mexico and the Virgin Islands; $18.5 million in vehicles, aircraft and boats; and art and collectibles that will have to be appraised.
Typically in any case, trust or not, there is a pecking order of entities that line up to get a share of an estate, said Stephen K. Urice, a law professor at the University of Miami. First in line would be the government – in Epstein’s case, several governments – which will collect any taxes owed on his properties and on his estate itself.
Next would be any other creditor to whom Epstein owed money, such as a bank or mortgage company.
Lawsuits against the estate by victims would come into play somewhere after that.
Epstein’s only known relative is a brother, Mark Epstein, who has not responded to requests for comment. It is unclear whether he was named a beneficiary.
One other possibility is that the U.S. government will seek civil forfeiture of Epstein’s properties or other assets on the grounds that they were used for criminal purposes. Government lawyers would have to produce strong evidence of that at a trial-like proceeding.
If they prevailed, they would be able to seize the properties, sell them and distribute the proceeds to victims.
“The fact that there is a will should not stop them,” said Cheryl Bader, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law.
Federal prosecutors declined to comment on the possibility of a forfeiture action.
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
.PNG)
Download 
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
+4
.svg)
.svg)
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/Y7G3WIXHBFCKNIFAWA2VASUJN4.jpg)
.jpg)
_6.jpg)
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1397, February 12, 2020, Story 1: The Red Diaper Babies Grew Up To Be REDS (Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists) and Won In Iowa and New Hampshire — Videos — Story 2: The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) Hunt Down Deplorables — Socialist Satire — Coming To A Theater Nearest You March 13, 2020 — Friday The 13th –Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. American Winners — Videos — Story 3: U.S. Houshold Debt Rising To Over $14,000,000,000 While Federal Reserve Continues To Expand Liquidity By Over $1,000,000,000 — Videos
Posted on February 13, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, American History, Amy Klobuchar, Banking System, Bernie Sanders, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, China, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Elizabeth Warren, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, 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 Insurance, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, Movies, National Interest, News, Pete Buttigieg, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Social Security, Spying on American People, Subornation of perjury, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Fraud, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Trade Policy, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: 12 February 2020, 13 February 2020, America, AMERICA’S RULING CLASS, Amy Klobuchar, Angelo Codevilla – Does America Have A Ruling Class?, Articles, Audio, ‘Red Diaper Babies’ - Children of Communists, Basket of Deplorables, Bernie Sanders, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Consumer Debt, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Deplorables, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Elizabeth Warren, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Fed Chair Powell, Fed Keeps Rates Unchanged, Federal Reserve System, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hillary Clinton Gone and Forgottin, Hope, Individualism, Joe Biden Done, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers, Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. American Winners, Mayor Pete's Dad Was A Marxist, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, New crop of Dem candidates are 'Communists', News, Open Border, Opinions, Peace, Pete Buttigieg, Pete Buttigieg Leads in Total Delegates by 1, Photos, Podcasts, Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs), Political Philosophy, Politics, President Donald J. Trump, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Red Diaper Babie, Red Diaper Babies, REDS (Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists, REDS Won In Iowa And New Hampshire, REDS Won Iowa and New Hampshire, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Richard Connell, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Credit Card Crisis, The Deplorables, The Hunt, The Most Dangerous Game, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1397, The Wreck called Hillary Clinton, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Household Debt Exceeds $14 Trillion For The First Time, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
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: The Red Diaper Babies Grew Up To Be REDS (Radical Extremist Democratic Socialists) and Won In Iowa and New Hampshire — Videos
Hurt: New crop of Dem candidates are ‘Communists’
Mayor Pete’s Dad Was A Marxist, What Happened? ft. Richard Wolff
Author David Maraniss on his parents, who were members of the Communist Party
Red Diaper Babies
[EUA] Seeing Red: Stories of American Communists (1983) | INGLÊS
RayStevens – The Global Warming Song
2020 Delegate Count and Primary Calendar
By Lauren Leatherby and Sarah Almukhtar
Democratic delegates
1,990 to win nomination
Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders lead the delegate race after the first two contests of the primary season, according to the Associated Press. The vast majority of delegates are awarded after February. Super Tuesday, when a third of all delegates are allocated in a single day, looms large with 16 contests at the beginning of March. Here is a look at when every state goes to the polls and where the largest troves of delegates are at stake.
Nevada caucus
South Carolina primary
Alabama primary
California primary
Texas primary
Michigan primary
New York primary
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/delegate-count-primary-results.html
Updated at 2:53 PM CST
Sanders edges Buttigieg in NH, giving Dems 2 front-runners
Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s presidential primary, edging moderate rival Pete Buttigieg and scoring the first clear victory in the Democratic Party’s chaotic 2020 nomination fight.
