Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate at 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate at 7.0% and Labor Participating Rate of 63.4% and 273,000 New Job Created and 95 Million Not In Labor Force in February 2020 — Economy Growing at 2.1% in Fourth Quarter 2019 — Videos —
CNBC’s full interview with White House advisor Larry Kudlow on February jobs and coronavirus concern
February jobs report: US employment growth soars
February Jobs Report Beats Expectations, Adds 273,000 New Jobs | MSNBC
Here’s how the coronavirus is already affecting China’s economy
Job growth smashes expectations for February as unemployment falls back to 3.5%
Nonfarm payrolls rose by 273,000 in February vs. a 175,000 estimate, while the unemployment rate edged lower to 3.5%.
Job gains were widespread, with health care adding 57,000 to lead the way.
December and January’s estimates were revised upward by a total of 243,000.
Nonfarm payrolls grew far more than expected in February as companies continued to hire leading into a growing coronavirus scare.
The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. economy added 273,000 new jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate was 3.5%, matching its lowest level in more than 50 years. An alternative measure of joblessness that counts those not looking for work and holding part-time jobs for economic reasons edged higher to 7%.
The January and February gains tied for best month since May 2018.
close dialog
The top moments in business and politics – wrapped with exclusive color and context – right in your ears
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for payroll growth of 175,000 and a 3.5% jobless level. Average hourly earnings grew by 3% over the past year, in line with estimates, while the average work week, considered a key measure of productivity, nudged up to 34.4 hours.
There was more good news for the jobs market: The previous two months’ estimates were revised higher by a total of 85,000. December moved up from 147,000 to 184,000, while January went from 225,000 to 273,000. Those revisions brought the three-month average up to a robust 243,000 while the average monthly gain in 2019 was 178,000.
Despite the strong numbers, Wall Street was heading for more losses stemming from worries over the effects of the coronoavirus outbreak, though Friday’s futures were off their bottom after the report.
“This could be the last perfect employment report the market gets for some time,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank.
Gains were spread across a multitude of sectors as the total employment level hit 158.8 million, near its December 2019 record.
Health care and social assistance led the way in job creation with 57,000 new positions. Food services and drinking places both added 53,000 while government employment grew by 45,000 due to Census hiring and state government education. Construction added 42,000 thanks to continued mild weather, while professional and technical services contributed 32,000 and finance rose by 26,000, part of a 160,000 gain over the past 12 months.
In the survey of households, employment rose by 126,000 while the ranks of the unemployed decreased by 105,000.
“While it’s too early to see the impact of the coronavirus on the labor market, we can say the labor market was in a good place before the virus began to spread,” said Nick Bunker, economic research director at job placement firm Indeed. “But the next few months will be a test of just how resilient this labor market is.”
Jobs market still looks strong
The jobs numbers took on particular importance in February as worries intensified over the economic impact from the novel coronavirus, though the report covered the time frame before worries over the disease intensified.
Most of the indicators thus far have shown little damage. Jobless claims remain well within their recent trend, coming in at 216,000 in the latest reading Thursday. Job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas also reported Thursday that planned layoffs actually fell 16% from January. And key ISM readings on both manufacturing and services show companies still plan to hire.
“Now more than ever, we need to focus on the labor market data,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “The consumer has kind of kept things afloat.”
Most of the consumer-related data points have been good, though the reports coming in now largely cover the early stages of the coronavirus scare and the sharp recent stock market volatility.
With the large measure of uncertainty around the disease, its impacts may be felt in increments rather than suddenly. But if cracks begin to form, the first notices likely will come in employment data.
“If we start to handle things the way they’re handled in Italy and South Korea, closing schools and having mandated cancellations of travel and sporting events, I think there’s no way we don’t start to see it in the labor market and in consumer confidence and spending,” Sonders said.
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-20-0379
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 6, 2020
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 -- FEBRUARY 2020
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance,
food services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and
technical services, and financial activities.
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 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons,
at 5.8 million, changed little in February. The unemployment rate has been either
3.5 percent or 3.6 percent for the past 6 months. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Asians declined to 2.5
percent in February. The rates for adult men (3.3 percent), adult women (3.1 percent),
teenagers (11.0 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Blacks (5.8 percent), and Hispanics
(4.4 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and
A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.1
million, changed little in February and accounted for 19.2 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate remained at 63.4 percent in February. The
employment-population ratio, at 61.1 percent, changed little over the month but was
up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million,
changed little in February. 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 February, 1.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little changed from the previous month. 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 but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey.
Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no
jobs were available for them, numbered 405,000 in February, little different
from the previous month. (See Summary table A.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, after an increase of
the same magnitude in January. In 2019, job growth averaged 178,000 per month. In
February, notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance, food
services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and technical
services, and financial activities. (See table B-1.)
Employment in health care and social assistance increased by 57,000 in February.
Health care added 32,000 jobs, with gains in offices of physicians (+10,000), home
health care services (+10,000), and hospitals (+8,000). Employment in social assistance
increased by 25,000, with a majority of the gain in individual and family services
(+18,000). Over the past 12 months, employment increased by 368,000 in health care and
by 191,000 in social assistance.
Food services and drinking places added 53,000 jobs in February. Employment in the
industry has increased by 252,000 over the past 7 months, following a lull in job growth
earlier in 2019.
In February, government employment increased by 45,000, led by a gain in state government
education (+16,000). Federal employment increased by 8,000, reflecting the hiring of
7,000 temporary workers for the 2020 Census.
Construction added 42,000 jobs in February, following a similar gain in January (+49,000).
In 2019, job gains averaged 13,000 per month. In February, employment gains occurred
in specialty trade contractors (+26,000) and residential building (+10,000).
In February, employment in professional and technical services increased by 32,000. Job
growth occurred in architectural and engineering services (+10,000) and in scientific
research and development services (+5,000). Employment continued to trend up in computer
systems design and related services (+8,000). Over the past 12 months, professional and
technical services has added 285,000 jobs.
Employment in financial activities increased by 26,000 in February, with gains in real
estate (+8,000) and in credit intermediation and related activities (+6,000). Over the
past 12 months, financial activities has added 160,000 jobs.
Employment in other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and information, changed little over the
month.
In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
increased by 9 cents to $28.52. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have
increased by 3.0 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees increased by 8 cents to $23.96 in February. (See tables B-3
and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 0.1 hour to
34.4 hours in February. In manufacturing, the workweek increased by 0.2 hour to 40.7
hours, and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production
and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.7
hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised up by 37,000 from
+147,000 to +184,000, and the change for January was revised up by 48,000 from +225,000
to +273,000. With these revisions, employment gains in December and January combined were
85,000 higher 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
243,000 per month over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on
Friday, April 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
Footnotes (1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, Thursday, February 27, 2020
BEA 20—07
Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Second Estimate)
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (table 1), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP also increased 2.1 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was also 2.1 percent. In the second estimate, an upward revision to private inventory investment was offset by a downward revision to nonresidential fixed investment (see “Updates to GDP” on page 2).
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and nonresidential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased (table 2).
Real GDP growth in the fourth quarter was the same as that in the third. In the fourth quarter, a downturn in imports and an acceleration in government spending were offset by a larger decrease in private inventory investment and a slowdown in PCE.
Current dollar GDP increased 3.5 percent, or $184.2 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $21.73 trillion. In the third quarter, GDP increased 3.8 percent, or $202.3 billion (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, the same increase as in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.3 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.
More information on the source data that underlie the estimates is available in the “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file on BEA’s website.
Updates to GDP
In the second estimate, the fourth-quarter growth rate in real GDP was unrevised from the advance estimate. Private inventory investment, exports, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment were revised up. These upward revisions were offset by downward revisions to nonresidential fixed investment, PCE, state and local government spending, and an upward revision to imports. For more information, see the Technical Note and the “Additional Information” section below.
Advance Estimate
Second Estimate
(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP
2.1
2.1
Current-dollar GDP
3.6
3.5
Gross domestic purchases price index
1.5
1.4
PCE price index
1.6
1.3
PCE price index excluding food and energy
1.3
1.2
For the third quarter of 2019, the percent change in real GDI was revised from 2.1 percent to 1.2 percent based on new third-quarter data from the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
2019 GDP
Real GDP increased 2.3 percent in 2019 (from the 2018 annual level to the 2019 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.9 percent in 2018 (table 1).
The increase in real GDP in 2019 reflected positive contributions from PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, state and local government spending, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from residential fixed investment. Imports increased (table 2).
The deceleration in real GDP in 2019, compared to 2018, primarily reflected decelerations in nonresidential fixed investment and PCE, which were partly offset by accelerations in both state and local and federal government spending. Imports increased less in 2019 than in 2018.
Current-dollar GDP increased 4.1 percent, or $846.9 billion, in 2019 to a level of $21.43 trillion, compared with an increase of 5.4 percent, or $1,060.8 billion, in 2018 (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in 2019, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in 2018 (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 4).
Measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, real GDP increased 2.3 percent during the period. That compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2018. The price index for gross domestic purchases, as measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, increased 1.4 percent during 2019. That compared with an increase of 2.2 percent during 2018. The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 6).
* * *
Next release, March 26, 2020 at 8:30 A.M. EDT
Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019
Live: Trump receives a Coronavirus briefing from officials at the CDC
President Trump Visits the CDC Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia
President Trump in Atlanta at CDC
Story 3: Vice-President Pence Update of COVID-19 Task Force — The Risk To American People of Getting COVID-19 Is Low — By End of Next Week Over 4 Million COVID-19 Test Kits Will Be Available — Videos
WATCH LIVE: Mike Pence and health officials deliver updates on coronavirus response – 3/6/2020
Story 1: All U.S. Stock Market Indices Correcting As Progressive Panic Propaganda Propagates Planet — Great Investment Buying Opportunities Ahead — Videos —
Maria Bartiromo warns against knee-jerk reactions to market selloff
Keiser Report: Billionaires re-gifting Some of the Fed’s free money (E1507)
Dow plunges 10% from peak and enters correction after largest one-day point drop in HISTORY as coronavirus fears fuel the worst week on Wall Street since the Great Recession
US major stock indexes closed down more than 4% for the day on Thursday
Markets have now entered correction, or declines from peak of more than 10%
Dow dropped 1,190.95 points, the index’s largest one-day point drop in history
Follows report of first US community transmission of coronavirus in California
Netflix and other ‘stay at home’ companies saw shares rise, however
U.S. stock indexes plunged dramatically yet again on Thursday, as the rapid spread of the coronavirus outside China deepens investor worries about growth and corporate earnings.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 1,190.95 points, or 4.42 percent, to 25,766.64, the largest one-day point drop in history. It comes during the quickest market plunge on a percentage basis since the financial crisis of October 2008.
The Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq all closed more than 10 percent below their recent highs. That means the market is officially in a correction, which is a normal phenomenon that analysts have said was long overdue. T
At their heart, stock prices rise and fall with the profits that companies expect to make — and Wall Street’s expectations for profit growth are sinking as more companies warn that the virus outbreak will hit their bottom lines.
Trader Peter Tuchman reacts at the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday as the Dow opens down another 500 points and the market enters correction territory
Adding to worries, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed an infection in California in a person who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient.
‘In the recent week, markets have come to realize that the outbreak is much worse and are now realistically pricing in the impact of the virus on the economy,’ said Philip Marey, senior U.S. strategist at Rabobank.
‘In that sense it’s a bit of a catching up from the relative optimism that was there in the beginning when markets thought (the virus) will be contained to China with some minor outbreak outside.’
Rising fears of a pandemic, which U.S. health authorities have warned is likely, have erased about $1.84 trillion off the benchmark S&P 500 this week alone.
Industry analysts and economists continued to sound the alarm as they assessed the impact of the coronavirus, with Goldman Sachs saying U.S. companies will generate no earnings growth in 2020.
Apple and Microsoft, two of the world´s biggest companies, have already said their sales this quarter will feel the economic effects of the virus.
Microsoft’s stock lost 2.8 percent after it told investors that the virus will hurt revenue from its Windows licenses and its Surface devices.
A one-day view of the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows Thursday’s punishing losses
A five-day view of the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows the cumulative declines this week
Traders work during the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. About five minutes into trading, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1.8 percent
Budweiser maker AB InBev projects 10% hit to profits in first quarter due to decline in Chinese sales
The world’s largest brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev forecast a 10 percent decline in first-quarter profit on Thursday after the coronavirus outbreak hit beer sales during the Chinese New Year, sending its shares skidding.
The maker of Budweiser, Corona and Stella Artois said the virus had led to a significant decline in demand in China – both at bars and drinking at home, notably during the Chinese New Year.
AB InBev stock plunged on Thursday after the beer maker said that it expected profits to be down 10% for the first quarter due to slumping Chinese sales
The outbreak, along with an expected weaker Brazilian market, could lead to a 10 percent drop in first-quarter core profit (EBITDA) on-year, AB InBev said, adding that it expected 2020 core profit growth of between 2 percent and 5 percent, with most expansion occurring in the second half.
The Belgium-based company, which sells more Budweiser in China than in the lager’s key U.S. market, said the disease shaved up to $285 million off its revenue in China in the first two months of this year, 2.3 percent of its first-quarter group revenue last year.
American Airlines plunged 8.5 percent as airlines continue to feel pain from disrupted travel plans and suspended routes.
Delta Airlines, which is reducing flights to South Korea because of the outbreak in that nation, fell 4.5 percent.
Bank of America slashed its world growth forecast to the lowest level since the peak of the global financial crisis.
Financial warnings also came from Budweiser maker InBev and cloud-computing company Nutanix.
The virus has now infected more than 82,000 people globally and is worrying governments with its rapid spread beyond the epicenter of China.
The price of crude oil fell 4.7 percent. The price has been falling sharply as investors anticipate that demand for energy will wane as the economy slows.
Bond yields continued sliding as investors shifted money into lower-risk assets. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell further into record low territory, to 1.28% from 1.31% late Wednesday. Gold prices edged higher.
Medical mask makers and ‘stay at home’ companies see shares rise as investors anticipate high demand
A number of companies that could see their business jump if coronavirus reaches epidemic levels in the U.S. saw their shares rise in mid-morning trading on Thursday.
Shares of 3M, which counts surgical masks among its many products, rose 1.5 percent.
Canadian company Alpha Pro Tech, which makes medical protective garments, saw shares skyrocket 57 percent on Thursday.
Chlorox, which makes the popular bleach brand that can be used to sterilize surfaces, was up 2.8 percent. 7
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Thursday
Netflix stock was up on Thursday, with investors betting that binge-watching at home could become more appealing than going out during an outbreak
Chlorox, which makes bleach that can be used to sterilize surfaces, was also up Thursday
Gilead Sciences jumped 6.4 percent, as the drugmaker said it had started two late-stage trials to test its experimental antiviral drug, remdesivir, in patients with cases of illness caused by coronavirus.
While travel stocks were punished, companies that focus on ‘stay at home’ products also saw shares rise, as investors anticipated that consumers will be more likely to avoid crowds and remain indoors.
Netflix was up 1.6 percent, with investors betting that binge-watching at home could become more appealing during an outbreak.
Teleconferencing company Teladoc, which offers remote medical consultations with doctors over the internet, surged 19.8 percent.
Story 2: Chinese Communist Cough Containment Crisis Crashes Capitalism or Communism? — Are You Scared Yet — Not One Bit — Buy On The Correction and Hold On — Government Not The Answer — Government Is The Problem — Videos —
Outbreak starts to look more like worldwide economic crisis
By ADAM GELLER, PAUL WISEMAN and CHRISTOPHER RUGABER11 minutes ago
The coronavirus outbreak began to look more like a worldwide economic crisis Friday as anxiety about the infection emptied shops and amusement parks, canceled events, cut trade and travel and dragged already slumping financial markets even lower.
More employers told their workers to stay home, and officials locked down neighborhoods and closed schools. The wide-ranging efforts to halt the spread of the illness threatened jobs, paychecks and profits.
“This is a case where in economic terms the cure is almost worse than the disease,″ said Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “When you quarantine cities … you lose economic activity that you’re not going to get back.′
The list of countries touched by the illness climbed to nearly 60 as Mexico, Belarus, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Azerbaijan, Iceland and the Netherlands reported their first cases. More than 83,000 people worldwide have contracted the illness, with deaths topping 2,800.
China, where the outbreak began in December, has seen a slowdown in new infections and on Saturday morning reported 427 new cases over the past 24 hours along with 47 additional deaths. The city at the epicenter of the outbreak, Wuhan, accounted for the bulk of both.
New cases in mainland China have held steady at under 500 for past four days, with almost all of them in Wuhan and its surrounding Hubei province.
With the number of discharged patients now greatly exceeding those of new arrivals, Wuhan now has more than 5,000 spare beds in 16 temporary treatment centers, Ma Xiaowei, director of the National Health Commission, told a news conference in Wuhan on Friday.
South Korea, the second hardest hit country, on Saturday morning reported 571 new cases, the highest daily jump since confirming its first patient in late January. Emerging clusters in Italy and in Iran, which has had 34 deaths and 388 cases, have led to infections of people in other countries. France and Germany were also seeing increases, with dozens of infections.
The head of the World Health Organization on Friday announced that the risk of the virus spreading worldwide was “very high,” citing the “continued increase in the number of cases and the number of affected countries.”
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to “do everything possible to contain the disease.”
“We know containment is possible, but the window of opportunity is narrowing,” the U.N. chief told reporters in New York.
The economic ripples have already reached around the globe.
Stock markets around the world plunged again Friday. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones index took yet another hit, closing down nearly 360 points. The index has dropped more than 14% from a recent high, making this the market’s worst week since 2008, during the global financial crisis.
The effects were just as evident in the hush that settled in over places where throngs of people ordinarily work and play and buy and sell.
“There’s almost no one coming here,” said Kim Yun-ok, who sells doughnuts and seaweed rolls at Seoul’s Gwangjang Market, where crowds were thin as South Korea counted 571 new cases — more than in China, where the virus emerged. “I am just hoping that the outbreak will come under control soon.”
In Asia, Tokyo Disneyland and Universal Studios Japan announced they would close, and events that were expected to attract tens of thousands of people were called off, including a concert series by the K-pop group BTS. The state-run Export-Import Bank of Korea shut down its headquarters in Seoul after a worker tested positive for the virus, telling 800 others to work from home. Japanese officials prepared to shutter all schools until early April.
In Italy — which has reported 888 cases, the most of any country outside of Asia — hotel bookings are falling, and Premier Giuseppe Conte raised the specter of recession. Shopkeepers like Flavio Gastaldi, who has sold souvenirs in Venice for three decades, wondered if they could survive the blow.
“We will return the keys to the landlords soon,” he said.
The Swiss government banned events with more than 1,000 people, while at the Cologne Cathedral in Germany, basins of holy water were emptied for fear of spreading germs.
In a report published Friday in the New England Journal of Medicine, Chinese health officials said the death rate from the illness known as COVID-19 was 1.4%, based on 1,099 patients at more than 500 hospitals throughout China.
Assuming there are many more cases with no or very mild symptoms, the rate “may be considerably less than 1%,” U.S. health officials wrote in an editorial in the journal. That would make the virus more like a severe seasonal flu than a disease similar to its genetic cousins SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Given the ease of spread, however, the virus could gain footholds around the world and many could die.
“It’s not cholera or the black plague,” said Simone Venturini, the city councilor for economic development in Venice, Italy, where tourism already hurt by historic flooding last year has sunk with news of virus cases. “The damage that worries us even more is the damage to the economy.”
Europe’s economy is already teetering on the edge of recession. A measure of business sentiment in Germany fell sharply last week, suggesting that some companies could postpone investment and expansion plans. China is a huge export market for German manufacturers.
In the U.S., online retail giant Amazon said Friday that it has asked all of its 800,000 employees to postpone any non-essential travel, both within the country and internationally.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said that the U.S. economy remains strong and that policymakers would “use our tools” to support it if necessary.
Larry Kudlow, the top economic advisor to President Donald Trump, told reporters that the selloff in financial markets may be an overreaction to an epidemic with uncertain long-term effects.
“We don’t see any evidence of major supply chain disruptions. I’m not trying to say nothing’s happening. I think there will be impacts, but to be honest with you, at the moment, I don’t see much,” Kudlow said.
The pain was already taking hold in places like Bangkok, where merchants at the Platinum Fashion Mall staged a flash mob, shouting “Reduce the rent!” and holding signs that said “Tourists don’t come, shops suffer.”
Tourist arrivals in Thailand are down 50% compared with a year ago, according Capital Economics, a consulting firm.
Kanya Yontararak, a clothing store owner, said her sales have sunk as low as 1,000 baht ($32) some days, making it a struggle to pay back a loan for her lease. The situation is more severe than the floods and political crises her store has braved in the past.
“Coronavirus is the worst situation they have ever seen,” she said of her fellow merchants.
Economists have forecast global growth will slip to 2.4% this year, the slowest since the Great Recession in 2009, and down from earlier expectations closer to 3%. For the United States, estimates are falling to as low as 1.7% growth this year, down from 2.3% in 2019.
But if COVID-19 becomes a global pandemic, economists expect the impact could be much worse, with the U.S. and other global economies falling into recession.
“If we start to see more cases in the United States, if we start to see people not traveling domestically, if we start to see people stay home from work and from stores, then I think the hit is going to get substantially worse,” said Gus Faucher, an economist at PNC Financial.
After the WHO raised its alert level, the agency’s Emergencies Program Director Michael Ryan called the situation “a reality check for every government on the planet.” Friday. “Wake up, get ready. This virus may be on its way.”
Expansionary monetary policy constitutes a transfer of purchasing power away from those who hold old money to whoever gets new money. This is known as the Cantillon Effect, after 18th Century economist Richard Cantillon who first proposed it. In the immediate term, as more dollars are created, each one translates to a smaller slice of all goods and services produced.
How we measure this phenomenon and its size depends how we define money. This is illustrated below.
What is clear is that the dramatic expansion of the monetary base that we saw after 2008 is merely catching up with the more gradual growth of debt that took place in the 90s and 00s.
While it is my hunch that overblown credit bubbles are better liquidated than reflated (not least because the reflation of a corrupt and dysfunctional financial sector entails huge moral hazard), it is true the Fed’s efforts to inflate the money supply have so far prevented a default cascade. We should expect that such initiatives will continue, not least because Bernanke has a deep intellectual investment in reflationism.
This focus on reflationary money supply expansion was fully expected by those familiar with Ben Bernanke’s academic record. What I find more surprising, though, is the Fed’s focus on banks and financial institutions rather than the wider population.
It’s not just the banks that are struggling to deleverage. The overwhelming majority of nongovernment debt is held by households and nonfinancials:
The nonfinancial sectors need debt relief much, much more than the financial sector. Yet the Fed shoots off new money solely into the financial system, to Wall Street and the TBTF banks. It is the financial institutions that have gained the most from these transfers of purchasing power, building up huge hoards of excess reserves:
There is a way to counteract the Cantillon Effect, and expand the money supply without transferring purchasing power to the financial sector (or any other sector). This is to directly distribute the new money uniformly to individuals for the purpose of debt relief; those with debt have to use the new money to pay it down (thus reducing the debt load), those without debt are free to invest it or spend it as they like.
While we delever, investment by American corporations will be timid, and economic growth will be faltering at best. The stimulus imparted by government deficits will attenuate the downturn — and the much larger scale of government spending now than in the 1930s explains why this far greater deleveraging process has not led to as severe a Depression — but deficits alone will not be enough. If America is to avoid two “lost decades”, the level of private debt has to be reduced by deliberate cancellation, as well as by the slow processes of deleveraging and bankruptcy.
In ancient times, this was done by a Jubilee, but the securitization of debt since the 1980s has complicated this enormously. Whereas only the moneylenders lost under an ancient Jubilee, debt cancellation today would bankrupt many pension funds, municipalities and the like who purchased securitized debt instruments from banks. I have therefore proposed that a “Modern Debt Jubilee” should take the form of “Quantitative Easing for the Public”: monetary injections by the Federal Reserve not into the reserve accounts of banks, but into the bank accounts of the public — but on condition that its first function must be to pay debts down. This would reduce debt directly, but not advantage debtors over savers, and would reduce the profitability of the financial sector while not affecting its solvency.
Without a policy of this nature, America is destined to spend up to two decades learning the truth of Michael Hudson’s simple aphorism that “Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be repaid”.
Richard Cantillon (French: [kɑ̃tijɔ̃]; 1680s – May 1734) was an Irish-French economist and author of Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General), a book considered by William Stanley Jevons to be the “cradle of political economy“.[4] Although little information exists on Cantillon’s life, it is known that he became a successful banker and merchant at an early age. His success was largely derived from the political and business connections he made through his family and through an early employer, James Brydges. During the late 1710s and early 1720s, Cantillon speculated in, and later helped fund, John Law‘s Mississippi Company, from which he acquired great wealth. However, his success came at a cost to his debtors, who pursued him with lawsuits, criminal charges, and even murder plots until his death in 1734.
Essai remains Cantillon’s only surviving contribution to economics. It was written around 1730 and circulated widely in manuscript form, but was not published until 1755. His work was translated into Spanish by Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, probably in the late 1770s, and considered essential reading for political economy. Despite having much influence on the early development of the physiocrat and classical schools of thought, Essai was largely forgotten until its rediscovery by Jevons in the late 19th century.[5] Cantillon was influenced by his experiences as a banker, and especially by the speculative bubble of John Law’s Mississippi Company. He was also heavily influenced by prior economists, especially William Petty.
Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economics, with numerous contributions to the science. These contributions include: his cause and effect methodology, monetary theories, his conception of the entrepreneur as a risk-bearer, and the development of spatial economics. Cantillon’s Essai had significant influence on the early development of political economy, including the works of Adam Smith, Anne Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat and François Quesnay.[6]
Biography
While details regarding Richard Cantillon’s life are scarce,[7] it is thought that he was born sometime during the 1680s in County Kerry, Ireland.[1][6] He was son to land-owner Richard Cantillon of Ballyheigue.[8] Sometime in the middle of the first decade of the 18th century Cantillon moved to France, where he attained French citizenship.[9] By 1711, Cantillon found himself in the employment of British Paymaster GeneralJames Brydges, in Spain, where he organised payments to British prisoners of war during the War of Spanish Succession.[10] Cantillon remained in Spain until 1714, cultivating a number of business and political connections, before returning to Paris.[11] Cantillon then became involved in the banking industry working for a cousin, who at that time was lead-correspondent of the Parisian branch of a family bank.[12] Two years later, thanks in large part to financial backing by James Brydges, Cantillon bought his cousin out and attained ownership of the bank.[13] Given the financial and political connections Cantillon was able to attain both through his family[14] and through James Brydges, Cantillon proved a fairly successful banker, specialising in money transfers between Paris and London.[15]
At this time, Cantillon became involved with British mercantilistJohn Law through the Mississippi Company.[16] Based on the monetary theory proposed by William Potter in his 1650 tract The Key of Wealth,[17] John Law posited that increases in the money supply would lead to the employment of unused land and labour, leading to higher productivity.[18] In 1716, the French government granted him both permission to found the Banque Générale and virtual monopoly over the right to develop French territories in North America, named the Mississippi Company. In return, Law promised the French government to finance its debt at low rates of interest.[19] Law began a financial speculative bubble by selling shares of the Mississippi Company, using the Banque Générale’s virtual monopoly on the issue of bank notes to finance his investors.[20]
Richard Cantillon amassed a great fortune from his speculation, buying Mississippi Company shares early and selling them at inflated prices.[21] Cantillon’s financial success and growing influence caused friction in his relationship with John Law, and sometime thereafter Law threatened to imprison Cantillon if the latter did not leave France within twenty-four hours.[22] Cantillon replied: “I shall not go away; but I will make your system succeed.”[22] To that end, in 1718 Law, Cantillon, and wealthy speculator Joseph Gage formed a private company centred on financing further speculation in North American real estate.[23]
In 1719, Cantillon left Paris for Amsterdam, returning briefly in early 1720. Lending in Paris, Cantillon had outlying debt repaid to him in London and Amsterdam.[24] With the collapse of the “Mississippi bubble”, Cantillon was able to collect on debt accruing high rates of interest.[25] Most of his debtors had suffered financial damage in the bubble collapse and blamed Cantillon—until his death, Cantillon was involved in countless lawsuits filed by his debtors, leading to a number of murder plots and criminal accusations.[26]
On 16 February 1722, Cantillon married Mary Mahony, daughter of Count Daniel O’Mahony [fr]—a wealthy merchant and former Irish general—spending much of the remainder of the 1720s travelling throughout Europe with his wife.[27] Cantillon and Mary had two children, a son who died at an early age and a daughter, Henrietta,[28] wife successively of the 3rd Earl of Stafford and the 1st Earl of Farnham. Although he frequently returned to Paris between 1729 and 1733, his permanent residence was in London.[29] In May 1734, his residence in London was burned to the ground, and it is generally assumed that Cantillon died in the fire.[2] While the fire’s causes are unclear, the most widely accepted theory is that Cantillon was murdered.[30] One of Cantillon’s biographers, Antoine Murphy, has advanced the alternative theory that Cantillon staged his own death to escape the harassment of his debtors, appearing in Suriname under the name Chevalier de Louvigny.[31]
Contributions to economics
Although there is evidence that Richard Cantillon wrote a wide variety of manuscripts, only his Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général (abbreviated Essai) survives.[6][32] Written in 1730,[33] it was published in French in 1755,[34] and was translated into English by Henry Higgs in 1932.[35] Evidence suggests that Essaihad tremendous influence on the early development of economic science. However, Cantillon’s treatise was largely neglected during the 19th century.[5] In the late 19th century and it was “rediscovered” by William Stanley Jevons, who considered it the “cradle of political economy”.[4] Since then, Cantillon’s Essai has received growing attention. Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economic theory,[36] and Cantillon has been called the “father of enterprise economics”.[6][37]
William Petty is considered to be one of Richard Cantillon’s greatest influences.[38]
One of the greatest influences on Cantillon’s writing was English economist William Petty and his 1662 tract Treatise on Taxes.[39] Although Petty provided much of the groundwork for Cantillon’s Essai,[38] Anthony Brewer argues that Petty’s influence has been overstated.[40] Apart from Petty, other possible influences on Cantillon include John Locke,[41]Cicero, Livy, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Charles Davenant, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban, and Jean Boisard.[3] Cantillon’s involvement in John Law’s speculative bubble proved invaluable and likely heavily influenced his insight on the relationship between increases in the supply of money, price, and production.[42]
Methodology
Cantillon’s Essai is written using a distinctive causal methodology, separating Cantillon from his mercantilist predecessors.[6][43]Essai is peppered with the word “natural”, which in the case of Cantillon’s treatise is meant to imply a cause and effect relationship between economic actions and phenomena.[44] Economist Murray Rothbard credits Cantillon with being one of the first theorists to isolate economic phenomena with simple models, where otherwise uncontrollable variables can be fixed.[45] Cantillon made frequent use of the concept of ceteris paribus throughout Essai in an attempt to neutralise independent variables.[46] Furthermore, he is credited with employing a methodology similar to Carl Menger‘s methodological individualism,[47] by deducing complex phenomena from simple observations.[48]
A cause and effect methodology led to a relatively value-free approach to economic science, in which Cantillon was uninterested in the merit of any particular economic action or phenomenon, focusing rather on the explanation of relationships.[49] This led Cantillon to separate economic science from politics and ethics to a greater degree than previous mercantilist writers.[45] This has led to disputes on whether Cantillon can justly be considered a mercantilist or one of the first anti-mercantilists,[50] given that Cantillon often cited government-manipulated trade surpluses and specie accumulation as positive economic stimuli.[51] Others argue that in instances where Cantillon is thought to have supported certain mercantilist policies, he actually provided a more neutral analysis by explicitly stating possible limitations of mercantilist policies.[52]
Monetary theory
Differences between prior mercantilists and Cantillon arise early in Essai, regarding the origins of wealth and price formation on the market.[53] Cantillon distinguishes between wealth and money, considering wealth in itself “nothing but the food, conveniences, and pleasures of life.”[54] While Cantillon advocated an “intrinsic” theory of value, based on the input of land and labour (cost of production),[55] he is considered to have touched upon a subjective theory of value.[56] Cantillon held that market prices are not immediately decided by intrinsic value, but are derived from supply and demand.[57] He considered market prices to be derived by comparing supply, the quantity of a particular good in a particular market, to demand, the quantity of money brought to be exchanged.[58] Believing market prices to tend towards the intrinsic value of a good, Cantillon may have also originated the uniformity-of-profit principle—changes in the market price of a good may lead to changes in supply, reflecting a rise or fall in profit.[59]
Rendition of Cantillon’s primitive circular flow model[60]
In Essai, Cantillon provided an advanced version of John Locke’s quantity theory of money, focusing on relative inflation and the velocity of money.[61] Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.[63] The concept of relative inflation, or a disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy, is now known as the Cantillon Effect.[64] Cantillon also considered changes in the velocity of money (quantity of exchanges made within a specific amount of time) influential on prices, although not to the same degree as changes in the quantity of money.[65] While he believed that the money supply consisted only of specie, he conceded that increases in money substitutes—or bank notes—could affect prices by effectively increasing the velocity of circulating of deposited specie.[66] Apart from distinguishing money from money substitute, he also distinguished between bank notes offered as receipts for specie deposits and bank notes circulating beyond the quantity of specie—or fiduciary media—suggesting that the volume of fiduciary media is strictly limited by people’s confidence in its redeemability.[67] He considered fiduciary media a useful tool to abate the downward pressure that hoarding of specie has on the velocity of money.[68]
Addressing the mercantilist belief that monetary intervention could cause a perpetually favourable balance of trade, Cantillon developed a specie-flow mechanism foreshadowing future international monetary equilibrium theories.[69] He suggested that in countries with a high quantity of money in circulation, prices will increase and therefore become less competitive in relation to countries where there is a relative scarcity of money.[70] Thus, Cantillon also held that increases in the supply of money, regardless of the source, cause increases in the price level and therefore reduce the competitiveness of a particular nation’s industry in relation to a nation with lower prices.[71] However, Cantillon did not believe that international markets tended toward equilibrium, and instead suggested that government hoard specie to avoid rising prices and falling competitiveness.[69] Furthermore, he suggested that a favourable balance of trade can be maintained by offering a better product and retaining qualitative competitiveness.[72] Cantillon’s preference towards a favourable balance of trade possibly stemmed from the mercantilist belief in exchange being a zero-sum game, in which one party gains at the expense of another.[73]
A relatively advanced theory of interest is also presented.[74] Cantillon believed that interest originates from the need of borrowers for capital and from the fear of loss of the lenders, meaning that borrowers have to recompense lenders for the risk of the possible insolvency of the debtor.[75] In turn, interest is paid out of earned profits originating from the return on invested capital.[76] While previously it was believed that the rate of interest varied inversely to the quantity of money, Cantillon posited that the rate of interest was determined by the supply and demand on the loanable funds market[77]—an insight usually attributed to Scottish philosopher David Hume.[78] As such, while saved money impacts the rate of interest, new money that is instead used for consumption does not; Cantillon’s theory of interest is therefore similar to John Maynard Keynes‘s liquidity preference theory.[79]
Traditionally, it is Jean-Baptiste Say who is credited for coining the word and advancing the concept of the entrepreneur, but in fact it was Cantillon who first introduced the term in Essai.[6][80] Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income wage-earners and non-fixed income earners.[81] Entrepreneurs, according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay known costs of production but earn uncertain incomes,[82] due to the speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their product.[83] Cantillon, while providing the foundations, did not develop a dedicated theory of uncertainty—the topic was not revisited until the 20th century, by Ludwig von Mises, Frank Knight, and John Maynard Keynes, among others.[84] Furthermore, unlike later theories of entrepreneurship which saw the entrepreneur as a disruptive force, Cantillon anticipated the belief that the entrepreneur brought equilibrium to a market by correctly predicting consumer preferences.[85]
Spatial economics deal with distance and area, and how these may affect a market through transportation costs and geographical limitations. The development of spatial economics is usually ascribed to German economist Johann Heinrich von Thünen; however, Cantillon addressed spatial economics nearly a century earlier.[86] Cantillon integrated his advancements in spatial economic theory into his microeconomic analysis of the market, describing how transportation costs influence the location of factories, markets and population centres—that is, individuals strive to lower transportation costs.[87] Conclusions on spatial economics were derived from three premises: cost of raw materials of equal quality will always be higher near the capital city, due to transportation costs; transportation costs vary on transportation type (for example, water transportation was considered cheaper than land-based transportation); and larger goods that are more difficult to transport will always be cheaper closer to their area of production.[88] For example, Cantillon believed markets were designed as they were to decrease costs to both merchants and villagers in terms of time and transportation.[89] Similarly, Cantillon posited that the locations of cities were the result in large part of the wealth of inhabiting property owners and their ability to afford transportation costs—wealthier property owners tended to live farther from their property, because they could afford the transportation costs.[90] In Essai, spatial economic theory was used to derive why markets occupied the geographical area they did and why costs varied across different markets.[91]
Cover of the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s edition of Cantillon’s Essai
Apart from originating theories on the entrepreneur and spatial economics, Cantillon also provided a dedicated theory on population growth. Unlike William Petty, who believed there always existed a considerable amount of unused land and economic opportunity to support economic growth, Cantillon theorised that population grows only as long as there are economic opportunities present.[92] Specifically, Cantillon cited three determining variables for population size: natural resources, technology, and culture.[93] Therefore, populations grow only as far as the three aforementioned variables allowed.[94] Furthermore, Cantillon’s population theory was more modern than that of Malthus in the sense that Cantillon recognised a much broader category of factors which affect population growth, including the tendency for population growth to fall to zero as a society becomes more industrialised.[95]
Influence
While Essai was not published until 1755 as a result of heavy censorship in France, it did widely circulate in the form of an unpublished manuscript between its completion and its publication.[96] It notably influenced many direct forerunners of the classical school of thought, including Turgot and other physiocrats.[97] Cantillon was a major influence on physiocrat François Quesnay, who may have learned of Cantillon’s work through Marquis of Mirabeau.[98] While it is evident that Essai influenced Quesnay, to what degree remains controversial. There is evidence that Quesnay did not fully understand, or was not completely aware of, Cantillon’s theories.[99] Many of Quesnay’s economic beliefs were elucidated previously in Essai,[100] but Quesnay did reject a number of Cantillon’s premises, including the scarcity of land and Cantillon’s population theory.[101] Also, Quesnay recognised the scarcity of capital and capital accumulation as a prerequisite for investment.[99] Nevertheless, Cantillon was considered the “father of physiocracy” by Henry Higgs, due to his influence on Quesnay.[102] It is also possible that Cantillon influenced Scottish economist James Steuart, both directly and indirectly.[103]
Cantillon is one of the few economists cited by Adam Smith, who directly borrows Cantillon’s subsistence theory of wages.[6][104] Large sections of Smith’s economic theory were possibly directly influenced by Cantillon, although in many respects Adam Smith advanced well beyond the scope of Cantillon.[105] Some economic historians have argued that Adam Smith provided little of value from his own intellect, notably Schumpeter[6][106] and Rothbard.[107] In any case, through his influence on Adam Smith and the physiocrats, Cantillon was quite possibly the pre-classical economist who contributed most to the ideas of the classical school.[108] Illustrative of this was Cantillon’s influence on Jean-Baptiste Say, which is noticeable in the methodology employed in the latter’s Treatise on Political Economy.[6][109]
Story 3: Coronavirus or COVID-19 Exposed America’s Heavy Reliance On China For Medicines — Trump Administration May Use Defense Production Act To Manufacture Protective Gear — What About Replacing Medicine, Drug and Ingredients Imported From Communist China By Establishing American Producers in United States As In The Past? — Videos
New information on finding a coronavirus treatment
HOW DOES COVID-19 AFFECT THE BODY?
Coronaviruses (CoV) are a family of viruses that cause sicknesses like the common cold, as well as more severe diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. A novel coronavirus (nCoV) is a new strain – one that hasn’t previously been recognized in humans. Coronaviruses cause diseases in mammals and birds. A zoonotic virus is one that is transmitted between animals and people. When a virus circulating in animal populations infects people, this is termed a “spillover event”.
How does CoVID-19 affect the body? The virus is fitted with protein spikes sticking out of the envelope that forms the surface and houses a core of genetic material. Any virus that enters your body looks for cells with compatible receptors – ones that allow it to invade the cell. Once they find the right cell, they enter and use the cell’s replication machinery to create copies of themselves. It is likely that COVID-19 uses the same receptor as SARS – found in both lungs and small intestines. It is thought that CoVID-19 shares many similarities with SARS, which has three phases of attack: viral replication, hyper-reactivity of the immune system, and finally pulmonary destruction.
Early on in infection, the coronavirus invades two types of cells in the lungs – mucus and cilia cells.
Mucus keeps your lungs from drying out and protects them from pathogens. Cilia beat the mucus towards the exterior of your body, clearing debris – including viruses! – out of your lungs. Cilia cells were the preferred hosts of SARS-CoV, and are likely the preferred hosts of the new coronavirus. When these cells die, they slough off into your airways, filling them with debris and fluid. Symptoms include a fever, cough, and breathing difficulties.
Many of those infected get pneumonia in both their lungs. Enter the immune system. Immune cells recognize the virus and flood into the lungs. The lung tissue becomes inflamed. During normal immune function, the inflammatory process is highly regulated and is confined to infected areas.
However, sometimes the immune system overreacts, and this results in damage to healthy tissue. More cells die and slough off into the lungs, further clogging them and worsening the pneumonia. As damage to the lungs increases, stage three begins, potentially resulting in respiratory failure. Patients that reach this stage of infection can incur permanent lung damage or even die. We see the same lesions in the lungs of those infected by the novel coronavirus as those with SARS. SARS creates holes in the lungs, so they look honeycomb-like. This is probably due to the aforementioned over-reactive immune response, which affects tissue both infected and healthy and creates scars that stiffen the lungs. As such, some patients may require ventilators to aid breathing.
The inflammation also results in more permeable alveoli. This is the location of the thin interface of gas exchange, where your lungs replace carbon dioxide in your blood with fresh oxygen you just inhaled. Increased permeability causes fluid to leak into the lungs. This decreases the lungs’ ability to oxygenate blood, and in severe cases, floods them so that you become unable to breathe. Sometimes, this can be fatal. The immune system’s over-reaction can also cause another kind of damage.
Proteins called cytokines are the immune system’s alarm system, recruiting immune cells to the infection site. Over-production of cytokines can result in a cytokine storm, where there is large-scale inflammation in the body. Blood vessels become more permeable and fluid seeps out. This makes it difficult for blood and oxygen to reach the rest of the body and can result in multi-organ failure. This has happened in the most severe cases of CoVid-19.
Although there are no specific treatments for coronaviruses, symptoms can be treated through supportive care. Also, vaccines are currently in development. What can you do to protect yourself from CoVid-19? Basic protocol comes down to regular hand washing, avoiding close contact with anyone coughing or sneezing, avoiding unnecessary contact with animals, washing hands after contact with animals, thoroughly cooking meat and eggs prior to consumption, and covering your mouth and nose while coughing or sneezing. Respiratory viruses are typically transmitted via droplets in sneezes or coughs of those infected, so preventing their travel stops the spread of disease.
Coronavirus to infect 70% of humanity and become new seasonal disease: Expert
Scientist Speaks Out About Coronavirus Origin: Exclusive | NBC Nightly News
Gov’t recommends use of antiviral drugs for COVID-19 treatment
Coronavirus Exposed America’s Heavy Reliance On China For Medicines
How coronavirus in China could cause drug shortages in America
White House mulling Defense Production Act to ramp up protective gear production: Report
New warning issued about US dependence on Chinese medicine
America Depends on China for Medicine
Discussing the outlook for rare earths with Roskill’s David Merriman
U.S. Army to fund rare earths plant for weapons development: Report
The Battle of Why Rare Earths Are So Important | Fortune Global Forum 2019
Rare earth elements: what confluence? | Sean Dudley | TEDxBozeman
UPDATED February 29, 2020
Coronavirus outbreak: President Donald Trump confirms 1st death in U.S., talks virus response
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update
For Immediate Release:Statement From:
Commissioner of Food and Drugs – Food and Drug Administration
Stephen M. Hahn M.D.
As I have previously communicated, the FDA has been closely monitoring the supply chain with the expectation that the COVID-19 outbreak would likely impact the medical product supply chain, including potential disruptions to supply or shortages of critical medical products in the U.S.
A manufacturer has alerted us to a shortage of a human drug that was recently added to the drug shortages list. The manufacturer just notified us that this shortage is related to a site affected by coronavirus. The shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug. It is important to note that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. We are working with the manufacturer as well as other manufacturers to mitigate the shortage. We will do everything possible to mitigate the shortage.
Additional Information on Human Drugs
Since January 24, the FDA has been in touch with more than 180 manufacturers of human drugs, not only to remind them of applicable legal requirements for notifying the FDA of any anticipated supply disruptions, but also asking them to evaluate their entire supply chain, including active pharmaceutical ingredients (the main ingredient in the drug and part that produces the intended effects, e.g., acetaminophen) and other components manufactured in China.
Also, as part of our efforts, the FDA has identified about 20 other drugs, which solely source their active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished drug products from China. We have been in contact with those firms to assess whether they face any drug shortage risks due to the outbreak. None of these firms have reported any shortage to date. Also, these drugs are considered non-critical drugs.
We will remain in contact with manufacturers so that we can continue to assist them with any potential issues in the fastest way.
Medical Devices
We are aware of 63 manufacturers which represent 72 facilities in China that produce essential medical devices; we have contacted all of them. Essential devices are those that may be prone to potential shortage if there is a supply disruption. We are aware that several of these facilities in China are adversely affected by COVID-19, citing workforce challenges, including the necessary quarantine of workers. While the FDA continues to assess whether manufacturing disruptions will affect overall market availability of these products, there are currently no reported shortages for these types of medical devices within the U.S. market.
Regarding personal protective equipment—surgical gowns, gloves, masks, respirator protective devices, or other medical equipment designed to protect the wearer from injury or the spread of infection or illness—the FDA has heard reports of increased market demand and supply challenges for some of these products. However, the FDA is currently not aware of specific widespread shortages of medical devices, but we are aware of reports from CDC and other U.S. partners of increased ordering of a range of human medical products through distributors as some healthcare facilities in the U.S. are preparing for potential needs if the outbreak becomes severe.
It is important to note that no law exists requiring medical device manufacturers to notify the FDA when they become aware of a circumstance, including discontinuation of a product, that could lead to a potential shortage, and manufacturers are not required to respond when the FDA requests information about potential supply chain disruption. As with prior emergencies, the FDA has taken proactive steps to establish and remain in contact with medical device manufacturers and others in the supply chain, including hospitals and group purchasing organizations. The agency also encourages manufacturers and healthcare facilities to report any supply disruptions to the device shortages mailbox, deviceshortages@fda.hhs.gov. This mailbox is closely monitored and has proven to be a valuable surveillance resource to augment FDA efforts to detect and mitigate potential supply chain disruption.
Biologics and Blood Supply
The FDA is not aware of any cellular or gene therapies that are made in China for the U.S. market. There are no shortages of biologics to report at this time.
The potential for transmission of COVID-19 by blood and blood components is unknown at this time; however, respiratory viruses, in general, are not known to be transmitted by blood transfusion. Further, there have been no reported cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19.
The FDA has made information available to blood establishments and to establishments that manufacture human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products that may wish to consider additional donor screening measures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Food
We are not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food or food packaging. However, it is always important to follow good hygiene practices (i.e., wash hands and surfaces often, separate raw meat from other foods, cook to the right temperature, and refrigerate foods promptly) when handling or preparing foods.
Animal Drugs
There are 32 animal drug firms that make finished drugs or source active pharmaceutical ingredients in China for the U.S. The FDA has contacted all 32 firms and no shortages have been reported at this time. However, six of those firms have indicated that they are seeing disruptions in the supply chain that soon could lead to shortages. The FDA is working with these firms to help identify interventions to mitigate potential shortages.
Additional Resources
The FDA is using all our existing authorities to address COVID-19, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to further strengthen our response capabilities and emergency preparedness. There are four specific proposals included in the President’s budget that would better equip the FDA to prevent or mitigate medical product shortages.
Lengthen Expiration Dates to Mitigate Critical Human Drug Shortages: Shortages of certain critical drugs can be exacerbated when drugs must be discarded because they exceed a labeled shelf-life due to unnecessarily short expiration dates. By expanding the FDA’s authority to require, when likely to help prevent or mitigate a shortage, that an applicant evaluate, submit studies to the FDA, and label a product with the longest possible expiration date that the FDA agrees is scientifically justified, there could be more supply available to alleviate the drug shortage or the severity of a shortage.
Improve Critical Infrastructure by Requiring Risk Management Plans: Enabling the FDA to require application holders of certain drugs to conduct periodic risk assessments to identify the vulnerabilities in their manufacturing supply chain (inclusive of contract manufacturing facilities), and develop plans to mitigate the risks associated with the identified vulnerabilities would enable the FDA to strengthen the supply chain by integrating contingencies for emergency situations. Currently, many medical product manufacturers lack plans to assess and address vulnerabilities in their manufacturing supply chain, putting them, and American patients, at risk for drug supply disruptions following disasters (e.g., hurricanes) or in other circumstances.
Improve Critical Infrastructure through Improved Data Sharing and Require More Accurate Supply Chain Information: Empowering the FDA to require information to assess critical infrastructure, as well as manufacturing quality and capacity, would facilitate more accurate and timely supply chain monitoring and improve our ability to recognize shortage signals.
Establish Reporting Requirements for Device Manufacturers: The FDA does not have the same authorities for medical device shortages as it does for drugs and biological products. For instance, medical device manufacturers are not required to notify the FDA when they become aware of a circumstance that could lead to a device shortage or meaningful disruption in the supply of that device in the U.S., nor are they required to respond to inquiries from the FDA about the availability of devices. Enabling the FDA to have timely and accurate information about likely or confirmed national shortages of essential devices would allow the agency to take steps to promote the continued availability of devices of public health importance. Among other things, the FDA proposes to require that firms notify the agency of an anticipated meaningful interruption in the supply of an essential device; require all manufacturers of devices determined to be essential to periodically provide the FDA with information about the manufacturing capacity of the essential devices they manufacture; and authorize the temporary importation of devices where the benefits of the device in mitigating a shortage outweigh the risks presented by the device that could otherwise result in denial of importation of the device into the U.S.
Overall, this remains an evolving and very dynamic issue. We are committed to continuing to communicate with the public as we have further updates.
We also continue to aggressively monitor the market for any firms marketing products with fraudulent COVID-19 diagnosis, prevention or treatment claims. The FDA can and will use every authority at our disposal to protect consumers from bad actors who take advantage of a crisis to deceive the public, including pursuing warning letters, seizures or injunctions against products on the market that are not in compliance with the law, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.
We know the public may have questions or concerns for the FDA as a result of this outbreak, including you and your family’s risk of exposure, or whether your critical medical products are safe and will continue to be available in the future. The FDA is working around the clock to monitor and mitigate emerging coronavirus issues through collaborative efforts with federal partners, international regulators and medical product developers and manufacturers to help advance response efforts to combat the COVID-19 outbreak.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
Watch Highlights Of The South Carolina Democratic Debate In 5 Minutes | NBC News
Can’t Risk Another Trump Presidency | Mike Bloomberg for President
Michael Bloomberg defends record on race
Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg Duke it Out at Democratic Debate | NowThis
‘Ingraham Angle’ panel breaks down latest Dem debate
Sanders and Bloomberg come under attack in Democratic debate
February 2020 Democratic Debate in South Carolina | The Daily Show
Lou Dobbs Tonight 2/25/20 | Breaking Fox News February 25, 2020
The Ingraham Angle 2/27/20 | Breaking Fox News February 27, 2020
Democrats shout at each other, turn on ‘racist’ Mike Bloomberg and gang up on ‘unelectable’ Bernie Sanders in messy debate – while the CBS moderators lose control so badly even Gayle King and Norah O’Donnell start arguing
The debate in South Carolina on Tuesday night kicked off at 8pm, as candidates Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer took the stage
Right off the bat, the candidates began targeting Sanders, arguing he is backed by Vladimir Putin, is unelectable and is divisive
Moderators Gayle King and Norah O’Donnell quickly lost control with the candidates shouting over another
At various points, the crowd booed the notion of billionaires, which includes Bloomberg and Steyer
The blows went in all directions. Joe Biden, who said he intends to win in South Carolina, blasted Sanders for voting against the Brady bill gun control measure, and referenced the Charleston church shootings
Bloomberg was labelled a ‘racist’ and Warren blasted him for NDAs at his media company, claiming he told an employee to ‘kill it’ after she informed him she was pregnant
Once the candidates wrapped up, O’Donnell tried to shut down the debate prematurely, but King had to quickly correct her, saying it wasn’t quite over yet
Democratic presidential candidates got into a series of angry and personal exchanges at Tuesday night’s debate in Charleston – with Bernie Sanders attacking Mike Bloomberg for being a billionaire, Bloomberg labeling Sanders as Vladimir Putin’s favorite and a trio of candidates blasting Bloomberg for his ‘racist’ stop-and-frisk policy.
It was the kind of full-on circular firing squad that commentators had warned might be coming in South Carolina, with Joe Biden’s ‘firewall’ claims on the line and Sanders having the potential to pad his delegate lead in the rush to Super Tuesday.
