The FISA Applications to Conduct Surveillance of Carter Page
411
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 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (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. 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 present but the government’s counterparty is not.
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 fill 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 campaign-related
activities, members of the Crossfire Hurricane investigative team should have
412
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. But members of the Crossfire Hurricane team
failed to share the 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, and 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.
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 FBI’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 SSAs 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 (01) in preparing
413
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 FBI’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 today 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 make the following recommendations to assist the Department and the FBI in
avoiding similar failures in future investigations.
Story 1: Department of Justice Inspector General Report Out — FBI Officials Misled The FISA Court Judge and Omitted Exculpatory Evidence in Their Warrant Application To Spy on American People — Clear Abuse of Power By Obama Administration — Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Videos
ATTEMPTED COUP: President Trump BLASTS Findings in IG FISA FBI Report
Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation | NBC News
Fitton slams IG Horowitz’s report findings as as ‘dishonest
Meadows reacts to IG report: ‘Doesn’t get any more damning than this’
Carter Page plans to go after FBI agents who spied on him
DOJ inspector general finds Russia probe was appropriately opened — but Barr disagrees
DOJ releases inspector general’s findings on FBI surveillance
Tucker: Media proclaims FBI is innocent
Hannity: Deep state in deep legal jeaopardy
Report on origins of Russia investigation released by Justice Department inspector general
Inspector general: FBI properly opened its investigation
JUSTICE NEWS
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 9, 2019
Statement by Attorney General William P. Barr on the Inspector General’s Report of the Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement:
“Nothing is more important than the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why we must hold our investigators and prosecutors to the highest ethical and professional standards. The Inspector General’s investigation has provided critical transparency and accountability, and his work is a credit to the Department of Justice. I would like to thank the Inspector General and his team.
The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that 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. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, 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. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.
FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people. The Department of Justice and the FBI are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward.
No one is more dismayed about the handling of these FISA applications than Director Wray. I have full confidence in Director Wray and his team at the FBI, as well as the thousands of dedicated line agents who work tirelessly to protect our country. I thank the Director for the comprehensive set of proposed reforms he is announcing today, and I look forward to working with him to implement these and any other appropriate measures.
With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action.”
Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/09/19 04:00 PM EST 5,288
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.
Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the unusual step to issue a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the very beginning of the investigation.
Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. In fact, the Justice Department has a standard that requires the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to campaigns of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.
This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when the icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts.
The investigation was largely based on a May 2016 conversation between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London. Papadopolous reportedly said he heard that Russia had thousands of emails from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That was viewed as revealing possible prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release two months later, which was then used to open four investigations targeting the campaign and Trump associates. Notably, Democrats and the media lambasted Trump for saying the Justice Department had been “spying” on his campaign, and many said it was just an investigation into figures like Carter Page. Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and a variety of different sources. What they really discovered is the main point of the Horowitz report.
From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.
Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.
Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.
The report also said that Steele was viewed as reliable and was used as a source in prior cases, yet Horowitz found no support for that and, in fact, found that the past representations of Steele were flagged as unreliable. His veracity was not the only questionable thing unveiled in the report. Steele relied on a character who, Horowitz determined, had a dubious reputation and may have been under investigation as a possible double agent for Russia. Other instances were also clearly misrepresented.
The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.
Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.
In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.
Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Follow him @JonathanTurley.
IG report on Trump-Russia reveals ‘unacceptable’ problems says FBI director Chris Wray who says agency will reform the most sensitive probes and eavesdropping warrants
Chris Wray, the new head of the FBI, makes rare public statement after Michael Horowitz publishes scathing report on agency’s Trump-Russia probe
Wray – who was not in charge during the investigation – promised a string of reforms to handling the most sensitive and intrusive cases
‘The American people rightly expect that the FBI, when it acts to protect the country, is going to do it right – each time, every time,’ he said
A Justice Department inspector general report on the early days of the Russia investigation identified problems that are ‘unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution,’ FBI Director Chris Wray said Monday in detailing changes the bureau plans to make in response.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Wray said the FBI had cooperated fully with the inspector general – which concluded in its report that the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia was legitimate but also cited serious flaws – and accepted all its recommendations.
Wray said the FBI would make changes to how it handles confidential informants, how it applies for warrants from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, how it conducts briefings on foreign influence for presidential nominees and how it structures sensitive investigations like the 2016 Russia probe. He said he has also reinstated ethics training.
Speaking out: Chris Wray said the FBI would make changes after the report by Michael Horowitz revealed mistakes in the handling of the Trump-Russia probe
Failings: Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department Inspector General, said the FBI had not acted out of anti-Trump bias but had made a string of mistakes when it wiretapped one of his allies
Out now: The IG’s report sent shockwaves around Washington D.C.
‘I am very committed to the FBI being agile in its tackling of foreign threats,’ Wray said.
‘But I believe you can be agile and still scrupulously follow our rules, policies and processes.’
The FBI’s decision to target Page with spying authorized by a secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court was made and reinforced by the FBI’s most senior leaders, Horowitz wrote.
‘[T]he FBI’s decision to rely upon Steele’s election reporting to help establish probable cause that Page was an agent of Russia was a judgment reached initially by the case agents on the Crossfire Hurricane team,’ he explained, referring to the name of the operation.
Wray was not FBI director when the Russia investigation began and has so far avoided commenting in depth on the probe, one of the most politically sensitive inquiries in bureau history and one that President Donald Trump has repeatedly denounced as a ‘witch hunt.’
Wray’s comments Monday underscore the balancing act of his job as he tries to embrace criticism of the Russia probe that he sees as legitimate while limiting public judgment of decisions made by his predecessors.
He said that though it was important to not lose sight of the fact that Inspector General Michael Horowitz found the investigation justified and did not find it to be tainted by political bias: ‘The American people rightly expect that the FBI, when it acts to protect the country, is going to do it right – each time, every time.
‘And,’ he added, ‘urgency is not an excuse for not following our procedures.‘
U.S. Attorney John Durham disagreed with the Justice Department inspector general’s determination that the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation was justified.
Durham, who is conducting a separate investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, said in a rare statement on Monday following the release of Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act report. The Connecticut federal prosecutor said he has “the utmost respect” for Horowitz’s team and the “comprehensive work” they carried out, but stressed that he is privy to information outside of Horowitz’s DOJ purview.
“Our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said. “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.”
Attorney General William Barr echoed Durham’s sentiments on Monday, stating that Horowitz’s report “makes clear that 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.”
The inspector general, who was looking into allegations of FISA abuse to monitor onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, found the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s team was properly authorized, and no political bias influenced the launch of the investigation but also determined the bureau made “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in the secret court filings spanning from October 2016 to the summer of 2017.
Democrats, who are nearing an impeachment vote in the House this week, have raised concerns that Barr is leveraging intelligence-gathering practices to attack Trump’s political rivals.
Barr and Durham have been reaching out to foreign governments, including Australia, Italy, and the United Kingdom during their investigation, and have made multiple overseas trips to speak with intelligence officials and review evidence as they look into how the Trump-Russia investigation began.
There have been numerous reports that Durham has been seeking answers about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation by questioning members of the U.S. Intelligence Community and others. For instance, former CIA Director John Brennan said Durham was seeking interviews with himself and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Barr has long signaled skepticism about whether the Trump-Russia investigation was launched on sound legal footing. It began in late July 2016, after Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat that he heard the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 rival. The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane, was later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference. Mueller’s team was unable to establish criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
“I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated,” Barr told the Senate in April. “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.”
“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr said. “And a lot has already been investigated and is being investigated by the Office of Inspector General at the department. But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.”
Facing blowback for the use of the word “spying,” including from FBI Director Christopher Wray, Barr refused to back down. In May, he called “spying” a “good English word” and told CBS News some facts he had uncovered “don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”
The FBI’s operational guidelines say a “full investigation” may be opened if there is an “articulable factual basis” of possible criminal activity or a threat to national security, with such an investigation allowing for surveillance, subpoenas, searches and seizures, undercover operations, electronic surveillance, FISA orders, and more. The guidelines further add that “the predication to open a full investigation must be documented in the opening electronic communication.”
FISA documents released in 2018 show DOJ and the FBI made extensive use of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier in 2016 and 2017. The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee used the Perkins Coie law firm to hire Fusion GPS, which then hired the former MI6 agent, whose Democratic funding, his strong desire for Trump to lose, and possible flaws with his dossier weren’t revealed to the FISA court. The FISA applications targeting Page required the approval of top members of the FBI and the DOJ, and judges on FISA court
Story 2: Democrat Socialist Suicide Sprint To Trump Impeachment For Defeating Clinton in 2016 — Coup and Cover-up Big Failure — American People Will Be Incensed When They Learn The Details of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Criminal Investigation and Indictments Coming in 2020 Just In Time for 2020 Election — Videos
Rep. Doug Collins: The ‘focus-group impeachment’ has no facts
WATCH: Rep. Doug Collins’ full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Matt Gaetz’s full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
Producers: Chris Lord-Alge, Tina Turner and Roger Davies
Album: What’s Love Got To Do With It (93)
To my surprise one hundred storeys high
People getting loose now, getting down on the roof
Folks screaming, out of control
It was so entertaining when the boogie started to explode
I heard somebody say
(Burn baby burn) Disco Inferno
(Burn baby burn) Burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) Disco Inferno
(Burn baby burn) Burn that mother down
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction
I couldn’t get enough, so I had to self-destruct
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody is going strong, and that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say
(Burn baby burn) Disco Inferno
(Burn baby burn) Burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) Disco Inferno
(Burn baby burn) Burn that mother down
Up above my head
I hear music in the air
That makes me know
There’s a party somewhere
(Just can’t stop) When my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) When my spark gets hot
‘We’re all mad. Even my dog seems mad!’ Republicans’ first impeachment witness says probe of Donald Trump is driving the country crazy – but that’s NOT a reason to remove him
Jonathan Turley became the first Republican-approved witness to testify in the impeachment inquiry on Wednesday
He admitted in his opening statement, however, that he is not a Trump supporter
Turley did not use his time to defend Donald Trump, but did concede that the Democrat investigation is based on secondhand information
‘I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a scarcity of evidence,’ he said in his opening statement
The three other witnesses were all called by Democrats and argued for impeachment
‘The president’s serious misconduct… are worse than the misconduct of any prior president,’ one Democrat-called witness said in his opening remarks
Jonathan Turley, the only Republican witness allowed by Democrats to appear at the impeachment hearing Wednesday, did not use his opening statement to defend Donald Trump.
The George Washington University law professor is the first Republican-requested witness and the only Republican who was permitted to testify Wednesday, but in his opening statement, he admitted he is not a supporter of the president.
‘I’m not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him,’ he said during his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee, claiming it was an irrelevant fact. ‘My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote.’
Turley said that while ‘a case for impeachment can be made,’ the current case brought by Democrats was based solely on secondhand information.
‘I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a scarcity of evidence,’ Turley continued in his remarks.
He blasted the president’s call with his Ukrainian counterpart as ‘anything but perfect,’ – a word Trump has used to describe his now-infamous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which is the genesis of the impeachment inquiry.
Truley also described the current period as one of ‘madness.’
‘I get it, you’re mad,’ Truley said in his remarks aimed at the Judiciary panel. ‘The president’s mad. My Republicans friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad – and Luna’s a goldendoodle, and they don’t get mad. So we’re all mad.’
No case to impeach: Rage against the president is not a reason for removal, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley told Congress
She’s mad: Luna the goldendoodle is ‘mad’ despite her breed’s temperament, Jonathan Turley said. He has taken his dog to George Washington University, where he lectures
Michael Gerhardt, professor of law at University of North Carolina School of Law, speaks with Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, after returning from a break in testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar?
Swearing in: Constitutional scholars Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University get ready to testify
‘Will a slip-shod impeachment make us less mad?’ he posed.
‘It’s not wrong because President Trump is right,’ Turley said of the impeachment proceedings. ‘His call was anything but perfect. It’s not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It’s not wrong because we’re in an election year – there is no good time for an impeachment. No, it’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.’
The remaining three witnesses invited to publicly testify on Wednesday were all called by Democrats and included Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford and Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.
They all argued for impeachment in their opening statements before the panel.
‘I just want to stress, that if this – if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, than nothing is impeachable,’ Gerhardt said in his uninterrupted remarks. ‘This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a constitution – including impeachment – to protect against.’
‘If Congress concludes that they’re going to give a pass to the president here… every other president will say, ‘Ok, then I can do the same thing.’ And the boundaries will just evaporate,’ he continued. ‘And those boundaries are set up by the Constitution, and we may be witnessing, unfortunately, their erosion. And that is a danger to all of us.’
The House Intelligence Committee released a report Tuesday indicating it found that Trump misused the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections and also obstructed the impeachment investigation.
The report came after several closed-door meeting, five days of public hearings and 12 witness testimonies last month before the Intelligence Committee, headed by Chairman Adam Schiff.
Now, the House Judiciary Committee is moving swiftly to weigh the findings by fellow lawmakers.
The 300-page Democrat report found ‘serious misconduct’ by the president.
It did not render a judgment on whether Trump’s actions stemming from his call with Zelensky rose to the constitutional level of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ which would warrant impeachment. That is for the full House to decide.
Its findings involving Trump’s efforts to seek foreign intervention in the American election process will, however, provide the basis for a House vote on impeachment and a Senate trial carrying the penalty of removal from office.
‘The evidence that we have found is really quite overwhelming that the president used the power of his office to secure political favors and abuse the trust American people put in him and jeopardize our security,’ Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California told AP.
‘It was a difficult decision to go down this road, because it’s so consequential for the country,’ Schiff continued. ‘[But] the president was the author of his own impeachment inquiry by repeatedly seeking foreign help in his election campaigns.’
Schiff added: ‘Americans need to understand that this president is putting his personal political interests above theirs. And that it’s endangering the country.’
The session Wednesday with legal scholars will delve into possible impeachable offenses, but the real focus will be on the panel, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler and made up of a sometimes boisterous, sharply partisan division of lawmakers.
Trump declared while attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit in London that he wouldn’t be watching Wednesday’s hearings, calling the Democrats’ efforts ‘unpatriotic.
Democrat Adam Schiff announces release of impeachment report
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement, ‘Chairman Schiff and the Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump.’
She added that the report ‘reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.’
The ‘Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report’ provides a detailed account of a shadow diplomacy run by Trump’s personal attorney and former Republican Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani.
Along with revelations from earlier testimony, the report included previously unreleased cell phone records raising fresh questions about Giuliani’s interactions with the top Republican on the intelligence panel, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, and the White House. Nunes declined to comment. Schiff said his panel would continue its probe.
Based on two months of investigation sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint, which was made public in September, the report relies heavily on testimony from current and former U.S. officials who defied White House orders not to appear.
Schiff wrote in the Democrat report’s preface that the Intelligence Committee’s inquiry found that the president ‘solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection.’
In doing so, the president ‘sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,’ the report continued.
It added that when Congress began its impeachment investigation, Trump obstructed the probe.
The Democrats’ report came the day after a 123-page Republican prebuttal was publicized that claimed Trump didn’t do anything wrong and perpetuated a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, either on its own or along with Russia, interfered in the 2016 elections to favor Hillary Clinton.
The Republican counter-report, authored by three House ranking members, claimed Trump never intended to pressure Ukraine when he asked for a ‘favor’ for Kiev to investigate political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden.
They say the military aid that the White House was withholding was not being used as leverage, as Democrats claim. Republican ranking members Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mike McCaul argue that Democrats just want to undo the 2016 election.
Republicans who have defended Trump from the start have echoed his rhetoric that the proceedings are a ‘hoax.’
The president also criticized the House for pushing forward with the inquiry while he is overseas participating in the NATO summit.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called on Democrats to end the impeachment ‘nightmare,’ claiming those on the left are ‘concerned if they do not impeach this president they cant beat him in an election.’
Possible grounds for impeachment are focused on whether Trump abused his office as he pressed Zelensky to open investigations into Trump’s political rivals.
When Trump and Zelesnky spoke in July, the White House, a few days earlier, had frozen $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, jeopardizing key support for the Eastern European nation as it faces an aggressive Russia at its border.
The Democrat report also accuses Trump of obstruction, claiming he is the ‘first and only” president in U.S. history to ‘openly and indiscriminately’ defy the House’s constitutional authority to conduct the impeachment proceedings by instructing officials not to comply with document and testimony subpoenas.
Liberal Democrats are pushing the party to go further by incorporating findings from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report, but more centrist and moderate Democrats want to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans understand.
This is especially important as public opinion polls show Americans are split on whether they support impeachment, and some in battleground states indicate they are confused by the proceedings.
Democrats could begin drafting articles of impeachment against the president in a matter of days, and the full House could vote by Christmas.
After a full House vote, the matter would move to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial in 2020.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote that the impeachment is a ‘baseless and highly partisan inquiry.’
He did, however, leave the door open to possible White House participation in future hearings.
Cipollone will brief Senate Republicans on Wednesday.
House rules provide the president and his attorneys the right to cross-examine witnesses and review evidence before the committee, but little ability to bring forward witnesses of their own.
Noah R. Feldman (born May 22, 1970) is an American author and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion.
In 1992, Feldman received his A.B. summa cum laude in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard College, where he was awarded the Sophia Freund Prize (awarded to the highest-ranked among the graduates who received summa) and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in the first round of selection. He was also the 1990 Truman Scholar from Massachusetts. He then earned a Rhodes Scholarship to the Christ Church, Oxford, where he earned a PhD in Islamic Thought in 1994. Upon his return from Oxford, he received his J.D., in 1997, from Yale Law School, where he was the book review editor of the Yale Law Journal. He later served as a law clerk for Associate Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2001, he joined the faculty of New York University Law School (NYU), leaving for Harvard Law School in 2007. In 2008, he was appointed the Bemis Professor of International Law.[3]
Feldman was formerly married to fellow Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk, with whom he has two children. He is fluent in Hebrew, Arabic, and French, besides English.[6]
Career
As an academic and public intellectual, Feldman is concerned with issues at the intersection of religion and politics. In the United States, this has a bearing on First Amendment questions of church and state and the role of religion both in government and in private life. Feldman’s other area of specialty is Islam. In Iraq, the same reasoning leads him to support the creation of a democracy with Islamist elements. This last position has been lauded by some as a pragmatic and sensitive solution to the problems inherent in the creation of a new Iraqi government;[7] others have taken exception to the same idea, however, characterizing Feldman’s views as simplistic and shortsighted.[8]
Feldman was a featured speaker, alongside noted Islamic authority Hamza Yusuf, in the lecture Islam & Democracy: Is a clash of civilizations inevitable?, which was subsequently released on DVD. An excerpt from Feldman’s 2008 book, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine and was attacked by Leon Wieseltier for “promoting” Islamic law as a “swell basis” for a political order. This, according to Wieseltier, amounts to “shilling for soft theocracy,” and is hypocritical since Wieseltier presumes that neither he nor Feldman would actually choose to rear their own children in such a system.[9]
Criticism of Modern Orthodox Judaism
In a New York Times Magazine article, “Orthodox Paradox”, Feldman recounted his experiences of the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion of the Modern Orthodox Jewish community in which he was raised, specifically at his high school alma mater, the Maimonides School.[10] He contended that his choice to marry a non-Jew led to ostracism by the school, in which he and his then-girlfriend were allegedly removed from the 1998 photograph of his class reunion published in the school newsletter. His marriage to a non-Jew is contrary to orthodox Jewish law, although he and his family had been active members of the Harvard HillelOrthodoxminyan. The photographer’s account of an over-crowded photo was used to accuse Feldman of misrepresenting a fundamental fact in the story, namely whether he was purposefully cropped out of the picture, as many other class members were also cropped from the newsletter photo due to space limitations.[11] His supporters noted that Feldman’s claim in the article was that he and his girlfriend were “nowhere to be found” and not that they were cropped or deleted out of the photo. Yet others view this claim by Feldman’s supporters as disingenuous, noting that elsewhere Feldman had publicly encouraged the suggestion of air-brushing. Leon Wieseltier attacked Feldman for the dishonesty of “exposing the depredations” of Orthodox Jewish law while praising sharia as “bold and noble,” and called Feldman’s essay a “pathetic whine.”[12]
Feldman also argued pro bono in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals against the efforts of a Jewish group in Tenafly, New Jersey, the Tenafly Eruv Association, to erect an eruv. However, his arguments were rejected in 2003 and the eruv was, in fact, permitted.[30]
During the Amish “beard-cutting” attacks trial of 2012, Feldman argued against applying the Federal hate-crimes law in the case. He argued in a Bloomberg View column that strife amongst co-religionists, including for example “two gangs of ultra-Orthodox Hasidic teenagers from competing sects,” could be brought under the law. Any dispute that takes place in the context of a church, mosque or synagogue would be ripe for federal intervention. Over time, a hate-crimes law designed as a shield to protect religious groups against bias could easily become a sword with which to prosecute them, he then concluded.[5] The sixteen Amish men and women in the 2012 case were subsequently found guilty.[31]
Public perception and media appearances
Feldman’s work on the Iraqi constitution was controversial at the time, and some, including Edward Said, felt he was not experienced enough with the country to undertake such a task.[32]
In 2005, The New York Observer called Feldman “one of a handful of earnest, platinum-résumé’d law geeks whose prospects for the Big Bench are the source of constant speculation among friends and colleagues.”[33]
In 2008, he was among the names topping Esquire magazine’s list of the “most influential people of the 21st century”. The magazine called him “a public intellectual of our time.”[35]
In 2011, Noah Feldman appeared in all three episodes in the Ken Burns PBS series Prohibition as a legal commentator.[36]
Feldman, Noah R.; Sullivan, Kathleen M. (2019). Constitutional Law. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press. ISBN9781683287872. OCLC1086016864. – various editions/supplements prior to this version
Selected news and articles
Feldman, Noah R. (November 2015). “Chapter 39: Mormonism in the American Political Domain”. In Givens, Terryl L.; Barlow, Philip L. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Mormonism. Part VIII Mormonism in the World Community. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199778362.013.36. ISBN9780199778362. OCLC5932525069.
Gerhardt joined the UNC law faculty in 2005.[8] Prior to UNC, Gerhardt worked at Wake Forest School of Law and William & Mary Law School, served as Dean of the Law School at Case Western Reserve, and had been a visiting professor at Duke and Cornell Law Schools. Gerhardt is the author of several books regarding constitutional law and history, including The Power of Precedent.[9] His most recent book is The Forgotten Presidents: Their Untold Constitutional Legacy, published in April 2013 by Oxford University Press.[10]
Gerhardt has assisted members of Congress and the White House on a range of various constitutional issues, beginning with drafting the judicial selection policy for the transition of Bill Clinton into office. Gerhardt then worked with the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal.[11] He has testified several times before the House Judiciary Committee, including as the only joint witness in the 1998 hearing on the history of U.S. impeachment during the consideration of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[12] Also, he was one of only two legal scholars to testify against the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which the Supreme Court struck down in Clinton v. City of New York.[13]
In 2009, he testified as an expert before the select House committee considering whether to impeach Judge Thomas Porteous.[14] He has also testified before the Senate regarding the constitutionality of filibustering.[15]
Gerhardt has worked and testified in Senate confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court Justices, beginning in 1994 when he counseled the White House regarding Associate Justice Stephen Breyer‘s confirmation hearings.[16] In 2005, he consulted with senators on John Roberts‘ nomination as Chief Justice of the United States.[17] Gerhardt then served as a witness in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito, to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.[18] Along with Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, he is the only legal scholar to have been invited to testify in both the 1998 impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and the confirmation hearings for Associate Justice Alito. He also acted as Special Counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.[19] In 2012, Gerhardt testified again before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.[20]
Gerhardt is interviewed frequently by many news outlets, including National Public Radio,[21] as an expert on constitutional law and issues.[22]
Personal life
Gerhardt is married to Deborah Gerhardt, who teaches contracts, copyright, and trademark law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and they have three children together, including Benjamin Gerhardt.[23]
Karlan earned her B.A. degree in history from Yale University in 1980, as well as an M.A. degree in history and J.D. degree in 1984.[3] At Yale Law School, she served as an Article and Book Reviews editor of the Yale Law Journal.[4]
After graduating from law school, Karlan worked as a law clerk for former U.S. District Judge Abraham David Sofaer of the Southern District of New York from 1984 to 1985. She went on to clerk for U.S. Supreme Court JusticeHarry Blackmun the following year. In a 1995 oral history with Harold Koh, Blackmun revealed that his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick had been written primarily by Karlan. He said that Karlan “did a lot of very effective writing, and I owe a lot to her and her ability in getting that dissent out. She felt very strongly about it, and I think is correct in her approach to it. I think the dissent is correct.”[5]
From 1988 to 1998, Karlan taught law at the University of VirginiaSchool of Law, where she won the All-University Outstanding Teaching Award in 1995–96 and the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia‘s Outstanding Faculty Award in 1997.[6] In 1998, Karlan joined the faculty of Stanford Law School. She is the school’s Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law. In 2004, Karlan cofounded the school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, through which students litigate live cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.[4] In 2002, Karlan won the school’s prestigious John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching.[6]
Karlan has frequently commented on legal matters for PBS NewsHour. During the disputed 2000 presidential election, she appeared regularly in the news media to discuss its comportment with constitutional law. In the aftermath of the election, Karlan, Samuel Issacharoff, and Richard Pildes adapted two chapters from the law school casebook that they co-authored into a book called When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the Presidential Election of 2000.
On December 20, 2013, Karlan was appointed by the Obama administration to serve as the U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights in the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.[7] The position did not require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Karlan took up her post on January 13, 2014, and served for one year.[8][9] She received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the DOJ’s highest award for employee performance, for her work in implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor.[6]
Throughout her career, Karlan has been an advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court.[10] She was mentioned as a potential candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter when he retired in 2009.[11]
Personal life
Karlan told Politico in 2009, “It’s no secret at all that I’m counted among the LGBT crowd”.[12] She has described herself as an example of a “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women”.[13] Her partner is writer Viola Canales.[14]
This article is about the professor of law. For the children’s book author, see Jon Turley.
Jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is a professor at the George Washington University Law School. He frequently is called on by congressional committees to testify regarding constitutional and statutory issues. Most notably he has testified to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the impeachment of U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.[1][2]
He served as a House leadership page in 1977 and 1978 under the sponsorship of Illinois Democrat Sidney Yates.[5] In 2008 he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School in recognition of his career as an advocate of civil liberties and constitutional rights.[6]
Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school’s history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS),[8][9] the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.[3]
Since the 1990s, he has been the legal analyst for NBC News and CBS News covering stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections.[3] He is on the board of contributors of USA Today.[19] He is also a columnist with the Hill newspaper [20] He is currently legal analyst for CBS News and the BBC.[21]
He said “France has turned into one of the worldwide threats to free speech” [22]
In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[29]
Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, “It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us.”[27]
He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that “expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm.”[33]
Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are “no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up” and believes that “litigation could succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously”.[34]
He has written extensively about the injustice of the death penalty, noting, “Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions. … eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?”[35]
He worries that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[36] He has frequently expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.[37][38]
Turley has said, “It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.”[12] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[39]
In another commentary, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson‘s ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: “It’s very thoughtful—not a screed. I don’t see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson’s personal beliefs. … Anybody who’s dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion.”[28]
For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the “kill list” policy. Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen‘s e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen’s parents’ telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.[40]
In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about the danger posed by President Barack Obama’s apparent unilateral modification of laws passed by Congress, Turley said:
The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is [sic] two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.[41]
On November 21, 2014, Turley agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Party in a suit filed against the Obama administration alleging unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.[42]
On October 11, 2016, Libertarian Party candidate for President, Gary Johnson, announced that if elected Turley would be one of his two top choices for the Supreme Court seat that remained open following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.[43]
In a 2017 column for The Hill, Turley was critical of military intervention in the Middle East and questioned its constitutionality. He also mentioned that he supported the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[44]
Testimony before Congress
The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of executive privilege. For example, he said, “the president’s claim of executive authority based on Article II would put our system on a slippery slope.”[45] He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.[37][46]
He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues.[47][48] as well as tort reform legislation.[3]
Turley has also testified in Congress against President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, “Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America.“[53]
When Congressional Democrats asked the justice department to investigate the CIA’s destruction of terrorist interrogation tapes Turley said, “these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements.”[54]
When the U. S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, “The attorney general nominee’s evasive remarks on ‘water-boarding‘ should disqualify him from the job.”[26] On the treatment of terrorism suspect José Padilla, Turley says, “The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11 … This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances.” Turley considers the case of great import on the grounds that “Padilla’s treatment by the military could happen to others.”[24]
On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.[58] It was observed that the bases he expressed regarding his prior position that President Bill Clinton should be impeached diametrically contradicted the opinions he shared regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump, twenty one years later. Those 2019 reports contrasted his extensive quotes from the separate processes.[59][60][61]
Awards
In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute[3] and The Week magazine.[62]
He was ranked among the nation’s top 500 lawyers in 2008.[63] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[3]
In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal‘s survey of the top 100 blogs.[64][65] His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.[21] He has received other awards including the James Madison award and was declared one of four university fellows at the Utah Valley University in 2019.[21]
Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in a 2001 study by Judge Richard Posner.[66]
Prominent cases
In addition to maintaining a widely read blog,[67] Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades—representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, constitutional, and other types of cases. His past cases as lead counsel have secured decisions striking down both a federal and a state law [21]. Among them:
Lead counsel in Brown v. Buhman, for the Brown family from the TLC reality series Sister Wives, in their challenge of Utah’s criminalization of polygamy.
Lead counsel for five former United States Attorneys General in litigation during the Clinton Impeachment in federal court.
Lead counsel to ‘Five Wives Vodka” in successful challenge of ban on sales in Idaho due to a finding that the product was insulting to Mormons.
Lead counsel representing Dr. Sami Al-Arian in securing this release for civil contempt and later in defense of criminal contempt charges (which were dropped after years of litigation).
Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times.[68]
David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA’s Fort Gordon surveillance programs.[69]
Former Judge Thomas Porteous‘s impeachment trial defense.[47] Turley characterized Porteus’ chronic bribe-taking as merely being a “moocher.” Convicted on four articles of impeachment, removed as judge by a Senate vote of 94-2.[71][72]
Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy)-[73]
Story 2: United States House Passes The Uighur Act Demanding Sanctions On China Over Muslim Mass Imprisonment in Concentration Camps — Videos
China’s secret ‘brainwashing’ camps – BBC News
U.S. House Passes Human Rights Bill Targeting China
US House passes Uygur law demanding sanctions on China over human rights abuses in Xinjiang
Real China’s mass detention camps for Uighurs | The China Cables
China Vows Response to U.S. Bill on Xinjiang
US House passes Uygur law demanding sanctions on China over human rights abuses in Xinjiang
Surviving China’s Uighur camps
Life Inside China’s Total Surveillance State
China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World
Exposing China’s Digital Dystopian Dictatorship | Foreign Correspondent
US teenager’s TikTok video on Uighur ‘concentration camps’ in China goes viral | The World
China’s problems with the Uyghurs (Documentary from 2014 in HD)
Beijing warns Washington is ‘seriously damaging’ global counter-terrorism efforts after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill condemning China’s crackdown on Muslims
Beijing accused Washington of fueling terrorism with The Uighur Act of 2019
The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill yesterday
The legislation urges President Trump to impose sanctions on Chinese officials
China today said the bill would affect bilateral cooperation in important areas
China’s Vice Minister of foreign affairs summoned a U.S. diplomat over the act
Beijing is also considering barring relevant American officials, state editor said
Comes after Trump signed off another bill in support of protests in Hong Kong
China has lashed out at the United States after the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill condemning Beijing’s Muslim internment camps, which experts say have kept some one million ethnic minorities in detention.
Beijing claimed that Washington was fueling terrorism, denying China’s achievement and seriously damaging global counter-terrorism efforts with the new piece of legislation, called The Uighur Act of 2019.
China’s Vice Minister of foreign affairs has summoned a U.S. diplomat to lodge stern representations.
The bill urges U.S. President Donald Trump to toughen his response to China’s crackdown on its Muslim minority in the far-western region of Xinjiang and impose sanctions on Chinese officials deemed responsible for the religious policy.
China has lambasted the United States after the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill condemning the Muslim internment camps in far-flung Xinjiang. In this photo taken on December 3, 2018, a guard tower and barbed wire fences are seen around a facility in the Kunshan Industrial Park in Artux in Xinjiang in western China
Beijing claimed that Washington was fueling terrorism and obliterating China’s achievement. In this photo taken on December 3, 2018, people walk by a police station is seen by the front gate of the Artux City Vocational Skills Education Training Service Center in Artux in Xinjiang
Trump said the bill cast doubt on a near-term deal to end a trade war, which has strained the relation between the two countries for two years.
Speaking to reporters in London yesterday, Trump commented that a trade agreement with China might have to wait until late 2020.
The Uighur Act of 2019 is a stronger version of a bill that angered Beijing when it passed the Senate in September.
Just last week, Trump signed into law legislation supporting anti-government protesters in Hong Kong despite angry objections from China.
The Uighur bill, which passed by 407-1 in the Democratic-controlled House, requires the U.S. President to condemn abuses against Muslims and call for the closure of mass detention camps in Xinjiang.
It calls for sanctions against senior Chinese officials who it says are responsible and specifically names Xinjiang Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who, as a politburo member, is in the upper echelons of China’s leadership.
Qin Gang, China’s Vice Minister of foreign affairs, today summoned the acting US charge d’affaires, William Klein, to lodge stern representations and strong opposition against the passage of the act.
Qin demanded the U.S. immediately correct its mistakes and stop interfering in China’s internal affairs through issues related to Xinjiang.
Qin accused the U.S. House of Representatives of ignoring facts, confusing right and wrong, and acting against its own conscience.
He also claimed that Washington held double standards on counter-terrorism issues.
The bill urges U.S. President Donald Trump to toughen his response to China’s crackdown on its Muslim minority and impose sanctions on Chinese officials deemed responsible for the religious policy. Pictured, Trump holds a campaign rally in Sunrise, Florida, on November 26
It calls for sanctions against senior Chinese officials and specifically names Xinjiang Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who, as a politburo member, is in the upper echelons of China’s leadership. Pictured, Chen speaks during a meeting in Beijing on March 12
Xinjiang Vice-Governor defends Muslim detention camps
The revised bill still has to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate before being sent to Trump.
The White House has yet to say whether Trump would sign or veto the bill, which contains a provision allowing the president to waive sanctions if he determines that to be in the national interest.
Various authorities in China have lambasted the passage of the bill.
‘The approval of the bill shows that the United States is fueling terrorism,’ said the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.
The Committee added that the act ‘obliterates’ China’s achievement in its fight against terrorism and ‘seriously damages’ global counter-terrorism efforts.
A perimeter fence is constructed around what is officially known as a vocational skills education centre in Dabancheng in Xinjiang in China’s far west region. Activists have claimed that the number of Muslim detainees in China could greatly exceed the commonly cited figure
The news comes as China faces widespread criticism over its policy against Muslims. UN experts and activists have claimed that at least one million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslims are held in the detention centres in Xinjiang in western China. Pictured, a Muslim Uighur woman walks with her son past security forces in the town of Kashgar, Xinjiang, in April, 2008
China’s Foreign Ministry said that the U.S. bill would affect bilateral cooperation in important areas.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying made the remarks in response to a question on whether the bill would affect the ongoing trade negotiations.
She said no one should underestimate Beijing’s resolve to safeguard its interests on matters including Xinjiang.
Hua said in October that all Chinese citizens, including more than 20 million Muslims, were enjoying unprecedented human rights and freedoms while living more happily than ever before.
In an earlier statement, the Foreign Ministry called the bill a malicious attack against China and a serious interference in the country’s internal affairs.
‘We urge the U.S. to immediately correct its mistake, to stop the above bill on Xinjiang from becoming law, to stop using Xinjiang as a way to interfere in China’s domestic affairs,’ said the statement, attributed to the ministry’s spokeswoman, Hua Chunying.
A pervasive security apparatus has subdued the ethnic unrest that long plagued China’s north-western Xinjiang region, according to Beijing. Chinese officials have largely avoided comment on the camps, but some said that ideological changes are needed to fight separatism
Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang have been told to vow loyalty to the Communist Party of China and the country’s leader Xi Jinping. Pictured, a woman walks past a screen showing images of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kashgar on June 4, 2019
Authorities in China have reportedly rounded up an estimated one million mostly Muslim Turkic-speaking minorities into internment camps in what they call an ‘anti-terror’ campaign
Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of Chinese state newspaper Global Times, called the bill ‘a paper tiger with no special leverage that could affect Xinjiang’ before warning that ‘US politicians with stakes in China should be careful’.
He also claimed that Beijing was considering to impose visa restrictions on relevant American officials and lawmakers ‘who’ve had odious performance on Xinjiang issue’. He said Beijing might also ban all U.S. diplomatic passport holders from entering the region.
Hu made the comments on Twitter, which is banned in China by the Communist Party. It’s unclear how and why Hu could use the platform.
China has consistently denied any mistreatment of Uighurs and says the camps are providing vocational training. It has warned of retaliation ‘in proportion’ if Chen were targeted.
Social media footage purports to show Uighur Muslim prisoners being transferred in China
With their heads shaven, eyes covered and hands bound, the detainees are seen wearing purple vests with the words ‘Kashgar Detention Center’ written on their backs in the clip
China responded on Monday to the Hong Kong legislation by saying U.S. military ships and aircraft would not be allowed to visit Hong Kong, and announced sanctions against several U.S. non-government organizations.
Analysts say China’s reaction to passage of the Uighur bill could be stronger, although some doubted it would go so far as imposing visa bans on the likes of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has called China’s treatment of Uighurs ‘the stain of the century’ and has been repeatedly denounced by Beijing.
Global Times tweeted on Tuesday that Beijing would soon release a so-called unreliable entities list imposing sanctions against those who harm China’s interests.
It reported that China was expediting the process for the list because the U.S. House bill would ‘harm Chinese firms’ interests’, and that ‘relevant’ U.S. entities would be part of Beijing’s list.
Dozens of students are shown at their desks learning Chinese and law in the programme aired by CCTV that introduced the ‘professional vocational training institutions’ in Hotan
The Hotan Vocational Education and Training Center sits behind barbed wire in Xinjiang
Muslim trainees work in a factory at the Hotan vocational education and training centre
Republican U.S. Representative Chris Smith called China’s actions in ‘modern-day concentration camps’ in Xinjiang ‘audaciously repressive,’ involving ‘mass internment of millions on a scale not seen since the Holocaust.’
‘We cannot be silent. We must demand an end to these barbaric practices,’ Smith said, adding that Chinese officials must be held accountable for ‘crimes against humanity.’
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called China’s treatment of the Uighurs ‘an outrage to the collective conscience of the world,’ adding that ‘America is watching.’
Chris Johnson, a China expert at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said passage of the bill could lead to a further blurring of lines between the trade issue and the broader deteriorating China-U.S. relationship, which Beijing in the past has tended to keep separate.
‘I think there’s a sort of piling-on factor here that the Chinese are concerned about,’ he said.
Johnson said he did not think passage of the Uighur act would cause the delay of a trade agreement between the two countries, but added: ‘It would be another dousing of kindling with fuel.’
Radical Muslim Uighurs have killed hundreds in recent years, and China considers the region a threat to peace in a country where the majority is Han Chinese. Armed police and soldiers are common sight in Xinjiang after ethnic unrest in capital Urumqi left nearly 200 people killed
The House bill requires the president to submit to Congress within 120 days a list of officials responsible for the abuses and to impose sanctions on them under the Global Magnitsky Act, which provides for visa bans and asset freezes.
The bill also requires the secretary of state to submit a report on abuses in Xinjiang, to include assessments of the numbers held in re-education and forced labor camps.
It also effectively bans the export to China of items that can be used for surveillance of individuals, including facial and voice-recognition technology.
United Nations experts and activists say at least one million Uighurs and members of other largely Muslim minority groups have been detained in the camps.
Activists this month said that they had documented nearly 500 camps and prisons run by the country to hold members of the ethnic group, alleging that the number of detainees could greatly exceed the commonly cited figure.
What are China’s Muslim ‘re-education’ camps?
The entrance to a jail which locals say is used to hold those undergoing political indoctrination program in Korla in western China’s Xinjiang region
Chinese authorities in the heavily Muslim region of Xinjiang are believed to have ensnared at least one million Muslim Chinese – and even foreign citizens – in mass internment camps since spring 2017.
Such detention campaigns have swept across Xinjiang, a territory half the area of India, leading to what a US commission on China said is ‘the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today’.
Former detainees claimed that Muslims were forced to eat pork and speak Mandarin in those camps.
Chinese officials have largely avoided comment on the camps, but some are quoted in state media as saying that ideological changes are needed to fight separatism and Islamic extremism.
Radical Muslim Uighurs have killed hundreds in recent years, and China considers the region a threat to peace in a country where the majority is Han Chinese.
The internment programme aims to rewire the political thinking of detainees, erase their Islamic beliefs and reshape their very identities, it is claimed. The camps have expanded rapidly over the past year, with almost no judicial process or legal paperwork.
Detainees who most vigorously criticise the people and things they love are rewarded, and those who refuse to do so are punished with solitary confinement, beatings and food deprivation.
China has faced global criticism after a cache of leaked documents showed how the nation run a system of re-education centres to indoctrinate its Muslim people.
The documents, which include guidelines for operating detention centres and instructions for how to use technology to target people, reveal that the camps in Xinjiang are not for voluntary job training, as Beijing has claimed.
After initially denying their existence, China acknowledged that it had opened ‘vocational education centres’ in Xinjiang aimed at preventing extremism by teaching Mandarin and job skills.
House Votes for Bill to Punish China over Mass Imprisonment of Muslims
DEC 04, 2019
The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted for legislation that requires President Trump to impose sanctions against senior Chinese officials involved in the mass detention camps of Muslim Uyghurs in China’s northwestern region of Xinjiang. The Chinese government responded angrily to the legislation’s passage. This is the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman.
Hua Chunying: “No person should underestimate the Chinese government’s resolution and ability to defend our national sovereignty, national security, and developmental interests. Anyone who wants to use Hong Kong and Xinjiang issues to interfere and restrain China’s development must be delusional.”
The House’s passage of the Uyghur Act of 2019 comes as the New York Times reports Chinese officials in Xinjiang are collecting blood samples en masse in efforts to build a system capable of creating an image of a person’s face using DNA. The United States is also separately seeking to develop this technology, which raises vast concerns about privacy and state surveillance.
Xinjiang conflict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about recent unrest and fighting in Xinjiang. For the uprisings and battles in Xinjiang during the 1930s and 1940s, see Xinjiang Wars.
This article is about recent unrest and fighting in Xinjiang. For the uprisings and battles in Xinjiang during the 1930s and 1940s, see Xinjiang Wars.
The Xinjiang conflict is a conflict in China’s far-west province of Xinjiang centred on the Uyghurs, a Turkic minority ethnic group who make up the largest group in the region.[12][13]
Though the conflict is traced to 1931, factors such as the massive state-sponsored migration of Han Chinese from the 1950s to the 1970s, government policies promoting Chinese cultural unity and punishing certain expressions of Uyghur identity,[14][15] and harsh responses to separatist terrorism[16][17] have contributed to tension between Uyghurs, and state police and Han Chinese.[18] This has taken the form of both frequent terrorist attacks and wider public unrest (such as the July 2009 Ürümqi riots).
In recent years, government policy has been marked by mass surveillance, increased arrests, and a system of “re-education camps“, estimated to hold a million Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority ethnic groups.[19][20][21][note 1] The conflict has mostly died down since the early 2017 and there have been no known protests or attacks by Uyghurs since that time.[22]
Xinjiang is a large central-Asian region within the People’s Republic of China comprising numerous minority groups: 45% of its population are Uyghurs, and 40% are Han.[23] Its heavily industrialised capital, Ürümqi, has a population of more than 2.3 million, about 75% of whom are Han, 12.8% are Uyghur, and 10% are from other ethnic groups.[23]
In general, Uyghurs and the mostly Han government disagree on which group has greater historical claim to the Xinjiang region: Uyghurs believe their ancestors were indigenous to the area, whereas government policy considers present-day Xinjiang to have belonged to China since around 200 BC.[24] According to Chinese policy, Uyghurs are classified as a National Minority; they are considered to be no more indigenous to Xinjiang than the Han, and have no special rights to the land under the law.[24] During the Mao era the People’s Republic oversaw the migration into Xinjiang of millions of Han, who dominate the region economically and politically.[25][26][27][28]
Current Chinese minority policy is based on affirmative action, and has reinforced a Uyghur ethnic identity that is distinct from the Han population.[29][30][31] However, Human Rights Watch describes a “multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity” perpetrated by state authorities.[15] It is estimated that over 100,000 Uyghurs are currently held in political “re-education camps“.[16] China justifies such measures as a response to the terrorist threat posed by extremist separatist groups.[17] These policies, in addition to long-standing cultural differences,[32] have sometimes resulted in resentment between Uyghur and Han citizens.[33] On one hand, as a result of Han immigration and government policies, Uyghurs’ freedoms of religion and of movement have been curtailed,[34][35] while most Uyghurs argue that the government downplays their history and traditional culture.[24] On the other hand, some Han citizens view Uyghurs as benefiting from special treatment, such as preferential admission to universities and exemption from the (now abandoned) one-child policy,[36] and as “harbouring separatist aspirations”.[37] Recently there have been attempts to restrict the Uyghur birth rate and increase the Han fertility rate in portions of Xinjiang to counteract Uyghur separatism.[38]
Although religious education for children is officially forbidden by law in China, the Communist Party allows Hui Muslims to have their children educated in Islam and attend mosques; the law is enforced for Uyghurs.[citation needed] After secondary education, China allows Hui students to study with an imam.[39] China does not enforce the law against children attending mosques on non-Uyghurs outside Xinjiang.[40][41] Since the 1980s Islamic private schools (Sino-Arabic schools (中阿学校)) have been permitted by the Chinese government in Muslim areas, excluding Xinjiang because of its separatist sentiment.[note 2][43][44][45]
Hui Muslims employed by the state, unlike Uyghurs, are allowed to fast during Ramadan. The number of Hui going on Hajj is expanding and Hui women are allowed to wear veils, but Uyghur women are discouraged from wearing them.[46] Muslim ethnic groups in different regions are treated differently by the Chinese government with regard to religious freedom. Religious freedom exists for Hui Muslims, who can practice their religion, build mosques and have their children attend them; more controls are placed on Uyghurs in Xinjiang.[47] Hui religious schools are allowed, and an autonomous network of mosques and schools run by a Hui Sufi leader was formed with the approval of the Chinese government.[48][page needed][49] According to The Diplomat, Uyghur religious activities are curtailed but Hui Muslims are granted widespread religious freedom; therefore, Chinese government policy is directed against Uyghur separatism.[50]
In the last two decades of the 20th century, Uyghurs in Turpan were treated favourably by China with regard to religion; while Kashgar and Hotan were subject to more stringent government control.[51][52][53] Uyghur and Han Communist officials in Turpan turned a blind eye to the law, allowing Islamic education of Uyghur children.[54][55] Religious celebrations and the Hajj were encouraged by the Chinese government for Uyghur Communist Party members, and 350 mosques were built in Turpan between 1979 and 1989.[56] As a result, Han, Hui and the Chinese government were then viewed more positively by Uyghurs in Turpan.[57] In 1989, there were 20,000 mosques in Xinjiang.[58] Until separatist disturbances began in 1996, China allowed people to ignore the rule prohibiting religious observance by government officials.[59] Large mosques were built with Chinese government assistance in Urumqi.[60] While rules proscribing religious activities were enforced in southern Xinjiang, conditions were comparatively lax in Urumqi.[61]
According to The Economist, in 2016 Uyghurs faced difficulties travelling within Xinjiang and live in fenced-off neighbourhoods with checkpoint entrances. In southern Urumqi, each apartment door has a QR code so police can easily see photos of the dwelling’s authorised residents.[62]
In 2017, overseas Uighur activists claimed that new restrictions were being imposed, including people being fined heavily or subjected to programmes of “re-education” for refusing to eat during fasting in Ramadan, the detention of hundreds of Uyghurs as they returned from Islamic Middle Eastern pilgrimages, and many standard Muslim names, such as Muhammad, being banned for newborn children.[63][64] In 2019, it was reported that Han officials have been assigned to reside in the homes of those with interned Uyghur family members as part of the government’s “Pair Up and Become Family” program.[65]
Since 2017, numerous reports have emerged of people being detained in extrajudicial “re-education camps”, subject to political indoctrination and sometimes torture.[20][21] 2018 estimates place the number of detainees in the hundreds of thousands.[note 1]
The history of the region has become highly politicized, with both Chinese and nationalist Uyghur historians frequently overstating the extent of their groups’ respective ties to the region.[74][75] In reality, it has been home to many groups throughout history, with the Uyghurs arriving from Central Asia in the 10th century.[76] Although various Chinese dynasties have at times exerted control over parts of what is now Xinjiang,[77] the region as it exists today came under Chinese rule as a result of the westward expansion of the Manchu-led Qing dynasty, which also saw the annexation of Mongolia and Tibet.[78]
Qing rule was marked by a “culturally pluralist” approach, with a prohibition on Chinese settlement in the region, and indirect rule through supervised local officials.[78][79] An increased tax burden placed on the local population due to rebellions elsewhere in China later led to a number of Hui-led Muslim rebellions.[75][80] The region was subsequently recaptured, and was established as an official province in 1884.
After the 1928 assassination of Yang Zengxin, governor of the semi-autonomous Kumul Khanate in east Xinjiang under the Republic of China, he was succeeded by Jin Shuren. On the death of the Kamul Khan Maqsud Shah in 1930, Jin abolished the Khanate entirely and took control of the region as warlord.[81] Corruption, appropriation of land, and the commandeering of grain and livestock by Chinese military forces were all factors which led to the eventual Kumul Rebellion that established the First East Turkestan Republic in 1933.[82][83][84] In 1934 it was conquered by warlord Sheng Shicai with the aid of the Soviet Union. Sheng’s leadership was marked by heavy Soviet influence, with him openly offering Xinjiang’s valuable natural resources in exchange for Soviet help in crushing revolts, such as in 1937.[85] Although already in use,[note 3] it was in this period that the term “Uyghur” was first used officially over the generic “Turkic”, as part of an effort to “undermine potential broader bases of identity” such as Turkic or Muslim. In 1942, Sheng sought reconciliation with the Republic of China, abandoning the Soviets.
In 1944 the Ili Rebellion led to the Second East Turkestan Republic. Though direct evidence of Soviet involvement remains circumstantial, and rebel forces were primarily made up of Turkic Muslims with the support of the local population, the new state was dependent on the Soviet Union for trade, arms, and “tacit consent” for its continued existence.[87] When the Communists defeated the Republic of China in the Chinese Civil War, the Soviets helped the Communist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) recapture it, and it was absorbed into the People’s Republic in 1949.
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region was established in 1955.[88]
In the late 1950s and early 1960s between 60,000 and 200,000 Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other minorities fled China to the USSR, largely as a result of the Great Leap Forward.[89][90] As the Sino-Soviet split deepened, the Soviets initiated an extensive propaganda campaign criticising China, encouraging minority groups to migrate – and later revolt – and attempting to undermine Chinese sovereignty by appealing to separatist tendencies. In 1962, China stopped issuing exit permits for Soviet citizens, as the Soviet consulate had been distributing passports to enable the exodus.[91] A resulting demonstration in Yining was met with open fire by the PLA, sparking further protests and mass defections. China responded to these developments by relocating non-Han populations away from the border, creating a “buffer zone” which would later be filled with Han farmers and Bingtuan militia.[89][90][91] Tensions continued to escalate throughout the decade, with ethnic guerrilla groups based in Kazakhstan frequently raiding Chinese border posts,[92][93] and Chinese and Soviet forces clashing on the border in 1969.[92][94][95]
From the 1950s to the 1970s, a state-orchestrated mass migration into Xinjiang has raised the number of Han from 7% to 40% of the population, exacerbating ethnic tensions.[96] On the other hand, a declining infant-mortality rate, improved medical care and a laxity in China’s one-child policy have helped the Uyghur population in Xinjiang grow from four million in the 1960s to eight million in 2001.[97]
Xinjiang’s importance to China increased after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to China’s perception of being encircled by the Soviets.[101] China supported the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and broadcast reports of Soviet atrocities committed on Afghan Muslims to Uyghurs to counter Soviet broadcasts to Xinjiang that Soviet Muslim minorities had a better life.[102] Anti-Soviet Chinese radio broadcasts targeted Central Asian ethnic minorities, such as the Kazakhs.[103] The Soviets feared disloyalty by the non-Russian Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz in the event of a Chinese invasion of Soviet Central Asia, and Russians were taunted by Central Asians: “Just wait till the Chinese get here, they’ll show you what’s what!”[104] Chinese authorities viewed Han migrants in Xinjiang as vital to defense against the Soviet Union.[105] China established camps to train the Afghan mujahideen near Kashgar and Hotan, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in small arms, rockets, mines and anti-tank weapons.[106] During the 1980s student demonstrations and riots against police action assumed an ethnic aspect, and the April 1990 Baren Township riot has been acknowledged as a turning point.[107]
The Soviet Union supported Uyghur nationalist propaganda and Uyghur separatist movements against China. Soviet historians claimed that the Uyghur native land was Xinjiang; and Uyghur nationalism was promoted by Soviet versions of history on turcology.[108] This included support of Uyghur historians such as Tursun Rakhimov, who wrote more historical works supporting Uyghur independence, claiming that Xinjiang was an entity created by China made out of the different parts of East Turkestan and Zungharia.[109] Bellér-Hann describes these Soviet Uyghur historians were waging an “ideological war” against China, emphasizing the “national liberation movement” of Uyghurs throughout history.[110] The CPSU supported the publication of works which glorified the Second East Turkestan Republic and the Ili Rebellion against China in its anti-China propaganda war.[111]
1990s to 2007
China’s “Strike Hard” campaign against crime, beginning in 1996, saw thousands of arrests, executions, and “constant human rights violations”, as well as marked reduction in religious freedom.[112] These policies, and a feeling of political marginalisation, contributed to the fermentation of groups who carried out numerous guerrilla operations, including sabotage and attacks on police barracks, and occasionally even acts of terrorism including bomb attacks and assassinations of government officials.