In his Tuesday night win, the 78-year-old Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, beat back a strong challenge from the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The dueling Democrats represent different generations, see divergent paths to the nomination and embrace conflicting visions of America’s future.
As Sanders and Buttigieg celebrated, Amy Klobuchar scored an unexpected third-place finish that gives her a road out of New Hampshire as the primary season moves on to the string of state-by-state contests that lie ahead.
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden posted disappointing fourth and fifth place finishes respectively and were on track to finish with zero delegates from the state.
The New Hampshire vote gives new clarity to a Democratic contest shaping up to be a battle between two men separated by four decades in age and clashing political ideologies. Sanders is a leading progressive voice, having spent decades demanding substantial government intervention in health care and other sectors of the economy. Buttigieg has pressed for more incremental change, preferring to give Americans the option of retaining their private health insurance while appealing to Republicans and independents who may be dissatisfied with Trump.
“We are gonna win because we have the agenda that speaks to the needs of working people across this country,” Sanders declared. “This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.”
Buttigieg struck an optimistic tone: “Thanks to you, a campaign that some said shouldn’t be here at all has shown that we are here to stay.”
Both men have strength heading into the next phase of the campaign, yet they face very different political challenges.
While Warren made clear she will remain in the race, Sanders, well-financed and with an ardent army of supporters, has cemented his status as the clear leader of the progressive wing of the party.
Meanwhile, Buttigieg must prove he can attract support from voters of color who are critical to winning the nomination. And unlike Sanders, he still has multiple rivals in his own ideological wing of the party to contend with. They include Klobuchar, whose standout debate performance led to a late surge in New Hampshire and a growing national following. While deeply wounded, Biden promises strength in upcoming South Carolina. And though former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was not on Tuesday’s ballot, he looms next month when the contest reaches states offering hundreds of delegates.
After a chaotic beginning to primary voting last week in Iowa, Democrats hoped New Hampshire would help give shape to their urgent quest to pick someone to take on Trump in November. At least two candidates dropped out in the wake of weak finishes Tuesday night: moderate Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and political newcomer Andrew Yang, who attracted a small but loyal following over the past year and was one of just three candidates of color left in the race.
The struggling candidates still in the race sought to minimize the latest results.
Warren, who spent months as a Democratic front-runner, offered an optimistic outlook as she faced cheering supporters: “Our campaign is built for the long haul, and we are just getting started.”
Having already predicted he would “take a hit” in New Hampshire after a distant fourth-place finish in Iowa, Biden essentially ceded the state. He traveled to South Carolina Tuesday as he bet his candidacy on a strong showing there later this month boosted by support from black voters.
Still, history suggests that the first-in-the-nation primary will have enormous influence shaping the 2020 race. In the modern era, no Democrat has ever become the party’s general election nominee without finishing first or second in New Hampshire.
Sanders and Buttigieg were on track to win the same number of New Hampshire delegates with most of the vote tallied, with Klobuchar a few behind. Warren, Biden and the rest of the field were shut out, failing to reach the 15% threshold needed for delegates.
The AP allocated nine delegates each to Sanders and Buttigieg and six to Klobuchar.
The action was on the Democratic side, but Trump easily won New Hampshire’s Republican primary. He was facing token opposition from former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.
With most of the vote in, Trump already had amassed more votes in the New Hampshire primary than any incumbent president in history. His vote share was approaching the modern historical high for an incumbent president, 86.43% set by Ronald Reagan in 1984. Weld received about 9% of the vote of New Hampshire Republicans.
The political spotlight quickly shifts to Nevada, where Democrats will hold caucuses on Feb. 22. But several candidates, including Warren and Sanders, plan to visit other states in the coming days that vote on Super Tuesday, signaling they are in the race for the long haul.
___
Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Zeke Miller in Washington, Will Weissert, Holly Ramer and Thomas Beaumont contributed from New Hampshire.
https://apnews.com/3d16640da86f6e5c30b1b5fba8d91936
‘Red Diaper Babies’ – Children of Communists
Country Joe McDonald, whose rock band Country Joe and the Fish appeared at the Woodstock festival, remembers how strained his life was growing up in a communist family.
Joan Sokoloff, a 48-year-old therapist, grew up in Boston in the 1950s. But she might as well have spent her childhood on another planet. While other children were watching ″Father Knows Best,″ Sokoloff, the daughter of communists, was contemplating world change.
″I couldn’t care less if they were investigated as communists or not,″ said McDonald, who grew up in Southern California. ″All I cared about was when I went to a Cub Scout meeting or went to play baseball. … I didn’t feel comfortable anymore.″
Said Sokoloff: ″They (my parents) always used to say that the revolution is just around the corner. So there was always a sense that we were working toward something imminent.″
McDonald and Sokoloff are two of five so-called ″red diaper babies,″ the children of communists, who appear in ″Children of the Left,″ a new documentary by filmmaker Eric Stange. The 60-minute film traces the evolution of children raised as communists who are now adults in a conservative America.