The debate featured chaotic exchanges where multiple candidates sought to talk over each other, with CBS moderators Norah O’Donnell and Gayle King losing all control of the discussion about 40 minutes into the debate, either failing to referee or being completely ignored by the over-eager candidates.
Candidates flouted 75-second response times, cut each other off, and yelled out retorts out of turn. ‘Not true,’ interjected Sanders when Amy Klobuchar questioned how he’ll pay for his programs. ‘Can I say something?’ pleaded hedge funder Tom Steyer later in the heated exchange. ‘Let me go,’ he demanded.
‘Excuse me, can I respond to the attack?’ Sanders inquired when Pete Buttigieg went after him. ‘Listen to the moderator, guys,’ Sanders schooled the group. ‘Hello?’ chimed in Biden.
Then the former vice president complained when he finally got called on. ‘Whoa. Whoa. Whoa,’ he said. ‘I guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should.’ Later, he boiled over and announced he would defy the unenforced rules. ‘I’m not out of time. You spoke over time and I’m going to talk,’ Biden said.
Sanders proved to be the Democrat to take down, as he joined his six primary rivals – including Biden, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Steyer – onstage at Charleston’s Gaillard Center.
Democratic presidential candidates got into a series of angry and personal exchanges at Tuesday night’s debate in Charleston – with Bernie Sanders attacking Mike Bloomberg for being a billionaire
The candidates repeatedly talked over each other – with CBS moderators losing all control of the discussion about 40 minutes into the debate
Moderators Gayle King and Norah O’Donnell quickly lost control with the candidates shouting over another. Once the candidates wrapped up, O’Donnell tried to shut down the debate prematurely, but King had to quickly correct her, saying it wasn’t quite over yet
Bloomberg quickly labeled Sanders as Vladimir Putin’s favorite and a trio of candidates blasted Bloomberg for his ‘racist’ stop-and-frisk policy while he was mayor of New York City
At various points, the crowd loudly booed the notion of billionaires, which includes candidates Bloomberg and Tom Steyer
The debate in South Carolina on Tuesday night kicked off at 8pm, as candidates (l-r) Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer took the stage. It was the kind of full-on circular firing squad that commentators had warned might be coming, where Sanders’ rise is being put to the test in a diverse state
Warren attacked Sanders early, saying his plan doesn’t show ‘how to get’ to universal health care like hers does.
‘I dug in. I did the work. And then Bernie’s team trashed me for it,’ she vented.
With South Carolina’s primary just four days away, candidates who might have needed break-out performances didn’t get them.
Sanders avoided enduring an all-out pile-on, despite having a path to the nomination that would only accelerate with a strong showing here and on Super Tuesday. He was put on the defensive several times for his socialist background, the cost of his programs, and his statements about left-wing leaders. Sanders got to explain that the greatest misconception about him ‘is that the ideas I’m talking about are radical.’
Biden, who predicted a win in South Carolina, delivered forceful defenses of his record, tied himself to Barack Obama, and avoided serious stumbles.
No longer the front-runner, he was forced to plead for time from the moderators. He won laughs when he was one of the few to honor a time limit. ‘Why am I stopping? No one else stops. Catholic school training,’ he quipped.
Bloomberg performed better than when he got pummeled in Las Vegas, but some of his remarks fell flat, as when he took a stab at a self-deprecating joke.
‘I really am surprised that all of these, my fellow contestants up here I guess would be the right word for it… I’m surprised they show up because I would’ve thought after I did such a good job in beating him last week that they’d be a little afraid to do that,’ Bloomberg said, in a remark that didn’t play in the room.
Klobuchar was mostly on the sidelines, though she kept up her argument that she is ‘Donald Trump’s worst nightmare’ and that the party doesn’t want a nominee who proposes $60 trillion in new spending.
Buttigieg kept his cool, but wasn’t a major player in many of the most dramatic exchanges. He said he would raise taxes on billionaires, needled Bloomberg by saying he released his own tax returns, and made the case against Sanders’ electability.
Joe Biden, who said he intends to win in South Carolina, blasted Sanders for voting against the Brady bill gun control measure, and referenced the Charleston church shootings
Bloomberg drew fire for stop-and-frisk, a policy he has apologized for in stark terms despite thousands of arrests during his tenure as New York City mayor
Since New Hampshire primary night, which Biden left the Granite State for to instead kick off campaigning in South Carolina, Biden has argued that the states that truly matter are the ones that have a more diverse population, which reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party
Proving to be the night’s punching bag, Sanders was slammed and accused of being backed by Putin, unelectable and divisive.
Sanders got the first question in recognition of his new status as the favorite to become the party’s candidate. He was asked by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell how he could justify being a socialist at a time of booming employment.
The Vermont senator quickly pivoted and attacked Bloomberg, saying that the economy was only doing well for ‘billionaires,’ but the former New York mayor was ready with a dig of his own.
Bloomberg said: ‘I think that Donald Trump thinks it would be better if he’s president. I do not think so.
‘Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States. And that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him.’
Sanders shot back: ‘Oh, Mr. Bloomberg. Let me tell Mr. Putin, OK, I’m not a good friend of President Xi of China. I think President Xi is an authoritarian leader.
‘And let me tell Mr. Putin, who interfered in the 2016 election, try to bring Americans against Americans, hey, Mr. Putin, if I’m president of the United States, trust me, you’re not going to interfere in any more American elections.’
A question to Bloomberg about his past comments that China’s Xi Jinping wasn’t a dictator provoked a vigorous exchange about authoritarianism – and Sanders’ past positive comments about Fidel Castro’s Cuba and other left-leaning regimes.
‘We have to deal with China if we’re ever going to solve the climate crisis,’ said Bloomberg, who made billions through his global media and financial company.
‘He does serve at the behest of the Politburo,’ Bloomberg said, defending Xi’s political accountability.
‘They must play by the rules, period, period, period,’ said Biden, who Republicans immediately accused of being soft on China.
‘I have opposed authoritarianism,’ said Sanders, defending comments running through his career about Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Russia, and Venezuela.
‘But who the hell is the Politburo responsive to?’ Sanders continued. ‘What I said is what Barack Obama said in terms of Cuba,’ Sanders insisted, defending his comments that Cuba had a ‘massive literacy program’ under Castro.
At various points, the crowd loudly booed the notion of billionaires, which includes candidates Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, with estimated personal fortunes of $60 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively
There were angry exchanges early-on in the debate between Bloomberg and Warren, who brought up a woman who sued his media company, Bloomberg LP, and reached a settlement after claiming Bloomberg told her to ‘kill it’ after she informed him she was pregnant
‘Never said that!’ Bloomberg exclaimed. ‘Oh, come on!’ From there the conversation turned back to Bloomberg’s company’s previous use of non-disclosure agreements, something that Warren hammered him for on the debate stage last week in Las Vegas. It was ‘probably wrong to make the jokes, I don’t remember what they were, but if it bothered them, I was wrong and I apologize and I’m sorry for that’
At various points, the crowd loudly booed at the notion of billionaires, which includes candidates Bloomberg and Tom Steyer
‘Really? Really?’ Biden responded, saying Obama had merely been acknowledging Cuban gains while speaking overseas.
‘Authoritarianism of any stripe is bad,’ said Sanders. ‘But that is different than saying the governments occasionally do things that are good.’
Buttigieg issued a warning about running a candidate with ‘nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960s.’
The blows went in all directions.
Biden, who said he intends to win in South Carolina, blasted Sanders for voting against the Brady bill gun control measure and referenced the Charleston church shootings.
The city is still grieving from the 2015 killings at Mother Emanuel AME Baptist Church when gunman Dylann Roof entered the church and gunned down nine members of the congregation.
‘Bernie voted five times against the Brady bill … I’m not saying he’s responsible for the nine deaths, but… [Roof] would not have been able to get that weapon with the waiting period’ of the Brady bill, Biden said.
Biden is trying to gain back lost ground after coming in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire. He then came in a distant second to Sanders in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.
Sanders later attacked former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg for accepting contributions from billionaires.
‘I can’t allow this to stand because it’s just untrue,’ the former South Bend mayor shot back. He said he got more money out of 2,000 small contributors in Charleston than he did from bigwigs.
The early hits on Sanders, who has called himself the frontrunner, followed last week’s Las Vegas debate, which featured a multi-candidate pile-on on Bloomberg.
Asked directly by O’Donnell if Bloomberg’s use of stop-and-frisk in New York was racist, Klobuchar answered: ‘Yes’. Buttigieg, who has been criticized for failing to attract black supporters, agreed the policy was racist
Joe Biden, who said he intends to win in South Carolina, blasted Sanders for voting against the Brady bill gun control measure, and referenced the Charleston church shootings. ‘Bernie voted five times against the Brady bill … I’m not saying he’s responsible for the nine deaths, but that would not have been able to get that weapon with the waiting period’ of the Brady bill, Biden said
Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders became an instant punching bag for his presidential rivals on Tuesday night as they lined up to slam him at the debate before the South Carolina primary – accusing him of being backed by Vladimir Putin, unelectable and divisive
There were angry exchanges early-on in Tuesday’s debate between Bloomberg and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who brought up a woman who sued his media company, Bloomberg LP, and reached a settlement after claiming Bloomberg told her to ‘kill it’ after she informed him she was pregnant.
‘Never said that!’ Bloomberg exclaimed. ‘Oh, come on!’
From there the conversation turned back to Bloomberg’s company’s previous use of non-disclosure agreements, something that Warren hammered him for on the debate stage last week in Las Vegas.
On Friday, Bloomberg announced that he would release three female former employees from NDAs that were specifically about complaints made about Bloomberg, as he’s been accused of making insensitive jokes.
It was ‘probably wrong to make the jokes, I don’t remember what they were, but if it bothered them, I was wrong and I apologize and I’m sorry for that,’ Bloomberg said on Tuesday night.
Nevertheless, Warren persisted, continuing to go after Bloomberg for the NDAs.
‘I don’t know what else she wants us to do,’ Bloomberg said. ‘The trouble is with this senator, enough is never enough.’
He added: ‘I never said it, period, end of story. Categorically never said it. When I was accused of doing it, we couldn’t figure out what she was talking about.
‘But right now I’m sorry if she heard what she thought she heard, whatever happened, but I didn’t take pleasure in any of that.’
Bloomberg continued to draw fire for stop-and-frisk, a policy he has apologized for in stark terms despite thousands of arrests during his tenure.
Asked directly by O’Donnell if Bloomberg’s use of stop-and-frisk in New York was racist, Klobuchar answered: ‘Yes.’
Warren went straight for Sanders at the start of the debate, saying she would be a better president than him because she’ll be able to get more progressive policies passed. She said she’s ‘dug in’ when it comes to fighting big banks and actually explaining how she’d enact universal health care
Biden said he would also go after those trying to gentrify neighborhoods traditionally occupied by minority residents. Following up on Biden’s comments, Steyer said he would work toward trying to ‘correct injustice’ in the loan service industry. He then launched into his common campaign trail theme of arguing his support for a conversation on reparations
The early hits on Sanders, who has called himself the frontrunner, followed last week’s Las Vegas debate, which featured a multi-candidate pile-on on Bloomberg
Buttigieg, who has been criticized for failing to attract black supporters, agreed the policy was racist.
‘I am conscious of the fact that there’s seven white people on this stage talking about racial justice,’ he added, in the first primary state where African-Americans make up a big share of the electorate.
Since the New Hampshire primary, which Biden left to instead kick off campaigning in South Carolina, Biden has argued that the states that truly matter are the ones that have a more diverse population, which reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party.
But in Nevada, the Latino population propelled Sanders to an overwhelming victory, as he bested Biden by 26.6. points, with 100 percent reporting.
Now Biden is looking to black voters in South Carolina to keep him in the race. On Tuesday, he declared that he’s the candidate best situated to appeal to black voters, citing his commitment to equitable wealth creation and housing opportunities.
Biden said he would also go after those trying to gentrify neighborhoods traditionally occupied by minority residents.
It follows his Monday roll out of a $640 billion national housing policy, which would prevent mortgage servers from foreclosing during loan modification and set up a timely notification system for such changes.
Following up on Biden’s comments, Steyer said he would work toward trying to ‘correct injustice’ in the loan service industry.
He then launched into his common campaign trail theme of arguing his support for a conversation on reparations and the creation of a commission to study race relations in America.
As the debate clock wound down, the candidates were asked by CBS This Morning host Gayle King to name the biggest misconception about themselves – and to state their personal motto.
Biden took the opportunity to pander more to black South Carolina voters.
As the debate clock wound down, the candidates were asked by CBS This Morning host Gayle King to name the biggest misconception about themselves – and to state their personal motto
Bloomberg used the opportunity to turn one of Trump’s favorite insults against him – that he’s short – into a joke. ‘The misconception is that I’m six-feet tall,’ the ex-mayor said. Given the same opportunity, Klobuchar argued that she wasn’t boring
Once the candidates wrapped up, moderator Norah O’Donnell tried to shut down the debate prematurely. ‘That concludes our debate,’ O’Donnell told the audience. King then had to correct her, saying it wasn’t quite over yet. ‘No, we have time for one more break,’ King said. ‘Times flies when you’re having fun,’ she said, as the debate truly ended after the next commercial break
‘I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a black woman on the Supreme Court,’ he said, which was a segue from him talking about his embrace of equality. ‘And no one is better than me and I’m not better than anybody else.’
He cracked a joke about his receded hairline when asked what his biggest misconception is. ‘I have more hair than I think I do,’ he said.
Given the same opportunity, Klobuchar argued that she wasn’t boring, while Warren said she actually eats – a lot.
‘In fact, I eat all the time,’ Warren said, adding, ‘because I get teased about this,’ if the comment seemed to come out of thin air.
Buttigieg used the opportunity to tell the audience he is indeed passionate. ‘I get kind of level, some say I’m unflappable,’ the 38-year-old said. ‘I don’t think you want a president who’s flappable,’ he added.
Steyer volunteered that ‘everyday I write a cross on my hand to remind myself to tell the truth and do what’s right, no matter what,’ explaining that’s his ‘motto.’
Sanders stayed on brand. ‘Misconception and you’re hearing it here tonight is that ideas I’m talking about are radical. They’re not. In one form or another they exist in countries all over the world,’ the democratic socialist said.
He then quoted Nelson Mandela, ‘Everything is impossible until it happens,’ Sanders said.
Bloomberg used the opportunity to turn one of Trump’s favorite insults against him – that he’s short – into a joke.
‘The misconception is that I’m six-feet tall,’ the ex-mayor said.
Once the candidates wrapped up, moderator Norah O’Donnell tried to shut down the debate prematurely.
‘That concludes our debate,’ O’Donnell told the audience. King then had to correct her, saying it wasn’t quite over yet.
‘No, we have time for one more break,’ King said. ‘Times flies when you’re having fun,’ she said, as the debate truly ended after the next commercial break.
Joe Biden says he WILL win in South Carolina with the African-American vote making Saturday’s primary a do-or-die – then talks about his ‘friend’ former segregationist Fritz Hollings
Joe Biden went all in on winning South Carolina on Tuesday night, saying he will secure victory there – then mentioned his friendship with one of the state’s most infamous segregationists.
The former vice-president was just four points ahead of Bernie Sanders in the latest poll in the Palmetto state ahead of Saturday’s primary.
He used the CBS News debate to say that he will win in South Carolina, by winning the African-American vote – meaning by extension that he will have to drop out if he loses.
But then he offered a potentially spectacular gaffe, talking about his friendship with Fritz Hollings, who was a committed segregationist Dixiecrat until he shifted his positions.
Joe Biden went all in on winning South Carolina on Tuesday night, saying he will secure victory there – then mentioned his friendship with one of the state’s most infamous segregationists
Friends: Fritz Hollings was a segregationist in the Dixiecrat moved who ‘evolved,’ his friend Biden said at his 2019 funeral
Asked by moderator Gayle King about his ability to secure the black vote, which is critical in South Carolina, he said: ‘I’ve earned the vote, I’ve worked like the devil to earn the vote of the African-American community, not just here but across the country.
‘I’ve been coming here for years and years, creating jobs here, making sure that the port, for example, that employs one in 11 people, we put $500 million, in our administration, just into this county.
‘We’ve created jobs for people. The people know me. My entire career has been wrapped up in dealing with civil rights and civil liberties. I don’t expect anything. I plan to earn the vote.
‘I’m here to ask. I’m here to earn it. But, folks, I intend to win in South Carolina, and I will win the African-American vote here in South Carolina.’
King then asked: ‘Mr. Biden, will you continue if you do not win South Carolina? You have said that South Carolina will determine the outcome of this presidential race. If you don’t win South Carolina, will you continue in this race?’
He replied: ‘I will win South Carolina.’
But later in the debate he raised Hollings’ name – an echo of a string of gaffes in which he was hammered for speaking about his friendship with segregationist senators, Mississippi’s James Eastland and Georgia’s Herman Talmadge.
Making an appearance ahead of the debate was Reverend’s Jesse Jackson (left) and Al Sharpton (right). Remarking on the performances during Las Vegas’ debate last week, Sharpton said it was overall lackluster and he couldn’t see anyone beating Trump at the moment because no candidate was taking charge
Biden has been counting on strong support among African-American voters in South Carolina to recharge his flagging campaign
A climate change activist dressed as a polar bear demonstrates while Trump supporter in a MAGA hat is interviewed outside of the Charleston Gaillard Center
‘Look, a guy who’s a friend of mine down here named Fritz Hollings – he passed away – he said, you want to know what a woman will do, look what they have done. Look what they have done,’ he said.
Hollings’ biography is more complicated than other Dixiecrats.
He was South Carolina governor from 1959 to 1963 and a vocal backer of keeping segregation in place when he was a member of the state’s House.
He was elected to the Senate in 1966 and became a close friend of Biden when the 29-year-old ran for the upper chamber, helping him when he lost his first wife and daughter in a car crash.
Biden eulogized Hollings at his funeral in April 2019, a week before his entry into the race, and said: ‘People can change.
‘We can learn from the past and build a better future.’
WHO ARE THE 8 DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020?
JOE BIDEN
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 78
Entered race: April 25, 2019
Career: No current role. A University of Delaware and Syracuse Law graduate, he was first elected to Newcastle City Council in 1969, then won upset election to Senate in 1972, aged 29. Was talked out of quitting before being sworn in when his wife and daughter died in a car crash and served total of six terms. Chaired Judiciary Committee’s notorious Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Ran for president in 1988, pulled out after plagiarism scandal, ran again in 2008, withdrew after placing fifth in the Iowa Caucuses. Tapped by Obama as his running mate and served two terms as vice president. Contemplated third run in 2016 but decided against it after his son died of brain cancer.
Family: Eldest of four siblings born to Joe Biden Sr. and Catherine Finnegan. First wife Neilia Hunter and their one-year-old daughter Naomi died in car crash which their two sons, Joseph ‘Beau’ and Robert Hunter survived. Married Jill Jacobs in 1976, with whom he has daughter Ashley. Beau died of brain cancer in 2015. Hunter’s marriage to Kathleen Buhle, with whom he has three children, ended in 2016 when it emerged Hunter was in a relationship with Beau’s widow Hallie, mother of their two children. Hunter admitted cocaine use; his estranged wife accused him of blowing their savings on drugs and prostitutes
Religion: Catholic
Views on key issues: Ultra-moderate who will emphasize bipartisan record. Will come under fire over record, having voted: to stop desegregation bussing in 1975; to overturn Roe v Wade in 1981; for now controversial 1994 Violent Crime Act; for 2003 Iraq War; and for banking deregulation. Says he is ‘most progressive’ Democrat. New positions include free college, tax reform, $15 minimum wage. No public position yet on Green New Deal and healthcare. Pro-gun control. Has already apologized to women who say he touched them inappropriately
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president
Slogan: Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead
MIKE BLOOMBERG
Age on Inauguration Day: 78
Entered race: November 24, 2019
Career: Currently multi-billionaire CEO of Bloomberg PL, the financial information firm he founded in 1981 and which remains a private company. Educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, he became a Wall Street trader at investment bank Salomon Brothers and was laid off in 1981, walking away with $10m in stock which he used to set up his own financial information firm, now one of the world’s largest. Three times mayor of New York 2002 to 2013, running first as Republican then as independent; had to get term limits suspended for final term. Once flirted with running for mayor of London where he has a home; holds an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth. Has spent large amounts on philanthropy in line with his political views as well as on political campaigns
Family: Born in Brookline, MA, to first-generation Jewish immigrant parents whose own parents had fled Russia. Divorced wife of 18 years, Susan Brown-Meyer, in 1993; former couple have daughters Emma, who has a son with her former boyfriend, and Georgina, who has daughter Zelda with her husband Chris Fissora. The child has a portmanteau surname, Frissberg. Partner since 2000 is Diana Taylor, former New York state banking commissioner, 13 years his junior
Religion: Jewish
Views on key issues: Self-professed fiscal conservative, although painted as a Democratic moderate by other conservative groups. Opposed to Medicare for all. Social progressive who backed gay marriage early, but has flip-flopped on marijuana legalization, most recently opposing it.. Wants firm action on climate change. Fiercely in favor of gun control. As New York mayor banned smoking in public places and tried to outlaw large sugary drinks. Backs increased immigration. Apologized for his stop-and-frisk policing strategy as mayor
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president; richest president ever; first New York mayor to become president
Slogan: Fighting For Our Future
PETE BUTTIGIEG
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Announced formation of exploratory committee January 23, 2019. Formally entered race April 14, 2019
Career: Currently mayor of Sound Bend, Indiana. Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar who got a second degree from Oxford before working as a McKinsey management consultant and being commissioned as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer. Elected South Bend mayor in 2011 and served in combat in 2013, won re-election in 2015
Family: Came out as gay during second mayoral run and married husband Chasten Glezman, a middle school teacher in 2018. Parents were University of Notre Dame academics; his father was Maltese-American. Surname is pronounced BOOT-edge-edge
Religion: Raised as a Catholic, now Episcopalian
Views on key issues: Has said Democratic party needs a ‘fresh start’; wrote an essay in praise of Bernie Sanders aged 17; backed paid parental leave for city employees; other policies unknown
Would make history as: First openly gay and youngest-ever president. First veteran of post-World War II conflict
Slogan: A Fresh Start For America
TULSI GABBARD
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Still to formally file any papers but said she would run on January 11 2019
Career: Currently Hawaii congresswoman. Born on American Samoa, a territory. Raised largely in Hawaii, she co-founded an environmental non-profit with her father as a teenager and was elected to the State Legislature aged 21, its youngest member in history. Enlisted in the National Guard and served two tours, one in Iraq 2004-2006, then as an officer in Kuwait in 2009. Ran for Honolulu City Council in 2011, and House of Representatives in 2012
Family: Married to her second husband, Abraham Williams, a cinematographer since 2015. First marriage to childhood sweetheart Eduardo Tamayo in 2002 ended in 2006. Father Mike Gabbard is a Democratic Hawaii state senator, mother Carol Porter runs a non-profit.
Religion: Hindu
Views on key issues: Has apologized for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views; wants marijuana federally legalized; opposed to most U.S. foreign interventions; backs $15 minimum wage and universal health care; was the second elected Democrat to meet Trump after his 2016 victory
Would make history as: First female, Hindu and Samoan-American president; youngest president ever
Slogan: Lead with Love
AMY KLOBUCHAR
Age on Inauguration Day: 60
Entered race: Announced candidacy February 10, 2019 at snow-drenched rally in her native Minneapolis
Career: Currently Minnesota senator. Yale and University of Chicago law graduate who became a corporate lawyer. First ran unsuccessfully for office in 1994 as Hennepin, MI, county attorney, and won same race in 1998, then in 2002, without opposition. Ran for Senate in 2006 and won 58-38; re-elected in 2012 and 2018
Family: Married to John Bessler, law professor at University of Baltimore and expert on capital punishment. Daughter Abigail Bessler, 23, works fora Democratic member of New York City council. Father Jim, 90, was a veteran newspaper columnist who has written a memoir of how his alcoholism hurt his family; mom Rose is a retired grade school teacher
Religion: Congregationalist (United Church of Christ)
Views on key issues: Seen as a mainstream liberal: says she wants ‘universal health care’ but has not spelled out how; pro-gun control; pro-choice; backs $15 minimum wage; no public statements on federal marijuana legalization; has backed pro-Israel law banning the ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions’ movement; spoke out against abolishing ICE
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Let’s Get To Work
BERNIE SANDERS
Age on Inauguration Day: 79
Entered race: Sources said on January 25, 2019, that he would form exploratory committee. Officially announced February 19
Career: Currently Vermont senator. Student civil rights and anti-Vietnam activist who moved to Vermont and worked as a carpenter and radical film-maker. Serial failed political candidate in the 1970s, he ran as a socialist for mayor of Burlington in 1980 and served two terms ending in 1989, and win a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990. Ran for Senate in 2006 elections as an independent with Democratic endorsement and won third term in 2018. Challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 but lost. Campaign has since been hit by allegations of sexual harassment – for which he has apologized – and criticized for its ‘Bernie bro’ culture
Family: Born to a Jewish immigrant father and the daughter of Jewish immigrant parents in Brooklyn, New York. First marriage to college sweetheart Deborah Shiling Messing in 1964 ended in divorce in 1966; had son Levi in 1969 with then girlfriend Susan Cambell Mott. Married Jone O’Meara in 1988 and considers her three children, all adults, his own. The couple have seven grandchildren. His older brother Larry is a former Green Party councilor in Oxfordshire, England.
Religion: Secular Jewish
Views on key issues: Openly socialist and standard bearer for the Democratic party’s left-turn. Wants federal $15 minimum wage; banks broken up; union membership encouraged; free college tuition; universal health care; re-distributive taxation; he opposed Iraq War and also U.S. leading the fight against ISIS and wants troops largely out of Afghanistan and the Middle East
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president
Slogan: Not me. Us.