A February 1992 Urumqi bus bombing, attributed to the Shock Brigade of the Islamic Reformist Party, resulted in three deaths.[112]
A police roundup and execution of 30 suspected separatists[113] during Ramadan resulted in large demonstrations in February 1997, characterized as riots by Chinese media[114] and peaceful by Western media.[115] The demonstrations culminated in the 5 February Ghulja incident, in which a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) crackdown led to at least nine deaths[116] and possibly more than 100.[113] 25 February Ürümqi bus bombings killed nine people and injured 68. Responsibility for the attacks was acknowledged by Uyghur exile groups.[117][118]
In Beijing’s Xidan district, a bus bomb killed two people on 7 March 1997; Uyghur separatists claimed responsibility for the attack.[119] Uyghur participation in the bombing was dismissed by the Chinese government, and the Turkish-based Organisation for East Turkistan Freedom admitted responsibility for the attack.[112][118] The bus bombings triggered a change in policy, with China acknowledging separatist violence.[120] The situation in Xinjiang quieted until mid-2006, although ethnic tensions remained.[121]
According to Vaughan Winterbottom, although the Turkistan Islamic Party distributes propaganda videos and its ArabicIslamic Turkistan magazine (documented by Jihadology.net and the Jamestown Foundation) the Chinese government apparently denied the party’s existence; China claimed that there was no terrorist connection to its 2008 bus bombings as the TIP claimed responsibility for the attacks.[122] In 2007, police raided a suspected TIP terrorist training camp.[123] The following year, an attempted suicide bombing on a China Southern Airlines flight was thwarted[124] and the Kashgar attack resulted in the death of sixteen police officers four days before the beginning of the Beijing Olympics.[125]
On 28 February 2012, an attack in Yecheng killed 24 and injured 18.[132] On 24 April 2013, clashes in Bachu occurred between a group of armed men and social workers and police near Kashgar. The violence left at least 21 people dead, including 15 police and officials.[133][134][135] According to a local government official, the clashes broke out after three other officials reported that suspicious men armed with knives were hiding in a house outside Kashgar.[136] Two months later, on 26 June 27 people were killed in riots in Shanshan; seventeen were killed by rioters, and the other ten were alleged assailants who were shot dead by police in the township of Lukqun.[137]
In 2014, eleven members of an organization said to be an anti-China Uyghur group were killed by Kyrgyz security.[138] They were identified as Uyghurs by their appearance, and their personal effects indicated that they were separatists.[139]
On 1 March a group of knife-wielding terrorists attacked the Kunming Railway Station, killing 31 and injuring 141.[140] China blamed Xinjiang militants for the attack,[141] and over 380 people were arrested in the following crackdown. A captured attacker and three others were charged on 30 June.[142] Three of the suspects were accused of “leading and organising a terror group and intentional homicide”. They did not participate in the attack, since they had been arrested two days earlier.[143] On 12 September, a Chinese court sentenced three people to death and one to life in prison for the attack.[144] The attack was praised by ETIM.[145]
On 18 April, a group of 16 Chinese citizens identified as ethnic Uyghurs engaged in a shootout with Vietnamese border guards after seizing their guns when they were being detained to be returned to China. Five Uyghurs and two Vietnamese guards died in the incident. Ten of the Uyghurs were men, and the rest were women and children.[146][147][148][149][150]
According to the Xinhua News Agency, on 28 July 37 civilians were killed by a gang armed with knives and axes in the towns of Elixku and Huangdi in Shache County and 59 attackers were killed by security forces. Two hundred fifteen attackers were arrested after they stormed a police station and government offices. The agency also reported that 30 police cars were damaged or destroyed and dozens of Uyghur and Han Chinese civilians were killed or injured. The Uyghur American Association claimed that local Uyghurs had been protesting at the time of the attack. Two days later, the moderate imam of China’s largest mosque was assassinated in Kashgar after morning prayers.[157]
On 21 September, Xinhua reported that a series of bomb blasts killed 50 people in Luntai County, southwest of the regional capital Urumqi. The dead consisted of six civilians, four police officers and 44 “rioters”.[158]
On 12 October, four Uyghurs armed with knives and explosives attacked a farmers’ market in Xinjiang. According to police, 22 people died (including police officers and the attackers).[159]
On 29 November 15 people were killed and 14 injured in a Shache County attack. Eleven of the killed were Uyghur militants.[160]
On 18 September 2015 in Aksu, an unidentified group of knife-wielding terrorists attacked sleeping workers at a coalmine and killed 50 people.[11] The Turkistan Islamic Party has claimed responsibility for the attack.[161] On 18 November, a 56-day manhunt for the attackers reportedly concluded with Chinese security forces cornering them in a mountain hideout. Twenty-eight assailants were killed, and a sole survivor surrendered to authorities.[11][162]
The Bangkok bombing is suspected to have been carried out by the Turkish ultranationalist organisation known as the Grey Wolves in response to Thailand’s deportation of 100 Uyghur asylum-seekers back to China. A Turkish man was arrested by Thai police in connection with the bombing and bomb-making materials were found in his apartment.[163][164][165] Due to the terrorist risk and counterfeiting of passports, Uyghur foreigners in Thailand were placed under surveillance by Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon[166][167][168][169] and Thai police were placed on alert after the arrival of two Turkish Uyghurs.[170]
On 30 August 2016, Kyrgyzstan’s Chinese embassy was struck by a suicide bombing by an Uyghur, according to Kyrgyz news.[171] The suicide bomber was the only fatality from the attack. The casualties included wounds suffered by Kyrgyz staff members and did not include Chinese.[138][172] A Kyrgyzstan government agency pointed the finger at Nusra allied Syrian based Uyghurs.[173]
Police killed 4 militants who carried out a bombing on 28 December 2016 in Karakax.[174]
On 14 February 2017, three knife wielding attackers killed five people before being killed by police.[175][176]
The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) is an Islamic extremistterrorist organisation seeking the expulsion of China from “East Turkestan”.[177] Since its emergence in 2007 it has claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks,[178][122] and the Chinese government accuses it of over 200, resulting in 162 deaths and over 440 injuries.[179] Hundreds of Uyghurs are thought to reside in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to have fought alongside extremist groups in conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War.[180] However, the exact size of the Turkistan Islamic Party remains unknown and some experts dispute its ability to orchestrate attacks in China, or that is exists at all as a cohesive group.[178][181][182]
The TIP is often assumed to be the same as the earlier East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which has been effectively defunct since the death of its leader Hasan Mahsum in 2003.[122] Although the names are often used synonymously, and China exclusively uses ETIM, the link between the two is still unproven.[183]
Al-Qaeda links
The TIP are believed to have links to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,[183] and the Pakistani Taliban.[184] Philip B. K. Potter writes that despite the fact that “throughout the 1990s, Chinese authorities went to great lengths to publicly link organizations active in Xinjiang—particularly the ETIM—to al-Qaeda […] the best information indicates that prior to 2001, the relationship included some training and funding but relatively little operational cooperation.”[3][185] Meanwhile, specific incidents were downplayed by Chinese authorities as isolated criminal acts.[2][15] However, in 1998 the group’s headquarters were moved to Kabul, in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, while “China’s ongoing security crackdown in Xinjiang has forced the most militant Uyghur separatists into volatile neighboring countries, such as Pakistan,” Potter writes, “where they are forging strategic alliances with, and even leading, jihadist factions affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” The East Turkestan Islamic Movement dropped “East” from its name as it increased its domain.[2] The U.S. State Department have listed them as a terrorist organisation since 2002,[186] and as having received “training and financial assistance” from al-Qaeda.[185]
A number of members of al-Qaeda have expressed support for the TIP, Xinjiang independence, and/or jihad against China. They include Mustafa Setmariam Nasar,[187]Abu Yahya al-Libi,[188][189] and current al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri who has on multiple occasions issued statements naming Xinjiang (calling it “East Turkestan”) as one of the “battlegrounds” of “jihad to liberate every span of land of the Muslims that has been usurped and violated.”[190][191][192][193][194] Additionally, the al-Qaeda aligned al-Fajr Media Center distributes TIP promotional material.[195]
Andrew McGregor, writing for the Jamestown Foundation, notes that “though there is no question a small group of Uyghur militants fought alongside their Taliban hosts against the Northern Alliance […] the scores of terrorists Beijing claimed that Bin Laden was sending to China in 2002 never materialized” and that “the TIP’s “strategy” of making loud and alarming threats (attacks on the Olympics, use of biological and chemical weapons, etc.) without any operational follow-up has been enormously effective in promoting China’s efforts to characterize Uyghur separatists as terrorists.”[196]
Reactions
Protesters in Prague, Czech Republic carrying Tibetan and East Turkestan flags, 29 March 2016
Hundreds of Uyghurs fleeing China through Southeast Asia have been deported back by the governments of Thailand, Malaysia, and others, drawing condemnation from the U.S., the UN refugee agency, and human rights groups.[197] The U.S. State Department said deported Uyghurs “could face harsh treatment and a lack of due process” while the UNHCR and Human Rights Watch have called the deportations a violation of international law.[198][199]
22 western countries and Japan had written to the U.N. Human Rights Council to criticize China on the Uyghur issue.[202] However, fifty countries, many of them Muslim countries, had written a joint letter to the president of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to defend China against this accusation.[203][204][205][206]
^The People’s Republic, founded in 1949, banned private confessional teaching from the early 1950s to the 1980s, until a more liberal stance allowed religious mosque education to resume and private Muslim schools to open. Moreoever, except in Xinjiang for fear of secessionist feelings, the government allowed and sometimes encouraged the founding of private Muslim schools in order to provide education for people who could not attend increasingly expensive state schools or who left them early, for lack of money or lack of satisfactory achievements.[42]
^The First East Turkestan Republic had considered the name “Uyghuristan”, with some early coins bearing that name, but settled on the “East Turkestan Republic” on the basis that there were other Turkic peoples in Xinjiang and the new government.[86]
Department of Population, Social, Science and Technology Statistics of the National Bureau of Statistics of China (国家统计局人口和社会科技统计司); Department of Economic Development of the State Ethnic Affairs Commission of China (国家民族事务委员会经济发展司) (2003). 《2000年人口普查中国民族人口资料》 [Tabulation on Nationalities of 2000 Population Census of China] (in Chinese). Beijing: Nationalities Publishing House (民族出版社). ISBN978-7-105-05425-1.
Story 1: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2, Day 2 — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote Me and I Will Give You Free Stuff — Take Away Your Employer and Union Provided Health Care Insurance and Replace It With Socialized Medicine — Medicare For All — Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Citizenship and Free Health Insurance and Open Borders With No Border Barrier and Abolish ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement — American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Result: Trump Wins in A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People — Videos
Watch Democratic Debate Highlights In Detroit 2019 Night 2 | Second Half
Democratic Presidential Debate Round 2 Day 1 Highlights | NBC New York
Watch the 9 minutes that has America searching Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard rips Kamala Harris’ record on criminal prosecutions
Cory Booker to Biden: You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and don’t even know the flavor
Ari Fleischer: Democrat debates have been a display of losing ideas
Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.
These criteria could easily halve the field: The first two sets of debates included 20 of the 24 candidates, but a New York Times analysis of polls and donor numbers shows that only 10 to 12 candidates are likely to make the third round.
Seven candidates have already met both qualification thresholds and are guaranteed a spot on stage. They are:
■ Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
■ Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
■ Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.
■ Senator Kamala Harris of California
■ Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas
■ Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
■ Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.
Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).
We asked all three of their campaigns to provide donor numbers so we could assess where they stood. Ms. Gabbard had just under 114,000 donors as of Wednesday night. A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said he was “on track to collect the required number of donors to make the September debate stage” but did not give a number. Mr. Hickenlooper’s campaign did not respond, but Politico reported a month ago that he had only 13,000 donors.
The other 11 candidates in the race have no qualifying polls to their name, and they all went into this week’s debates seeking a viral moment that would attract new donors and lift them, even briefly, in the polls.
The qualification rules do not require enduring support. Even a small post-debate surge could push a 1 percent candidate up to 2 percent in the small handful of polls he or she needs.
But for those who have not qualified, the Aug. 28 deadline is an existential threat. Candidates like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York or Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington could be washed out of the race if they don’t get momentum from this week’s debates. And if you’re wondering whether they’re anxious, the answer is yes.
Ms. Gabbard’s campaign calculated at one point that she needed a new donor every minute to reach 130,000 by the Aug. 28 deadline, so if you go to her website, a timer next to the donation button begins counting down 60 seconds. Then the text changes.
Story 2: President Trump Comments To Big Lie Media — Videos
Trump comments on US-China tensions, upcoming Ohio rally
Student 3: Federal Reserve As Expected Reduces Federal Funds Rate By 25 Basis Points to 2.00%-2.25% As Economic Growth Slows Down – -Videos
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell holds news conference on interest rates | USA TODAY
Federal Reserve Lowers Interest Rates
Federal Reserve lowers interest rates
The Federal Reserve cuts rates by a quarter point
What the Fed interest rate cut means for your wallet
Fed cuts interest rates for first time since financial crisis
Trump tariffs torpedo stock market
Donald Trump rages against the Federal Reserve as it cuts interests rates by 0.25% but signals it WON’T slash them more as he has demanded – in move which sends shares plunging
Key interest set by the Federal Reserve is cut by 0.25 per cent for the first time since 2008, the year of the financial crisis
The central bank moved the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2-1/4 percent, from 2 1/5 to 2 3/4
Move is a departure from its previous policy and comes after Trump heaped pressure on its chairman Jerome Powell to reduce cost of borrowing
But reserve’s committee said in statement it was acting over fears of a worldwide slowdown
PUBLISHED: 14:13 EDT, 31 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:56 EDT, 31 July 2019
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Trump used the market fall to make his case that Powell and his board should have started an ‘agressive’ series of rate cuts.
‘What the Market wanted to hear from Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve was that this was the beginning of a lengthy and aggressive rate-cutting cycle which would keep pace with China, The European Union and other countries around the world.
‘As usual, Powell let us down, but at least he is ending quantitative tightening, which shouldn’t have started in the first place – no inflation. We are winning anyway, but I am certainly not getting much help from the Federal Reserve!’
Trump had gone all-in on a call for a 0.5 per cent reduction to stimulate the U.S. economy. ‘The Fed has made all of the wrong moves. A small rate cut is not enough, but we will win anyway!’ he had tweeted on Monday.
Explanation time: Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, outlined why it had cut interest rates – as the markets reacted in real time with a sell-off which reached as much as 400 points wiped off the Dow in the course of his press conference
How markets reacted: The Dow Jones closed 333 points down in a sign of concern that the rate cut was effectively a one-off – not the stimulus Trump has demanded
President Donald Trump had all but demanded a rate-slashing, but predicted that the Fed wouldn’t do ‘enough’ to stimulate the U.S. economy. He had heaped pressure on Jerome Powell, his own appointment as chairman, to cut the cost of borrowing.
Powell and the reserve, however, defied him.
It voted that the new benchmark interest rate will fall between 2 per cent and 2.25 per cent. The Fed’s board had voted nine times since 2015 to increase it.
Eight of the Fed’s 10 board members voted to trim the short-term benchmark rate. The other two argued for leaving it as-is.
Powell, speaking in a news conference after the release of the Fed statement, characterized the rate cut as ‘a mid-cycle adjustment to policy,’ comments that do not imply sharp further cuts are on the way.
Among his messages at the press conference in Washington D.C. were that job growth was slowing and that trade tensions were bad for the economy’s outlook – but he repeatedly talked up the strength of the economy.
Explaining the cut, Powell cited global weakness and a desire to boost too-low inflation in explaining the central bank’s decision to lower borrowing costs for the first time since 2008 and move up plans to stop winnowing its massive bond holdings.
Financial markets had widely expected the Fed to reduce its key overnight lending rate by a quarter of a percentage point to a target range of 2.00% to 2.25%, but many traders expected a clearer confirmation of forthcoming rate cuts.
Instead Powell’s message was taken to mean that rates will stay where they are, prompting shares to fall.
And the value of the dollar up against other currencies, which will further anger Trump who had wanted it to fall to boost exports.
The rate cut means that consumers will find in the coming months that interest rates will fall for long-term fixed mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.
That can mean significant household savings, which Americans typically pour back into the U.S. economy through higher spending.
For those few who save their winnings in the periodic Fed lottery, however, interest rates for bank savings accounts will also likely fall.
Mortgage rates were already sliding downward before the Fed met, due to other economic factors.
Even with Wednesday’s cut, the Fed’s principal interest rate is the highest in years. But by historical standards it’s still low.
A policy statement appeared to leave the door open for the Fed to cut rates again in September as it ‘contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate.’
‘In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate,’ the U.S. central bank said.
But Powell’s lengthy press conference appeared to close the door on that.
Wednesday’s cut is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Economic indicators: Interest rates remain at historically low levels, while unemployment is at the lowest point since Nixon was president.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Jerome Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
U.S. economic data continues to be mixed, despite Trump’s frequent claims that he presides over a miraculous resurgence.
The unemployment rate is nearing a low point not seen in America since Richard Nixon was president and stock markets have hit repeated new records
Markets watching: Traders had largely expected a reduction in the key interest rate by the Federal Reserve; the Dow was down slightly immediately after it was announced
But the nation’s manufacturing economy, which Trump promised to revitalize, has stalled in the past two quarters, and the growth of America’s economy is growing at 2.1 per cent per year – slower than the president has predicted.
The move is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
WHY WE CUT INTEREST RATES FOR FIRST TIME IN A DECADE: WHAT THE FED SAID IN FULL TO EXPLAIN ITS MOVE
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the labor market remains strong and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate.
Job gains have been solid, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low.
Although growth of household spending has picked up from earlier in the year, growth of business fixed investment has been soft.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy are running below 2 percent.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2-1/4 percent.
This action supports the Committee’s view that sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective are the most likely outcomes, but uncertainties about this outlook remain.
As the Committee contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate, it will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its maximum employment objective and its symmetric 2 percent inflation objective.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
The Committee will conclude the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings in the System Open Market Account in August, two months earlier than previously indicated.
Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michelle W. Bowman; Lael Brainard; James Bullard; Richard H. Clarida; Charles L. Evans; and Randal K. Quarles.
Voting against the action were Esther L. George and Eric S. Rosengren, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 percent.
The term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.
Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.
Structure of the FOMC
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings during the year and other meetings as needed. Links to policy statements and minutes are in the calendars below. The minutes of regularly scheduled meetings are released three weeks after the date of the policy decision. Committee membership changes at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the year.
FOIA
The FOMC makes an annual report pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The FOMC FOIA Service Center provides information about the status of FOIA requests and the FOIA process.
Story 1: Black Swan Song — Pathetic Incompetent Corrupt Swamp Swan Figurehead Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III Exposed As Fraud — “A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations” — Corrupt Democrat Punks — “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk? — “Go Ahead Make My Day” — Impeach Trump — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Exposed — No Credibility and No Longer Trusted — No Evidence or Basis For Impeachment — Mueller “Outside My Purview”: Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — American People Will Reelect Trump for Second Term in A Landslide Victory — Videos
Black Swan – Last Dance Scene (“I was perfect…”)
The Real ‘Black Swan’: Double Speaks
Magnum Force (10/10) Movie CLIP – A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations (1973) HD
A Good Man Always Has to Know His Limitations
Dirty Harry Do You ( I ) Feel Lucky Punk? ( high quality)
WATCH: Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Ben Cline’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Guy Reschenthaler’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Debbie Lesko’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Michael Turner’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Jim Jordan pushes Mueller on investigating ‘how the false accusations started’
Joe diGenova: The public got to see Mueller’s incompetence
Joe diGenova: IG Horowitz and John Durham Have Both Already interviewed Joseph Mifsud
Mueller’s testimony riddled with shaky moments, incomplete answers
Robert Mueller testifies before Judiciary Committees on Capitol Hill (LIVE) | USA TODAY
Robert Mueller’s full testimony to House Judiciary committee
MUELLER HEARING: House Judiciary Committee Part 1
MUELLER HEARING: House Intelligence Committee Part 2
Full: Robert Mueller Testimony To Congress, Reaction And Analysis | NBC News
Collins at Mueller hearing: I hope this brings us closure
WATCH: Rep. Steve Chabot’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Ted Lieu’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Debbie Lesko’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Ratcliffe Questions Former Special Counsel Mueller on Report
Representative Turner questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Matt Gaetz’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Rep. Jim Jordan blasts Mueller for dodging questions
Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan presses former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Jordan says maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started.
Rep. Gohmert grills Mueller: Did you know Strzok hated Trump?
Representative Nunes questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Ben Cline’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Joe diGenova: The public got to see Mueller’s incompetence
Whitaker says it was clear Mueller didn’t have a grasp of Russia report
Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America
Hannity: Mueller’s testimony was an unmitigated disaster
Ingraham: Trump beats the elites again
Jim Jordan says Dems are never going to stop going after Trump
Gowdy on Mueller: I would’ve beaten the hell out of that exoneration
Trump’s legal team takes victory lap after Mueller hearings
WATCH: Key moments from Mueller’s testimony
Takeaways and analysis of Mueller hearings
‘Disoriented’ Mueller’s stumbling responses to questions during blockbuster hearing leave social media concerned the special counsel seems a ‘confused old man’ but some think it is all a strategy to frustrate the committee members
Mueller faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russia investigation
Viewers reacting on social media noticed Mueller stumbled at several points
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ one viewer wrote on Twitter. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man’
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation
Another theory suggests the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit the report
Viewers also noted that Mueller is hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report
PUBLISHED: 10:11 EDT, 24 July 2019 | UPDATED: 16:45 EDT, 24 July 2019
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of Congress.
The special counsel faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russiainvestigation.
Viewers reacting on social media have noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points.
‘Robert Mueller comes across as a doddering old fool with a questionable moral compass based on situational ethics who should never have been appointed in the first place based on reduced mental capacity,’ one person tweeted.
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ another wrote. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man.’
Some are saying the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to President Donald Trump.
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation.
Asked whether Trump had been exonerated or if he could be charged with obstruction of justice when he leaves office, Mueller replied: ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ respectively.
‘Lots of twitter folks are dogging Mueller out for looking old and feeble,’ MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted. ‘But optically, that just makes the Republicans yelling at him look more absurd. Mueller is quite definitive in his one word answers, which only Dems are eliciting from him so far.’
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning
Viewers reacting on social media noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points
Several Twitter users expressed the opinion that the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor’s shaky demeanor calls his entire report into question.
‘Listening too Mueller the cracking in his voice shows clearly that he is a conflicted Skunk and lying ! And I think he is senile !’
‘As I said when Mueller gave speech in May, he is feeble,’ radio personality Mark Levin tweeted. ‘I say that not as a personal attack but as a rational observation. It’s on display today during this hearing.
‘This underscores that the person who influenced this investigation most was Andrew Weissman, his top lieutenant.’
Replying to Levin’s tweet, one man wrote: ‘Agreed, Mueller looks geriatric and lost…. find that man a time machine.’
‘It’s quite entertaining. Mueller can’t make a coherent statement. Looks like the circus made a stop in DC,’ a woman tweeted.
‘I’d say Democrats right now regretting they ever subpoenaed Mueller. He looks confused,’ a man wrote.
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think Mueller sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial.
‘I’m concerned that Mueller is so concerned with not appearing political that he is really under-performing at times by failing to clarify things that need clarification,’ one woman wrote.
‘To let crazy GOP statements stand without clarification could be interpreted as agreement.’
Some noted that Mueller is being hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report his team took two years to compile.
He repeatedly had to ask committee members for page numbers when asked to comment on specific sections.
One woman tweeted that Mueller would have a much easier time referring to the report if he had searchable copy on a computer.
‘Give Robert Mueller a computer, he desperately needs CTRL + F,’ Vice Media VP Katie Drummond wrote.
Ironically, the copy of the report released by the Justice Department was a scanned printout and thus couldn’t be searched. Several searchable versions have cropped up in the months since then.
Unfortunately for Mueller, witnesses are not allowed to use computers during hearings.
Mueller frequently had to pause and manually search through the 397-page report to effectively answer questions from lawmakers
Throughout the hearing, Democrats, who hold the majority on both committees present, worked to elicit short, definitive answers from Mueller.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler asked him: ‘Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?
‘That is correct. That is not what the report said,’ Mueller responding.
‘Does that say there was no obstruction?’ Nadler followed up later.
‘No,’ the former special counsel said.
‘In fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president,’ Nadler told him.
‘Yes it does,’ Mueller replied.
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
‘When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm was Fusion GPS, is that correct?’
‘I’m not familiar with that,’ said Mueller.
‘That’s not a trick question. It’s Fusion GPS.’
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose trips to Russia drew attention of investigators.
‘Director Mueller, the third FISA renewal happens a month after you’re named special counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page?’ Jordan asked.
‘I’m not going to talk to that,’ said Mueller.
In his prepared statement, Mueller began by defending his probe following an onslaught of attacks, and spelling out questions he will and will not answer.
He said he told his team at the start of the Russia probe to ‘work quietly, thoroughly and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.
‘We needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than necessary,’ Mueller said.
He said his team of lawyers and agents worked ‘fairly and with absolute integrity’ – minutes after President Trump once again attacked it as a ‘witch hunt’.
‘Our team would not leak or take other actions that would compromise the integrity of our work,’ said Mueller. ‘All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.’
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose Russia trips drew investigators’ attention
Rep Doug Collins tried to get Mueller to contradict his report by asking him whether ‘collusion’ and ‘conspiracy’ are the same thing after Mueller testified that they weren’t.
Collins cited a portion of the report that states: ‘Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute.’
Mueller critics declared that the special counsel had been bested by Collins, while experts explained that Collins’ citation was taken out of context.
The part of the report in question was about collusion in the sense of corporate collusion – when companies conspire in an illegal fashion to help each other at consumers’ expense.
Corporate collusion is unrelated to ‘collusion with Russia’, the colloquial term adopted in the debate about potential cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Both sides sought to get Mueller on record on the question of whether he had any potential conflict that would prevent him from overseeing the probe.
Georgia Democrat Rep Hank Johnson asked Mueller if he had any conflicts of interest that prevented him from being special counsel. Mueller said he did not. Trump has repeatedly said Mueller was ‘highly conflicted,’ saying he had interviewed to be his FBI director and that the two men had a nasty business dispute.
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility.
‘No matter your political party, it’s absolutely disgusting to see those attacking Mueller’s integrity,’ one man tweeted.
‘The way the @JudiciaryGOP members talked and yelled at Robert Mueller is beyond awful. They’ve all lost their souls,’ another wrote.
‘Republicans can’t argue the facts, so they attack the investigation and the investigators,’ another said.
‘Remember this slander of Mueller the next time you hear republicans going on about their love & respect for veterans. They will throw anyone under the bus who doesn’t toe the party line.’
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility
TOP 10 MUELLER TAKEAWAYS
Below are the 10 most important takeaways gleaned from Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday.
Mueller said all he wanted to say in his report
When Mueller finally agreed to testify before Congress – after more than two years of silence about the Russia investigation – the special counsel said he ‘would not provide information beyond that which is already public’ in the report published in April.
He stuck to that promise throughout Wednesday’s hearing, declining or deferring nearly 200 questions from committee members.
Mueller’s reasons for not answering included not wanting to speculate, being unable to detail internal Justice Department deliberations and being under orders not to broach specific topics.
Trump was paying attention
After saying that he couldn’t be bothered to watch Mueller’s testimony, President Trump made it clear that he was tuned in as he tweeted multiple reactions to the proceedings on Wednesday.
‘I’m not going to be watching Mueller because you can’t take all those bites out of the apple,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. ‘We had no collusion, no obstruction.’
Before the hearing even kicked off Trump had posted seven tweets about the hearing, echoing his go-to attacks on ‘Mueller & his band of 18 Angry Democrats’.
Over the next eight hours tweeted and retweeted 14 posts about Mueller’s testimony, including multiple videos of Republican lawmakers grilling the special counsel.
‘TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!’ he declared just after 2.30pm.
Mueller didn’t subpoena Trump to avoid a lengthy court battle
The special counsel addressed why Trump wasn’t interviewed during the two-year-long investigation when New York Democratic Rep Sean Maloney asked him: ‘Why didn’t you subpoena the president?’
Trump’s legal team had refused to have him be interviewed in the probe because they felt such a meeting would amount to a ‘perjury trap’.
Before Congress Mueller stated that his team had ‘little success’ when pushing for an interview for over a year and decided that they didn’t want to delay the investigation with a lengthy court battle.
‘We did not want to exercise the subpoena power because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation,’ he said, adding that no one at the Justice Department pressured him to finish the probe.
Mueller acknowledged that Trump’s written answers to questions about possible conspiracy with Russia were ‘not as useful as the interview would be’.
Trump was not exonerated by the Russia investigation
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, kicked off Wednesday’s proceedings by asking Mueller directly if the Russia investigation exonerated President Trump.
‘No,’ Mueller stated without hesitation.
That goes against the president’s repeated claims that the probe proved there was ‘no obstruction, no collusion’.
Mueller’s team never determined whether Trump committed a crime
While the majority of his answers were straightforward and technical, Mueller struggled when questioned about why he did not indict the president.
During an exchanged with California Democratic Rep Ted Lieu, Mueller stated that the reason he did not even consider indicting Trump on obstruction charges was because of guidance from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
That goes against assertions by Attorney General William Barr, who has repeatedly said the OLC’s opinion was not the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump.
Arizona Republican Rep Debbie Lesko asked Mueller to clarify that contradiction, at which point he said he ‘would have to look closer at it’.
He later conceded that he had misspoken when he characterized the OLC’s guidance to Lieu.
‘We did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime,’ he said.
‘Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.’
Mueller was much less steady than in previous hearings
At times, Mueller, 74, stumbled during answers, asking fast-talking lawmakers to repeat page citations and repeat their questions. He sometimes had to scan the hearing room to locate questioners.
Although his stock answer was to say issues were beyond the purview of his mandate, he also appeared not to recall specific information at times.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
Viewers reacting on social media called out Mueller’s unsteadiness early on, remarking that he was acting ‘like a confused old man’.
Some said the wobbly performance could be a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to Trump.
Mueller and Trump have opposing accounts of what led up to special counsel appointment
Republicans probed Mueller’s professional links with Trump in an attempt to show he may have had a reason to be biased against the president – specifically questioning whether he was turned down for the FBI director position the day before being tapped to lead the Russia investigation.
Trump gave his version of events on Wednesday morning, tweeting: ‘It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel.
‘Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the interview, including the Vice President of the United States!’
Mueller contradicted Trump’s account when Texas Republican Rep Louie Gohmert seized on his alleged conflicts of interest.
Gohmert asked Mueller about a meeting he had with Trump the day before the special counsel appointment and contended that it was a job interview for the FBI director slot.
Mueller stated that he was not interviewed ‘as a candidate’ for the position.
Mueller fiercely defended his team’s impartiality
The special counsel was calm and composed throughout the proceedings, save for one moment when Florida Republican Rep Greg Steube decried the political affiliations of the lawyers on his team.
Mueller said never in his 25 years in his position had he felt the need to ask the people he works with about their political affiliation.
Rep Gohmert also called Mueller’s hiring practices into question, particularly his appointment of FBI agent Peter Strzok – who was later removed from the probe after he was found to have sent anti-Trump text messages to a woman he was involved with.
Mueller said he did not know of Strzok’s disdain for Trump before the probe started and learned about it in the summer of 2017, several months into the investigation.
Republicans tried to collect evidence for a probe into Mueller’s investigation
Republicans committee members tried both the blast the origins of the Russia probe and potentially establish a record that might play out in an ongoing investigation overseen by Attorney General William Barr.
‘Before you arrested [Trump campaign foreign policy aide] George Papadopoulos in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in ash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?’ California Rep Devin Nunes asked Mueller.
‘Again, that’s outside our … questions such as that should go to the FBI or the department,’ said Mueller.
‘But it involved your investigation,’ said Nunes.
‘It involved persons involved in my investigation,’ said Mueller.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow released a statement saying: ‘This morning’s testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The testimony revealed that this probe was conducted by a small group of politically-biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish either obstruction, conspiracy, or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It is also clear that the Special Counsel conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. The American people understand that this issue is over. They also understand that the case is closed.’
Democrats tried to breathe life into a dense, technical report
The Democrats, who hold a majority on both committees, made a concerted effort to present the investigation’s findings in a more provocative and damning light than they had been in the dense, 337-page report.
‘Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign — including Trump himself — knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it,’ California Rep Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chair, said when the afternoon portion began.
‘Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?’ Schiff continued.
‘That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime, in any event’, he added.
However, a levelheaded Mueller didn’t play along, making for a rather mundane hearing.
In a moment that quickly made the rounds on conservative media on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan sharply questioned Robert Mueller on the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
The Ohio Republican pressed the former special counsel to detail who told George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy aide on the Trump campaign, that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. When Mueller said he would not go into it, Jordan became heated.
“Yes you can, because you wrote about it – you gave us the answer!” Jordan said. “Joseph Mifsud.”
The name of the shadowy Maltese academic kept coming up on Wednesday as Republicans accused Mueller of covering up how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, a popular talking point for Trump allies. At the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Rep. Devin Nunes pointed to a large photo of Mifsud with then-U.K. foreign secretary Boris Johnson as evidence that he “has extensive contacts with Western governments and the FBI”.
Boris Johnson makes an appearance at this hearing — Nunes is trying to prove that the investigation was started wrongly, shows a photo of him with Joseph Mifsud
Mifsud’s name would have been familiar for regular consumers of Fox News and conservative outlets that have spent two years dissecting what they believe was a “deep state” attempt to take down the Trump campaign. The London-based professor at the center of the Trump-Russia probe has not been seen in public since October 2017, just days after Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with him. One of those was a key conversation in London in April 2016, in which Mifsud told him the Russians had damaging information on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Mifsud also introduced him to a Russian graduate student that Papadopoulos believed to be Putin’s niece, and connected him with an official with ties to the Russian foreign ministry who said he could set up a meeting with the country’s ambassador, according to Mueller’s report. Papadopoulos later relayed that information to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who passed it on to U.S. government officials, setting into motion the FBI investigation into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos’ interactions with Mifsud, and his allegation that the Maltese professor was an FBI plant, has been at the center of some Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s probe. Papadopoulos told TIME in May that he believes he was part of an elaborate set-up by U.S. intelligence to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign. Since serving a short sentence for lying to the FBI, Papadopoulos has continued to make the rounds alleging that Mifsud was a “Western intelligence operative” who tried to use him to entrap the Trump campaign.
“People are very fascinated about what I have to say, people are just like — their mouths are dropping,” he told TIME on April 17. “They’ve never heard this information because Mueller and the FBI wanted to keep me silenced.”
Perhaps anticipating this line of questioning, Mueller made it clear in his opening statement that he would be “unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation” because it is the subject of an ongoing review by the Justice Department.
That did not stop Jordan and Nunes, both vocal Trump supporters, from trying.
“He’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime,” Jordan exclaimed, angrily listing others charged by Mueller, including Michael Flynn and “13 Russians no one’s ever heard of.”
“But the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it off, for three years we have lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him,” he said.
“I’m not sure I agree with your characterization,” Mueller tersely responded, but Jordan’s performance was already going viral in conservative corners of the internet with headlines like “WATCH: Jim Jordan Steals the Show, Calls into Question Entire Basis of Probe!” and “‘BRUTAL’: Jim Jordan grills Mueller about why ‘guy who put this whole story in motion’ lied but wasn’t held accountable.” On Wednesday afternoon, Trump himself retweeted a clip of the exchange, indicating that Mifsud is unlikely to fade from the debate over the Russia investigation.
Rep. Jim Jordan
✔@Jim_Jordan
Why didn’t Mueller charge Joseph Mifsud for lying to the FBI?
Joseph Mifsud (born 1960)[1] is a Maltese academic, with reportedly high level connections to the Russian government.[2] In 2016, he became involved with George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, and was later accused of being a link between that campaign and Russia. In 2018, he was described as missing, and an Italian court listed his location as “residence unknown”.[3] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Contents
Education
Mifsud holds a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Malta (1982) and a master’s degree in education from the University of Padua (1989).[1] He was awarded a PhD in 1995 from Queen’s University Belfast; his thesis was titled “Managing educational reform: a comparative approach from Malta (and Northern Ireland); a headteachers’ perspective”.[5]
Career
From 2006 to 2008, Mifsud served as the chef de cabinet of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta.[1] He later became a principal in the London Centre of International Law Practice. In 2008, he was named President of the Euro-Mediterranean University of Slovenia(EMUNI).[1][6] At least as early as 2010, he began making numerous trips to Russia.[7] He was a professorial teaching fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland,[8] as well as director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, where he served as director from 2012 until it closed in 2016. The academy was partnered with the University of Stirling.[9][10][11] He has also served as president of the University Consortium of the Province of Agrigento in Sicily; in September 2018, an Italian court ordered him to repay the Consortium 49,000 euros ($56,700) in overpayments.[3]
In a 2017 interview, he claimed to be a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR),[12] although the ECFR website in 2018 did not list him as a member.[13] He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a “wheeler-dealer” by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud’s former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17]Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying “I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian.”[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud “maintained various Russian contacts while living in London”, including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.[18]
Connection to George Papadopoulos
In March 2016, shortly after Papadopoulos was named as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, Mifsud met Papadopoulos in Rome. They later met again in London, where Mifsud allegedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman that he falsely claimed was Putin’s niece; Mifsud has denied the report.[8][14] At a meeting in April, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had learned that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly repeated the information to the Australian High Commissioner in London, Alexander Downer, who later reported to American authorities that Papadopoulos had apparently known about Russia’s theft of emails from Democratic sources before it was publicly reported. Papadopoulos has since publicly declared that he did tell Downer about the fact that he was offered “dirt” on Clinton but he has denied any recollection of communicating this theft of emails with Downer. The FBI then launched an investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.[19]
Volume 1 of the Mueller Report[20] states that Mifsud travelled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.[18] It also mentions that Papadopoulos “suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton”. This would appear to corroborate the contact with Downer.
According to Mifsud, he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 while visiting the United States to speak at a conference.[21][22] The FBI has not confirmed that they interviewed him, but he is listed as a featured speaker at the February 2017 national meeting of Global Ties, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of State.[23] Mifsud left the United States on 11 February 2017. Prosecutors with the investigation into Russian interference in the election suggested, in a 17 August 2018 sentencing memorandum for Papadopoulos, that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions.[24]
Connection to Stephan Roh
Stephan Roh, a Russian-speaking[25] German lawyer and multimillionaire with close ties to Russia, has worked alongside Mifsud for years. Papadopoulos’s wife, who briefly worked for Mifsud, has described Roh as Mifsud’s lawyer, best friend, and funder. Roh owns multiple businesses, many headquartered in Moscow or Cyprus; he also co-owns Link Campus University, a university also known for its diplomatic, intelligence and analytical studies, such as the School of Analysis – Security and Intelligence section, and the place where Mifsud taught.[citation needed] The fact that Mifsud taught at the Link Campus University has been denied by the current president of this university, Vincenzo Scotti.[26] Roh was detained and questioned by investigators on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team in October 2017.[27]
Missing report
According to a filing in a U.S. federal court in the case Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation in September 2018, Mifsud “is missing and may be deceased”. Mifsud’s whereabouts were unknown and he could not be served with the complaint.[28] He spoke to his girlfriend on 31 October 2017. The next day an Italian newspaper revealed that the “professor” referred to in news reports about Papadopoulos was Mifsud, and she has not heard from him since then.[29] According to CNN, he has “gone to ground” and was last seen on 6 November 2017 at Link University, a private university in Rome where he was teaching at the time.[21] In September 2018, an Italian court described his location as “residence unknown”.[3]
In September 2018, a few days after the DNC filing, his associate Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller that he had gotten an indirect message from “really good sources” indicating that Mifsud is alive and living under a new identity.[30] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Mueller was born on August 7, 1944 at Doctors Hospital in the New York City borough of Manhattan,[11][12] the first child of Alice C. Truesdale (1920–2007) and Robert Swan Mueller, Jr. (1916–2007). He has four younger sisters: Susan, Sandra, Joan, and Patricia.[13] His father was an executive with DuPont who had served as a Navy officer in the Atlantic and Mediterranean theaters during World War II.[13] His father majored in psychology at Princeton University and played varsity lacrosse, both of which he followed (see below).[13]
Mueller is of German, English and Scottish descent. His paternal great-grandfather, Gustave A. Mueller, was a prominent doctor in Pittsburgh, whose own father August C. E. Müller had immigrated to the United States in 1855 from the Province of Pomerania in the Kingdom of Prussia (a historical territory whose area included land now part of Poland and north-eastern edge of Germany).[14] On his mother’s side, he is a great-grandson of the railroad executive William Truesdale.[15]
Mueller has cited his teammate David Spencer Hackett’s death in the Vietnam War as an influence on his decision to pursue military service.[21] Of his classmate, Mueller has said, “One of the reasons I went into the Marine Corps was because we lost a very good friend, a Marine in Vietnam, who was a year ahead of me at Princeton. There were a number of us who felt we should follow his example and at least go into the service. And it flows from there.”[22] Hackett was a Marine Corps first lieutenant in the infantry and was killed in 1967 in Quảng Trị Province by small arms fire.[23]
After waiting a year so a knee injury could heal, Mueller was accepted for officer training in the United States Marine Corps in 1968, attending training at Parris Island, Officer Candidate School, Army Ranger School, and Army jump school. Of these, he said later that he considered Ranger School the most valuable because he felt “more than anything teaches you about how you react with no sleep and nothing to eat.”[24][25]
After recuperating at a field hospital near Da Hong, Mueller became aide-de-camp to 3rd Marine Division’s commanding general, then–Major General William K. Jones, where he “significantly contributed to the rapport” Jones had with other officers, according to one report.[24][31] Mueller had originally considered making the Marines his career, but he explained later that he found non-combat life in the Corps to be unexciting.[25]
Reflecting on his service in the Vietnam War, Mueller said, “I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have made it out of Vietnam. There were many—many—who did not. And perhaps because I did survive Vietnam, I have always felt compelled to contribute.”[32] In 2009, he told a writer that despite his other accomplishments he was still “most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines.”[25]
After returning from Vietnam, Mueller was briefly stationed at Henderson Hall, before leaving active-duty service in August 1970 [31] at the rank of captain.[31]
After serving as a partner at the Boston law firm of Hill and Barlow, Mueller returned to government service. In 1989, he served in the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburghand as acting Deputy Attorney General. James Baker, with whom he worked on national security matters, said he had “an appreciation for the Constitution and the rule of law”.[34]:33–34
In 1993, Mueller became a partner at Boston’s Hale and Dorr, specializing in white-collar crime litigation.[24] He returned to public service in 1995 as senior litigator in the homicide section of the District of Columbia United States Attorney’s Office. In 1998, Mueller was named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California and held that position until 2001.[12]
Federal Bureau of Investigation
PresidentGeorge W. Bush nominated Mueller for the position of FBI director on July 5, 2001.[37] He and two other candidates, Washington lawyer George J. Terwilliger III and veteran Chicago prosecutor and white-collar crime defense lawyer Dan Webb, were up for the job, but Mueller, described at the time as a conservative Republican,[38][39] was always considered the front-runner.[40] Terwilliger and Webb both pulled out from consideration around mid-June, while confirmation hearings for Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee were quickly set for July 30, only three days before his prostate cancer surgery.[41][42]
Official portrait, circa 2001
The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.[43] He had previously served as acting deputy attorney general of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for several months before officially becoming the FBI director on September 4, 2001, just one week before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.[12]
On February 11, 2003, one month before the U.S.-ledinvasion of Iraq, Mueller gave testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mueller informed the American public that “[s]even countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans. As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powellpresented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material.”[44][45]Highlighting this worry in February 2003, FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley wrote an open letter to Mueller in which she warned that “the bureau will [not] be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq”[46][47] and encouraged Mueller to “share [her concerns] with the President and Attorney General.”[47]
On March 10, 2004, while United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft was at the George Washington University Hospital for gallbladder surgery,[48]James Comey, the then deputy attorney general, received a call from Ashcroft’s wife informing him that White House Chief of StaffAndrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were about to visit Ashcroft to convince him to renew a program of warrantless wiretapping under the Terrorist Surveillance Program which the DOJ ruled unconstitutional.[48] Ashcroft refused to sign, as he had previously agreed, but the following day the White House renewed the program anyway.[48] Mueller and Comey then threatened to resign.[49] On March 12, 2004, after private, individual meetings with Mueller and Comey at the White House, the president supported changing the program to satisfy the concerns of Mueller, Ashcroft, and Comey.[34]:289–290[49]
President Bush is presented with an honorary FBI Special Agent credential, 2008
He was inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame in 2004.[31][50]
As director, Mueller also barred FBI personnel from participating in enhanced interrogations with the CIA.[51][52] At a dinner, Mueller defended an attorney (Thomas Wilner) who had been attacked for his role in defending Kuwaiti detainees. Mueller stood up, raised his glass, and said, “I toast Tom Wilner. He’s doing what an American should.” However, the White House pushed back, encouraging more vigorous methods of pursuing and interrogating terror suspects. When Bush confronted Mueller to ask him to round up more terrorists in the U.S., Mueller responded, saying, “If they [suspects] don’t commit a crime, it would be difficult to identify and isolate” them. Vice President Dick Cheney objected, by saying, “That’s just not good enough. We’re hearing this too much from the FBI.”[34]:157, 205, 270
In May 2011, President Barack Obama asked Mueller to continue at the helm of the FBI for two additional years beyond his normal 10-year term, which would have expired on September 4, 2011.[53] The Senate approved this request 100–0 on July 27, 2011.[54][55] On September 4, 2013, Mueller was replaced by James Comey.[56]
In June 2013, Mueller defended NSAsurveillance programs in testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing.[57] He said that surveillance programs could have “derailed” the September 11 attacks.[58][59] Congressman John Conyers disagreed: “I am not persuaded that that makes it OK to collect every call.”[59] Mueller also testified that the government’s surveillance programs complied “in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution”.[60] He said that “We are taking all necessary steps to hold Edward Snowden responsible for these disclosures.”[61]
On June 19, 2017, in the case of Arar v. Ashcroft, Mueller, along with Ashcroft and former Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner James W. Ziglar and others, was shielded from civil liability by the Supreme Court for post-9/11 detention of Muslims under policies then brought into place.[62]
Return to private sector
Mueller at the White House in April 2013, discussing the Boston Marathon bombing, with (from left) President Obama, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of CIA John O. Brennan, and Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
After leaving the FBI in 2013, Mueller served a one-year term as consulting professor and the Arthur and Frank Payne distinguished lecturer at Stanford University, where he focused on issues related to cybersecurity.[63]
In addition to his speaking and teaching roles, Mueller also joined the law firm WilmerHale as a partner in its Washington office in 2014.[64] Among other roles at the firm, he oversaw the independent investigation into the NFL‘s conduct surrounding the video that appeared to show NFL player Ray Rice assaulting his fiancée.[65] In January 2016, he was appointed as Settlement Master in the U.S. consumer litigation over the Volkswagen emissions scandal; as of May 11, 2017, the scandal has resulted in $11.2 billion in customer settlements.[66]
On October 19, 2016, Mueller began an external review of “security, personnel, and management processes and practices” at government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton after Harold T. Martin III was indicted for massive data theft from the National Security Agency.[67] On April 6, 2017, he was appointed as Special Master for disbursement of $850 million and $125 million for automakers and consumers, respectively, affected by rupture-prone Takata airbags.[68]
“Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election and Related Matters”, by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
On May 16, 2017, Mueller met with President Trump as a courtesy to provide perspectives on the FBI and input on considerations for hiring a new FBI Director.[71] This meeting was initially widely reported to have been an interview to serve again as the FBI Director.[72] President Trump broached resuming the position in their meeting; however, Mueller was ineligible to return as FBI Director due to statutory term limits, nor did Mueller have interest in resuming the position.[71]
The next day, Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversaw the investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.[73]
Mueller’s appointment to oversee the investigation immediately garnered widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.[74][75]Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and prominent conservative political commentator, stated via Twitter that “Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.”[76] Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) said, “Former Director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.” Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) stated, “former FBI dir. Mueller is well qualified to oversee this probe”.[74] Some, however, pointed out an alleged conflict of interest. “The federal code could not be clearer—Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks (R–AZ), who first called for Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement to Fox News. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”[77]
Upon his appointment as special counsel, Mueller and two colleagues (former FBI agent Aaron Zebley[78] and former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution ForceJames L. Quarles III) resigned from WilmerHale.[79] On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts announced they had declared Mueller ethically able to function as special counsel.[80] The spokesperson for the special counsel, Peter Carr, told NBC Newsthat Mueller has taken an active role in managing the inquiry.[81] In an interview with the Associated Press, Rosenstein said he would recuse himself from supervision of Mueller if he were to become a subject in the investigation due to his role in the dismissal of James Comey.[82]
On June 14, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Mueller’s office is also investigating Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice, in reference to the Russian probe.[83] The report was questioned by Trump’s legal team attorney Jay Sekulow, who said on June 18 on NBC‘s Meet the Press, “The President is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction, period.”[84] Due to the central role of the Trump family in the campaign, the transition, and the White House, the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also reportedly under scrutiny by Mueller.[85] Also in June, Trump allegedly ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, but backed down when then-White House Counsel Don McGahnthreatened to quit.[86]
During a discussion about national security at the Aspen security conference on July 21, 2017, former CIA directorJohn Brennan reaffirmed his support for Mueller and called for members of Congress to resist if Trump fires Mueller. He also said it was “the obligation of some executive-branch officials to refuse to carry out some of these orders that, again, are inconsistent with what this country is all about”.[87] After Peter Strzok, an investigator for Mueller, was removed from the investigation for alleged partiality, Senator Mark Warner, the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a speech on December 20, 2017, before the Senate warned of a constitutional crisis if the President fired Mueller.[88] On June 22, 2018, Warner hosted a fundraising party for 100 guests and was quoted there saying, “If you get me one more glass of wine, I’ll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you’ve seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild couple of months.”[89]
On October 30, 2017, Mueller filed charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign co-chairman Rick Gates. The 12 charges include conspiracy to launder money, violations of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and conspiracy against the United States.[90]
On December 1, 2017, Mueller reached a plea agreement with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to giving false testimony to the FBI about his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.[91]As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, was not expected to be charged, and Flynn was prepared to testify that high-level officials on Trump’s team directed him to make contact with the Russians.[92][93][94] On February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian individuals and 3 Russian companies for attempting to trick Americans into consuming Russian propaganda that targeted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton[95] and later President-elect Donald Trump.[96]
On February 20, 2018, Mueller charged attorney Alex van der Zwaan with making false statements in the Russia probe.[97][98][99]
On May 20, 2018, Trump criticized Mueller, tweeting “the World’s most expensive Witch Hunt has found nothing on Russia & me so now they are looking at the rest of the World!”[100] Mueller started investigating the August 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary for the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The emissary offered help to the Trump presidential campaign.[101][100] Mueller is also investigating the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Turkey, Qatar, Israel, and China.[102]
On December 18, 2018, the Washington Post published an article concerning a report prepared for the U.S. Senate which stated that Russian disinformation teams had targeted Mueller.[103]
On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and submitted the Special Counsel’s final report to Attorney General William Barr.[104] A senior Department of Justice official said that the report did not recommend any new indictments.[8] On March 24, Attorney General Barr submitted a summary of findings to the United States Congress. He stated in his letter, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russian in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Mueller’s report also reportedly did not take a stance on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice; Barr quoted Mueller as saying “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”[105]
On May 29, 2019, Mueller announced that he was retiring as special counsel and that the office would be shut down, and he spoke publicly about the report for the first time.[106] Saying “The report is my testimony,” he indicated he would have nothing to say that wasn’t already in the report. On the subject of obstruction of justice, he said “under long-standing Department [of Justice] policy, a president cannot be charged with a crime while he is in office.”[107]He repeated his official conclusion that the report neither accused nor exonerated the president, while adding that any potential wrongdoing by a president must be addressed by a “process other than the criminal justice system”.[108] Mueller reasserted the involvement of Russian operatives in the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and their parallel efforts to influence American public opinion using social media.[107] Referring to those actions, he declared that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”[109]
Robert Mueller was initially scheduled to publicly testify before two House committees on July 17, 2019, with two hours for lawmakers to ask questions, but the hearing was postponed to July 24 with a third hour added for questions.[110] His verbal testimony is expected to help inform the public—Democrats believe most Americans have not read the report—and to help Democratic leadership finally decide whether or not to impeach the President.[111]In particular, the Democrats aim to highlight what they consider to be the worst examples of Trump’s conduct. Representative Jamie Raskin from Maryland said he would use visual aids, such as posters, to help people understand the implications of the Mueller report.[112] Republicans, on the other hand, plan to question Mueller on the origins of this investigation.[113]
In 2001, Mueller’s Senate confirmation hearings to head the FBI were delayed several months while he underwent treatment for prostate cancer.[120] He was diagnosed in the fall of 2000, postponing being sworn in as FBI director until he received a good prognosis from his physician.[121]
Mueller and William Barr—the attorney general who supervised the late stage of Mueller’s special counsel investigation—have known each other since the 1980s and have been described as good friends. Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters, and their wives attend Bible study together.[123]
Military awards
Mueller received the following military awards and decorations:[30]
Events in the 2016 elections were unprecedented. Top FBI officials knowingly used information paid for by the campaign of Hillary Clinton to obtain a #FISA#spy warrant on a member of the #TrumpCampaign. Meanwhile, top Obama administration officials also spied on the campaign, using so-called unmasking requests. Those same FBI agents, however, chose to look the other way when it came to the risks posed by Clinton’s use of a private email server. We now know that emails she send as Secretary of State through that server were automatically copied to an unknown foreign entity. Looking ahead of the 2020 elections, the question is whether the FBI has been reformed enough to make sure political bias don’t influence investigations. Today we sit down with Tony Shaffer, acting president of the London Center for Policy Research. He served as a Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Army, where he was a senior intelligence officer. Today he’s also an advising producer for National Geographic and a member of the Trump 2020 advisory board.
Rep. Matt Gaetz on Spygate, Barr Hearings, and the Attempted Coup Against Trump
Sara Carter: Fusion GPS testimony backfired on the Democrats
Andrew Weissmann (born c. 1958) is an American attorney. Since 2015 he has been the chief of the criminal fraud section of the U.S. Department of Justice. In June 2017 he was appointed to a management role on the 2017 special counsel team headed by Robert Mueller. To assume that position, Weissmann took a leave from his DOJ post.[1]
From 2002 to 2005, Weissmann was deputy director and then director of the task force investigating the Enron scandal.[1] His work resulted in the prosecution of more than 30 people for crimes including perjury, fraud, and obstruction including three of Enron’s top executives, Andrew Fastow, Kenneth Lay. and Jeffrey Skilling. In a follow-up case in U.S. District Court, Weissmann also was successful at arguing that auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP had covered up for Enron. In that case, which resulted in the destruction of Andersen, he convinced the district judge to instruct the jury that they could convict the firm regardless of whether its employees knew they were violating the law.[3] That ruling was later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, in which the court held that “the jury instructions failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.”[3]
On June 19, 2017, Weissmann joined Special Counsel Mueller’s team to run and investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[5][6] He was said to be “the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.” A news report in March 2019 said he would soon leave the Justice Department and become a faculty member at New York University and to work on public service projects.[7]
Story 1: Black Swan Song — Pathetic Incompetent Corrupt Swamp Swan Figurehead Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III Exposed As Fraud — “A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations” — Corrupt Democrat Punks — “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk? — “Go Ahead Make My Day” — Impeach Trump — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Exposed — No Credibility and No Longer Trusted — No Evidence or Basis For Impeachment — Mueller “Outside My Purview”: Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — American People Will Reelect Trump for Second Term in A Landslide Victory — Videos
Black Swan – Last Dance Scene (“I was perfect…”)
The Real ‘Black Swan’: Double Speaks
Magnum Force (10/10) Movie CLIP – A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations (1973) HD
A Good Man Always Has to Know His Limitations
Dirty Harry Do You ( I ) Feel Lucky Punk? ( high quality)
Dirty Harry – inadmissible
Dirty Harry Do You Feel Lucky Punk
Dirty Harry – Best Quotes, Lines (Clint Eastwood)
Robert Mueller testifies before Judiciary Committees on Capitol Hill (LIVE) | USA TODAY
Robert Mueller’s full testimony to House Judiciary committee
MUELLER HEARING: House Judiciary Committee Part 1
MUELLER HEARING: House Intelligence Committee Part 2
Full: Robert Mueller Testimony To Congress, Reaction And Analysis | NBC News
Collins at Mueller hearing: I hope this brings us closure
WATCH: Rep. Steve Chabot’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Ted Lieu’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Debbie Lesko’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Ratcliffe Questions Former Special Counsel Mueller on Report
Representative Turner questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Matt Gaetz’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Rep. Jim Jordan blasts Mueller for dodging questions
Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan presses former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Jordan says maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started.
Rep. Gohmert grills Mueller: Did you know Strzok hated Trump?
Representative Nunes questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Ben Cline’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Joe diGenova: The public got to see Mueller’s incompetence
Whitaker says it was clear Mueller didn’t have a grasp of Russia report
Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America
Hannity: Mueller’s testimony was an unmitigated disaster
Ingraham: Trump beats the elites again
Jim Jordan says Dems are never going to stop going after Trump
Gowdy on Mueller: I would’ve beaten the hell out of that exoneration
Trump’s legal team takes victory lap after Mueller hearings
WATCH: Key moments from Mueller’s testimony
Takeaways and analysis of Mueller hearings
‘Disoriented’ Mueller’s stumbling responses to questions during blockbuster hearing leave social media concerned the special counsel seems a ‘confused old man’ but some think it is all a strategy to frustrate the committee members
Mueller faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russia investigation
Viewers reacting on social media noticed Mueller stumbled at several points
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ one viewer wrote on Twitter. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man’
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation
Another theory suggests the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit the report
Viewers also noted that Mueller is hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report
PUBLISHED: 10:11 EDT, 24 July 2019 | UPDATED: 16:45 EDT, 24 July 2019
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of Congress.
The special counsel faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russiainvestigation.
Viewers reacting on social media have noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points.
‘Robert Mueller comes across as a doddering old fool with a questionable moral compass based on situational ethics who should never have been appointed in the first place based on reduced mental capacity,’ one person tweeted.
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ another wrote. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man.’
Some are saying the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to President Donald Trump.
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation.
Asked whether Trump had been exonerated or if he could be charged with obstruction of justice when he leaves office, Mueller replied: ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ respectively.
‘Lots of twitter folks are dogging Mueller out for looking old and feeble,’ MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted. ‘But optically, that just makes the Republicans yelling at him look more absurd. Mueller is quite definitive in his one word answers, which only Dems are eliciting from him so far.’
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning
Viewers reacting on social media noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points
Several Twitter users expressed the opinion that the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor’s shaky demeanor calls his entire report into question.
‘Listening too Mueller the cracking in his voice shows clearly that he is a conflicted Skunk and lying ! And I think he is senile !’
‘As I said when Mueller gave speech in May, he is feeble,’ radio personality Mark Levin tweeted. ‘I say that not as a personal attack but as a rational observation. It’s on display today during this hearing.
‘This underscores that the person who influenced this investigation most was Andrew Weissman, his top lieutenant.’
Replying to Levin’s tweet, one man wrote: ‘Agreed, Mueller looks geriatric and lost…. find that man a time machine.’
‘It’s quite entertaining. Mueller can’t make a coherent statement. Looks like the circus made a stop in DC,’ a woman tweeted.
‘I’d say Democrats right now regretting they ever subpoenaed Mueller. He looks confused,’ a man wrote.
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think Mueller sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial.
‘I’m concerned that Mueller is so concerned with not appearing political that he is really under-performing at times by failing to clarify things that need clarification,’ one woman wrote.
‘To let crazy GOP statements stand without clarification could be interpreted as agreement.’
Some noted that Mueller is being hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report his team took two years to compile.
He repeatedly had to ask committee members for page numbers when asked to comment on specific sections.
One woman tweeted that Mueller would have a much easier time referring to the report if he had searchable copy on a computer.
‘Give Robert Mueller a computer, he desperately needs CTRL + F,’ Vice Media VP Katie Drummond wrote.
Ironically, the copy of the report released by the Justice Department was a scanned printout and thus couldn’t be searched. Several searchable versions have cropped up in the months since then.
Unfortunately for Mueller, witnesses are not allowed to use computers during hearings.
Mueller frequently had to pause and manually search through the 397-page report to effectively answer questions from lawmakers
Throughout the hearing, Democrats, who hold the majority on both committees present, worked to elicit short, definitive answers from Mueller.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler asked him: ‘Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?
‘That is correct. That is not what the report said,’ Mueller responding.
‘Does that say there was no obstruction?’ Nadler followed up later.
‘No,’ the former special counsel said.
‘In fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president,’ Nadler told him.
‘Yes it does,’ Mueller replied.
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
‘When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm was Fusion GPS, is that correct?’
‘I’m not familiar with that,’ said Mueller.