The topic is a hot one. ″Loyalties – a Son’s Memoir,″ a new book by former Washington Post investigative reporter Carl Bernstein, is the story of Bernstein’s childhood in a communist family.
Bernstein writes about the conflicting legacy left by communist parents. His story is woven out of what he says are the torn loyalties and lasting repercussions of a communist childhood.
Stange found that communist parents left a mixed legacy. Some of their children remained communists. One became a Reagan conservative. But almost all remain political and most vote.
Stange, 35, a former reporter and editor for the Boston Herald, had made one previous documentary, ″The Pitch of Grief,″ when he decided to make a film about the children of communists. He knew several as friends and found out about others through them. A network exists among them as adults, he said, formed from childhood when communist families often sent their children to the same progressive summer camps and schools.
But Stange said that even now, many who grew up in communist households were still hesitant going public about the experience.
″The penalties were too great in the ’50s,″ he said.
Stange spoke to 50 former ″red diaper babies,″ interviewed 15 on tape and culled five for his film. The term ″red diaper babies″ has several rumored origins. One is that communist parents in the ’20s were so poor that they used the red flags they received in return for their party dues to diaper their babies.
″I found an incredible mixture of pride and anger,″ he said. ″It was a way of looking at the world that was much more open and diverse and worldly than what most American kids were getting.″
The film, which premiered last month in Cambridge and was co-produced with the Newton Television Foundation, also will be shown at New York’s Public Theater this month and in Los Angeles in June.
The stories that unfold on camera are generally happy ones. Though they participated in one of the most tumultuous periods in American history, Stange’s subjects recall their childhoods with more pleasure than pain.
Eugene Dennis Jr., son of the former general secretary in the American Communist Party, was a longshoreman for many years and is now a historian. In the film, tears come to his eyes as he recalls how ″safe″ he felt, held in the arms of singer-actor-writer Paul Robeson at one point during the worst of the communist witch hunts in the ’50s.
David Horowitz, the son of public schoolteachers in New York, edited the leftist magazine Ramparts in the ’60s. He has since become a best-selling author of biographies with David Collier and a conservative Republican. Richard Healey, whose mother was a high-ranking communist leader in Southern California, edits an anti-nuclear magazine.
The film uses archival footage to trace the relatively swift downfall of the Communist Party in the United States, which had formed in 1919 and enjoyed peak years in the ’30s and early ’40s.
″Children of the Left″ also outlines the turmoil that marked the party’s rapid decline, beginning with the Red Scare initiated in the ’50s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 and revelations in 1956 that Soviet leader Josef Stalin was a murderous dictator.
Several subjects of the film recall their parents were jailed regularly. Joan Sokoloff remembers the day one of her mother’s arrests made the front page of The Boston Globe, her struggle to overcome her own embarrassment and her eventual pride in her parents’ work.
Healey recalls his childhood years at Communist Party meetings and picnics as ″the happiest moments of my life.″
″Growing up with ideals like that, with a world view of wanting a better life for people, it was still a very rich way of life,″ said Sokoloff.
https://apnews.com/e4fe9d63e8564a2f0c11adfa842f162c
Story 2: The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) Hunt Down Deplorables — Socialist Satire — Coming To A Theater Nearest You March 13, 2020 — Friday The 13th –Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. American Winners — Videos
The Wreck called Hillary Clinton
How voters are responding to Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ remark
Clinton: Trump supporters in ‘basket of deplorables…
Deplorables: Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses
Tucker: American elites more comfortable with attacking US
1. America’s Ruling Class
Angelo Codevilla – Does America Have a Ruling Class?