TOM STEYER
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 63
Entered race: July 9, 2019
Career: Currently retired. New York-born to wealthy family, he was educated at elite Phillips Exeter Academy, and Yale, then Stanford Business School. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs banker who founded his own hedge fund in 1986 and made himself a billionaire; investments included subprime lenders, private prisons and coal mines. Stepped down in 2012 to focus on advocating for alternative energy. Longtime Democratic activist and donor who started campaign to impeach Trump in October 2017. Net worth of $1.6 billion has made him one of the Democrats’ biggest single donors
Family: Married Kathryn Taylor in 1986; they have four adult children who have been told they will not inherit the bulk of his fortune. Announced last November he and his wife would live apart. Father Roy was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor
Religion: Episcopalian
Views on key issues: On the left of the field despite being a hedge fund tycoon. Backs single-payer health care, minimum wage rises and free public college. Previously spoke in favor of Bernie Sanders’ agenda. Aggressive backer of climate change action, including ditching fossil fuels
Would make history as: Richest Democratic president ever
Slogan: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
ELIZABETH WARREN
Age on Inauguration Day: 71
Entered race: Set up exploratory committee December 31, 2018
Career: Currently Massachusetts senator. Law lecturer and academic who became an expert on bankruptcy law and tenured Harvard professor. Ran for Senate and won in 2012, defeating sitting Republican Scott Brown, held it in 2018 60% to 36%. Was short-listed to be Hillary’s running mate and campaigned hard for her in 2016
Family: Twice-married mother of two and grandmother of three. First husband and father of her children was her high-school sweetheart. Second husband Bruce Mann is Harvard law professor. Daughter Amelia Tyagi and son Alex Warren have both been involved in her campaigns. Has controversially claimed Native American roots; DNA test suggested she is as little as 1,064th Native American
Religion: Raised Methodist, now described as Christian with no fixed church
Views on key issues: Was a registered Republican who voted for the party but registered as a Democrat in 1996. Pro: higher taxes on rich; banking regulation; Dream Act path to citizenship for ‘dreamers’; abortion and gay rights; campaign finance restrictions; and expansion of public provision of healthcare – although still to spell out exactly how that would happen. Against: U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Syria; liberalization of gambling
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Warren Has A Plan For That
AND THE 21 WHO HAVE WITHDRAWN
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado senator
Entered race: May 2, 2019
Quit: February 12, 2019, evening of New Hampshire primary
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey Senator
Entered race: February 1, 2019
Quit: January 13, 2020
STEVE BULLOCK, Montana governor
Entered race: May 14, 2019
Quit: December 2, 2019
JULIÁN CASTRO, former Housing Secretary
Entered race: January 18, 2019
Quit: January 2, 2020
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York senator
Entered race: January 16, 2019
Quit: August 28, 2019
BILL DE BLASIO, New York City mayor
Entered race: May 16, 2019
Quit: September 20, 2020
JOHN DELANEY, former Maryland Congressman
Entered race: July 8, 2017
Quit: January 31, 2019
MIKE GRAVEL, Former Alaska governor
Entered race: April 2,2019
Quit: August 2, 2019
KAMALA HARRIS,California senator
Entered race: January 21, 2019
Quit: December 3, 2019
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Former Colorado governor
Entered race: March 4, 2019
Quit: August 15, 2019
JAY INSLEE, Washington governor
Entered race: March 1, 2019
Quit: August 21, 2019
WAYNE MESSAM, mayor of Miramar, Florida
Entered race: March 28, 2019
Quit: November 20, 2019
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts congressman
Entered race: April 22,2019
Quit: August 23, 2019
RICHARD OJEDA, former West Virginia state senator
Entered race: November 12, 2018
Quit: January 25, 2019
BETO O’ROURKE, former Texas congressman
Entered race: March 14, 2019
Quit: November 1, 2019
DEVAL PATRICK, former Massachusetts governor
Entered race: November 13, 2019
Quit: February 13, 2019, morning after New Hampshire primary
TIM RYAN, Ohio congressman
Entered race: April 4, 2019
Quit: October 24, 2019
JOE SESTAK, former Pennsylvania congressman
Entered race: June 23, 2019
Quit: December 1, 2019
ERIC SWALWELL, California congressman
Entered race: April 8, 2019
Quit: July 8, 2019
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, author
Entered race: November 15, 2018
Quit: January 10, 2020
ANDREW YANG, entrepreneur
Entered race: November 6, 2018
Quit: February 12, 2019, evening of New Hampshire primary
Story 1: Media Opinion Polls Manipulating American Public Opinion — Ignore The Big Lie Media Mob — Trump Should Win In Landslide Victory on Election Day November 3, 2020 — 70 Million Popular Votes and 330 Electoral College Votes — The Only Poll That Counts — Give Peace A Chance — Videos
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We all doing what we can
But if you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Hit it
C’mon, ev’rybody’s talking about
Ministers, sinisters, banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Popeyes and bye-bye, bye-byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now
Ev’rybody’s talking ’bout
Revolution, evolution, masturbation, flagellation, regulation, integrations
Meditations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Ev’rybody’s talking ’bout
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna, Hare, Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
February 10, 2020 – Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Primary As Biden Falls, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Bloomberg Rises In Primary, Runs Strong Against Trump
In the wake of the Iowa caucuses and heading into the New Hampshire primary, there is a dramatic shift in the Democratic primary race for president as Senator Bernie Sanders claims frontrunner status for the first time, overtaking former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Sanders gets 25 percent of the vote among Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic, while Biden gets 17 percent, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg receives 15 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren gets 14 percent, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg receives 10 percent, and Senator Amy Klobuchar gets 4 percent. No other candidate tops 2 percent.
In a January 28th poll, prior to the Iowa caucuses, Biden had a modest lead with 26 percent of the vote while Sanders got 21 percent, Warren had 15 percent, Bloomberg received 8 percent, Klobuchar got 7 percent, and Buttigieg received 6 percent.
“Biden scrambles to bounce back in frigid New Hampshire after an icy slide to 17 percent, his lowest national number,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Analyst Tim Malloy.
“Is the Bloomberg camp prepping the white horse for him to ride to the rescue? Maybe not yet, but without setting foot in Iowa or New Hampshire, he is suddenly a looming shadow over the primary field,” Malloy added.
Among moderate and conservative Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is now a close race for the top spot. This group had favored Biden by a wide margin, but his challengers are making inroads. Today, Biden receives 22 percent, Bloomberg gets 21 percent, Sanders gets 17 percent, and Buttigieg receives 12 percent.
Biden no longer dominates on the key question of electability, as 27 percent say Biden has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, while 24 percent say Sanders, 17 percent say Bloomberg, and 9 percent say Buttigieg. In the January 28th poll, Biden led on this question with 44 percent, followed by Sanders at 19 percent and Bloomberg at 9 percent.
“Clearly Biden’s fourth place finish in Iowa has hurt the perception of what was his biggest strength – electability,” Malloy said.
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Among all registered voters, Democratic candidates lead President Trump in general election matchups by between 4 and 9 percentage points, with Bloomberg claiming the biggest numerical lead against Trump:
Bloomberg tops Trump 51 – 42 percent;
Sanders defeats Trump 51 – 43 percent;
Biden beats Trump 50 – 43 percent;
Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 – 43 percent;
Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 – 44 percent;
Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 – 43 percent.
President Trump’s favorability rating is underwater, as 42 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of him, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view of him. However, it is his best favorability rating since a March 7th, 2017 poll, when his favorability rating was a negative 43 – 53 percent.
Like President Trump, the top four Democratic candidates in the primary are viewed more unfavorably than favorably. Warren has the worst net score (favorable minus unfavorable) among all registered voters, with Biden close behind. Biden’s favorability numbers have been declining over the last year since his positive 53 – 33 percent favorability rating in a December 19th, 2018 poll. In today’s poll:
Warren gets a negative 39 – 47 percent favorability rating;
Biden gets a negative 43 – 50 percent;
Bloomberg gets a negative 34 – 40 percent, with 25 percent who haven’t heard enough about him;
Sanders gets a negative 44 – 49 percent;
Buttigieg gets a positive 36 – 32 percent, and 31 percent haven’t heard enough about him;
Klobuchar gets a positive 32 – 22 percent, with 44 percent who haven’t heard enough about her.
TRUMP JOB APPROVAL
Less than a week after President Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial and delivered his State of the Union address, the president’s job approval continues to match his highest approval number, with 43 percent of voters saying they approve of the job President Trump is doing and 53 percent saying they disapprove. This remains essentially unchanged since mid-December 2019. Broken down along party lines, Republicans approve 89 – 9 percent, Democrats disapprove 94 – 4 percent, and independents are split with 46 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving.
Looking at how President Trump compares to his two predecessors at the same point in their re-election years, voters gave President Obama a slightly negative 45 – 49 percent job approval rating in February of 2012, and President Bush a slightly positive 48 – 45 percent job approval rating in February of 2004. Unlike President Trump, though, both presidents had hit higher approval ratings in their previous years in office. President Obama had hit a high of 59 percent approval in 2009, and President Bush received a high of 83 percent approval in 2001.
“Fresh from acquittal by the Senate, feistily throwing haymakers in every direction, the president presumably has a strong economy to ride all the way to Election Day. The Democrats are facing a reinvigorated and formidable Trump,” added Malloy.
THE ECONOMY
President Trump continues to score high marks on his handling of the economy. Voters approve 54 – 42 percent of his handling of the economy, compared to his all-time high of 57 – 38 percent on January 13th, 2020. Republicans approve 97 – 3 percent, Democrats disapprove 81 – 15 percent, and independents approve 59 – 37 percent.
When asked about their personal financial situations, voters say 59 – 20 percent that they are better off financially than they were in 2016, the last presidential election year, while 19 percent say their financial situation is the same. This compares to a December 10th, 2019 survey that found 57 percent were better off, 22 percent were worse off, and 19 percent were the same.
Overall, 70 percent of voters describe the nation’s economy as excellent or good and 29 percent describe it as not so good or poor. That is just slightly lower than the all-time high set on December 16th, 2019, when 73 percent said excellent or good and 25 percent said not so good or poor.
POST-IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
American voters are evenly split, 49 – 49 percent, on the Senate’s decision to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment. Republicans approve 95 – 4 percent, independents approve 53 – 45 percent, and Democrats disapprove 90 – 8 percent.
Despite the acquittal, voters say 55 – 40 percent that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump does not clear him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter. Republicans say 81 – 12 percent that the acquittal clears the president of wrongdoing, while Democrats 91 – 6 percent and independents 54 – 40 percent say it does not. By 51 – 46 percent, voters say the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial.
Voters say 59 – 35 percent that the Senate impeachment trial was conducted unfairly.
From February 5 – 9, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,519 self-identified registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. The survey includes 665 Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than a dozen states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.
Email poll@qu.edu, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
1. How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
A lot 54% 59% 61% 45% 53% 55% 60% 51%
Some 28 25 26 35 29 28 27 30
Only a little 12 11 8 15 11 13 9 12
None at all 5 4 5 5 7 4 4 6
DK/NA - 1 - - - 1 - -
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
A lot 36% 49% 60% 66% 54% 57% 56% 51% 50%
Some 37 36 25 18 30 27 28 33 22
Only a little 18 10 11 11 9 12 10 12 22
None at all 9 5 3 5 7 4 5 4 6
DK/NA - - 1 1 - - - 1 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
A lot 59% 77% 55% 53% 58% 59% 64% 49% 69% 57%
Some 28 18 33 31 29 28 25 36 23 28
Only a little 8 5 9 9 5 10 6 10 6 7
None at all 5 1 3 7 8 3 5 5 2 9
DK/NA - - - - - - - - - -
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
A lot 61% 50% 43% 56% 60% 69% 60% 59% 60%
Some 26 36 39 31 29 18 24 28 31
Only a little 8 8 11 6 10 7 11 6 8
None at all 5 6 7 7 1 6 5 8 1
DK/NA - - - - - - - - -
TREND: How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
OnlyA None
A lot Some Little AtAll DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 54 28 12 5 -
Jan 28, 2020 50 28 15 7 1
Jan 13, 2020 51 28 14 8 -
Dec 16, 2019 54 25 14 7 -
Dec 10, 2019 51 29 15 6 -
Nov 26, 2019 49 29 15 7 1
Oct 24, 2019 51 27 14 7 -
Oct 14, 2019 54 25 11 9 -
Oct 08, 2019 53 24 15 8 -
Sep 25, 2019 48 25 17 8 1
See additional trend information at top of page
2. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote?
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote? (Trend information is available upon request back through Mar 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Jan 13 Dec 16 Dec 10 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Oct 08
2020 2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 17 26 25 30 29 24 21 27 26
Sanders 25 21 19 16 17 13 15 11 16
Warren 14 15 16 17 15 14 28 30 29
Klobuchar 4 7 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
Gabbard 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 - -
Buttigieg 10 6 8 9 9 16 10 8 4
Yang 2 3 5 3 4 2 1 2 3
Bennet - - 1 - 1 2 - 1 1
Steyer 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 -
Patrick - - 1 - - - na na na
Bloomberg 15 8 6 7 5 3 na na na
Delaney na - - - 1 - - - -
Booker na na 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
Castro na na na 1 1 2 1 1 1
Williamson na na na - 1 - - - -
Bullock na na na na na - - - -
Harris na na na na na 3 5 4 3
Sestak na na na na na - - - -
Messam na na na na na na - - -
O'Rourke na na na na na na 1 2 1
Ryan na na na na na na - - 1
de Blasio na na na na na na na na na
Gillibrand na na na na na na na na na
Gravel na na na na na na na na na
Hickenlooper na na na na na na na na na
Inslee na na na na na na na na na
Moulton na na na na na na na na na
Swalwell na na na na na na na na na
SMONE ELSE 1 - - - - - 1 - 1
WLDN'T VOTE 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 2 1
DK/NA 10 11 11 10 11 11 9 8 8
2a. (If candidate chosen q2) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................
CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q2................................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Tot Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Made up 42% 46% 60% 30% 28% 25%
Might change 56 54 39 69 70 73
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 2 2
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
CANDIDATE CHOSEN.....
MadeUp Change DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 42 56 1
Jan 28, 2020 43 55 1
Jan 13, 2020 35 63 1
Dec 16, 2019 38 61 1
Dec 10, 2019 39 59 2
Nov 26, 2019 33 64 3
Sep 25, 2019 34 63 3
2b. (If candidate chosen q2) Who is your second choice?
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Who is your second choice?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Jan 13 Dec 16 Dec 10 Nov 26
2020 2020 2020 2019 2019 2019
Biden 15 15 13 13 13 12
Sanders 11 11 18 14 11 11
Warren 16 17 19 21 16 20
Klobuchar 7 7 3 5 5 4
Gabbard - 1 1 1 - 1
Buttigieg 13 12 7 9 11 10
Yang 4 4 2 2 3 2
Bennet - - - - - -
Steyer 1 2 2 1 1 1
Patrick 1 - 1 - 1 -
Bloomberg 6 5 7 6 4 2
Delaney na - - - - -
Booker na na 4 3 4 2
Castro na na na 1 - -
Williamson na na na - 1 -
Bullock na na na na na -
Harris na na na na na 6
Sestak na na na na na -
No first choice 12 12 12 10 12 12
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - 1 - 1 -
DK/NA 13 13 11 14 16 16
3. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – would be the best leader?
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think would be the best leader? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 22 31 32 26 28 32 33 36 26
Sanders 22 18 14 12 13 9 13 12 15
Warren 14 17 19 19 24 28 22 17 15
Klobuchar 3 6 3 3 3 2 1 1 1
Gabbard 1 1 1 - - - 1 - 1
Buttigieg 10 5 6 12 8 7 5 5 4
Yang 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 -
Bennet - - - - - - - - -
Steyer 1 1 1 - - 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 13 9 8 3 na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - - -
Booker na na 2 1 1 1 2 1 3
Castro na na 1 - - 1 1 - 1
Williamson na na - - - - - 1 -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 4 4 4 7 9 16
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na 1 1 1 1 1
Ryan na na na na - - - - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na - - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - 1 1 1 - - -
DK/NA 11 11 12 15 13 11 12 15 15
4. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best policy ideas?
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best policy ideas? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 14 18 23 15 15 16 17 21 11
Sanders 27 22 19 15 20 12 16 16 18
Warren 16 21 19 23 30 40 32 26 31
Klobuchar 4 6 3 4 3 2 1 1 1
Gabbard 1 - 1 - - - 1 1 1
Buttigieg 9 6 8 14 9 6 5 5 3
Yang 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 -
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - -
Steyer 1 2 1 1 - 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 10 6 4 - na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - - -
Booker na na 2 - 1 1 1 1 2
Castro na na 1 1 - - - 1 1
Williamson na na - - - - - 1 -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 2 4 1 5 6 8
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na 1 2 1 1 -
Ryan na na na na - - - - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na 1 - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - 1 1 - - - -
DK/NA 13 16 16 19 13 16 17 20 22
5. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 27 44 44 46 42 48 49 51 42
Sanders 24 19 15 10 14 7 12 10 13
Warren 5 7 9 10 20 21 9 8 9
Klobuchar 1 2 1 1 1 - - - -
Gabbard - - 1 1 - - - - 1
Buttigieg 9 2 3 6 2 2 1 1 1
Yang 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - -
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - -
Steyer - 1 - - 1 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 17 9 7 3 na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - 1 -
Booker na na - - 1 1 1 1 1
Castro na na - - - - - - -
Williamson na na - - - - - - -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 1 3 1 6 8 14
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na - 1 2 - -
Ryan na na na na - - 1 - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na - - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - - 1 - 1 - -
DK/NA 15 16 19 20 15 16 17 20 17
6. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..
Shares Most DOESN'T
views elect MATTER DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 46 49 1 4
Aug 06, 2019 46 50 1 3
Mar 28, 2019 51 45 1 3
7. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Do you think Iowa should continue to be the first state in the nation to vote in the presidential nomination process, or don’t you think so?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Yes/Should continue 17% 14% 14% 20% 18% 16% 16% 17% 12% 22%
No 64 71 66 61 67 62 65 68 68 59
DK/NA 19 15 20 19 15 22 20 15 20 18
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Yes/Should continue 16% 19% 30% 14% 14% 12% 19% 20% 12%
No 65 61 59 65 70 64 67 58 67
DK/NA 19 20 11 21 16 24 14 21 21
8. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
9. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
SMONE WLD'T
Sanders Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 51 43 1 2 3
Dec 10, 2019 51 43 2 2 3
Oct 08, 2019 49 42 2 3 4
Aug 28, 2019 53 39 1 3 4
Jun 11, 2019 51 42 1 2 4
Jun 01, 2016 48 39 3 6 5
Mar 23, 2016 52 38 2 5 3
Feb 18, 2016 48 42 2 5 4
Feb 05, 2016 49 39 2 6 5
Dec 22, 2015 51 38 1 6 4
See additional trend information at top of page
10. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
SMONE WLD'T
Warren Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 48 44 2 2 3
Dec 10, 2019 50 43 2 2 3
Oct 08, 2019 49 41 2 3 4
Aug 28, 2019 52 40 1 3 4
Jun 11, 2019 49 42 1 3 5
11. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Butti- SMONE WLD'T
gieg Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 47 43 2 3 5
Dec 10, 2019 48 43 2 2 4
Aug 28, 2019 49 40 2 3 7
Jun 11, 2019 47 42 1 3 7
12. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
13. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
TREND: Is your opinion of Pete Buttigieg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 36 32 31 1
Dec 10, 2019 31 29 39 1
Sep 25, 2019 28 28 43 1
May 21, 2019 23 19 57 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
18. Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
TREND: Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 33 22 44 1
Dec 10, 2019 24 23 51 1
Sep 25, 2019 20 25 54 1
May 21, 2019 16 19 64 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
19. Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
TREND: Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 34 40 25 -
Dec 10, 2019 21 40 37 1
Dec 19, 2018 22 32 44 2
Feb 18, 2016 21 26 50 2
Feb 05, 2016 20 25 53 2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
20. Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
TREND: Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 28 20 51 1
Sep 25, 2019 20 27 52 1
May 21, 2019 8 13 76 2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
21. Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
TREND: Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 17 25 58 1
Sep 25, 2019 7 22 69 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
22. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
TREND: Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 42 55 1 2
Dec 10, 2019 40 57 2 2
Oct 14, 2019 39 56 2 3
Sep 25, 2019 38 55 4 3
May 21, 2019 38 57 2 3
Jan 15, 2019 41 56 2 2
Dec 19, 2018 40 56 2 2
Feb 21, 2018 37 59 2 2
Jan 17, 2018 38 58 3 1
Oct 11, 2017 39 57 2 2
See additional trend information at top of page
23. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG Wht
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Evang
Approve 43% 89% 4% 46% 51% 36% 41% 60% 79%
Disapprove 53 9 94 50 46 60 58 36 19
DK/NA 3 2 2 4 3 3 1 4 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 37% 41% 51% 42% 57% 45% 51% 10% 32%
Disapprove 59 56 47 54 41 52 47 86 62
DK/NA 4 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 5
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
App Dis DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 43 53 3
Jan 28, 2020 43 52 5
Jan 13, 2020 43 52 5
Dec 16, 2019 43 52 5
Dec 10, 2019 41 55 4
Nov 26, 2019 40 54 6
Oct 23, 2019 38 58 5
Oct 14, 2019 41 54 5
Oct 08, 2019 40 54 6
Sep 30, 2019 41 53 6
See additional trend information at top of page
23a. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove q23) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
APPROVE...... DISAPPROVE.....
Strngly Smwht Smwht Strngly DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 35 9 6 47 4
Jan 28, 2020 34 8 6 47 5
Jan 13, 2020 34 9 6 46 6
Dec 16, 2019 34 9 5 46 6
Dec 10, 2019 31 10 5 49 4
Nov 26, 2019 32 7 4 50 6
Oct 23, 2019 28 9 4 53 5
Oct 14, 2019 31 10 5 48 5
Oct 08, 2019 29 11 6 47 7
Sep 30, 2019 35 6 4 48 7
See additional trend information at top of page
24. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 39% 81% 8% 36% 43% 36% 34% 53%
Disapprove 57 16 89 59 54 59 63 42
DK/NA 4 3 2 4 4 5 2 5
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 35% 34% 45% 41% 46% 41% 43% 16% 35%
Disapprove 59 62 52 54 51 55 53 82 53
DK/NA 6 4 3 6 3 4 4 2 12
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?
App Dis DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 39 57 4
Dec 16, 2019 37 57 7
Nov 26, 2019 32 60 8
Oct 14, 2019 28 64 8
Sep 30, 2019 33 61 6
Jun 12, 2019 27 66 7
Mar 05, 2019 27 66 8
Jan 29, 2019 30 65 6
Jan 15, 2019 29 63 8
Dec 19, 2018 28 63 9
See additional trend information at top of page
25. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 37% 5% 73% 28% 31% 43% 41% 25%
Disapprove 60 94 25 69 67 54 57 73
DK/NA 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 33% 39% 33% 44% 29% 36% 33% 63% 41%
Disapprove 63 59 66 52 69 61 65 34 53
DK/NA 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 3 7
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?
App Dis DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 37 60 3
Dec 16, 2019 39 56 5
Nov 26, 2019 36 57 8
Oct 14, 2019 35 58 8
Sep 30, 2019 32 62 6
Jun 12, 2019 34 59 7
Mar 05, 2019 38 56 6
Jan 29, 2019 38 57 5
Jan 15, 2019 37 56 7
Dec 19, 2018 32 59 9
See additional trend information at top of page
26. Would you say that Donald Trump – is honest, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 37% 82% 4% 31% 40% 33% 32% 53%
No 58 12 95 63 54 63 63 42
DK/NA 5 6 1 6 6 4 5 6
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 27% 30% 45% 41% 45% 40% 42% 10% 26%
No 68 65 50 55 49 56 52 86 70
DK/NA 5 5 5 4 6 5 5 3 4
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump is honest, or not?
Yes No DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 37 58 5
Sep 30, 2019 37 57 6
Mar 05, 2019 30 65 5
Jan 15, 2019 34 61 5
Nov 20, 2018 36 58 5
Sep 10, 2018 32 60 9
Jul 03, 2018 38 58 4
Jun 06, 2018 35 59 6
Mar 21, 2018 38 57 5
Jan 25, 2018 35 60 5
See additional trend information at top of page
27. Would you say that Donald Trump – has good leadership skills, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 43% 88% 8% 40% 50% 37% 36% 63%
No 55 11 90 57 48 61 61 36
DK/NA 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 43% 37% 49% 42% 54% 45% 49% 14% 33%
No 56 60 50 55 44 53 49 86 64
DK/NA 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump has good leadership skills, or not?
Yes No DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 43 55 2
Mar 05, 2019 39 58 3
Jan 15, 2019 39 58 3
Nov 20, 2018 42 55 3
Sep 10, 2018 38 57 5
Jul 03, 2018 43 55 2
Jun 06, 2018 41 56 4
Mar 21, 2018 41 56 3
Jan 25, 2018 38 59 3
Jan 10, 2018 39 59 2
See additional trend information at top of page
28. Would you say that Donald Trump – cares about average Americans, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 44% 91% 5% 43% 50% 38% 40% 61%
No 55 8 94 54 48 61 59 38
DK/NA 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 35% 39% 53% 44% 55% 46% 50% 12% 34%
No 63 59 46 54 43 53 49 86 63
DK/NA 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump cares about average Americans, or not?
Yes No DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 44 55 2
Mar 05, 2019 39 58 3
Jan 15, 2019 43 55 2
Nov 20, 2018 42 53 4
Sep 10, 2018 41 55 4
Jul 03, 2018 43 55 2
Jun 06, 2018 42 55 3
Mar 21, 2018 43 53 4
Jan 25, 2018 40 57 3
Jan 10, 2018 38 59 2
See additional trend information at top of page
29. Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as president, or doing more to divide the country as president?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Unite 37% 82% 3% 34% 43% 32% 32% 55%
Divide 57 12 95 57 51 62 63 38
DK/NA 6 6 2 9 5 6 5 7
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Unite 31% 32% 45% 39% 49% 39% 43% 9% 29%
Divide 66 61 49 55 45 55 51 88 67
DK/NA 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 2 4
TREND: Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as President, or doing more to divide the country as President? (Prior to Feb 22, 2017 “will do more”)
Unite Divide DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 37 57 6
Aug 28, 2019 30 62 8
Jul 03, 2018 36 58 5
Feb 07, 2018 35 60 6
Jan 17, 2018 31 64 5
Dec 12, 2017 32 62 7
Oct 11, 2017 37 58 5
Sep 27, 2017 35 60 5
Aug 23, 2017 31 62 7
Apr 19, 2017 36 59 6
See additional trend information at top of page
30. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – the economy?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 54% 97% 15% 59% 62% 47% 50% 70%
Disapprove 42 3 81 37 34 49 47 27
DK/NA 4 1 4 4 4 5 3 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 50% 54% 59% 52% 66% 55% 60% 28% 46%
Disapprove 44 42 39 44 31 42 37 69 44
DK/NA 5 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 10
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the economy?
App Dis DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 54 42 4
Jan 13, 2020 57 38 5
Dec 10, 2019 54 42 4
Oct 23, 2019 48 48 4
Oct 14, 2019 49 46 5
Sep 25, 2019 48 47 5
Aug 28, 2019 46 49 5
May 21, 2019 48 45 7
Mar 05, 2019 49 45 7
Jan 29, 2019 46 51 3
See additional trend information at top of page
31. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – foreign policy?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 43% 90% 5% 43% 51% 37% 40% 61%
Disapprove 53 8 92 54 47 58 58 36
DK/NA 3 2 3 3 2 5 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 36% 42% 51% 42% 57% 45% 50% 9% 33%
Disapprove 59 55 48 53 43 51 47 87 57
DK/NA 4 3 2 5 1 4 2 3 10
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling foreign policy?