‘That’s not a trick question. It’s Fusion GPS.’
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose trips to Russia drew attention of investigators.
‘Director Mueller, the third FISA renewal happens a month after you’re named special counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page?’ Jordan asked.
‘I’m not going to talk to that,’ said Mueller.
In his prepared statement, Mueller began by defending his probe following an onslaught of attacks, and spelling out questions he will and will not answer.
He said he told his team at the start of the Russia probe to ‘work quietly, thoroughly and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.
‘We needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than necessary,’ Mueller said.
He said his team of lawyers and agents worked ‘fairly and with absolute integrity’ – minutes after President Trump once again attacked it as a ‘witch hunt’.
‘Our team would not leak or take other actions that would compromise the integrity of our work,’ said Mueller. ‘All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.’
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose Russia trips drew investigators’ attention
Rep Doug Collins tried to get Mueller to contradict his report by asking him whether ‘collusion’ and ‘conspiracy’ are the same thing after Mueller testified that they weren’t.
Collins cited a portion of the report that states: ‘Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute.’
Mueller critics declared that the special counsel had been bested by Collins, while experts explained that Collins’ citation was taken out of context.
The part of the report in question was about collusion in the sense of corporate collusion – when companies conspire in an illegal fashion to help each other at consumers’ expense.
Corporate collusion is unrelated to ‘collusion with Russia’, the colloquial term adopted in the debate about potential cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Both sides sought to get Mueller on record on the question of whether he had any potential conflict that would prevent him from overseeing the probe.
Georgia Democrat Rep Hank Johnson asked Mueller if he had any conflicts of interest that prevented him from being special counsel. Mueller said he did not. Trump has repeatedly said Mueller was ‘highly conflicted,’ saying he had interviewed to be his FBI director and that the two men had a nasty business dispute.
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility.
‘No matter your political party, it’s absolutely disgusting to see those attacking Mueller’s integrity,’ one man tweeted.
‘The way the @JudiciaryGOP members talked and yelled at Robert Mueller is beyond awful. They’ve all lost their souls,’ another wrote.
‘Republicans can’t argue the facts, so they attack the investigation and the investigators,’ another said.
‘Remember this slander of Mueller the next time you hear republicans going on about their love & respect for veterans. They will throw anyone under the bus who doesn’t toe the party line.’
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility
TOP 10 MUELLER TAKEAWAYS
Below are the 10 most important takeaways gleaned from Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday.
Mueller said all he wanted to say in his report
When Mueller finally agreed to testify before Congress – after more than two years of silence about the Russia investigation – the special counsel said he ‘would not provide information beyond that which is already public’ in the report published in April.
He stuck to that promise throughout Wednesday’s hearing, declining or deferring nearly 200 questions from committee members.
Mueller’s reasons for not answering included not wanting to speculate, being unable to detail internal Justice Department deliberations and being under orders not to broach specific topics.
Trump was paying attention
After saying that he couldn’t be bothered to watch Mueller’s testimony, President Trump made it clear that he was tuned in as he tweeted multiple reactions to the proceedings on Wednesday.
‘I’m not going to be watching Mueller because you can’t take all those bites out of the apple,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. ‘We had no collusion, no obstruction.’
Before the hearing even kicked off Trump had posted seven tweets about the hearing, echoing his go-to attacks on ‘Mueller & his band of 18 Angry Democrats’.
Over the next eight hours tweeted and retweeted 14 posts about Mueller’s testimony, including multiple videos of Republican lawmakers grilling the special counsel.
‘TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!’ he declared just after 2.30pm.
Mueller didn’t subpoena Trump to avoid a lengthy court battle
The special counsel addressed why Trump wasn’t interviewed during the two-year-long investigation when New York Democratic Rep Sean Maloney asked him: ‘Why didn’t you subpoena the president?’
Trump’s legal team had refused to have him be interviewed in the probe because they felt such a meeting would amount to a ‘perjury trap’.
Before Congress Mueller stated that his team had ‘little success’ when pushing for an interview for over a year and decided that they didn’t want to delay the investigation with a lengthy court battle.
‘We did not want to exercise the subpoena power because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation,’ he said, adding that no one at the Justice Department pressured him to finish the probe.
Mueller acknowledged that Trump’s written answers to questions about possible conspiracy with Russia were ‘not as useful as the interview would be’.
Trump was not exonerated by the Russia investigation
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, kicked off Wednesday’s proceedings by asking Mueller directly if the Russia investigation exonerated President Trump.
‘No,’ Mueller stated without hesitation.
That goes against the president’s repeated claims that the probe proved there was ‘no obstruction, no collusion’.
Mueller’s team never determined whether Trump committed a crime
While the majority of his answers were straightforward and technical, Mueller struggled when questioned about why he did not indict the president.
During an exchanged with California Democratic Rep Ted Lieu, Mueller stated that the reason he did not even consider indicting Trump on obstruction charges was because of guidance from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
That goes against assertions by Attorney General William Barr, who has repeatedly said the OLC’s opinion was not the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump.
Arizona Republican Rep Debbie Lesko asked Mueller to clarify that contradiction, at which point he said he ‘would have to look closer at it’.
He later conceded that he had misspoken when he characterized the OLC’s guidance to Lieu.
‘We did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime,’ he said.
‘Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.’
Mueller was much less steady than in previous hearings
At times, Mueller, 74, stumbled during answers, asking fast-talking lawmakers to repeat page citations and repeat their questions. He sometimes had to scan the hearing room to locate questioners.
Although his stock answer was to say issues were beyond the purview of his mandate, he also appeared not to recall specific information at times.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
Viewers reacting on social media called out Mueller’s unsteadiness early on, remarking that he was acting ‘like a confused old man’.
Some said the wobbly performance could be a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to Trump.
Mueller and Trump have opposing accounts of what led up to special counsel appointment
Republicans probed Mueller’s professional links with Trump in an attempt to show he may have had a reason to be biased against the president – specifically questioning whether he was turned down for the FBI director position the day before being tapped to lead the Russia investigation.
Trump gave his version of events on Wednesday morning, tweeting: ‘It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel.
‘Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the interview, including the Vice President of the United States!’
Mueller contradicted Trump’s account when Texas Republican Rep Louie Gohmert seized on his alleged conflicts of interest.
Gohmert asked Mueller about a meeting he had with Trump the day before the special counsel appointment and contended that it was a job interview for the FBI director slot.
Mueller stated that he was not interviewed ‘as a candidate’ for the position.
Mueller fiercely defended his team’s impartiality
The special counsel was calm and composed throughout the proceedings, save for one moment when Florida Republican Rep Greg Steube decried the political affiliations of the lawyers on his team.
Mueller said never in his 25 years in his position had he felt the need to ask the people he works with about their political affiliation.
Rep Gohmert also called Mueller’s hiring practices into question, particularly his appointment of FBI agent Peter Strzok – who was later removed from the probe after he was found to have sent anti-Trump text messages to a woman he was involved with.
Mueller said he did not know of Strzok’s disdain for Trump before the probe started and learned about it in the summer of 2017, several months into the investigation.
Republicans tried to collect evidence for a probe into Mueller’s investigation
Republicans committee members tried both the blast the origins of the Russia probe and potentially establish a record that might play out in an ongoing investigation overseen by Attorney General William Barr.
‘Before you arrested [Trump campaign foreign policy aide] George Papadopoulos in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in ash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?’ California Rep Devin Nunes asked Mueller.
‘Again, that’s outside our … questions such as that should go to the FBI or the department,’ said Mueller.
‘But it involved your investigation,’ said Nunes.
‘It involved persons involved in my investigation,’ said Mueller.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow released a statement saying: ‘This morning’s testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The testimony revealed that this probe was conducted by a small group of politically-biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish either obstruction, conspiracy, or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It is also clear that the Special Counsel conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. The American people understand that this issue is over. They also understand that the case is closed.’
Democrats tried to breathe life into a dense, technical report
The Democrats, who hold a majority on both committees, made a concerted effort to present the investigation’s findings in a more provocative and damning light than they had been in the dense, 337-page report.
‘Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign — including Trump himself — knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it,’ California Rep Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chair, said when the afternoon portion began.
‘Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?’ Schiff continued.
‘That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime, in any event’, he added.
However, a levelheaded Mueller didn’t play along, making for a rather mundane hearing.
In a moment that quickly made the rounds on conservative media on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan sharply questioned Robert Mueller on the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
The Ohio Republican pressed the former special counsel to detail who told George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy aide on the Trump campaign, that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. When Mueller said he would not go into it, Jordan became heated.
“Yes you can, because you wrote about it – you gave us the answer!” Jordan said. “Joseph Mifsud.”
The name of the shadowy Maltese academic kept coming up on Wednesday as Republicans accused Mueller of covering up how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, a popular talking point for Trump allies. At the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Rep. Devin Nunes pointed to a large photo of Mifsud with then-U.K. foreign secretary Boris Johnson as evidence that he “has extensive contacts with Western governments and the FBI”.
Boris Johnson makes an appearance at this hearing — Nunes is trying to prove that the investigation was started wrongly, shows a photo of him with Joseph Mifsud
Mifsud’s name would have been familiar for regular consumers of Fox News and conservative outlets that have spent two years dissecting what they believe was a “deep state” attempt to take down the Trump campaign. The London-based professor at the center of the Trump-Russia probe has not been seen in public since October 2017, just days after Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with him. One of those was a key conversation in London in April 2016, in which Mifsud told him the Russians had damaging information on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Mifsud also introduced him to a Russian graduate student that Papadopoulos believed to be Putin’s niece, and connected him with an official with ties to the Russian foreign ministry who said he could set up a meeting with the country’s ambassador, according to Mueller’s report. Papadopoulos later relayed that information to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who passed it on to U.S. government officials, setting into motion the FBI investigation into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos’ interactions with Mifsud, and his allegation that the Maltese professor was an FBI plant, has been at the center of some Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s probe. Papadopoulos told TIME in May that he believes he was part of an elaborate set-up by U.S. intelligence to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign. Since serving a short sentence for lying to the FBI, Papadopoulos has continued to make the rounds alleging that Mifsud was a “Western intelligence operative” who tried to use him to entrap the Trump campaign.
“People are very fascinated about what I have to say, people are just like — their mouths are dropping,” he told TIME on April 17. “They’ve never heard this information because Mueller and the FBI wanted to keep me silenced.”
Perhaps anticipating this line of questioning, Mueller made it clear in his opening statement that he would be “unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation” because it is the subject of an ongoing review by the Justice Department.
That did not stop Jordan and Nunes, both vocal Trump supporters, from trying.
“He’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime,” Jordan exclaimed, angrily listing others charged by Mueller, including Michael Flynn and “13 Russians no one’s ever heard of.”
“But the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it off, for three years we have lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him,” he said.
“I’m not sure I agree with your characterization,” Mueller tersely responded, but Jordan’s performance was already going viral in conservative corners of the internet with headlines like “WATCH: Jim Jordan Steals the Show, Calls into Question Entire Basis of Probe!” and “‘BRUTAL’: Jim Jordan grills Mueller about why ‘guy who put this whole story in motion’ lied but wasn’t held accountable.” On Wednesday afternoon, Trump himself retweeted a clip of the exchange, indicating that Mifsud is unlikely to fade from the debate over the Russia investigation.
Rep. Jim Jordan
✔@Jim_Jordan
Why didn’t Mueller charge Joseph Mifsud for lying to the FBI?
Joseph Mifsud (born 1960)[1] is a Maltese academic, with reportedly high level connections to the Russian government.[2] In 2016, he became involved with George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, and was later accused of being a link between that campaign and Russia. In 2018, he was described as missing, and an Italian court listed his location as “residence unknown”.[3] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Contents
Education
Mifsud holds a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Malta (1982) and a master’s degree in education from the University of Padua (1989).[1] He was awarded a PhD in 1995 from Queen’s University Belfast; his thesis was titled “Managing educational reform: a comparative approach from Malta (and Northern Ireland); a headteachers’ perspective”.[5]
Career
From 2006 to 2008, Mifsud served as the chef de cabinet of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta.[1] He later became a principal in the London Centre of International Law Practice. In 2008, he was named President of the Euro-Mediterranean University of Slovenia(EMUNI).[1][6] At least as early as 2010, he began making numerous trips to Russia.[7] He was a professorial teaching fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland,[8] as well as director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, where he served as director from 2012 until it closed in 2016. The academy was partnered with the University of Stirling.[9][10][11] He has also served as president of the University Consortium of the Province of Agrigento in Sicily; in September 2018, an Italian court ordered him to repay the Consortium 49,000 euros ($56,700) in overpayments.[3]
In a 2017 interview, he claimed to be a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR),[12] although the ECFR website in 2018 did not list him as a member.[13] He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a “wheeler-dealer” by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud’s former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17]Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying “I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian.”[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud “maintained various Russian contacts while living in London”, including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.[18]
Connection to George Papadopoulos
In March 2016, shortly after Papadopoulos was named as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, Mifsud met Papadopoulos in Rome. They later met again in London, where Mifsud allegedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman that he falsely claimed was Putin’s niece; Mifsud has denied the report.[8][14] At a meeting in April, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had learned that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly repeated the information to the Australian High Commissioner in London, Alexander Downer, who later reported to American authorities that Papadopoulos had apparently known about Russia’s theft of emails from Democratic sources before it was publicly reported. Papadopoulos has since publicly declared that he did tell Downer about the fact that he was offered “dirt” on Clinton but he has denied any recollection of communicating this theft of emails with Downer. The FBI then launched an investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.[19]
Volume 1 of the Mueller Report[20] states that Mifsud travelled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.[18] It also mentions that Papadopoulos “suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton”. This would appear to corroborate the contact with Downer.
According to Mifsud, he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 while visiting the United States to speak at a conference.[21][22] The FBI has not confirmed that they interviewed him, but he is listed as a featured speaker at the February 2017 national meeting of Global Ties, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of State.[23] Mifsud left the United States on 11 February 2017. Prosecutors with the investigation into Russian interference in the election suggested, in a 17 August 2018 sentencing memorandum for Papadopoulos, that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions.[24]
Connection to Stephan Roh
Stephan Roh, a Russian-speaking[25] German lawyer and multimillionaire with close ties to Russia, has worked alongside Mifsud for years. Papadopoulos’s wife, who briefly worked for Mifsud, has described Roh as Mifsud’s lawyer, best friend, and funder. Roh owns multiple businesses, many headquartered in Moscow or Cyprus; he also co-owns Link Campus University, a university also known for its diplomatic, intelligence and analytical studies, such as the School of Analysis – Security and Intelligence section, and the place where Mifsud taught.[citation needed] The fact that Mifsud taught at the Link Campus University has been denied by the current president of this university, Vincenzo Scotti.[26] Roh was detained and questioned by investigators on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team in October 2017.[27]
Missing report
According to a filing in a U.S. federal court in the case Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation in September 2018, Mifsud “is missing and may be deceased”. Mifsud’s whereabouts were unknown and he could not be served with the complaint.[28] He spoke to his girlfriend on 31 October 2017. The next day an Italian newspaper revealed that the “professor” referred to in news reports about Papadopoulos was Mifsud, and she has not heard from him since then.[29] According to CNN, he has “gone to ground” and was last seen on 6 November 2017 at Link University, a private university in Rome where he was teaching at the time.[21] In September 2018, an Italian court described his location as “residence unknown”.[3]
In September 2018, a few days after the DNC filing, his associate Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller that he had gotten an indirect message from “really good sources” indicating that Mifsud is alive and living under a new identity.[30] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Mueller was born on August 7, 1944 at Doctors Hospital in the New York City borough of Manhattan,[11][12] the first child of Alice C. Truesdale (1920–2007) and Robert Swan Mueller, Jr. (1916–2007). He has four younger sisters: Susan, Sandra, Joan, and Patricia.[13] His father was an executive with DuPont who had served as a Navy officer in the Atlantic and Mediterranean theaters during World War II.[13] His father majored in psychology at Princeton University and played varsity lacrosse, both of which he followed (see below).[13]
Mueller is of German, English and Scottish descent. His paternal great-grandfather, Gustave A. Mueller, was a prominent doctor in Pittsburgh, whose own father August C. E. Müller had immigrated to the United States in 1855 from the Province of Pomerania in the Kingdom of Prussia (a historical territory whose area included land now part of Poland and north-eastern edge of Germany).[14] On his mother’s side, he is a great-grandson of the railroad executive William Truesdale.[15]
Mueller has cited his teammate David Spencer Hackett’s death in the Vietnam War as an influence on his decision to pursue military service.[21] Of his classmate, Mueller has said, “One of the reasons I went into the Marine Corps was because we lost a very good friend, a Marine in Vietnam, who was a year ahead of me at Princeton. There were a number of us who felt we should follow his example and at least go into the service. And it flows from there.”[22] Hackett was a Marine Corps first lieutenant in the infantry and was killed in 1967 in Quảng Trị Province by small arms fire.[23]
After waiting a year so a knee injury could heal, Mueller was accepted for officer training in the United States Marine Corps in 1968, attending training at Parris Island, Officer Candidate School, Army Ranger School, and Army jump school. Of these, he said later that he considered Ranger School the most valuable because he felt “more than anything teaches you about how you react with no sleep and nothing to eat.”[24][25]
After recuperating at a field hospital near Da Hong, Mueller became aide-de-camp to 3rd Marine Division’s commanding general, then–Major General William K. Jones, where he “significantly contributed to the rapport” Jones had with other officers, according to one report.[24][31] Mueller had originally considered making the Marines his career, but he explained later that he found non-combat life in the Corps to be unexciting.[25]
Reflecting on his service in the Vietnam War, Mueller said, “I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have made it out of Vietnam. There were many—many—who did not. And perhaps because I did survive Vietnam, I have always felt compelled to contribute.”[32] In 2009, he told a writer that despite his other accomplishments he was still “most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines.”[25]
After returning from Vietnam, Mueller was briefly stationed at Henderson Hall, before leaving active-duty service in August 1970 [31] at the rank of captain.[31]
After serving as a partner at the Boston law firm of Hill and Barlow, Mueller returned to government service. In 1989, he served in the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburghand as acting Deputy Attorney General. James Baker, with whom he worked on national security matters, said he had “an appreciation for the Constitution and the rule of law”.[34]:33–34
In 1993, Mueller became a partner at Boston’s Hale and Dorr, specializing in white-collar crime litigation.[24] He returned to public service in 1995 as senior litigator in the homicide section of the District of Columbia United States Attorney’s Office. In 1998, Mueller was named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California and held that position until 2001.[12]
Federal Bureau of Investigation
PresidentGeorge W. Bush nominated Mueller for the position of FBI director on July 5, 2001.[37] He and two other candidates, Washington lawyer George J. Terwilliger III and veteran Chicago prosecutor and white-collar crime defense lawyer Dan Webb, were up for the job, but Mueller, described at the time as a conservative Republican,[38][39] was always considered the front-runner.[40] Terwilliger and Webb both pulled out from consideration around mid-June, while confirmation hearings for Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee were quickly set for July 30, only three days before his prostate cancer surgery.[41][42]
Official portrait, circa 2001
The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.[43] He had previously served as acting deputy attorney general of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for several months before officially becoming the FBI director on September 4, 2001, just one week before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.[12]
On February 11, 2003, one month before the U.S.-ledinvasion of Iraq, Mueller gave testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mueller informed the American public that “[s]even countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans. As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powellpresented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material.”[44][45]Highlighting this worry in February 2003, FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley wrote an open letter to Mueller in which she warned that “the bureau will [not] be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq”[46][47] and encouraged Mueller to “share [her concerns] with the President and Attorney General.”[47]
On March 10, 2004, while United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft was at the George Washington University Hospital for gallbladder surgery,[48]James Comey, the then deputy attorney general, received a call from Ashcroft’s wife informing him that White House Chief of StaffAndrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were about to visit Ashcroft to convince him to renew a program of warrantless wiretapping under the Terrorist Surveillance Program which the DOJ ruled unconstitutional.[48] Ashcroft refused to sign, as he had previously agreed, but the following day the White House renewed the program anyway.[48] Mueller and Comey then threatened to resign.[49] On March 12, 2004, after private, individual meetings with Mueller and Comey at the White House, the president supported changing the program to satisfy the concerns of Mueller, Ashcroft, and Comey.[34]:289–290[49]
President Bush is presented with an honorary FBI Special Agent credential, 2008
He was inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame in 2004.[31][50]
As director, Mueller also barred FBI personnel from participating in enhanced interrogations with the CIA.[51][52] At a dinner, Mueller defended an attorney (Thomas Wilner) who had been attacked for his role in defending Kuwaiti detainees. Mueller stood up, raised his glass, and said, “I toast Tom Wilner. He’s doing what an American should.” However, the White House pushed back, encouraging more vigorous methods of pursuing and interrogating terror suspects. When Bush confronted Mueller to ask him to round up more terrorists in the U.S., Mueller responded, saying, “If they [suspects] don’t commit a crime, it would be difficult to identify and isolate” them. Vice President Dick Cheney objected, by saying, “That’s just not good enough. We’re hearing this too much from the FBI.”[34]:157, 205, 270
In May 2011, President Barack Obama asked Mueller to continue at the helm of the FBI for two additional years beyond his normal 10-year term, which would have expired on September 4, 2011.[53] The Senate approved this request 100–0 on July 27, 2011.[54][55] On September 4, 2013, Mueller was replaced by James Comey.[56]
In June 2013, Mueller defended NSAsurveillance programs in testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing.[57] He said that surveillance programs could have “derailed” the September 11 attacks.[58][59] Congressman John Conyers disagreed: “I am not persuaded that that makes it OK to collect every call.”[59] Mueller also testified that the government’s surveillance programs complied “in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution”.[60] He said that “We are taking all necessary steps to hold Edward Snowden responsible for these disclosures.”[61]
On June 19, 2017, in the case of Arar v. Ashcroft, Mueller, along with Ashcroft and former Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner James W. Ziglar and others, was shielded from civil liability by the Supreme Court for post-9/11 detention of Muslims under policies then brought into place.[62]
Return to private sector
Mueller at the White House in April 2013, discussing the Boston Marathon bombing, with (from left) President Obama, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of CIA John O. Brennan, and Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
After leaving the FBI in 2013, Mueller served a one-year term as consulting professor and the Arthur and Frank Payne distinguished lecturer at Stanford University, where he focused on issues related to cybersecurity.[63]
In addition to his speaking and teaching roles, Mueller also joined the law firm WilmerHale as a partner in its Washington office in 2014.[64] Among other roles at the firm, he oversaw the independent investigation into the NFL‘s conduct surrounding the video that appeared to show NFL player Ray Rice assaulting his fiancée.[65] In January 2016, he was appointed as Settlement Master in the U.S. consumer litigation over the Volkswagen emissions scandal; as of May 11, 2017, the scandal has resulted in $11.2 billion in customer settlements.[66]
On October 19, 2016, Mueller began an external review of “security, personnel, and management processes and practices” at government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton after Harold T. Martin III was indicted for massive data theft from the National Security Agency.[67] On April 6, 2017, he was appointed as Special Master for disbursement of $850 million and $125 million for automakers and consumers, respectively, affected by rupture-prone Takata airbags.[68]
“Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election and Related Matters”, by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
On May 16, 2017, Mueller met with President Trump as a courtesy to provide perspectives on the FBI and input on considerations for hiring a new FBI Director.[71] This meeting was initially widely reported to have been an interview to serve again as the FBI Director.[72] President Trump broached resuming the position in their meeting; however, Mueller was ineligible to return as FBI Director due to statutory term limits, nor did Mueller have interest in resuming the position.[71]
The next day, Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversaw the investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.[73]
Mueller’s appointment to oversee the investigation immediately garnered widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.[74][75]Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and prominent conservative political commentator, stated via Twitter that “Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.”[76] Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) said, “Former Director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.” Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) stated, “former FBI dir. Mueller is well qualified to oversee this probe”.[74] Some, however, pointed out an alleged conflict of interest. “The federal code could not be clearer—Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks (R–AZ), who first called for Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement to Fox News. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”[77]
Upon his appointment as special counsel, Mueller and two colleagues (former FBI agent Aaron Zebley[78] and former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution ForceJames L. Quarles III) resigned from WilmerHale.[79] On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts announced they had declared Mueller ethically able to function as special counsel.[80] The spokesperson for the special counsel, Peter Carr, told NBC Newsthat Mueller has taken an active role in managing the inquiry.[81] In an interview with the Associated Press, Rosenstein said he would recuse himself from supervision of Mueller if he were to become a subject in the investigation due to his role in the dismissal of James Comey.[82]
On June 14, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Mueller’s office is also investigating Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice, in reference to the Russian probe.[83] The report was questioned by Trump’s legal team attorney Jay Sekulow, who said on June 18 on NBC‘s Meet the Press, “The President is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction, period.”[84] Due to the central role of the Trump family in the campaign, the transition, and the White House, the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also reportedly under scrutiny by Mueller.[85] Also in June, Trump allegedly ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, but backed down when then-White House Counsel Don McGahnthreatened to quit.[86]
During a discussion about national security at the Aspen security conference on July 21, 2017, former CIA directorJohn Brennan reaffirmed his support for Mueller and called for members of Congress to resist if Trump fires Mueller. He also said it was “the obligation of some executive-branch officials to refuse to carry out some of these orders that, again, are inconsistent with what this country is all about”.[87] After Peter Strzok, an investigator for Mueller, was removed from the investigation for alleged partiality, Senator Mark Warner, the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a speech on December 20, 2017, before the Senate warned of a constitutional crisis if the President fired Mueller.[88] On June 22, 2018, Warner hosted a fundraising party for 100 guests and was quoted there saying, “If you get me one more glass of wine, I’ll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you’ve seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild couple of months.”[89]
On October 30, 2017, Mueller filed charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign co-chairman Rick Gates. The 12 charges include conspiracy to launder money, violations of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and conspiracy against the United States.[90]
On December 1, 2017, Mueller reached a plea agreement with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to giving false testimony to the FBI about his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.[91]As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, was not expected to be charged, and Flynn was prepared to testify that high-level officials on Trump’s team directed him to make contact with the Russians.[92][93][94] On February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian individuals and 3 Russian companies for attempting to trick Americans into consuming Russian propaganda that targeted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton[95] and later President-elect Donald Trump.[96]
On February 20, 2018, Mueller charged attorney Alex van der Zwaan with making false statements in the Russia probe.[97][98][99]
On May 20, 2018, Trump criticized Mueller, tweeting “the World’s most expensive Witch Hunt has found nothing on Russia & me so now they are looking at the rest of the World!”[100] Mueller started investigating the August 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary for the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The emissary offered help to the Trump presidential campaign.[101][100] Mueller is also investigating the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Turkey, Qatar, Israel, and China.[102]
On December 18, 2018, the Washington Post published an article concerning a report prepared for the U.S. Senate which stated that Russian disinformation teams had targeted Mueller.[103]
On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and submitted the Special Counsel’s final report to Attorney General William Barr.[104] A senior Department of Justice official said that the report did not recommend any new indictments.[8] On March 24, Attorney General Barr submitted a summary of findings to the United States Congress. He stated in his letter, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russian in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Mueller’s report also reportedly did not take a stance on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice; Barr quoted Mueller as saying “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”[105]
On May 29, 2019, Mueller announced that he was retiring as special counsel and that the office would be shut down, and he spoke publicly about the report for the first time.[106] Saying “The report is my testimony,” he indicated he would have nothing to say that wasn’t already in the report. On the subject of obstruction of justice, he said “under long-standing Department [of Justice] policy, a president cannot be charged with a crime while he is in office.”[107]He repeated his official conclusion that the report neither accused nor exonerated the president, while adding that any potential wrongdoing by a president must be addressed by a “process other than the criminal justice system”.[108] Mueller reasserted the involvement of Russian operatives in the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and their parallel efforts to influence American public opinion using social media.[107] Referring to those actions, he declared that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”[109]
Robert Mueller was initially scheduled to publicly testify before two House committees on July 17, 2019, with two hours for lawmakers to ask questions, but the hearing was postponed to July 24 with a third hour added for questions.[110] His verbal testimony is expected to help inform the public—Democrats believe most Americans have not read the report—and to help Democratic leadership finally decide whether or not to impeach the President.[111]In particular, the Democrats aim to highlight what they consider to be the worst examples of Trump’s conduct. Representative Jamie Raskin from Maryland said he would use visual aids, such as posters, to help people understand the implications of the Mueller report.[112] Republicans, on the other hand, plan to question Mueller on the origins of this investigation.[113]
In 2001, Mueller’s Senate confirmation hearings to head the FBI were delayed several months while he underwent treatment for prostate cancer.[120] He was diagnosed in the fall of 2000, postponing being sworn in as FBI director until he received a good prognosis from his physician.[121]
Mueller and William Barr—the attorney general who supervised the late stage of Mueller’s special counsel investigation—have known each other since the 1980s and have been described as good friends. Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters, and their wives attend Bible study together.[123]
Military awards
Mueller received the following military awards and decorations:[30]
Story 1: President Trump Celebrated American Independence Day By A Patriotic History Address Praising America’s Achievements — America Haters, Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Critical of Speech With Predictable Progressive Propaganda — American People Salute America — Videos
President Trump COMPLETE REMARKS at July 4th “Salute to America” (C-SPAN)
Trump’s Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ | Special coverage
Donald Trump delivers July 4th Independence Day speech at the Lincoln Memorial
Watch All The Military Flyovers From President Donald Trump’s ‘Salute To America’ | NBC News
Watch Live: July 4th In Washington, Trump’s ‘Salute To America’ Military Event | NBC News
National Independence Day Parade: ABC News Live coverage
4th of July Parade in Washington D.C.
Trump’s July 4th speech heavy on history and military praise
Thousands Attend National 4th of July Parade in Washington D.C.
Full Show: Fireworks at 4th of July Celebration in Washington, DC 2019
4th of July fireworks light up sky in Washington, D.C.
4th of July Fireworks from Washington D.C.
Fourth of July fireworks from the Nation’s Capitol
Trump gets tanks, flyover for July 4th celebration
Trump reveals 4th of July celebration details
Left attacks first lady over reciting ‘The Lord’s Prayer’
Marc Thiessen says ‘Salute to America’ critics have ‘egg on their face’
Democratic hysteria proven wrong over Trump’s ‘Salute to America’
Proud Trump delivers patriotic July 4 speech invoking American exceptionalism as ‘one of the greatest stories ever told’ while he avoids politics amid a DC deluge and military flyovers and finishes with a spectacular fireworks display
Donald Trump braved rainy weather to deliver a speech at his Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ event in front of the Lincoln Memorial and behind a panel of bulletproof glass on Thursday evening in Washington, DC
The president struck an inspirational tone as he read pre-prepared remarks from a teleprompter, declaring that ‘our nation is stronger than it ever was before’ and ‘for Americans, nothing is impossible’
He recited a litany of American accomplishments over the nation’s history, including the moon landing
Trump also praised each branch of the military, highlighting their history and their accomplishments
He made the military the focal point of the night by bringing in tanks and organizing flyovers by Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, the US Navy Blue Angels, US Marine One and Air Force One
The event has been dampened by inclement weather as the sky opened up two hours before the event kicked off, sending thousands of revelers running for cover under umbrellas and pitched tents
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades with thousands flocking to the capital
But military chiefs were rumored to be concerned this year could turn out to be an overtly political affair
On Tuesday Trump had said ‘the Pentagon and our great Military Leaders are thrilled’ to participate
Thursday’s celebration had also been overshadowed by questions about how much it will cost taxpayers
But the president has insisted it will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes
PUBLISHED: 16:30 EDT, 4 July 2019 | UPDATED: 13:29 EDT, 5 July 2019
Donald Trump braved rainy weather to deliver a speech at his Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ event from behind a panel of bulletproof glass.
The president welcomed crowds on the National Mall to a ‘very special’ Fourth of July holiday before launching in his pre-prepared remarks.
‘Today we come together as one nation with this very special Salute to America,’ he told the sea of red, white and blue-clad revelers.
Trump listed off a number of American accomplishments throughout the nation’s history – including the Revolutionary War, the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement – and paid special tribute to each brand of the military, which he made the focal point of the festivities.
He offered a brief history of each branch and highlighted their accomplishments between cheers from the enthusiastic crowd.
‘We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag – the brave men and women of the United States military,’ he said.
As he paid tribute to each branch of the service, he also mentioned the branch he wants to see created under his presidency.
The president struck an inspirational tone as he read pre-prepared remarks from a teleprompter, declaring that ‘our nation is stronger than it ever was before’ and ‘for Americans, nothing is impossible’
The crowd erupted in cheers of ‘U-S-A! U-S-A!’ as Trump and Melania strutted onto the stage
Trump’s speech ended with the Blue Angels flying overhead
The Navy’s Blue Angels fly over the Lincoln Memorial with crowds watching big screens below
The president holds hands with the First Lady as he waves to spectators in front of the Lincoln Memorial yesterday
The president addressed the crowd on the Mall as the rain came down
Fireworks spell out USA over the Lincoln Memorial
The fireworks display capped off the evening in Washington D.C.’s Fourth of July celebration
A woman takes a picture from inside the Lincoln memorial as fireworks explode overhead on the National Mall
Planes from the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron perform a flyover during the celebrations
‘The Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and, very soon, the Space Force,’ he said, ticking off America’s armed services.
He even vowed to soon ‘plant the American flag on Mars.’
‘I want you to know that we are going to be back on the moon very soon, and someday soon we will plant the American flag on Mars,’ he said when he paid tribute to the work of NASA.
AIRCRAFT AND MILITARY VEHICLES PARTICIPATING IN JULY FOURTH
The president also incorporated flyovers into his remarks, timing it so the B-52 bomber, F-18 and F-35 fighter jets and osprey helicopters flew over as he paid tribute to the Army, Navy and Air Force.
The overhead flights particularly pleased the crowd, which cheered loudly when the aircraft appeared over head.
And, as he mentioned each military branch, a band played its theme song.
Critics charged the president with throwing a political rally on the nation’s birthday – a charge the White House fought back against.
But when Trump looked out at the crowd, he would see a similar sight to what he sees at his rally – a sea of red ‘Make America Great Again’ hats, which was his 2016 campaign theme.
Some supporters waved Trump campaign signs. Venders sold Trump campaign merchandise.
And the president touted the crowd’s size after reports Republicans were worried about light turnout due to the rainy weather and late planning with some even saying they feared a ‘Trump Inauguration 2.0’ when a fight broke out between the White House and press over the crowd size.
‘A great crowd of tremendous Patriots this evening, all the way back to the Washington Monument!,’ the president tweeted after he left the National Mall and was back at the White House.
It was Trump’s idea to have a heavy military presence during his ‘Salute to America.’
He took a hand in planning the celebration – which he vowed would be the ‘show of a lifetime’ – pushing to have tanks on display and American military planes flying overhead – a feat he pulled off, capped with Blue Angels soaring over his head as he wrapped up his speech.
He also praised the Gold Star families in the audience, thanking them for their sacrifice, and asked people to remember law enforcement officials.
‘Our nation has always honored the heroes who serve our communities. The firefighters, first responders, police, sheriffs, ICE, border patrol and all of the brave men and women of law enforcement. On this July 4th, we pay special tribute to the military service members who laid down their lives for our nation,’ he said.
And he encouraged young people to join the service during his 45 minute remarks.
‘To young Americans across our country, now is your chance to join our military and make a truly great statement in life,’ he said.
‘Our nation is its strongest today than it ever was before – it is its strongest now,’ he said to great applause, resulting in the crowds cheering: ‘USA, USA, USA.’
Trump wore a navy suit, a bright red tie, an American flag pin on his lapel and shiny black patent dress shoes while Melania tempted fate – given the weather – in a fresh white frock with rainbow stripes and hot pink pointed-toe pumps
Melania Trump (far left) joins Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen and the president’s daughter Tiffany at the event
The president stuck to a patriotic theme in his remarks
People wave flags and take photos as they watch Trump’s address on the National Mall under rainy weather
Trump offers a salute during his Fourth of July speech
Attendees cheered as the Blue Angels appeared
Trump’s speech was projected on a giant screen on the National Mall
QUOTES FROM TRUMP’S FOURTH OF JULY SPEECH
‘Today, we come together as ONE NATION with this very special Salute to America. We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag—the brave men and women of the United States Military!
As we gather this evening in the joy of freedom, we remember that we ALL share a truly extraordinary heritage.
That same American Spirit that emboldened our founders has kept us strong throughout our history. To this day, that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of YOU.
As long as we stay true to our cause — as long as we remember our great history—and as long as we never stop fighting for a better future — then there will be NOTHING that America cannot do.’
His remarks were peppered with famous American names – including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, the Wright Brothers, Frederick Douglass and Amelia Earhart – as he sought to pay tribute to the country’s history while emphasizing its greatness today.
He quoted Abraham Lincoln’s famous ‘Gettysburg Address’ and said the U.S. has the government ‘of, for and by the people.’
Trump, who spoke from the Lincoln Memorial, noted this was also where Martin Luther King made his famous ‘I have a Dream’ speech.
He spoke of the greatness of America invention – noting Alexander Bell, Red Cross founder Clara Barton, and the accomplishment of other famous Americans, adding: ‘Nothing is impossible.’
Trump, who built his career on real estate, spoke of the America’s construction victories like skyscrapers and bridges.
‘Americans always take care of each other,’ he said.
He noted this year was the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote and paid tribute to the Civil Rights movement.
Trump spoke as rain trickled down from the sky onto his festivities. Crowds still swarmed the reflecting pool around the Lincoln Memorial and there was a heavy security presence – people waited up to six blocks to get through the mags.
The president, the first to address a crowd at the National Mall on Independence Day in nearly seven decades, kept his remarks focused on patriotism after the White House defended his event as a celebration of America instead of a political rally.
‘That same American spirit that emboldened our founders has kept us strong throughout our history.’
‘To this date that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of you.’
‘Today just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American Freedom rests on the shoulders of the men and women willing to defend it,’ he added.
Fireworks are lit near the White House during Fourth of July celebration
Fireworks capped off the evening
Trump got an enthusiastic greeting from the crowd, who yelled ‘USA, USA’ as he and the first lady walked on stage.
‘As long was we stay true to our cause – as long as we remember our great history – and as long as we never stop fighting for a better future – then there will e nothing that America cannot do,’ he said.
‘We will never forget that we are Americans and the future belongs to us. The future belongs to the brave, the strong, the proud and the free. We are one people chasing one dream and one magnificent destiny.’
At the end of his speech Trump invited the military band to play a formal rendition Lee Greenwood’s Proud To Be An American – one of his favorites — as a Navy Blue Angel plane flew overhead.
He shook hands with some military officials and waved before exiting the stage.
After Trump’s event, a Fourth of July concert featuring Carole King and cast members from Sesame Street took place down the National Mall at the U.S. Capitol building.
King sang ‘Natural Woman’ and John Stamos – the host of the ‘Capitol Fourth’ contest – had playful interactions with the puppet characters, which included Big Bird, Burt and Ernie.
Both events were followed by a firework display.
The display was not without controversy this year.
To accommodate the flyovers and the fireworks display, President Trump closed down Washington D.C.’s Reagan National Airport, causing several flight delays.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced that flights would be grounded from National, which is close to the center of D.C., during the flypast, from 6.15pm to 7.15pm, and for the fireworks, from 9pm to 9.45pm.
It will be the first time the airport has ever been closed for the annual July 4 fireworks, whose launch site was moved closer to the airport to accommodate Trump’s speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Instead of being launched from its traditional location alongside the Lincoln Memorial’s reflecting pool, the fireworks were launched from a barge in the Potomac.
The firework display was twice as long this year after the White House got two fireworks companies to donate to the show.
Down the mall at the U.S. Capitol, ‘A Capitol Fourth’ host John Stamos took a selfie with Big Bird
The presidential Air Force One flew over the festivities as Trump arrived
Marine One did a flyover as the US Coast Guard sang
A view of the National Mall during Trump’s speech
Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen hold their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem
Trump reached his hand up to the sky inspecting falling raindrops as he and Melania made their way toward the stage
Both Trump and Melania’s tresses appeared soggy from the rain by the conclusion of the president’s speech
Melania Trump was on her husband’s arm as the President’s “Salute to America” got underway for the Fourth of July in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Washington, D.C. has always had Independence Day celebrations with plenty of concerts and fireworks. But this year was the first year in decades that a president has given a speech.
For her part, Melania chose to wear an American designer, Carolina Herrera, to celebrate the holiday. However, it wasn’t exactly a red-white-and-blue dress, but a multicolored striped flare dress on a white background with an off-the shoulder design. It was a summery choice.
Several attendees wore red ‘Make America Great Again’ caps
The event has been dampened by inclement weather as the sky opened up two hours before it kicked off, sending thousands of revelers running for cover under umbrellas and pitched tents.
On Thursday morning the National Weather Service issued several severe thunderstorm warnings for various Maryland counties and a flash flood watch effective until 8pm in DC.
Despite the weather reports, loyal crowds still gathered on the Mall, excited to see the president’s promised ‘show of a lifetime’ that boasted tanks parked by the Lincoln Memorial, marching bands, loyal followers and protesters with the president’s ‘baby blimp’.
The rain dampened the parade festivities as visitors were seen camping out with dismal expressions as they struggled to keep dry in their plastic rain ponchos and umbrellas.
Protesters were out and about during the day.
At the White House, two people were arrested for burning a flag before Trump left to give his speech.
Political activist Gregory Lee ‘Joey’ Johnson was one of the people taken away in handcuffs during the demonstration outside of the White House two before the president’s celebration is set to kick off, someone confirmed on his Twitter account.
Johnson is a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party – also known as RevCom – which organized Thursday’s protest outside of the White House, where the group chanted: ‘Imagine A World Without America. Fight For A World Without America!’
But, for Trump, the show went on.
Calling his event a ‘Salute to America’ honoring the armed forces, the president tweeted Thursday morning to say he is expecting many attendees for the event which will ‘be well worth the trip and wait.’
The president wrote: ‘Looks like a lot of people already heading to SALUTE TO AMERICA at Lincoln Memorial. It will be well worth the trip and wait. See you there at 6:00 P.M. Amazing music and bands. Thank you ARMY!’
Officers extinguished the burning flag after breaking up the hoard of demonstrators
Two people have been arrested during a flag burning protest in front of the White House ahead of Donald Trump’s ‘Salute to America’ Fourth of July celebration in Washington, DC, on Thursday
Don’t rain on my parade! Rain has started to pour on the thousands lined up on Capitol Hill for Donald Trump’s Fourth of July military parade that he boasted will be the ‘show of a lifetime’. A sculpture of Trump sitting on a toilet as the downpour began pictured above
Rain, rain go away: Fourth of July revelers decked out in red white and blue had no choice but to stand in the rain Thursday
Stormy weather: This morning the National Weather Service issued several severe thunderstorm warnings for various Maryland counties and a flash flood watch effective until 8pm in DC
Revelers sat down in in plastic rain ponchos in a feeble attempt to stay dry during Thursday’s deluge
This couple camped out on the ground and tried to keep dry under the shade of their umbrellas in the storm
Drenched: This couple took cover under an umbrella after the rain began to pound down
Just a bit of drizzle! These people didn’t let the rain stop their fun and took a smiling selfie in the storm
Poncho season! These people smiled for the camera as they sat in the rain and waited for Trump’s speech
A Bradley Fighting Vehicle pictured drenched with rain on Thursday in the deluge
Over it: This woman took cover in her red MAGA hat and blue Trump flag
Can’t stop the party: Instead of going home these folks decided to camp out and wait for the rain to pass
he rain may affect the parade, but it seems Trump’s televised speech will proceed as scheduled at 6pm
Revelers took cover under umbrellas and hats as the rain hit the Lincoln memorial
As marchers walked in the National Independence Day Parade, onlookers whipped out their umbrellas to block the rain
The show must go on! The Marine Silent Drill Team pictured performing in the rain on Thursday
Storm’s brewin! The sky turned an eerie shade Thursday afternoon amid the Fourth of July festivities
Two Bradley fighting vehicles were also in place Wednesday at the Lincoln Memorial, where Trump spoke.
In addition, two 60-ton Army Abrams battle tanks were sent to Washington by rail to be positioned on or near the National Mall, to the dismay of District of Columbia officials.
Soldiers have been pictured working on an armored tanks in front of the Lincoln Memorial as other military vehicles have been pictured in the area.
Workers spent this week constructing a stage around the Lincoln Memorial where Trump spoke, while tourists wandered in between the construction to see one of the most popular monuments in the city.
A balloon is carried in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC
People gather to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. The president tweeted to say he is expecting big crowds in DC Thursday evening, writing: ‘Looks like a lot of people already heading to SALUTE TO AMERICA at Lincoln Memorial. It will be well worth the trip and wait. See you there at 6:00 P.M. Amazing music and bands. Thank you ARMY!’
A US Army soldier works on an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle on display in front of the Lincoln Memorial for US Independence Day celebrations on the National Mall in Washington. The ‘Salute to America’ Fourth of July activities include remarks by US President Trump, a parade, military flyovers and fireworks
US Army soldiers position a M1 Abrams main battle tank into position. Trump has promised the ‘show of a lifetime’ to celebrate Fourth of July where the president is scheduled to speak
US Army soldiers walk by an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Not since 1951, when President Harry Truman spoke before a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds to mark the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, has a commander in chief made an Independence Day speech to a sizable crowd on the Mall
Protester Jim Girvan moves a Baby Trump balloon into position before Independence Day celebrations, as those opposed to the president are ready to make their voices heard on Fourth of July
A Trump supporter stands alongside people gathered for the Independence Day parade ahead of the president’s speech
Supporters of Trump join others to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
People move a statue depicting U.S. President Donald Trump sitting on a golden toilet. Anti-war group Code Pink said, as part of its protest of the president’s politicization of July Fourth, it would bring the Trump Baby Blimp ballon and this 16-foot statue
Miss Maryland, Mariela Pepin, rides in an open-top vehicle during Fourth of July Independence Day celebrations in D.C
Crowds have lined the streets of DC for Trump’s Fourth of July military parade after the president promised ‘show of a lifetime’ with tanks parked by the Lincoln Memorial, marching bands, loyal fans and protesters with the president’s ‘baby blimp’
In a sweltering capital threatened by storms, the traditional Fourth of July parade Thursday served as a warm-up act to a distinctly nontraditional evening event at the Lincoln Memorial, where President Donald Trump made plans to command the stage against the backdrop of a show of military muscle.
It’s been nearly seven decades since a president spoke there on Independence Day.
Trump tweeted Thursday to say he is expecting big crowds in DC ahead of his military spectacular
The U.S. was at war in Korea when Harry Truman addressed a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds, marking the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Military chiefs are rumored to be concerned the July Fourth extravaganza could turn out to be an overtly political affair, putting them in violation of Defense Department policy.
On Tuesday Trump had said ‘the Pentagon and our great Military Leaders are thrilled’ to participate.
Thursday’s celebration has also been shadowed by questions about how much it will cost taxpayers.
But the president has insisted that the event will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes.
‘We own the planes, we have the pilots, the airport is right next door (Andrews), all we need is the fuel,’ he said, referring to Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews, home for some of the planes that are to fly over the Mall on Thursday. ‘We own the tanks and all. Fireworks are donated by two of the greats.’
Thunderstorms have threatened the celebrations with periods of ‘torrential rain’ forecast by the National Weather Service
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes. He sounded a defensive note Wednesday, tweeting the cost ‘will be very little compared to what it is worth’
In a message marking the 243rd anniversary of the Founding Fathers’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Trump called the document a milestone that ‘cast off the shackles of tyranny’
Trump is promising the ‘show of a lifetime’ for the hundreds of thousands of revelers who flock to the National Mall every year. US Army soldiers are pictured positioning a M1 Abrams main battle tank into position at the Lincoln Memorial
The tanks are in place for the display of military muscle, including this M1 Abrams main battle tank into position at the Lincoln Memorial for US Independence Day celebrations
Under White House direction, the Pentagon was arranging for an Air Force B-2 stealth bomber and other warplanes to conduct flyovers. Soldiers work on an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle on display in front of the Lincoln Memorial
There will be Navy F-35 and F-18 fighter jets, the Navy Blue Angels aerobatics team, Army and Coast Guard helicopters and Marine V-22 Ospreys
+92
A crowd watches Independence Day celebrations in Washington. Trump set himself up to be the first president in nearly seven decades to address a crowd at the National Mall on Independence Day
+92
In February, Trump tweeted for the public to ‘HOLD THE DATE!’ for this Fourth of July and the president’s supporters have welcomed his stamp on the holiday
A participant in the the Independence Day parade holds an American flag and a picture of President Donald Trump
+92
People prepare a balloon for the Independence Day parade. The president has insisted the event will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes
A jump rope team participates in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. The traditional Fourth of July parade Thursday served as a warm-up act to a distinctly nontraditional evening event at the Lincoln Memorial
Share
Trump’s original tweet with his ‘Aircraft One’ mistake pictured above
After he received a flood of comments calling him out for his blunder, he deleted the flub tweet and tweeted this correction calling it Air Force One
Protesters unimpressed by his ‘Salute to America’ program inflated a roly-poly balloon depicting Trump as an angry, diaper-clad baby.
In the shadow of the Washington Monument, the anti-war organization Codepink erected a 20-foot tall ‘Trump baby’ balloon to protest what it called the president’s co-opting of Independence Day.
But the president’s supporters welcomed Trump’s stamp on the holiday.
Rachel McKenna, a Trump supporter from McKinney, Texas, said her relatives have served in the military and she thought it was important to say ‘We love you guys, we appreciate everything you do, and I love the fact I can see that,’ as she pointed to the Bradley fighting vehicle positioned near the Lincoln Memorial.
‘I’ve never ever seen one,’ she said. ‘I just think it’s so cool.’
He was savagely mocked on Twitter Thursday morning for tweeting ‘Aircraft One’ instead of ‘Air Force One’ while touting the elaborate military parade plans.
The president tweeted that people would come from far and wide for the celebration ‘culminating with large scale flyovers of the most modern and advanced aircraft anywhere in the World. Perhaps even Aircraft One will do a low & loud sprint over the crowd’.
The president’s aircraft is known as Air Force One when he’s on it, not Aircraft One.
Twitter users eviscerated the president for the slip-up, joking that Aircraft One is the unofficial name of Putin’s jet.
Trump then deleted his flub tweet and posted a new one, this time calling the aircraft Air Force One.
In a message marking the 243rd anniversary of the Founding Fathers’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Trump called the document a milestone that ‘cast off the shackles of tyranny’.
A US Marine Corps unit participates in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
People carry U.S. flags as they take part in a parade during Fourth of July Independence Day celebrations in Washington, D.C
US Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps participate in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
Independence Day revellers pose in front of a Humvee parked on a street in Washington, DC
Two Bradley fighting vehicles were in place Wednesday at the Lincoln Memorial, where Trump will speak. In addition, two 60-ton Army Abrams battle tanks were sent to Washington by rail to be positioned on or near the National Mall, to the dismay of District of Columbia officials
The presidential Air Force One and Marine One aircraft are also slated to make aerial appearances. White House officials have stressed that Trump’s remarks will be patriotic
Trump originally wanted a parade with military tanks and other machinery rolling through downtown Washington ever since he was enthralled by a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017
A giant inflatable blimp depicting Uncle Sam during Independence Day celebrations
A ‘Trump Baby’ balloon, set up by members of the CodePink group as protesters also descend on the National Mall
A supporter of President Donald Trump makes her way through a security checkpoint before Independence Day celebrations
A supporter of Trump joins others to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument
Trump originally wanted a parade with military tanks and other machinery rolling through downtown Washington ever since he was enthralled by a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017.
Later that year Trump said he’d have a similar parade in Washington on the Fourth of July, 2018, and would ‘top’ the Paris show. The event ended up being pushed to Veterans Day, which conflicted with one of Trump’s trips abroad, before it was scuttled after cost estimates exceeding $90 million were made public.
In February, Trump tweeted for the public to ‘HOLD THE DATE!’ for this Fourth of July.
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument.
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes.
READ TRUMP’S FULL SPEECH AT HIS SALUTE TO AMERICA ON JULY 4 AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Hello, America. Hello. The First Lady and I wish each and every one of you a Happy Independence Day on this truly historic Fourth of July.
Today we come together as one nation with this very special salute to America. We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag, the brave men and women of the United States military.
We are pleased to have with us Vice President Mike Pence and his wonderful wife, Karen. We’re also joined by many hard-working members of Congress, Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and many other members of my Cabinet and also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Daniel Hokanson of the National Guard, and distinguished leaders representing each branch of the United States armed forces: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and – very soon – the Space Force.
As we gather this evening, in the joy of freedom, we remember that all share a truly extraordinary heritage.
Together, we are part of one of the greatest stories ever told: the story of America. It is the epic tale of a great nation whose people have risked everything for what they know is right, and what they know is true. It is the chronicle of brave citizens who never give up on the dream of a better and brighter future.
And it is the saga of 13 separate colonies that united to form the most just and virtuous Republic ever conceived. On this day, 243 years ago, our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare independence and defend our God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the words that forever changed the course of humanity: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
With a single sheet of parchment, and 56 signatures, America began the greatest political journey in human history.
But on that day the patriots, who would determine the ultimate success of the struggle, were 100 miles away in New York. There, the Continental Army prepared to make its stand commanded by the beloved General George Washington. As the delegates debated the Declaration in Philadelphia, Washington’s army watched from Manhattan as a massive British invading fleet loomed dangerously across New York harbor.
The British had come to crush the Revolution in its infancy. Washington’s message to his troops laid bare the stakes, He wrote: “The fate of unborn millions will now depend under God on the courage and conduct of this army. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.” Days later, General Washington ordered the Declaration read aloud to the troops, the assembled soldiers just joined an excited crowd running down Broadway, they toppled a statue of King George and melted it into bullets for battle.
The faraway king would soon learn a timeless lesson about the people of this majestic land: Americans love our freedom, and no one will ever take it away from us. That same American spirit that emboldened our Founders has kept us strong throughout our history.
To this day, that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of you here today.
It is the spirit, daring and defiance, excellence and adventure, courage and confidence, loyalty and love that built this country into the most exceptional nation in the history of the world and our nation is stronger today than it ever was before. It is its strongest now.
That same righteous American spirit forged our glorious constitution, that rugged American character led the legendary explorers Lewis and Clark on their perilous expedition across an untamed continent. It drove others to journey West and stake out their claim on the wild frontier. Devotion to our founding ideals led American patriots to abolish the evil of slavery, secure civil rights and expand the blessings of liberty to all Americans.
This is the noble purpose that inspired Abraham Lincoln to rededicate our nation to a new birth of freedom and to resolve that we will always have a government of, by and for the people. Our quest for greatness, unleashed a culture of discovery that led Thomas Edison to imagine his light bulb, Alexander Graham Bell to create the telephone, the Wright brothers to look to the sky, and see the next great frontier.
For Americans, nothing is impossible. Exactly 50 years ago this month, the world watched in awe as Apollo 11, astronauts launched into space with a wake of fire and nerves of steel, and planted our great American flag on the face of the moon. Half a century later we are thrilled to have here tonight the famed NASA flight director, who led Mission Control during that historic endeavor, the renowned Gene Krantz.
Gene, I want you to know that we’re going to be back on the moon very soon and someday soon, we will plant the American flag on Mars.It’s happening Gene, it’s happening.
Our nation’s creativity and genius lit up the lights of Broadway and the soundstages of Hollywood. It filled the concert halls and airwaves around the world with the sound of jazz, opera, country, rock n’roll, and rhythm and blues.
It gave birth to the musical, the motion picture, the Western, the World Series, the Super Bowl, the skyscraper, the suspension bridge, the assembly line and the mighty American automobile. It led our citizens to push the bounds of medicine and science to save the lives of millions. Here with us this evening is Dr. Emmanuel Freireich.
When Emmanuel began his work 99 percent of children with leukaemia died. Thanks largely to Dr. Freireich’s breakthrough treatments, currently 90 percent of those with the most common childhood leukaemias survive. Doctor, you are a great American hero, thank you.
Americans always take care of each other. That love and unity held together the first Pilgrims, it forged communities on the Great Plains, it inspired Clara Barton to found the Red Cross, and it keeps our nation thriving today.
Here tonight from the Florida Panhandle is Tina Belcher. Her selfless generosity over three decades has made her known to all as Mrs. Angel. Every time a hurricane strikes Mrs. Angel turns her tiny kitchen into a disaster relief center. On a single day after Hurricane Michael, she gave 476 people a warm meal. Mrs. Angel, your boundless heart inspires us all. Thank you. Thank you very much.
From our earliest days, Americans of faith have uplifted our nation. This evening we’re joined by Sister Deirdre Byrne.
Sister Byrne is a retired Army surgeon who served for nearly 30 years. On September 11, 2001, the sister raced to Ground Zero. Through smoke and debris, she administered first aid and comfort to all. Today Sister Byrne runs a medical clinic serving the poor in our nation’s capital. Sister, thank you for your lifetime of service. Thank you.
Our nation has always honored the heroes who serve our communities, the firefighters, first responders, police, sheriffs, ICE, Border Patrol, and all of the brave men and women of law enforcement. On this July 4, we pay special tribute to the military service members who laid down their lives for our nation. We are deeply moved to be in the presence this evening of Gold Star families whose loved ones made the supreme sacrifice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Throughout our history, our country has been made ever greater by citizens who risked it all for equality and for justice. One hundred years ago this summer, the women’s suffrage movement led Congress to pass the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.
In 1960, a thirst for justice led African American students to sit down at the Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. It was one of the very first civil rights sit-ins and it started a movement all across our nation.
Clarence Henderson was 18 years old when he took his place in history. Almost six decades later he is here tonight in a seat of honor. Clarence, thank you for making this country a much better place for all America.