Universal cancels release of film where elites hunt ‘deplorables’
The Hunt – Official Trailer [HD]
Why The Hunt Is Finally Being Released with a New Marketing Campaign
The Hunt – Trailer Reaction – New Release Date of March 13th
The Most Dangerous Game colourized
The deplorable choir- a song to Hillary Clinton
The Hunt (2020 film)
Jump to navigationJump to search
by Richard Connell
company
The Hunt is an upcoming American action horror–thriller film directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, based on the 1924 short story, The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell. It stars Betty Gilpin, Ike Barinholtz, Emma Roberts and Hilary Swank. Jason Blum is serving as a producer under his Blumhouse Productions banner.[2]
The film was originally scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. However, following the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings in early August 2019, Universal Pictures decided to shelve the release of the film.[2] The decision came a day after criticism regarding the film came from United States President Donald Trump.[3] It has since been rescheduled for a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4][5]
Premise
Cast
Production
Development
In March 2018, Universal Pictures acquired the rights to the film, which would be directed by Craig Zobel with a script from Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof.[11][12]
The elite hunters’ reference to their quarry as “deplorables” is an allusion to a phrase (“basket of deplorables“) used by Hillary Clinton during the 2016 United States presidential election campaign to refer to supporters of then-presidential candidate, Donald Trump.[3] An early draft of the script depicted working-class conservatives as the film’s heroes.[13]
Though some reports indicated the original title of the film was Red State vs. Blue State (after the U.S. political term red states and blue states), Universal issued a statement denying that the film had ever had that as its working title.[13]
Casting
In March 2019, Emma Roberts, Justin Hartley, Glenn Howerton, Ike Barinholtz and Betty Gilpin were announced as being cast in the film.[14][15][16] In April 2019, Amy Madigan, Jim Klock, Charli Slaughter, Steve Mokate and Dean West joined the cast of the film.[17][18] Hilary Swank was announced as being cast in July.[19]
Filming
Filming began on February 20, 2019, in New Orleans and was due to finish on April 5.[20]
Release
The film was scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. It was, for a time, moved back to October 18 before shifting back to its original release date of September 27.[21]
On August 7, 2019, Universal announced that in the wake of the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings, they would be suspending the film’s promotional campaign.[22][23] Several days later, the film was pulled from the studio’s release schedule.[24][25] An international release is still a possibility.[26]
On February 11, 2020, it was announced the film would receive a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4]
Reception
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that there were a pair of test screenings for the film which had “negative reactions”. The second screening was held on August 6, 2019, in Los Angeles, in which “audience members were again expressing discomfort with the politics” of it, an issue Universal had not foreseen (although other studios had initially passed on the script for that very reason). In a statement to Variety, Universal pushed back on a report that test audiences had been uncomfortable with the film’s political slant, and also countered claims that the script had originally had a politically explosive title.[26] “While some outlets have indicated that test screenings for The Hunt resulted in negative audience feedback; in fact, the film was very well-received and tallied one of the highest test scores for an original Blumhouse film,” a Universal spokesperson said. “Additionally, no audience members in attendance at the test screening expressed discomfort with any political discussion in the film. While reports also say The Hunt was formerly titled Red State vs. Blue State, that was never the working title for the film at any point throughout the development process, nor appeared on any status reports under that name.”[26]
Prior to the film’s shelving, the film attracted criticism from some of the media as an alleged portrayal of liberal elitists hunting supporters of Donald Trump.[23][27] Trump issued a tweet on August 9, 2019, calling “Liberal Hollywood” “[r]acist at the highest level” and writing: “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos”, adding “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others”. Although Trump did not specify the name of the film, news vehicles believed that was most likely a reference to The Hunt.[27][28][29]
See also
References …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2020_film)
The Most Dangerous Game
Jump to navigationJump to search
hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
“The Most Dangerous Game“, also published as “The Hounds of Zaroff“, is a short story by Richard Connell,[1] first published in Collier’s on January 19, 1924.[2] The story features a big-game hunter from New York City who falls off a yacht and swims to what seems to be an abandoned and isolated island in the Caribbean, where he is hunted by a Russian aristocrat.[3] The story is inspired by the big-game hunting safaris in Africa and South America that were particularly fashionable among wealthy Americans in the 1920s.[4]
The story has been adapted numerous times, most notably as the 1932 RKO Pictures film The Most Dangerous Game, starring Joel McCrea and Leslie Banks,[5] and for a 1943 episode of the CBS Radio series Suspense, starring Orson Welles.[6] It has been called the “most popular short story ever written in English.” Upon its publication, it won the O. Henry Award.[3]
The Most Dangerous Game is one of many works that entered the public domain in the United States in 2020.[7]
Contents
Plot
Sanger Rainsford and his friend, Whitney, are traveling to the Amazon rainforest to hunt the region’s big cat: the jaguar. After a discussion about how they are “the hunters” instead of “the hunted”, Whitney goes to bed and Rainsford hears gunshots. He climbs onto the yacht’s rail and accidentally falls overboard, swimming to Ship-Trap Island, which is notorious for shipwrecks. On the island, he finds a palatial chateau inhabited by two Cossacks: the owner, General Zaroff, and his gigantic deaf-mute servant, Ivan.
Zaroff, another big-game hunter, knows of Rainsford from his published account of hunting snow leopards in Tibet. After inviting him to dinner, General Zaroff tells Rainsford he is bored of hunting because it no longer challenges him; he has moved to Ship-Trap in order to capture shipwrecked sailors. Any captives who can elude Zaroff, Ivan, and a pack of hunting dogs for three days are set free. Zaroff reveals that no one has lasted that long, although a couple of sailors had come close. Zaroff also says that he offers sailors a “choice”; should they decline to be hunted they will be handed over to Ivan, who had once been official knouter for The Great White Czar. Rainsford denounces this as barbarism. Zaroff reacts in a cosmopolitan manner that “life is for the strong“. Realizing he has no way out, Rainsford reluctantly agrees to be hunted.