App Dis DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 43 53 3
Jan 13, 2020 43 53 4
Dec 10, 2019 40 56 4
Oct 23, 2019 35 61 4
Oct 14, 2019 37 57 5
Sep 25, 2019 37 57 6
Aug 28, 2019 38 56 6
May 21, 2019 37 58 6
Mar 05, 2019 38 56 6
Jan 29, 2019 37 58 5
See additional trend information at top of page
32. Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Excellent 25% 55% 3% 20% 30% 20% 24% 34%
Good 45 38 46 51 48 42 53 44
Not so good 21 5 35 21 17 26 16 16
Poor 8 1 15 6 5 10 7 5
DK/NA 2 1 1 2 - 3 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Excellent 15% 20% 31% 29% 33% 25% 29% 6% 14%
Good 48 49 40 43 49 48 49 30 47
Not so good 28 20 22 18 13 17 16 42 32
Poor 7 9 7 8 3 8 6 21 4
DK/NA 2 2 1 1 - 2 1 1 3
TREND: Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
Not so
Exclnt Good Good Poor DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 25 45 21 8 2
Dec 16, 2019 26 47 19 6 2
Dec 10, 2019 22 47 22 8 2
Oct 23, 2019 17 44 26 10 2
Sep 25, 2019 16 43 28 11 2
Aug 28, 2019 18 43 27 10 2
Jun 11, 2019 19 51 20 8 1
May 21, 2019 22 49 20 8 1
Jan 15, 2019 15 49 26 9 2
Dec 18, 2018 14 51 25 10 1
See additional trend information at top of page
33. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going for you financially; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Very satisfied 37% 64% 20% 36% 39% 36% 42% 42%
Smwht satisfied 38 29 44 40 41 36 42 37
Smwht dissatisfied 14 4 23 13 12 17 8 14
Very dissatisfied 8 2 12 10 7 9 6 6
DK/NA 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Very satisfied 23% 40% 43% 41% 42% 42% 42% 15% 34%
Smwht satisfied 47 38 34 37 44 36 40 38 34
Smwht dissatisfied 23 14 11 12 9 13 11 25 24
Very dissatisfied 6 6 11 7 4 7 6 19 6
DK/NA 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
34. Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Better off 59% 84% 36% 60% 67% 52% 60% 68%
Worse off 20 3 33 21 17 22 16 15
SAME(VOL) 19 11 29 18 15 24 22 16
DK/NA 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Better off 68% 60% 60% 49% 73% 56% 64% 37% 56%
Worse off 15 22 22 19 12 19 16 41 20
SAME(VOL) 16 17 16 28 14 24 19 21 22
DK/NA 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 3
TREND: Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?
Better Worse
off off SAME DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 59 20 19 2
Dec 10, 2019 57 22 19 2
Sep 25, 2019 50 25 22 3
May 21, 2019 52 21 23 4
35. As you may know, the Senate has voted to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment, which means he will remain in office. Do you approve or disapprove of the Senate’s decision?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 49% 95% 8% 53% 57% 43% 45% 68%
Disapprove 49 4 90 45 42 55 52 31
DK/NA 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 45% 47% 56% 47% 62% 52% 57% 16% 39%
Disapprove 51 51 43 51 36 47 42 83 57
DK/NA 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3
36. As you may know, the articles of impeachment were based on President Trump’s actions involving Ukraine. Do you think that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump clears him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter, or don’t you think so?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Clears him 40% 81% 6% 40% 46% 34% 36% 56%
No 55 12 91 54 49 60 59 40
DK/NA 5 7 3 6 5 6 5 4
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Clears him 29% 37% 48% 40% 52% 41% 46% 14% 31%
No 65 57 47 55 45 53 49 81 62
DK/NA 6 5 4 5 3 6 5 5 7
37. Regardless of the Senate’s verdict, do you think the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial, or would you say the charges were not serious enough for him to have been impeached and put on trial?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Serious enough 51% 8% 89% 49% 44% 57% 54% 36%
Not serious enough 46 91 9 49 52 40 44 60
DK/NA 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Serious enough 59% 54% 42% 52% 38% 52% 45% 79% 54%
Not serious enough 36 44 56 46 59 46 52 21 39
DK/NA 5 2 2 3 4 2 3 1 6
38. Do you think that the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was conducted fairly or unfairly?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Fairly 35% 54% 18% 39% 40% 30% 34% 41%
Unfairly 59 41 78 56 56 62 61 54
DK/NA 6 5 4 6 4 8 5 5
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Fairly 29% 32% 41% 35% 41% 34% 37% 21% 34%
Unfairly 65 61 54 58 56 59 58 74 54
DK/NA 6 7 5 7 3 7 5 5 12
39. Are you concerned that President Trump will seek help from a foreign government in his 2020 presidential re-election campaign, or aren’t you concerned about that?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Concerned 47% 6% 85% 45% 40% 54% 53% 32%
No 50 92 13 53 58 44 46 65
DK/NA 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Concerned 47% 51% 41% 52% 36% 49% 43% 73% 43%
No 50 47 57 45 63 49 56 23 52
;
Story 2: President Trump Talks To America’s Governors At Business Summit — Videos
Trump Addresses State Governors At Business Summit | White House | 2 10 20
Trump speaks to governors at business summit
Story 3: Coronavirus Has Killed Killed 910 in China and Exceeds SARS Death Toll — Videos
Coronavirus overtakes SARS death toll
Death toll from killer coronavirus is 10 TIMES higher than average in China’s Hubei province because thousands of patients with mild symptoms are not seeking help, scientists claim
Officials have repeatedly claimed the death toll in China is around two per cent
But virologists tracking the outbreak say the case-fatality ratio is higher in Hubei
Imperial College London researchers believe it is closer to the 18 per cent mark
This is because only the most severe patients are coming forward to be treated
More than 40,000 patients have been infected, with at least 900 patients dead
Do you have a story about coronavirus? Email connor.boyd@mailonline.co.uk
ust under a fifth of cases of the killer coronavirus in Hubei – the deserted Chinese province at the centre of the outbreak – result in death, leading scientists have today claimed.
Officials have repeatedly claimed the death toll is around two per cent, making the SARS-like infection far less deadly than similar coronaviruses and more severe than the flu.
But virologists tracking the escalating outbreak say the case-fatality ratio is much higher in Hubei than elsewhere in China because only the most severe patients are coming forward to be treated.
Figures show the actual toll in Hubei – the province home to Wuhan – is 871 deaths from 29,631 infected patients. But Imperial College London researchers believe it will be closer to the 18 per cent mark.
More than 40,000 people across the world have now caught the unnamed infection, with eight cases now recorded in the UK, 12 in the US and 15 in Australia. The virus is spread on surfaces and through coughs and sneezes.
It comes as the World Health Organization chief today warned the coronavirus crisis publicised so far could ‘only be the tip of the iceberg’ amid fears that thousands of cases are going missing.
Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus in China yesterday on the deadliest day of the six-week outbreak so far. But the number of new patients diagnosed appears to be dropping day-by-day.
More than 40,000 people have been infected with the virus and 910 are confirmed to have died, all but two of them in China
More than 40,000 people have now caught the killer coronavirus – nearly 99 per cent of the cases have been recorded in China
WUHAN CORONAVIRUS: WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
What is this virus?
The virus has been identified as a new type of coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of pathogens, most of which cause mild lung infections such as the common cold.
But coronaviruses can also be deadly. SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, is caused by a coronavirus and killed hundreds of people in China and Hong Kong in the early 2000s.
Can the Wuhan coronavirus kill?
Yes – 910 people have so far died after testing positive for the virus.
What are the symptoms?
Some people who catch the Wuhan coronavirus may not have any symptoms at all, or only very mild ones like a sore throat or a headache.
Others may suffer from a fever, cough or trouble breathing.
And a small proportion of patients will go on to develop severe infection which can damage the lungs or cause pneumonia, a life-threatening condition which causes swelling and fluid build-up in the lungs.
How is it detected?
The virus’s genetic sequencing was released by scientists in China and countries around the world have used this to create lab tests, which must be carried out to confirm an infection.
Delays to these tests, to test results and to people getting to hospitals in China, mean the number of confirmed cases is expected to be just a fraction of the true scale of the outbreak.
How did it start and spread?
The first cases identified were among people connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.
Cases have since been identified around China and are known to have spread from person to person.
What are countries doing to prevent the spread?
Countries all over the world have banned foreign travellers from crossing their borders if they have been to China within the past two weeks. Many airlines have cancelled or drastically reduced flights to and from mainland China.
Is it similar to anything we’ve ever seen before?
Experts have compared it to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The epidemic started in southern China and killed more than 700 people in mainland China, Hong Kong and elsewhere.
In comparison to other coronaviruses, the new strain, first found in Wuhan and thought to have spread to humans from a traditional wet market, is much less deadly.
Figures show the highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which also began in China, killed around 10 per cent of the 8,000 patients it struck during a worldwide epidemic in 2002/03.
And the World Health Organization says the death rate for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) is even higher – at around 34 per cent. It was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012.
One of the world’s deadliest diseases, Ebola, kill around half of all patients it strikes. Ebola is much different to this new coronavirus because it is caused by a separate family of viruses.
The Imperial College London team, who has tracked the coronavirus outbreak first began six weeks ago, said they estimate the overall case-fatality ratio is still likely to be around one per cent.
Experts have repeatedly said potentially thousands of patients may not go to their doctor for treatment because they may have such minor symptoms – such as a cough and fever – that they do not need to seek help.
Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the Imperial team, wrote: ‘Outside mainland China, countries alert to the risk of infection being imported via international travel have instituted surveillance for 2019-nCoV infection with a broader set of clinical criteria for defining a suspected case, typically including a combination of symptoms (cough and fever) combined with recent travel history to the affected region (Wuhan/Hubei).
‘Such surveillance is therefore likely to pick up clinically milder cases as well as the more severe cases also being detected in mainland China.
‘However, by restricting testing to those with a travel history or link, it is also likely to miss other symptomatic cases (and possibly hospitalised cases with atypical pneumonia) that have occurred through local transmission or through travel to other affected areas of China.’
The researchers added: ‘It is important to note that the differences in these estimates does not reflect underlying differences in disease severity between countries.
‘CFRs seen in individual countries will vary depending on the sensitivity of different surveillance systems to detect cases of differing levels of severity and the clinical care offered to severely ill cases.
‘All CFR estimates should be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in mainland China is unclear.’
Figures also show 910 people have now died across the world, with all but two deaths recorded in mainland China
HOW THE CORONAVIRUS HAS SPREAD OVER TIME
The vast majority of coronavirus cases have been in mainland China, but more than 25 other countries and territories have declared infections:
Belgium: 1 case, first case February 4
Spain: 2 case, first case January 31
Sweden: 1 case, first case January 31
Russia: 2 cases, first case January 31
UK: 8 cases, first case January 31
India: 3 cases, first case January 30
Philippines: 3 cases, first case January 30
Italy: 3 cases, first case January 30
Finland: 1 case, first case January 29
United Arab Emirates: 7 cases, first case January 29
Germany: 14 cases, first case Jan 27
Sri Lanka: 1 case, first case Jan 27
Cambodia: 1 case, first case Jan 27
Canada: 7 cases, first case Jan 25
Australia: 15 cases, first case Jan 25
Malaysia: 18 cases, first case Jan 25
France: 11 cases, first case January 24
Nepal: 1 case, first case January 24
Vietnam: 14 cases, first case Jan 24
Singapore: 43 cases, first case January 23
Macau: 10 cases, first case Jan 22
Hong Kong: 36 cases, first case January 22
Taiwan: 18 cases, first case Jan 21
USA: 12 cases, first case January 20
South Korea: 27 cases, first case January 20
Japan: 156 cases, first case January 16
Thailand: 32 cases, first case Jan 13
Professor Ferguson added: ‘It’s not more severe in Hubei than elsewhere. It’s just that they’re only detecting and reporting the most severe cases there. We estimate there are at least 10 times more cases than reported in Hubei. Most of which likely have rather milder symptoms.’
In other developments today, police in the UK have been given the power to seize people trying to escape coronavirus quarantine and force them back into isolation in handcuffs.
A law-change was revealed after an patient staying at Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China.
Government sources said those who returned to the UK on the evacuation flights on January 31 were given a ‘very clear choice’ and had to sign contracts saying they would remain in isolation for a fortnight.
But a source involved with the Arrowe Park incident said: ‘We found we didn’t have the necessary enforcement powers to make sure they didn’t leave.’
Police will now be able to force people to remain in the units and, if they leave, to arrest them for committing an offence and take them back to the quarantine facility, MailOnline understands.
The new rule comes as England today announced its fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth cases of the virus – all of the three men and a woman are linked to the fourth patient, who has now been dubbed a ‘super-spreader’.
The fourth patient was a businessman who returned to the UK from a conference in Singapore via a ski chalet in France, where other Britons were subsequently taken ill with the virus.
The Department of Health today declared the outbreak a ‘serious and imminent’ threat to the British public as it announced new powers to fight the spread.
In other developments to the outbreak today:
World Health Organization chief warns coronavirus outbreak could ‘only be the tip of the iceberg’ amid fears thousands of cases are going missing
Just under a fifth of known cases of the new coronavirus in China may be resulting in death, a new report estimates
The coronavirus can survive on door handles and bus or train poles for up to nine days – more than four times longer than flu, according to research
London’s FTSE 100 weakened after Mr Hancock declared the coronavirus outbreak a serious and imminent threat to public health
Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus in China yesterday on the deadliest day of the six-week outbreak so far
Amazon and Sony are the latest companies to pull out of this month’s Mobile World Congress, due to be held in Barcelona, because of the coronavirus outbreak
Sixty-six more passengers on a cruise ship in Japan have been diagnosed the killer infection, taking the ship’s toll to around 136
A total of five people have now been diagnosed in Brighton. The four new cases have been linked to the first man who was diagnosed there after returning from the Alps
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE DEADLY CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA?
Someone who is infected with the Wuhan coronavirus can spread it with just a simple cough or a sneeze, scientists say.
At least 910 people with the virus are now confirmed to have died and more than 40,640 have been infected in at least 28 countries and regions. But experts predict the true number of people with the disease could be 100,000, or even as high as 350,000 in Wuhan alone, as they warn it may kill as many as two in 100 cases. Here’s what we know so far:
What is the Wuhan coronavirus?
A coronavirus is a type of virus which can cause illness in animals and people. Viruses break into cells inside their host and use them to reproduce itself and disrupt the body’s normal functions. Coronaviruses are named after the Latin word ‘corona’, which means crown, because they are encased by a spiked shell which resembles a royal crown.
The coronavirus from Wuhan is one which has never been seen before this outbreak. It is currently named 2019-nCoV, and does not have a more detailed name because so little is known about it.
Dr Helena Maier, from the Pirbright Institute, said: ‘Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that infect a wide range of different species including humans, cattle, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and wild animals.
‘Until this new coronavirus was identified, there were only six different coronaviruses known to infect humans. Four of these cause a mild common cold-type illness, but since 2002 there has been the emergence of two new coronaviruses that can infect humans and result in more severe disease (Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses).
‘Coronaviruses are known to be able to occasionally jump from one species to another and that is what happened in the case of SARS, MERS and the new coronavirus. The animal origin of the new coronavirus is not yet known.’
The first human cases were publicly reported from the Chinese city of Wuhan, where approximately 11million people live, after medics first started seeing infections on December 31.
By January 8, 59 suspected cases had been reported and seven people were in critical condition. Tests were developed for the new virus and recorded cases started to surge.
The first person died that week and, by January 16, two were dead and 41 cases were confirmed. The next day, scientists predicted that 1,700 people had become infected, possibly up to 7,000.
Just a week after that, there had been more than 800 confirmed cases and those same scientists estimated that some 4,000 – possibly 9,700 – were infected in Wuhan alone. By that point, 26 people had died.
By January 27, more than 2,800 people were confirmed to have been infected, 81 had died, and estimates of the total number of cases ranged from 100,000 to 350,000 in Wuhan alone.
By January 29, the number of deaths had risen to 132 and cases were in excess of 6,000.
By February 5, there were more than 24,000 cases and 492 deaths.
Where does the virus come from?
According to scientists, the virus has almost certainly come from bats. Coronaviruses in general tend to originate in animals – the similar SARS and MERS viruses are believed to have originated in civet cats and camels, respectively.
The first cases of the virus in Wuhan came from people visiting or working in a live animal market in the city, which has since been closed down for investigation.
Although the market is officially a seafood market, other dead and living animals were being sold there, including wolf cubs, salamanders, snakes, peacocks, porcupines and camel meat.
A study by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, published in February 2020 in the scientific journal Nature, found that the genetic make-up virus samples found in patients in China is 96 per cent similar to a coronavirus they found in bats.
There may have been an animal which acted as a middle-man, contracting it from a bat before then transmitting it to a human, researchers suggested, although details of this are less clear.
Dr Michael Skinner, a virologist at Imperial College London, was not involved with the research but said: ‘The discovery definitely places the origin of nCoV in bats in China.
‘We still do not know whether another species served as an intermediate host to amplify the virus, and possibly even to bring it to the market, nor what species that host might have been.’
So far the fatalities are quite low. Why are health experts so worried about it?
Experts say the international community is concerned about the virus because so little is known about it and it appears to be spreading quickly.
It is similar to SARS, which infected 8,000 people and killed nearly 800 in an outbreak in Asia in 2003, in that it is a type of coronavirus which infects humans’ lungs.
Another reason for concern is that nobody has any immunity to the virus because they’ve never encountered it before. This means it may be able to cause more damage than viruses we come across often, like the flu or common cold.
Speaking at a briefing in January, Oxford University professor, Dr Peter Horby, said: ‘Novel viruses can spread much faster through the population than viruses which circulate all the time because we have no immunity to them.
‘Most seasonal flu viruses have a case fatality rate of less than one in 1,000 people. Here we’re talking about a virus where we don’t understand fully the severity spectrum but it’s possible the case fatality rate could be as high as two per cent.’
If the death rate is truly two per cent, that means two out of every 100 patients who get it will die.
‘My feeling is it’s lower,’ Dr Horby added. ‘We’re probably missing this iceberg of milder cases. But that’s the current circumstance we’re in.
‘Two per cent case fatality rate is comparable to the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 so it is a significant concern globally.’
How does the virus spread?
The illness can spread between people just through coughs and sneezes, making it an extremely contagious infection. And it may also spread even before someone has symptoms.
It is believed to travel in the saliva and even through water in the eyes, therefore close contact, kissing, and sharing cutlery or utensils are all risky.
Originally, people were thought to be catching it from a live animal market in Wuhan city. But cases soon began to emerge in people who had never been there, which forced medics to realise it was spreading from person to person.
There is now evidence that it can spread third hand – to someone from a person who caught it from another person.
What does the virus do to you? What are the symptoms?
Once someone has caught the virus it may take between two and 14 days for them to show any symptoms – but they may still be contagious during this time.
If and when they do become ill, typical signs include a runny nose, a cough, sore throat and a fever (high temperature). The vast majority of patients – at least 97 per cent, based on available data – will recover from these without any issues or medical help.
In a small group of patients, who seem mainly to be the elderly or those with long-term illnesses, it can lead to pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection in which the insides of the lungs swell up and fill with fluid. It makes it increasingly difficult to breathe and, if left untreated, can be fatal and suffocate people.
What have genetic tests revealed about the virus?
Scientists in China have recorded the genetic sequences of around 19 strains of the virus and released them to experts working around the world.
This allows others to study them, develop tests and potentially look into treating the illness they cause.
Examinations have revealed the coronavirus did not change much – changing is known as mutating – much during the early stages of its spread.
However, the director-general of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, yesterday said the virus was mutating and adapting as it spread through people.
This means efforts to study the virus and to potentially control it may be made extra difficult because the virus might look different every time scientists analyse it.
More study may be able to reveal whether the virus first infected a small number of people then change and spread from them, or whether there were various versions of the virus coming from animals which have developed separately.
How dangerous is the virus?
The virus has so far killed 910 people out of a total of at least 40,640 officially confirmed cases – a death rate of around two per cent. This is a similar death rate to the Spanish Flu outbreak which, in 1918, went on to kill around 50million people.
However, experts say the true number of patients is likely considerably higher and therefore the death rate considerably lower. Imperial College London researchers estimate that there were 4,000 (up to 9,700) cases in Wuhan city alone up to January 18 – officially there were only 444 there to that date. If cases are in fact 100 times more common than the official figures, the virus may be far less dangerous than currently believed, but also far more widespread.
Experts say it is likely only the most seriously ill patients are seeking help and are therefore recorded – the vast majority will have only mild, cold-like symptoms. For those whose conditions do become more severe, there is a risk of developing pneumonia which can destroy the lungs and kill you.
Can the virus be cured?
The Wuhan coronavirus cannot currently be cured and it is proving difficult to contain.
Antibiotics do not work against viruses, so they are out of the question. Antiviral drugs can, but the process of understanding a virus then developing and producing drugs to treat it would take years and huge amounts of money.
No vaccine exists for the coronavirus yet and it’s not likely one will be developed in time to be of any use in this outbreak, for similar reasons to the above.
The National Institutes of Health in the US, and Baylor University in Waco, Texas, say they are working on a vaccine based on what they know about coronaviruses in general, using information from the SARS outbreak. But this may take a year or more to develop, according to Pharmaceutical Technology.
Currently, governments and health authorities are working to contain the virus and to care for patients who are sick and stop them infecting other people.
People who catch the illness are being quarantined in hospitals, where their symptoms can be treated and they will be away from the uninfected public.
And airports around the world are putting in place screening measures such as having doctors on-site, taking people’s temperatures to check for fevers and using thermal screening to spot those who might be ill (infection causes a raised temperature).
However, it can take weeks for symptoms to appear, so there is only a small likelihood that patients will be spotted up in an airport.
Is this outbreak an epidemic or a pandemic?
The outbreak is an epidemic, which is when a disease takes hold of one community such as a country or region.
Although it has spread to dozens of countries, the outbreak is not yet classed as a pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as the ‘worldwide spread of a new disease’.
The head of WHO’s global infectious hazard preparedness, Dr Sylvie Briand, said: ‘Currently we are not in a pandemic. We are at the phase where it is an epidemic with multiple foci, and we try to extinguish the transmission in each of these foci,’ the Guardian reported.
She said that most cases outside of Hubei had been ‘spillover’ from the epicentre, so the disease wasn’t actually spreading actively around the world.
Death toll from killer coronavirus is 10 TIMES higher than average in China’s Hubei province
Coronavirus’s deadliest day yet: 97 people are killed in 24 hours in China, bringing global death toll to 910, smashing hopes that disease control measures were working
China reported another 3,062 cases on Sunday, halting a series of daily declines
The death toll has now risen to 908 in mainland China with two elsewhere
It comes as millions of people return to work today after Lunar New Year break
Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus yesterday on the deadliest day of the outbreak so far.
The death toll in mainland China rose by 97, taking the number of global fatalities to 910.
Another 3,062 cases were reported in China yesterday – an increase of 15 per cent compared to Saturday which put an end to a series of daily declines.
The latest surge in deaths is a setback to hopes that China’s drastic quarantine measures might be working.
Two people wearing face masks walk along a a street in Shanghai today as millions of people in China were returning to work after an extended Lunar New Year break
Workers disinfect closed shops in the city of Wuhan at the centre of the outbreak today, where millions of people remain under quarantine
‘Authorities disinfect Wuhan’ as coronavirus continues to spread
The rise in China’s death toll comes as millions of people return to work today after an extended Lunar New Year holiday.
Roads in Beijing and Shanghai had significantly more traffic than in recent days and the city of Guangzhou was resuming normal public transport today.
However, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said 60 per cent of its member companies were planning mandatory work-from-home policies.
Tens of millions of people in Hubei province were not returning to work, as the province at the centre of the outbreak remained under lockdown.
China has built two hospitals for virus patients in Wuhan and sent thousands of extra doctors, nurses and other health care workers to the city of 1 million people.
Most access to Wuhan was suspended on January 23 and restrictions have expanded since then to cities with a total of 60 million people.
China said today that 27 foreigners had been infected with the virus in the country, including two of the country’s 908 deaths.
Two people have died outside mainland China, one in Hong Kong and the other in the Philippines, taking the global toll to 910.
More than 360 cases of the virus have been confirmed outside China, bringing the total to at least 40,531.
The fatality toll has passed the 774 people believed to have died in the 2002-03 SARS outbreak, another viral outbreak that originated in China.
The total of more than 40,000 confirmed cases of the new virus vastly exceeds the 8,098 sickened by SARS.
Chinese man appears to be forcefully taken by authorities
A security officer suited in protective gear checks passports of passengers boarding a cargo plane in Wuhan
Medical workers in protective suits attend to novel coronavirus patients at the intensive care unit of a hospital in Wuhan
Hong Kong has reported seven more cases, raising its total to 36 after the virus spread at a family gathering attended by two relatives from mainland China.
Meanwhile in Japan, another 60 people on the Diamond Princess cruise ship were today confirmed to have the virus, taking the total to around 130.
Passengers on the ship have been confined to their cabins in a two-week lockdown with confirmed virus patients taken to hospital on the mainland.
World Health Organisation chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said there are tentative signs the virus was stabilising, but said there may be more infections abroad in people who have never travelled to China.
Asian stock markets slid today amid signs that optimism over China’s disease control might be premature.
Chinese businesses are reeling from anti-disease measures that closed shops, restaurants and factories and disrupted travel.
The government has promised tax cuts and subsidies to farmers, supermarkets, producers of medical supplies and companies that contribute to anti-disease work.
WHO confirms coronavirus team heading to China to study outbreak
Doctors scan a patient’s lungs at Huoshenshan temporary hospital built for patients diagnosed with coronavirus in Wuhan
A passenger stands at the balcony of the cruise ship Diamond Princess anchored off the Yokohama Port in Japan where another 60 cases have been confirmed
Story 1: President Trump Delivers 2020 State of The Union Address — Videos
President Trump Departs From the White House to the US Capitol for the State of the Union Address
State of the Union 2020: Highlights from Donald Trump’s speech
WATCH: Trump recognizes Tuskegee airman and his great-grandson | 2020 State of the Union
TISSUES PLEASE: President SURPRISES Rush Limbaugh with PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM
Trump reunites military family at State of the Union
WATCH: Trump recognizes former hostage Kayla Mueller’s parents | 2020 State of the Union
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Trump surprises 4th grader with SCHOLARSHIP!