In 1963, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. stood here on these very steps and called on our nation to live out the true meaning of its creed, and let freedom ring for every citizen all across our land.
America’s fearless resolve has inspired heroes who defined our national character from George Washington, John Adams, and Betsy Ross, to Douglass, you know, Frederick Douglass, the great Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Jackie Robinson. And of course, John Glenn.
It has willed our warriors up mountains and across minefields. It has liberated continents split the atom, and brought tyrants and empires to their knees. Here with us this evening is Earl Morse. After retiring from the Air Force, Earl worked at a VA hospital in Ohio. Earl found that many World War Two veterans could not afford to visit their Memorial on the National Mall.
So Earl began the very first honor flights that have now brought over 200,000 World War two heroes to visit America’s monument. Earl, thank you. We salute you. Thank you. Thank you, Earl. Thank you.
Our warriors form a hallowed roll call of American patriots running all the way back to the first souls who fought and one American independence.
Today, just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American freedom rests on the shoulders of men and women willing to defend it. We are proudly joined tonight by heroes from each branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, including three recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Thank you. They and thousands before us served with immense distinction, and they loved every minute of that service.
To young Americans across our country, now is your chance to join our military and make a truly great statement in life, and you should do it.
We will now begin our celebration of the United States Armed Forces, honoring each branch’s unique culture, rich history, service song, and distinct legacy. I invite Acting Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman Dunford, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Please join me. In August of 1790, by request of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, Congress established a fleet of 10 swift vessels to defend our shores. These Revenue cutters would fight pirates, stop smugglers and safeguard our borders.
They are the ancestors of our faithful Coast Guard. When our ships were seized and sailors kidnapped by foreign powers in 1812, it was a Revenue cutter the swift schooner Thomas Jefferson, that swept into capture the first British vessel of the war.
In 1897, when 265 whalers were trapped in ice and the ice fields of Alaska were closing up, courageous officers trekked 1,500 miles through the frozen frontier to rescue those starving men from certain death. In 1942, the Coast Guard manned landing craft for invasions in the Pacific
When the enemy attacked U.S. Marines from the shores of Guadalcanal Coast Guard Signalman First Class, Douglas Monroe, used his own boat to shield his comrades from pounding gunfire. Monroe gave his life. Hundreds of Marines were saved. As he lay dying on the deck, his final question embodied the devotion that sails with every Coast Guardsman: “Did they get off?”
On D Day the Coast Guards famous matchbox fleet served valiantly through every hour of the greatest amphibious invasion in the history of our country.
One coxswain said the water boiled with bullets like a mud puddle in hailstones, but still the Coast Guard braved death to put our boys on Utah and Omaha Beaches. Every Coast Guardsman is trusted to put service before all. Coasties plunge from helicopters and barrel through pouring rain and crashing waves to save American lives.
They secure our borders from drug runners and terrorists in rough seas at high speeds. Their sharpshooters take out smugglers’ engines with a single shot – they never miss. When the red racing stripes of a Coast Guard vessel break the horizon, when their chopper blades pierce the sky, those in distress know that the help is on their way and our enemies know their time has come.
These guardians of our waters stand Semper Peratus. They are always ready. They are the United States Coast Guard.
Representing the Coast Guard today you will soon see an HH-60 Jayhawk helicopter, based at Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, along with an HH-65 Dolphin from Air Station Atlantic City and an HC-144 Ocean Sentry from Air Station Miami.
Thank you. Thank you to the Coast Guard.
On a cold December morning in 1903, a miracle occurred over the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, when two bicycle makers from Ohio defied gravity with a 12 horsepower engine, wings made of cotton, and just a few dollars in their pockets. Just six years later, America was training its first pilots to take these magnificent machines up and over the field of battle.
In World War One, our Fly Boys rush the skies of Europe, and aces like Eddie Rickenbacker filled hearts and headlines with tales of daring duels in the clouds. General Billy Mitchell saw the promise of this technology and risked court-martial in his quest for an independent Air Force. He was proven right when empires across the oceans tried to carve up the world for themselves and America stood in the way – we wouldn’t let it happen.
After Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle and his Raiders flew B-25 bombers off a carrier deck in the deep Pacific in a daring feat of American resolve. And as President Roosevelt said, the Nazis built the fortress around Europe, but they forgot to put a roof on it. So we crushed them all from the air. 177 Liberator bombers flew dangerously low through broad daylight without fighter protection to cripple the Nazi war machine at Ploiești. 300 Airmen gave their lives to destroy the enemy oil refineries and five pilots were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their actions in that single raid.
It was Airman Chuck Yeager, who first broke the sound barrier. It was airmen like Gus Chris and Buzz Aldrin who traded their Sabrejets for rockets to the stars. And It is our incredible airmen today who will the most powerful weapon systems on the planet earth.
For over 65 years, no enemy air force has managed to kill a single American soldier because the skies belong to the United States of America. No enemy has attacked our people without being met by a roar of thunder. And the aesome of those who bid farewell to earth and soar into the wild blue yonder. They are the United States Air Force.
Representing the Air Force you will soon see beautiful brand new F-22 Raptors from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, and one magnificent B-2 stealth bomber from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
What a great country.
In October of 1775, the Continental Congress ordered the construction of two swift sailing vessels, each carrying 10 cannons and 80 men to sail eastward. Our young fleet tested their sea legs against the most powerful Navy the world has ever seen.
John Paul Jones, America’s first great naval hero, said: ‘I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm’s way.’ He got his wish, many times, when a ship was shot into pieces off the coast of England by a British vessel and her four dozen guns. When demanded to surrender, Jones very famously declared: “I have not yet begun to fight.”
When our Navy begins fighting, they finish the job. In the War of 1812, Captain James Lawrence fell with his brothers on the USS Chesapeake.His dying command gained immortality: ‘Don’t give up the ship.’
In the Battle of Mobile Bay, Admiral David Farragut lashed himself to the rigging of his flagship to see beyond the cannon smoke, crying: ‘Damn the torpedoes Full speed ahead.’
In World War Two, it was aviators launched from the carrier Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, who filled the skies of Midway and turned the tide of the Pacific War. Nobody could beat us. Nobody could come close. On D-Day, SeaBee engineers came ashore to destroy blockades and barriers making way for the invasion.
Many lost their lives but they took the German defenses with them. And our men crashed upon the beaches like a mighty storm.
From the naval demolition units of World War Two arose a force that became famous in the Mekong Delta. They don’t want to see our force again. The very best of the very best, the Navy SEALs. It was the SEALs who delivered vengeance on the terrorists who planned the September 11 attack on our homeland. It was the SEALS who stand ready to bring righteous retribution in mountain, jungle, desert to those who do us harm.
America’s sailors are not born. They are forged by the sea. Their traditions are rich with the salt and blood of three centuries.
When Old Glory crests the waves of foreign shores, every friend and every phone knows that justice sails those waters. It sails with the United States Navy.
Representing our great Navy today will be two F-18 Super Hornets from Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia, along with two F-35 Lightnings from Naval Air Station Lamar in California.
So great.
In November of 1775, the Continental Congress created two battalions of a new kind of warrior, one who kept and would protect our ships and sailors and be at home both the shore and the mast, with musket in hand.
They’re versatile. It was proven in the War of Independence when 234 Continental Marines conducted their first amphibious raid, capturing the British supply of gunpowder and cannons at Fort Nassau. Ever since Marines have fought in every American war. Their legend has grown and grown and grown with each passing year.
It was the Marines who won America’s first overseas battle vanquishing Barbary pirates on the shores of Tripoli. Their high stiff collar, which shielded them from the pirate sword earned them the immortal name Leatherneck. It was the Marines who after two long days of battle marched through the halls of Montezuma, it was the Marines who took heavy casualties to kick the Kaiser’s troops out of Belleau Wood in World War I, earning the title Devil Dogs.
And it was the Marines who raised the flag on the black sands of Iwo Jima.
From The Chosin Reservoir to Khe Sanh from Helmand to Baghdad, Marines have struck fear into the hearts of our enemies and put solace into the hearts of our friends. Marines always lead the way.
After the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which claimed the lives of 241 great U.S. servicemen, Marine Sergeant Jeffrey Nashton lay in bandages, so badly wounded, barely alive. When the Commandant of the Marine Corps came to visit his hospital, Sergeant Nashton had to feel for the General’s collar. He wanted to feel his four stars. He could not see and he could not speak. He signaled for pen and paper and with shaking hand he wrote two words: Semper Fi. That motto, Semper Fidelis, always faithful, burns in the soul of every Marine, a sacred promise the corps has kept since the birth of our country.
They are the elite masters of air and land and sea, on battlefields all across the globe. They are the United States Marines.
Representing the Marine Corps today will be a brand new VH-92, soon to serve as Marine One, along with two V-22 Ospreys from the famed HMX-1 helicopter squadron at Quantico, the Nighthawks.
In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief. The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown.
Our army manned the airs, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory. And when dawn came there, the star Spangled Banner waved defiant. At Shiloh, Antietam and Gettysburg, our soldiers gave the last full measure of devotion for the true unity of our nation and the freedom of all Americans.
In the trenches of World War One, an Army sergeant named Alvin York faced an inferno of enemy fire and refused to retreat. He said: “I won’t leave, I won’t stop.” He shot his rifle 18 times killing 18 of the enemy. When they fixed bayonets and charged, he killed seven more. The entire German machine gun battalion surrendered because of one man: Alvin York.
A generation later, the Army returned to Europe and embarked upon a great crusade with knives and rifles in hand. The Rangers scaled the cliffs of Normandy, the 101st Airborne leapt into the danger from above, illuminated only by enemy flares, explosions and burning aircraft. They threw back the Nazi empire with lightning of their own from the turrets of Sherman tanks and the barrels of the M-1 rifle. In the darkness of the Battle of the Bulge, with Nazis on every side, one soldier is reported to have said: “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”
Outnumbered American warriors fought through the bunkers of Pork Chop Hill, and held the line of civilization in Korea. In the elephant grass of Vietnam, the First Cavalry made its stand amid a forest consumed in flame with enemies at every single turn.
The army brought America’s righteous fury down to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and cleared the bloodthirsty killers from their caves. They liberated Fallujah and Mosul and helped liberate and obliterate the ISIS caliphate just recently in Syria – 100 percent gone. Through centuries, our soldiers have always pointed toward home proclaiming: ‘We will defend.’
They live by the creed of Douglas MacArthur in World War: ‘There is no substitute for victory.’ They are the greatest soldiers on Earth.
Nearly 250 years ago, a volunteer army of farmers and shopkeepers, blacksmiths, merchants and militiamen risked life and limb to secure American liberty, and self-government. This evening, we have witnessed the noble might of the warriors who continue that legacy.
They guard our birthright with vigilance and fierce devotion to the flag and to our great country. Now, we must go forward as a nation with that same unity of purpose. As long as we stay true to our course, as long as we remember our great history, as long as we never, ever, stop fighting for a better future, then there will be nothing that America can not do. Thank you.
We will always be the people who defeated a tyrant, crossed a continent, harnessed science, took to the skies and soared into the heavens, because we will never forget that we are Americans, and the future belongs to us. The future belongs to the brave, the strong, the proud and the free. We are one people chasing one dream and one magnificent destiny. We all share the same heroes, the same home, the same heart. And we are all made by the same Almighty God. From the banks of the Chesapeake, to the cliffs of California, from the humming shores of the Great Lakes, to the sand dunes of the Carolinas, from the fields of the heartland, to the Everglades of Florida, the spirit of American independence will never fade, never fail, but will reign forever and ever and ever.
So once more, to every citizen throughout our land, have a glorious Independence Day. Have a great Fourth of July. I want to thank the Army Band, the National Park Service, the Interior Department, the incredible pilots overhead, and those who are making possible the amazing fireworks display later this evening.
Now as the band plays the Battle Hymn of the Republic, I invite the First Lady, Vice President and Mrs. Pence, the service secretaries and military leaders to join me on stage for one more salute to America by the famous, incredible, talented Blue Angels. God Bless you. God bless the military, and God bless America. Happy Fourth of July.
The real reason why the left was against Donald Trump’s July 4 speech
Gary Varvel, Opinion contributorPublished 7:45 a.m. ET July 5, 2019 | Updated 7:51 a.m. ET July 5, 2019
It was not because it was political or partisan. It was patriotic and that is what annoys the left the most.
Several days before the speech, we heard that Trump was hijacking Independence Day and turning it into a campaign rally. But Trump never mentioned the 2020 campaign in his speech.
We heard that Trump’s desire to have tanks on the National Mall was an out-and-out authoritarian performance art. But that wasn’t really the issue. Neither was the fake outrage over the cost.
There was no mention of political opponents and no mention of the fake news media. And this wasn’t Trump co-opting the nation’s birthday to celebrate himself. In fact, for a man who loves to talk about his accomplishments, he never mentioned himself.
No, Trump did something far more dangerous to the left. He gave America a strong dose of patriotism. He gave Americans a history lesson on the great people, heroes and their great accomplishments over the last 243 years.
Earlier in the week, The New York Times ran a video arguing America isn’t the greatest nation on Earth, “the U.S. is really just O.K.”
Without mentioning The Times or the video, Trump proceeded to tell us about America’s greatness for nearly an hour interrupted only by applause, flyovers and military songs. At one point, I thought “who is this guy and what have they done with President Trump?”
“Today, we come together as One Nation with this very special Salute To America,” said Trump. “We celebrate our history, our people and the heroes who proudly defend our flag — the brave men and women of the United States Military!”
And boy, did he. Starting with the story of America’s war for independence, Trump quoted the words and deeds of Americans that have long been forgotten but need to be remembered.
Trump told the story of Gen. George Washington as he readied his troops to fight the British invasion. Trump said, “Washington’s message to his troops laid bare the stakes, He wrote, ‘The fate of unborn millions will now depend under God on the courage and conduct of this army, we have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.’”
The Lee Resolution for independence was passed on July 2 with no opposing votes. The Committee of Five had drafted the Declaration to be ready when Congress voted on independence. John Adams, a leader in pushing for independence, had persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which Congress edited to produce the final version. The Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. Adams wrote to his wife Abigail, “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America”[3] – although Independence Day is actually celebrated on July 4, the date that the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved.
After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as the printed Dunlap broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The source copy used for this printing has been lost and may have been a copy in Thomas Jefferson’s hand.[4]Jefferson’s original draft is preserved at the Library of Congress, complete with changes made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, as well as Jefferson’s notes of changes made by Congress. The best-known version of the Declaration is a signed copy that is displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and which is popularly regarded as the official document. This engrossed copy (finalized, calligraphic copy) was ordered by Congress on July 19 and signed primarily on August 2.[5][6]
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing 27 colonial grievances against King George III and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Its original purpose was to announce independence, and references to the text of the Declaration were few in the following years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his policies and his rhetoric, as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”,[7] containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history”.[8] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy and argued that it is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[9]
The Declaration of Independence inspired many similar documents in other countries, the first being the 1789 Declaration of United Belgian States issued during the Brabant Revolution in the Austrian Netherlands. It also served as the primary model for numerous declarations of independence in Europe and Latin America, as well as Africa (Liberia) and Oceania (New Zealand) during the first half of the 19th century.[10]
Contents
Background
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
By the time that the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations had been deteriorating between the colonies and the mother country since 1763. Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase revenue from the colonies, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767. Parliament believed that these acts were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep them in the British Empire.[12]
Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. The colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, and colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. This tax dispute was part of a larger divergence between British and American interpretations of the British Constitution and the extent of Parliament’s authority in the colonies.[13] The orthodox British view, dating from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so, by definition, anything that Parliament did was constitutional.[14] In the colonies, however, the idea had developed that the British Constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government could violate, not even Parliament.[15] After the Townshend Acts, some essayists even began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[16]Anticipating the arrangement of the British Commonwealth,[17] by 1774 American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.[18]
Congress convenes
The issue of Parliament’s authority in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts (known as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies) in 1774 to punish the colonists for the Gaspee Affair of 1772 and the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and thus a threat to the liberties of all of British America, so the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in September 1774 to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George and the ministry of Prime Minister Lord North were determined to enforce parliamentary supremacy in America. As the king wrote to North in November 1774, “blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent”.[19]
Most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain, even after fighting began in the American Revolutionary War at Lexington and Concord in April 1775.[20] The Second Continental Congress convened at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia in May 1775, and some delegates hoped for eventual independence, but no one yet advocated declaring it.[21] Many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, yet they still professed loyalty to King George, who they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were disappointed in late 1775 when the king rejected Congress’s second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was considering “friendly offers of foreign assistance” to suppress the rebellion.[22] A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists toward independence.[23]
Toward independence
Thomas Paine‘s pamphlet Common Sense was published in January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator.[24] Paine had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, and he argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[25]Common Sense made a persuasive and impassioned case for independence, which had not yet been given serious intellectual consideration in the American colonies. Paine connected independence with Protestant beliefs as a means to present a distinctly American political identity, thereby stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss,[26] and public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after its publication.[27]
The Assembly Room in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence
Some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, but developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament’s passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the “Act of Independency”, calling it “a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire”.[28] Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.[29]
Despite this growing popular support for independence, Congress lacked the clear authority to declare it. Delegates had been elected to Congress by 13 different governments, which included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assemblies, and they were bound by the instructions given to them. Regardless of their personal opinions, delegates could not vote to declare independence unless their instructions permitted such an action.[30] Several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps towards separation from Great Britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue;[31] consequently, advocates of independence sought to have the Congressional instructions revised. For Congress to declare independence, a majority of delegations would need authorization to vote for it, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress. Between April and July 1776, a “complex political war”[32] was waged to bring this about.[33]
Revising instructions
In the campaign to revise Congressional instructions, many Americans formally expressed their support for separation from Great Britain in what were effectively state and local declarations of independence. Historian Pauline Maieridentifies more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the Thirteen Colonies from April to July 1776.[34] These “declarations” took a variety of forms. Some were formal written instructions for Congressional delegations, such as the Halifax Resolves of April 12, with which North Carolina became the first colony to explicitly authorize its delegates to vote for independence.[35] Others were legislative acts that officially ended British rule in individual colonies, such as the Rhode Island legislature declaring its independence from Great Britain on May 4, the first colony to do so.[36] Many “declarations” were resolutions adopted at town or county meetings that offered support for independence. A few came in the form of jury instructions, such as the statement issued on April 23, 1776, by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton of South Carolina: “the law of the land authorizes me to declare … that George the Third, King of Great Britain … has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him.”[37] Most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the declaration approved by Congress on July 2, and signed July 4.[38]
Some colonies held back from endorsing independence. Resistance was centered in the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.[39] Advocates of independence saw Pennsylvania as the key; if that colony could be converted to the pro-independence cause, it was believed that the others would follow.[39] On May 1, however, opponents of independence retained control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in a special election that had focused on the question of independence.[40] In response, Congress passed a resolution on May 10 which had been promoted by John Adams and Richard Henry Lee, calling on colonies without a “government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs” to adopt new governments.[41] The resolution passed unanimously, and was even supported by Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson, the leader of the anti-independence faction in Congress, who believed that it did not apply to his colony.[42]
May 15 preamble
This Day the Congress has passed the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America.
As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble to explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, “it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed”.[44] Adams’s preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance.[45] Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest.[46] Adams regarded his May 15 preamble effectively as an American declaration of independence, although a formal declaration would still have to be made.[47]
On the same day that Congress passed Adams’s radical preamble, the Virginia Convention set the stage for a formal Congressional declaration of independence. On May 15, the Convention instructed Virginia’s congressional delegation “to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain”.[48] In accordance with those instructions, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress on June 7.[49] The motion was seconded by John Adams, calling on Congress to declare independence, form foreign alliances, and prepare a plan of colonial confederation. The part of the resolution relating to declaring independence read:
Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.[50]
Lee’s resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. Opponents of the resolution conceded that reconciliation was unlikely with Great Britain, while arguing that declaring independence was premature, and that securing foreign aid should take priority.[51] Advocates of the resolution countered that foreign governments would not intervene in an internal British struggle, and so a formal declaration of independence was needed before foreign aid was possible. All Congress needed to do, they insisted, was to “declare a fact which already exists”.[52] Delegates from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York were still not yet authorized to vote for independence, however, and some of them threatened to leave Congress if the resolution were adopted. Congress, therefore, voted on June 10 to postpone further discussion of Lee’s resolution for three weeks.[53] Until then, Congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in the event that Lee’s resolution was approved when it was brought up again in July.
The final push
This idealized depiction of (left to right) Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson working on the Declaration was widely reprinted (by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, 1900).[54]
Support for a Congressional declaration of independence was consolidated in the final weeks of June 1776. On June 14, the Connecticut Assembly instructed its delegates to propose independence and, the following day, the legislatures of New Hampshire and Delaware authorized their delegates to declare independence.[55] In Pennsylvania, political struggles ended with the dissolution of the colonial assembly, and a new Conference of Committees under Thomas McKean authorized Pennsylvania’s delegates to declare independence on June 18.[56] The Provincial Congress of New Jersey had been governing the province since January 1776; they resolved on June 15 that Royal GovernorWilliam Franklin was “an enemy to the liberties of this country” and had him arrested.[57] On June 21, they chose new delegates to Congress and empowered them to join in a declaration of independence.[58]
Only Maryland and New York had yet to authorize independence towards the end of June. Previously, Maryland’s delegates had walked out when the Continental Congress adopted Adams’s radical May 15 preamble, and had sent to the Annapolis Convention for instructions.[59] On May 20, the Annapolis Convention rejected Adams’s preamble, instructing its delegates to remain against independence. But Samuel Chase went to Maryland and, thanks to local resolutions in favor of independence, was able to get the Annapolis Convention to change its mind on June 28.[60] Only the New York delegates were unable to get revised instructions. When Congress had been considering the resolution of independence on June 8, the New York Provincial Congress told the delegates to wait.[61] But on June 30, the Provincial Congress evacuated New York as British forces approached, and would not convene again until July 10. This meant that New York’s delegates would not be authorized to declare independence until after Congress had made its decision.[62]
Political maneuvering was setting the stage for an official declaration of independence even while a document was being written to explain the decision. On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” to draft a declaration, consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. The committee took no minutes, so there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded; contradictory accounts were written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, too many years to be regarded as entirely reliable—although their accounts are frequently cited.[63] What is certain is that the committee discussed the general outline which the document should follow and decided that Jefferson would write the first draft.[64] The committee in general, and Jefferson in particular, thought that Adams should write the document, but Adams persuaded them to choose Jefferson and promised to consult with him personally.[2] Considering Congress’s busy schedule, Jefferson probably had limited time for writing over the next 17 days, and he likely wrote the draft quickly.[65] He then consulted the others and made some changes, and then produced another copy incorporating these alterations. The committee presented this copy to the Congress on June 28, 1776. The title of the document was “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled.”[66]
Portable writing desk that Jefferson used to draft and write the Declaration of Independence
Congress ordered that the draft “lie on the table”[67] and then methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document for the next two days, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure.[68] They removed Jefferson’s assertion that Great Britain had forced slavery on the colonies in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Great Britain who supported the Revolution. Jefferson wrote that Congress had “mangled” his draft version, but the Declaration that was finally produced was “the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity,” in the words of his biographer John Ferling.[68]
Congress tabled the draft of the declaration on Monday, July 1 and resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with Benjamin Harrison of Virginia presiding, and they resumed debate on Lee’s resolution of independence.[69]John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[70] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.
A vote was taken after a long day of speeches, each colony casting a single vote, as always. The delegation for each colony numbered from two to seven members, and each delegation voted amongst themselves to determine the colony’s vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation abstained, lacking permission to vote for independence. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean, who voted yes, and George Read, who voted no. The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina was opposed to Lee’s resolution but desirous of unanimity, and he moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[71]
“Declaration House”, the boarding house at Market and S. 7th Street where Jefferson wrote the Declaration
On July 2, South Carolina reversed its position and voted for independence. In the Pennsylvania delegation, Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained, allowing the delegation to vote three-to-two in favor of independence. The tie in the Delaware delegation was broken by the timely arrival of Caesar Rodney, who voted for independence. The New York delegation abstained once again since they were still not authorized to vote for independence, although they were allowed to do so a week later by the New York Provincial Congress.[72] The resolution of independence was adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention, and the colonies officially severed political ties with Great Britain.[73]John Adams wrote to his wife on the following day and predicted that July 2 would become a great American holiday[74] He thought that the vote for independence would be commemorated; he did not foresee that Americans would instead celebrate Independence Day on the date when the announcement of that act was finalized.[75]
I am apt to believe that [Independence Day] will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.[76]
Congress next turned its attention to the committee’s draft of the declaration. They made a few changes in wording during several days of debate and deleted nearly a fourth of the text. The wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved on July 4, 1776 and sent to the printer for publication.
The opening of the original printing of the Declaration, printed on July 4, 1776 under Jefferson’s supervision. The engrossed copy was made later (shown at the top of this article). Note that the opening lines differ between the two versions.[77]
There is a distinct change in wording from this original broadside printing of the Declaration and the final official engrossed copy. The word “unanimous” was inserted as a result of a Congressional resolution passed on July 19, 1776:
Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of “The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,” and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress.[78]
Historian George Billias says:
Independence amounted to a new status of interdependence: the United States was now a sovereign nation entitled to the privileges and responsibilities that came with that status. America thus became a member of the international community, which meant becoming a maker of treaties and alliances, a military ally in diplomacy, and a partner in foreign trade on a more equal basis.[79]
Annotated text of the engrossed declaration
The declaration is not divided into formal sections; but it is often discussed as consisting of five parts: introduction, preamble, indictment of King George III, denunciation of the British people, and conclusion.[80]
Introduction
Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Preamble
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[80]
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Indictment
A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[80]
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
“For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Denunciation
This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[80]
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
Conclusion
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Signatures
The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison V) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[81]
English political philosopher John Locke (1632–1704)
Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words and political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson’s own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:
Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.[82]
Jefferson’s most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason‘s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence.[83] They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II.[84] During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.[85] The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson’s Declaration, but these models are now accepted by few scholars.[86]
Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration.[87] English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as one of the primary influences, a man whom Jefferson called one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived”.[88] In 1922, historian Carl L. Becker wrote, “Most Americans had absorbed Locke’s works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke’s second treatise on government.”[89] The extent of Locke’s influence on the American Revolution has been questioned by some subsequent scholars, however. Historian Ray Forrest Harvey argued in 1937 for the dominant influence of Swiss jurist Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, declaring that Jefferson and Locke were at “two opposite poles” in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jefferson’s use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” instead of “property”.[90] Other scholars emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke’s classical liberalism.[91] Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke,[92] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[93]
Legal historian John Phillip Reid has written that the emphasis on the political philosophy of the Declaration has been misplaced. The Declaration is not a philosophical tract about natural rights, argues Reid, but is instead a legal document—an indictment against King George for violating the constitutional rights of the colonists.[94] As such, it follows the process of the 1550 Magdeburg Confession, which legitimized resistance against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in a multi-step legal formula now known as the doctrine of the Lesser magistrate.[95] Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration was strongly influenced by de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, the dominant international law treatise of the period, and a book that Benjamin Franklin said was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress”.[96] Armitage writes, “Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood”; therefore, the primary purpose of the Declaration was “to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States”. If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries first had to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain.[97] The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws.[98][99][100][101]
The signed copy of the Declaration is now badly faded because of poor preserving practices in the 19th century. It is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
The Syng inkstand was used at both the signing of the Declaration and the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration became official when Congress voted for it on July 4; signatures of the delegates were not needed to make it official. The handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence that was signed by Congress is dated July 4, 1776. The signatures of fifty-six delegates are affixed; however, the exact date when each person signed it has long been the subject of debate. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams all wrote that the Declaration had been signed by Congress on July 4.[102] But in 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some signers were not then present, including several who were not even elected to Congress until after that date.[103]
The Declaration was transposed on paper, adopted by the Continental Congress, and signed by John Hancock, President of the Congress, on July 4, 1776, according to the 1911 record of events by the U.S. State Departmentunder Secretary Philander C. Knox.[104] On August 2, 1776, a parchment paper copy of the Declaration was signed by 56 persons.[104] Many of these signers were not present when the original Declaration was adopted on July 4.[104] Signer Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire was seated in the Continental Congress in November; he asked for and received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.[104]
On July 4, 1776, Continental Congress President John Hancock‘s signature authenticated the United States Declaration of Independence.
Historians have generally accepted McKean’s version of events, arguing that the famous signed version of the Declaration was created after July 19, and was not signed by Congress until August 2, 1776.[105] In 1986, legal historian Wilfred Ritz argued that historians had misunderstood the primary documents and given too much credence to McKean, who had not been present in Congress on July 4.[106] According to Ritz, about thirty-four delegates signed the Declaration on July 4, and the others signed on or after August 2.[107] Historians who reject a July 4 signing maintain that most delegates signed on August 2, and that those eventual signers who were not present added their names later.[108]
Two future U.S. presidents were among the signatories: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who presumably signed first as President of Congress.[109]Hancock’s large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and the term John Hancock emerged in the United States as an informal synonym for “signature”.[110] A commonly circulated but apocryphal account claims that, after Hancock signed, the delegate from Massachusetts commented, “The British ministry can read that name without spectacles.” Another apocryphal report indicates that Hancock proudly declared, “There! I guess King George will be able to read that!”[111]
Various legends emerged years later about the signing of the Declaration, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now “all hang together”, and Benjamin Franklin replied: “Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” The quotation did not appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin’s death.[112]
The Syng inkstand used at the signing was also used at the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787.
Publication and reaction
Johannes Adam Simon Oertel‘s painting Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, N.Y.C., ca. 1859, depicts citizens destroying a statue of King George after the Declaration was read in New York City on July 9, 1776.
After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night, Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, it was being read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers throughout the 13 states. The first formal public readings of the document took place on July 8, in Philadelphia (by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall), Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania; the first newspaper to publish it was the Pennsylvania Evening Post on July 6.[113] A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9.[114]
President of Congress John Hancock sent a broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed “at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper”.[115] Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with thousands of British troops on ships in the harbor. Washington and Congress hoped that the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[113] After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royal authority. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.[116]
William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence, freed his slave believing that he could not both fight for liberty and own a slave.
British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain.[117] It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776.[118] It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student “Vendek” José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes.
The Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte, and by New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among Creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821.[119] The North Ministry did not give an official answer to the Declaration, but instead secretly commissioned pamphleteer John Lind to publish a response entitled Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.[120] British Tories denounced the signers of the Declaration for not applying the same principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to African Americans.[121]Thomas Hutchinson, the former royal governor of Massachusetts, also published a rebuttal.[122][123] These pamphlets challenged various aspects of the Declaration. Hutchinson argued that the American Revolution was the work of a few conspirators who wanted independence from the outset, and who had finally achieved it by inducing otherwise loyal colonists to rebel.[124] Lind’s pamphlet had an anonymous attack on the concept of natural rights written by Jeremy Bentham, an argument that he repeated during the French Revolution.[125] Both pamphlets asked how the American slaveholders in Congress could proclaim that “all men are created equal” without freeing their own slaves.[126]
William Whipple, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who had fought in the war, freed his slave Prince Whipple because of revolutionary ideals. In the postwar decades, other slaveholders also freed their slaves; from 1790 to 1810, the percentage of free blacks in the Upper South increased to 8.3 percent from less than one percent of the black population.[127] All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804.
The official copy of the Declaration of Independence was the one printed on July 4, 1776, under Jefferson’s supervision. It was sent to the states and to the Army and was widely reprinted in newspapers. The slightly different “engrossed copy” (shown at the top of this article) was made later for members to sign. The engrossed version is the one widely distributed in the 21st century. Note that the opening lines differ between the two versions.[77]
The copy of the Declaration that was signed by Congress is known as the engrossed or parchment copy. It was probably engrossed (that is, carefully handwritten) by clerk Timothy Matlack.[128] A facsimile made in 1823 has become the basis of most modern reproductions rather than the original because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century.[128] In 1921, custody of the engrossed copy of the Declaration was transferred from the State Department to the Library of Congress, along with the United States Constitution. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the documents were moved for safekeeping to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox in Kentucky, where they were kept until 1944.[129] In 1952, the engrossed Declaration was transferred to the National Archives and is now on permanent display at the National Archives in the “Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom“.[130]
The Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building
The document signed by Congress and enshrined in the National Archives is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, but historian Julian P. Boyd argued that the Declaration, like Magna Carta, is not a single document. Boyd considered the printed broadsides ordered by Congress to be official texts, as well. The Declaration was first published as a broadside that was printed the night of July 4 by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides, of which 26 are known to survive. The 26th copy was discovered in The National Archives in England in 2009.[131]
In 1777, Congress commissioned Mary Katherine Goddard to print a new broadside that listed the signers of the Declaration, unlike the Dunlap broadside.[128][132] Nine copies of the Goddard broadside are known to still exist.[132] A variety of broadsides printed by the states are also extant.[132]
Several early handwritten copies and drafts of the Declaration have also been preserved. Jefferson kept a four-page draft that late in life he called the “original Rough draught”.[133] It is not known how many drafts Jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members. In 1947, Boyd discovered a fragment of an earlier draft in Jefferson’s handwriting.[134] Jefferson and Adams sent copies of the rough draft to friends, with slight variations.
During the writing process, Jefferson showed the rough draft to Adams and Franklin, and perhaps to other members of the drafting committee,[133] who made a few more changes. Franklin, for example, may have been responsible for changing Jefferson’s original phrase “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident”.[135] Jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to Congress in the name of the committee.[133] The copy that was submitted to Congress on June 28 has been lost and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process,[136] or destroyed during the debates in accordance with Congress’s secrecy rule.[137]
On April 21, 2017, it was announced that a second engrossed copy had been discovered in the archives at West Sussex County Council in Chichester, England.[138] Named by its finders the “Sussex Declaration”, it differs from the National Archives copy (which the finders refer to as the “Matlack Declaration”) in that the signatures on it are not grouped by States. How it came to be in England is not yet known, but the finders believe that the randomness of the signatures points to an origin with signatory James Wilson, who had argued strongly that the Declaration was made not by the States but by the whole people.[139][140]
Legacy
The Declaration was given little attention in the years immediately following the American Revolution, having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States.[141] Early celebrations of Independence Day largely ignored the Declaration, as did early histories of the Revolution. The act of declaring independence was considered important, whereas the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[142] The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[143] George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson’s words.[144] “In none of these documents”, wrote Pauline Maier, “is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men’s minds as a classic statement of American political principles.”[145]
According to historian David Armitage, the Declaration of Independence did prove to be internationally influential, but not as a statement of human rights. Armitage argued that the Declaration was the first in a new genre of declarations of independence that announced the creation of new states.
Other French leaders were directly influenced by the text of the Declaration of Independence itself. The Manifesto of the Province of Flanders (1790) was the first foreign derivation of the Declaration;[150] others include the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence (1811), the Liberian Declaration of Independence (1847), the declarations of secession by the Confederate States of America (1860–61), and the Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence (1945).[151] These declarations echoed the United States Declaration of Independence in announcing the independence of a new state, without necessarily endorsing the political philosophy of the original.[152]
Interest in the Declaration was revived in the 1790s with the emergence of the United States’s first political parties.[156] Throughout the 1780s, few Americans knew or cared who wrote the Declaration.[157] But in the next decade, Jeffersonian Republicans sought political advantage over their rival Federalists by promoting both the importance of the Declaration and Jefferson as its author.[158] Federalists responded by casting doubt on Jefferson’s authorship or originality, and by emphasizing that independence was declared by the whole Congress, with Jefferson as just one member of the drafting committee. Federalists insisted that Congress’s act of declaring independence, in which Federalist John Adams had played a major role, was more important than the document announcing it.[159] But this view faded away, like the Federalist Party itself, and, before long, the act of declaring independence became synonymous with the document.
A less partisan appreciation for the Declaration emerged in the years following the War of 1812, thanks to a growing American nationalism and a renewed interest in the history of the Revolution.[160] In 1817, Congress commissioned John Trumbull‘s famous painting of the signers, which was exhibited to large crowds before being installed in the Capitol.[161] The earliest commemorative printings of the Declaration also appeared at this time, offering many Americans their first view of the signed document.[162] Collective biographies of the signers were first published in the 1820s,[163] giving birth to what Garry Wills called the “cult of the signers”.[164] In the years that followed, many stories about the writing and signing of the document were published for the first time.
When interest in the Declaration was revived, the sections that were most important in 1776 were no longer relevant: the announcement of the independence of the United States and the grievances against King George. But the second paragraph was applicable long after the war had ended, with its talk of self-evident truths and unalienable rights.[165] The Constitution and the Bill of Rights lacked sweeping statements about rights and equality, and advocates of groups with grievances turned to the Declaration for support.[166] Starting in the 1820s, variations of the Declaration were issued to proclaim the rights of workers, farmers, women, and others.[167] In 1848, for example, the Seneca Falls Convention of women’s rights advocates declared that “all men and women are created equal”.[168]
John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence (1817–1826)
John Trumbull‘s famous paintingis often identified as a depiction of the signing of the Declaration, but it actually shows the drafting committee presenting its work to the Congress.[169]
John Trumbull‘s painting Declaration of Independence has played a significant role in popular conceptions of the Declaration of Independence. The painting is 12-by-18-foot (3.7 by 5.5 m) in size and was commissioned by the United States Congress in 1817; it has hung in the United States Capitol Rotunda since 1826. It is sometimes described as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it actually shows the Committee of Five presenting their draft of the Declaration to the Second Continental Congress on June 28, 1776, and not the signing of the document, which took place later.[170]
Trumbull painted the figures from life whenever possible, but some had died and images could not be located; hence, the painting does not include all the signers of the Declaration. One figure had participated in the drafting but did not sign the final document; another refused to sign. In fact, the membership of the Second Continental Congress changed as time passed, and the figures in the painting were never in the same room at the same time. It is, however, an accurate depiction of the room in Independence Hall, the centerpiece of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Trumbull’s painting has been depicted multiple times on U.S. currency and postage stamps. Its first use was on the reverse side of the $100 National Bank Note issued in 1863. A few years later, the steel engraving used in printing the bank notes was used to produce a 24-cent stamp, issued as part of the 1869 Pictorial Issue. An engraving of the signing scene has been featured on the reverse side of the United States two-dollar bill since 1976.
The apparent contradiction between the claim that “all men are created equal” and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration was first published. As mentioned above, Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Great Britain’s role in the slave trade, but this was deleted from the final version.[171] Jefferson himself was a prominent Virginia slave holder, having owned hundreds of slaves.[172] Referring to this seeming contradiction, English abolitionist Thomas Day wrote in a 1776 letter, “If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”[173]
In the 19th century, the Declaration took on a special significance for the abolitionist movement. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote that “abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document”.[174] Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison adopted the “twin rocks” of “the Bible and the Declaration of Independence” as the basis for their philosophies. “As long as there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land,” wrote Garrison, “we will not despair.”[175] For radical abolitionists such as Garrison, the most important part of the Declaration was its assertion of the right of revolution. Garrison called for the destruction of the government under the Constitution, and the creation of a new state dedicated to the principles of the Declaration.[176]
The controversial question of whether to add additional slave states to the United States coincided with the growing stature of the Declaration. The first major public debate about slavery and the Declaration took place during the Missouri controversy of 1819 to 1821.[177]Antislavery Congressmen argued that the language of the Declaration indicated that the Founding Fathers of the United States had been opposed to slavery in principle, and so new slave states should not be added to the country.[178] Proslavery Congressmen led by Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina argued that the Declaration was not a part of the Constitution and therefore had no relevance to the question.[179]
With the antislavery movement gaining momentum, defenders of slavery such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun found it necessary to argue that the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” was false, or at least that it did not apply to black people.[180] During the debate over the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1853, for example, Senator John Pettit of Indiana argued that the statement “all men are created equal” was not a “self-evident truth” but a “self-evident lie”.[181] Opponents of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, including Salmon P. Chase and Benjamin Wade, defended the Declaration and what they saw as its antislavery principles.[182]
The Declaration’s relationship to slavery was taken up in 1854 by Abraham Lincoln, a little-known former Congressman who idolized the Founding Fathers.[183] Lincoln thought that the Declaration of Independence expressed the highest principles of the American Revolution, and that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery with the expectation that it would ultimately wither away.[9] For the United States to legitimize the expansion of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought Lincoln, was to repudiate the principles of the Revolution. In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:
Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a “sacred right of self-government”. … Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. … Let us repurify it. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. … If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.[184]
The meaning of the Declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Douglas argued that the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration referred to white men only. The purpose of the Declaration, he said, had simply been to justify the independence of the United States, and not to proclaim the equality of any “inferior or degraded race”.[185] Lincoln, however, thought that the language of the Declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard to which the American republic should aspire. “I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere,” he said.[186] During the seventh and last joint debate with Steven Douglas at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Lincoln said about the declaration:
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere.[187]
According to Pauline Maier, Douglas’s interpretation was more historically accurate, but Lincoln’s view ultimately prevailed. “In Lincoln’s hands,” wrote Maier, “the Declaration of Independence became first and foremost a living document” with “a set of goals to be realized over time”.[188]
[T]here is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
Like Daniel Webster, James Wilson, and Joseph Story before him, Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence was a founding document of the United States, and that this had important implications for interpreting the Constitution, which had been ratified more than a decade after the Declaration.[190] The Constitution did not use the word “equality”, yet Lincoln believed that the concept that “all men are created equal” remained a part of the nation’s founding principles.[191] He famously expressed this belief in the opening sentence of his 1863 Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago [i.e. in 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Lincoln’s view of the Declaration became influential, seeing it as a moral guide to interpreting the Constitution. “For most people now,” wrote Garry Wills in 1992, “the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means, as a way of correcting the Constitution itself without overthrowing it.”[192] Admirers of Lincoln such as Harry V. Jaffa praised this development. Critics of Lincoln, notably Willmoore Kendall and Mel Bradford, argued that Lincoln dangerously expanded the scope of the national government and violated states’ rights by reading the Declaration into the Constitution.[193]
The adoption of the Declaration of Independence was dramatized in the 1969 Tony Award–winning musical 1776 and the 1972 film version, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries John Adams.[200][201] In 1970, The 5th Dimension recorded the opening of the Declaration on their album Portrait in the song “Declaration”. It was first performed on the Ed Sullivan Show on December 7, 1969, and it was taken as a song of protest against the Vietnam War.[202] The Declaration of Independence is also a plot device in the 2004 American film National Treasure.[203]
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, CALVIN WOODWARD and LYNN BERRYyesterday
1 of 20
President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Karen Pence and others stand as the US Army Band performs and the US Navy Blue Angels flyover at the end of an Independence Day celebration in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Thursday, July 4, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump celebrated the story of America as “the greatest political journey in human history” in a Fourth of July commemoration before a soggy but cheering crowd of spectators, many of them invited, on the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial. Supporters welcomed his tribute to the U.S. military while protesters assailed him for putting himself center stage on a holiday devoted to unity.
As rain fell on him, Trump called on Americans to “stay true to our cause” during a program that adhered to patriotic themes and hailed an eclectic mix of history’s heroes, from the armed forces, space, civil rights and other endeavors of American life.
He largely stuck to his script, avoiding diversions into his agenda or re-election campaign. But in one exception, he vowed, “Very soon, we will plant the American flag on Mars,” actually a distant goal not likely to be achieved until late in the 2020s if even then.
A late afternoon downpour drenched the capital’s Independence Day crowds and Trump’s speech unfolded in occasional rain. The warplanes and presidential aircraft he had summoned conducted their flyovers as planned, capped by the Navy Blue Angels aerobatics team.
By adding his own, one-hour “Salute to America” production to capital festivities that typically draw hundreds of thousands anyway, Trump became the first president in nearly seven decades to address a crowd at the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
Protesters objecting to what they saw as his co-opting of the holiday inflated a roly-poly balloon depicting Trump as an angry, diaper-clad baby.
Trump set aside a historic piece of real estate — a stretch of the Mall from the Lincoln Monument to the midpoint of the reflecting pool — for a mix of invited military members, Republican and Trump campaign donors and other bigwigs. It’s where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I have a dream” speech, Barack Obama and Trump held inaugural concerts and protesters swarmed into the water when supporters of Richard Nixon put on a July 4, 1970, celebration, with the president sending taped remarks from California.
Aides to the crowd-obsessed Trump fretted about the prospect of empty seats at his event, said a person familiar with the planning who was not authorized to be identified. Aides scrambled in recent days to distribute tickets and mobilize the Trump and GOP social media accounts to encourage participation for an event hastily arranged and surrounded with confusion.
Back at the White House, Trump tweeted an aerial photo showing an audience that filled both sides of the memorial’s reflecting pool and stretched to the Washington Monument. “A great crowd of tremendous Patriots this evening, all the way back to the Washington Monument!” he said.
Many who filed into the sprawling VIP section said they got their free tickets from members of Congress or from friends or neighbors who couldn’t use theirs. Outside that zone, a diverse mix of visitors, locals, veterans, tour groups, immigrant families and more milled about, some drawn by Trump, some by curiosity, some by the holiday’s regular activities along the Mall.
Protesters earlier made their voices heard in sweltering heat by the Washington Monument, along the traditional parade route and elsewhere, while the VIP section at the reflecting pool served as something of a buffer for Trump’s event.
In the shadow of the Washington Monument hours before Trump’s speech, the anti-war organization Codepink erected a 20-foot tall “Trump baby” balloon to protest what activists saw as his intrusion in Independence Day and a focus on military might that they associate with martial regimes.
“We think that he is making this about himself and it’s really a campaign rally,” said Medea Benjamin, the organization’s co-director. “We think that he’s a big baby. … He’s erratic, he’s prone to tantrums, he doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions. And so this is a great symbol of how we feel about our president.”
The balloon remained tied down at the Mall because park officials restricted the group’s permission to move it or fill it with helium, Benjamin said.
Protesters also handed out small Trump-baby balloons on sticks. Molly King of La Porte, Indiana, a 13-year-old Trump supporter in sunglasses and a “Make America Great Again” hat, happily came away with one.
“They’re making a big stink about it but it’s actually pretty cute,” she said. “I mean, why not love your president as you’d love a baby?”
A small crowd gathered to take pictures with the big balloon, which drew Trump supporters and detractors.
“Even though everybody has different opinions,” said Kevin Malton, a Trump supporter from Middlesboro, Kentucky, “everybody’s getting along.”
But Daniela Guray, a 19-year-old from Chicago who held a “Dump Trump” sign, said she was subjected to a racial epithet while walking along the Constitution Avenue parade route and told to go home.
She said she did not come to the Mall to protest but ended up doing so. “I started seeing all the tanks with all the protests and that’s when I said, ‘Wait, this is not an actual Fourth of July,’” she said. “Trump is making it his day rather than the Fourth of July.”
Trump had sounded a defensive note Wednesday, tweeting that the cost “will be very little compared to what it is worth.” But he glossed over a host of expenses associated with the display of military might, including flying in planes and tanks and other vehicles to Washington by rail.
Not since 1951, when President Harry Truman spoke before a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds to mark the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, has a commander in chief made an Independence Day speech to a sizable crowd on the Mall.
Pete Buttigieg, one of the Democrats running for president, said, “This business of diverting money and military assets to use them as a kind of prop, to prop up a presidential ego, is not reflecting well on our country.” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is a Navy Reserve veteran who served in Afghanistan in 2014.
Two groups, the National Parks Conservation Foundation and Democracy Forward, want the Interior Department’s internal watchdog to investigate what they say may be a “potentially unlawful decision to divert” national parks money to Trump’s “spectacle.”
Trump has longed for a public display of U.S. military prowess ever since he watched a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017.
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument.
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes.
Amid all the theatrics, Trump did pay tribute to the reason for the holiday — the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. “With a single sheet of parchment and 56 signatures,” Trump said, “America began the greatest political journey in human history.”
Story 2: Millions March and Protest for Freedom and Independence From Chinese Communist Coercion and Tyranny — Totalitarian Tyranny —Every breath you take — Every move you make — Every bond you break — Every step you take — I’ll be watching you — Every single day — Every word you say — Every game you play — Every night you stay — I’ll be watching you — Oh can’t you see — You belong to me — Chinese Communist Party Social Credit System — Belt and Road Initiative — Videos
The Police – Every Breath You Take (Official Music Video)
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I’ll be watching you
Oh can’t you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you
Since you’ve gone I been lost without a trace
I dream at night I can only see your face
I look around but it’s you I can’t replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep crying baby, baby, please
Oh can’t you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you
Every move you make
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you
I’ll be watching you
(Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
(Every move you make, every vow you break, every smile you fake, every claim you stake)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
(Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
How Microsoft Helped Build China’s Nightmare Surveillance | China Uncensored
China: facial recognition and state control | The Economist
Xi Jinping’s rise from living in a cave to president for life
15 Things You Didn’t Know About Xi Jinping
The rise of Xi Jinping: From life in exile to post-modern chairman | China Watch pt II
Is Taiwan a country… or part of China?
Uncovering China’s Detention And Torture Of Its Muslim Minority
China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World
Inside China’s ‘thought transformation’ camps – BBC News
China’s secret internment camps
How to recognize a dystopia – Alex Gendler
1984 (John Hurt) – Official Trailer
1984 Room 101
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) – Last Scene + Credits
George Orwell and 1984: How Freedom Dies
Hong Kong protesters call for people to withdraw funds from the Bank of China to keep up pressure on city’s Beijing-backed government as police arrest six demonstrators after latest clashes
Hong Kong protesters began circulating plans to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China
Six people have been arrested following violent clashes with police on Sunday
Police baton-charged small groups of young protesters who refused to disperse
Rallies sparked by extradition bill have morphed into anti-government protest
PUBLISHED: 04:44 EDT, 8 July 2019 | UPDATED: 11:24 EDT, 8 July 2019
Anti-government protesters in Hong Kong began circulating plans on Monday to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China in their bid to keep pressure on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders, after six people were arrested in the latest clashes with police.
The city has been plunged into its worst crisis in recent history following a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters.
The rallies were sparked by a now-suspended law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, but have since morphed into a wider movement calling for democratic reforms and a halt to sliding freedoms in the semi-autonomous territory.
A protester is being restrained by an officer during violent clashes with police in Mong Kok district in Kowloon on Sunday night. Anti-government protesters in Hong Kong began circulating plans on Monday to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China in their bid to keep pressure on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders
Sunday night saw fresh political violence break out in Hong Kong’s district of Mongkok. The city has been plunged into its worst crisis in history following a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters
Sunday night saw fresh political violence break out in the district of Mongkok as police baton-charged small groups of masked, largely young protesters who were walking along roads and refused to disperse following another massive, peaceful rally earlier in the day.
Police said the group were taking part in an ‘unlawful assembly’ and had been warned that officers would take action.
‘Some protesters resisted and police arrested five persons for assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer in the execution of duties,’ a statement said.
Another protester was arrested earlier in the day for failing to provide identification during a stop and search.
Hong Kong police baton-charged small groups of masked, largely young protesters who were walking along roads and refused to disperse
Police said the group were taking part in an ‘unlawful assembly’ and had been warned that officers would take action. ‘Some protesters resisted and police arrested five persons for assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer in the execution of duties,’ a statement said
An anti-extradition bill protester is seen injured after a conflict with riot police at the end of a march at Hong Kong’s tourism district Mongkok on Sunday night
Activists hit out at the police tactics, saying the protesters had remained peaceful as they made their way home, and that violence was started by a shield wall of riot officers that had blocked the crowd’s path.
‘HKers joined rally peacefully… against extradition bill result in being beaten and assaulted by HK Police,’ democracy activist Joshua Wong wrote in a tweet accompanying pictures of at least two protesters with bleeding head wounds.
‘Just another example of excessive force used by the police,’ he added in another tweet.
By Monday morning, online groups were already planning more protests on encrypted messenger apps and chat forums that have been successfully used by demonstrators to bring out huge crowds.
Despite repeated requests, Hong Kong’s police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests
Protesters in Hong Kong are demanding that a postponed extradition bill be scrapped entirely. By Monday morning, online groups were already planning more protests on encrypted messenger apps and chat forums that have been successfully used by protesters
One proposal going viral was a call to collectively withdraw funds from the Bank of China this Saturday to ‘stress test’ the organisation’s liquidity.
The state-owned Bank of China’s towering Hong Kong headquarters is one of the most recognisable buildings in the territory’s famous skyline and the organisation is one of three banks licensed to issue its own notes
Shares in the bank were down about one percent Monday in line with the broader market.
Public anger has soared against the city’s pro-Beijing leaders and its police force after officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters outside parliament last month.
Since then the chaos has only escalated.
Public anger has soared against the city’s pro-Beijing leaders and its police force after officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters outside parliament last month
Protesters are demanding the bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police tactics, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s leader Carrie Lam to step down
Last Monday, anger peaked as hundreds of demonstrators stormed and trashed the city’s parliament.
Those unprecedented scenes – and renewed huge marches – have failed to persuade the government, whose sole concession so far has been to suspend the loathed extradition bill.
Protesters are demanding the bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police tactics, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s unelected leader Carrie Lam to step down.
They have also demanded authorities stop characterising protesters as ‘rioters’, a definition that carries much steeper jail terms.
Beijing has thrown its full support behind the embattled Lam, calling on police to pursue anyone involved in the parliament storming and other clashes.
Sunday’s rally outside a controversial train station that runs to the mainland drew 230,000 people, organisers said, after calls for the gathering started on online forums and snowballed
Despite repeated requests, police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests
With the exception of a pre-dawn press conference after parliament was stormed, Lam has virtually disappeared from public view in recent weeks with little clue as to what direction her administration intends to take
With the exception of a pre-dawn press conference after parliament was stormed, Lam has virtually disappeared from public view in recent weeks with little clue as to what direction her administration intends to take.
Despite repeated requests, police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests.
A tally kept by AFP shows at least 72 people have been arrested, though it is not clear how many have been charged.
Sunday’s rally outside a controversial train station that runs to the mainland drew 230,000 people, organisers said, after calls for the gathering started on online forums and snowballed.
Police estimated 56,000 people attended the protest at its peak.
Tens of thousands in Hong Kong take message to mainlanders
By KEN MORITSUGU and ALICE FUNGyesterday
1 of 26
Protesters march with a flag calling for Hong Kong independence in Hong Kong on Sunday, July 7, 2019. Thousands of people, many wearing black shirts and some carrying British flags, were marching in Hong Kong on Sunday, targeting a mainland Chinese audience as a month-old protest movement showed no signs of abating. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)
HONG KONG (AP) — Tens of thousands of people, many wearing black shirts and some carrying British colonial-era flags, marched in Hong Kong on Sunday, targeting a mainland Chinese audience as a month-old protest movement showed no signs of abating.
Chanting “Free Hong Kong” and words of encouragement to their fellow citizens, wave after wave of demonstrators streamed by a shopping district popular with mainland visitors on a march to the high-speed railway station that connects the semi-autonomous Chinese territory to Guangdong and other mainland cities.
Hong Kong has been riven by huge marches and sometimes disruptive protests for the past month, sparked by proposed changes to extradition laws that would have allowed suspects to be sent to the mainland to face trial. Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam suspended the bill and apologized for how it was handled, but protesters want it to be formally withdrawn and for Lam to resign.
Organizers said 230,000 people marched on Sunday, while police estimated the crowd at 56,000.
“We want to show our peaceful, graceful protest to the mainland visitors because the information is rather blocked in mainland,” march organizer Ventus Lau said. “We want to show them the true image and the message of Hong Kongers.”
Chinese media have not covered the protests or their origins widely, focusing on clashes with police and damage to public property.
As the crowd broke up Sunday night, a few hundred remained and taunted police who had retreated behind huge barriers set up outside the railway station, while others moved to Canton Road, a street lined with luxury boutique stores. Around 11 p.m., police moved to disperse protesters who were blocking a road and arrested five people for assaulting or obstructing police officers, their statement said.
The march was the first major action since two simultaneous protests last Monday, the 22nd anniversary of the July 1, 1997, return of Hong Kong from Britain to China.
The march through central Hong Kong that’s held annually drew hundreds of thousands of people. It was overshadowed this year, however, by an assault on the legislative building by a few hundred demonstrators who shattered thick glass panels to enter the building and then wreaked havoc for three hours, spray-painting slogans on the chamber walls, overturning furniture and damaging electronic voting and fire prevention systems.
Sunday’s march was the first protest against the extradition legislation to take place on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong harbor. The previous ones were on Hong Kong Island, the city’s business and government center.
Many of the marchers were young and wore black shirts that have become the uniform of the protesters. The largely peaceful crowd also included older people carrying handheld fans in the muggy heat, as well as parents with children, including some in baby strollers.
Many held placards, including one that read “Extradite to China, disappear forever.” Some carried the British flag or the old Hong Kong flag from when it was a British colony.
“This is our fourth march because we think this government is not taking care of Hong Kong,” said Dan Lee, who joined with his wife and their three children. “We need to save Hong Kong and we need to come out for our future generations.”
The extradition legislation has raised concerns about an erosion of freedoms and rights in Hong Kong, which was guaranteed its own legal system for 50 years after its return to China in 1997.
Prior to the march, police put up large barricades blocking a main entrance to the railway station to prevent any attempt to enter it. Only passengers with train reservations were allowed into the station, the mass transit authority said, and Hong Kong media reported that ticket sales had been suspended for afternoon trains.
“The high-speed railway station is a connection between Hong Kong and China and this is the nearest place we can spread our message to China,” said Lau, the march organizer.
The station was a source of contention before it opened last September, because passengers pass through Chinese immigration and customs inside. Some opposition lawmakers said the fact that Chinese law applies in the immigration area violates the handover agreement under which Hong Kong maintains its own legal system.