During his three-hour head start, Rainsford lays an intricate trail in the forest and then climbs a tree. Zaroff finds him easily, but decides to play with him like a cat would a mouse, standing underneath the tree Rainsford is hiding in, smoking a cigarette, and then abruptly departing. After the failed attempt at eluding Zaroff, Rainsford builds a Malay man-catcher, a weighted log attached to a trigger. This contraption injures Zaroff’s shoulder, causing him to return home for the night, but before doing so shouts that if Rainsford is within earshot, his trap was commendable as few could pull it off. The next day Rainsford creates a Burmese tiger pit, which kills one of Zaroff’s hounds. He sacrifices his knife and ties it to a sapling to make a Ugandan knife trap; Ivan is killed when he stumbles into this trap and the knife plunges into his heart. To escape Zaroff and his approaching hounds, Rainsford dives off a cliff into the sea; Zaroff, disappointed at Rainsford’s apparent suicide, returns home. Zaroff smokes a pipe by his fireplace, but two issues keep him from peace of mind: first, the difficulty of replacing Ivan; and second, the uncertainty of whether Rainsford did indeed perish.
Zaroff locks himself in his bedroom and turns on the lights, only to find Rainsford waiting for him; he had swum around the island in order to sneak into the chateau without the dogs finding him. Zaroff congratulates him on winning the “game”, but Rainsford decides to fight him, saying he is still a beast-at-bay and that the original hunt is not over. Accepting the challenge, Zaroff says that the loser will be fed to the dogs, while the winner will sleep in his bed. The story ends with Rainsford enjoying the comfort of Zaroff’s bed.
Analysis
“The Most Dangerous Game” is a popular read within middle and high school curricula due to the strength of the themes within the story. The first and foremost question that the story bears is that of justifiable murder. Rainsford justifies his hunting of animals because he believes that man is superior to animals because animals do not feel. To contradict, General Zaroff believes that men are superior because they are able to reason. Zaroff uses his reasoning to explain why men are the most interesting game to hunt; men can reason, and thus provide a challenge that no animal can contend with. The story simultaneously highlights through the experience of Rainsford, as he is hunted, the fears that animals must experience while being hunted.
Zaroff himself is a contradiction because his exquisite manners are juxtaposed with his heartless brutality in killing men. The idea of a man who is proper in all aspects, but still contains a desire to kill, is a suggestion by Connell that men possess murderous instincts that can only be subdued by the presence of society and law. Zaroff is only able to partake in his “hobby” because he does not live within a civilization.
The ending of the story bears questions about the true nature of Rainsford, who is implied to have killed Zaroff in order to secure his own safety. By killing Zaroff, he thus took part in the “game” that Zaroff wanted him to play.[8]
Adaptations and in popular culture
Theatrical release poster for The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
Film
The first major film adaption was RKO Pictures‘ film released in 1932, The Most Dangerous Game. Joel McCrea stars as Rainsford; Leslie Banks portrays Zaroff. The adaptation by James Ashmore Creelman adds two other principal characters, brother-and-sister pair Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray) and Martin Trowbridge (Robert Armstrong), who are castaways from a shipwreck. The Most Dangerous Game was co-directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack and Irving Pichel; also with a score by Max Steiner, the film was a favorite project of producer Merian C. Cooper. The production shared several sets with King Kong (1933), a simultaneous RKO project that also involved Schoedsack, Cooper, Wray, Armstrong, Creelman, and Steiner. The Most Dangerous Game was a modest success.[9][10][11]:51
RKO produced a remake titled A Game of Death (1945), directed by Robert Wise, from a screenplay Norman Houston wrote. This film stars John Loder and Audrey Long, with Edgar Barrier as the mad hunter.[11]:206 In order to keep with events of that time, A Game of Death changed Zaroff into “Erich Kreiger”, a Nazi, and was set in the aftermath of the Second World War.[12]
In 1956, United Artists released another film adaptation, Run for the Sun, starring Richard Widmark, Trevor Howard and Jane Greer.[11]:206[13] In 1961, the film Bloodlust! was released, directed by Ralph Brooke and starring Wilton Graff as the Zaroff-type character, and Robert Reed as the leader of a band of youths who become stranded on the island.[14] 1972’s The Woman Hunt starring John Ashley and Sid Haig made for Roger Corman‘s New World Pictures is an unofficial remake of the story.[15]
Also in 1972, The Suckers, tells a sexploitation version of the story, with the hunter using models as his prey.[16] In 1973, The Perverse Countess was released.[17] The 1982 Australian film Turkey Shoot has similar elements.[18]
The 1987 film, Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity, transports the story to an alien world using scantily clad women as the hunted and a mad scientist, Zed as the Zaroff character.[17][19]
John Woo‘s first Hollywood directorial effort, the Jean-Claude Van Damme thriller Hard Target (1993), was loosely based on the same story. The locale was shifted to 1990s New Orleans, with homeless Vietnam war veterans voluntarily serving (in return for potential payment from a shady businessman) as human prey. It was followed by Hard Target 2, a direct-to-video sequel released in 2016.