FULL STATE OF THE UNION: Trump delivers an ‘OPTIMISTIC’ & ‘INSPIRATIONAL’ address
House Chamber chants ‘Four More Years’ as Trump takes the dais
Live Feed: State of the Union
Hannity: SOTU offered powerful contrast between two very different Americas
WATCH: Trump does not shake Pelosi’s hand before State of the Union | 2020 State of the Union
Nancy Pelosi tears up Trump’s speech script behind him
House GOP leaders discuss Pelosi’s behavior at State of the Union
Gutfeld on the acquittal
Read the full text of Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union as he makes his case for re-election, lashing out at ‘socialists’ and saying: ‘The best is yet to come!’
Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and my fellow citizens: Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback.
Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results.
Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again!
America’s enemies are on the run, America’s fortunes are on the rise, and America’s future is blazing bright. The years of economic decay are over.
The days of our country being used, taken advantage of, and even scorned by other nations are long behind us. Gone too are the broken promises, jobless recoveries, tired platitudes, and constant excuses for the depletion of American wealth, power, and prestige.
In just 3 short years, we have shattered the mentality of American decline, and we have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny.
We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, and we are never going back! I am thrilled to report to you tonight that our economy is the best it has ever been.
Our military is completely rebuilt, with its power being unmatched anywhere in the world – and it is not even close.
Our borders are secure. Our families are flourishing. Our values are renewed. Our pride is restored. And for all these reasons, I say to the people of our great country, and to the Members of Congress before me: The State of our Union is stronger than ever before!
The vision I will lay out this evening demonstrates how we are building the world’s most prosperous and inclusive society — one where every citizen can join in America’s unparalleled success, and where every community can take part in America’s extraordinary rise.
From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the United States economy — slashing a record number of job-killing regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts, and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.
Our agenda is relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, most of all, pro-American. We are advancing with unbridled optimism and lifting high our citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.
Since my election, we have created 7 million new jobs — 5 million more than Government experts projected during the previous administration.
The unemployment rate is the lowest in over half a century. Incredibly, the average unemployment rate under my Administration is lower than any administration in the history of our country.
If we had not reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witness to America’s great economic success.
The unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans have reached the lowest levels in history. African-American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low.
African-American poverty has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded. The unemployment rate for women reached the lowest level in almost 70 years — and last year, women filled 72 percent of all new jobs added. The veterans’ unemployment rate dropped to a record low.
The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low. Workers without a high school diploma have achieved the lowest unemployment rate recorded in United States history.
A record number of young Americans are now employed. Under the last administration, more than 10 million people were added to the food stamp rolls.
Under my Administration, 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps, and 10 million people have been lifted off of welfare.
In 8 years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just 3 years of my Administration, 3.5 million working-age people have joined the workforce. Since my election, the net worth of the bottom half of wage-earners has increased by 47 percent — 3 times faster than the increase for the top 1 percent.
After decades of flat and falling incomes, wages are rising fast — and, wonderfully, they are rising fastest for low-income workers, who have seen a 16 percent pay-increase since my election.
This is a blue collar boom. Real median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded!
Since my election, United States stock markets have soared 70 percent, adding more than $12 trillion to our Nation’s wealth, transcending anything anyone believed was possible — this, as other countries are not doing well. Consumer confidence has reached amazing new heights.
All of those millions of people with 401(k)s and pensions are doing far better than they have ever done before with increases of 60, 70, 80, 90, and even 100 percent.
Jobs and investment are pouring into 9,000 previously-neglected neighborhoods thanks to Opportunity Zones, a plan spearheaded by Senator Tim Scott as part of our great Republican tax cuts. In other words, wealthy people and companies are pouring money into poor neighborhoods or areas that have not seen investment in many decades, creating jobs, energy, and excitement.
This is the first time that these deserving communities have seen anything like this. It is all working! Opportunity Zones are helping Americans like Army Veteran Tony Rankins from Cincinnati, Ohio. After struggling with drug addiction, Tony lost his job, his house, and his family — he was homeless. But then Tony found a construction company that invests in Opportunity Zones.
He is now a top tradesman, drug-free, reunited with his family, and he is here tonight. Tony: Keep up the great work.
Our roaring economy has, for the first time ever, given many former prisoners the ability to get a great job and a fresh start.
This second chance at life is made possible because we passed landmark Criminal Justice Reform into law. Everybody said that Criminal Justice Reform could not be done, but I got it done, and the people in this room got it done.
Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world, by far.
With the tremendous progress we have made over the past 3 years, America is now energy independent, and energy jobs, like so many elements of our country, are at a record high. We are doing numbers that no one would have thought possible just 3 years ago.
Likewise, we are restoring our Nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done.
After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my Administration with thousands upon thousands of plants and factories being planned or built.
We have created over half a million new manufacturing jobs. Companies are not leaving; they are coming back. Everybody wants to be where the action is, and the United States of America is, indeed, where the action is.
One of the single biggest promises I made to the American people was to replace the disastrous NAFTA trade deal. In fact, unfair trade is perhaps the single biggest reason that I decided to run for President.
Following NAFTA’s adoption, our Nation lost one in four manufacturing jobs. Many politicians came and went, pledging to change or replace NAFTA — only to do absolutely nothing. But unlike so many who came before me, I keep my promises.
Six days ago, I replaced NAFTA and signed the brand new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into law.
The USMCA will create nearly 100,000 new high-paying American auto jobs, and massively boost exports for our farmers, ranchers, and factory workers.
It will also bring trade with Mexico and Canada to a much higher degree, but also to a much greater level of fairness and reciprocity.
This is the first major trade deal in many years to earn the strong backing of America’s labor unions. I also promised our citizens that I would impose tariffs to confront China’s massive theft of American jobs.
Our strategy worked. Days ago, we signed the groundbreaking new agreement with China that will defend our workers, protect our intellectual property, bring billions of dollars into our treasury, and open vast new markets for products made and grown right here in the United States of America.
For decades, China has taken advantage of the United States, now we have changed that but, at the same time, we have perhaps the best relationship we have ever had with China, including with President Xi.
They respect what we have done because, quite frankly, they could never believe what they were able to get away with year after year, decade after decade, without someone in our country stepping up and saying: Enough.
Now, we want to rebuild our country, and that is what we are doing. As we restore American leadership throughout the world, we are once again standing up for freedom in our hemisphere.
That is why my Administration reversed the failing policies of the previous administration on Cuba. We are supporting the hopes of Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to restore democracy.
The United States is leading a 59-nation diplomatic coalition against the socialist dictator of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, a tyrant who brutalizes his people.
But Maduro’s grip of tyranny will be smashed and broken. Here this evening is a man who carries with him the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of all Venezuelans. Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate President of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó.
Mr. President, please take this message back to your homeland. All Americans are united with the Venezuelan people in their righteous struggle for freedom!
Socialism destroys nations. But always remember, freedom unifies the soul.
To safeguard American Liberty, we have invested a record-breaking $2.2 trillion in the United States Military. We have purchased the finest planes, missiles, rockets, ships, and every other form of military equipment — all made in the United States of America.
We are also finally getting our allies to help pay their fair share. I have raised contributions from the other NATO members by more than $400 billion, and the number of allies meeting their minimum obligations has more than doubled.
And just weeks ago, for the first time since President Truman established the Air Force more than 70 years earlier, we created a new branch of the United States Armed Forces, the Space Force.
In the gallery tonight, we have one of the Space Force’s youngest potential recruits: 13-year-old Iain Lanphier, an eighth grader from Arizona. Iain has always dreamed of going to space.
He was first in his class and among the youngest at an aviation academy. He aspires to go to the Air Force Academy, and then, he has his eye on the Space Force.
As Iain says, ‘most people look up at space, I want to look down on the world.’ Sitting beside Iain tonight is his great hero. Charles McGee was born in Cleveland, Ohio, one century ago. Charles is one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen — the first black fighter pilots — and he also happens to be Iain’s great-grandfather.
After more than 130 combat missions in World War II, he came back to a country still struggling for Civil Rights and went on to serve America in Korea and Vietnam.
On December 7th, Charles celebrated his 100th birthday. A few weeks ago, I signed a bill promoting Charles McGee to Brigadier General.
And earlier today, I pinned the stars on his shoulders in the Oval Office. General McGee: Our Nation salutes you. From the pilgrims to our Founders, from the soldiers at Valley Forge to the marchers at Selma, and from President Lincoln to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Americans have always rejected limits on our children’s future.
Members of Congress, we must never forget that the only victories that matter in Washington are victories that deliver for the American people.
The people are the heart of our country, their dreams are the soul of our country, and their love is what powers and sustains our country.
We must always remember that our job is to put America first! The next step forward in building an inclusive society is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
Yet, for too long, countless American children have been trapped in failing government schools. To rescue these students, 18 States have created school choice in the form of Opportunity Scholarships.
The programs are so popular, that tens of thousands of students remain on waiting lists. One of those students is Janiyah Davis, a fourth grader from Philadelphia. Janiyah’s mom Stephanie is a single parent.
She would do anything to give her daughter a better future. But last year, that future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s Governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice for 50,000 children. Janiyah and Stephanie are in the gallery this evening.
But there is more to their story. Janiyah, I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announce tonight that an Opportunity Scholarship has become available, it is going to you, and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice!
Now, I call on the Congress to give 1 million American children the same opportunity Janiyah has just received. Pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act — because no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.
Every young person should have a safe and secure environment in which to learn and grow. For this reason, our magnificent First Lady has launched the ‘Be Best’ initiative — to advance a safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free life for the next generation, online, in school, and in our communities.
Thank you, Melania, for your extraordinary love and profound care for America’s children.
My Administration is determined to give our citizens the opportunities they need regardless of age or background. Through our Pledge to American Workers, over 400 companies will also provide new jobs and education opportunities to almost 15 million Americans.
My Budget also contains an exciting vision for our Nation’s high schools. Tonight, I ask the Congress to support our students and back my plan to offer vocational and technical education in every single high school in America.
To expand equal opportunity, I am also proud that we achieved record and permanent funding for our Nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
A good life for American families also requires the most affordable, innovative, and high-quality healthcare system on Earth. Before I took office, health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just 5 years. I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives.
Our new plans are up to 60 percent less expensive. I have also made an ironclad pledge to American families: We will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions — that is a guarantee. And we will always protect your Medicare and your Social Security.
The American patient should never be blindsided by medical bills. That is why I signed an Executive Order requiring price transparency. Many experts believe that transparency, which will go into full effect at the beginning of next year, will be even bigger than healthcare reform.
It will save families massive amounts of money for substantially better care. But as we work to improve Americans’ healthcare, there are those who want to take away your healthcare, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely.
One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our healthcare system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans. To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American healthcare!
Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our Nation by providing free taxpayer-funded healthcare to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders.
These proposals would raid the Medicare benefits our seniors depend on, while acting as a powerful lure for illegal immigration. This is what is happening in California and other States — their systems are totally out of control, costing taxpayers vast and unaffordable amounts of money.
If forcing American taxpayers to provide unlimited free healthcare to illegal aliens sounds fair to you, then stand with the radical left.
But if you believe that we should defend American patients and American seniors, then stand with me and pass legislation to prohibit free Government healthcare for illegal aliens!
This will be a tremendous boon to our already very-strongly guarded southern border where, as we speak, a long, tall, and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and will have over 500 miles fully completed by early next year.
My Administration is also taking on the big pharmaceutical companies. We have approved a record number of affordable generic drugs, and medicines are being approved by the FDA at a faster clip than ever before.
I was pleased to announce last year that, for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down. And working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels.
I have been speaking to Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.
I am calling for bipartisan legislation that achieves the goal of dramatically lowering prescription drug prices. Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay.
With unyielding commitment, we are curbing the opioid epidemic — drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in nearly 30 years.
Democratic women shout down Trump over healthcare at SOTU address
Among the States hardest hit, Ohio is down 22 percent, Pennsylvania is down 18 percent, Wisconsin is down 10 percent — and we will not quit until we have beaten the opioid epidemic once and for all.
Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the Coronavirus outbreak in China. My Administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.
We have launched ambitious new initiatives to substantially improve care for Americans with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and those struggling with mental health challenges.
And because the Congress funded my request, we are pursuing new cures for childhood cancer, and we will eradicate the AIDS epidemic in America by the end of the decade.
Almost every American family knows the pain when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious illness. Here tonight is a special man, someone beloved by millions of Americans who just received a Stage 4 advanced cancer diagnosis.
This is not good news, but what is good news is that he is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet.
Rush Limbaugh: Thank you for your decades of tireless devotion to our country. Rush, in recognition of all that you have done for our Nation, the millions of people a day that you speak to and inspire, and all of the incredible work that you have done for charity, I am proud to announce tonight that you will be receiving our country’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
I will now ask the First Lady of the United States to please stand and present you with the honor. Rush, Kathryn, congratulations!
As we pray for all who are sick, we know that America is constantly achieving new medical breakthroughs. In 2017, doctors at St. Luke’s hospital in Kansas City delivered one of the earliest premature babies ever to survive. Born at just 21 weeks and 6 days, and weighing less than a pound, Ellie Schneider was born a fighter.
Through the skill of her doctors — and the prayers of her parents — little Ellie kept on winning the battle for life. Today, Ellie is a strong, healthy 2-year-old girl sitting with her amazing mother Robin in the gallery.
Ellie and Robin: We are so glad you are here. Ellie reminds us that every child is a miracle of life.
Thanks to modern medical wonders, 50 percent of very premature babies delivered at the hospital where Ellie was born now survive.
Our goal should be to ensure that every baby has the best chance to thrive and grow just like Ellie. That is why I am asking the Congress to provide an additional $50 million to fund neo-natal research for America’s youngest patients.
That is also why I am calling upon the Members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies.
Whether we are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, surely we must all agree that every human life is a sacred gift from God!
As we support America’s moms and dads, I was recently proud to sign the law providing new parents in the Federal workforce paid family leave, serving as a model for the rest of the country.
Now, I call on the Congress to pass the bipartisan Advancing Support for Working Families Act, extending family leave to mothers and fathers all across the Nation.
Forty million American families have an average $2,200 extra thanks to our child tax credit. I have also overseen historic funding increases for high-quality child care, enabling 17 States to serve more children, many of which have reduced or eliminated their waitlists altogether.
And I sent the Congress a plan with a vision to further expand access to high-quality childcare and urge you to act immediately.
To protect the environment, days ago, I announced that the United States will join the One Trillion Trees Initiative, an ambitious effort to bring together Government and the private sector to plant new trees in America and around the world. We must also rebuild America’s infrastructure.
I ask you to pass Senator Barrasso’s highway bill — to invest in new roads, bridges, and tunnels across our land. I am also committed to ensuring that every citizen can have access to high-speed internet, including rural America.
A better tomorrow for all Americans also requires us to keep America safe. That means supporting the men and women of law enforcement at every level, including our Nation’s heroic ICE officers.
Last year, our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders.
Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens.
In Sanctuary Cities, local officials order police to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public, instead of handing them over to ICE to be safely removed.
Just 29 days ago, a criminal alien freed by the Sanctuary City of New York was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman.
The killer had been previously arrested for assault, but under New York’s sanctuary policies, he was set free.
If the city had honored ICE’s detainer request, his victim would be alive today. The State of California passed an outrageous law declaring their whole State to be a sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants — with catastrophic results. Here is just one tragic example.
In December 2018, California police detained an illegal alien with five prior arrests, including convictions for robbery and assault. But as required by California’s Sanctuary Law, local authorities released him.
Days later, the criminal alien went on a gruesome spree of deadly violence. He viciously shot one man going about his daily work; he approached a woman sitting in her car and shot her in the arm and the chest. He walked into a convenience store and wildly fired his weapon.
He hijacked a truck and smashed into vehicles, critically injuring innocent victims. One of the victims of his bloody rampage was a 51-year-old American named Rocky Jones.
Rocky was at a gas station when this vile criminal fired eight bullets at him from close range, murdering him in cold blood.
Rocky left behind a devoted family, including his brothers who loved him more than anything.
One of his grieving brothers is here with us tonight. Jody, would you please stand? Jody, our hearts weep for your loss — and we will not rest until you have justice. Senator Thom Tillis has introduced legislation to allow Americans like Jody to sue Sanctuary Cities and States when a loved one is hurt or killed as a result of these deadly policies.
I ask the Congress to pass the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act immediately.
The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans — not criminal aliens! In the last 3 years, ICE has arrested over 5,000 wicked human traffickers — and I have signed 9 pieces of legislation to stamp out the menace of human trafficking, domestically and around the globe.
My Administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to secure the southern border of the United States.
Before I came into office, if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested, you were simply released and allowed into our country, never to be seen again.
My Administration has ended Catch-and-Release.
If you come illegally, you will now be promptly removed. We entered into historic cooperation agreements with the Governments of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
As a result of our unprecedented efforts, illegal crossings are down 75 percent since May — dropping 8 straight months in a row.
And as the wall goes up, drug seizures rise, and border crossings go down. Last year, I traveled to the border in Texas and met Chief Patrol Agent Raul Ortiz.
Over the last 24 months, Agent Ortiz and his team have seized more than 200,000 pounds of poisonous narcotics, arrested more than 3,000 human smugglers, and rescued more than 2,000 migrants. Days ago, Agent Ortiz was promoted to Deputy Chief of Border Patrol — and he joins us tonight.
Chief Ortiz: Please stand — a grateful Nation thanks you and all the heroes of Border Patrol.
To build on these historic gains, we are working on legislation to replace our outdated and randomized immigration system with one based on merit, welcoming those who follow the rules, contribute to our economy, support themselves financially, and uphold our values.
With every action, my Administration is restoring the rule of law and re-asserting the culture of American freedom.
Working with Senate Majority Leader McConnell and his colleagues in the Senate, we have confirmed a record number of 187 new Federal judges to uphold our Constitution as written.
This includes two brilliant new Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer.
We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors.
In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!
Just as we believe in the First Amendment, we also believe in another Constitutional right that is under siege all across our country.
So long as I am President I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In reaffirming our heritage as a free Nation, we must remember that America has always been a frontier nation.
Now we must embrace the next frontier, America’s manifest destiny in the stars.
I am asking the Congress to fully fund the Artemis program to ensure that the next man and the first woman on the moon will be American astronauts — using this as a launching pad to ensure that America is the first nation to plant its flag on Mars. My Administration is also strongly defending our national security and combating radical Islamic terrorism.
Last week, I announced a groundbreaking plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Recognizing that all past attempts have failed, we must be determined and creative in order to stabilize the region and give millions of young people the change to realize a better future.
Three years ago, the barbarians of ISIS held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria. Today, the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100 percent destroyed, and the founder and leader of ISIS — the bloodthirsty killer Al Baghdadi — is dead!
We are joined this evening by Carl and Marsha Mueller. After graduating from college, their beautiful daughter Kayla became a humanitarian aid worker.
Kayla once wrote, ‘Some people find God in church. Some people find God in nature. Some people find God in love; I find God in suffering. I’ve known for some time what my life’s work is, using my hands as tools to relieve suffering.’
In 2013, while caring for suffering civilians in Syria, Kayla was kidnapped, tortured, and enslaved by ISIS, and kept as a prisoner of Al-Baghdadi himself.
After more than 500 horrifying days of captivity, Al-Baghdadi murdered young Kayla. She was just 26 years old.
On the night that United States Special Forces Operators ended Al Baghdadi’s miserable life, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, received a call in the Situation Room.
He was told that the brave men of the elite Special Forces team, that so perfectly carried out the operation, had given their mission a name — ‘Task Force 8-14.’
It was a reference to a special day: August 14th — Kayla’s birthday.
Carl and Marsha, America’s warriors never forgot Kayla — and neither will we. Every day, America’s men and women in uniform demonstrate the infinite depths of love that dwells in the human heart.
One of these American heroes was Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake. On his second deployment to Iraq in 2008, Sergeant Hake wrote a letter to his 1-year-old son, Gage: ‘I will be with you again,’ he wrote to Gage.
‘I will teach you to ride your first bike, build your first sand box, watch you play sports and see you have kids also. I love you son, take care of your mother. I am always with you. Dad.’
On Easter Sunday of 2008, Chris was out on patrol in Baghdad when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb.
That night, he made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Sergeant Hake now rests in eternal glory in Arlington, and his wife Kelli is in the gallery tonight, joined by their son, who is now 13 years old. To Kelli and Gage: Chris will live in our hearts forever.
The terrorist responsible for killing Sergeant Hake was Qasem Soleimani, who provided the deadly roadside bomb that took Chris’s life. Soleimani was the Iranian Regime’s most ruthless butcher, a monster who murdered or wounded thousands of American service members in Iraq.
As the world’s top terrorist, Soleimani orchestrated the deaths of countless men, women, and children. He directed the December assault on United States Forces in Iraq, and was actively planning new attacks.
That is why, last month, at my direction, the United States Military executed a flawless precision strike that killed Soleimani and terminated his evil reign of terror forever.
Our message to the terrorists is clear: You will never escape American justice. If you attack our citizens, you forfeit your life!
In recent months, we have seen proud Iranians raise their voices against their oppressive rulers. The Iranian regime must abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop spreading terror, death, and destruction, and start working for the good of its own people.
Because of our powerful sanctions, the Iranian economy is doing very poorly. We can help them make it very good in a short period of time, but perhaps they are too proud or too foolish to ask for that help. We are here. Let’s see which road they choose. It is totally up to them.
As we defend American lives, we are working to end America’s wars in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the determination and valor of our warfighters has allowed us to make tremendous progress, and peace talks are underway.
I am not looking to kill hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, many of them innocent. It is also not our function to serve other nations as a law enforcement agency.
These are warfighters, the best in the world, and they either want to fight to win or not fight at all. We are working to finally end America’s longest war and bring our troops back home!
War places a heavy burden on our Nation’s extraordinary military families, especially spouses like Amy Williams from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and her 2 children — 6-year-old Elliana and 3-year-old Rowan.
Amy works full time, and volunteers countless hours helping other military families. For the past 7 months, she has done it all while her husband, Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, is in Afghanistan on his fourth deployment to the Middle East. Amy’s kids have not seen their father’s face in many months.
Amy, your family’s sacrifice makes it possible for all of our families to live in safety and peace — we thank you. As the world bears witness tonight, America is a land of heroes.
This is the place where greatness is born, where destinies are forged, and where legends come to life.
This is the home of Thomas Edison and Teddy Roosevelt, of many great Generals, including Washington, Pershing, Patton, and MacArthur.
This is the home of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Harriet Tubman, the Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, and so many more.
This is the country where children learn names like Wyatt Earp, Davy Crockett, and Annie Oakley. This is the place where the pilgrims landed at Plymouth and where Texas patriots made their last stand at the Alamo.
The American Nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk the face of the Earth.
Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads, dug out canals, raised up the skyscrapers — and, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history.
And we are making it greater than ever before! This is our glorious and magnificent inheritance. We are Americans. We are the pioneers. We are the pathfinders.
We settled the new world, we built the modern world, and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God.
America is the place where anything can happen! America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true!
This Nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored.
Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made.
The American Age, the American Epic, the American Adventure, has only just begun!
Our spirit is still young; the sun is still rising; God’s grace is still shining; and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come!
Story 2: Lacking Trump Impulse Control — Petulant Pelosi Ripping Up President Trump’s 2020 State of The Union Address– Insults American People and Honored Guests — In Your Guts You Know Pelosi Is Nuts — Trump on Crazy Nancy — Videos
Conway shreds Nancy Pelosi, calls her a child for ripping Trump’s speech
Pence reacts to Pelosi’s ‘new low’ at the State of the Union
USA: Trump slams “crazy” Nancy Pelosi and Democrats for “violating Constitution”
Story 3: Senate Acquits President Trump of Both Articles of Impeachment: Articles 1 Abuse of Power: 52 Votes Not Guilty and 48 Votes Guilty and Articles 2 Obstruction of Congress: Not Guilty 53 Votes and 47 Votes Guilty — Videos
Trump acquitted by Senate on both articles of impeachment
Watch Live: Senate now voting on two articles of impeachment
Senators Find Trump ‘Not Guilty’ Of Abuse Of Power Impeachment Article | NBC News
Senators Find Trump ‘Not Guilty’ Of Obstruction Of Congress Impeachment Article | NBC News
WATCH: Sen. Romney’s full statement on Trump’s impeachment trial | Trump impeachment trial
Republican Romney Says He’ll Vote to Convict Trump
Ted Cruz: The Democratic party is defined by Trump hatred
Tim Scott calls impeachment a ‘flawed, failed, fictional’ attempt to remove Trump
Lankford: Dems’ goal was to drag out impeachment as long as possible
Graham: Impeachment ends when Trump is re-elected and Pelosi, Tlaib are fired
Part 2 of 2 — Story 1: President Trump Signs Phase One Trade Agreement With Communist China — Will It Be Fully Enforceable? — Time Will Tell — Videos
Trump speaks before signing “Phase One” of China trade deal
Larry Kudlow breaks down the implications of the US-China trade deal
Trump signs phase one of US-China trade deal
Trump signs partial trade deal with China l ABC News
Mnuchin: US won’t lift China tariffs until phase two of trade deal
Jamie Dimon praises Trump economy, China trade deal in exclusive interview
US Trade Rep. Lighthizer on historic ‘phase-one’ China trade deal
Wilbur Ross: China trade deal, USMCA total $2 trillion in trade
Donald Trump signs ‘phase one’ of trade deal with China which ends escalation of his trade war—and complains about the ‘impeachment hoax’ at White House ceremony with Xi Jinping’s deputy looking on
Donald Trump took a victory lap as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House – as his impeachment sped ahead at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue
He touted his economy and launched attack after attack on his enemies at packed East Room ceremony, railing against the ‘impeachment hoax’
Trump has vowed that he would ink a trade deal with China for more than two years and imposed steep tariffs to bring Beijing to the table
Signing is for ‘phase one’ and the White House promises more segments in the future
Xi Jinping didn’t come for the signing but sent a lower-level official, vice-premier Liu He and Trump said he will go back to China soon to ‘reciprocate’
It’s unclear what he’s reciprocating for, since Xi didn’t come
East Room press credentials didn’t have a date printed on them, suggesting the White House wasn’t confident the event would happen on schedule
President urged House members in the audience to leave early if they needed to cast a vote on sending impeachment articles to the Senate
Donald Trump took a victory lap on Wednesday as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House as his impeachment sped towards the Senate on Capitol Hill.
He boasted to an audience of dignitaries that a new trade deal with China will bring ‘a future of fair and reciprocal trade,’ then complained about the ‘impeachment hoax,’ and praised a string of Republican senators who he needs to vote for his acquittal.
The president has long complained about a massive trade deficit between Washington and Beijing. He pledged during the 2016 campaign to come down hard on China.
‘We are righting the wrongs of the past,’ he said Wednesday, observing that ‘our negotiations were tough, honest, open and respectful.’
‘This is the biggest deal anyone’s ever seen,’ he said, because ‘China has 1.5 billion people.’
The president spent nearly a half-hour acknowledging business leaders and lawmakers who crowded into the East Room to watch. And he noted that some House members might have to leave early in order to vote on a motion to send articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.