Protesters also are demanding an independent investigation into a crackdown on June 12 demonstrations in which officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds blocking major streets. Police said the tactics, harsher than usual for Hong Kong, were justified after some protesters turned violent. Dozens were injured, both protesters and police.
The protesters are also calling for the direct election of Hong Kong’s leader. Lam was chosen by an elite committee of mainly pro-Beijing electors.
___
Associated Press journalist Johnson Lai contributed to this report.
PUBLISHED: 05:59 EDT, 7 July 2019 | UPDATED: 13:09 EDT, 7 July 2019
Riot police charged protesters in the district of Mongkok
Fresh political violence broke out in Hong Kong on Sunday night as riot police baton-charged anti-government protesters seeking to keep the pressure up on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders, after a mass rally outside a train station linking the finance hub to mainland China.
Hong Kong has been rocked by a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters, sparked by a law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China.
Sunday’s clashes came hours after the first demonstration since young, masked protesters stormed parliament on Monday, plunging the city into an unprecedented crisis.
The extradition bill has been suspended following the backlash.
But that has done little to quell public anger, which has evolved into a wider movement calling for democratic reforms and a halt to sliding freedoms in the semi-autonomous city.
Protesters used umbrellas to defend themselves from police
Earlier on Sunday tens of thousands of people snaked through streets in the harbour-front district of Tsim Sha Tsui, an area popular with Chinese tourists, ending their march at a high-speed train terminus that connects to the mainland.
The march was billed as an opportunity to explain to mainlanders in the city what their protest movement is about given the massive censorship that Beijing’s leaders wield.
It passed without incident.
The rally was the first major protest since last Monday’s unprecedented storming of parliament by largely young protesters
But late Sunday police wielding batons and shields charged protesters to disperse a few hundreds demonstrators who had refused to leave.
AFP reporters saw multiple demonstrators detained by police after the fracas, their wrists bound with plastic handcuffs.
By early Monday only pockets of demontrators remained with police occupying key intersections around the protest area.
The scene of the clashes — Mongkok — is a densely-packed working class district, which has previosuly hosted running battles between police and anti-government protesters in 2014 and 2016.
– Bluetooth and Simplified Chinese –
Hong Kong enjoys rights unseen on the mainland, including freedom of speech, protected by a deal made before the city was handed back to China by Britain in 1997. But there are growing fears those liberties are being eroded.
Sunday’s clashes marred what had been an otherwise peaceful day of mass rallies aimed at reaching out to mainland Chinese visitors.
Organisers said 230,000 people marched while police said 56,000 attended at the peak.
“We want to show tourists, including mainland China tourists what is happening in Hong Kong and we hope they can take this concept back to China,” Eddison Ng, an 18-year-old demonstrator, told AFP.
Hong Kongers speak Cantonese but protesters used Bluetooth to send leaflets in Mandarin — the predominant language on the mainland — to nearby phones, hoping to spread the word to mainlanders.
There is still palpable anger at police for using tear gas and rubber bullets last month
“Why are there still so many people coming out to protest now?” one man said in Mandarin through a loudspeaker. “Because the Hong Kong government didn’t listen to our demands.”
Many protest banners were written with the Simplified Chinese characters used on the mainland, not the Traditional Chinese system used in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Protesters are demanding the postponed extradition bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police use of tear gas and rubber bullets, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s unelected leader Carrie Lam to step down.
Beijing has thrown its full support behind the embattled Lam, calling on Hong Kong police to pursue anyone involved in the parliament storming and other clashes.
Sunday’s protest made its way to a recently opened train station that links to China’s high-speed rail network
Sunday’s protest began on the waterfront — the first time a rally has taken place off the main island — and made its way to West Kowloon, a recently opened multi-billion-dollar station that links to China’s high-speed rail network.
The terminus is controversial because Chinese law operates in the parts of the station dealing with immigration and customs, as well as the platforms, even though West Kowloon is kilometres from the border.
Police gave permission for the rally to go ahead but said officers would step in if anyone attempted to storm the train station
Critics say that move gave away part of the city’s territory to an increasingly assertive Beijing.
Under Hong Kong’s mini-constitution China’s national laws do not apply to the city apart from in limited areas, including defence.
But many say the relationship is changing.
Among recent watershed moments critics point to are the disappearance into mainland custody of dissident booksellers, the disqualification of prominent politicians, the de facto expulsion of a foreign journalist and the jailing of democracy protest leaders.
Hong Kong riot police using batons, tear gas and pepper spray clash with protesters after million-strong demo over proposed new extradition bill with China
Roughly one million people have taken to Hong Kong’s streets to protest proposed new extradition laws
Riot police were called to control the crowds and were forced to use batons, tear gas guns and pepper spray
The laws will make it easier for people wanted in connection with crimes to be extradited to China and Macau
Opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system
PUBLISHED: 05:38 EDT, 9 June 2019 | UPDATED: 05:01 EDT, 10 June 2019
Several hundred riot police armed with batons, shields, tear gas guns and pepper spray sealed off the Legislative Council in Hong Kong as a similar number of protesters charged their lines shortly after midnight.
Police used batons and fired pepper spray at protesters, who still managed to close off part of a nearby road.
Several people on both sides appeared to be injured, and ambulances were called. Metal barriers were left twisted and torn in the clashes.
The Legislative Council is where debates will start on Wednesday to pass a new government bill that will allow suspects wanted in mainland China to be sent across the border for trial.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to Hong Kong’s streets on Sunday in a last bid to block a proposed extradition law that would allow suspects to be sent to China to face trial
+27
Police chiefs called for public restraint, government-funded broadcaster RTHK reported, as they mobilised more than 2,000 officers for a march that organisers expect to draw more than 500,000 people
Earlier today, hundreds of thousands had jammed Hong Kong’s streets to protest the bill in the biggest demonstration in years. Many said they feared it put the city’s vaunted legal independence at risk.
The rallies – and the violence – plunge the global financial hub into a fresh political crisis, with marchers and opposition leaders demanding the bill be shelved and that the city’s Beijing-backed Chief Executive Carrie Lam resign.
After seven hours of marching, organisers estimated 1,030,000 people took part, far outstripping a demonstration in 2003 when half that number hit the streets to successfully challenge government plans for tighter national security laws.
Earlier today, hundreds of thousands had jammed Hong Kong’s streets to protest the bill in the biggest demonstration in years. Many said they feared it put the city’s vaunted legal independence at risk
The rallies – and the violence – plunge the global financial hub into a fresh political crisis, with marchers and opposition leaders demanding the bill be shelved and that the city’s Beijing-backed Chief Executive Carrie Lam resign
After seven hours of marching, organisers estimated 1,030,000 people took part, far outstripping a demonstration in 2003 when half that number hit the streets to successfully challenge government plans for tighter national security laws
Hundreds of thousands of people took to Hong Kong’s streets on Sunday in a last bid to block a proposed extradition law that would allow suspects to be sent to China to face trial
+27
Police chiefs called for public restraint as they mobilised more than 2,000 officers for a march that organisers expect to draw more than 500,000 people
The protest is expected to challenge a 2003 rally, which was against tightening national security laws, as the largest ever seen in Hong Kong
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.
One protester held a sign reading ‘Carry off Carrie’.
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down
Lam has tweaked the proposals but has refused to withdraw the bill, saying it is vital to plug a long-standing ‘loophole’
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down
Many of the protesters carried yellow umbrellas, which were the symbol of the 2014 protests against Chinese reforms of the Hong Kong electoral system
Endless thousands of people are seen between the skyscrapers of Hong Kong during the march on Sunday
Opposition to the proposed bill has united a broad range of the community, from usually pro-establishment business people and lawyers to students, pro-democracy figures and religious groups
‘I come here to fight,’ said a wheelchair-bound, 78-year-old man surnamed Lai, who was among the first to arrive at Victoria Park
‘It may be useless, no matter how many people are here. We have no enough power to resist as Hong Kong government is supported by the mainland,’ said Lai, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease
Opposition to the proposed bill has united a broad range of the community, from usually pro-establishment business people and lawyers to students, pro-democracy figures and religious groups.
‘I come here to fight,’ said a wheelchair-bound, 78-year-old man surnamed Lai, who was among the first to arrive at Victoria Park.
‘It may be useless, no matter how many people are here. We have no enough power to resist as Hong Kong government is supported by the mainland,’ said Lai, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease.
The marchers will slowly make their way through the crowded Causeway Bay and Wanchai shopping and residential districts to Hong Kong’s parliament, where debates will start on Wednesday into government amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.
The marchers will slowly make their way through the crowded Causeway Bay and Wanchai shopping and residential districts to Hong Kong’s parliament, where debates will start on Wednesday into government amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance
A Hong Kong police officer with blood flowing down his face is assisted by his colleague after clashing with protesters
Riot police use pepper spray in an effort to keep protesters at bay during the rally against proposed amendments to the extradition law
The changes will simplify case-by-case arrangements to allow extradition of wanted suspects to countries including mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, beyond the 20 that Hong Kong already has extradition treaties with
Opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system and worry about security forces contriving charges
Large swathes of traffic was stopped by the thousands of people marching in Hong Kong on Sunday afternoon
The changes will simplify case-by-case arrangements to allow extradition of wanted suspects to countries, including mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, beyond the 20 that Hong Kong already has extradition treaties with.
But it is the prospect of renditions to mainland China that has alarmed many in Hong Kong. The former British colony was handed back to Chinese rule in 1997 amid guarantees of autonomy and freedoms, including a separate legal system.
‘It’s a proposal, or a set of proposals, which strike a terrible blow … against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub,’ the territory’s last British governor, Chris Patten, said on Thursday.
Whether in business, politics or social and religious groups, opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system and worry about security forces contriving charges.
Foreign governments have also expressed concern, warning of the impact on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial hub
Police and security officials shepherd protesters at the protest. There are an estimated 2000 policemen and women at the march
This protester channels English novelist George Orwell by saying ‘1984 is happening in Hong Kong’ in a reference to China’s surveillance of its own people
Foreign governments have also expressed concern, warning of the impact on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial hub, and noting that foreigners wanted in China risk getting ensnared in Hong Kong.
The concerns were highlighted on Saturday with news that a local high court judge had been reprimanded by the chief justice after his signature appeared on a public petition against the bill.
Reuters reported earlier that several senior Hong Kong judges were concerned about the changes, noting a lack of trust in mainland courts as well as the limited nature of extradition hearings.
Human rights groups have repeatedly expressed concerns about the use of torture, arbitrary detentions, forced confessions and problems accessing lawyers.
Signs were seen in several different languages at the march. One slogan protesters used was that ‘Hong Kong is not China’
Hong Kong government officials have repeatedly defended the plans, even as they raised the threshold of extraditable offences to crimes carrying penalties of seven years or more.
They say the laws carry adequate safeguards, including the protection of independent local judges who will hear cases before any approval by the Hong Kong chief executive.
No-one will be extradited if they face political or religious persecution or torture, or the death penalty.
‘We continue to listen to a wide cross-section of views and opinions and remain to open to suggestions on ways to improve the new regime,’ a government official said on Sunday.
It was known as the One Belt One Road (OBOR) (Chinese: 一带一路) and the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road (Chinese: 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路)[3] until 2016 when the Chinese government considered the emphasis on the word “one” was prone to misinterpretation.[4]
The Chinese government calls the initiative “a bid to enhance regional connectivity and embrace a brighter future”.[5] Some observers see it as a push for Chinese dominance in global affairs with a China-centered trading network.[6][7] The project has a targeted completion date of 2049,[8] which coincides with the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.
Initially, the initiative was termed One Belt One Road Strategy, but officials decided that the term “strategy” would create suspicions so they opted for the more inclusive term “initiative” in its translation.[11]
Initial objectives
The stated objectives are “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, ending up in an innovative pattern with capital inflows, talent pool, and technology database.”[12] The initial focus has been infrastructure investment, education, construction materials, railway and highway, automobile, real estate, power grid, and iron and steel.[13] Already, some estimates list the Belt and Road Initiative as one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, covering more than 68 countries, including 65% of the world’s population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017.[14][15]
The Belt and Road Initiative addresses an “infrastructure gap” and thus has potential to accelerate economic growth across the Asia Pacific area, Africa and Central and Eastern Europe: a report from the World Pensions Council (WPC) estimates that Asia, excluding China, requires up to US$900 billion of infrastructure investments per year over the next decade, mostly in debt instruments, 50% above current infrastructure spending rates.[16]The gaping need for long term capital explains why many Asian and Eastern European heads of state “gladly expressed their interest to join this new international financial institution focusing solely on ‘real assets’ and infrastructure-driven economic growth”.[17]
Political control
The Leading Group for Advancing the Development of One Belt One Road was formed sometime in late 2014, and its leadership line-up publicized on 1 February 2015. This steering committee reports directly into the State Council of the People’s Republic of China and is composed of several political heavyweights, evidence of the importance of the program to the government. Then Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli, who was also a member of the 7-man Politburo Standing Committee then, was named leader of the group, with Wang Huning, Wang Yang, Yang Jing, and Yang Jiechi being named deputy leaders.[18]
On 28 March 2015, China’s State Council outlined the principles, framework, key areas of cooperation and cooperation mechanisms with regard to the initiative.[20]
Infrastructure networks
The Belt and Road Initiative is about improving the physical infrastructure along land corridors that roughly equate to the old silk road. These are the belts in the title, and a maritime silk road. [21] Infrastructure corridors encompassing around 60 countries, primarily in Asia and Europe but also including Oceania and East Africa, will cost an estimated US$4–8 trillion.[22][23] The initiative has been contrasted with the two US-centric trading arrangements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.[23] The projects receive financial support from the Silk Road Fund and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank while they are technically coordinated by the B&R Summit Forum. The land corridors include:[21]
The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) (Chinese: 中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊; Urdu: پاكستان-چین اقتصادی راہداری) which is also classified as “closely related to the Belt and Road Initiative”,[26] a US$62 billion collection of infrastructure projects throughout Pakistan[27][28][29] which aims to rapidly modernize Pakistan’s transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and economy.[28][29][30][31] On 13 November 2016, CPEC became partly operational when Chinese cargo was transported overland to Gwadar Port for onward maritime shipment to Africa and West Asia.[32]
Silk Road Economic Belt
The Belt and Road Economies from its initial plan[33]
Xi Jinping visited Astana, Kazakhstan, and Southeast Asia in September and October 2013, and proposed jointly building a new economic area, the Silk Road Economic Belt (Chinese: 丝绸之路经济带) [34] Essentially, the “belt” includes countries situated on the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The initiative would create a cohesive economic area by building both hard infrastructure such as rail and road links and soft infrastructure such as the trade agreements and a common commercial legal structure with a court system to police the agreements.[2] It would increase cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. Outside this zone, which is largely analogous to the historical Silk Road, is an extension to include South Asia and Southeast Asia.
Many of the countries that are part of this belt are also members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Three belts are proposed. The North belt would go through Central Asia and Russia to Europe. The Central belt passes through Central Asia and West Asia to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. The South belt runs from China to Southeast Asia, South Asia, to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan. The strategy will integrate China with Central Asia through Kazakhstan‘s Nurly Zhol infrastructure program.[35]
The “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” (Chinese: 21世纪海上丝绸之路) , or just the Maritime Silk Road, is the sea route ‘corridor’.[2] It is a complementary initiative aimed at investing and fostering collaboration in Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Africa, through several contiguous bodies of water: the South China Sea, the South Pacific Ocean, and the wider Indian Ocean area.[36][37][38] It was first proposed in October 2013 by Xi Jinping in a speech to the Indonesian Parliament.[39] Like the Silk Road Economic Belt initiative, most countries have joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Ice Silk Road
In addition to the Maritime Silk Road, Russia and China are reported to have agreed jointly to build an ‘Ice Silk Road’ along the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic, along a maritime route which Russia considers to be part of its internal waters.[40]
China COSCO Shipping Corp. has completed several trial trips on Arctic shipping routes, the transport departments of both Russia and China are constantly improving policies and laws related to development in the Arctic,[citation needed] and Chinese and Russian companies are seeking cooperation on oil and gas exploration in the area and to advance comprehensive collaboration on infrastructure construction, tourism and scientific expeditions.
Russia together with China approached the practical discussion of the global infrastructure project Ice Silk Road. This was stated by representatives of VnesheconomBank at the International conference Development of the shelf of Russia[41] and the CIS — 2019 (Petroleum Offshore of Russia), held in Moscow.
The delegates of the conference were representatives of the leadership of Russian and corporations (Gazprom, Lukoil, RosAtom, Rosgeologiya, VnesheconomBank, Morneftegazproekt, Murmanshelf, Russian Helicopters, etc.), as well as foreign auditors (Deloitte, member of the world Big Four) and consulting centers (Norwegian Rystad Energy and others.).[42]
Super grid
The super grid project aims to develop six ultra high voltage electricity grids across China, north-east Asia, Southeast Asia, south Asia, central Asia and west Asia. The wind power resources of central Asia would form one component of this grid.[43][44]
Project achievement
Countries which signed cooperation documents related to the Belt and Road Initiative
China has signed cooperational document on the belt and road initiative with 126 countries and 29 international organisations.[45] In terms of infrastructure construction, China and the countries along the Belt and Road have carried out effective cooperation in ports, railways, highways, power stations, aviation and telecommunications.[46]
Ethiopia‘s Eastern Industrial Zone is a manufacturing hub outside Addis Ababa that was built by China and occupied by factories of Chinese manufacturers.[48] According to Chinese media and the vice director of the industrial zone, there were 83 companies resident within the zone, of which 56 had started production.[49] However, a study in Geoforum noted that the EIZ has yet to serve as a catalyst for Ethiopia’s overall economic development due to many factors including poor infrastructure outside the zone. Discrepancies between the two countries industries also mean that Ethiopia cannot benefit from direct technological transfer and innovation.[50]
From October 2011 to February 2012, Chinese companies were contracted to supersede the century-old Ethio-Djibouti Railways by constructing a new electric standard gauge Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway. The new railway line, stretching more than 750 kilometres (470 mi) and travelling at 120 km/h (75 mph), shortens the journey time between Addis Ababa and Dijbouti from three days to about 12 hours.[51] The first freight service began in November 2015 and passenger service followed in October 2016.[52] On China–Ethiopia cooperation on international affairs, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China and Ethiopia are both developing countries, and both countries are faced with a complicated international environment. He stated that the partnership will be a model at the forefront of developing China–Africa relations.[53]
Kenya
In May 2014, Premier Li Keqiang signed a cooperation agreement with the Kenyan government to build the Mombasa–Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway connecting Mombasa to Nairobi. The railway cost US$3.2bn and was Kenya’s biggest infrastructure project since independence. The railway was claimed to cut the journey time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 9 hours by bus or 12 hours on the previous railway to 4.5 hours. In May 2017, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta called the 470 km railway a new chapter that “would begin to reshape the story of Kenya for the next 100 years”.[54] According to Kenya Railways Corporation, the railway carried 1.3 million Kenyans with a 96.7% seat occupancy and 600,000 tons of cargo in its first year of operation. Chinese media claim that the railway line boosted the country’s GDP by 1.5% and created 46,000 jobs for locals and trained 1,600 railway professionals.[55]
Nigeria
On 12 January 2019, Nigeria‘s first standard gauge railway, which has been successfully operated for 900 days, had no major accidents since its inception. With the successful completion of the railway construction by China Civil Engineering Construction Company (CCECC), the Abuja Kaduna train service began commercial operation on 27 July 2016. The Abuja-Kaduna Railway Line is one of the first standard railroad railway modernization projects (SGRMP) in Nigeria. This is the first part of the Lagos-Kano standard metrics project, which will connect the business centres of Nigeria with the economic activity centres of the northwestern part of the country.[56]
In a resolution of the Johannesburg Summit of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum in 2015, the Chinese government promised to provide satellite television to 10,000 African villages. It is reported that each of the 1,000 selected villages in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, will receive two sets of solar projection television systems and a set of solar 32-inch digital TV integrated terminal systems. A total of 20,000 Nigerian rural families will benefit from the project. Kpaduma, an underdeveloped rural community on the edge of the Nigerian capital of Abuja, is familiar with analog TV and has no chance to see the satellite TV channels enjoyed by people in Nigerian towns. The implementation of the project will create more jobs, 1,000 Nigerians in selected villages have received training on how to install, recharge and operate satellite TV systems.[57]
Sudan
In Sudan, China has helped the country to establish its own oil industry, and provided agricultural assistance for the cotton industry.[citation needed]
Future plans include developing railways, roads, ports, a nuclear power station, solar power farms and more dams for irrigation and electricity generation.[58]
Europe
Freight train services between China and Europe were initiated in March 2011.[59] The service’s first freight route linked China to Tehran. The China–Britain route was launched in January 2017[60] As of 2018, the network had expanded to cover 48 Chinese cities and 42 European destinations, delivering goods between China and Europe. The 10,000th trip was completed on 26 August 2018 with the arrival of freight train X8044 in Wuhan, China from Hamburg, Germany.[61] The network was further extended southward to Vietnam in March 2018.[62]
The China–Belarus Industrial Park is a 91.5 km2 (35.3 sq mi) special economic zone established in Smolevichy, Minsk in 2013. According to the park’s chief administrator, 36 international companies have settled in the park as of August 2018.[63] Chinese media claim the park will create 6,000 jobs and become a real city with 10,000 residents by 2020.[64]
Greece
The foreign ministers of China and Greece signed a Memorandum of Understanding related to further cooperation under the Belt and Road initiative on 29 August 2018. COSCO revitalized and currently runs the Port of Piraeus.[65]
Italy
In March 2019, Italy became the first G7 Nation to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative. [66]
Luxembourg
On 27 March 2019, Luxembourg signed an agreement with China to cooperate on Belt and Road Initiative.[67]
On 26 April 2019, the leaders of Russia and China called their countries “good friends” and vowed to work together in pursuing greater economic integration of Eurasia. On the sidelines of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin pledged to further strengthen economic and trade cooperation between the two sides. Vladimir Putin further stated that, “countries gathering under the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union share long-term strategic interests of peace and growth.” [68]
Switzerland
On 29 April 2019, during his visit in Beijing, Swiss President Ueli Maurer signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China under the Belt and Road Initiative.[69]
Asia
Armenia
On 4 April 2019, the President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian received a delegation led by Shen Yueyue, Vice-Chairwoman of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee of China in Yerevan, Armenia. President Sarkissian stated that Armenia and China are ancient countries with centuries-old tradition of cooperation since the existence of the Silk Road. The President noted the development of cooperation in the 21st century in the sidelines of the One Belt One Road program initiated by the top leadership of China and stated that “It’s time for Armenia to become part of the new Silk Road”.[70]
Central Asia
The five countries of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – are an important part of the land route of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).[71]
Hong Kong
During his 2016 policy address, Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying‘s announced his intention of setting up a Maritime Authority aimed at strengthening Hong Kong’s maritime logistics in line with Beijing’s economic policy.[72] Leung mentioned “One Belt, One Road” no fewer than 48 times during the policy address,[73] but details were scant.[74][75]
Indonesia
In 2016, China Railway International won a bid to build Indonesia‘s first high-speed rail, the 140 km (87 mi) Jakarta–Bandung High Speed Rail. It will shorten the journey time between Jakarta and Bandung from over three hours to forty minutes[76] The project, initially scheduled for completion in 2019, was delayed by land clearance issues.[77] 2000 locals are working on the project.
Laos
In Laos, construction of the 414 km (257 mi) Vientiane–Boten Railway began on 25 December 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2021. It is China’s first overseas railway project that will connect to China’s railway network.[78] Once operational, the Laos–China Railway will be Laos’ longest and connect with Thailand to become part of the proposed Kunming–Singapore railway, extending from the Chinese city of Kunming and running through Thailand and Laos to terminate at Singapore.[79][80] It is estimated to cost US$5.95 billion with 70% of the railway owned by China, while Laos’s remaining 30% stake will be mostly financed by loans from China.[81] However, it faces opposition within Laos due to the high cost of the project.[82]
In addition, Mahathir also threatened to deny foreign buyers a long-stay visa, prompting a clarification by Housing Minister Zuraida Kamaruddin and the Prime Minister’s Office.[90]
The project undergo negotiations for several months [91] and close to be cancelled off.[92] After rounds of negotiation and diplomatic mission, the ECRL project is resumed after Malaysia and China agreed to continue the project with reduced cost of RM 44 billion (US$10.68 billion) from the original of RM 65.5 billion.[93]
The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor is a major Belt and Road Initiative project encompassing investments in transport, energy and maritime infrastructure.
Sri Lanka
China’s main investment in Sri Lanka was the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port, mostly funded by the Chinese government and built by two Chinese companies. It claims to be the largest port in Sri Lanka after the Port of Colombo and the “biggest port constructed on land to date in the country”. It was initially intended to be owned by the Government of Sri Lanka and operated by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority, however it incurred heavy operational losses and the Sri Lankan government was unable to service the debt to China. In a debt restructuring plan on 9 December 2017, 70% of the port was leased and port operations were handed over to China for 99 years, The deal gave the Sri Lankan government $1.4 billion, that they will be using to pay off the debt to China. [94][95][96] This led to accusations that China was practicing debt-trap diplomacy.[97]
The port’s strategic location and subsequent ownership spurred concern over China’s growing economic footprint in the Indian Ocean and speculation that it could be used as a naval base. The Sri Lankan government promised that it was intended “purely for civilian use”.[98]
Colombo International Financial City built on land reclaimed from the Indian Ocean and funded with $1.4bn in Chinese investment is a special financial zone and another major Chinese investment in Sri Lanka. [99]
Thailand
In Thailand in 2005, the Chinese pharmaceutical company, Holley Group, and the Thai industrial estate developer, Amata Group, signed an agreement to develop the Thai–Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone. Since 2012, Chinese companies have also opened solar, rubber, and industrial manufacturing plants in the zone, and the zone expects the number to increase to 500 by 2021.[100] Chinese media have attributed this to Thailand’s zero tax incentives on land use and export products as well as favorable labor costs, and claimed that the zone had created more than 3000 local jobs.[101]
In December 2017, China and Thailand began the construction of a high-speed railway that links the cities of Bangkok and Nakhon Ratchasima, which will be extended to Nong Khai to connect with Laos, as part of the planned Kunming–Singapore railway.[102]
South America
Panama was the first to sign BRI agreements, followed by Bolivia, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana.[103]
Argentina
The Argentine-China Joint Hydropower Project will build two dams on the Santa Cruz River in southern Argentina: Condor Cliff and La Barrancosa. The China Gezhouba Group Corporation (CGGC) will be responsible for the project, which is expected to provide 5,000 direct and 15,000 indirect jobs in the country. It will generate 4,950 MWh of electricity, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.[104]
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, first proposed in October 2013, is a development bank dedicated to lending for infrastructure projects. As of 2015, China announced that over one trillion yuan (US$160 billion) of infrastructure related projects were in planning or construction.[106]
The primary goals of AIIB are to address the expanding infrastructure needs across Asia, enhance regional integration, promote economic development and improve the public access to social services.[107]
The Articles of Agreement of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (the legal framework) were signed in Beijing on 29 June 2015. The proposed bank has an authorized capital of $100 billion, 75% of which will come from Asia and Oceania. China will be the single largest stakeholder, holding 26% of voting rights.[needs update]. The board of governors is AIIB’s highest decision-making body.[108] The bank began operation on 16 January 2016, and approved its first four loans in June.[109]
In November 2014, Xi Jinping announced a US$40 billion development fund, which would be separate from the banks and not part of the CPEC investment. TheSilk Road Fund would invest in businesses rather than lend money to the projects. The Karot Hydropower Project, 50 km (31 mi) from Islamabad, Pakistan is the first project. [110] The Chinese government has promised to provide Pakistan with at least US$350 million by 2030 to finance this station. The Sanxia Construction Corporation commenced work in January 2016.[111]
A university alliance centered at Xi’an Jiaotong University aims to support the Belt and Road initiative with research and engineering, and to foster understanding and academic exchange.[112][113] The network extends beyond the economic zone, and includes a law schoolalliance to “serve the Belt and Road development with legal spirit and legal culture”.[114]
Commentary
Infrastructure-based development
China is a world leader in infrastructure investment.[115] In contrast with the general underinvestment in transportation infrastructure in the industrialized world after 1980 and the pursuit of export-oriented development policies in most Asian and Eastern Europeancountries,[116][117] China has pursued an infrastructure-based development strategy, which has resulted in engineering and construction expertise and a wide range of modern reference projects from which to draw, including roads, bridges, tunnels, and high-speed railprojects.[118] Collectively, many of China’s projects are called “mega-infrastructure“.
Between 2014 and 2016, China’s total trade volume in the countries along the Belt and Road exceeded $3 trillion, created $1.1 billion revenues and 180,000 jobs for the countries involved.[122] However, partnering countries worry whether the large debt burden on China to promote the Initiative will make China’s pledges declaratory.[123]
Accusations of neocolonialism
There has been concern over the project being a form of neocolonialism. In 2018, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad cancelled China-funded projects and warns “there is a new version of Colonialism happening”,[85] which he later clarified as not being about China and its Belt and Road Initiative in an interview with the BBC HARDtalk.[124][125] Some Western governments have accused the Belt and Road Initiative of being neocolonial due to what they allege as China practice of debt trap diplomacy to fund the initiative’s infrastructure projects.[126]
Swaine (2019) describes such accusations as concerns grossly inflated and oversold, attributing repayment problems in individual cases to reckless and inexperienced practices as opposed to premeditation on the part of Chinese investment.[127] The Chinese government characterizes claims of neocolonialism or debt-trap diplomacy as manipulations to sow mistrust about China’s intentions.[128] China contends that the initiative has provided markets for commodities, improved prices of resources and thereby reduced inequalities in exchange, improved infrastructure, created employment, stimulated industrialization, and expanded technology transfer, thereby benefiting host countries.[129] Blanchard (2018) argues that the potential scope of the benefits may not be fully recognized and the negatives exaggerated, noting that critics are concerned with disparaging Chinese investments and suggesting that they should shift their focus to empowering host countries instead.[129] Poghosyan (2018) states that some Chinese experts claim that such Western perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative are misconstrued due to Western conceptions of development as seen through their own lens of exploitation of others for resources—as exemplified by European colonialism—instead of through Chinese conceptions of development.[130] Set to differentiate from the coercive nature as was characterized by Western colonialism, as stated by Xing (2017), China’s strategic paradigm for the Belt and Road Initiative involves the active participation and cooperation of partner countries.[131]
Government officials in India have repeatedly objected to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), specifically because they believe the “China–Pakistan Economic Corridor” (CPEC) project ignores New Delhi’s essential concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.[132]
Practically, developing infrastructural ties with its neighboring countries will reduce physical and regulatory barriers to trade by aligning standards.[133] China is also using the Belt and Road Initiative to address excess capacity in its industrial sectors, in the hopes that whole production facilities may eventually be migrated out of China into BRI countries.[134]
A report from Fitch Ratings suggests that China’s plan to build ports, roads, railways, and other forms of infrastructure in under-developed Eurasia and Africa is out of political motivation rather than real demand for infrastructure. The Fitch report also doubts Chinese banks’ ability to control risks, as they do not have a good record of allocating resources efficiently at home, which may lead to new asset-quality problems for Chinese banks that most of funding is likely to come from.[135]
The Belt and Road Initiative is believed by some analysts to be a way to extend Chinese influence at the expense of the US, in order to fight for regional leadership in Asia.[136][137] Some geopolitical analysts have couched the Belt and Road Initiative in the context of Halford Mackinder‘s heartland theory.[138][139][140] China has already invested billions of dollars in several South Asian countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to improve their basic infrastructure, with implications for China’s trade regime as well as its military influence. China has emerged as one of the fastest-growing sources of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into India – it was the 17th largest in 2016, up from the 28th rank in 2014 and 35th in 2011, according to India’s official ranking of FDI inflows.
An analysis by the Jamestown Foundation suggests that the BRI also serves Xi Jinping’s intention to bring about “top-level design” of economic development, whereby several infrastructure-focused state-controlled firms are provided with profitable business opportunities in order to maintain high GDP growth.[141] Through the requirement that provincial-level companies have to apply for loans provided by the Party-state to participate in regional BRI projects, Beijing has also been able to take more effective control over China’s regions and reduce “centrifugal forces”.[141]
Another aspect of Beijing’s motivations for BRI is the initiative’s internal state-building and stabilisation benefits for its vast inland western regions such as Xinjiang and Yunnan. Academic Hong Yu argues that Beijing’s motivations also lie in developing these less developed regions, with increased flows of international trade facilitating closer economic integration with the China’s inland core.[142] Beijing may also be motivated by BRI’s potential benefits in pacifying China’s restive Uyghur population. Harry Roberts suggests that the Communist Party is effectively attempting to assimilate and pacify China’s Uyghur community by using economic opportunities to increase integration between Han settlers and the native population.[143]
Reactions over the world
Supporters of the project
Russia
Moscow has been an early partner of China in the New Silk Roads project. President Putin and President Xi have met several times in the last decade and have already agreed on developments which will be of mutual benefit. In March 2015, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov asserted that “Russia should not view the Silk Road Economic Belt as a threat to its traditional, regional sphere of influence […] but as an opportunity for the Eurasian Economic Union”. Russia and China now have altogether 150 common projects for Eurasian union and China. These projects, some under the “Ice Silk Road” plan, include gas transmission system, gas refinery plants, manufacturing of vehicles, heavy industries, and new types of services. Not only that, China Development Bank loaned Russia the equivalent of more than 9.6 billion U.S. dollars.[144] An additional proof both countries are growing into a strong partnership is that in official report titled “The Belt and Road Initiative: Progress, Contributions, and Prospects” Russia was mentioned 18 times, the most out of all countries except China.[145]
Asia
One of China’s claimed official priority is to benefit its neighbors before everyone else. During the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation which was held in May 2019, Xi Jinping reaffirmed his will to promote regional trade whether it was with President Vorachith of Laos[146] or President Loong of Singapore[147] and that, for the benefit of all the parties. This goes in line with the joint effort decided in November 2015 to move ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)-China relation to a higher level of economic cooperation in areas such as Agriculture, IT, Transport, Communications, etc.[148]
Arab countries
In April 2019 and during the second Arab Forum on Reform and Development, China engaged in an array of partnerships called “Build the Belt and Road, Share Development and Prosperity” with 18 Arab countries. The amount of trade between the two entities has grown almost ten-fold over the last 10 years. That is because China does not see the Middle East as their ‘petrol station’ anymore. Many further areas of commerce are being involved nowadays; ports in Oman, factories in Algeria, skyscrapers in Egypt’s new capital, etc. China is interested in providing a financial security to those countries, who after many Arab wars and American interventions, live off the U.S support. On the one hand, Arab countries gain independence and on the other, China opens the door of a colossal market. As the president of LebanonMichel Aoun stated, “We regard China as a good friend and are willing to further consolidate the relationship with China. We would like to draw the experience from China’s reform and development so as to benefit our people and seek our opportunities for development”.[149] An additional advantage on China’s part is that it plays a neutral role on the level of diplomacy. China is not interesting in intervening between Saudi Arabia and Iran’s conflict for instance. Therefore, it succeeds in both trading with countries which are enemies such Israel and the Palestinian territories or Israel and Syria.[150]
Africa
Attending the second Belt and Road Forum, former president of the world bank and current president of the UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa)Vera Songwe said: “This (BRI) is probably one of the biggest growths and development initiatives that we have in the world”. The statement well sums up the general stand of African countries. Just like Arab countries, they see the BRI as a tremendous opportunity for independence from the foreign aid and influence. More than half the continent has already signed partnerships with the Middle Kingdom. Lu Kang, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently declared: “We will advance bilateral cooperation in areas including industries, infrastructure, trade and investment, improve the living standards of African people, bring more development dividends to African countries, and deliver more benefits to people in China and Africa.” Not only that, he continued saying: “The two sides have already launched many important cooperation projects and achieved early harvests.”[151]
Italy/eastern Europe
Greece, Croatia and 14 other eastern Europe countries are already dealing with China within the frame of the BRI. While most of them still suffer the aftereffect of the 2008 economic crisis, China’s approach creates a new range of opportunities and offers an economic breath of fresh air. Hence, it is not surprising that, in March 2019, Italy was the first member of the Group of Seven nations to join the Chinese Initiative. The new partners signed a 2.5 billion euros “Memorandum of Understanding” across an array of sectors such as transport, logistics and port infrastructure to strengthen financial cooperation.[152] The Italian PM immediately affirmed his trust toward China declaring: “Cooperation is bigger than competition between China and Europe”. Former Italian President Giuseppe Conte’s decision was followed soon thereafter by neighboring countries Luxembourg and Switzerland. A few weeks later, China won another victory by consolidating billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure deals with the 16+1 Nations, which changed its name to the 17+1 group, as it saw Greece join the alliance as well.
One thing is for sure, for all those countries, the common denominator is the same. The general opinion is that China is the only one with a sustainable long-term plan and that the time has come to give the Middle Kingdom a chance when no one really has an alternative to offer in order to boost economic growth.
Opponents to the project
Australia, Japan, India and the US ‘Indo-Pacific Vision’
Japan, India and Australia joined forces to create an alternative to the Belt and Road creating the “Indo-Pacific strategy”. In reality, very few details are known about the project although it was initiated in 2016. By and large, the cooperation highlighted two topics: securing the Pacific Sea and guaranteeing free trade in the region.
Recently, the US joined the initiative thus renaming the alliance into the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIP). President Donald Trump has begun translating the U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIP) into more concrete initiatives across what officials have articulated as three pillars – security, economics, and governance. This can be seen as a direct counterattack against China which expands its military and whose communist roots are viewed by some as antagonistic to the idea of free trade.[153]
World Pensions Council director M. Nicolas J. Firzli has argued that the United States and its allies will strive to court large private sector asset owners such as pension funds, inviting them to play an increasingly important geo-economic part across the Asia Pacific area, alongside US and other state actors:
Even the self-absorbed, thrifty ‘America first’ policy makers in the White House eventually realized they couldn’t ignore these fateful geo-economic developments. In November 2018, vice-president Mike Pence travelled to Asia to promote President Trump’s ‘Indo-Pacific Vision’, an ambitious plan backed by tens of billions of dollars in new loans and credit-enhancement mechanisms to encourage “private investment in regional infrastructure assets”, insisting that “business, not bureaucrats will facilitate our efforts”. The new great game has just started, and pension investors will be courted assiduously by both Washington and Beijing in the coming years – not a bad position to be in in the ‘age of geoeconomics’.[154]
At the beginning of June 2019, there has been a redefinition of the general definitions of “free” and “open” into four specific principles – respect for sovereignty and independence; peaceful resolution of disputes; free, fair, and reciprocal trade; and adherence to international rules and norms.[155] Leaders committed that the United States and India should intensify their economic cooperation to “make their nations stronger and their citizens more prosperous”.
One issue remains to be dealt with and it is the question of Russia. Indeed, India sees it as an ally which they can rely on, where the U.S relates to Russia as an unfriendly and uncooperative state. Hardship to find substantial partners in the region and over the world is another major impediment for the FOIP.
European Union
Recently, Italy and Greece have been the first major powers to join the Belt and Road Initiative, stressing the urgency for the E.U to clarify its positions towards China international policies. Indeed, whereas Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio told that the accord was “nothing to worry about”, French and German leaders are less optimistic. President Macron even said in Brussels that “the time of European naïveté is ended”. “For many years”, he added, “we had an uncoordinated approach and China took advantage of our divisions.”[citation needed]
At the end of March 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker joined for talks with Xi in Paris in company of President Macron. There, Macron exhorted China to “respect the unity of the European Union and the values it carries in the world”. Juncker on his end stressed that European companies should find “the same degree of openness in the China market as Chinese ones find in Europe.” In the same vein, Merkel declared that the BRI “must lead to a certain reciprocity, and we are still wrangling over that bit.” In January 2019 Macron said: “the ancient Silk Roads were never just Chinese … New roads cannot go just one way.”[156]
Think Tank
A French Think Tank, focused on the study of the New Silk Roads has been launched in 2018. It is described as pro-Belt and Road Initiative and pro-China. [157]
Story 3: Trump Warns Islamic Republic of Iranian Drive For Nuclear Weapons — Race for 90% Enriched Weapons Grade Uranium 235 For Nuclear Bombs — Israel and United States Air Superiority Will Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Bomb Research, Manufacturing, and Testing Facilities, Air Force and Navy — Videos
Iran Nuclear Deal: Iranian economy struggling under sanctions
Why can’t Iran enrich uranium beyond 3.67% under the nuclear deal?
We need to keep the pressure on Iran: Blackburn
Iran breaks nuclear deal, Lieberman calls it ‘predictable’
How will tougher U.S. sanctions against Iran impact oil prices?
In Depth – Sanctions on Iran
Why European companies shouldn’t do business with Iran
Can Iran Stop the US? A look at Irans Defenses
How to Make a Nuclear Bomb: Simplifying the Science
Newt Gingrich: Iran is very close to breaking
Trump to Iran: Threats can ‘come back to bite you’
Iran says it has exceeded uranium stockpile limits set by nuclear deal
Exclusive Interview: Trump sits down with Tucker Carlson in Japan
Tucker: US came within minutes of war with Iran
Iran’s foreign minister accuses US, Mideast of provoking conflict
Is The U.S. Going To War With Iran? | AJ+
Trump: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon
Can air strikes take out Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Netanyahu claims proof of secret Iranian nuclear activities
The Middle East’s cold war, explained
Could Israel Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Sites? Experts Say Perhaps, But….
Story 4: July 2019 Jobs Report: 224,000 Non-farm Payroll Joys Created in June 2019 with U-3 Unemployment Rate of 3.7%, U-6 Unemployment Rate of 7.6%, 6 Million Unemployed, Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% and Not In Labor Force of 96,057,000 and 162,981,000 in Labor Force — Federal Reserve Will Not Increase Federal Funds Rate Target in July — Videos
Watch five experts break down the June jobs report
US Economy Added 224,000 Jobs In June, Beating Expectations | MSNBC
Trump sees highest approval rating yet as US economy booms
Larry Kudlow: I’m confident the Fed will get to the right place
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-19-1137
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 5, 2019
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2019
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 224,000 in June, and the
unemployment rate was little changed at 3.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in
professional and business services, in health care, and in transportation
and warehousing.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The
household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment,
by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm
employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about
the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see
the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.7 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 6.0 million, changed little in June. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.3
percent), adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.7 percent), Whites
(3.3 percent), Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (2.1 percent), and Hispanics
(4.3 percent) showed little or no change in June. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 1.4 million in June and accounted for 23.7 percent
of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate, at 62.9 percent, was little changed
over the month and unchanged over the year. In June, the employment-
population ratio was 60.6 percent for the fourth month in a row. (See
table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged
at 4.3 million in June. These individuals, who would have preferred full-
time employment, were working part time because their hours had been
reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In June, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little different from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available
for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in
the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 425,000 discouraged workers in
June, little changed from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.1 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had
not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 224,000 in June. Employment
growth has averaged 172,000 per month thus far this year, compared with
an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In June, notable job gains
occurred in professional and business services, in health care, and in
transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs in June, following
little employment change in May (+24,000). Employment growth in the
industry has averaged 35,000 per month in the first half of 2019,
compared with an average monthly gain of 47,000 in 2018.
Employment in health care increased by 35,000 over the month and by
403,000 over the past 12 months. In June, job growth occurred in
ambulatory health care services (+19,000) and hospitals (+11,000).
Transportation and warehousing added 24,000 jobs over the month and
158,000 over the past 12 months. In June, job gains occurred among
couriers and messengers (+7,000) and in air transportation (+3,000).
Construction employment continued to trend up in June (+21,000), in
line with its average monthly gain over the prior 12 months.
Manufacturing employment edged up in June (+17,000), following 4 months
of little change. So far this year, job growth in the industry has
averaged 8,000 per month, compared with an average of 22,000 per month
in 2018. In June, employment rose in computer and electronic products
(+7,000) and in plastics and rubber products (+4,000).
Employment in other major industries, including mining, wholesale trade,
retail trade, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality,
and government, showed little change over the month.
In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 6 cents to $27.90, following a 9-cent gain in May.
Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.1
percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $23.43 in June. (See
tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
was unchanged at 34.4 hours in June. In manufacturing, the average
workweek edged up 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, while overtime was unchanged
at 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory
employees on private nonfarm payrolls held at 33.6 hours. (See tables
B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised
down from +224,000 to +216,000, and the change for May was revised
down from +75,000 to +72,000. With these revisions, employment gains
in April and May combined were 11,000 less than previously reported.
(Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates
and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions,
job gains have averaged 171,000 per month over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for July is scheduled to be released
on Friday, August 2, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
_______________________________________________________________________
| |
| 2019 Preliminary Benchmark Revision to Establishment Survey |
| Data to be released August 21, 2019 |
| |
| Each year, the establishment survey estimates are benchmarked to |
| comprehensive counts of employment from the Quarterly Census of |
| Employment and Wages (QCEW) for the month of March. These counts |
| are derived from state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records |
| that nearly all employers are required to file. On August 21, |
| 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will |
| release the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark |
| revision. This is the same day the first-quarter 2019 data from |
| QCEW will be issued. Preliminary benchmark revisions for all major |
| industry sectors, as well as total nonfarm and total private |
| employment, will be available on the BLS website at |
| www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesprelbmk.htm. |
| |
| The final benchmark revision will be issued with the publication |
| of the January 2020 Employment Situation news release in February |
| 2020. |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Category
June
2018
Apr.
2019
May
2019
June
2019
Change from:
May
2019-
June
2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
257,642
258,693
258,861
259,037
176
Civilian labor force
162,129
162,470
162,646
162,981
335
Participation rate
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.9
0.1
Employed
155,592
156,645
156,758
157,005
247
Employment-population ratio
60.4
60.6
60.6
60.6
0.0
Unemployed
6,537
5,824
5,888
5,975
87
Unemployment rate
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.7
0.1
Not in labor force
95,513
96,223
96,215
96,057
-158
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.7
0.1
Adult men (20 years and over)
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.3
0.0
Adult women (20 years and over)
3.7
3.1
3.2
3.3
0.1
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
12.6
13.0
12.7
12.7
0.0
White
3.5
3.1
3.3
3.3
0.0
Black or African American
6.5
6.7
6.2
6.0
-0.2
Asian
3.2
2.2
2.5
2.1
-0.4
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
4.6
4.2
4.2
4.3
0.1
Total, 25 years and over
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.0
0.1
Less than a high school diploma
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.3
-0.1
High school graduates, no college
4.1
3.5
3.5
3.9
0.4
Some college or associate degree
3.3
3.1
2.8
3.0
0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.0
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
3,055
2,651
2,664
2,736
72
Job leavers
801
737
803
888
85
Reentrants
2,078
1,926
1,870
1,868
-2
New entrants
579
530
599
541
-58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,218
1,904
2,147
1,961
-186
5 to 14 weeks
1,865
1,842
1,559
1,830
271
15 to 26 weeks
862
854
799
769
-30
27 weeks and over
1,467
1,230
1,298
1,414
116
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
4,736
4,654
4,355
4,347
-8
Slack work or business conditions
3,018
2,891
2,646
2,707
61
Could only find part-time work
1,453
1,446
1,339
1,337
-2
Part time for noneconomic reasons
21,336
21,322
21,366
21,524
158
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
1,437
1,417
1,395
1,571
–
Discouraged workers
359
454
338
425
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
June 8, 2016
The following material largely was excerpted from Regular Commentary No. 810 of June 5, 2016.
___________
ALTERNATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
Counting All Discouraged/Displaced Workers, May 2016 Unemployment Rose to About 23.0%.
Discussed frequently in the regular ShadowStats Commentaries on monthly unemployment conditions,
what removes headline-unemployment reporting from common experience and broad, underlying
economic reality, simply is definitional. To be counted among the U.S. government’s headline
unemployed (U.3), an individual has to have looked actively for work within the four weeks prior to the
unemployment survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS). If the active search for work
was in the last year, but not in the last four weeks, the individual is considered a “discouraged worker” by
the BLS, and not counted in the headline labor force.
ShadowStats defines that group as “short-term discouraged workers,” as opposed to those who, after one
year, no longer are counted as “discouraged” by the government. Instead, they enter the realm of “longterm
discouraged workers,” those displaced by extraordinary economic conditions, including
regional/local businesses activity affected negatively by trade agreements or by other factors shifting U.S.
productive assets offshore, as defined and counted by ShadowStats (see the extended comments in the
ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Measure).
In the ongoing economic collapse into 2008 and 2009, and the non-recovery thereafter, the broad drop in
the U.3 unemployment rate from its headline peak of 10.0% in 2009, to the May 2016 headline 4.7%, was
due largely to the unemployed giving up looking for work (common in severe economic contractions and
major economic displacements). Those giving up looking for work are redefined out of headline
reporting and the labor force, as discouraged workers. The declines in the headline unemployment rate
often reflect that, as opposed to unemployed individuals finding new and gainful employment, as was
reflected in the headline May 2016 data.
As new discouraged workers move regularly from U.3 into U.6 unemployment accounting, those who
have been “discouraged” for one year also are dropped from the U.6 measure. As a result, the headline
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 2
U.6 measure has been declining along with headline U.3 for some time, but those being pushed out of U.6
still are estimated in the ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment Measure, which has remained relatively
steady, near its historic-high rate for the last couple of years.
Moving on top of U.3, the broader U.6 unemployment rate—the government’s broadest unemployment
measure—includes only the short-term discouraged workers (those marginally attached to the labor
force). Separately, the U.6 measure also includes part-time workers for economic reasons, people looking
for but unable to find full-time unemployment. The still-broader ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment
Measure includes an estimate of all discouraged workers, including those discouraged for one year or
more—those who effectively have been displaced by circumstances beyond their control—as the BLS
used to define and measure the series more broadly, before 1994.
Again, when the headline unemployed become “discouraged,” they are rolled over from U.3 into U.6. As
the headline, short-term discouraged workers roll over into long-term discouraged status, they move into
the ShadowStats measure, where they remain. Aside from attrition, they are not defined out of existence
for political convenience, hence the longer-term divergence between the various unemployment rates.
The resulting difference here is between headline-May 2016 unemployment rates of 4.7% (U.3) and
22.3% (ShadowStats).
Graph 1 reflects headline May 2016 U.3 unemployment at 4.69%, versus 4.98% in April 2016; headline
May 2016 U.6 unemployment at 9.73%, versus 9.71% in April; and the headline May 2016 ShadowStats
unemployment estimate holding at 23.0%, up from 22.9% in April.
Graphs 2 to 3 reflect longer-term unemployment and discouraged-worker conditions. Graph 2 is of the
ShadowStats unemployment measure, with an inverted scale. The higher the unemployment rate, the
weaker will be the economy, so the inverted plot tends to move visually in tandem with plots of most
economic statistics, where a lower number means a weaker economy.
The inverted-scale of the ShadowStats unemployment measure also tends to move with the employmentto-population
ratio, which has turned lower in April and May 2016. That ratio still remains near its post1994
record low, the historic low and bottom since economic collapse (only the period following the
series redefinition in 1994 reflects consistent reporting), as shown in Graph 4. The labor force containing
all unemployed (including total discouraged/displaced workers) plus the employed, however, tends to be
correlated with the population, so the employment-to-population ratio remains something of a surrogate
indicator of broad unemployment, and it has a strong correlation with the ShadowStats unemployment
estimate.
Shown in Graph 4, the May 2016 participation rate (the ratio of the headline labor force to the population)
also turned lower for the second month. Both the near-term Employment-to-Population Ratio and the
Participation Rate appear to have suffered near-term spikes and volatility from a combination of
population redefinition in January 2016 and specifically the lack of any consistency or comparability in
the seasonally adjusted monthly detail from the source Household Survey so far through May 2016.
Unadjusted ratios for these series are running respectively about 0.2% below and 0.1% above the adjusted
numbers, with the differences having narrowed in May.
The Participation-Rate remains off the historic low hit in September 2015 (again, pre-1994 estimates are
not consistent with current reporting), but it also notched lower again in May. The labor force used in the
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 3
Participation-Rate calculation is the headline employment plus U.3 unemployment. As with Graph 3 of
employment-to-population, its holding near a post-1994 low in current reporting indicates problems with
long-term discouraged workers, the loss of whom generally continues to shrink the headline (U.3) labor
force, and the plotted ratio.
Graph 1: Comparative Unemployment Rates U.3, U.6 and ShadowStats
Graph 2: Inverted-Scale ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Measure
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 4
Graph 3: Civilian Employment-Population Ratio
Graph 4: Participation Rate
Graphs 1 through 4 reflect data available in consistent detail only back to the 1994 redefinitions of the
Household Survey and the related employment and unemployment measures. Before 1994, employment
and unemployment data consistent with the May 2016 Household-Survey reporting simply are not
available, irrespective of any protestations to the contrary by the BLS. Separately, consider Graph 5,
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 5
which shows the ShadowStats version of the GDP, also from 1994 but through the May 27th second
estimate of first-quarter 2016 activity, where the GDP plot has been corrected for the understatement of
inflation used in deflating the headline GDP series (a description of approach and related links are found
in No. 777 Year-End Special Commentary).
Graph 5: Corrected Real GDP through 1q2016, Second Estimate
Graph 6: U.S. Petroleum Consumption to March 2016
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 6
Graph 7: CASS Freight Index for North America (2000 – 2016), Indexed to January 2000 = 100
ShadowStats also regularly publishes less biased series from a variety of sources. Shown in Graph 6, for
example, is the U.S. aggregate consumption of crude oil petroleum product, measured in physical barrel
count, is an extraordinarily broad indicator of general activity. The U.S. Energy Information Agency
(EIA), Department of Energy, publishes this detail on a monthly basis.
As with the CASS freight index (Graph 7), where the monthly data are not seasonally adjusted,
ShadowStats has plotted the petroleum series using a trailing twelve-month average, through headline
monthly detail of April 2016. The resulting smoothed pattern reflects the economic collapse into 2009,
followed by a protracted period of variable, low-level stagnation, and an upside notch into March 2016.
In contrast, the CASS index currently (through April 2016) continues to turn down in its twelve-month
trailing average, with deepening year-to-year contractions on a monthly basis.
In particular, the broad patterns of activity seen in the weakened employment measures in Graphs 2 and 3
generally are mirrored in Graph 5 of the “corrected” GDP. They also are largely consistent with the post1994
period shown in Graph 6 of petroleum consumption, Graph 7 of the CASS Freight Index and Graph
8 of real S&P 500 revenues, as estimated by ShadowStats and previously published and described in No.
777 Year-End Special Commentary.
The graphic detail on the Cass Freight Index™, a measure of North American freight volume, is
calculated by, and used with the permission of Cass Information Systems, Inc. Few measures better
reflect the actual flow of goods in commerce than freight activity. Graph 8 of S&P 500 revenues usually
is plotted with quarterly data beginning in 2000, but the time scale of the graph was shifted here back to
1994 to show the S&P 500 revenue detail on roughly a comparative, coincident basis with the related
detail in Graphs 2 to 6. A similar re-plotting of the monthly time scale was used for the freight index
detail in Graph 7.
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 7
Graph 8: Real S&P 500 Sales Adjusted for Share Buybacks (2000 – 2015), Indexed to January 2000 = 100
THE SHADOWSTATS-ALTERNATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE MEASURE.
In 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) overhauled its system for estimating unemployment,
including changing survey questions and unemployment definitions. In the new system, measurement of
the previously-defined discouraged workers disappeared. These were individuals who had given up
looking for work, no longer looking for work, because there was no work to be had. These people, who
considered themselves unemployed, had been counted in the old survey, irrespective of how long they had
been “discouraged.” These were individuals who were and would be considered displaced workers, due
to circumstances of severely-negative economic conditions or other factors such as changing industrial
patterns resulting from shifting global trade patterns.
The new survey questions and definitions had the effect of minimizing the impact on unemployment
reporting for those workers about to be displaced by the just-implemented North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, I had close ties with an old-line consumer polling company, whose
substantial economic monthly surveys were compared and contrasted carefully with census-survey details.
The new surveying changed the numbers, and what had been the discouraged-worker category soon
became undercounted or effectively eliminated. Change or reword a survey question, and change
definitions, you can affect the survey results meaningfully.
The post-1994 survey techniques also fell far shy of adequately measuring the long-term displacement of
workers tied to the economic collapse into 2008 and 2009, and from the lack of subsequent economic
recovery. In current headline reporting, the BLS has a category for those not in the labor force who
currently want a job. Net of the currently-defined “marginally attached workers,” which includes the
currently-defined and undercounted “discouraged workers” category used in the U.6 (1.713 million in
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 8
May 2016), those not in the labor force currently wanting a job increased to 4.736 million in May 2016 (a
total of 6.449 million). That net of 4.736 million was against 3.956 million in April 2016, 3.726 million
in March 2016, 4.146 million in February 2016, 4.077 million in January 2016, 3.872 million in
December 2015 and 3.608 million in November 2015 (those numbers are counted only on an unadjusted
basis). While some contend that that number includes all those otherwise-uncounted discouraged
workers, such is extremely shy of underlying reality—order of magnitude 20 million—due to the
cumulative effects of changed surveying methodology.
The ShadowStats number—a broad unemployment measure more in line with common experience—is
my estimate. The approximation of the ShadowStats “long-term discouraged worker” category—those
otherwise largely defined out of statistical existence in 1994—reflects proprietary modeling based on a
variety of private and public surveying over the last two-plus decades. Beyond using the BLS U.6
estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current
unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS.