In Surviving the Game (1994), a homeless man is hired as a survival guide for a group of wealthy businessmen on a hunting trip in the mountains. He is unaware that they are killers who hunt humans for sport, and that he is their new prey. Directed by Ernest R. Dickerson, the film stars Rutger Hauer, Ice-T, and Charles S. Dutton.
The Pest (1997) is a comedic parody of the story, with German huntsman Gustav Shank accidentally bringing Puerto Rican teenage hustler Pestario “Pest” Vargas to his island instead of the skilled man he had intended to hunt, only to decide to hunt the Pest anyway due to his sheer obnoxiousness. Shank’s ambition is to have a head of a warrior of every ethnicity in his Trophy Room. He also rigs the “game” by having his prey unknowingly drink a slow-acting poison before the hunt, making sure that they die even if they escape him.
In The Eliminator (2004), seven captured people are hunted at night for sport on an island as a betting game for the wealthy.
The 2019-produced film The Hunt follows a similar premise. It will release in March 13, 2020 and was originally going to be released in September 27, 2019. It was originally cancelled due to Daytona and El Paso mass shootings in early August 2019.
Radio
“The Most Dangerous Game” was presented four times as a radio play.
Television
In Have Gun Will Travel episode “The Black Bull” Paladin is forced to play the part of a black bull against an insane matador (Ned Romero)
In The Wild Wild West episode, 1/4 “The Night of Sudden Death”, Jim West and a circus girl are trapped inside an Africa Reserve wild animal Park in Colorado and are hunted by an insane big-game hunter Warren (Robert Loggia).
In the Get Smart episode, “Island of the Darned”, Agents 86 and 99 are trapped on an island with a mad KAOS killer, Hans Hunter (Harold Gould).
This trope was used in the season 3 (1968), episode 22 of I Spy, “The Name of the Game”.
In the Gilligan’s Island episode “The Hunter”, big-game hunter Jonathan Kincaid (Rory Calhoun) turned his sights on Gilligan when he realized there were no wild animals on the island.
In season 1, episode 18 of Star Trek: The Original Series, “The Squire of Gothos“, a childlike, seemingly all-powerful being named Trelane kidnaps and hunts Captain Kirk.
In the series finale of Bonanza, entitled “The Hunter”, a deranged killer, Corporal Bill Tanner (Tom Skerritt), who was formerly a tracker for the United States Army, hunts Little Joe (Michael Landon).
In the 1974 TV movie “Savages” after a young man accidentally witnesses a murder, he must survive both the desert and being hunted by the killer (Andy Griffith).[23]
In the 1977 pilot episode of Fantasy Island, a big-game hunter comes to the island to be hunted by a man, an interesting twist on the usual version in which the hunted participates against his will.
The Canadian series Relic Hunter had an episode called “Run Sydney Run” that was very closely based on “The Most Dangerous Game”, with Peter Stebbings acting as General Tsarlov.[citation needed]
The Simpsons Halloween special “Treehouse of Horror XVI” contained a segment titled “Survival of the Fattest” which parodied the story closely. In this segment Mr. Burns invited much of the cast to his hunting lodge on a private island, only to reveal that he intended to hunt them all for sport. Another episode makes a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” when Rainier Wolfcastle says that he bought a YMCA to demolish it and install a hunting ground dedicated to “hunt the most dangerous animal of all… Man”.
In an episode of the animated sitcom American Dad!, the Smith family and a young woman become stranded on an island after Francine jumps off a cruise. Stan goes up to the mansion on this island to ask for help, but the inhabitants say that they are going to hunt the family. The Smiths and the young woman become trapped in a cave, where the young woman dies and they eat her to survive. The hunters then break into the cave and shoot the family. Stan sits up, realizing it is paint. At a party later, the hunters reveal that nobody really dies on The Most Dangerous Game Island.
The Incredible Hulk episode “The Snare” has Banner trapped on a private island owned by an insane hunter who not only craves the challenge of hunting humans, but considers the discovery of Banner’s powerful Hulk form as a sign of a particularly appealing quarry.
In Season 2, Episode 21 of Criminal Minds, “Open Season”, two brothers capture people stranded in a remote region of the wilderness outside Challis, Idaho, release them into the hills, and hunt them with compound bows for sport, referring the men as “bucks” and the women as “does”.