Some of the congressmen may have a vote—it’s on the impeachment hoax—so if you want, you go out and vote. … It’s not going to matter becausae it’s gone very well. But I’d rather have you voting than sitting here listening to me introduce you, okay?’ he said with a grin.
‘They have a hoax going on over there. Let’s take care of it.’
Trump was not accompanied by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who sent Vice Premier Liu He in his place. Xi’s absence left some with the impression that Washington wants the deal more than Beijing does.
Done deal: Donald Trump and Liu He sign the phase one trade deal which calls a halt to escalations in the U.S.-China trade deal and is claimed to mean up to $50 billion in agricultural sales to China
Signed, sealed, delivered: China’s vice-premier Liu He and Donald Trump show their signatures in the completed phase one trade deal
East room ceremony: Donald Trump hosted the Chinese vice-premier Liu He in the East Wing in front of an audience of Republican senators and Congressmen and figures from the American business world – almost all of whom he named
President Donald Trump stood alongside China’s vice premier Liu He, not its president Xi Jinping, when he signed a landmark trade deal on Wednesday
Awkward exchange: Donald Trump moved to shake hands with China’s vice-premier Liu He, who extended his left hand instead
Unusual handshake: After Liu He extended his left hand, Donald Trump grasped two of his fingers in an attempt to shake his hand
The president announced that he will ‘be going back to China in the not-too-distant future to reciprocate,’ but it’s unclear what he would be reciprocating for.
Vice President Mike Pence said the deal would guarantee $40-50 billion in Chinese purchases of American agriculture products.
And Trump said China will stop forcing American companies to share proprietary technologies with Chinese partners. ‘You don’t have to give up anything anymore. Just be strong,’ he said to business leaders in the room.
The White House’s guests included top executives from UPS, Boeing, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, VISA, Citibank, Honeywell, Dow Chemical, eBay and Ford Motor Company; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who aims to see markets opened to him in China; television commentator Lou Dobbs; and Trump’s ambassador in Beijing, Terry Branstad.
Second time lucky: After Liu He spoke through a translator, the two succeeded in shaking hands
Trump acknowledged lawmakers and businessmen in the East Room including casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson
Chinese representative: President Xi Jinping sent vice-premier Liu He, who spoke through a translator (left)
Packed: The East Room was fool for the invited audience of business leaders, White House aides and congressional Republicans
Everyone gets a mention: Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator was asked to stand, while Trump claimed that Grassley had ‘made [James] Comey choke like a dog’
Official delegation:Donald Trump is flanked by as Vice President Mike Pence and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer
First daughter: Ivanka Trump was followed into the East Room by Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor
Branstad, a longtime Iowa governor before coming to Washington, got the job because of his deep ties to global agriculture.
While Wall Street will carefully examine the fine print, the trade deal will allow businesses around the globe to breathe a sigh of relief.
After a nearly two-year battle, the signing could give Trump an election-year boost as well. Still, tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in imports remain in place, leaving many Americans to foot the bill.
Reporters covering the East Room event on Wednesday wore White House credentials with no date printed on them. That unusual feature suggests Trump’s trade negotiators weren’t certain whether the event would happen as scheduled.
Journalists shoot shoulder-to-shoulder, including a contingent of dozens from Chinese media outlets.
The ‘phase one’ agreement—which includes pledges from China to beef up purchases of American crops and other exports—also comes just as Trump faces an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, giving him a victory to trumpet at least in the short term.
As he is about the face an impeachment trial, President Donald Trump will be able to tout a trade deal with China
It’s unclear which country will get the better end of the deal, but Trump has trumpeted every development that is favorable to the United States
China-US trade has diminished in both directions since Trump began venting about an imbalance of hundreds of billions of dollars wach year
The easing of US-China trade frictions has boosted stock markets worldwide in recent weeks, as it takes the threat of new tariffs off the table for now.
And Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump’s negotiating stance led to a ‘fully enforceable deal’ which could bring additional tariffs.
If China fails to abide by the agreement, ‘the president has the ability to put on additional tariffs,’ Mnuchin said on CNBC Wednesday as part of a media blitz promoting the new pact.
However, the most difficult issues remain to be dealt with in ‘phase two’ negotiations, including massive subsidies for state industry and forced technology transfer.
But Mnuchin said the deal puts pressure on Beijing to stay at the negotiating table and make further commitments, including on cyber-security and other services to win relief from the tariffs that remain in place.
‘In phase two there will be additional roll backs,’ Mnuchin said. ‘This gives China a big incentive to get back to the table and agree to the additional issues that are still unresolved.’
Still, elements of the deal the administration has touted as achievements effectively take the relationship between the two powers back to where it was before Trump took office.
‘The US-China phase-one deal is essentially a trade truce, with large state-directed purchases attached,’ economist Mary Lovely said in an analysis.
Even so, ‘The truce is good news for the U.S. and the world economy.’
Still, the trade expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cautioned that ‘we will continue to see the impact of this in slower investment and higher business costs.’
U.S. officials have said they will release details of the agreement set to be signed at a White House ceremony at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday.
After announcing the deal December 13, the U.S. canceled a damaging round of new tariffs that were due to kick in two days later and promised to slash in half the 15 percent tariffs on $120 billion imposed September 1 on consumer goods like clothing.
Mnuchin dismissed a Bloomberg report that the initial agreement could include provisions to roll back more tariffs on China after the election.
‘The tariffs will stay in place until there is a phase two. If the president gets phase two quickly, he will consider releasing tariffs. If not, there won’t be any tariff relief,’ Mnuchin said Tuesday on Bloomberg TV.
‘It has nothing to do with the election or anything else.’
Washington said Beijing agreed to import, over two years, $200 billion of U.S. products above the levels in 2017, before Trump launched his offensive.
Trump has repeatedly touted the trade pact as a boon for American farmers, saying China will buy $40 to $50 billion in agricultural goods.
U.S. farmers were hit hard by the tariff war—notably on soybeans which saw exports to China plunge to just $3 billion from more than $12 billion in 2017. The Trump administration paid out $28 billion in aid to farmers in the last two years.
But many economists question whether they have the capacity to meet that demand.
And Lovely raised a question about the wisdom on relying so heavily on the Chinese market.
‘It also means Chinese retaliation could be reinstated, dampening farmers’ willingness to invest to meet the very hard export targets in the deal.’
Trump and Xi Jinping have a cordial working rapport but the Chinese president didn’t travel to Washington—leaving the impression that Trump wants it more than he does
U.S. and Chinese officials say the agreement includes protections for intellectual property and addresses financial services and foreign exchange while including a pr.ovision for dispute resolution, which Mnuchin said will be binding for the first time.
Trump in August formally accused China of manipulating its currency to gain an advantage in trade and offset the impact of the tariffs.
The label, which had no real practical impact, was removed earlier this week.
The deal also restores a twice-yearly dialogue process that previous administrations conducted regularly but that Trump scrapped.
U.S. and China tiptoe around holes in new trade agreement
by Reuters
Thursday, 16 January 2020 00:46 GMT
By Jeff Mason, Andrea Shalal and David Lawder
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) – The United States and China signed an initial trade deal on Wednesday that will roll back some tariffs and boost Chinese purchases of U.S. products, defusing an 18-month row between the world’s two largest economies but leaving a number of sore spots unresolved.
Beijing and Washington touted the “Phase 1” agreement as a step forward after months of start-and-stop talks, and investors greeted the news with relief. Even so, there was skepticism the U.S.-China trade relationship was now firmly on the mend.
The deal fails to address structural economic issues that led to the trade conflict, does not fully eliminate the tariffs that have slowed the global economy, and sets hard-to-achieve purchase targets, analysts and industry leaders said.
While acknowledging the need for further negotiations with China to solve a host of other problems, President Donald Trump hailed the agreement as a win for the U.S. economy and his administration’s trade policies.
“Together, we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers and families,” Trump said in rambling remarks at the White House alongside U.S. and Chinese officials.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He read a letter from President Xi Jinping in which the Chinese leader praised the deal as a sign the two countries could resolve their differences with dialogue.
The centerpiece of the deal is a pledge by China to purchase at least an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. farm products and other goods and services over two years, above a baseline of $186 billion in purchases in 2017, the White House said.
Commitments include $54 billion in additional energy purchases, $78 billion in additional manufacturing purchases, $32 billion more in farm products, and $38 billion in services, according to a deal document released by the White House.
Liu said Chinese companies would buy $40 billion in U.S. agricultural products annually over the next two years “based on market conditions.” Beijing had balked at committing to buy set amounts of U.S. farm goods earlier, and has inked new soybean contracts with Brazil since the trade war started.
Key world stock market indexes climbed to record highs on hopes the deal would reduce tensions, before closing below those highs, while oil prices slid on doubts the pact will spur world economic growth and boost crude demand.
Soybean futures, which traded 0.4% lower throughout much of the deal signing ceremony, sank even further after Liu’s remarks, a sign that farmers and traders were dubious about the purchase goals.
The deal does not end retaliatory tariffs on American farm exports, makes farmers “increasingly reliant” on Chinese state-controlled purchases, and does not address “big structural changes,” Michelle Erickson-Jones, a wheat farmer and spokeswoman for Farmers for Free Trade, said in a statement.
Trump and his economic advisers had pledged to attack Beijing’s long-standing practice of propping up state-owned companies and flooding international markets with low-priced goods as the trade war heated up.
Although the deal could be a boost to U.S. farmers, automakers and heavy equipment manufacturers, some analysts question https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL4N29J26S China’s ability to divert imports from other trading partners to the United States.
“I find a radical shift in Chinese spending unlikely. I have low expectations for meeting stated goals,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group in Minneapolis. “But I do think the whole negotiation has moved the football forward for both the U.S. and China.”
Trump, who has embraced an “America First” policy aimed at rebalancing global trade in favor of U.S. companies and workers, said China had pledged action to confront the problem of pirated or counterfeited goods and said the deal included strong protection of intellectual property rights.
U.S. Speaker of the House of Representative Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s China strategy had “inflicted deep, long-term damage to American agriculture and rattled our economy in exchange for more of the promises that Beijing has been breaking for years,” in a statement.
Earlier, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told Fox News the agreement would add 0.5 percentage point to U.S. gross domestic product growth in both 2020 and 2021.
Aviation industry sources said Boeing Co was expected to win a major order for wide-body jets from China, including its 787 or 777-9 models, or a mixture of both. Such a deal could ease pressure on the 787 Dreamliner, which has suffered from a broad downturn in demand for large jets, forcing the planemaker to trim production late last year.
CCTV, China’s state-run television outlet, said the deal would satisfy China’s increasingly demanding consumers by supplying products like dairy, poultry, beef, pork, and processed meat from the United States.
TARIFFS TO STAY
The Phase 1 deal, reached in December, canceled planned U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made cellphones, toys and laptop computers and halved the tariff rate to 7.5% on about $120 billion worth of other Chinese goods, including flat-panel televisions, Bluetooth headphones and footwear.
But it will leave in place 25% tariffs on a $250-billion array of Chinese industrial goods and components used by U.S. manufacturers, and China’s retaliatory tariffs on over $100 billion in U.S. goods.
Market turmoil and reduced investment tied to the trade war cut global growth in 2019 to its lowest rate since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund said in October.
Tariffs on Chinese imports have cost U.S. companies $46 billion. Evidence is mounting that tariffs have raised input costs for U.S. manufacturers, eroding their competitiveness.
Diesel engine maker Cummins Inc said on Tuesday the deal will leave it paying $150 million in tariffs for engines and castings that it produces in China. It urged the parties to take steps to eliminate all the tariffs.
Trump, who has been touting the Phase 1 deal as a pillar of his 2020 re-election campaign, said he would agree to remove the remaining tariffs once the two sides had negotiated a “Phase 2” agreement.
“They will all come off as soon as we finish Phase 2,” said Trump, who added that he would visit China in the not-too-distant future.
Trump added that those negotiations would start soon, though in a Fox Business Network interview that aired on Wednesday evening, Vice President Mike Pence said: “We’ve already begun discussions on a Phase 2 deal.”
(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Andrea Shalal and Dave Lawder Additional reporting by Echo Wang, Lisa Lambert, Susan Heavey Lisa Lambert and Doina Chiacu in Washington, Tim Aeppel in New York, Mark Weinraub in Chicago, Se Young Lee and Stella Qui in Beijing and Tim Hepher in Paris; Writing by Heather Timmons; Editing by Paul Simao, Leslie Adler and Richard Chang)
Story 2: President Trump’s United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) Bill Passes Senate 89 to 10 Vote– On It Way For President Trump’s Signature — Big Win For Trump and American People — Videos —
Senate passes USMCA trade deal
U.S. Senate passes USMCA trade agreement
Donald Trump’s USMCA trade pact finally passes through both houses of Congress as he touts China truce as ‘one of the greatest trade deals ever made’ but Democrats’ impeachment overshadows everything
NAFTA replacement will go to Trump’s Oval Office desk for his signature
President has pushed the plan for months but it languished in Democrat-run House of Representatives
Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it on the agenda a day after her caucus impeached the president
That sent it to the Senate, which will try the impeachment cases beginning next week
Trump inked a major trade deal with China on Wednesday but even that has been overshadowed by impeachment
Donald Trump tried to nudge the news cycle away from impeachment on Thursday as his long-languishing U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement finally passed in the Senate.
The final tally was 89-10. Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two of the presidential primary front-runners, took different approaches. Warren voted yes, Sanders no.
The vote was a rare moment of bipartisanship, a blipp on senators’ radar as they prepared for weeks of wrangling during Trump’s impeachment trial.
The president said farmers in America are ‘really happy’ with both the USMCA and a broad trade truce he signed Wednesday with China.
Impeachment politics also overshadowed the House’s vote to green-light the USMCA, which came just one day after Democrats led a vote to charge Trump with two constitutional crimes.
The U.S. Senate passed the U.S> Mexico Canada Agreement on Thursday just before launching full bore into impeachment procedures
President Donald Trump got a double trade victory after his deal with China on Wednesday but all eyes were on the impeachment ceremonies
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (center) had to wait to put the USMCA on the Senate floor for a vote until the House passed it; Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on the trade treaty for months
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described the pact as a ‘major win for the Trump administration, a major win for those of us who are already ready to move past this season of toxic political noise.’
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa called the USMCA ‘a major achievement for President Trump and a bipartisan deal for the American people.’
Democrats scrambled to take credit for upgrading the USMCA’s environmental and worker-protection clauses. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden claimed he and his colleagues gave the plan ‘a trade enforcement regime with real teeth.’
He also praised Trump’s chief negotiator Robert Lighthizer as ‘the hardest working man in the trade business.
Trump blamed the current trade pact with Canada and Mexico, the Bill Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement, for sending millions of manufacturing jobs to low-wage plants south of the U.S. border. His administration secured changes that aim to have more cars produced where workers earn an average of at least $16 an hour.
Pelosi held onto the USMCA until she could deny Trump a positivev news cycle, letting impeachment overshadow it completely
It also secured changes that require Mexico to change its laws to make it easier for workers to form independent unions, which should improve worker conditions and wages and reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to relocate their plants.
While the administration completed its negotiations with Canada and Mexico more than a year ago, Democrats in the House insisted on changes to the pact that they say make it more likely Mexico will follow through on its commitments.
As part of those negotiations, the administration agreed to drop a provision that offered expensive biologic drugs—made from living cells—10 years of protection from cheaper knockoff competition.
Republicans and the president have complained about how long it took to complete the negotiations, but the talks resulted in a rare mix of support for USMCA. The AFL-CIO, an association of trade unions, endorsed the measure along with scores of business and farm groups.
The biggest holdouts are environmental groups, which continue to oppose the measure because it doesn´t address climate change. Indeed, they contend the agreement would contribute to rising temperatures.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., marveled Wednesday at how leaders of organized labor and farm groups in his state appeared together to support the pact.
‘They both agree that this USMCA trade agreement is a step forward, an improvement over the original NAFTA,’ Durbin said. ‘I think we´ve added to this process by making it truly bipartisan.’
Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, checks his watch while waiting for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to wrap up a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV studio on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020. Sen. Risch along with Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, were waiting to hold a press conference on USMCA, which passed the Senate Thursday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The Senate approved implementing legislation Thursday for a renegotiated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, giving President Donald Trump a victory as the Senate moved to swearing in its members as jurors in Trump’s impeachment trial.
The Senate voted 89-10 to clear the bill for Trump’s signature, with several dissenting Democrats citing the absence of climate change provisions as a lost opportunity to address the issue on an international scale since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who negotiated the deal, watched the vote from the public gallery.
The vote on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement occurred after the Senate voted to waive budget restrictions. Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., argued on the floor, as he did in the Budget Committee, that the bill included appropriations that violate budget rules.
The Democrat-controlled House approved the bill on Dec. 19 with a bipartisan vote of 385-41. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said House Democrats had negotiated several changes to the USMCA to make it acceptable.
Key changes for Democrats included enforcement of labor provisions they believe will make it more difficult and expensive for U.S. manufacturers, particularly auto makers, to shift production to Mexico. The changes won the endorsement of the AFL-CIO, but other unions such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers oppose it.
The pact also would give technology companies provisions to address e-commerce, which did not exist when NAFTA was negotiated. A chapter based on Section 230 of a 1996 telecommunications law (PL 104-104) gives companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter immunity from liability for user content posted on their platforms.
Trump is expected to tout the vote in his reelection campaign as a promise kept. In 2016, he vowed either to revamp the 1994 trade agreement or to withdraw the U.S. from the pact. As president, Trump caused anxiety among businesses large and small and his base of farm support with threats to pull out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not make concessions.
Business groups say congressional approval of the USMCA implementing bill makes it less likely Trump will try to upend a trade agreement negotiated and renamed by his administration.
The bill now goes to Trump for signing, but the Canadian Parliament still must ratify the USMCA before the agreement can take effect. Mexico has already approved the new pact.
The implementing legislation provides the framework and mechanisms the Trump administration will use to enforce labor rights and environmental standards with a focus on Mexico. For example, an interagency task force on labor will be established 90 days after the bill takes effect.
The USMCA will replace NAFTA, an agreement credited with building the three nations into a $1.2 trillion-a-year trading bloc and blamed for contributing to the loss of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs to low-wage Mexico.
Trump campaigned against NAFTA as the “worst trade deal ever made.”
In committee reviews, floor comments and statements, several senators cited the absence of environmental provisions addressing climate change as one reason for voting against the implementing bill.
Environmental concern
It seemed unlikely the administration would have pursued climate change, not only because of Trump’s skepticism of the science behind it, but also because a trade-negotiating objective Congress approved in 2015 says trade agreements are not to establish obligations for the U.S. regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The language is part of a customs enforcement law that added several negotiating guidelines to the Trade Promotion Authority statute, which sets the ground rules for trade deals sent to Congress for approval.
Democratic presidential candidates Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Michael Bennet of Colorado voted for the pact. Sanders, another candidate, said in a written statement that it should be rewritten because it does not guarantee that companies will stop shifting jobs to Mexico.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the USMCA will increase U.S. government revenue by $2.97 billion from fiscal 2020 to 2029 due to higher expected duty revenue on car and truck parts that do not meet stricter rules.
Some vehicles and parts would no longer qualify for duty-free treatment because they don’t meet new requirements that 75 percent of content in cars and auto parts come from North America and that 40 percent of car content and 45 percent of truck content be made by workers earning $16 an hour.
The CBO also estimates that the agreement would reduce the federal deficit by $3 billion over a 10-year period. The agency estimates that appropriations not subject to emergency status would total $833 million in outlays from fiscal 2020 to 2029.
Under the USMCA, U.S. dairy, poultry and egg products would gain greater access to Canadian markets, and Canada will adopt a new quality-grading system for U.S. wheat.
Canada also will end pricing schemes the U.S. dairy industry says keep Canadian skim milk powder prices at artificially lower levels, giving domestic producers an edge in sales to Canadian cheese-makers over U.S. high-protein ultrafiltered milk.
The International Trade Commission, an independent agency, said the trade agreement, “if fully implemented and enforced,” over several years would increase real GDP by $68.2 billion, or 0.35 percent, and would add 176,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.
House Democrats’ negotiations with the Trump administration in 2019 resulted in the removal of provisions that would have given pharmaceutical companies a 10-year pricing monopoly on biologic drugs in Mexico and Canada. The U.S. has 12-year pricing exclusivity for biologics, and Democrats worried that keeping the provisions in the USMCA would prevent future Congresses from reducing the U.S. timeframe to less than 10 years.
Story 3: REDS (Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist) Show Trial In House is Over — An American Fair Trial Begins Next Tuesday in Senate — Acquittal of President Trump Expected In 30 Days or Less As Hoax Exposed — Trump Goes On Offense — Videos
Graham blasts the Dems, ‘Impeachment is manufactured BS’
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired
Nunes: Biden admitted he did the very thing Trump is accused of doing
Hannity: The Biden shakedown and the real Ukraine scandal
Hunter Biden says he never spoke to father about Ukraine business dealings | Nightline
Rep. Jim Jordan reacts to Hunter Biden’s interview
Donald Trump Jr. speaks out on Hunter Biden-Ukraine scandal
Ukraine gas company where Hunter Biden worked hacked by Russia
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff’s full opening statement on whistleblower complaint | DNI hearing
Hannity: House trial managers a ‘gift’ to Donald Trump
The Five’ reacts to Dems’ impeachment stunts as Senate trial kicks off
Trump accuses Adam Schiff of ‘making up’ conversation with Ukraine
Schiff slammed for ‘parody’ of Trump call transcript
Rep. Biggs introduces motion to censure Schiff for parody transcript
Sen. Ted Cruz: Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment circus is done
Trump slams impeachment process, denies knowing Lev Parnas
U.S. Senate: Swearing-in of Chief Justice & Senators
U.S. Senate: Reading of Articles of Impeachment
Ken Starr predicts the top witnesses for Trump impeachment trial
Stalin’s Great Purge | The Great Terror (1932-1940)
Show Trial Russia 1938 – Bukharin and 20 others
Inside a Russian Show Trial
Trump Impeachment Trial Begins as Senators Are Sworn In
House managers read charges as watchdog faults president’s hold on Ukraine aid and Kyiv probes whether U.S. envoy was tailed
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swears in members of the Senate for the impeachment trial against President Trump.PHOTO: SENATE TELEVISION/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Lindsay Wise
WASHINGTON—The Senate opened the impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday with Chief Justice John Roberts swearing in the senators, who pledged to deliver impartial justice, and the formal reading of the two charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Hours before the senators took their oath, the Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency, determined that Mr. Trump’s administration violated the law when it withheld aid to Ukraine, an issue at the heart of the impeachment case against the president.
Democrats allege that Mr. Trump, a Republican, improperly withheld the aid to pressure Kyiv to launch investigations that would help him politically in the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, calling the case against him a “big hoax” on Thursday. He is the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.
The GAO wrote that the White House Office of Management and Budget improperly froze Ukraine funding over the summer for policy reasons. It was later released after pressure from Congress. A spokeswoman for OMB said it disagreed with the GAO finding.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian authorities opened a criminal probe into whether U.S. citizens placed the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under surveillance, as text messages suggest, before she was removed from her post last year by Mr. Trump. The information came to light after House Democrats released documents Tuesday showing that an associate of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was sent text messages about tracking Marie Yovanovitch in Ukraine.
Democratic and GOP lawmakers continued to wrangle on Thursday over whether new witnesses and evidence will be allowed in the trial. Those issues aren’t expected to be decided until well after the trial begins in earnest on Tuesday.
“If any of my colleagues had doubts about the case for witnesses and documents in a Senate trial, the stunning revelations this week should put those to rest,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamber’s Democratic leader.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said it wasn’t the Senate’s job to shore up the case the House built in what he called a “slapdash inquiry.” The Senate won’t “redo their homework and rerun the investigation,” he said
Chief Justice Roberts and Senators Sworn In for Impeachment Trial
The impeachment trial of President Trump opened in the U.S. Senate as Chief Justice John Roberts and senators were sworn in. Photo: Associated Press
Mr. McConnell is set to release his plans for a trial framework on Tuesday, but Senate Republicans and White House officials said the contents of the resolution have largely been settled. Republicans briefed on the resolution have said they expect it to include a guaranteed vote on whether to subpoena witnesses and documents, as requested by some moderate Republicans.
GOP leaders believe they can keep Republicans united to block any efforts by Democrats to subpoena witnesses at the outset of the trial, according to people familiar with their plans. A vote on witnesses would be held later, after the House managers and Mr. Trump’s legal team present their cases, a process expected to stretch over two weeks.
A guaranteed vote to dismiss the charges won’t be built into the trial rules, according to these people. The White House and Senate Republicans are discussing holding a vote on a motion to dismiss after Democrats present their case but before Mr. Trump’s team addresses the Senate, according to an administration official.
At least two-thirds of the senators would have to vote to convict Mr. Trump to remove him from office.
By noon on Thursday, the fighting over the scope of the Senate trial took a pause. Every senator was seated at his or her desk, a rare sight during the ordinary legislative business, when it is common to see senators delivering speeches to an empty chamber. Senators typically don’t sit in their assigned seats even during roll call votes, preferring to stroll around and chitchat.
As they waited for the formal “exhibition” of articles, some senators scrolled on their cellphones or talked quietly to each other.
At 12:05 p.m., House managers, who will act as prosecutors during the trial, arrived at the ornate doors of the Senate. They walked in two-by-two, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). Freshman Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D., Texas) trailed as the seventh. A Democratic aide said the order was chosen according to seniority.
All managers carried large blue folders containing their own copy of the articles of impeachment passed by the House last month and the resolution passed on Wednesday authorizing them as managers.
Silence fell and phones disappeared as the sergeant at arms warned senators to keep quiet “on pain of imprisonment.” Then Mr. Schiff, the lead manager, began reading the articles aloud from the well of the Senate.
“Resolved, that Donald John Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said.
The House managers make their way to the Senate before the reading of the two articles of impeachment, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress..PHOTO: ALYSSA SCHUKAR FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The first article of impeachment stems from Mr. Trump pressing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, including by withholding the almost $400 million in aid to help Kyiv combat Russian aggression. The second article accuses Mr. Trump of impeding Congress’s investigation by preventing witnesses from testifying and defying subpoenas for documentary evidence.
The senators watched, with stony faces, as Mr. Schiff spoke. Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) stifled a cough. Next to her, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) sat motionless with her hands folded in her lap. Sens. Rob Portman (R., Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) scribbled notes.
At 12:22, when Mr. Schiff had finished, the managers departed. They briefly huddled outside the chamber, once again got in order, and marched back toward the House side of the Capitol.
Shortly after 2 p.m., Chief Justice Roberts was escorted into the Senate by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.).
Everyone in the chamber rose. The only sound was the scratching of reporters’ pens.Then Chief Justice Roberts spoke: “Senators, I attend the Senate in conformity with your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the President of the United States. I am now prepared to take the oath.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the Senate’s president pro tempore, asked him to raise his right hand, place his left hand on the Bible, and swore him in.