As shown earlier, some broad systemic labor measures from the BLS, though, are consistent in pattern
with the ShadowStats measure, even allowing for shifts tied to an aging population. The graph of the
inverted ShadowStats unemployment measure has a strong correlation with the employment-topopulation
ratio, in conjunction with the labor-force participation rate, as well as with the ShadowStatsAlternate
GDP Estimate and S&P 500 Real Revenues, the CASS Freight Index and petroleum
consumption. Those economic- and labor-related series all are plotted with a time scale subsequent to the
1994 overhaul of unemployment surveying (see Graphs 2 to 8).
Headline May 2016 Detail. Adding back into the total unemployed and labor force the ShadowStats
estimate of effectively displaced workers, of long-term discouraged workers—a broad unemployment
measure more in line with common experience—the ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment Estimate for
May 2016 notched higher to 23.0%, from 22.9% in April 2016. The April 2016 reading remained down
by 30 basis points or 0.3% (-0.3%) from the 23.3% series high last seen in December 2013.
Again, In contrast, the May 2016 headline U.3 unemployment reading of 4.7% was down by a 530 basis
points or 5.3% (-5.3%) from its peak of 10.0% in October 2009. The broader U.6 unemployment measure
of 9.7% in May 2016, was down from its April 2010 peak of 17.2% by 750 basis points or 7.5% (-7.5%).
Seen in the Graph 1 of the various unemployment measures, there continues to be a noticeable divergence
in the ShadowStats series versus U.6 and U.3, with the BLS headline U.3 unemployment measures
headed lower again against a stagnant U.6 and an up-ticking, high-level ShadowStats number.
The reason for the longer term divergence versus the ShadowStats measure, again, is that U.6 only
includes discouraged and marginally-attached workers who have been “discouraged” for less than a year.
As the discouraged-worker status ages, those that go beyond one year fall off the government counting,
even as new workers enter “discouraged” status. A similar pattern of U.3 unemployed becoming
“discouraged” or otherwise marginally attached, and moving into the U.6 category, also accounted for the
early divergence between the U.6 and U.3 categories.
With the continual rollover, the flow of headline workers continues into the short-term discouraged
workers category (U.6), and from U.6 into long-term discouraged worker or displaced-worker status (the
ShadowStats measure). There was a lag in this happening as those having difficulty during the early
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 9
months of the economic collapse, first moved into short-term discouraged status, and then, a year later
they began moving increasingly into long-term discouraged status, hence some of the lack of earlier
divergence between the series. The movement of the discouraged unemployed out of the headline labor
force had been accelerating. While there is attrition in long-term discouraged numbers, there is no set cut
off where the long-term discouraged workers cease to exist. See the Alternate Data tab for historical
detail.
Generally, where the U.6 encompasses U.3, the ShadowStats measure encompasses U.6. To the extent
that a decline in U.3 reflects unemployed moving into U.6, or a decline in U.6 reflects short-term
discouraged workers moving into the ShadowStats number, the ShadowStats number continues to
encompass all the unemployed, irrespective of the series from which they may have been ejected.
Great Depression Comparisons. Discussed in the regular ShadowStats Commentaries covering the
monthly unemployment circumstance, an unemployment rate around 23% might raise questions in terms
of a comparison with the purported peak unemployment in the Great Depression (1933) of 25%. Hard
estimates of the ShadowStats series are difficult to generate on a regular monthly basis before 1994, given
meaningful reporting inconsistencies created by the BLS when it revamped unemployment reporting at
that time. Nonetheless, as best estimated, the current ShadowStats level likely is about as bad as the peak
actual unemployment seen in the 1973-to-1975 recession and the double-dip recession of the early-1980s.
The Great Depression peak unemployment rate of 25% in 1933 was estimated well after the fact, with
27% of those employed then working on farms. Today, less than 2% of the employed work on farms.
Accordingly, a better measure for comparison with the ShadowStats number might be the Great
Depression peak in the nonfarm unemployment rate in 1933 of roughly 34% to 35%.
Story 5: Faces of Fascism — Crazy Communist Clown Cortez — House Speaker Socialist Slapdowns Cortez — Just Walk Away From Democratic Socialist Party — Videos
Robert Paxton – The Anatomy of Fascism
Fascism in Italy
Why fascism is so tempting — and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari
‘How do you not know who this is?’ Glenn questions AOC for quoting a known fascist on Twitter
Tucker: The Democratic Party is now a religious cult
Border Patrol Chief Thoroughly Debunks AOC’s Lies
Garza claims AOC was ‘verbally abusive’ to Border Patrol agents
Customs and Border Protection under fire over conditions at migrant facilities, secret Facebook g…
Trump Takes BLOWTORCH To AOC And Her RADICAL LIES At Border Detention Facility
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to eliminate DHS
8yo receives death threats over her parody videos of Ocasio-Cortez
‘The Five’ reacts to fallout from AOC’s explosive accusations
Ex-acting ICE Director reacts to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusations
Hispanic pastor disputes Ocasio-Cortez’s claims about border facilities
Joy Villa: The left is very much the fascists they keep calling us
Hogan Gidley blasts Ocasio-Cortez for inaction on border crisis
Ex-acting ICE Director reacts to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusations
Separated undocumented families held in cages at Texas facility
Pelosi Stuns and SCHOOLS AOC and Ilhan Omar! Border Patrol Chief EXPOSES AOC’s lies! |
Ep. 79
Ocasio-Cortez splits with Pelosi on border bill with fiery response
Gingrich: Ocasio-Cortez was ‘viciously dishonest’ about the border
Fact checking Ocasio-Cortez and Beto’s climate claims
Watch Nancy Pelosi Confront AOC: Your Caucus Is “Like 5 People” | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC
McCarthy: Ocasio-Cortez owes the country an apology for concentration camp remarks
AOC: When I Said Concentration Camps I Didn’t Mean Nazis
Liberated American WWII Prisoner – “Nazi Concentration Camps” 1945
Before Death Camps | Hitler’s Hidden Holocaust
Uncovering China’s Detention And Torture Of Its Muslim Minority
China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World
Inside China’s ‘thought transformation’ camps – BBC News
How to recognize a dystopia – Alex Gendler
1984 (John Hurt) – Official Trailer
1984 Room 101
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) – Last Scene + Credits
George Orwell and 1984: How Freedom Dies
Why Public Schools and the Mainstream Media Dumb Us Down
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
Ocasio-Cortez pushes back on allegations she insulted Pelosi
BY REBECCA KLAR – 07/08/19 03:10 PM EDT
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday disputed allegations from some critics that she and other progressive freshmen insulted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) amid the fallout from House passage of a border aid bill backed by President Trump.
“Having respect for ourselves doesn’t mean we lack respect for her. It means we won’t let everyday people be dismissed,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
In an interview with The New York Times, Pelosi said four House Democrats, including Ocasio-Cortez, made themselves irrelevant by voting against “our bill.”
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” she said. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
Ocasio-Cortez responded by tweeting, “That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment. And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”
Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar(Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) voted against a spending package providing $4.5 billion after Pelosi agreed to take up the bipartisan Senate version of the bill without additional border protections demanded by progressive House lawmakers.
Ocasio-Cortez placed the border controversy at the forefront of her response to Pelosi’s comments to the Times.
“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
The Hill has reached out to Pelosi’s office for comment.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks to the media after visiting the detention facility in Clint, Texas on July 1. Those who condemned her for calling it a concentration camp are split on condemning the conditions at the facility. (Christ Chavez/Getty Images)
ADVERTISEMENT
(JTA) — At least five American Jewish organizations and two public figures think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was wrong to compare migrant detention centers on the southern border to concentration camps.
But how did they weigh in on the conditions at the detention centers themselves?
A little background: A few weeks ago, Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman Democratic New York congresswoman, tweeted “This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.”
The tweet got a lot of people talking about how we talk about the detention centers. People on the right said Ocasio-Cortez was trivializing the Holocaust by calling the facilities “concentration camps.” Some nonpartisan Jewish groups warned about the use of Holocaust analogies in political discourse.
Her defenders, including a large number of scholars and left-wing activists, said that “concentration camps” had a wider applicability than the death camps at Auschwitz or Treblinka, and that the crowded, inhumane conditions merited use of the term.
And still others argued that the debate over nomenclature was a distraction from the real issue, which is how migrants are being treated in detention facilities. A government report found that across five detention centers, children were going without showers and hot food, and had few clean clothes. On Monday, the Trump administration contested a New York Times report that migrant children were being held in a Clint, Texas facility where disease, hunger and overcrowding were rampant.
Here’s a rundown of the Jewish groups that criticized Ocasio-Cortez, what they said about her comment, and what they said about the detention centers.
Republican Jewish Coalition
What they said about AOC: “Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It is disgraceful for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to compare our nation’s immigration policies to the horrors carried out by the Nazis.”
What they said about the detention centers: “We are horrified and angry about the conditions and we appreciate that Speaker Pelosi finally relented and supported the Senate bill to fund humanitarian relief,” RJC said in a statement this week to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Last week, the Senate approved a $4.6 billion in emergency humanitarian aid for the border over Democrats’ objections that it included too much funding for enforcement and not enough for improving conditions at the detention facilities.
Anti-Defamation League
What they said about AOC: “Almost exactly one year ago, we urged caution when drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and reiterated our opposition to the horrible conditions separating families at the border,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the organization combating anti-Semitism. “This resonates just as strongly today.”
What they said about the detention centers: On July 3, Greenblatt linked to an article about the government report and tweeted: “The pictures and details in this report are startling. It’s inhumane, period. @DHSgov must end this cruelty immediately.”
Watchdog finds extreme overcrowding in Border Patrol facilities in unannounced inspections
Extreme overcrowding and children younger than 7 being held in custody for more than two weeks — far longer than the allowed 72 hours — are among the “urgent” issues discovered at Border Patrol…
cnn.com
91 people are talking about this
Simon Wiesenthal Center
What they said about AOC: “It’s an insult to the victims of the Shoah to make blatant false comparisons,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Holocaust research organization, told Jewish Insider. “Stop casting Trump as a latter-day Nazi scheming to build concentration camps. AOC and all Congressmen from both parties have a moral obligation to fix the humanitarian disaster at the border.”
What they said about the detention centers: In a statement to JTA, Cooper acknowledged a “humanitarian crisis” and pivoted back to Ocasio-Cortez: “Americans are compassionate people and understand that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, but no matter how many times Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez evokes Holocaust imagery, it is appalling and unacceptable… The need for laws that address border security while reflecting Americans’ history of compassion and our democracy’s historic values could not be more dire.”
National Council of Young Israel
What they said about AOC: “Making references to concentration camps in that context minimizes the atrocities of the Holocaust and cheapens the memories of the countless Jews who perished in those horrific camps,” Farley Weiss, president of the right-wing Orthodox synagogue organization, wrote in a letter. “There is simply no comparison with what happened in these concentration camps with what is occurring at the border.”
What they said about the detention centers: “There’s too many conflicting reports on it,” Weiss told JTA. “We want everyone to have basic access to cleanliness and being able to brush teeth and things of that nature.”
The Coalition for Jewish Values
What they said about AOC: “Concentration camps were places where Nazis inflicted slave labor, torture and death upon innocent Jews removed from their homes at gunpoint and transported there in cattle cars,” said Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer of the right-wing Orthodox rabbis’ group. “To use Holocaust terminology regarding the refugee situation at the border is deeply offensive.”
What they said about the detention centers: “We have no first-hand knowledge and there are multiple conflicting reports, so we can’t comment,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the group’s spokesman, told JTA.
Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University professor and Holocaust scholar
What she said about AOC and the detention centers: In one tweet on June 24, Lipstadt condemned both Ocasio-Cortez’s language and the conditions at the centers.
“Talk about the horrific conditions & not historical analogies,” she wrote. “Don’t give those who are behind this policy a chance to piously claim they are being wrongly accused. Use of Holocaust analogies to condemn US immigration policy is a distraction.”
Trump’s family-separation policy is horrible, but equating it with genocide is both historically and strategically misguided.
theatlantic.com
Isaac Chotiner
✔@IChotiner
New Interview: I talked to one of the lawyers who spent her week with immigrant children, many of them separated from their families, at a border facility. The conditions are horrific. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children …
What he said about AOC: “It is baffling why someone would choose a term to condemn cruelty that is guaranteed to make the argument about the term and not about the policy,” he told Jewish Insider. “Analogies that evoke the Holocaust are, with the rarest of exceptions, presumptively offensive and unwise.”
What he said about the detention centers: “It’s appalling and it’s unthinkable for the United States to treat people — whether they’re admitted or not to the country — in such a manner, and all of us should be better than that,” he told JTA. “If you can’t unite as a country to prevent the suffering of children then we’re in just abominable and disgraceful shape.”
Wolpe’s Los Angeles synagogue, Sinai Temple, has organized to provide supplies to migrants detained at the border.
Story 1: Radical Extremist Socialist Democrats (REDS) Pass The Torch — Burn Baby Burn Burn Biden Burn — Democrat Demolition Disco Debate — REDS Party Line: Government Single Payer Medicare (Socialized Medicine) For All Including 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Given Citizenship To Vote For Democrats! — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losing REDS Line — Never Vote For REDS If You Like Your Employer Provided Health Care,Want To Keep Your Babies Alive, Want A Job, Raise Your Standard of Living and Love Your Country — Staying Alive — Born to Be Alive — Videos
To my surprise, one hundred stories high
People getting loose y’all, getting down on the roof
Folks are screaming, out of control
It was so entertaining when the boogie started to explode
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction
(Burnin’)
I couldn’t get enough, so I had to self-destruct
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody going strong, and that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down y’all
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
Up above my head
I hear music in the air
That makes me know
There’s a party somewhere
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction
(Burnin’)
I couldn’t get enough, so I had to self-destruct
The heat was on, rising to the top
Everybody going strong, and that is when my spark got hot
I heard somebody say
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
When my spark gets hot
when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
(Just can’t stop) when my spark gets hot
disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn)
(Burn baby burn) burn that mother down
(Burn baby burn) disco inferno
Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk
I’m a woman’s man, no time to talk
Music loud and women warm, I’ve been kicked around
Since I was born
And now it’s alright, it’s okay
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man
Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Feel the city breakin’ and everybody shakin’
And we’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive
Well now, I get low and I get high
And if I can’t get either, I really try
Got the wings of heaven on my shoes
I’m a dancin’ man and I just can’t lose
You know it’s alright, it’s okay
I’ll live to see another day
We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man
Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Feel the city breakin’ and everybody shakin’
And we’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I’m stayin’ alive
Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk
I’m a woman’s man, no time to talk
Music loud and women warm
I’ve been kicked around since I was born
And now it’s all right, it’s okay
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man
Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Feel the city breakin’ and everybody shakin’
And we’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I’m stayin’ alive
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I’m stayin’ alive
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I’m stayin’ alive
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me
Somebody help me, yeah
Life goin’ nowhere, somebody help me, yeah
I’m stayin’ alive
Born, born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
People ask me why I never find a place to stop And settle down Down Down But I never wanted all those things People need to justify Their lives Lives Lives
Yes we were born, born Born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
It’s good to be alive To be alive To be alive It’s good to be alive To be alive To be alive
IT’S GOOD TO BE ALIVE!
Time was on my side When I was running down the street It was so fine fine fine A suitcase and an old guitar It’s all I need to occupy A mind like mine
Yes we were born, born Born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
Yes we were born, born Born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
Yes we were born, born Born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
Yes we were born, born Born to be alive (Born to be alive) Yes we were born Born Born (Born to be alive)
‘Her ambition got it wrong about Joe’: Harris faces debate backlash
Biden supporters lash out against Kamala Harris.
SAN FRANCISCO — Kamala Harris might be reveling in her sudden burst of attention after roasting Joe Biden over racial issues on the debate stage last week, but a backlash is already brewing.
Biden supporters and Democrats who have attended the former vice president’s events in the days after the first nationally televised debate, are describing Harris’ assault on Biden as an all-too-calculated overreach after she knocked him on his heels in a grilling over busing and his remarks on segregationist senators.
“She played low ball, which was out of character. And he didn’t expect it, nor did I,” said Lee White, a Biden supporter who attended his remarks at the Jesse Jackson Rainbow PUSH Coalition. “She should not have gone that route. She’s much too intelligent, she’s been able to be successful thus far, why do you have to do that.”
One major Biden supporter from California who declined to be named for publication said Harris’ direct attack on Biden was a mistake that would haunt her.
“It’s going to bite her in the ass,” the supporter noted. “Very early on there was buzz … Biden-Kamala is the dream ticket, the best of both worlds.’’
After this week, “That shit ain’t happening.”
The criticism of Harris over her rough treatment of Biden is among the first signs of backlash — including in her home state — against the California Democrat who had a breakout moment in the first presidential debate. It’s also a sign of the goodwill and loyalty that many still feel toward that the vice president, who has managed to keep many of his backers in his camp, even amid criticism of what was roundly viewed as a subpar debate performance. Indeed, sources say Biden walked away with a $1 million haul after two fundraisers in San Francisco alone this weekend.
“We can be proud of her nonetheless, but her ambition got it wrong about Joe,” said former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman to serve in the Senate who has endorsed Biden in the 2020 primary. “He is about the best there is; for her to take that tack is sad.”
Harris stunned Biden in the debate, knocking him back on his heels by noting his past “hurtful” efforts to work with segregationists and what she defined as his opposition to school busing. Harris’ emotional recounting of her own experience in the Berkeley school district as a child who was bused to more segregated schools — “that girl was me,’’ she said — became a defining debate moment, and bruised Biden’s status as the Democratic front-runner.
But one of Biden’s supporters called the attack by Harris “too cute by half” after her campaign tweeted out — and quickly began merchandising — a photo of Harris as a young girl. “Couldn’t they at least pretend that it was semi-organic?” the Biden supporter asked, referring to the planned nature of Harris’ debate night ambush.
Some Biden loyalists said they thought it was misleading of Harris to attack Biden on civil rights, given what they said was his lifelong advocacy on that front.
White, who is African American, said of the underlying segregationist issues Harris attacked: “I thought it was old news.”
Sam Johnson, a Columbia, S.C.-based public affairs consultant who represents many minority clients, accused Harris of “desperately overreaching.”
“I don’t think a lot of folks are saying, ‘well, there’s a lot of credibility of her going after Biden,’” said Johnson, who has not backed a 2020 candidate. “I don’t think it was received by the majority of folks as an attack that is going to move the needle. Most folks aren’t looking at that as something where, hey, ‘Biden was against civil rights carte blanche.’”
“It was planned, and it was staged and it was rehearsed — and they were ready to raise money on it,’’ another Bay Area Biden supporter said of Harris’ roundhouse punch.
But former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown — whose patronage of Harris helped put the then-Alameda County assistant district attorney on the political map in her early years — bridled at the suggestion that Harris may have muddled her political future with her attack on Biden. He told POLITICO that the vice president has no one to blame but himself for a lackluster and unprepared performance.
“They better hope she would accept [a VP nomination],’’ he said. “Otherwise, he’s a guaranteed loser.”
But Brown, who also served as speaker of the California Assembly, said Biden’s stunned reaction only underscored that — on the issue of civil rights — he has so far failed to be completely honest with voters and should simply admit his past unpopular actions and positions.
“At this point, she may be the only life raft he has,’’ he added, “because, as of this moment, he’s on the Titanic.”
Biden, in comments to supporters this weekend, appeared to acknowledge the possibility that his quest may not end in success — an unusual departure from the script of most presidential candidates who confidently toss off phrases like “as your next president.”
Speaking to about 150 backers in the bay-side Marin County community of Belvedere, Biden dismissed the idea that he was making a sacrifice to run for president, but said that he felt an obligation at a time when the country is at a crisis point with the Trump presidency.
“My family and I believe very strongly that you kind of have certain things fall in your wheelhouse,” he said. “It doesn’t mean I’m going to win, doesn’t mean I’m the only person who can be a good president, I’m not saying that.”
He told two different audiences that civil rights is a lifelong “passion’’ and also made reference to his Democratic competitors. While never mentioning Harris by name, he appeared to address her sharp criticism about working with segregationists, pushing back at the notion that reaching across the aisle is an outdated notion.
“I know I’m criticized heavily by my qualified contenders who are running,” he said, “when I say, ‘folks, we’ve got to bring the country together.’”
“Some will say, ‘well, that’s old Joe, they’re the old days,’’ he said. “[But] if that’s the old days,’’ he told supporters, “we’re dead … that’s not hyperbole.”
Former San Francisco Supervisor Leslie Katz, who has known the former San Francisco district attorney for years and is a member of Harris’ finance committee, defended the senator’s approach.
“She was giving him a chance to address the issues that would plague him. … She was gracious, and she personalized it: She said she didn’t think he was a racist,’’ Katz said. “What stunned me was that he wasn’t prepared for that topic, and he needs to figure that out, sooner rather than later.”
Debbie Mesloh, a longtime Harris adviser, also defended Harris’ question to Biden as on the mark — and entirely fair. “She was ready, and she was bold, and she delivered,’’ she said. “She really showed what she can do.”
Harris, meanwhile, was met in her hometown of San Francisco like a conquering hero post-debate, facing a sea of ebullient supporters at a packed #LGBTQ fundraiser during San Francisco’s PRIDE weekend.
But after reveling in the moment, Harris also delivered a reality check about the long campaign still ahead.
“It will be tough. It will be excruciating. It’s going to be a long haul,’’ she told them.
“We’re going to have good weeks. We’re going to have bad weeks. It’s not going to be given to us … but we are going to be joyful about this,’’ she said. “As much success as we’ve had — there’s still much to do.”
Who Won the Democratic Debate, Night 2? Experts Weigh In
Senator Kamala Harris impressed campaign veterans across the board with her confrontation with Joseph R. Biden Jr.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Kamala Harris impressed campaign veterans across the board with her confrontation with Joseph R. Biden Jr.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
When the candidates took the stage in Miami on Thursday for the second night of Democratic primary debates, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Bernie Sanders were the stars. By the time they walked off, all eyes were on Senator Kamala Harris.
Twitter is a bad gauge for public opinion, but a decent source for the assessments of professional observers, including some who know the stakes of debates best: veteran campaign strategists and consultants from both parties. Here is a sampling of responses from them, and from some activists and writers.
No one could match Harris …
From beginning to end, Ms. Harris dominated the debate, starting with a pithy applause line — “America does not want a food fight; they want to know how we are going to put food on the table,” she said, as her rivals shouted over one another — and culminating with a deeply personal exchange in which she confronted Mr. Biden over his record on race and desegregation.
“She proved that she can go after a male opponent without suffering the gender stereotype of appearing overly aggressive or overly ambitious. She looked like a winner, plain & simple.” —Patti Solis Doyle, adviser to the 2008 Obama campaign
“Hell of an exchange on race between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If Kamala Harris becomes president, it will be because of this moment.” —Frank Luntz, Republican consultant and pollster
“Harris directly confronting Biden on busing/segregationists was historic, powerful, and unimaginable on a presidential stage until very recently, which is itself symptomatic of a world Biden is struggling to defend.” —Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York magazine
“Here are my #demdebate2 rankings: 1. Kamala.” — Zerlina Maxwell, senior director of progressive programming at SiriusXM
A debate watch party in Manhattan.CreditSarah Blesener for The New York Times
Pete Buttigieg received some tough questions, including one about a police officer’s fatal shooting of a black man in South Bend, Ind., where Mr. Buttigieg is mayor. He has been off the campaign trail for much of the week dealing with the crisis. But his response at the debate, when asked why the South Bend Police Department has not added more black officers during his time in office, impressed some strategists and activists.
“Because I couldn’t get it done,” he said, before adding: “I could walk you through all of the things that we have done as a community, all of the steps that we took, from bias training to de-escalation, but it didn’t save the life of Eric Logan. And when I look into his mother’s eyes, I have to face the fact that nothing that I say will bring him back.”
“I can’t stop thinking about Pete Buttigieg’s answer to that question. It was completely unexpected. Vulnerable, honest, heartfelt, and not one bit of cowardice in it. It was a leader’s answer.” — Charlotte Clymer, spokeswoman for Human Rights Campaign
“Once again, he took responsibility for his failure as mayor to fully address the underlying issues. But he also spoke of the incident in very human terms; of the man who was killed, his family and the impact on his community.” — David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Barack Obama
“If anyone is teaching media training classes for how to speak in English about complicated topics on television—@PeteButtigieg is masterful at it. Never mentions bills, never mentions DC garbely gook.” — Jen Psaki, former spokeswoman for Mr. Obama
Biden emerged worse for wear
Early in the debate, Mr. Biden got some praise from analysts.
“Very smart for @JoeBiden to stick to who he is, what he stands for and not back away from it.” — Jen Psaki
But once he started tangling with Ms. Harris, things went downhill fast. There was little dispute that she came out of their exchanges victorious, and Mr. Biden bruised.
“There are very few candidates who are able to connect on an emotional and personal level with voters the way Joe Biden typically does. But in that exchange with Harris, when she looked at him and gave an intensely personal anecdote, he fell far short of doing so.” — Mo Elleithee, executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service
Pete Buttigieg, Mr. Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders during a commercial break on Thursday.CreditDoug Mills/The New York TimesI
Pete Buttigieg, Mr. Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders during a commercial break on Thursday.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
“If you are the Biden folks tonight, you have two hopes: 1. The poor reviews convince your principal he needs to listen and come to next debate better prepared. 2. Next round of polls don’t register a huge drop, and you can try to act like Harris’s knock-out was a Twitter phenomenon.” — Brian Fallon, former aide to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer
“Later debates could be more important. But this debate won’t help Biden.” —Laura Belin, Iowa political commentator
Mr. Sanders is one of the highest-polling candidates in the race, with one of the most committed followings. But on Thursday, he struggled to command attention.
“It’s amazing to me how little a factor (outside of the first few minutes) Bernie has been in this debate.”— Mo Elleithee
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand didn’t make as much of a mark as Ms. Harris or Mr. Buttigieg, but she did get good reviews.
“@SenGillibrand is excellent at explaining her evolution from her previous positions — she says she was wrong, she listened, she learned, she changed. That’s what we need to hear from Joe Biden tonight.” — Jess McIntosh, executive editor of Shareblue Media
“Kirsten at her best. Prepared. Committed. Clear.” — Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral
Representative Eric Swalwell was not as well received.
“Good God. I thought nobody could attempt more irritating interruptions than De Blasio last night. But Swalwell is giving him a run for his money.”— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas, Republican strategist
The 2nd & last of the 1st face-off between the men & women who want Donald Trump’s job was much more punchy, on stage & in the numbersAP
UPDATE, 12:01 PM: Looks like the viewership estimations for the second Democratic debate were as conservative as frontrunner Joe Biden.
With 18.1 million tuning in to see Sen. Kamala Harris school the former VP, the simulcast across NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo is officially the most watched debate that the party of FDR, JKF, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has ever had.
Topping the previous high of the CNN-hosted and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders-led yakfest of October 2015 by 2.6 million, last night’s debate also had 9 million viewers and 14 million video views across all platforms such as NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, Telemundo.com, NBC News NOW on OTT devices, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
RELATED STORY
Democratic Debate Night 2 Review: Joe Biden Takes A Beating But Keeps On Tickin’, Kamala Harris Comes Out Swinging On NBC Stage
Which means, CNN better get its engines roaring for the next set of Dems debates that it is hosting in Motor City next month
PREVIOUSLY, 8:39 AM: The second night of the first Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential election season was certainly punchier and snappy than the previous evening.
Kamala Harris came out of her corner Thursday intending to belt and bruise frontrunner Joe Biden, and California’s junior senator did just that – which means the NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo simulcast was also much better TV than Night 1.
Building off the night before, the dust-up was also more of a magnet to viewers in comparison to Wednesday’s rather decorous affair with Sen. Elizabeth Warren and nine other candidates you’ve already forgotten, with the scrimmage scoring a 14.2/26 in metered markets across the trio of outlets. Remarkably steady with the Donald Trump jet-fueled Fox News Channel-hosted first GOP debate of the 2016 campaign, last night’s 9-11 PM ET event jumped 16.4% over Night 1 in the early metrics.
In fact, if the audience of 15.3 million that the 10 candidates drew Wednesday with moderators Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz-Balar is a fair indication, it’s reasonable to predict that last night’s hootenanny could snare just over 17 million viewers.
Still far behind the 24 million that tuned in for the former Celebrity Apprentice host and his fellow Republicans’ first debate almost four years ago, last night would exceed the 16 million that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders (who was on stage in Miami with Harris, Biden and seven other contenders last night) and a trio of other hopefuls got in the first Dems debate of the last POTUS campaign back in October 2015.
Right now, in the unadjusted fast affiliates, Night 2 is looking at around 8.83 million viewers on NBC alone. That number will of course change as is the case with all live events like debates, sports and award shows. We’ll update with the final numbers and more of what else was on the small screen last night when they come in.
By then, there may likely be another swipe from the current POTUS against some of his would-be successors:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
I am in Japan at the G-20, representing our Country well, but I heard it was not a good day for Sleepy Joe or Crazy Bernie. One is exhausted, the other is nuts – so what’s the big deal?
In the meantime, the metered market breakdown for last night is an 8.1/15 on NBC itself, 5.3/10 for MSNBC and a 0.8/1 for Telemundo. It’s worth noting that Night 2 saw far fewer Spanish speaking candidates on stage in contrast to Night 1 with ex-cabinet secretary Julian Castro, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke and Garden State Sen. Cory Booker.
The debate dominated the night to give NBC a victory overall in total viewers and the adults 18-49 demographic. ABC’s Holey Moley (0.9, 4.26M) at 8 PM was the night’s top-rated entertainment program, though it was edged by a Young Sheldon rerun on CBS in total viewers. CBS finished the night with the series finale of Life In Pieces(0.6, 3.77M) and a new Elementary (0.4, 3.13M).
Fox was second overall in the demo for the night thanks to MasterChef (0.7, 2.89M), even with last week, and Spin the Wheel (0.6, 2.54M), off two tenths from its series premiere. Still, the latter edged ABC’s Family Food Fight (0.5, 2.53M) at 9 PM. ABC’s Reef Break (0.3, 1.99M) at 10 also dipped two tenths from a week ago.
The CW aired the season finale of In the Dark (0.2, 610,000), which followed an original iZombie (0.2, 670K). Both were flat compared with a week ago.
‘Girlfriend, you are so on’: Marianne Williamson stuns with bizarre performance at Democratic presidential debate as she vows to ‘harness love’ to defeat Donald Trump
Self-help author Marianne Williamson stunned onlookers during Dem debate
Spiritual guru promised to ‘harness love’ to defeat President Donald Trump
Declared that ‘chemicals’ are to blame for many health issues in the US
Vowed first act as president would be to call the Prime Minister of New Zealand
Said she’d say: ‘Girlfriend, you are so on’, after PM Arden said NZ is best for kids
Some fans declared her a ‘Wine Aunt’ whom they’d enjoy drinking with
PUBLISHED: 23:55 EDT, 27 June 2019 | UPDATED: 03:09 EDT, 28 June 2019
Author and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson has confused viewers as well as attracted new fans with her bizarre performance at the Democratic presidential primary debate.
In a memorable moment, Williamson declared that her first act as president would be to call the Prime Minister of New Zealand and declare the United States a better country to raise children.
‘Girlfriend, you are so on,’ Williamson said she would tell Prime Minister Jacinda Arden, who has said that New Zealand is the best place in the world to raise a child.
Relegated to the outside left podium, Williamson didn’t speak for the first 30 minutes of the debate, until jumping into an argument about healthcare policy.
Democratic presidential hopeful US author Marianne Williamson speaks during the second Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season
Williamson was relegated to the far-left podium, polling the lowest of the field along with Congressman Eric Swalwell at the far-right podium
Williamson confusingly dismissed the other candidates’ health policy positions as ‘superficial fixes’ and said that President Donald Trump won without a plan just by repeating ‘Make America Great Again.’
She went on to say that Democrats need to ‘go deeper’ and that ‘chemicals’ are to blame for many health problems in the U.S.
In her concluding statement, Williamson declared that she was going to ‘harness love for political purposes’ to defeat Trump.
Her unusual performance drew did however draw praise on social media, where many compared her to a ‘Wine Aunt’ with ‘healing crystal energy.’
‘If the standard for the candidate is who you would want to split box wine with, Marianne Williamson won,’ one Twitter user wrote.
Williamson speaks as former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper looks on during the second night of the first Democratic presidential debate on in Miami
‘Marianne Williamson is all of my mom’s friends when the wine kicks in,’ wrote another.’
‘When asked why they voted for President Marianne Williamson, more than 30% of Americans said that she was the kind of woman they could go to a wine bar with,’ another quipped.
Singer Katy Perry felt a kindred spirit in Williamson, writing: ‘not gonna lie i sound like Marianne Williamson after a few glasses of red.’
Williamson’s signature campaign proposal is a call for $100 billion in reparations for slavery to be distributed over 10 years, though she has also thrown out $200 and $500 billion as possible reparations figures.
Marianne Deborah Williamson (born July 8, 1952)[1] is an American author, lecturer, and activist. She has written 13 books,[2] including four New York Timesnumber one bestsellers within the “Advice, How To and Miscellaneous” category.[3][4][5][6] She is the founder of Project Angel Food, a volunteer food delivery program that serves home-bound people with AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses.[7] She is also the co-founder of the Peace Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots education and advocacy organization supporting peace-building projects.[8]
Williamson dropped out of college her junior year in 1973 and moved to New York City, intending to pursue a career as a cabaret singer.[14][13]
In 1979, after delving into A Course in Miracles, she returned to Houston, where she ran a combination metaphysical bookstore and coffeeshop.[14][18]
In 1983 she moved to Los Angeles. She began regularly lecturing on A Course in Miracles in Los Angeles and New York City, and eventually in other cities in the U.S. and Europe as well.[18][19]
Williamson’s first book, A Return to Love, was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1992 and remained on The New York Timesbestseller list for 39 weeks in the ‘Advice, How To and Miscellaneous’ category.[20] She has published 12 other books, seven of which have been on the same New York Times bestseller list and four of which have been #1.[3][4][5][6] She has sold more than 3 million copies of her books.[21] In 2018, she published a 20th anniversary revised edition of Healing the Soul of America.[22]
Healing the Soul of America
In 1997 Williamson published her book Healing the Soul of America (hardcover originally titled The Healing of America) and began a more robust political engagement. In this book, she laid out plans to “transform the American political consciousness and encourage powerful citizen involvement to heal our society”.[23]
She wrote in the book,
It is a task of our generation to recreate the American politeia, to awaken from our culture of distraction and re-engage the process of democracy with soulfulness and hope. Yes, we see there are problems in the world. But we believe in a universal force that, when activated by the human heart, has the power to make all things right. Such is the divine authority of love: to renew the heart, renew the nations, and ultimately, renew the world.[24]
Patricia Holt of the San Francisco Chronicle called it “A huge and wondrous surprise…. The Healing of America somehow makes us proud to be Americans, because every hope for democracy seems newly within our grasp.”[25]
Television and media appearances
She has been a guest on television programs such as The Oprah Winfrey Show, Good Morning America, and Real Time with Bill Maher. In December 2006, a Newsweek magazine poll named her one of the 50 most influential baby boomers. She bases her teaching and writing on A Course in Miracles, a nonreligious self-study program of spiritual psychotherapy.[26]
Social activism
HIV/AIDS advocacy
Centers for Living
In response to the HIV/AIDS crises in the 1980s, Williamson founded the Los Angeles and Manhattan Centers for Living, which served as a refuge and non-medical support for people with HIV/AIDS. There they could connect with a variety of psychological and emotional resources, as well as community of support. She has said of that time that “there was so much love, because there was nothing to hold onto but love.”[27]
Project Angel Food
In 1989, she launched Project Angel Food to build off the work of the Centers for Living. Originally launched to support HIV/AIDS patients, Project Angel Food expanded its outreach and currently cooks and delivers more than 12,000 meals each week, free of charge, to the homes of men, women and children affected by various life-threatening illnesses.[28] The organization’s food and nutrition services, including medically tailored meals and nutritional counseling, help under-served people throughout Los Angeles County who are too sick to shop or cook for themselves. In 2017, Project Angel Food served its 11 millionth meal.[29]
Women’s advocacy
She has worked on behalf of women’s empowerment issues for decades. In 1993 she published her #1 NYT bestseller, A Woman’s Worth.[30]Publishers Weekly said of the book: “Williamson gives sound, empowering advice on relationships, work, love, sex and childrearing.”[31]
In 2010, she launched a series of Sister Giant conferences, trainings, and events to support individuals – particularly women – who want to increase their efficacy as activists and/or run for office. On the initiative she has said, “I want to be a cheerleader for women who have never even considered running for office or being involved in a campaign, but who in the quietness of their hearts might think, ‘Why not me?’” The events have focused on how to better address many social issues, including: child poverty, low levels of female representation in office, campaign finance reform, high levels of mass incarceration, among other issues.[32][33]
Peace-building
In 2004, she co-founded The Peace Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots education and advocacy organization focused on increasing U.S. governmental support of peace-building approaches to domestic and international conflicts. She has said of the need for this work: “You don’t just wait until there is a violent eruption and then just try to throw people in jail or just wait until there is a violent eruption and then try to bomb an entire country, there’s just a limit past which this is not workable. Rather, you proactively seek to cultivate the conditions of peace…so we can have a much more sophisticated analysis of what it will take to create a more peaceful world.”[34]
Poverty alleviation
For years Williamson was a member of the Board of Directors and remains a public supporter of RESULTS, an organization aiming to create the political will to end hunger and poverty around the world. It lobbies public officials, does research, and works with the media and the public to addresses the causal issues of poverty. RESULTS has 100 U.S. local chapters and works in six other countries.[35][32]
Love America Tour
Starting in the winter of 2018, she began touring the United States as part of her Love America Tour, discussing how she believes “a revolution in consciousness paves the way to both personal and national renewal.” Of the tour she said: “Our own disconnection from the political process, lack of knowledge of how our system operates, lack of understanding of our history, and confusion about many of the issues that confront us now, have led in too many cases to a dangerous emotional disconnection between our country and ourselves.”[36][37]
Political career
2014 U.S. House of Representatives campaign
Williamson campaigning in 2014
In 2014 Williamson ran, as an Independent, for the seat of California’s 33rd congressional district (in westernmost Los Angeles County) in the United States House of Representatives elections. Regarding her motivation for running, she has said, “America has gone off the democratic rails. A toxic brew of shrinking civil liberties and expanded corporate influence are poisoning our democracy.” Her core message was that “humanitarian values should replace economic values as the ordering principle of our civilization.”[38]
She campaigned on a broad array of progressive issues, including: greater access to high-quality education and free college; child poverty; economic justice; climate change & renewable energy; campaign finance reform; universal health care; criminal justice reform; ending perpetual war and increasing investments in peacebuilding; women’s reproductive rights; and LGBTQ equality among others.[41][42][43]
She finished fourth out of 16 candidates,[44] with 14,335 votes for 13.2% of the vote. Williamson said of the process and its outcome: “This conversation of a politics of conscience, a politics of the heart, is much bigger than any one woman winning a congressional seat. And if that woman loses, the conversation goes on. My losing the congressional seat is small; what’s big is the larger conversation … you impact the ethers, and that energy goes somewhere.”[45]
On November 15, 2018, Williamson announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee in a video in which she acclaimed that there was a “miracle in this country in 1776 and we need another one” which would require “a co-creative effort, an effort of love and a gift of love, to our country and hopefully to our world”.[46] Visiting New Hampshire in early January, she said that she “received enough positive energy to make me feel I should take the next step”,[47] and subsequently hired Brent Roske to lead her operation in Iowa.[48]
Roske, a film producer who also contested the same 2014 primary for the seat now represented by Ted Lieu,[49][50] maintained a wide network of connections in Iowa due in part to his previous involvement in the state, working on a political television show about the 2016 caucuses.[50] In response to the Iowa Democratic Party‘s proposed creation of “virtual caucuses” in the 2020 race, Williamson’s campaign announced that it would appoint 99 “Virtual Iowa Caucus Captains” (each assigned to a single county) to turn out supporters in both the virtual and in-person caucuses.[51]
Williamson officially launched her presidential campaign in Los Angeles on January 28, 2019,[52] in front of an audience of 2,000 attendees, and appointed Maurice Daniel, who served alongside Donna Brazile in Dick Gephardt‘s campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1988, as her national campaign manager,[49] with her campaign committee, “Marianne Williamson for President”, officially filed on February 4.[53] Following her Los Angeles announcement, she held her Iowa kickoff in Des Moines on January 31.[54]
On February 16, in addition to scheduling another trip to New Hampshire, Williamson’s campaign announced the appointment of former Congressman Paul Hodes, who represented New Hampshire’s 2nd congressional district from 2007 to 2011, as New Hampshire state director and senior campaign advisor.[55] Former Georgia state assemblywoman Gloria Bromell Tinubu, who returned to South Carolina in 2011 to run for Congress in the state’s 7th districtand later joined Phil Noble‘s bid for governor in 2018 as his running mate, served as South Carolina state director and national senior advisor to the Williamson campaign,[56] but later ceased working with the campaign.[57]
On May 9, Williamson’s campaign announced that she had received enough contributions from unique donors to enter the official primary debates,[58] having raised $1.5 million in the first quarter of 2019, during which the campaign received donations from 46,663 unique individuals.[59] She subsequently met the polling criteria, with three unique polls at 1% from qualifying pollsters, on May 23.[60] In June, Williamson confirmed that she moved to Des Moines, Iowa in advance of the 2020 caucuses.[61]
She ranks climate change as “the greatest moral challenge of our generation” and backs the Green New Deal.[64] She has called for the establishment of a Department of Peace to expand global diplomacy, mediation, and educational and economic development.[65] She also voices support for stricter gun control, criminal justice reform, improving public education, free college tuition, raising the top marginal tax rate to a point where high earners pay “their fair share of taxes”, describing her policies as a “renovation” of a “sociopathiceconomic system” focused on “short-term profit maximization”.[49]She appeared to oppose mandatory vaccinations when she described them as “Orwellian” and stating “To me, it’s no different than the abortion debate.”[66] She later stated that she misspoke, and “I support vaccines. Public safety must be carefully balanced with the right of individuals to make their own decisions.”[67] According to the Los Angeles Times, she “has a history of skeptical comments about vaccinations.”[67][68]
Her signature campaign promise is a call for $100 billion in reparations for slavery to be distributed over 10 years by a group of black leaders for selected “economic and education projects”,[49][69] and later suggested distributing $200 to $500 billion on The Breakfast Club,[70] a sum far greater than any other primary contenders support. In doing so, Williamson became the only candidate in the Democratic field to submit a detailed plan for reparations for black Americans, though fellow Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris later pledged support for reparations in late February 2019.[71]
Personal life
Williamson was briefly married.[13] In 1990, she gave birth to a daughter, India Emma.[72]
Story 1: Communist China Retaliates By Imposing Tariffs on $60 Billion of U.S. Exports — Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off — Total Trade Embargo! — Videos
China to Impose $60 Billion of U.S. Import Tariffs
China Strikes Back With $60 Billion in Tariffs on U.S. Goods
China To Hit U.S. With Tariffs On $60 Billion In Goods Amid Escalating Trade War | TIME
Trump’s Tariff War With China
Trump’s tariffs on China: Who will pay? | DW News
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers – Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off HQ
Ella F. and Louis Armstrong – Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off
Beijing calls for a ‘people’s war’ against the US as Trump threatens tariffs on another $300 billion of Chinese goods in all-out trade battle
Alexandra Ma, provided by
Published
The US-China trade war has dramatically escalated over the past few days, with both sides announcing tariff increases on billions of dollars’ worth of each other’s goods.
Chinese state media — which functions as a Communist Party mouthpiece — issued a series of rabble-rousing statements on Monday accusing the US of “greed and arrogance” and calling for a “people’s war” against it.
President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday night threatened to impose tariffs of up to 25% on another $300 billion worth of Chinese goods.
If such tariffs were to be imposed, almost all Chinese imports to the US would be subject to tariffs.
Trump tweeted on Tuesday that his “respect and friendship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping was “unlimited” but that “this must be a great deal for the United States or it just doesn’t make any sense.”
The US-China trade war continues to heat up, with Beijing calling for a “people’s war” against Washington and President Donald Trump threatening to impose tariffs on another $300 billion worth of Chinese goods.
In a series of editorials and op-ed articles published Monday, Chinese state media slammed what it labeled the Trump administration’s “greed and arrogance” and called for a “people’s war” against it. Beijing’s state-run media effectively serves as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party.
“The most important thing is that in the China-US trade war, the US side fights for greed and arrogance … and morale will break at any point. The Chinese side is fighting back to protect its legitimate interests,” the nationalistic Global Times tabloid wrote in a Chinese-language editorial carried by Xinhua News Agency.
“The trade war in the US is the creation of one person and one administration, but it affects that country’s entire population. In China, the entire country and all its people are being threatened. For us, this is a real ‘people’s war.'”
Later Monday, the US Trade Representative’s Office published a list of about $300 billion worth of Chinese imports, noting that it proposed slapping tariffs of up to 25% on those products. Those goods include live purebred breeding horses, meat, condensed milk, tobacco, canoe paddles, and articles of clothing.
If the Trump administration were to impose the new tariffs on $300 billion of additional goods, it would mean that $500 billion worth of Chinese goods coming into the US would be subject to tariffs.
That figure represents nearly all Chinese imports to the US. The US imported $540 billion worth of goods from China in 2018, according to Census Bureau data.
David McNew/Getty Images
The Global Times’ Monday editorial also effectively accused the Trump administration of misleading Americans about the victims of US tariffs.
It singled out an interview that Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economics adviser, gave to “Fox News Sunday” in which he said that US consumers would also suffer from the trade war, contradicting Trump’s claim that China would single-handedly foot the bill.
During prime time on Monday night, the state broadcaster CCTV also aired a statement saying that China would “fight for a new world.”
“As President Xi Jinping pointed out, the Chinese economy is a sea, not a small pond,” the anchor Kang Hui said on his 7 p.m. news show, as cited by CNN. “A rainstorm can destroy a small pond, but it cannot harm the sea. After numerous storms, the sea is still there.” That clip went viral on Chinese social media, CNN reported.
In an English-language version of its Monday editorial, the tabloid also said: “The US tariff moves are very much like spraying bullets. They will cause a lot of self-inflicted harm and are hard to sustain in the long term.”
“China, on the other hand, is going to aim with precision, trying to avoid hurting itself,” it said.
Reuters
Trump tweeted on Tuesday that his “respect and friendship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping was “unlimited” but that “this must be a great deal for the United States or it just doesn’t make any sense.”
He added on Monday that he would meet Xi next month at the G20 summit. “That’ll be, I think, probably a very fruitful meeting,” he said.
China is raising tariffs on $60 billion of US goods starting June 1
China will raise tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods in retaliation for the Trump administration’s latest decision to increase duties on $200 billion worth of Chinese products.
U.S. stock indexes fall about 2% as the trade war between the world’s two largest economies escalates.
China will raise tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods in retaliation for the U.S. decision to hike duties on Chinese goods, the Chinese Finance Ministry said Monday.
Beijing will increase tariffs on more than 5,000 products to as high as 25%. Duties on some other goods will increase to 20%. Those rates will rise from either 10% or 5% previously.
The move follows President Donald Trump’s decision to raise duties on $200 billion in Chinese products to 25% from 10%. The world’s two largest economies have struggled to sign a trade deal and end a widening conflict that threatens to damage the global economy.
Soybean meal in a dockyard in Nantong in east China’s Jiangsu province, Aug. 06, 2018.
Feature China | Barcroft Media | Getty Images
The duties in large part target U.S. farmers, who largely supported Trump in 2016 but suffered from previous shots in the Trump administration’s trade war with China. The thousands of products include peanuts, sugar, wheat, chicken and turkey.
On Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC that the sides are still involved in negotiations. He said the administration is working on dates to travel to Beijing to continue talks.
Neither the White House nor the Treasury Department immediately responded to CNBC’s requests to comment on the tariff increase.
In increasing duties on Chinese goods on Friday, the White House said Beijing backed out of major parts of a developing trade agreement. While Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer met with Chinese negotiators last week in talks Mnuchin called “constructive,” the sides could not strike a deal.
Trump, who wants to address grievances such as intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers and trade deficits, pushed China to make a deal ahead of its retaliation on Monday morning. In a string of tweets, the president argued the tariffs are “very bad for China.” He said “China should not retaliate” as it “will only get worse!”
“You had a great deal, almost completed, & you backed out!” he wrote of China and its President Xi Jinping.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
I say openly to President Xi & all of my many friends in China that China will be hurt very badly if you don’t make a deal because companies will be forced to leave China for other countries. Too expensive to buy in China. You had a great deal, almost completed, & you backed out!
28.6K people are talking about this
The U.S. may not be done retaliating. Trump has threatened to put 25% tariffs on $325 billion in Chinese goods that remain untaxed. The president has signaled he is content leaving the duties in place, arguing they will damage China more than the U.S.
The president has repeatedly claimed China bears the brunt of the costs from the tariffs. But the burden falls largely on U.S. businesses and consumers.
We can’t allow for short-term thinking to get in the way of standing up to China, says pro
Pressed Sunday during a Fox News interview about Americans paying the tariffs, Trump’s top economic advisor Larry Kudlow responded, “Fair enough. In fact, both sides will pay.”
Despite this, Trump claimed in a tweet Monday that “there is no reason for the U.S. Consumer to pay the Tariffs.” He also said the tariffs “can be completely avoided if you by (sic) from a non-Tariffed Country, or you buy the product inside the USA (the best idea).”
The U.S. hopes to revive discussions as it tries to reach a deal. On Sunday, Kudlow said there is a “strong possibility” Trump will meet with Xi during the G-20 summit in Japan next month.
A shipping container is offloaded from the Hong Kong based CSCL East China Sea container ship at the Port of Oakland on June 20, 2018 in Oakland, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington Post: “Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs.”
The story began: “National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot the bill.”
A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.
A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax.
If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.
China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China’s economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.
Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party’s path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade.
The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, “the encouragement and protection of manufactures.” It was the second act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.
After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.
Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln’s War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer “has no right or claim to equality with our own. … He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties.”
That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.
The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson’s income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades — the Roaring ’20s.
That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America’s schoolchildren have been indoctrinated for decades.
The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain: The Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures.
Milton Friedman taught us that.
A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.
The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher tuition than their American counterparts.
What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith in a system crafted by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people?
What great nation did free traders ever build?
Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws, the British showed the folly of free trade.
They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the USA and ended it with an economy half of ours, and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American System.
Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries — the British before 1850, the United States between 1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades — how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism.
The problem for President Trump?
Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.
Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.
Robert Osborne Interviews Doris Day for her 90th birthday – Audio Only
Doris Day A Sentimental Journey
Les Brown and his band had a BIG hit in the mid-1940’s with “Sentimental Journey” which featured Cincinnati’s Doris Day on vocal solo….beginning Doris’ legendary showbiz journey that lasted ever since! Enjoy this touching 1985 reunion performance by Doris, Les and some of the original band members as they recreate their smash hit!
Doris Day & Les Brown – rare 1985 reunion video of “Sentimental Journey”
I really can’t stay
(but baby its cold outside)
I’ve got to go ‘way
(but baby its cold outside)
This evening has been so very nice
(I’ll hold your hands there just like ice)
My mother will start to worry!
(beautiful what’s your hurry?)
And father will be pacing the floor
(listen to that fireplace roar)
So really I’d better scurry!
(beautiful please don’t hurry)
Well maybe just a half a drink more
(puts some records on while i pour)
The neighbors might think
(baby its bad out there)
Say, what’s in this drink?
(no cabs to be had out there)
I wish I knew how to break the spell
(your eyes are like starlight now)
(ill take ur hat your hair looks swell)
I oughtta say no, no, no, sir
(mind if i move in closer?)
At least I’m gonna say that I tried!
(whats the sense of hurtin my pride?)
I really can’t stay
(baby dont hold out)
(both) ahh but its cold outside!!
I simply must go
(but baby its cold outside)
The answer is no
(but BABY its cold outside)
This welcome has been so nice and warm
(look out the window at that STORM!)
My sister will be suspicious!
(gosh your lips look delicious!)
My brother will be there at the door!
(waves upon a tropical shore!)
My maiden aunt’s mind is vicious
(GOSH ur lips are delicous)
Well maybe just a cigarette more
(NEVER such a blizzard before)
Ive got to get home!
(but baby youll FREEZE out there!)
Say, lend me your coat?
(it’s up to ur knees out there)
You’ve really been grand!
(I thrill when you touch my hand)
But don’t you see?
(HOW can you DO this thing to ME?)
Theres bound to be talk tomorrow
(think of my life long sorrow!)
At least there will be plenty implied!
(if you caught pnemonia and DIED!!)
I really can’t stay!
(get over that old out)
(o0o0o0o0o0o)
(Both)ahhhhhhh baby it’s cold outside!!
You, My Love – Frank Sinatra and Doris Day (from the 1954 movie “Young at Heart”)
“You My Love” (performed with Frank Sinatra)
(from “Young At Heart” soundtrack)
My love is ever you, my love
Now and forever, you my love.
You walked into my lonely world,
What peace of mind your smile unfurled.Yes, and because of you, my love,
My wishful dream came true, my love.
In my uncertain heart, I’m only certain of
How much I love you, my love…In my uncertain heart, I’m only certain of
How much I love you, my loveYes, and because of you, my love,
My wishful dream came true
In my uncertain heart, I’m only certain of
How much I love you, my love
And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain
I’ve lived a life that’s full
I’ve traveled each and every highway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Regrets, I’ve had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall
And did it my way
I’ve loved, I’ve laughed and cried
I’ve had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside
I find it all, all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say, not in a shy way
Oh no, no, not me
I did it my way
For what is man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way
And did it my way
Songwriters: Claude Francois / Gilles Thibaut / Jacques Revaux / Paul Anka
Doris Day singing “Stardust” and “The way you look tonight”
Doris Day – Day by Day
Gene Nelson and Doris Day Lullaby of Broadway
Doris Day – All the Best (FULL ALBUM – BEST OF EASY LISTENING)
Doris Day: Everybody Loves a Lover
‘America’s Virgin’ Doris Day lived a VERY different life to her on-screen persona, marrying four times, surviving a violent husband and the death of her only son
Doris Day died of pneumonia in Carmel Valley, California home at the age of 97 on Monday morning
Day is remembered for her successful career in Hollywood as America’s sweetheart and as a passionate animal rights activist
A lasting romance eluded Day for her entire life, she was married four times unsuccessfully to string of abusive husbands
Day wrote in her biography: ‘I’m not the All-American Virgin Queen and I’d like to deal with the true, honest story of who I really am’
Day dropped out of Hollywood after her third husband squandered her $20million fortune and leaving her $500,000 in debt
Her only child, Terry Melcher died in 2005; he was affiliated with Charles Manson and narrowly escaped death during his 1969 killing spree of Sharon Tate
PUBLISHED: 16:37 EDT, 13 May 2019 | UPDATED: 08:32 EDT, 14 May 2019
Doris Day was a star from the minute she entered the mainstream consciousness. The bouncy blonde with uncontrollable optimism captivated post-war America as a big band era chanteuse before she achieved indelible fame in Hollywood as the wholesome girl next door. The camera loved her and audiences were insatiable for her sweet, sunny disposition that masked the reality of her tragic private life that was defined by aching loneliness and misfortune.
Born, Doris Mary Anne von Kappelhoff in 1922 – the onscreen legend that was to become known around the world by her stage name, Doris Day died this morning at the age of 97 in her Carmel Valley, California home.
Day dedicated her twilight years to taking care of animals. Carmel Valley neighbors of her massive 11-acre estate recall the rare sighting of an eccentric woman they knew as Clara Kappelhoff shuffling through the streets while rounding up stray cats and dogs – the reclusive and shy bespectacled woman in horn-rimmed glasses was a far cry from the silver screen siren that captivated Americans as the ‘ultimate girl next door.’
As a young girl, Doris Day had dreams of becoming a professional dancer. At 15-years-old, she moved from a Cincinnati Ohio suburb to Los Angeles with her mother and dance partner when she won the $500 grand prize in a dance contest. Day’s dreams were dashed when her right leg was shattered in a car accident that was struck by a passing train, she wrote in her 1976 autobiography of the horrific moment she climbed out of the car and dragged herself to the side of the road. Inspecting her leg she said her fingertips ‘came to the sharp ends of the shattered bones protruding from my leg.’
Doris Day has over 650 song titles to her catalog and has starred in 40 films. She is the recipient of the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award, Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and President Medal of Freedom. In 2012, she was accepted into the Grammy Hall of Fame
Doris Day made her Hollywood debut in 1948 with Romance on the High Seas. She beat out Judy Garland who was originally cast for this role after she impressed two Warner Brother executives during an impromptu singing performance at a Hollywood party
Doris Day married her second husband, saxophonist George Weidler on March 30, 1947. The couple lived in a Los Angeles trailer park and divorced after three years. Recalling her wedding day Doris said: ‘I should have worn black’
Doris caught the attention of Les Brown (not pictured), who was looking to add a female voice to his jazz orchestra. At the time she was only 16-years-old and Brown lied about her age so she could perform in the night clubs. He convinced her to shorten her name to Doris Day so it could fit on the marquis and together they would record a string of music hits
Day’s determined stage mother enrolled her in singing lessons during her convalescence where she proved to be a natural talent, spending countless hours listening to the jazz greats like Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington. It was during this time that Day was given a small dog named ‘Tiny’ to help her heal from the trauma but Tiny’s life was tragically cut short after being struck by a car when Day (who was still on crutches) was walking him around her neighborhood without a leash. In her autobiography co-written by A.E. Hotchner titled, Doris Day: Her Own Story, she said: ‘It was the start of what was, for me, a lifelong love affair with the dog.