In Season 13, Episode 15 of Law and Order: SVU, “Hunting Ground”, a serial rapist and killer lures female escorts after their date to a remote area where he sets them free while he hunts them down to recapture them again.
In the Disney animated series The Mighty Ducks “The Most Dangerous Duck Hunt” episode, the heroes are trapped on an island and hunted.
In a “Dial M for Monkey” segment of the animated series Dexter’s Laboratory, the hero Monkey is trapped by an alien big-game hunter named “Huntor”, who also makes a cameo among a league of Hunters of “Sumarai Jack” in the Cartoon Network cartoon series Samurai Jack.
In Season 1, Episode 15 of Supernatural, “The Benders”, a family has been behind disappearances in a city. The family snatches victims to hunt and kill. Sam and a police officer are taken, but Dean finds them and helps them subdue the family before it can cause them any harm.
In Season 7, Episode 12 of Futurama, “31st Century Fox“, Bender becomes the target of a fox hunting club and is referred to as ‘the most dangerous game.’
In Season 2 Episode 6 of The Blacklist, Elizabeth Keen and her FBI task force encounter a family in Idaho who trained the mother’s youngest son to hunt and kill humans kidnapped by the eldest son.
The Outer Limits 1998 episode “The Hunt” is a story in which the hunting of animals has been banned by environmentalists, and black market hunting of obsolete androids takes its place.
In the Season 3, Episode 5 episode of Archer, “El Contador”, Lana and Archer are hunted by a drug lord.
In Season 3, Episode 22 episode of Riverdale, “Chapter Fifty-Seven: Survive the Night”
In Season 4, Episode 2 of Game of Thrones, there is a scene in which Ramsay Bolton hunts a woman (one of his former lovers). She is cornered by the hunting party and eaten alive by Ramsay’s dogs. It is implied that this was not the only time Ramsay indulged in human hunting “for sport.”
In Season 3, Episodes 21 and 22 of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Ahsoka Tano and Chewbacca are hunted on an island.
An episode of the animated series Johnny Bravo entitled “Hunted!” is an obvious parody of the story. The titular Johnny is forced to go through the same ordeal, but his stupidity and foolishness greatly frustrates the hunter, who eventually allows him to leave.
Season 6 episode 11 of Xena: Warrior Princess, “Dangerous Prey”, is also inspired by The Most Dangerous Game. In this episode, Prince Morloch is a hunter who has grown bored of hunting animals, saying he’s “killed one of every creature that walks this earth”. He started hunting Amazons which grabbed the attention of Xena.
In season 3 of Wrecked, the plane crash survivors land on another island, where four wealthy men make them hunt each other, then hunting the survivor.
Other adaptations
The story has also served as an inspiration for books and films like Seventh Victim, Battle Royale, Predator, Predators,The Running Man and The Hunger Games. In the film Westworld, humans are allowed to hunt and kill androids until one, played by Yul Brynner, starts hunting them.
In the anime series Psycho-Pass, episodes 10 and 11 feature a wealthy cyborg tycoon who dons gentleman’s hunting gear and hunts people in an underground maze with his robotic hounds.
In the video game Hitman: Contracts, the mission “Beldingford Manor” takes inspiration from this story.
In the video game Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc, the character Razoff takes inspiration from General Zaroff, even sharing similar names.
In the video game The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, the quest “Caught in the Hunt” is inspired by this story.
In the comic-book story “The Second Most Dangerous Game” (serialized in Martian Comics #8–10), Martians possess humans to continue their tradition of hunting other humans, after the practice has been outlawed. Richard Connell is a character.
In the comic book issue Daredevil #4 Daredevil fights a mad manhunter on a remote island.
The well-known Spider-Man villain, Kraven the Hunter, is based on the character of General Zaroff.
In Clive Cussler’s book DRAGON Dirk Pitt is chased by “Kamatori” on Soseki Island.
In the online game Poptropica, the five-part Survival Island features the player in a situation much like the one in the original story. At the end of the third episode, the player is rescued by a hunter known as Myron van Buren. The fourth episode revolves around the player in van Buren’s cabin, finding out that van Buren plans to hunt them. In the fifth episode, the player teams up with another victim of van Buren to defeat him by trapping him in a waterwheel.
In the video game Psychonauts, Vernon, one of the campers, references to hunting the most dangerous game while playing hide and seek.
In 2006, The Onion parodied the premise, positing that humans would actually make rather pitiful prey.[24]
In Don Pendleton’s The Executioner series, book #441, called Murder Island has a similar plot to the book. The protagonist, Mack “The Executioner” Bolan (a vigilante/government agent) encounters a rich businessman hunter on an island while on a mission and ends up in a similar position as the Rainsford character, while the rich hunter takes a similar role as Zaroff.