Her career in show business began in 1939 when she caught the attention of Les Brown, an American jazz band leader who was looking for a female vocalist to join his orchestra, together the two recorded a handful of hits before Day embarked on a solo career of her own that would span four decades long. Day was an overnight success and by the 1950s, she had become one of the highest paid singers in America, having recorded more than 650 songs to her catalog.
As a triple threat that could sing, dance and act, it was only a matter of time before Day made her way to the silver screen after she impressed a couple of Warner Brother executives during an impromptu performance of ‘Embraceable You’ at a Hollywood party. She won the lead part in Romance on the High Seas and subsequently launched her Tinseltown career with more than 40 titles under her belt; starring alongside on screen legends like Frank Sinatra, Clark Gable, Rock Hudson, Carey Grant and James Cagney.
Day’s success on the big screen did not carry over to her private life. Behind the wholesome, sunny façade was a vulnerable woman racked with insecurities and catastrophically poor judgement in men. She wrote in her book: ‘My only true ambition in life was to get married and tend house and have a family.’ Sadly it was this very dream that always eluded Day.
Remembering iconic Hollywood star Doris Day before she died at 97
Doris Day, Frank Sinatra (center), and Lauren Bacall (right) pose at the Sands Hotel-Casino Las Vegas in 1956. In 1954, Day starred in Young at Heart alongside Frank Sinatra
Born Doris Mary Anne von Kappelhoff in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1922. Her parents split apart at a very young age. Day’s father was a music teacher and strict disciplinarian that embarked on a string of affairs, one of them with his wife’s best friend. According to a biography written by David Bret, ‘Doris would hear them having sex in the room next to hers and cry herself to sleep’
Doris Day was not shy to admit that her wholesome girl-next-door image was all an act. She wrote in her biography: ‘I’m tired of being thought of as Miss Goody Two-Shoes…I’m not the All-American Virgin Queen and I’d like to deal with the true, honest story of who I really am.’
James Cagney co-starred with Day in Love Me Or Leave Me. Cagney said that Day had ‘the ability to project the simple, direct statement of a simple, direct idea without cluttering it’
Movie studios desperately worked to preserve Day’s bubbly blond facade but behind closed doors, she was known for her voracious appetite for men. Co-star Oscar Levant once said: Oscar Levant, ‘I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin’
She was first married at 19-years-old to Al Jorden, a trombone player with a violent temper. Day claimed that Jorden struck her for the first time on the second day of their marriage after she accepted a wedding gift from his bandmate and the physical abuse did not stop from that day forward. He tried to convince Day into getting an abortion after she became pregnant with his child. When that failed, he threatened her with a gun and a few savage beatings before Day finally divorced him a year later. At 20-years-old, Day gave birth to her only son: Terrance Paul Jorden, later he became a famous music producer in his own right under the name Terry Melcher. Jorden committed suicide a year later.
Doris’ second marriage to saxophonist George Weidler also ended in divorce after three years because he felt intimidated by her rising star status and said that he didn’t want to be known as ‘Mr. Doris Day.’ The couple lived in a Los Angeles trailer park, and recalling her wedding day to Weidler, Doris said: ‘I should have worn black.’
Between marriages, Day enjoyed the company of numerous famous men, most notably the infamous womanizer, Mickey Mantle. She met the celebrated baseball player on the 1962 set of That Touch of Mink. In his biography of Doris Day, writer David Kaufman said: ‘Mantle boasted to friends that not only had he slept with Day at his regular suite in New York’s St Moritz Hotel but also that she was an accomplished lover.’
Just as they had done to conceal Rock Hudson’s homosexuality, studio executives worked hard to preserve Day’s un-besmirched wholesome image. In reality the innocent sunny haired girl that became America’s sweetheart was known behind scenes for her voracious sexual appetite. Doris told Hotchner: ‘I’m tired of being thought of as Miss Goody Two-Shoes…I’m not the All-American Virgin Queen and I’d like to deal with the true, honest story of who I really am.’ Likewise, her long term friend, Rock Hudson, with whom she spent countless hours on screen with said: ‘I suppose she was so clean-cut, with perfect uncapped teeth, freckles and turned-up nose, that people just thought she fitted the concept of a virgin.’
Similarly, Oscar Levant, Day’s co-star in ‘Romance On the High Seas’ also famously commented on her good girl image when he quipped: ‘I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin.’
Day married for a third time in 1951 to her manager, Martin Melcher who would officially adopt Day’s son, Terry from her first marriage. Their 17-year-long wedded bliss was marked by numerous affairs. Day carried on a relationship with Ronald Raegan, who she remembered fondly in her autobiography as a skilled dancer who loved to go out with a strong ability to express himself through speech. She also had a fling with Steve Cochran, who at the time was dating Joan Crawford. For the most part, Day said she was happy: ‘I seemed to have found the solid, serene life I had been seeking.’ Her reality crumbled when Melcher died in 1968 and she discovered that he squandered away her $20million fortune, leaving her saddled with $500,000 in debt. Baffled by the betrayal, Day began to shun her career in the public eye and turn her attention toward her son and beloved animals.
Despite astronomical success in Hollywood, Day was never able to find lasting love. Her first married to Al Jorden (right) ended in divorce after a sustaining a year of physical abuse. Her third marriage to Martin Melcher ended when he died in 1968– leaving her bankrupt and $500,000 in debt after squandering her $20million fortune. Rock Hudson recalled his distrust of Melcher: ‘… working with Doris meant once again brushing up against her husband, Marty Melcher. This time Marty billed himself as the movie’s executive producer and again collected his $50,000 fee for performing no visible service. I neither liked nor trusted Melcher and stayed out of his way as much as possible’
Day’s fourth marriage was to Barry Comden, a man 11- years her junior that she met when he was working as the Maitre D’ of her favorite restaurant. They divorced in 1981 when Comden said that his wife cared more for her ‘animal friends’ than their relationship
Day and Rock Hudson starred in a number of comedies together throughout the 1950s. Day supported Hudson after his AIDS diagnosis became public during a time when there was much hysteria surrounding the disease
Despite a lifetime of setbacks and sadness, there is one tragedy that Doris Day narrowly avoided. In 1969, her only child Terry Melcher was a rising star in the music industry, known for discovering and nurturing the talents of The Byrds, The Mamas and the Papas and The Beach Boys. He was dating Hollywood’s latest ingenue, Candice Bergen in 1969 when the young couple moved into a Benedict Canyon home at 10050 Cielo Drive. Through his friendship with Dennis Wilson of The Beach Boys; Melcher became friendly with Charles Manson who was eager to get signed to a record contract. Melcher visited Manson at his infamous Spahn Ranch at least twice, and the three men were often spotted at partying night clubs around Los Angeles. But it wasn’t long before Melcher resolved that Manson lacked musical talent and in June 1969, he told the cult leader that he wouldn’t sign him to a record deal. The indignity of rejection was the final straw for Charles Mansion who decided that he would seek revenge on society.
Terrified of Manson’s volatile behavior, Doris Day implored her son to move out of the Cielo Drive house and into the Malibu Beach home she owned. It was an easy decision for Melchner, who had recently learned that his stepfather left his mother broke in death and moving in would help her financially.
Late in the evening on August 8, 1969, four members of the Mansion Family invaded Sharon Tate’s rented home at 10050 Cielo Drive – savagely murdering Tate, her unborn child and three of her friends in a case of mistaken identity. Melcher, who died in 2005 of cancer, went into seclusion and hired around the clock bodyguards. He could only testify at the trial under heavy sedation. After learning of the killings, Bergen reportedly said to Melcher, ‘It could have been me.’ Melcher replied: ‘It could have been us.’
Day met her fourth husband Barry Comden in 1976. He was 11 years her junior and working as a maitre d’ at her favorite restaurant and Comden quickly realized that the way to Day’s heart was through her passion for dogs for whom he reserved plenty of leftovers from the restaurant. Predictably this marriage did not last, he described what happened afterwards in his tell-all memoir: ‘I sat on the end of her bed while she took a quick shower. On an impulse I opened the shower door. She let out a yell and for the first time I laid my eyes on the most beautiful body I had ever seen.’ The two began a tempestuous relationship that lasted five years.
Doris Day poses for a photo with her only child, Terry Melcher. Like his mother, Melcher was a celebrated musician, known for his work with The Byrds, The Mamas and the Papas and The Beach Boys. It is reported that Melcher was Charles Manson’s intended victim the night he murdered Sharon Tate
Drew Casper, a USA Film Professor told the Los Angeles Times: ‘Every female wanted to be Doris Day, and every male wanted to marry somebody like her’
By this time, Day had become heavily invested in animal charities, The Doris Day Animal League, merged with The Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal welfare lobby group in the states. Day moved to sprawling compound in Carmel to give space to her growing brood of four-legged rescues that she called her kids.’
Comden said that his wife cared more for her ‘animal friends’ than their relationship which ended in 1981.
Doris Day devoted the remainder of her live to animal rights. The Doris Day Animal League, merged with The Humane Society and has since the largest animal welfare lobby group in the United States
Jim Bailey, the famous female impersonator recalled to Vanity Fair the first time he met Doris Day in 1972. He was at a Hollywood party and noticed someone dozing off on the living room sofa. ‘She had no makeup on. Her hair wasn’t blonde blonde. It was sort of a dishwatery blonde, and she had it in a twist. She was wearing a paisley-patterned granny dress, with a little lace collar, lace cuffs, and shapeless all the way to the floor.’ He remembers that Day didn’t talk much until she overheard him talking about his Schnauzers to another guest when she suddenly piped up to spend the rest of the evening with Bailey talking about animals. Bailey ran into Day’s son Terry Melcher at another party months later and mentioned the delightful interaction with his mother to which Terry replied ‘She probably wouldn’t have spoken to you if you didn’t have dogs. It’s all about animals now.’
During a 1991 TV documentary titled, Doris Day: A Sentimental Journey, Day broke down in tears to the pregnant interviewer saying: ‘You just don’t get it, do you? It was not a dream come true. All I ever wanted is what you have right now, a baby, a husband who really loved me, a home, all the happiness that they could bring. I never got that and that’s all I really wanted.’
Day found solace in the company of animals, she wrote in her book titled, ‘Doris Day: Her Own Story’: ‘I have found that when you are deeply troubled, there are things you get from the silent devoted companionship of a dog that you can get from no other source.’
In 2008, Day received a lifetime achievement Grammy Award for her considerable career in music. Perhaps the lyrics to her own hit, ‘Que Sera’ speak best to Doris Day’s unexpected life marked by highs and lows. She sings: ‘Whatever will be, will be, the future’s not ours to see. Que Sera.’
Doris Day (born Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff; April 3, 1922 – May 13, 2019) was an American actress, singer, and animal welfare activist. She began her career as a big band singer in 1939, her first hit recording being “Sentimental Journey” in 1945 with Les Brown & His Band of Renown. She left Brown to embark on a solo career and recorded more than 650 songs from 1947 to 1967.
Day became one of the biggest female film stars in the early 1960s, and as of 2012 was one of eight performers to have been the top box-office earner in the United States four times.[2][3] In 2011, she released her 29th studio album My Heart which contained new material and became a UK Top 10 album. She received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and a Legend Award from the Society of Singers. In 1960, she was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress,[4] and was given the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement in motion pictures in 1989. In 2004, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom; this was followed in 2011 by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association’s Career Achievement Award.
Contents
Early life
Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff was born on April 3, 1922, in Cincinnati, Ohio,[5] the daughter of Alma Sophia (née Welz; 1895–1976), a housewife, and William Joseph Kappelhoff (1892–1967), a music teacher and choir master.[6][7] All of her grandparents were German immigrants.[8] For most of her life, Day reportedly believed she had been born in 1924 and reported her age accordingly; it was not until her 95th birthday — when the Associated Press found her birth certificate, showing a 1922 date of birth — that she learned otherwise.[5]
The youngest of three siblings, she had two older brothers: Richard (who died before her birth) and Paul, two to three years older.[9] Due to her father’s alleged infidelity, her parents separated.[3][10] She developed an early interest in dance, and in the mid-1930s formed a dance duo with Jerry Doherty that performed locally in Cincinnati.[11] A car accident on October 13, 1937, injured her right leg and curtailed her prospects as a professional dancer.[12][13]
Career
Early career (1938–1947)
Day at the Aquarium Jazz Club, New York (1946)
While recovering from an auto accident, Doris started to sing along with the radio and discovered a talent she did not know she had. “During this long, boring period, I used to while away a lot of time listening to the radio, sometimes singing along with the likes of Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, Tommy Dorsey, and Glenn Miller“, she told A.E. Hotchner, one of her biographers. “But the one radio voice I listened to above others belonged to Ella Fitzgerald. There was a quality to her voice that fascinated me, and I’d sing along with her, trying to catch the subtle ways she shaded her voice, the casual yet clean way she sang the words.”[14]
Observing her daughter sing rekindled Alma’s interest in show business, and she decided Doris must have singing lessons. She engaged a teacher, Grace Raine.[15] After three lessons, Raine told Alma that young Doris had “tremendous potential”; Raine was so impressed that she gave Doris three lessons a week for the price of one. Years later, Day said that Raine had the biggest effect on her singing style and career.[14]
During the eight months she was taking singing lessons, Doris had her first professional jobs as a vocalist, on the WLW radio program Carlin’s Carnival, and in a local restaurant, Charlie Yee’s Shanghai Inn.[16] During her radio performances, Day first caught the attention of Barney Rapp, who was looking for a female vocalist and asked if Day would like to audition for the job. According to Rapp, he had auditioned about 200 singers when Day got the job.[17]
While working for Rapp in 1939, she adopted the stage surname “Day”, at Rapp’s suggestion.[18] Rapp felt that “Kappelhoff” was too long for marquees, and he admired her rendition of the song “Day After Day”.[19] After working with Rapp, Day worked with bandleaders Jimmy James,[20]Bob Crosby,[21] and Les Brown.[22] In 1941, Day appeared as a singer in three Soundies with the Les Brown band.[23]
While working with Brown, Day recorded her first hit recording, “Sentimental Journey“, released in early 1945. It soon became an anthem of the desire of World War II demobilizing troops to return home.[24][25] The song continues to be associated with Day, and she rerecorded it on several occasions, including a version in her 1971 television special.[26] During 1945–46, Day (as vocalist with the Les Brown Band) had six other top ten hits on the Billboard chart: “My Dreams Are Getting Better All the Time“, “‘Tain’t Me”, “Till The End of Time“, “You Won’t Be Satisfied (Until You Break My Heart)”, “The Whole World is Singing My Song”, and “I Got the Sun in the Mornin’“.[27]
While singing with the Les Brown band and for nearly two years on Bob Hope‘s weekly radio program,[13] she toured extensively across the United States.
Her performance of the song “Embraceable You” impressed songwriter Jule Styne and his partner, Sammy Cahn, and they recommended her for a role in Romance on the High Seas (1948). Day got the part after auditioning for director Michael Curtiz.[28][29] She was shocked at being offered the role in the film, and admitted to Curtiz that she was a singer without acting experience. But he said he liked that “she was honest”, not afraid to admit it, and he wanted someone who “looked like the All-American Girl”. Day was the discovery of which Curtiz was most proud of during his career.[30]
The film provided her with a #2 hit recording as a soloist, “It’s Magic“, which followed by two months her first #1 hit (“Love Somebody” in 1948) recorded as a duet with Buddy Clark.[31] Day recorded “Someone Like You”, before the 1949 film My Dream Is Yours, which featured the song.[32]
Her most commercially successful film for Warner was I’ll See You in My Dreams (1951), which broke box-office records of 20 years. The film is a musical biography of lyricist Gus Kahn. It was Day’s fourth film directed by Curtiz.[35] Day appeared as the title character in the comedic western-themed musical, Calamity Jane (1953).[36] A song from the film, “Secret Love“, won the Academy Award for Best Original Song and became Day’s fourth No. 1 hit single in the United States.[37]
Between 1950 and 1953, the albums from six of her movie musicals charted in the Top 10, three of them at No. 1. After filming Lucky Me with Bob Cummings and Young at Heart (both 1954) with Frank Sinatra, Day chose not to renew her contract with Warner Brothers.[38]
During this period, Day also had her own radio program, The Doris Day Show. It was broadcast on CBS in 1952–1953.[39]
Having become primarily recognized as a musical-comedy actress, Day gradually took on more dramatic roles to broaden her range. Her dramatic star turn as singer Ruth Etting in Love Me or Leave Me (1955), co-starring James Cagney, received critical and commercial success, becoming Day’s biggest hit thus far.[40] Cagney said she had “the ability to project the simple, direct statement of a simple, direct idea without cluttering it,” comparing her to Laurette Taylor’s Broadway performance in the “Glass Menagerie” (1945), one of the greatest performances by an American actor. (Aljean Harmetz (2019). “Doris Day, Charming Star With a Golden Voice, Dies at 97.” “New York Times.” p. 7) Day said it was her best film performance. Producer Joe Pasternak said, “I was stunned that Doris did not get an Oscar nomination.”[41] The soundtrack album from that movie was a No. 1 hit.[42][43]
Billboard‘s annual nationwide poll of disc jockeys had ranked Day as the No. 1 female vocalist nine times in ten years (1949 through 1958), but her success and popularity as a singer was now being overshadowed by her box-office appeal.[49]
Box-office success (1959–1968)
Day in a publicity portrait for Midnight Lace (1960)
In 1960, she starred with David Niven and Janis Paige in the hit Please Don’t Eat the Daisies. In 1962, Day appeared with Cary Grant in the comedy That Touch of Mink, the first film in history ever to gross $1 million at Radio City Music Hall.[citation needed] During 1960 and the 1962 to 1964 period, she ranked number one at the box office, the second woman to be number one four times. She set a record that has yet to be equaled, receiving seven consecutive Laurel Awards as the top female box office star.[54]
By the late 1960s, the sexual revolution of the baby boomer generation had refocused public attitudes about sex. Times changed, but Day’s films did not. Day’s next film Do Not Disturb (1965) was popular with audiences, but her popularity soon waned. Critics and comics dubbed Day “The World’s Oldest Virgin”,[58][59] and audiences began to shy away from her films. As a result, she slipped from the list of top box-office stars, last appearing in the top ten in 1966 with the hit film The Glass Bottom Boat. One of the roles she turned down was that of “Mrs. Robinson” in The Graduate, a role that eventually went to Anne Bancroft.[60] In her published memoirs, Day said she had rejected the part on moral grounds: she found the script “vulgar and offensive”.[61]
From 1959 to 1970, Day received nine Laurel Award nominations (and won four times) for best female performance in eight comedies and one drama. From 1959 through 1969, she received six Golden Globe nominations for best female performance in three comedies, one drama (Midnight Lace), one musical (Jumbo), and her television series.[64]
After her third husband Martin Melcher died on April 20, 1968, a shocked Day discovered that Melcher and his business partner Jerome Bernard Rosenthal had squandered her earnings, leaving her deeply in debt.[65] Rosenthal had been her attorney since 1949, when he represented her in her uncontested divorce action against her second husband, saxophonist George W. Weidler. Day filed suit against Rosenthal in February 1969, won a successful decision in 1974, but did not receive compensation until a settlement in 1979.[66]
Day also learned to her displeasure that Melcher had committed her to a television series, which became The Doris Day Show.
It was awful. I was really, really not very well when Marty [Melcher] passed away, and the thought of going into TV was overpowering. But he’d signed me up for a series. And then my son Terry [Melcher] took me walking in Beverly Hills and explained that it wasn’t nearly the end of it. I had also been signed up for a bunch of TV specials, all without anyone ever asking me.
Day hated the idea of performing on television, but felt obligated to do it.[63] The first episode of The Doris Day Show aired on September 24, 1968,[67] and, from 1968 to 1973, employed “Que Sera, Sera” as its theme song. Day persevered (she needed the work to help pay off her debts), but only after CBS ceded creative control to her and her son. The successful show enjoyed a five-year run,[68] and functioned as a curtain raiser for the popular Carol Burnett Show. It is remembered today for its abrupt season-to-season changes in casting and premise.[69]
Day with John Denver on the TV special Doris Day Today
(CBS, February 19, 1975)[70]
By the end of its run in 1973, public tastes had changed and her firmly established persona was regarded as passé. She largely retired from acting after The Doris Day Show, but did complete two television specials, The Doris Mary Anne Kappelhoff Special (1971)[71] and Doris Day Today (1975),[72] and was a guest on various shows in the 1970s.
In the 1985–86 season, Day hosted her own television talk show, Doris Day’s Best Friends, on CBN.[68][73] The network canceled the show after 26 episodes, despite the worldwide publicity it received. Much of that came from her interview with Rock Hudson, in which a visibly ill Hudson was showing the first public symptoms of AIDS; Hudson would die from the syndrome a year later.[74]
1980s and 1990s
Doris Day’s husband and agent, Martin Melcher, had a Beverly Hills lawyer named Jerome Rosenthal handle his wife’s money since the 1940s.[75]
In October 1985, the California Supreme Court rejected Rosenthal’s appeal of the multimillion-dollar judgment against him for legal malpractice, and upheld conclusions of a trial court and a Court of Appeal that Rosenthal acted improperly.[76] In April 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the lower court’s judgment. In June 1987, Rosenthal filed a $30 million lawsuit against lawyers he claimed cheated him out of millions of dollars in real estate investments. He named Day as a co-defendant, describing her as an “unwilling, involuntary plaintiff whose consent cannot be obtained”. Rosenthal claimed that millions of dollars Day lost were in real estate sold after Melcher died in 1968, in which Rosenthal asserted that the attorneys gave Day bad advice, telling her to sell, at a loss, three hotels, in Palo Alto, California, Dallas, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, plus some oil leases in Kentucky and Ohio.[77] He claimed he had made the investments under a long-term plan, and did not intend to sell them until they appreciated in value. Two of the hotels sold in 1970 for about $7 million, and their estimated worth in 1986 was $50 million.[78]
Terry Melcher stated that his adoptive father’s premature death saved Day from financial ruin. It remains unresolved whether Martin Melcher had himself also been duped.[79] Day stated publicly that she believed her husband innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing, stating that he “simply trusted the wrong person”.[80] According to Day’s autobiography, as told to A.E. Hotchner, the usually athletic and healthy Martin Melcher had an enlarged heart. Most of the interviews on the subject given to Hotchner (and included in Day’s autobiography) paint an unflattering portrait of Melcher. Author David Kaufman asserts that one of Day’s costars, actor Louis Jourdan, maintained that Day herself disliked her husband,[81] but Day’s public statements regarding Melcher appear to contradict that assertion.[82]
Day was scheduled to present, along with Patrick Swayze and Marvin Hamlisch, the Best Original Score Oscar at the 61st Academy Awards in March 1989 but she suffered a deep leg cut and was unable to attend.[83] She had been walking through the gardens of her hotel when she cut her leg on a sprinkler. The cut required stitches.[84]
Day was inducted into the Ohio Women’s Hall of Fame in 1981 and received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for career achievement in 1989.[85] In 1994, Day’s Greatest Hits album became another entry into the British charts.[62] Her cover of “Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps” was included in the soundtrack of the Australian film Strictly Ballroom.[86]
2000s
Day participated in interviews and celebrations of her birthday with an annual Doris Day music marathon.[87] In July 2008, she appeared on the Southern California radio show of longtime friend and newscaster George Putnam.[88]
Day turned down a tribute offer from the American Film Institute and from the Kennedy Center Honors because they require attendance in person. In 2004, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush for her achievements in the entertainment industry and for her work on behalf of animals.[89] President Bush stated:
In the years since, she has kept her fans and shown the breadth of her talent in television and the movies. She starred on screen with leading men from Jimmy Stewart to Ronald Reagan, from Rock Hudson to James Garner. It was a good day for America when Doris Mary Ann von Kappelhoff of Evanston, Ohio decided to become an entertainer. It was a good day for our fellow creatures when she gave her good heart to the cause of animal welfare. Doris Day is one of the greats, and America will always love its sweetheart.[89]
Columnist Liz Smith and film critic Rex Reed mounted vigorous campaigns to gather support for an Honorary Academy Award for Day to herald her film career and her status as the top female box-office star of all time.[90] According to the Hollywood Reporter in 2015, the Academy offered her the Honorary Oscar mutiple times, but she declined as she saw the film industry as a part of her past life.[91] Day received a Grammy for Lifetime Achievement in Music in 2008, albeit again in absentia.[92]
She received three Grammy Hall of Fame Awards, in 1998, 1999 and 2012, for her recordings of “Sentimental Journey”, “Secret Love”, and “Que Sera, Sera”, respectively.[93] Day was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame in 2007,[94] and in 2010 received the first Legend Award ever presented by the Society of Singers.[62]
2010s
Day, aged 89, released My Heart in the United Kingdom on September 5, 2011, her first new album in nearly two decades since the release of The Love Album, which, although recorded in 1967, was not released until 1994.[95] The album is a compilation of previously unreleased recordings produced by Day’s son, Terry Melcher, before his death in 2004. Tracks include the 1970s Joe Cocker hit “You Are So Beautiful“, the Beach Boys‘ “Disney Girls” and jazz standards such as “My Buddy“, which Day originally sang in her 1951 film I’ll See You in My Dreams.[96][97]
After the disc was released in the US it soon climbed to No. 12 on Amazon‘s bestseller list, and helped raise funds for the Doris Day Animal League.[98] Day became the oldest artist to score a UK Top 10 with an album featuring new material.[99]
In April 2014, Day made an unexpected public appearance to attend the annual Doris Day Animal Foundation benefit. The benefit raises money for her Animal Foundation.[102]
Clint Eastwood offered Day a role in a film he was planning to direct in 2015.[103] Although she reportedly was in talks with Eastwood, her neighbor in Carmel, about a role in the film, she eventually declined.[104]
Day granted an ABC telephone interview on her birthday in 2016, which was accompanied by photos of her life and career.[105]
In a rare interview with The Hollywood Reporter on April 4, 2019, the day after her 97th birthday, Day talked about her work on the Doris Day Animal Foundation, founded in 1978. On the question of what her favorite film was, she answered Calamity Jane: “I was such a tomboy growing up, and she was such a fun character to play. Of course, the music was wonderful, too—’Secret Love,’ especially, is such a beautiful song.”[106] To commemorate her birthday, her fans gather each year to take part in a three-day party in her hometown of Carmel, California, in late March. The event is also a fundraiser for her Animal Foundation. In 2019, during the event, there was a special screening of her 1959 film Pillow Talk to celebrate its 60th anniversary. About the film, Day stated in the same interview that she “had such fun working with my pal, Rock. We laughed our way through three films we made together and remained great friends. I miss him.”[106]
Personal life
After her retirement from films, Day lived in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. She had many pets and adopted stray animals.[107] She was a lifelong Republican.[108][109] Her only child was music producer and songwriter Terry Melcher, who had a hit in the 1960s with “Hey Little Cobra” under the name The Rip Chords; he died of melanoma in November 2004.[110] Day owned a hotel in Carmel-by-the-Sea called the Cypress Inn which she co-owned with her son.[111]
Marriages
Day was married four times.[112] She was married to Al Jorden from March 1941 to February 1943, a trombonist whom she met in Barney Rapp’s Band.[113] They had son Terrence Paul Jorden, later known as Terry Melcher. Her second marriage was to George William Weidler from March 30, 1946, to May 31, 1949, a saxophonist and the brother of actress Virginia Weidler.[113] Weidler and Day met again several years later during a brief reconciliation, and he introduced her to Christian Science.[114]
Day married Martin Melcher on April 3, 1951, her 29th birthday, and this marriage lasted until his death in April 1968.[113] Melcher adopted Day’s son Terry, who became a successful musician and record producer under the name Terry Melcher.[115] Martin Melcher produced many of Day’s movies. They were both Christian Scientists, resulting in her not seeing a doctor for some time for symptoms which suggested cancer.[116]
Day’s fourth marriage was to Barry Comden (1935–2009) from April 14, 1976, until April 2, 1982.[117] He was the maître d’hôtel at one of Day’s favorite restaurants. He knew of her great love of dogs and endeared himself to her by giving her a bag of meat scraps and bones on her way out of the restaurant. He later complained that she cared more for her “animal friends” than she did for him.[117]
Death
Day died on May 13, 2019, after contracting pneumonia. She was 97 years old. Her death was announced by her charity, the Doris Day Animal Foundation.[118][119][120] Per Day’s requests, the Foundation announced that there would be no funeral services, gravesites, or other public memorials.[121][122][123]
Animal welfare activism
Day’s interest in animal welfare and related issues apparently dates to her teen years. While recovering from an automobile accident, she took her dog Tiny for a walk without a leash. Tiny ran into the street and was killed by a passing car. Day later expressed guilt and loneliness about Tiny’s untimely death. In 1971, she co-founded Actors and Others for Animals, and appeared in a series of newspaper advertisements denouncing the wearing of fur, alongside Mary Tyler Moore, Angie Dickinson, and Jayne Meadows.[124]
In 1978, Day founded the Doris Day Pet Foundation, now the Doris Day Animal Foundation (DDAF).[125] A non-profit 501(c)(3) grant-giving public charity, DDAF funds other non-profit causes throughout the US that share DDAF’s mission of helping animals and the people who love them. The DDAF continues to operate independently.[126]
To complement the Doris Day Animal Foundation, Day formed the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) in 1987, a national non-profit citizen’s lobbying organization whose mission is to reduce pain and suffering and protect animals through legislative initiatives.[127] Day actively lobbied the United States Congress in support of legislation designed to safeguard animal welfare on a number of occasions and in 1995 she originated the annual Spay Day USA.[128] The DDAL merged into The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in 2006.[129] The HSUS now manages World Spay Day, the annual one-day spay/neuter event that Day originated.[130]
A facility bearing her name, the Doris Day Horse Rescue and Adoption Center, which helps abused and neglected horses, opened in 2011 in Murchison, Texas, on the grounds of an animal sanctuary started by her late friend, author Cleveland Amory.[131] Day contributed $250,000 towards the founding of the center.[132]
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.
Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Date Designated
Name
10/8/1997
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
10/8/1997
Aum Shinrikyo (AUM)
10/8/1997
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
10/8/1997
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group – IG)
10/8/1997
HAMAS
10/8/1997
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
10/8/1997
Hizballah
10/8/1997
Kahane Chai (Kach)
10/8/1997
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK, aka Kongra-Gel)
10/8/1997
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
10/8/1997
National Liberation Army (ELN)
10/8/1997
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
10/8/1997
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
10/8/1997
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
10/23/2002
Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
1/30/2003
Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)
3/22/2004
Ansar al-Islam (AAI)
7/13/2004
Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
12/17/2004
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa’ida in Iraq)
6/17/2005
Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)
3/5/2008
Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
3/18/2008
al-Shabaab
5/18/2009
Revolutionary Struggle (RS)
7/2/2009
Kata’ib Hizballah (KH)
1/19/2010
al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
8/6/2010
Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI)
9/1/2010
Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
11/4/2010
Jundallah
5/23/2011
Army of Islam (AOI)
9/19/2011
Indian Mujahedeen (IM)
3/13/2012
Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT)
5/30/2012
Abdallah Azzam Brigades (AAB)
9/19/2012
Haqqani Network (HQN)
3/22/2013
Ansar al-Dine (AAD)
11/14/2013
Boko Haram
11/14/2013
Ansaru
12/19/2013
al-Mulathamun Battalion (AMB)
1/13/2014
Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi
1/13/2014
Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah
1/13/2014
Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia
4/10/2014
ISIL Sinai Province (formerly Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis)
5/15/2014
al-Nusrah Front
8/20/2014
Mujahidin Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem (MSC)
9/30/2015
Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al Naqshabandi (JRTN)
1/14/2016
ISIL-Khorasan (ISIL-K)
5/20/2016
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s Branch in Libya (ISIL-Libya)
7/1/2016
Al-Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent
8/17/2017
Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
2/28/2018
ISIS-Bangladesh
2/28/2018
ISIS-Philippines
2/28/2018
ISIS-West Africa
5/23/2018
ISIS-Greater Sahara
7/11/2018
al-Ashtar Brigades (AAB)
9/6/2018
Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM)
Delisted Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Date Removed
Name
Date Orginally Designated
10/8/1999
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine -Hawatmeh Faction
10/8/1997
10/8/1999
Khmer Rouge
10/8/1997
10/8/1999
Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front Dissidents
10/8/1997
10/8/2001
Japanese Red Army
10/8/1997
10/8/2001
Tupac Amaru Revolution Movement
10/8/1997
5/18/2009
Revolutionary Nuclei
10/8/1997
10/15/2010
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
10/8/1997
9/28/2012
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
10/8/1997
5/28/2013
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
10/11/2005
7/15/2014
United Self Defense Forces of Colombia
9/10/2001
9/3/2015
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N)
10/8/1997
12/9/2015
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
12/17/2004
6/1/2017
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
10/8/1997
Identification
The Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department (CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.
Designation
Once a target is identified, CT prepares a detailed “administrative record,” which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, decides to make the designation, Congress is notified of the Secretary’s intent to designate the organization and given seven days to review the designation, as the INA requires. Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period and in the absence of Congressional action to block the designation, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect. By law an organization designated as an FTO may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.
Until recently the INA provided that FTOs must be redesignated every 2 years or the designation would lapse. Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), however, the redesignation requirement was replaced by certain review and revocation procedures. IRTPA provides that an FTO may file a petition for revocation 2 years after its designation date (or in the case of redesignated FTOs, its most recent redesignation date) or 2 years after the determination date on its most recent petition for revocation. In order to provide a basis for revocation, the petitioning FTO must provide evidence that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation are sufficiently different as to warrant revocation. If no such review has been conducted during a 5 year period with respect to a designation, then the Secretary of State is required to review the designation to determine whether revocation would be appropriate. In addition, the Secretary of State may at any time revoke a designation upon a finding that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation, or that the national security of the United States warrants a revocation. The same procedural requirements apply to revocations made by the Secretary of State as apply to designations. A designation may be revoked by an Act of Congress, or set aside by a Court order.
Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended
It must be a foreign organization.
The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.
Legal Ramifications of Designation
It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Other Effects of Designation
Supports our efforts to curb terrorism financing and to encourage other nations to do the same.
Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations internationally.
Deters donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.
Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.
Signals to other governments our concern about named organizations.
Revocations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
The Immigration and Nationality Act sets out three possible basis for revoking a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation:
The Secretary of State must revoke a designation if the Secretary finds that the circumstances that were the basis of the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant a revocation;
The Secretary of State must revoke a designation if the Secretary finds that the national security of the United States warrants a revocation;
The Secretary of State may revoke a designation at any time.
Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no effective date is specified. The revocation of a designation shall not affect any action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the effective date of such revocation.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (Persian: سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی, translit.Sepâh-e Pâsdârân-e Enghelâb-e Eslâmi, lit. ‘Army of Guardians of the Islamic Revolution’ or Sepâh for short) is a branch of Iran’s Armed Forces founded after 1979 Revolution on 22 April 1979[2] by order of Ayatollah Khomeini.[3] Whereas the regular military (or Artesh) defends Iran‘s borders and maintains internal order, according to the Iranian constitution, the Revolutionary Guard (pasdaran) is intended to protect the country’s Islamic Republic system.[4] The Revolutionary Guards state that their role in protecting the Islamic system is preventing foreign interference as well as coups by the military or “deviant movements”.[5] This group has been labelled as a terrorist organization by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United States,[6][7] although top CIA and United States Pentagon officials reportedly opposed the terrorist designation made by President Donald Trump on 8 April 2019.[8]
The Revolutionary Guards have roughly 125,000 military personnel including ground, aerospace and naval forces. Its naval forces are now the primary forces tasked with operational control of the Persian Gulf.[9]It also controls the paramilitaryBasij militia which has about 90,000 active personnel.[10][11] Its media arm is Sepah News.[12]
Since its origin as an ideologically driven militia, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution has taken a greater role in nearly every aspect of Iranian society. Its expanded social, political, military and economic role under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s administration—especially during the 2009 presidential election and post-election suppression of protest—has led many Western analysts to argue that its political power has surpassed even that of the Shia clerical system.[13][14][15][16]
In Iran, due to the frequent use of referencing government organizations with one word names (that generally denote their function) as opposed to acronyms or shortened versions, the entire general populace universally refer to the organization as Sepâh (سپاه). Sepâh has a historical connotation of soldiers, while in modern Persian it is also used to describe a corps sized unit, in modern Persian Artesh (ارتش) is the more standard term for an army. Pâsdârân (پاسداران) is the plural form of Pâsdâr (پاسدار), which means “Guardian”. Members of Sepah are known as Pāsdār, which is also their title and comes after their rank.
Apart from the phrase of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,[18][19][20] the Iranian Government, media, and those who identify with the organization generally use Sepāh-e Pâsdârân (Army of the Guardians), although it is not uncommon to hear Pâsdârân-e Enghelâb (پاسداران انقلاب) (Guardians of the Revolution), or simply Pâsdârân (پاسداران) (Guardians) as well. It should be noted though that among the Iranian population, and especially among diaspora Iranians, using the word Pasdaran normally indicates admiration for the organization.
Most foreign governments and the English-speaking mass media tend to use the term Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) or simply the Revolutionary Guards.[21] In the US media, the force is frequently referred to interchangeably as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).[22][23][24][25] The US government standard is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,[26] while the United Nations uses Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.[27]
Organization
The force’s main role is in national security. It is responsible for internal and border security, law enforcement, and also Iran’s missile forces. IRGC operations are geared towards asymmetric warfare and less traditional duties. These include the control of smuggling, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and resistance operations.[28] The IRGC is intended to complement the more traditional role of the regular Iranian military, with the two forces operating separately and focusing on different operational roles.[28]
The IRGC is a combined arms force with its own ground forces, navy,[9]air force, intelligence,[29] and special forces. It also controls the Basij militia. The Basij is a volunteer-based force, with 90,000 regular soldiers and 300,000 reservists. The IRGC is officially recognized as a component of the Iranian military under Article 150 of the Iranian Constitution.[30] It is separate from, and parallel to, the other arm of Iran‘s military, which is called Artesh (another Persian word for army). Especially in the waters of the Persian Gulf, the IRGC is expected to assume control of any Iranian response to attacks on its nuclear facilities.[9]
History and structure
The IRGC was formed on 5 May 1979[1][31] following the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in an effort to consolidate several paramilitary forces into a single force loyal to the new government and to function as a counter to the influence and power of the regular military, initially seen as a potential source of opposition because of its traditional loyalty to the Shah. From the beginning of the new Islamic government, the Pasdaran (Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami) functioned as a corps of the faithful. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic entrusted the defense of Iran’s territorial integrity and political independence to the regular military (artesh), while it gave the Pasdaran the responsibility of preserving the Revolution itself.
Days after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s return to Tehran on 1 February 1979, the Bazargan interim administration established the Pasdaran under a decree issued by Khomeini on 5 May. The Pasdaran was intended to protect the Revolution and to assist the ruling clerics in the day-to-day enforcement of the new government’s Islamic codes and morality. There were other, perhaps more important, reasons for establishing the Pasdaran. The Revolution needed to rely on a force of its own rather than borrowing the previous regime’s tainted units. As one of the first revolutionary institutions, the Pasdaran helped legitimize the Revolution and gave the new government an armed basis of support. Moreover, the establishment of the Pasdaran served notice to both the population and the regular armed forces that the Khomeini government was quickly developing its own enforcement body. Thus, the Pasdaran, along with its political counterpart, Crusade for Reconstruction, brought a new order to Iran. In time, the Pasdaran would rival the police and the judiciary in terms of its functions. It would even challenge the performance of the regular armed forces on the battlefield.
Although the IRGC operated independently of the regular armed forces, it was often considered to be a military force in its own right due to its important role in Iranian defense. The IRGC consists of ground, naval, and aviation troops, which parallel the structure of the regular military. Unique to the Pasdaran, however, has been control of Iran’s strategic missile and rocket forces.
Also contained under the umbrella of the more conventional Pasdaran, were the Basij Forces (Mobilization Resistance Force), a network of potentially up to a million active individuals who could be called upon in times of need. The Basij could be committed to assist in the defense of the country against internal or external threats, but by 2008 had also been deployed in mobilizing voters in elections and alleged tampering during such activities. Another element was the Quds Force, a special forces element tasked with unconventional warfare roles and known to be involved providing assistance and training to various militant organizations around the world.
Yahya Rahim Safavi, head of the IRGC since 1997, was dismissed as commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards in August 2007. The dismissal of Safavi disrupted the balance of power in Iran to the advantage of conservatives. Analysis in the international press considered the removal of Safavi to be a sign of change in the defense strategies of Iran, but the general policies of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are not personally determined by its commander.[32]
Military structure
IRGC tank in 2012 military parade in Tehran
In late July 2008 reports originating that the IRGC was in the process of dramatically changing its structure. In a shake-up, in September 2008 Iran’s Revolutionary Guards established 31 divisions and an autonomous missile command. The new structure changes the IRGC from a centralized to a decentralized force with 31 provincial corps, whose commanders wield extensive authority and power. According to the plan, each of Iran’s thirty provinces will have a provincial corps, except Tehran Province, which will have two.[33]
The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer militia founded by the order of the Ayatollah Khomeini in November 1979. The Basij are (at least in theory) subordinate to, and receive their orders from, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. However they have also been described as “a loosely allied group of organizations” including “many groups controlled by local clerics.” Currently, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in activities such as internal security as well as law enforcement auxiliary, the providing of social service, organizing of public religious ceremonies, and as morality police and the suppression of dissident gatherings.
The elite Quds Force (or Jerusalem Force), sometimes described as the successor to the Shah‘s Imperial Guards, is estimated to be 2,000–5,000 in number.[10] It is a special operations unit, handling activities abroad.[34] The force basically does not engage directly.
Aerospace Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution
Qiam (left) and Sejjil 2 (right) ballistic missiles in a 2012 exhibition
Once thought of as the IRGC’s air force, complete with air combat fighter aircraft, the Aerospace Force, now is more likely to be a combination of army aviation unit, the equivalent of the Iranian Army’s Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation, and as a strategic missile force.
Navy of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution
One of the various types of fast attack craft used by the IRGC
IRGC started naval operations using mainly swarm tactics and speedboats during “Tanker War” phase of the Iran–Iraq War.
IRGC Navy and the regular Artesh Navy overlap functions and areas of responsibility, but they are distinct in terms of how they are trained and equipped—and more importantly also in how they fight. The Revolutionary Guards Navy has a large inventory of small fast attack craft, and specializes in asymmetrichit-and-run tactics. It is more akin to a guerrilla force at sea, and maintains large arsenals of coastal defense and anti-ship cruise missiles and mines.[35] It has also a Takavar (special force) unit, called Sepah Navy Special Force (S.N.S.F.).
The Ansar-ul-Mahdi (Followers of Imam Mahdi (12th Shia Imam) Corps is primarily responsible for the protection of top officials of government and parliament (excluding the Supreme Leader). As an elite, secretive force within the I.R.G.C Ground force, its officers are entrusted with many other special assignments, such as Counter Intelligence & Covert Operations beyond Iran’s borders.
The corps has four layers of protection for top officials and the agents go to each layer according to their experience and loyalty. The current commander of Ansar-Ul-Mehdi is Colonel Asad Zadeh.[36][37]
The IISS Military Balance 2007 says the IRGC has 125,000+ personnel and controls the Basij on mobilisation.[38] It estimates the IRGC Ground and Aerospace Forces are 100,000 strong and is ‘very lightly manned’ in peacetime. It estimates there are up to 20 infantry divisions, some independent brigades, and one airborne brigade.[39]
The IISS estimates the IRGC Naval Forces are 20,000 strong including 5,000 Marines in one brigade of three or four Marine Battalions.,[40] and are equipped with some coastal defence weapons (some HY-2/CSS-C-3 Seersucker SSM batteries and some artillery batteries) and 50 patrol boats. The IRGC air arm, says the IISS, controls Iran’s strategic missile force and has an estimated one brigade of Shahab-1/2 with 12–18 launchers, and a Shahab-3 unit. The IISS says of the Shahab-3 unit ‘estimated 1 battalion with estimated 6 single launchers each with estimated 4 Shahab-3 strategic IRBM.’
During the Lebanese Civil War, the IRGC allegedly sent troops to train fighters in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.[48] In Lebanon, political parties had staunch opinions regarding the IRGC’s presence. Some, mainly the Christian militias such as the Lebanese Forces, Phalanges, and most of the Christian groups declared war on the IRGC, claiming they violated Lebanese sovereignty, while others, including Muslim militias, were neutral to their presence. Groups such as the PSP and Mourabiton did not approve of their presence, but to preserve political alliances they decided to remain silent on the matter.
2006 Lebanon War
During the 2006 Lebanon War, several Iranian Revolutionary Guards were reportedly killed by Israeli forces in Baalbek, a town close to the Syrian border.[49] Israeli officials believe that Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces were responsible for training and equipping the Hezbollah fighters behind the missile attack on the INS Hanit which left four Israeli sailors dead and seriously damaged the vessel.[50]
2006 plane crash
In January 2006, an IRGC Falcon crashed near Oroumieh, about 560 miles northwest of Tehran, near the Turkish border, Iranian media reported. All fifteen passengers died, including twelve senior IRGC commanders.[42] Among the dead was General Ahmad Kazemi, the IRGC ground forces commander, and Iran–Iraq War veteran.[51]
Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, spokesman for the IRGC, told state radio that both of the plane’s engines had failed, its landing gear had jammed, and there was snow and poor visibility at the time.[52]
Possible attacks on Quds Force
On 7 July 2008, investigative journalist and author Seymour Hersh wrote an article in the New Yorker stating that the Bush Administration had signed a Presidential Finding authorizing the CIA‘s Special Activities Division to begin cross border paramilitary operations from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran. These operations would be against the Quds Force, the commando arm of the IRGC that had been blamed for repeated acts of violence in Iraq, and “high-value targets” in the war on terror.[53]
In October 2009, several top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards were killed in a suicide bombing in the Pishin region of Sistan-Baluchistan, in the south-east of Iran. The Iranian state television said 31 people died in the attack, and more than 25 were injured. Shia and Sunni tribal leaders were also killed. The Sunni Baluchi insurgent group Jundullah claimed responsibility for the attack. The Iranian government initially blamed the United States for involvement in the attacks,[54] as well as Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and later Pakistan for their alleged support of the Jundallah group.[55][56] The United States denied involvement,[57] but some reports of US assistance to Jundallah during the Bush administration have come from Western sources.[58] The attacks appear to have originated in Pakistan and several suspects have been arrested.[59][60]
Prior to the Syrian war, Iran had between 2,000 and 3,000 IRGC officers stationed in Syria, helping to train local troops and managing supply routes of arms and money to neighboring Lebanon.[61]
General Qa’ani, Senior officer of Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, said: “If the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of civilians would have been twice as bad. Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people.”[62]
Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers, along with fellow Shi’ite forces from Hezbollah and members of Iran’s Basij militia participated in the capture of Qusair from rebel forces on 9 June 2013.[63][64] In 2014, Iran increased its deployment of IRGC in Syria.[61]
194 IRGC troops have been killed in Syria; almost all of these soldiers were officers, with several even reaching the rank of Brigadier.[65][66] Additionally, 354 Afghan combatants died[67][68] who were fighting under the command of the IRGC, as part of the IRGC-equipped and trained Fatemiyoun Brigade, which is part of Hezbollah Afghanistan.[69] Another 21 Pakistanis also died as part of the Zainabiyoun Brigade.[68][70] The Afghan and Pakistani immigrants volunteered to go to Syria in exchange for salaries and citizenship. The Afghans were recruited largely from refugees inside Iran, and usually had combat experience before joining the IRGC; their status as members of the Iranian military is only vaguely acknowledged and sometimes denied, despite the troops being uniformed fighters led by IRGC officers. They were trained and equipped in Iran, paid salaries by the Iranian military, and received state funerals involving uniformed IRGC personnel.[69] Mid to late October 2015 was particularly bloody for the IRGC, due to them stepping up their involvement in offensives around Aleppo. During this time, 30 IRGC officers, including “three generals, battalion commanders, captains and lieutenants” and “one pilot” were killed in fighting in Syria, as were several Afghan and Pakistani auxiliaries.[71][72]
The fallen include General Hossein Hamadani,[73] Farshad Hosounizadeh (IRGC colonel and former commander of the Saberin Special Forces Brigade), Mostafa Sadrzadeh (commander of the Omar Battalion of the Fatmiyoon Brigade), and Hamid Mojtaba Mokhtarband (IRGC commander).[72]
Two battalions of Revolutionary Guards were reported to be operating in Iraq trying to combat the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive.[74] The IRGC is considered to be a principle backer of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a loose coalition of Shi’a militias allied with the Iraqi government in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In addition, Major General Qasem Soleimani has been an instrumental force in the Iranian ground mission in Iraq against ISIS, purportedly planning the Second Battle of Tikrit.[75] In December 2014, Brigadier General Hamid Taqavi, a veteran of the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war, was killed by snipers in Samarra.[76] In May 2017, Shaaban Nassiri, a senior IRGC commander was killed in combat near Mosul, Iraq.[77]
2014 Israeli drone shoot down
Iran revolutionary guards said that they had shot down an Israeli drone approaching the Natanz nuclear facility.[78][79][80] According to ISNA, “The downed aircraft was of the stealth, radar-evasive type … and was targeted by a ground-to-air missile before it managed to enter the area.”[78][80] The statement by revolutionary guards didn’t mention how they recognized it as an Israeli drone. Israel offered no comment.[79]
Ayatollah Khomeini urged that the country’s military forces should remain unpoliticized. However, the Constitution, in Article 150, defines the IRGC as the “guardian of the Revolution and of its achievements” which is at least partly a political mission. His original views have therefore been the subject of debate. Supporters of the Basiji have argued for politicization, while reformists, moderates and Hassan Khomeini opposed it. President Rafsanjani forced military professionalization and ideological deradicalization on the IRGC to curb its political role, but the Pasdaran became natural allies of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei when reformists threatened him.[81] The IRGC grew stronger under President Ahmedinejad, and assumed formal command of the Basiji militia in early 2009.[82]
Although never explicitly endorsing or affiliating themselves with any political parties, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (or Abadgaran), is widely viewed as a political front for the Revolutionary Guards. Many former members (including Ahmadinejad) have joined this party in recent years and the Revolutionary Guards have reportedly given them financial support.
As an elite group, members of Pasdaran have influence in Iran’s political world. President Ahmadinejad joined the IRGC in 1985, serving first in military operation in Iraqi Kurdistan before leaving the front line to take charge of logistics. A majority of his first cabinet consisted of IRGC veterans.[83] Nearly one third of the members elected to Iran’s Majlis in 2004 are also “Pásdárán“.[84] Others have been appointed as ambassadors, mayors, provincial governors and senior bureaucrats.[34] However, IRGC veteran status does not imply a single viewpoint.[81]
IRGC first expanded into commercial activity through informal social networking of veterans and former officials. IRGC officials confiscated assets of many refugees who had fled Iran after the fall of Abolhassan Banisadr’s government. It is now a vast conglomerate, controlling Iran’s missile batteries and nuclear program but also a multibillion-dollar business empire reaching almost all economic sectors.[13] Estimates have it controlling between a tenth[85] and around a third of Iran’s economy through a series of subsidiaries and trusts.[86]
The Los Angeles Times estimates that IRGC has ties to over one hundred companies, with its annual revenue exceeding $12 billion in business and construction.[87] IRGC has been awarded billions of dollars in contracts in the oil, gas and petrochemical industries, as well as major infrastructure projects.[88]
The following commercial entities have been named by the United States as owned or controlled by the IRGC and its leaders.[89]
Khatam al-Anbia Construction Headquarters, the IRGC’s major engineering arm & one of Iran’s largest contractors employing about 25,000 engineers and staff on military (70%) and non-military (30%) projects[81] worth over $7 billion in 2006.[89]
The IRGC also exerts influence over bonyads, wealthy, non-governmental ostensibly charitable foundations controlled by key clerics. The pattern of revolutionary foundations mimics the style of informal and extralegal economic networks from the time of the Shah. Their development started in the early 1990s, gathered pace over the next decade, and accelerated even more with many lucrative no-bid contracts from the Ahmadinejad presidency.[90] The IRGC exerts informal, but real, influence over many such organizations including:
Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argues that the IRGC is “the spine of the current political structure and a major player in the Iranian economy.”[94] The once theocratic state has evolved into a garrison state, like Burma, whereby the military dominates social, cultural, political, and economic life, protecting the government from internal rather than external opponents.[94]
Greg Bruno and Jayshree Bajoria of the Council on Foreign Relations agree, stating that the IRGC has expanded well beyond its mandate and into a “socio-military-political-economic force” that deeply penetrates Iran’s power structure.[95] “The Guards’ involvement in politics has grown to unprecedented levels since 2004, when IRCG won at least 16 percent of the 290 seats” in the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran.[95] During the elections of March 2008, IRGC veterans won 182 out of 290 seats, helping Mahmoud Ahmadinejadconsolidate power.[96]
Half of Ahmadinejad’s cabinet was composed of former IRGC officers while several others were appointed to provincial governorships.[96]
Ali Alfoneh of the American Enterprise Institute contends that “While the presence of former IRGC officers in the cabinet is not a new phenomenon, their numbers under Ahmadinejad—they occupy nine of the twenty-one ministry portfolios—are unprecedented.”[97]Additionally, Ahmadinejad successfully purged provincial governorships of Rafsanjani and Khatami supporters and replaced them not only with IRGC members, but also members of the Basij and the Islamic Republic prison administration.[98]
The IRGC chief, General Mohammad Ali Ja’fari, announced that the Guards’ would go through internal restructuring in order to counter “internal threats to the Islamic Republic.”[96]Bruce Riedel, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former CIA analyst, argues the Guards was created to protect the government against a possible coup.[95]
Since the disputed 2009 presidential elections, debate over how powerful the IRGC is has reemerged. Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh see the irreversible militarization of Iran’s government.[95] Abbas Milani, director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University, believes the Guards’ power actually exceeds that of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.[95]Frederic Wehrey, adjunct Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation believes the Revolutionary Guards is not a cohesive unit of similar-minded conservatives but rather a factionalized institution that is hardly bent on overthrowing their masters.[95]
From its origin as an ideologically driven militia, the IRGC has taken an ever more assertive role in virtually every aspect of Iranian society. Its part in suppressing dissent has led many analysts to describe the events surrounding the 12 June 2009 presidential election as a military coup, and the IRGC as an authoritarian military security government for which its Shiite clerical system is no more than a facade.[13]
Since its establishment, IRGC has been involved in many economic and military activities among which some raised controversies. The organization has been accused of smuggling (including importing illegal alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and satellite dishes, into Iran via jetties not supervised by the Government[81][99][100][101]), training and supplying Hezbollah[102][103] and Hamas[104] fighters, and of being involved in the Iraq War.[105]
In December 2009 evidence uncovered during an investigation by the Guardian newspaper and Guardian Films linked the IRGC to the kidnappings of 5 Britons from a government ministry building in Baghdad in 2007. Three of the hostages, Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan, were killed. Alan Mcmenemy’s body was never found but Peter Moore was released on 30 December 2009. The investigation uncovered evidence that Moore, 37, a computer expert from Lincoln was targeted because he was installing a system for the Iraqi Government that would show how a vast amount of international aid was diverted to Iran’s militia groups in Iraq.[106]
According to Geneive Abdo IRGC members were appointed “as ambassadors, mayors, cabinet ministers, and high-ranking officials at state-run economic institutions” during the administration of president Ahmadinejad.[16] Appointments in 2009 by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have given “hard-liners” in the guard “unprecedented power” and included “some of the most feared and brutal men in Iran.”[16]
Hesam Forozan, The Military in Post-Revolutionary Iran: The Evolution and Roles of the Revolutionary Guards, c. 2017
Safshekan, Roozbeh; Sabet, Farzan, “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the 2009 Election Crisis”, The Middle East Journal, Volume 64, Number 4, Autumn 2010, pp. 543–558(16).
Story 2: President Trump: You’re Fired — How Many Miles of New Beautiful Wall Have Been Built? Not Very Many and Certainly Not 1000 Promised Miles — How Many of 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Have Been Deported and Removed? — Not Very Many and Certainly Not All of Them — Promises Made — Promises Broken — You’re Fired — Trump Fires His Many Many Mistakes — What About Republican Party Leadership — The Real Problem — Videos —
US company offers to build border wall for a fraction of the cost
EXCLUSIVE: Contractor Who Wants To Build Trump’s Wall Shares Plans
Fisher’s Bollard Fence Demo Day
POVnow Tommy Fisher
Fisher Concrete Border Wall Presentation 12 08 17
Tommy Fisher Discusses Border Wall Construction & More
A closer look at Fisher Sand & Gravel
Tucker: Nielsen just wasn’t a good fit for the job
Nielsen was an asset to the White House: Hassett
James Murray to begin leading Secret Service next month after firing of Randolph Alles
Trump: We will build a great wall along the southern border
Donald Trump Promises to Deport Criminal Immigrants
Donald Trump “You’re Fired” Compilation
DHS Secretary Nielsen out after clashes with Trump on immigration policy
DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen resigned. Did Trump ask her to?
What Is Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s Legacy? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC
Nightmare Scenario: How Trump Could Lose in 2020
Tucker: What if Trump doesn’t want to be re-elected?
The Rush Limbaugh Video Show 4/8/19 – April 8, 2019
Mark Levin 4/8/19 [1AM] Breaking Fox News April 8, 2019
US & the Wall: Deportees in Mexico unwanted by either side after decades in the US (RT Documentary)
Ingraham: Separating parents from kids and fact from fiction
2014 photo of detained children used as swipe against Trump
Did Obama separate families at the border?
Trump Blames Democrats For Border Policy Separating Children From Parents | The View
A Nation of Immigrants
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com
New study doubles number of illegal immigrants living in US
How would Donald Trump deport millions of immigrants?
Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants
How to solve the illegal immigration problem
Bloody Monday rocks Homeland Security Department: Trump ‘fires’ Secret Service director and THREE MORE top officials ‘quit’ as Stephen Miller grabs U.S. immigration reins after Kirstjen Nielsen’s ouster
Trump reportedly ordered acting White House chief of staff to fire Secret Service Director Randolph Alles
Alles insists he wasn’t fired but knew about a coming transition two weeks ago
On Sunday Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen got her walking papers after meeting with Trump and sharing her plans for immigration
The second departure came as the agency dodged blame for Chinese malware security breach at Trump’s private Florida resort
Agents arrested Yujing Zhang entering Mar-a-Lago with two Chinese passports, a thumb drive with malware, four cellphones, a laptop and a hard drive
Reports of more people in the DHS departure lounge followed Monday
Replacing the USSS director signals that immigration hardliner Stephen Miller is gaining more leverage in the White House
PUBLISHED: 13:57 EDT, 8 April 2019 | UPDATED: 17:48 EDT, 8 April 2019
President Donald Trump followed the ouster of his Homeland Security secretary with another pink slip on Monday, reportedly axing the director of the U.S. Secret Service. Trump ordered acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to fire Randolph ‘Tex’ Alles. CNN first reported the move.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Cissna is also leaving, according to CBS News. So are DHS undersecretary for management Claire Grady and general counsel John Mitnick.
A person with knowledge of USCIS’s front office, however, said late Monday that Cissna was still in his job. And Alles told his agency’s staff that he wasn’t forced out.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that Alles ‘has done a great job at the agency over the last two years, and the President is thankful for his over 40 years of service to the country.’
Alles wrote in a message to his agency that ‘[n]o doubt you have seen media reports regarding my “firing.” I assure you that this is not the case, and in fact was told weeks ago by the Administration that transitions in leadership should be expected across the Department of Homeland Security.’
A White House official denied that DHS leaders beyond Alles and Nielsen left their jobs Monday or were fired. The official noted that DHS distributed a readout on Grady’s trip to France for the upcoming G-7 Interior Ministers’ meeting on Monday morning, indicating that she held her position as of 10:45 a.m.
The change at Secret Service comes on the heels of an embarrassing episode at Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago resort club in Palm Beach, Florida, involving a Chinese national on a club guest list who was arrested with devices bearing computer malware. Secret Service punted responsibility to Mar-a-Lago’s private security detail.
President Donald Trump fired U.S. Secret Service Director Randolph Alles on Monday, signaling a plan to toughen the ranks of officials tasked with carrying out his hard-edged border policy
Alles is pictured in the Oval Office with the president in April 2018; he fired Alles less than a day after showing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen out the door
President Trump has been growing impatient with the speed and aggressiveness of his immigration policies’ adoption
The twin killings of Nielsen adn Alles indicate the strong hand of 33-year-old Trump aide Stephen Miller, a former aide to then-Senator Jeff Sessions who has become the driving force behind the administration’s immigration policy
Shoving Alles overboard and driving others out signals the growing authority of Trump adviser Stephen Miller, the 33-year-old former staffer to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions. Alles, Cissna, Grady and Mitnick were on a list of officials Miller targeted for removal as ‘too soft,’ accoding to a White House official.
A White House source with knowledge of the West Wing’s goings on in the past week told DailyMail.com on Monday that Miller had advocated internally for Nielsen’s firing, and for Alles to follow her out the door.
Miller is known as a sharp-tongued promoter of hawkish immigration policies that Democrats have complained push the boundaries of federal law and too often challenge court precedents.
Trump fired Nielsen in a tweet on Sunday shortly after meeting with her in the White House residence and hearing her plan for bringing U.S. immigration in line with legal boundaries.
Federal law dictates that as the third most senior Homeland Security official, Grady should have become ‘acting secretary’ after Nielsen’s departure since the number two position is vacant.
Grady’s decision to leave is significant because Trump chose to appoint U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to manage the department until he nominates a permanent secretary.
By quitting now, Grady avoided what could have been a messy fight over who would emerge in charge on Thursday, the first full day after Nielsen leaves on April 10.
Homeland Security under secretary Claire Grady, pictured on Friday in Paris, was set to become acting secretary with Kirstjen Nielsen’s departure, but she left instead – clearing the way for Trump’s hand-picked ‘acting’ Kevin McAleenan
Homeland Security Department general counsel John Mitnick (left) announced his departure on Monday, along with Lee Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services
In this artist sketch, a Chinese woman, Yujing Zhang, left, listens to a hearing Monday, April 8, 2019, before federal Magistrate Judge William Matthewman in West Palm Beach, Fla. Secret Service agents arrested the 32-year-old woman March 30 after they say she gained admission by falsely telling a checkpoint she was a member and was going to swim
Kirstjen Nielsen resigns as Homeland Security Secretary
Secret Service agents arrested Yujing Zhang, a Chinese woman, last week when she tried to enter Mar-a-Lago with two Chinese passports, a thumb drive with malware on it, four cellphones, a laptop and a hard drive.
Zhang’s attorney Robert Adler said his client was entitled to be at the president’s private club because she paid $20,000 to attend what she thought was a party later that night – an event that earlier in the week had been cancelled.
‘This receipt is evidence of a payment from Ms. Zhang to attend an event at Mar-a-Lago that night,’ Adler told U.S. Magistrate William Matthewman of Zhang’s payment to Charles Lee, the alleged organizer of the canceled party.
Trump said shortly after the arrest that he was ‘not concerned at all’ about potential breach by Zhang, who posed for a picture with him at his Super Bowl party this year.
‘Secret Service is fantastic. These are fantastic people. And the end result is it was good,’ Trump said last Wednesday.
‘The result is they were able to get her and she’s now suffering the consequences of whatever it is she had in mind but I would say I could not be happier with Secret Service. Secret Service has done a fantastic job from day one. Very happy with them.’
A senior White House official said Monday that the Secret Service shift had been in the works for two weeks and was unrelated to the Mar-a-Lago incident.
Asked if Alles’ firing was connected to Nielsen’s or part of a broader Homeland Security Department housecleaning, another official said: ‘Not that I’m aware of.’
White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said earlier on Monday that with an influx of illegal immigrants pouring into the U.S. from the south, ‘tt’s time to do things a little differently.’
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan will temporarily replace Kirstjen Nielsen after her resignation takes effect
White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley, pictured talking to reporters on Monday, said in a Fox News interview that President Trump hsa ‘the right’ to reshape his team
‘And so the president is looking around to reshape his team so that he can have the people in place to carry out his agenda,’ he said during a Fox News Channel interview. ‘And quite frankly he has the right to do that.’
The Secret Service is best known for protecting the president and vice president and their families, and those who formerly served in office.
Established in 1865, the agency also investigates and prevents counterfeiting in order to protect the U.S. financial system, and combats computer-based financial crimes.
The Secret Service wasoriginaly a subagency of the Treasury Department, when it was principally an anti-counterfeiting force.
It became a branch of the Homeland Security Department in 2003 as the new post-9/11 agency coalesced around a mission that unified a group of previously far-flung government agencies.
Image captionOn Mr Trump’s reality TV show, his catchphrase was “You’re fired!”
Donald Trump’s administration has had a very high turnover – with senior officials quitting, being fired or getting eased out at a record pace.
Here is a run-down of what they did, and why they left, starting with the most recent.
Kirstjen Nielsen, Homeland Security Secretary – 7 April 2019
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Kirstjen Nielsen became Homeland Security Secretary in December 2017.
Her sprawling department, responsible for domestic security, covers everything from borders to responding to national emergencies.
She faced criticism for enforcing some of the most controversial elements of President Trump’s domestic agenda, such as the separation of children from their migrant parents at the Mexican border.
In a resignation letter she said it was the “right time for me to step aside”.
Why did she leave?
There have been tensions between her and the president for months, who blamed her for a rise in migrants at the Mexican border.
Days earlier President Trump withdrew his nominee to lead another key department dealing with immigration, saying he wanted to go in a “tougher direction”. It is widely thought he wants someone “tougher” at Homeland Security too.
Time in post?
14 months.
Brock Long, administrator of Fema – 13 February 2019
Image copyrightREUTERS
Brock Long was appointed administrator of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency by President Trump in April 2017 and confirmed by the Senate two months later.
Fema is responsible for co-ordinating the response to disasters and in his tenure he oversaw 220 of them. He was quickly battered by two hurricanes. Harvey hit Texas with catastrophic effect in August 2017, while Maria a month later devastated Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the US.
He was one of those who bore heavy criticism for the response afforded to Puerto Rico.
Why did he leave?
He tweeted that it had been a “great honour” to serve his country and that it was “time to go home to my family”.
He praised the president for “unprecedented support”.
Mr Long was investigated last autumn for using government vehicles to commute from his home in North Carolina to Washington.
Time in post?
21 months from confirmation.
Jim Mattis, Defence Secretary – 20 December 2018
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The departure, scheduled for February, was announced in an evening tweet by the president.
In his social media post, Mr Trump said General Mattis would retire “with distinction” at the end of February, but did not name a successor.
A distinguished former Marine Corps general, Gen Mattis had held the post since Mr Trump took office.
Why did he leave?
The move came just one day after the president controversially announced the withdrawal of US troops from Syria.
Although not referring directly to that, in his resignation letter Gen Mattis said the president had the right to have a defence secretary “whose views are better aligned” with his.
The two had diverging public views on a number of subjects, including Mr Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
Time in post?
By the time he leaves, just over two years.
Ryan Zinke, Interior Secretary – 15 December 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
A former Navy SEAL, Ryan Zinke was picked to lead the agency that oversees federal land, including national parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone.
He is a former congressman for Montana, where he was raised near Glacier National Park.
Why was he sacked?
President Trump tweeted that Mr Zinke would be leaving the administration at the end of 2018. He did not offer any further details as to the reasons for his departure and it is unclear whether he resigned or was fired.
“Ryan has accomplished much during his tenure and I want to thank him for his service to our Nation,” Mr Trump said.
Mr Zinke has been under a number of investigations for his conduct in office. They include a land deal in Montana involving Mr Zinke and the chairman of oilfield services Halliburton, Politico reported.
Time in post?
Almost two years.
John Kelly, Chief of Staff – December 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
The retired Marine general was initially nominated to oversee Homeland Security before Mr Trump promoted him to chief of staff in July 2017, replacing Reince Priebus.
However, on 8 December Mr Trump announced that Gen Kelly would leave his post by the end of the year.
By December 2018 his relationship with the president was said to have deteriorated, with some reports saying the pair were no longer on speaking terms.
Earlier in the year Mr Kelly was forced to deny that he had called Mr Trump an “idiot” after the quote was included in a book by the veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward.
Time in post
About one year, five months. (He was previously Homeland Security secretary from January to July 2017.)
Jeff Sessions, Attorney General – 7 November 2018
Image copyrightAFP
The Alabama Republican was the first senator to endorse Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, in early 2016.
During the campaign, he became one of Mr Trump’s closest national security advisers and, in government, was a supporter of the president’s policies on immigration and law enforcement.
Why was he fired?
Mr Sessions became a frequent target of the president’s ire as soon as he stepped aside, in March 2017, from the investigation over alleged Russian collusion with Mr Trump’s campaign. The recusal allowed his deputy Rod Rosenstein to oversee the inquiry, which led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
At various times, Mr Trump publicly belittled Mr Sessions as “beleaguered”, “VERY weak”, and “DISGRACEFUL”. But Mr Sessions reacted to most of the insults in silence.
US media reported that Gen Kelly had called Mr Sessions to say the president wanted him to step down. Mr Trump did not speak to Mr Sessions himself, and announced the departure on Twitter.
In his resignation letter, Mr Sessions made clear the decision was not his own, saying: “Dear Mr President, at your request I am submitting my resignation.”
Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN – 9 October 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
The former governor of South Carolina was the first non-white woman to be appointed to Mr Trump’s cabinet, and the first female, minority governor of her state.
She had limited foreign policy experience prior to her role as US envoy and was a vocal critic of Mr Trump during his campaign.
In a news conference with Mr Trump, Mrs Haley announced she was stepping aside after a “rough” eight years as governor and envoy.
She will be leaving her post at the end of 2018, but said she did not yet know what her next steps would be.
Mrs Haley said she wanted to make sure Mr Trump’s administration “has the strongest person to fight” for the US at the UN.
While accepting her resignation, Mr Trump thanked her and said she did a “terrific job”, making the role “very glamorous”.
Time in post?
One year, eleven months
Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency – 6 July 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
The lawyer served as the attorney general of Oklahoma from 2011 – 2017.
He had sued the EPA, the agency which he presided over, a number of times in his role as the state’s attorney general.
Why did he leave?
Donald Trump announced that Mr Pruitt had resigned due to “unrelenting attacks” on himself and his family.
Since taking office Mr Pruitt has been mired in series of scandals concerning his spending habits and alleged misuse of office, and is the subject of at least a dozen investigations into his conduct.
As the head of the EPA, he angered many liberals and environmentalists by severely curtailing the agency’s activities and repealing many measures designed to protect the environment.
While accepting Mr Pruitt’s resignation, Mr Trump tweeted that he had done “an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him”.
Time in post?
One year, four months, 19 days
David Shulkin, Veterans Affairs Secretary – 28 March 2018
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
A doctor, he had served as undersecretary of veterans affairs for health under Barack Obama.
President Trump had hailed him as “fantastic” when appointing him, and the Senate gave him the only 100-0 confirmation of the Trump team.
Why did he leave?
Donald Trump announced that Mr Shulkin was resigning and that the president’s personal doctor, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, would replace him.
Mr Shulkin had come under fire for alleged improper behaviour by department staff on a trip to Europe in 2017, including his own acceptance of tickets to the Wimbledon tennis tournament. He denied wrongdoing but agreed to reimburse the government for his wife’s air fare for the trip.
Mr Shulkin won praise from veterans’ groups, but his lack of action on privatising the Veterans Health Administration had angered conservatives.
In parting, he condemned the “toxic, chaotic, disrespectful and subversive” environment in Washington.
Time in post?
Fourteen months
HR McMaster, National Security Adviser – 22 March 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
A lieutenant general with the US Army, HR McMaster served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he worked on a government anti-corruption drive.
He replaced Lt Gen Michael Flynn, who was fired after just three weeks and three days in the job after he misled Vice-President Pence about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Time magazine named him as one of its 100 most influential people in the world in 2014, saying he “might be the 21st Century Army’s pre-eminent warrior-thinker”.
Why did he leave?
Mr Trump reportedly disliked his “gruff and condescending” manner and staff said the two never “gelled”.
Gen Kelly, White House chief of staff at the time, also had little positive to say about him.
Time in post?
Thirteen months.
Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State – 13 March 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
President Trump announced on Twitter that his secretary of state was leaving his position and being replaced with CIA director Mike Pompeo.
The dramatic shake-up came during a delicate time for diplomatic relations, with direct talks agreed in principle with North Korea.
In a statement, Mr Trump thanked him for his service and wished his family well.
Why did he leave?
The news came just after Mr Tillerson cut short a trip through Africa, with a statement saying he returned a day early because of schedule demands in Washington.
Mr Tillerson reportedly disagreed with a number of the president’s policies, including his recently announced proposal to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.
Mr Trump reportedly believed Mr Tillerson was “too establishment” in his thinking, US media reports.
Time in post?
Fourteen months.
Gary Cohn, Chief Economic Adviser – 6 March 2018
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The former president of the Goldman Sachs bank was appointed as head of the National Economic Council as Mr Trump took office, so becoming the president’s top economic adviser.
In his time at the White House, he helped push through sweeping reforms on taxes, one of the most significant policy achievements of the administration.
But the two were not reported to be close, and rumours of Mr Cohn’s departure continued to swirl.
Why did he leave?
A staunch globalist, Mr Cohn had reportedly vowed to quit if Mr Trump pressed ahead with plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports to the US.
According to US media, Mr Cohn initially planned to resign after Mr Trump blamed “both sides” for violence at a deadly far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.
Time in post?
Fourteen months.
Hope Hicks, White House Communications Director – 28 February 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
Ms Hicks served as Mr Trump’s press secretary and handled media requests during his campaign.
She became his fourth director of strategic communications for the Trump White House after Anthony Scaramucci was fired after just 10 days in the job.
The fashion model-turned-spokeswoman previously worked as a publicist for Ivanka Trump’s fashion label before entering politics with Mr Trump’s bid for the White House.
Her resignation came a day after she testified to a congressional panel investigating Russian influence on the 2016 election, telling them she had occasionally told “white lies” for her boss.
Her departure came only weeks after another top aide to Mr Trump, Rob Porter – with whom Ms Hicks was reported to have been in a relationship – quit amid allegations by two ex-wives of abuse.
Time in post?
Six years in the Trump Organization, and three years with Mr Trump during his campaign and presidency.
Rob Porter, White House Staff Secretary – 8 February 2018
Mr Porter, who had been described as Mr Trump’s “right-hand man”, resigned after two of his ex-wives publicly accused him of physical and emotional abuse.
One woman said he had kicked her during their 2003 honeymoon, and punched her in the face whilst on holiday a few years later.
Image copyrightREUTERSImage captionRob Porter, pictured holding the document for President Trump, was accused of abuse by his two ex-wives
The White House, and Gen Kelly in particular, were feeling increasing pressure to dump Mr Porter after the accusations of violence were first published in the Daily Mail.
Questions quickly arose over how early Gen Kelly had been made aware of the accusations by the FBI, and whether that was why Mr Porter was forced to operate with only an interim security clearance.
Time in post?
One year.
Andrew McCabe, FBI deputy director – 29 January 2018
Image copyrightREUTERS
Andrew McCabe resigned as deputy director of the FBI, where he served under current director Christopher Wray and former FBI director James Comey.
He was reportedly forced to step down ahead of his official retirement date in March, according to CBS News. His resignation came a week after a report that Mr Trump wanted him out.
The career agent became the FBI’s acting director for nearly three months after the president sacked Mr Comey. He returned to his post after Mr Wray was appointed.
Why was he sacked?
The attorney has faced repeated criticism from President Trump, who claims his ties to Democrats made him partial in the ongoing Russia investigation.
His wife, Jill McCabe, ran a failed Democratic bid for a state senate seat in Virginia in 2015, during which she received $500,000 (£355,000) from a political action group allied with Hillary Clinton – a move which Mr Trump apparently found unforgiveable.
Time in post?
Two years as FBI deputy director, including a year under Mr Trump’s administration.
Tom Price, health secretary – 29 September 2017
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The former Georgia congressman was a long-standing opponent of the Affordable Care Act – known as Obamacare.
Mr Price was confirmed by the Senate along party lines, amid allegations of insider trading while he worked on healthcare laws – which he denied.
As health secretary, Mr Price was involved in President Trump’s repeated failures to push through bills repealing Obamacare.
Why was he sacked?
An analysis of transport spending by Politico discovered that Mr Price had, between May and late September, spent more than $1m on flights.
Some $500,000 of that was on military flights approved by the White House, but private charter flights made up at least $400,000 where commercial flights were available. Mr Trump said he was “not happy”.
Time in post?
Almost eight months.
Steve Bannon, chief strategist – 18 August 2017
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Steve Bannon joined the Trump campaign after leading the right-wing Breitbart News website, which rose to prominence through its attacks on mainstream Republicans, as well as those on the left.
The website helped to elevate the so-called “Alt-right”, which critics label a white supremacist group.
Like other aides to Mr Trump, he made his fortune as an investment banker, but later turned to financing film and television programmes such as the popular 90s sitcom Seinfeld.
Why was he sacked?
Some of Mr Trump’s most influential advisers, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, had been pushing for his departure for months.
His firing came amid a public backlash to Mr Trump’s response to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which an anti-racist protester was killed by a 20-year-old man with Nazi sympathies.
Time in post?
Fired one year after being named campaign chief.
Anthony Scaramucci, communications director – 31 July 2017
Image copyrightAFP
The brash, Wall Street bigwig has known President Trump for years, and defended him in TV interviews.
While in the job, he appeared to accuse then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus of being responsible for White House leaks in a tweet (later deleted) that also appeared to threaten him.
Mr Scaramucci then attacked Mr Priebus and President Trump’s senior adviser Steve Bannon in an expletive-filled rant on the phone with a reporter from the New Yorker magazine.
Why was he sacked?
Although he had boasted of reporting directly to the president, Mr Scaramucci’s outbursts may have cost him any post alongside Gen Kelly, who was replacing Reince Priebus as chief of staff.
Mr Scaramucci’s departure was announced hours after Gen Kelly was sworn-in.
Time in post?
Ten days (although his official start date was 15 August – so possibly minus 15 days.)
Reince Priebus, chief of staff – 28 July 2017
Image copyrightREUTERS
The former Republican National Committee chairman was one of few Washington veterans given a top role in the Trump White House but was unable to assert his authority.
He grappled with competing powers in an administration where Mr Trump’s daughter Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played key roles.
Why was he sacked?
President Trump lost confidence in him and clearly wanted a shake-up in the White House, opting for a general to replace the Republican Party operative, who was seen as weak.
The announcement also came as the Republicans failed in their efforts to repeal Obamacare in the Senate.
Time in post?
Six months.
Sean Spicer, press secretary – 21 July 2017
Image copyrightAFP
Mr Spicer famously kicked off his tenure as White House press secretary by defending a seemingly indefensible claim about the crowd size at President Trump’s inauguration.
Over the course of his time behind the podium he became – unusually for a press secretary – a household name, and was parodied on Saturday Night Live.
Why did he leave?
Unlike most others on this list, Mr Spicer appears to have left on seemingly good terms with the president.
He stepped down after Mr Scaramucci was appointed to a role he had partially filled, saying he did not want there to be “too many cooks in the kitchen”.
Time in post?
Six months.
James Comey, FBI director – 9 May 2017
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Mr Comey played a dramatic and controversial part in the closing stages of the election when he announced, a week before the vote, that the FBI had reopened an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
He was criticised first by Democrats for the timing, then by Republicans when he said a week later that no charges would be brought.
The president grew less appreciative of him as the FBI director led an investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Why was he sacked?
The Trump administration first claimed Mr Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation rendered him no longer able to credibly lead the bureau and that Mr Trump had acted on the deputy attorney general’s recommendation.
However Mr Trump soon contradicted this, calling him a “showboat” in a TV interview and saying he was thinking of the “Russia thing” when he made the decision to sack him.
Time in post?
Three years, eight months. Less than four months under Mr Trump.
Michael Flynn, national security adviser – 14 February 2017
Image copyrightREUTERS
Technically, Michael Flynn resigned, but he was asked to do so by the president.
His departure followed weeks of deepening scandal in which it emerged that he had misled White House officials, including the vice-president, over his contact with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
Mr Flynn is said to have discussed US sanctions against Russia with Mr Kislyak before Mr Trump took office.
Why was he sacked?
It is illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy, and once it was established that Mr Flynn had lied about his contact with Mr Kislyak there was no question that he had to go.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that the president needed the time to investigate Mr Flynn and establish his guilt, but the scandal prompted fierce speculation over what the president knew of Mr Flynn’s contacts with Mr Kislyak.
Time in post?
23 days.
Sally Yates, acting attorney general – 31 January 2017
Image copyrightREUTERS
The president fired Sally Yates after she questioned the legality of Mr Trump’s travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries.
Ms Yates, who was appointed by Barack Obama, believed it discriminated unconstitutionally against Muslims, and ordered justice department lawyers not to enforce the president’s executive order.
Why was she sacked?
A White House statement said Ms Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States”.
It also described her as “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration”.
Time in post?
10 days. She previously served as deputy attorney general from May 2015 until January 2017.
Preet Bharara, New York federal prosecutor – 11 March 2017
Image copyrightEPA
It is not uncommon for prosecutors appointed by the previous administration to be replaced as the White House changes hands, but the widely-respected Preet Bharara had been told specifically by the Trump administration that he would be kept on.
At the time of his sacking, he was overseeing several high-profile cases, including allegations of sexual harassment at Trump favourite Fox News.
Why was he sacked?
Mr Bharara was one of 46 prosecutors asked to resign by the Trump administration, which contended that it was part of a simple changing of the guard.
But there was speculation among Democrats and others that Mr Bahara’s jurisdiction, which included Trump Tower, may have concerned the president.
Time in post?
Seven years, seven months. Less than two months under Mr Trump.
Paul Manafort, Trump campaign manager – 19 August 2016
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Paul Manafort, a long-time Republican political operative, was supposed to marshal some of the chaos around Mr Trump but ended up falling prey to it.
He was sacked after five months with Mr Trump’s campaign, three of those as campaign chair.
Why was he sacked?
The Trump campaign didn’t give a reason for Mr Manafort’s departure, issuing only a statement wishing him well.
But a wave of reports in the week before the announcement alleged that Mr Manafort had received secret cash payments from a pro-Russian political party for representing Russian interests in Ukraine and the US.
Story 3: Bad News For Big Government Parties — Democrats and Republicans: Rasmussen Poll: 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one —
New Poll: 68% of Likely Voters See Illegal Immigration As a Major Problem
IMMIGRATION
For Voters, Illegal Immigration Remains Big Problem, But Not for Democrats Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 2-3, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Wall Emergency Is A Closer Call for Voters, But Opponents Are FavoredVoters still tend to oppose President Trump’s declared national emergency to build a border wall and are more likely to reward than punish members of Congress who vote to stop it.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the declaration of a presidential national emergency to begin immediate construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border now that Congress has refused to fund it. But 50% are opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 5-6, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Trump Supporters Welcome Shutdown, National Emergency for WallVoters don’t think Democrats will ever okay funding for President Trump’s border wall but don’t want another government shutdown to result. The president’s strongest supporters disagree, however, and favor the declaration of a presidential national emergency if necessary to get the job done.The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42% of all Likely U.S. Voters now favor the declaration of a presidential national emergency to begin immediate construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border if Congress fails to fund it. That’s up slightly from 39% a month ago. Unchanged is the 52% who oppose Trump declaring such an emergency. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 11-12, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters Rate Border Security As Important As North Korea to National SecurityMost voters rate border control as a national security concern on the level with North Korea and want to secure the border before dealing with the illegal immigrants who are already here.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think border security is a vital national security interest for the United States these days. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 7 and 10, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters Expect Trump To Build Wall Without Congress’ HelpPresident Trump told The New York Times this week that he has given up on negotiating with Congress over funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but voters tend to think he will build the wall anyway.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think it’s likely Trump will find a way to build the border wall if Congress refuses to fund it. Nearly as many (46%) consider that unlikely. This includes 32% who feel a wall without congressional funding is Very Likely and 19% who think it’s Not at all Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 28-29, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Most Voters Say No Wall, Another Shutdown LikelyVoters don’t expect Congress to fund President Trump’s border wall and think another federal government shutdown is likely on the way.The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 25% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is even somewhat likely the president and Congress will reach an agreement in the next three weeks that includes funding for border security including a wall on the U.S. Mexico border. Seventy-one percent (71%) consider such an agreement unlikely. This includes only seven percent (7%) who say a border security deal is Very Likely and 28% who see it as Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 28-29, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters Say It’s Easier for Illegal Immigrants to Get In, Stay In the U.S.Voters still think it’s easier to enter and stay in the United States illegally than it is in most other countries.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is easier to enter the United States illegally compared to most other nations in the world. Just 19% say it’s harder, while 26% think the level of difficulty is about the same. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 22-23, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters Want Strong Borders, Say Wall is Not ‘Immoral’Most voters continue to favor strongly controlled borders and reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s charge that it is immoral for the United States to build a border wall.The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is better for the United States to tightly control who comes into the country. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say it is better to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 10 and 13, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters Don’t Think Government’s Doing Enough to Stop Illegal ImmigrationIn the midst of a government shutdown over disagreements about building a border wall, two-out-of-three voters still think illegal immigration is a serious issue, but nearly half of voters think the government isn’t working hard enough to stop it.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters think the government is doing too little to stop illegal immigration, up five points from 43% who felt the same way in August. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the government is doing too much to stop illegal immigration, down from 34%, while 17% think the government’s level of action is about right. (To see survey question wording, click here.)(Want a free daily email update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 8-9, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump
Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.
Protests of New Yorkers in Union Square.Sam Simmonds/Polaris/Newscom
KEY TAKEAWAYS
There is a lot of blame to share. President Bill Clinton, the aliens themselves, the courts and immigration policies foolishly created by the Obama administration.
The point of their propaganda war is to force the Trump administration to terminate its zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting all adult aliens for illegal entry.
It is “regrettable” children are separated from their parents. But “people who cross the border illegally have committed a crime, and this is a consequence.
Who truly is responsible for the 2,000 alien kids who, according to the Associated Press, recently have been separated from their detained illegal alien parents?
There is a lot of blame to share. That includes President Bill Clinton and the alien parents themselves, as well as the courts and immigration policies foolishly created by the Obama administration. The perverse incentives in those policies have endangered the lives and safety of children and helped fund the deadly Mexican drug cartels that run the trafficking networks on our southern border.
You would not know that based on the absurdly biased coverage and virulent protests that have occurred. The Trump administration is simply doing what it is constitutionally charged with doing—enforcing the law.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
The president on Wednesday issued an executive order that directs the Department of Homeland Security to keep illegal alien families together “to the extent permitted by law.” That is the crux of the administration’s problem: the extent to which the government is permitted to keep families together while they await removal proceedings.
In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by pro-illegal immigration advocacy groups challenging the detention of juvenile aliens taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The Clinton administration agreed to settle this litigation despite the fact the Supreme Court had upheld the Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation that provided for the release of minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Flores agreement allows the agency to detain unaccompanied minors for only “20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.”
But in a controversial decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country, has interpreted the settlement agreement to apply to “both minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents.”
In other words, it is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.
Of course, if those parents would simply agree to return to their home countries, they would be immediately reunited with their children. So those who come here illegally are themselves to blame for their children being assigned to foster care or to another family member or sponsor who may be in the country.
The executive order signed by President Donald Trump directs the attorney general to file a request with the federal court in the Flores case to modify the settlement agreement to allow the government “to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.”
Of course, the administration’s critics know about this settlement and know it limits the ability of the administration to keep alien families together. The point of their propaganda war is to force the Trump administration to terminate its zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting all adult aliens for illegal entry, stop all detentions, and return to the “catch and release” policies of the prior administration.
The executive order did not indicate the president was in any way relaxing the zero-tolerance policy. Unfortunately, an unconfirmed news report the day after the executive order was signed cited a “senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official” as claiming the Department of Homeland Security was “suspending prosecutions of adults who are members of family units until ICE can accelerate resource capability to allow us to maintain custody.”
If this is accurate, then many illegal aliens currently in detention will be released because of a lack of adequate family detention centers.
“Catch and release” was the policy of giving illegal aliens a court date and then releasing them, a practice which enables many of them to disappear into the vast interior of this country. Such a policy is not a viable option.
As Mark Metcalf, former immigration judge, points out, for example, after 9/11 the number of aliens who failed to show up for their immigration hearings reached 58 percent in 2005 and 2006. Over the past two decades, 37 percent of all illegal aliens released pending an immigration hearing fled and never showed up for trial.
The Obama administration provided a huge incentive for illegal aliens to smuggle children across the border, since a child acted as a get-out-of-jail-free card for avoiding detention and prosecution for the adult accompanying the child. As the Department of Homeland Security correctly says, this policy “incited smugglers to place children into the hands of adult strangers so they can pose as families and be released from immigration custody after crossing the border, creating another safety issue for these children.”
In 2013, a federal judge issued a searing indictment of the Obama administration’s policy of reuniting children with their illegal alien parents in the U.S. who had paid human traffickers to smuggle the children into the U.S. and taking no action against the parents.
As Judge Andrew Hanen said in a case against a human trafficker who was caught with a 10-year-old girl, the administration’s policy was to complete “the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the United States.” He called the policy “dangerous and unconscionable” because it encourages illegal aliens to place their “minor children in perilous situations subject to the whims of evil individuals.”
Hanen listed the crimes he had seen committed against illegal aliens by traffickers, including assault, rape, kidnapping, and murder, and catalogued the “violence, extortion, forced labor, sexual assault, or prostitution” to which the aliens were subjected. Funds paid to these human traffickers by illegal aliens directly fund dangerous drug cartels such as Mexico’s Los Zetas.
Another reason for the current separation problem is illegal aliens trying to take advantage of our generous asylum law. If an alien follows the law by presenting himself at a port of entry with his family and claiming asylum, then his claim will be reviewed and his family will stay together.
It is when aliens are caught illegally crossing the border and then claim asylum that they have put themselves into the situation of being prosecuted for illegal entry. They are then separated from their children because of the Clinton-era settlement.
Something else to keep in mind when it comes to the credibility—or lack of credibility—of many asylum claims these days is that many aliens pass through countries with their own asylum laws on their way here—including Mexico. If an alien doesn’t claim asylum before he gets to the U.S., that is a pretty good sign his reason for coming to the U.S. is more about economics than asylum.
This issue of alien children being separated from their parents who are being prosecuted for illegal entry also should be kept in perspective. Our justice system doesn’t refuse to arrest, prosecute, and jail citizens when they break the law because they happen to have children.
As Peter Kirsanow, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, points out, a report from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that more than 20,000 children were placed in foster care in 2016 because of “Parent Incarceration.”
None of those protesting against the Trump administration seem concerned that 10 times more American children than the 2,000 alien children cited in the Associated Press report were separated from their parents in 2016 because of violations of the law by their parents.
As Kirsanow says, it is “regrettable” children are separated from their parents. But “people who cross the border illegally have committed a crime, and one of the consequences of being arrested and detained is, unfortunately, that their children cannot stay with them.”
It is not Trump who is responsible for this.
This piece originally appeared in the Daily Signal
Adam Schiff has suggested that Trump’s interest as a private citizen in building a tower in Moscow led him to curry favor with Vladimir Putin.
Photograph by David Butow / Redux
Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has hired a veteran prosecutor with experience fighting Russian organized crime to lead his investigation of the Trump Administration. Last month, according to a committee source, Daniel Goldman, who served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 2007 to 2017, joined the committee’s staff as a senior adviser and the director of investigations.
The hiring of Goldman, who will be joined by two other former federal prosecutors on Schiff’s staff, underlines Schiff’s decision to conduct an aggressive investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign. In the rough division of labor among the various committees in the House of Representatives, Schiff’s panel is tackling the most provocative and, so far, most elusive subject related to the President: whether so-called collusion occurred between the Trump campaign and Moscow. In public comments, Schiff has suggested that Trump’s interest as a private citizen in building a tower in Moscow led him to curry favor with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. American intelligence agencies long ago concluded that the Russian government made significant efforts, through the hacking of e-mails and use of social media, to help elect Trump over Hillary Clinton. The question of whether the Trump campaign facilitated, assisted, or knew about these efforts has been at the heart of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller—and will also be central to Schiff’s inquiry.
Goldman seems well suited to lead this effort. As deputy chief of the organized-crime section of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, Goldman supervised the prosecution of more than thirty defendants accused of racketeering, gambling, and money laundering. During his decade in the office, Goldman convicted individuals associated with Russian organized crime of securities fraud and health-care fraud, and convicted leading figures in the Genovese crime family of racketeering and murder.
One of Schiff’s previous committee hires drew a critical comment from the President. Last month, Schiff hired Abigail C. Grace, who served as an Asia-policy staffer on the National Security Council during the early part of the Trump Administration. In response, President Trump tweeted that the Democrats were going “nuts” and that Schiff was “stealing people who work at the White House.” In response, Schiff pointed out that congressional committees often employ individuals with experience in the executive branch.
The conflict between Trump and Schiff dates back to well before the Democrat took over as the chair of the Intelligence Committee, after the midterm elections. In a tweet, Trump once rendered Schiff’s name as “Schitt,” and, in his recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the President bestowed the congressman with the nickname Shifty Schiff.
Goldman’s hiring comes amid a flurry of investigative activity by Democrats on Capitol Hill. Schiff and Representative Maxine Waters, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, have agreed to coördinate an investigation of Trump’s long-standing ties to Deutsche Bank, which has paid multimillion-dollar penalties for facilitating the work of Russian money launderers. On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, revealed that it had demanded testimony and documents from eighty-one people and entities close to Trump relating to the issues of obstruction of justice and abuse of power. And, of course, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, gave damning testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last week. All of these investigations appear to be much closer to the beginnings of their efforts than their ends.
A CNN focus group comprised of Democratic voters has rejected former Vice President Joe Biden as their presidential nominee.
The focus group’s dismissal of Biden is notable since the former vice president, who is expected to join the Democratic primary soon, has been leading a number of public opinion polls and is seen as the potential front-runner.
The Democrats gathered by CNN, however, said they weren’t interested in Biden. Some said they wanted a candidate who was further to the left.
“I think we need a bold, strong leadership, and you’ll find that in the progressives,” Democratic voter Carol Evans said.
“We had the standard-bearer for the kind of pragmatic centrist candidate in Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Donald Trump is now president. He is not your average political candidate, so we really need to try to think outside the box because, you know, it seems like the dude is made of rubber. Anything you throw at him just bounces off, there’s nothing that sticks,” said focus group member Michael Milisits.
The focus group was moderated by “New Day” co-anchor Alisyn Camerota at CNN’s New York City bureau.
When she asked if any of the focus group members would like Biden to enter the race, none of the six people raised their hands.
“His time is done,” Evans said.
“I will be honest. He was riding the Obama wave and I thought he was a person that would unite the party, but to be honest, Sen. Biden really comes from kind of the good old boy politics of the past,” Democrat Russel Banks said.
“I don’t think Joe Biden represents that new thing that we need. We need a new economy, we need new politics and we need someone different,” Democrat Owen Evans added.
Biden currently leads most early polls over the other 13 declared candidates in the field, with political pollsters citing name recognition as the primary reason due to his long tenure in the Senate and eight years as President Obama’s vice president.
CNN has made the 2020 campaign one of its top priorities and has already featured several candidates in prime-time town hall events, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sanders, as well as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is considering an independent run for president.
The network is set to host a town hall this Sunday night with three more Democratic presidential hopefuls — former Rep. John Delaney (Md.), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg — at the South by Southwest conference in Texas.
The event will be moderated by “The Lead” host Jake Tapper and CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash in Austin, Texas.
Michelle Obama talks 2020 Trump challengers, gives update on Malia and Sasha
Jayme Deerwester, USA TODAYPublished 8:41 a.m. ET Nov. 13, 2018 | Updated 3:00 p.m. ET Nov. 13, 2018
On Tuesday, former first lady Michelle Obama officially became a published author with the release of her memoir “Becoming.”But one thing she has no interest in becoming is a presidential candidate.
Roberts acknowledged that the Princeton and Harvard Law grad has no interest in “returning to public service like that,” but she did want to know whether Obama thinks Hillary Clinton should run again and if not, who she believes is capable of challenging the Trump.
“I think, at this point, everybody’s qualified and everyone should run,” the former first lady said to peals of laughter. “I might even tap (her younger daughter) Sasha!”
Good Morning America
✔@GMA
.@MichelleObama on whether Hillary Clinton should run for president in 2020: “I think at this point everybody is qualified and everybody should run. I might even tap Sasha!” http://gma.abc/2Tc7FMi
Turning a bit more serious, Obama explained, “Where I’m at right now is that we should see anybody who feels the passion to get in this race, we need them in there. I think the process will play itself out. I haven’t really been paying attention and looking at the candidates. I think there’s just a lot of noise and talk, but it’s still pretty early. Let’s see who wants to roll up their sleeves and get in the race. That’s what the primary process is for.”
Obama’s bottom line? “I think this (Democratic nomination) is open to any and everybody who has the courage to step up and serve.”
She also provided an update on daughters Malia, a sophomore at Harvard, and Sasha, who will graduate from high school this spring.
“They are thriving,” Obama told Roberts. “I am so proud of those little girls. They have managed the situation with poise and grace. They are normal, kind, smart, friendly and open. Gosh, and it could have gone so wrong.”
Good Morning America
✔@GMA
.@MichelleObama on Sasha and Malia: “They had support from a lot of the other first kids – Jenna and Barbara and Chelsea. I love those girls. I will love them forever for what kind of support they provided to my daughters. They always had their back.” https://gma.abc/2PShoZC
She extended her enduring gratitude to former first daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush and Chelsea Clinton for having her daughters’ backs throughout their time in the White House.
“I love those girls,” Obama gushed. “I will love them forever for the kind of support they provided to my daughters … If someone went after them in the press, Jenna would get in there and say something and Chelsea would send a tweet out. That made a big, big difference.”
Sitting next to her older brother, New York Knicks executive Craig Robinson, Obama also dished on her mom Marian, who lived with the family in the White House but is still very much a Chicagoan at heart.
“My mom is a South Side mother,” she said, noting she is still a bit stuck in her ways. “It was like, ‘Mom, you want to go to China with us?’ She’d be like, ‘Why do I want to go to China?’ Then she’d go to China and be like, ‘China’s great!’ But you have to push. These black mothers on the South Side, you gotta push ’em to try some new stuff!”
PUBLISHED: 14:36 EST, 5 March 2019 | UPDATED: 14:56 EST, 5 March 2019
Rep. Alexanadria Ocasio-Cortez is denying any violation in campaign finance law after a conservative watchdog group filed a complaint charging that her top aide funneled $1 million in contributions from a PAC he controlled to his own companies.
‘There is no violation,’ the first-term lawmaker told Fox News as she arrived in Washington, D.C. for a day when votes in the House are scheduled.
She also denied that the Federal Election complaint, filed against her and her chief of staff, connected her to ‘dark money’ in her campaign. ‘No, no,’ she responded.
Ocasio-Cortez responded after the National Legal and Policy Center’s Government Integrity Project filed an FEC complaint saying her top aide shifted the funds in what it argued could have been a bid to avoid disclosure.
The aide, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, set up the Brand New Congress PAC as a way to collect contributions to boost new members of Congress.
Rep. Alexanadria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti set up the Brand New Congress PAC as a way to collect contributions to boost new members of Congress
PACs face disclosure requirements beyond what a company would be required to reveal about how funds get spent.
Chakrabarti tweeted about the unusual arrangement in response to media reports Monday. ‘We were doing something totally new, which meant a new setup. So, we were transparent about it from the start,’ he said.
Conservative watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center, which previously had researchers investigating longtime New York Rep. Charles Rangel – a senior lawmaker like the one Ocasio-Cortez knocked off in a primary in her Queens district – named both Ocasio-Cortez and her top aide in the complaint.
+4
A watchdog group claims in a new Federal Elections Commission complaint that the top aide to AOC funneled $1 million in contributions from a PAC he controlled to his own companies
Chakrabarti’s campaigns raised $3.3 million and diverted more than $1 million to his companies, the Washington Examiner reported.
He helped found both Brand New Congress PAC and Justice Democrats, with the goal of bringing new and progressive members like Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described Democratic socialist, to Congress.
After starting Brand New Congress, he formed a Delaware-based LLC, Brand New Campaign LLC. Shifting the funds avoided detailed disclosure requirements of itemized expenses.
‘None of that makes any sense,’ former FEC lawyer Adav Noti of the Campaign Legal Center told the publication. ‘I can’t even begin to disentangle that. They’re either confused or they’re trying to conceal something.’
Chakrabarti’s campaigns raised $3.3 million and diverted more than $1 million to his companies, the Washington Examiner reported
Brand New Congress congratulated AOC after she was elected to in November 2018
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the Washington Times Monday saying: ‘He’s not on my payroll. They were not working for me and they are two separate entities here.’ She added: ‘This is the difference between an LLC and a PAC.’
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign also paid the LLC for ‘strategic consulting.’
Justice Democrats responded to questions about the arrangement in a May 2018 post titled: ‘When I look at the FEC report for Justice Democrats in 2017, why are there so many expenditures to ‘Brand New Congress’?
The statement says organizers, including Chakrabarti, concluded ‘this PAC would be necessary to do the work of policy development and candidate recruiting. So we created Brand New Congress as a PAC. But actually running the campaigns — meaning doing direct work for campaigns — is not something a PAC can do for a candidate for free.’
For that reason, they set up an LLC that served as the vehicle to pay staff and bill campaigns for services. The goal was ‘to essentially run the full campaigns’ and act as a vendor.
Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard-educated tech millionaire.
The complaint argues that the arrangement was illegal and skirted a $5,000 PAC contribution requirement.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff is accused of ‘skirting campaign finance laws’ by running PAC that provided $41,108 in services to her election
Report on Saturday in the New York Post questioned AOC’s chief of staff
Saikat Chakrabarti, 33, ran PAC Justice Democrats prior to joining her staff
Campaign paid PAC $41,108.59 for services and consulting in 2017 and 2018
But PACs are different from vendors and can only give $5,000 per campaign
PUBLISHED: 19:18 EST, 3 March 2019 | UPDATED: 20:20 EST, 3 March 2019
Watchdog groups have questioned whether congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff skirted campaign finance laws.
Saikat Chakrabarti, 33, founded and ran the Tennessee-based PAC Justice Democrats, which spearheaded Ocasio-Cortez’s run, prior to joining the freshman New York Democrat’s Congressional staff.
According to Federal Election Commission filings, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign paid Justice Democrats a total of $41,108.59 for ‘campaign services’ and ‘strategic consulting’ in 2017 and 2018.
Now a report in the New York Post questions whether a PAC can also be a vendor, and points out that PACs can only give $5,000 in services to a campaign.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti (with her above) founded and ran the Tennessee-based PAC Justice Democrats, which her campaign paid $41,108.59
Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent told Post that both the campaign and the PAC followed FEC rules and that they sought advice from an elections lawyer.
‘It was payment for services,’ Trent said of the campaign’s payments to Justice Democrats.
Some watchdogs are questioning the legality of the arrangement, however.
‘They believe their cause is so great that they don’t have to play by the rules,’ Tom Anderson, who heads up the Government Integrity Project at the National Legal and Policy Center in Virginia, a conservative watchdog group, told the Post.
‘They believe that they are above campaign finance law,’ he added.
Another PAC that Chakrabarti founded to support leftist candidates, Brand New Congress, has already come under scrutiny for paying Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend Riley Roberts in an alleged cash-funneling scheme.
In the fall of 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress, which turned around and hired Roberts as a marketing consultant, making two payments to him totaling $6,000 in August and September of 2017.
Lawyers for the Coolidge Reagan Foundation asked the FEC to review the matter on Wednesday.
Cortez’s team paid Brand New Congress LLC $6,191.32 in 2017 around the same time the group paid a total of $6,000 to her boyfriend, Riley Roberts (pictured), for marketing consulting
Chakrabarti founded a Silicon Valley app-building company called Some Character LLC before taking an active role in left-wing politics.
He previously directed social-media for Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Last June, Chakrabarti purchased a $1.6 million home in Montgomery County, Maryland, according to real estate records.
Ocasio-Cortez has imposed a salary cap of $80,000 on her staff however, meaning that Chakrabarti will be paid far less than that the $145,000 average that congressional chiefs of staff make.
The congresswoman says that the salary cap ensures that her junior staffers can make a ‘living wage’ of at least $52,000.
However, questions have been raised about whether the salary cap is a means to skirt reporting requirements, which mandate that Capitol Hill staff making more than $126,00 report their assets and other income.
New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denied violating campaign finance laws Tuesday in response to a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint alleging she and her chief of staff set up a million-dollar private slush fund.
“There is no violation,” Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News.
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a conservative government watchdog, accused Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, her chief of staff, of illegally funneling money between political action committees (PACs) and private companies that were both controlled by Chakrabarti.
The NLPC claims that the transfers from the PACs to the LLCs were part of an “extensive” plan to avoid reporting campaign expenditures to the FEC.
Fox also asked Ocasio-Cortez if she is connected to “dark money,” to which she replied, “No, no.”
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a news conference at the East Front of the U.S. Capitol February 7, 2019 in Washington, DC … (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti obtained majority control over the Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, despite the fact that the PAC was credited with being the central force behind Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory against incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley.
Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed her control over the PAC while it was supporting her primary campaign, an arrangement that could open the Democrat up to massive campaign finance violations. The pair could face prison time if it is found that they intentionally withheld the ties between the campaign and the PAC from the FEC.
“If the facts as alleged are true, and a candidate had control over a PAC that was working to get that candidate elected, then that candidate is potentially in very big trouble and may have engaged in multiple violations of federal campaign finance law, including receiving excessive contributions,” former Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
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.
The Pronk Pops Show 1371, December 9, 2019, Story 1: Department of Justice Inspector General Report Out — FBI Officials Misled The FISA Court Judge and Omitted Exculpatory Evidence in Their Warrant Application To Spy on American People — Clear Abuse of Power — Videos — Story 2: Democrat Socialist Suicide Sprint To Trump Impeachment For Defeating Clinton in 2016 — Coup and Cover-up Big Failure — American People Will Be Incensed When They Learn The Details of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Criminal Investigation and Indictments Coming in 2020 Just In Time for 2020 Election — Videos
Posted on December 11, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Impeachment, Independence, Joe Biden, Law, Life, Mental Illness, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, Nuclear Weapons, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Corruption, Public Relations, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Terror, Trade Policy, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: 9 December 2019, America, Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clear Abuse of Power By Obama Administiong, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Democrat Suicide Sprint, Department of Justice Inspector General Report Out, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, FBI Officials Misled The FISA Court Judge and Omitted Exculpatory Evidence in Their Warrant Application To Spy on American People, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1371, Trump Impeachment For Defeating Clinton in 2016, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
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
Pronk Pops Show 1349 October 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1348 October 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1347 October 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1330 September 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1329 September 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1328 September 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1327 September 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1326 September 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1325 September 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1324 September 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1323 September 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1322 September 18 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1321 September 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1320 September 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1319 September 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1318 September 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1317 September 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1316 September 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1315 September 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019
Office of Inspector General Report
Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
From Pages 412 and 414
The FISA Applications to Conduct Surveillance of Carter Page
411
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 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (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. 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 present but the government’s counterparty is not.
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 fill 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 campaign-related
activities, members of the Crossfire Hurricane investigative team should have
412
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. But members of the Crossfire Hurricane team
failed to share the 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, and 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.
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 FBI’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 SSAs 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 (01) in preparing
413
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 FBI’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 today 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 make the following recommendations to assist the Department and the FBI in
avoiding similar failures in future investigations.
Story 1: Department of Justice Inspector General Report Out — FBI Officials Misled The FISA Court Judge and Omitted Exculpatory Evidence in Their Warrant Application To Spy on American People — Clear Abuse of Power By Obama Administration — Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Videos
ATTEMPTED COUP: President Trump BLASTS Findings in IG FISA FBI Report
Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation | NBC News
Fitton slams IG Horowitz’s report findings as as ‘dishonest
Trump legal advisor calls IG report ‘absolutely chilling’
Meadows reacts to IG report: ‘Doesn’t get any more damning than this’
Carter Page plans to go after FBI agents who spied on him
DOJ inspector general finds Russia probe was appropriately opened — but Barr disagrees
DOJ releases inspector general’s findings on FBI surveillance
Tucker: Media proclaims FBI is innocent
Hannity: Deep state in deep legal jeaopardy
Report on origins of Russia investigation released by Justice Department inspector general
Inspector general: FBI properly opened its investigation
JUSTICE NEWS
Statement by Attorney General William P. Barr on the Inspector General’s Report of the Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement:
“Nothing is more important than the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why we must hold our investigators and prosecutors to the highest ethical and professional standards. The Inspector General’s investigation has provided critical transparency and accountability, and his work is a credit to the Department of Justice. I would like to thank the Inspector General and his team.
The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that 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. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, 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. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.
FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people. The Department of Justice and the FBI are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward.
No one is more dismayed about the handling of these FISA applications than Director Wray. I have full confidence in Director Wray and his team at the FBI, as well as the thousands of dedicated line agents who work tirelessly to protect our country. I thank the Director for the comprehensive set of proposed reforms he is announcing today, and I look forward to working with him to implement these and any other appropriate measures.
With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action.”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa
Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/09/19 04:00 PM EST 5,288
The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.
Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the unusual step to issue a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the very beginning of the investigation.
Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. In fact, the Justice Department has a standard that requires the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to campaigns of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.
The investigation was largely based on a May 2016 conversation between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London. Papadopolous reportedly said he heard that Russia had thousands of emails from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That was viewed as revealing possible prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release two months later, which was then used to open four investigations targeting the campaign and Trump associates. Notably, Democrats and the media lambasted Trump for saying the Justice Department had been “spying” on his campaign, and many said it was just an investigation into figures like Carter Page. Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and a variety of different sources. What they really discovered is the main point of the Horowitz report.
From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.
Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.
Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.
The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.
Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.
In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.
Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Follow him @JonathanTurley.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us
IG report on Trump-Russia reveals ‘unacceptable’ problems says FBI director Chris Wray who says agency will reform the most sensitive probes and eavesdropping warrants
By ASSOCIATED PRESS and GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED:| UPDATED:
A Justice Department inspector general report on the early days of the Russia investigation identified problems that are ‘unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution,’ FBI Director Chris Wray said Monday in detailing changes the bureau plans to make in response.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Wray said the FBI had cooperated fully with the inspector general – which concluded in its report that the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia was legitimate but also cited serious flaws – and accepted all its recommendations.
Wray said the FBI would make changes to how it handles confidential informants, how it applies for warrants from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, how it conducts briefings on foreign influence for presidential nominees and how it structures sensitive investigations like the 2016 Russia probe. He said he has also reinstated ethics training.
Speaking out: Chris Wray said the FBI would make changes after the report by Michael Horowitz revealed mistakes in the handling of the Trump-Russia probe
‘I am very committed to the FBI being agile in its tackling of foreign threats,’ Wray said.
The FBI’s decision to target Page with spying authorized by a secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court was made and reinforced by the FBI’s most senior leaders, Horowitz wrote.
‘[T]he FBI’s decision to rely upon Steele’s election reporting to help establish probable cause that Page was an agent of Russia was a judgment reached initially by the case agents on the Crossfire Hurricane team,’ he explained, referring to the name of the operation.
Wray was not FBI director when the Russia investigation began and has so far avoided commenting in depth on the probe, one of the most politically sensitive inquiries in bureau history and one that President Donald Trump has repeatedly denounced as a ‘witch hunt.’
Wray’s comments Monday underscore the balancing act of his job as he tries to embrace criticism of the Russia probe that he sees as legitimate while limiting public judgment of decisions made by his predecessors.
He said that though it was important to not lose sight of the fact that Inspector General Michael Horowitz found the investigation justified and did not find it to be tainted by political bias: ‘The American people rightly expect that the FBI, when it acts to protect the country, is going to do it right – each time, every time.
‘And,’ he added, ‘urgency is not an excuse for not following our procedures.‘
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7773767/Wray-Report-Russia-probe-unacceptable-problems.html
John Durham disputes DOJ watchdog conclusion that Russia investigation was justified
U.S. Attorney John Durham disagreed with the Justice Department inspector general’s determination that the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation was justified.
Durham, who is conducting a separate investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, said in a rare statement on Monday following the release of Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act report. The Connecticut federal prosecutor said he has “the utmost respect” for Horowitz’s team and the “comprehensive work” they carried out, but stressed that he is privy to information outside of Horowitz’s DOJ purview.
“Our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said. “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.”
Attorney General William Barr echoed Durham’s sentiments on Monday, stating that Horowitz’s report “makes clear that 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.”
[ Read: FISA abuse report by DOJ inspector general is released]
The inspector general, who was looking into allegations of FISA abuse to monitor onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, found the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s team was properly authorized, and no political bias influenced the launch of the investigation but also determined the bureau made “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in the secret court filings spanning from October 2016 to the summer of 2017.
Separate from Horowitz’s investigation, Trump this May gave Barr full declassification authority to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation itself and to determine whether the investigation was properly predicated. Barr selected Durham to lead that investigation.
Democrats, who are nearing an impeachment vote in the House this week, have raised concerns that Barr is leveraging intelligence-gathering practices to attack Trump’s political rivals.
Barr and Durham have been reaching out to foreign governments, including Australia, Italy, and the United Kingdom during their investigation, and have made multiple overseas trips to speak with intelligence officials and review evidence as they look into how the Trump-Russia investigation began.
There have been numerous reports that Durham has been seeking answers about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation by questioning members of the U.S. Intelligence Community and others. For instance, former CIA Director John Brennan said Durham was seeking interviews with himself and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Barr has long signaled skepticism about whether the Trump-Russia investigation was launched on sound legal footing. It began in late July 2016, after Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat that he heard the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 rival. The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane, was later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference. Mueller’s team was unable to establish criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
“I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated,” Barr told the Senate in April. “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.”
“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr said. “And a lot has already been investigated and is being investigated by the Office of Inspector General at the department. But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.”
Facing blowback for the use of the word “spying,” including from FBI Director Christopher Wray, Barr refused to back down. In May, he called “spying” a “good English word” and told CBS News some facts he had uncovered “don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”
The FBI’s operational guidelines say a “full investigation” may be opened if there is an “articulable factual basis” of possible criminal activity or a threat to national security, with such an investigation allowing for surveillance, subpoenas, searches and seizures, undercover operations, electronic surveillance, FISA orders, and more. The guidelines further add that “the predication to open a full investigation must be documented in the opening electronic communication.”
Story 2: Democrat Socialist Suicide Sprint To Trump Impeachment For Defeating Clinton in 2016 — Coup and Cover-up Big Failure — American People Will Be Incensed When They Learn The Details of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Criminal Investigation and Indictments Coming in 2020 Just In Time for 2020 Election — Videos
Rep. Doug Collins: The ‘focus-group impeachment’ has no facts
WATCH: Rep. Doug Collins’ full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Matt Gaetz’s full questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Louie Gohmert’s addresses committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counsel’s questioning of committee lawyers | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Counsel Barry Berke’s full opening presentation | Trump impeachment hearings
House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry Evidence Hearing
FULL COVERAGE: President Trump House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
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 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 )