In a song called “Fly on the Wall” by Joey Pecoraro, the opening interaction between Rainsford and General Zaroff is used as a prelude to the actual song.
In 1987, American Metal band Laaz Rockit retold the story in their song “Most Dangerous Game” on their album Know Your Enemy. [25]
The Rooster Teeth series “Let’s Play Minecraft” featured an adaptation of the story into a game played by the show’s cast members in the video game Minecraft, where one player was given a map and hunted by the other five in and around the in-game world created by the Achievement Hunter cast members.
A translated version was published in Malayalam as an audio book by Kathacafe in 2017.[26]
In the video game West of Loathing a hunter’s ghost challenges the player to play “the most dangerous game”. After the player character shows disgust at hunting people the ghost says that wasn’t what he meant.
Real-life parallels
Robert Hansen, a serial killer who was active in the early 1980s, would kidnap women and release them in Alaska’s Knik River Valley. He would then hunt them, armed with a knife and a Ruger Mini-14 rifle.[27][28] A 2003 American crime drama film The Frozen Ground starring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage is based on this case.[29] Hanson was arrested and imprisoned for life where he died of an undisclosed illness.
In 1976, Hayes Noel, Bob Gurnsey, and Charles Gaines discussed Gaines’s recent trip to Africa and his experiences hunting African buffalo. Inspired in part by “The Most Dangerous Game”, they created paintball in 1981—a game where they would stalk and hunt each other—to recreate the same adrenaline rush from hunting animals.[30]
There is a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” in letters the Zodiac Killer wrote to San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in his three-part cipher: “Man is the most dangerous animal of all to kill”.[31] The Most Dangerous Game film is also mentioned a number of times in the context of the Zodiac Killer in the 2007 film, Zodiac.[32]
Citations …
General sources
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Game
Story 3: U.S. Houshold Debt Rising To Over $14,000,000,000 While Federal Reserve Continues To Expand Liquidity By Over $1,000,000,000 in Repo Market — Videos
The Credit Card Crisis
Fed keeps rates unchanged
Powell hinting Federal Reserve will remain on sidelines in 2020
WATCH LIVE: Fed Chair Powell testifies on coronavirus, state of economy
Fed expects inflation to move closer to 2% in coming months: Fed chairman
Economic language was downgraded in Fed decision: Portfolio manager
Stocks close near session lows after the Fed keeps interest rates unchanged
More Investors are starting to assume the Fed may be cutting rates by the end of the year: Economist
What is ACTUALLY going on in the repo market and what do Hedge Funds have to do with it?
What Caused the Repo Blowup in 2019? | Explained in 3 Minutes
What is the Repo Market? | Explained in 3 Minutes
U.S. Household Debt Exceeds $14 Trillion for the First Time
(Bloomberg) — Americans increased their borrowing for the 22nd straight quarter as more households took out loans to buy homes or refinance existing mortgages, according to a report released today from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Total U.S. household debt rose by $601 billion in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, or 1.4%, surpassing $14 trillion for the first time, the New York Fed’s quarterly household credit and debt report showed. That’s $1.5 trillion above the previous peak in the third quarter of 2008. Overall household debt is now 26.8% above the second-quarter 2013 trough.
Mortgage borrowing rose by $120 billion to $9.56 trillion. The rate for a 30-year mortgage has fallen by about 100 basis points over the past year, adding to home purchasers’ buying power. For example, a $500,000, 30-year loan costs about $300 less per month.
“Mortgage originations, including refinances, increased significantly in the final quarter of 2019,” Wilbert Van Der Klaauw, vice president at the New York Fed, said in a statement.
Mortgage loans for young adults age 18 to 29 rose to a the highest level since the third quarter of 2007. Originations for 30-year-olds rose to $210.1 billion last quarter — the highest level since the end of 2005.
Total debt for people ages 18 to 29 rose to a record $1.04 trillion.
Student debt increased to $1.51 trillion from $1.46 trillion at the end of 2018. More than $100 billion in student debt is held by those age 60 and over. Auto loans rose to $1.33 trillion, while credit card debt rose to a record $930 billion.
Auto debt, which has risen for 35 consecutive quarters, increased $16 billion from the previous quarter. Almost 5% of auto loans are 90 days of more delinquent. This is the highest percentage since the third quarter of 2011.
Credit card delinquencies rose to 8.36% an 18-month high.
Among student debt, one in nine borrowers were 90+ days delinquent or in default in 2019, and this figure may be understated. About half of student loans are currently in deferment, in grace periods or in forbearance and therefore temporarily not in the repayment cycle. Once these loans enter that cycle, delinquency rates are projected to be roughly twice as high, according to the Fed report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Tanzi in Washington at atanzi@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah McGregor at smcgregor5@bloomberg.net, Anita Sharpe
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392-1397
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 )