Chief Justice Roberts then administered an oath to senators, who will act as the jury. “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?”
“I do,” the senators said.
Senators were then called in alphabetical order to the Senate clerk’s desk to sign their names in an oath book. As the lawmakers waited to sign, there were flashes of bipartisan bonhomie. Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) warmly shook Mr. Grassley’s hand. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) patted the shoulder of Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), and the two shared a laugh with Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.). Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) gave Mr. Portman’s arm a squeeze.
All of the senators were present for the swearing-in except for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), who is at home with a family member facing a medical issue, according to his office. He plans to be sworn in next week, before the trial begins in earnest.
Senate Officially Accepts Articles of Impeachment
Senate Officially Accepts Articles of Impeachment
The Senate accepted the articles of impeachment against President Trump, marking the official start of the trial. Photo: Associated Press
After the swearing-in, the Senate formally notified the White House of the pending trial and summoned Mr. Trump, who will be given until Saturday evening to reply.
Mr. McConnell also said the House has until Saturday at 5 p.m. to file a trial brief with the secretary of the Senate, and Mr. Trump has until noon on Monday to do so. The deadline for the House’s rebuttal is noon on Tuesday. The Senate trial was then adjourned until Tuesday at 1 p.m.
Although historic, Thursday entailed mostly pomp and circumstance. The trial won’t get under way substantively until the Senate reconvenes after the holiday weekend.
All 100 senators agreed on rules for the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial’s initial phase. There is no such bipartisan agreement now, and while Mr. McConnell says all 53 Republicans in his caucus are united on the path forward, he hasn’t released the text of his resolution laying out the procedures agreed upon by GOP senators.
In 1999, a resolution dealing with witnesses passed a few weeks into the trial, along party lines. Three witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Mr. Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship, were deposed privately in the presence of a senator from each party. Excerpts were shown by video during the trial.
There are 15 senators now serving who also voted in the Clinton impeachment trial, including Messrs. McConnell and Schumer.
“I remember the solemnity of this, when you see the chief justice sitting in the chair with his august robes, when you hear your name called and you hear the charges, your hair sort of stands on end,” Mr. Schumer said in a recent interview.
Throughout the trial, all senators will be expected to be present and seated at their assigned desks. They won’t be allowed to talk.
Any deliberations among senators likely will be held in closed session, meaning that no press or cameras will be allowed. The rest of the trial will be open.
“It is a solemn feeling when you’re sitting in the seat, and you’re listening closely to what’s going on,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R., Ind.).
Mr. Braun said he and other senators are worried about the precedent being set. “Many senators have on their minds: Is this the new dynamic? Having two impeachments within 20 years of one another?” he said. “I don’t think anybody likes that feeling.”
NPR’s Rachel Martin speaks with constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley about his testimony on Wednesday
RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says she is instructing her committee chairs to draft articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office. She framed her decision as a historic moment.
(SOUNDBITE OF PRESS CONFERENCE)
NANCY PELOSI: The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief, Article II says I can do whatever I want. No. His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution.
MARTIN: Pelosi says the impeachment process has shown the public how the president has abused his power. Yesterday, four constitutional experts laid out the standards for and against impeachment in front of the House Judiciary Committee. One of them was Jonathan Turley. He’s a law professor at George Washington University. We spoke with him earlier today.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, first of all, my testimony, I said, as I did in the Clinton impeachment, that a president could be impeached for a noncriminal act and that President Trump could be impeached for abuse of power. You just have to prove it. He can also be impeached for obstruction of Congress.
The problem with the obstruction of Congress claim, in my view, is that it’s based on a very short period of investigation. This is one of the shortest we’ve had. It depends how you count the days between this and the Johnson impeachment, but it’s a very short period of investigation.
And what Congress is saying is that if the president invokes executive privilege or immunities and goes to court, he can be impeached for that – that he has to just turn over the information to Congress. Now, that’s a position that was maintained during the Nixon impeachment. In fact, it was the basis of the third article of impeachment. I’ve always disagreed with it. It’s not that you can’t impeach a president for withholding documents and witnesses. You can, and President Trump could well be the next one to be impeached on those grounds.
MARTIN: Mmm hmm.
TURLEY: What I was telling Congress is that they’ve burned two months. They should have gone to court over people like John – I’m sorry, subpoenaed and gone to court over people like John Bolton and gotten a court order. That would make it a stronger case.
MARTIN: So let’s talk about what you just laid out here. I mean, you are saying that because the White House has refused to allow certain people to come and testify, refused to hand over certain documents that the committees have requested and is fighting this in court, you’re saying that that process should be allowed to play out, that Congress is making an impeachment argument that is weak because they’re not waiting for the courts to weigh in?
TURLEY: I’m saying that this case could be much stronger. No one has really explained why they have to have a vote by the end of December rather than…
MARTIN: Well, isn’t the case about election interference? I mean, isn’t that the answer, that the central query here is about the interference of U.S. elections and 2020’s coming right up?
TURLEY: Well, 2020 is coming right up. But the problem is that when you look at how fast this has unfolded, the record remains thin. It remains conflicted. You have about 12 witnesses. You have other witnesses with direct evidence. And more importantly, you have a lot of defenses that have not been fully addressed. It’s not a fully developed record.
And all I’m saying is that before you give that record to the Senate, you should deal with some of those conflicts and some of those gaps. And this is an example of one of those, that I think the president could very well be impeached and removed for obstruction based on these acts. But by the way, that record is – conflicts in other respects. We had 12 witnesses. Many of those witnesses correctly appeared before Congress. They did so against the wishes of the president, but they remain in federal employment. They have not been disciplined. And does that…
MARTIN: But you’re saying their testimony is insufficient to prove obstruction or abuse of power.
TURLEY: Well, it’s insufficient because there remain conflicts. You know, part of the problems I have with the arguments made by my esteemed colleagues on the panel is that they kept on using the terms inference and circumstantial evidence. Those actually can be used in an impeachment, but it’s problematic if there’s information out there you can still get. This is not a question of the unknowable. This is using the peripheral. This is using information that could be strengthened. That’s what I’m arguing.
MARTIN: Although they pointed to the Mueller report as evidence of obstruction. Presumably, you don’t believe that the Mueller report conclusions are true then.
TURLEY: Well, I never said I didn’t think they were true, but the obstruction claim was rejected by the Department of Justice – not just Attorney General Bill Barr, but by Rod Rosenstein, who is a respected deputy attorney general. And I agree with their decision on that.
MARTIN: All right. Jonathan Turley, one of the constitutional scholars testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. Thank you.
Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/01/19 09:37 PM EDT 2,330
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.
But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”
He added: “I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine” and that he couldn’t describe the evidence further.
William Russo, a spokesman for Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden did not respond to email messages Monday seeking comment. The phone number at Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC in Washington was no longer in service on Monday.
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office clearly had to know about the general prosecutor’s probe of Burisma and his son’s role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden’s work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor’s case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden’s office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the general prosecutor’s Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president’s office suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration’s point man on Ukraine in February 2014, after a popular revolution ousted Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow sent military forces into Ukraine’s Crimea territory.
According to Schweizer’s book, Vice President Biden met with Archer in April 2014 right as Archer was named to the board at Burisma. A month later, Hunter Biden was named to the board, to oversee Burisma’s legal team.
But the Ukrainian investigation and Joe Biden’s effort to fire the prosecutor overseeing it has escaped without much public debate.
Most of the general prosecutor’s investigative work on Burisma focused on three separate cases, and most stopped abruptly once Shokin was fired. The most prominent of the Burisma cases was transferred to a different Ukrainian agency, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), according to the case file and current General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.
NABU closed that case, and a second case involving alleged improper money transfers in London was dropped when Ukrainian officials failed to file the necessary documents by the required deadline. The general prosecutor’s office successfully secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in a tax evasion case, Lutsenko said. He did not say who was the actual defendant in that case.
As a result, the Biden family appeared to have escaped the potential for an embarrassing inquiry overseas in the final days of the Obama administration and during an election in which Democrat Hillary Clintonwas running for president in 2016.
But then, as Biden’s 2020 campaign ramped up over the past year, Lutsenko — the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden once hailed as a “solid” replacement for Shokin — began looking into what happened with the Burisma case that had been shut down.
Lutsenko told me that, while reviewing the Burisma investigative files, he discovered “members of the Board obtained funds as well as another U.S.-based legal entity, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, for consulting services.”
Lutsenko said some of the evidence he knows about in the Burisma case may interest U.S. authorities and he’d like to present that information to new U.S. Attorney General William Barr, particularly the vice president’s intervention.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Biden had correlated and connected this aid with some of the HR (personnel) issues and changes in the prosecutor’s office,” Lutsenko said.
Nazar Kholodnytskyi, the lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Lutsenko’s office, confirmed to me in an interview that part of the Burisma investigation was reopened in 2018, after Joe Biden made his remarks. “We were able to start this case again,” Kholodnytskyi said.
But he said the separate Ukrainian police agency that investigates corruption has dragged its feet in gathering evidence. “We don’t see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence,” he said, declining to be more specific.
Ukraine is in the middle of a hard-fought presidential election, is a frequent target of intelligence operations by neighboring Russia and suffers from rampant political corruption nationwide. Thus, many Americans might take the restart of the Burisma case with a grain of salt, and rightfully so.
But what makes Lutsenko’s account compelling is that federal authorities in America, in an entirely different case, uncovered financial records showing just how much Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obama’s point man on Ukraine.
Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an account linked to Biden’s and Archer’s Rosemont Seneca firm, according to the financial records placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated case against Archer.
The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day. The same Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.
Lutsenko said Ukrainian company board members legally can pay themselves for work they do if it benefits the company’s bottom line, but prosecutors never got to determine the merits of the payments to Rosemont because of the way the investigation was shut down.
As for Joe Biden’s intervention in getting Lutsenko’s predecessor fired in the midst of the Burisma investigation, Lutsenko suggested that was a matter to discuss with Attorney General Barr: “Of course, I would be happy to have a conversation with him about this issue.”
As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when some matters of a case involve foreigners. The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Burisma in the Ukraine case.
Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden’s firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?
Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/26/19 06:00 PM EDT 11,128
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.
He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.
There’s just one problem.
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.
In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”
2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.
“I’m knowledgeable about the situation,” Zelensky told Trump, asking the American president to forward any evidence he might know about. “The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.”
Biden has faced scrutiny since December 2015, when the New York Times published a story noting that Burisma hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder.
Documents I obtained this year detail an effort to change the narrative after the Times story about Hunter Biden, with the help of the Obama State Department.
Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”
I have sued the State Department for any records related to that meeting. The reason is simple: There is both a public interest and an ethics question to knowing if Hunter Biden and his team sought State’s assistance while his father was vice president.
The controversy ignited anew earlier this year when I disclosed that Joe Biden admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancel $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin.
At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.
Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.
Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin’s firing over concerns about corruption and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.
Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.
In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.
Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.
Burisma’s own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Just days before Biden forced Shokin’s firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there. Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: “With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government’s reshuffle.”
Ukraine’s Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokin’s firing or anything to do with Burisma.
Painter then asked one of the Ukraine embassy’s workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraine’s prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show. Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor’s office.
At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.
Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.
On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin’s firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down, the memos show.
Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin’s firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star’s memos.
Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor’s office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.
“They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo stated.
The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”
The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of Shokin than Biden’s. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.
For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. “The reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly,” she wrote.
Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that “I think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washington” and providing contact information for Swartz. “I would be happy to help,” added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.
Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.
Just days before Trump took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. And Buretta gave an interview in Ukraine about how he helped navigate the issues.
Today, two questions remain.
One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.
The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility. And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.
The House of Representatives is engaged in a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump. It is focused on his efforts to secure specific investigations in Ukraine that carried political benefits for him — including aides allegedly tying those investigations to official U.S. government concessions.
Below is a timeline of relevant events.
The timeline is sortable. “Trump” refers to events in which Trump himself was involved. “Quid pro quo” is events that involve government concessions being tied to investigations. “Ukraine” tracks what Ukrainian officials were doing, while “Giuliani” does the same for Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and “Biden” tracks every event in which Joe or Hunter Biden were invoked.
How much detail would you like?
Key events An in-depth look Everything
Which topics are you interested in?
All topics Trump Ukraine Quid pro quo Biden Giuliani
Unrest in Ukraine
2014-2016
February 22, 2014
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is ousted from power during a popular uprising in the country. He flees to Russia. After his ouster, Ukrainian officials begin a wide-ranging investigation into corruption in the country.
March 7, 2014
Lev Parnas, eventually an associate of former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, has his first known interaction with Donald Trump at a golf tournament in Florida.
March 1, 2014
Russia invades the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, annexing it.
May 13, 2014
KEY EVENTHunter Biden, a son of then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, joins the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. It is owned by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, one of several subjects of the Ukrainian corruption probe.
May 25, 2014
Petro Poroshenko is elected president of Ukraine.
February 10, 2015
Viktor Shokinbecomes Ukraine’s prosecutor general.
Early 2015
Top State Department aide George Kent raises concerns about Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, as he later testifies. Biden’s office turns him away and explains that the vice president does not have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue at a time when his other son, Beau Biden, is dealing with cancer, according to Kent’s testimony.
September 24, 2015
Then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt blasts Shokin in a speech in Odessa, Ukraine. He points to a “glaring problem” that threatens the good work regional leaders are doing: “the failure of the institution of the prosecutor general of Ukraine to successfully fight internal corruption.” He adds: “The United States stands behind those who challenge these bad actors.”
October 8, 2015
Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nulandtestifies to the Senate that Shokin’s “office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.”
December 8, 2015
KEY EVENTIn Kyiv, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.
February 10, 2016
The International Monetary Fund threatens to halt a bailout program for Ukraine unless the country addresses its corruption issues.
February 11, 2016
Biden speaks with Poroshenkoby phone and emphasizes the urgency of rooting out corruption.
Paul Manafort is hired as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign chairman, where he is chiefly in charge of securing delegates at the Republican National Convention. Manafort formerly worked for Yanukovych‘s Party of Regions in Ukraine.
March 29, 2016
Shokin is ousted from his position by Ukraine’s parliament.
Yuri Lutsenko becomes Ukraine’s new prosecutor general, replacing Shokin.
May 13, 2016
The White House says it “welcomes” Lutsenko‘s appointment and the addition of an independent counsel in Lutsenko’s office, and declares it will guarantee the $1 billion in loans.
Manafort becomes the head of Trump’s campaign after campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is fired.
August 14, 2016
Ukrainian officials reveal the existence of a handwritten “black ledger” suggesting Manafort had received millions in off-the-books payments from Yanukovych‘s party. These payments will ultimately be part of criminal charges filed against Manafort in the United States.
August 19, 2016
Manafort is forced out of Trump’s campaign.
November 8, 2016
KEY EVENT Trump is elected president, defeating Hillary Clinton.
Seeds of a conspiracy theory
2017-April 2019
January 11, 2017
KEY EVENT Politico reports Ukrainian officials “helped Clinton‘s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers” during the campaign. It said they were also trying to make amends after questioning Trump’s fitness for office and disseminating the Manafort documents. The article notes, however, that there is no indication of an effort originating within the leadership of the Ukrainian government itself.
January 12, 2017
Ukraine’s probes of Burisma are finalized and closed, according to the company, though Lutsenko later tells Bloomberg that one sale of an oil storage terminal will still be investigated.
Trump for the first time floats a conspiracy theory that Ukraine might have played a role in falsely fingering Russia for its 2016 election interference. “[The Democrats] get hacked, and the FBI goes to see them, and they won’t let the FBI see their server,” Trump tells AP, adding, “They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based. That’s what I heard. I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian.”
Giuliani, who would later become Trump’s personal lawyer, meets with Poroshenko and Lutsenko, according to a later-released House investigation.
June 9, 2017
Lutsenko’s office joins in an existing investigation into the black ledger, which had been under the control of an independent anti-corruption bureau. Critics allege the effort is intended to stifle the investigation.
June 14, 2017
European reports indicate Poroshenko will meet with Trump in the White House.
June 20, 2017
Poroshenko visits the White House to meet with Vice President Pence, but receives only a brief audience with Trump.
July 25, 2017
Trump tweets about “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign” and asks: “So where is the investigation A.G.” — referring to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
December 20, 2017
The Trump administration approves the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine for the first time.
January 23, 2018
KEY EVENT At an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden describes his pressure campaign in Ukraine. “I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’ ” Biden says. “Well, son of a b—-. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
Early April
Ukrainian officials close their Manafort probes and have also decide to stop assisting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III‘s Russia investigation out of concern that doing so would harm their relationship with Trump’s administration and jeopardize military assistance, according to the New York Times.
April 19, 2018
KEY EVENT The Washington Post reports Trump has hired Giuliani as his personal lawyer, initially focused on seeing out the Russia investigation.
April 2018
Two Soviet-born business associates of Giuliani, Parnas and Igor Fruman, attend an event for a pro-Trump super PAC at Trump’s Washington hotel. While speaking with Trump, they badmouth U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, and Trump immediately suggests she be fired, according to Parnas.
April 30, 2018
Poroshenko announces the first shipment of Javelins from the United States have arrived.
Three Democratic senators — Robert Menendez (N.J.), Richard J. Durbin(Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) — write to Lutsenko, urging him to continue working with Mueller.
May 9, 2018
Parnas posts a photo of him and his business partner David Correiameetingwith Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) in Sessions’s Capitol Hill office. The two men commit to raise $20,000 for Sessions, according to their later indictments.
May 9, 2018
That same day, Pete Sessions writes to the State Department seeking the dismissal of Yovanovitch. Sessions says he has “received notice of concrete evidence” that she had “spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current Administration.”
May 17, 2018
Parnas and Frumancontribute $325,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action through a newly formed business named Global Energy Producers, which is supposedly a liquefied natural gas company. In their later indictments, prosecutors will say the funds actually came from a $1.26 million private lending transaction that occurred two days earlier.
May 21, 2018
Parnasposts a picture on Facebook showing him and Fruman at breakfast with Donald Trump Jr. in Beverly Hills, Calif.
December 5, 2018
Giulianimeets with former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, according to a lobbying database. They talk about “security issues, including the escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the US assistance to our country,” according to a Ukrainian report.
Late 2018
Giuliani speaks with Shokin, according to a later-revealed complaint from an anonymous whistleblower.
January
Giuliani and Lutsenkomeet in New York, as Bloomberg News later reports.
Mid-February
Giuliani again meets with Lutsenko, this time in Warsaw, according to the whistleblower.
February 1, 2019
Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov tells Yovanovitch that the country is worried about being wrapped up in U.S. political campaigns, according to Yovanovitch’s testimony. He cites the Manafort situation and both the Bidens and Trump’s conspiracy theory involving Ukraine’s role in 2016 election interference.
March 6, 2019
Yovanovitch gives a speech in Ukraine in which she targetsLutsenko. “To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” she says. “Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases.”
March 20, 2019
In an interview with pro-Trump journalist John Solomon, Lutsenkoalleges that Yovanovitch gave him “a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The State Department calls the claim an “outright fabrication,” but Trump promotes the story in a tweet. It is later revealed that Parnas facilitated the interview.The whistleblower later notes that Lutsenko was working for the incumbent, Poroshenko, who had been trailing challenger Volodymyr Zelensky in the upcoming March 31 election. Zelensky had pledged to replace Lutsenko. Yovanovitch later speculates, in congressional testimony, that Lutsenko was hoping Trump would endorse Poroshenko.
March 24, 2019
Trump Jr. attacks Yovanovitch on Twitter, saying: “We need more [Germany Ambassador] @RichardGrenell‘s and less of these jokers as ambassadors.”
Giuliani speaks with Pompeo again, according to the State Department emails. The call lasts about four minutes.
March 31, 2019
The first round of Ukraine’s presidential election is held. Poroshenko and Zelensky head to a runoff.
April 1, 2019
After speaking with Lutsenko, Solomon reports that a probe into Joe Biden’s push to fire Lutsenko’s predecessor is underway. Lutsenko tells Solomon that he wants to present his evidence to Attorney General William P. Barr.
Mid-April
Hunter Biden‘s term as a Burisma board member ends.
April 18, 2019
Lutsenkoretracts his claim that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people not to prosecute.
April 18, 2019
Separately, Muellerreleases his report on the Russia investigation. Mueller finds no illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but says he decided not to reach a firm conclusion on potential obstruction of justice by Trump. William Barr later opts not to accuse Trump of obstruction, despite extensive evidence laid out in the Mueller report.
April 21, 2019
KEY EVENTZelensky, a former TV comedian, is elected president of Ukraine with 73 percent of the vote.
Ahead of a Trump phone call with Zelensky, Vindman writes talking points that indicate Trump should bring up “corruption” with the president-elect, according to Vindman’s later testimony, and a White House readout is drafted declaring Trump did so, according to Washington Post reporting. But Trump does not mention corruption on the call, according to a transcript released later by the White House.
April 23, 2019
Giuliani tweets about a Ukrainian investigation into alleged foreign collusion by the Democrats. “Now Ukraine is investigating Hillary campaign and DNC conspiracy with foreign operatives including Ukrainian and others to affect 2016 election,” he says. “And there’s no [former FBI director James B.]Comey to fix the result.”
April 24, 2019
Foreign Service Director General Carol Perez speaks with Yovanovitch at 1 a.m. and urges her to come back to Washington immediately, according to Yovanovitch’s testimony. “I was like, what? What happened?” Yovanovitch would later testify. “And she said, ‘I don’t know, but this is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane.’ ” Once home, she says she meets with Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who informs her that her time as ambassador is being curtailed. “He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the department had been under pressure from the president to remove me since the Summer of 2018,″ Yovanovitch says in her testimony. “He also said that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.”
April 25, 2019
In an interview with Fox News, Trump addresses the suggestion that Ukraine interfered in 2016. “I would imagine [William Barr] would want to see this,” he says. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.”
KEY EVENT The New York Times publishes a story tying Joe Biden’s pressure campaign in Ukraine to Shokin having investigated Burisma, portraying it as a potential liability in his 2020 campaign.
May 7, 2019
BloombergNewscasts doubt on the Times report, citing Ukrainian officials who say the Burisma investigation had long been dormant when Joe Biden applied pressure on Ukraine’s government.
May 7, 2019
KEY EVENT It is reported that Yovanovitch has been recalled by the State Department, two months before her scheduled departure date. Democrats allege a “political hit job” aimed at creating a pretext to remove her.
May 7, 2019
Zelensky holds a meeting with top advisers that is supposed to be about energy policy. According to AP, though, most of the three-hour meeting winds up being devoted to how to navigate Giuliani‘s efforts and avoid being wrapped up in U.S. politics.
May 9, 2019
KEY EVENTGiuliani tells the New York Times that he will travel to Ukraine to push for investigations related to the Bidens and the 2016 election “because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
May 11, 2019
Giulianicancels his Ukraine trip, acceding to the pressure.
May 11, 2019
Separately, Lutsenko and Zelensky meet for two hours, according to the whistleblower, with Lutsenko requesting to stay in his position.
Early May
Former Ukrainian prosecutor Kostiantyn H. Kulyk tells the Times that Yovanovitch had thwarted his efforts to deliver damaging information about the Bidens to the FBI by denying his visa request.
May 13, 2019
William Barrannounces a probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, which Trump and his congressional allies had pushed for by alleging a coup attempt. He appoints U.S. attorney John Durham to lead it.
Mid-May
The whistleblower is told that officials, including Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, had spoken with Giuliani to “contain the damage” he was doing, according to their complaint.
Mid-May
Parnas and Fruman, the Giuliani associates, travel to Ukraine and meet with Sergey Shefir, who later became an aide to Zelensky, and Ivan Bakanov, who is now the head of Ukraine’s secret police. Parnas’s lawyer later claimsParnas told Ukrainian officials that they had to announce the investigations of the Bidens or else Vice President Pence would skip Zelensky’s inauguration and the United States would freeze aid to Ukraine.
Mid-May
Trump tells Pence not to attend Zelensky‘s inauguration, according to the whistleblower. Instead, Energy Secretary Rick Perry attends. The whistleblower says it was “made clear” to them that “the President did not want to meet with Mr. Zelensky until he saw how Zelensky ‘chose to act’ in office.”
May 14, 2019
Giuliani tells a Ukrainian journalist that Yovanovitch was “removed . . . because she was part of the efforts against the president.”
May 16, 2019
Lutsenkosays there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
May 19, 2019
KEY EVENT In an interview with Fox News, Trump explicitly references Biden’s efforts in Ukraine. “Biden, he calls them and says, ‘Don’t you dare persecute, if you don’t fire this prosecutor’ — The prosecutor was after his son,” Trump says. “Then he said, ‘If you fire the prosecutor, you’ll be okay. And if you don’t fire the prosecutor, ‘We’re not giving you $2 billion in loan guarantees,’ or whatever he was supposed to give. Can you imagine if I did that?” Trump makes the allegation even though there was no evidence the investigation focused on any actions by the Bidens.
May 20, 2019
KEY EVENTZelensky is inaugurated as president of Ukraine. Shortly after his inauguration, Giuliani meets with Lutsenko allies who made the allegations included in Solomon’s reporting.
May 23, 2019
The administration notifies Congress that it intends to release hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid to Ukraine.
May 23, 2019
At a White House meeting with Trump and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Perry, Sondland and Volker—who later dub themselves the “three amigos” — debrief the president on Zelensky’s inauguration and their views of the new Ukrainian leader. Trump is skeptical, telling them that Ukraine is “not serious about reform” and “tried to take him down,” according to later testimony from Sondland. Trump puts them in charge of a back-channel diplomacy effort in Ukraine, according to the later testimony of Kent, instructing them to “talk with Rudy” as they did so.
May 28, 2019
Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. meets with Pompeo, who encourages him to become the top diplomat to Ukraine — also known as a chargé d’affaires. Despite reservations, which he later recounts in his testimony, including about Giuliani, Taylor takes the job, effectively replacing Yovanovitch.
May 29, 2019
Trump sends Zelensky a congratulatory letter inviting him to a White House meeting.
Some time in May
Giuliani meets with a top Ukrainian anti-corruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky, in Paris, according to Kholodnytsky. Kholodnytsky, who had clashed with Yovanovitch, has declined to comment on what he and Giuliani discussed, but he said the Burisma investigation should be reopened.
June 13, 2019
KEY EVENT In an interview with ABC News, Trump says he might accept electoral assistance from a foreign government, if offered. “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump says. “If somebody called from a country, Norway — ‘We have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” The chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission subsequently points out on Twitter that this would be illegal.
June 18, 2019
The Department of Defense publicly announces $250 million in military aid to Ukraine.
June 19, 2019
Trump begins asking questions about the military aid after seeing news reports, according to the testimony of Office of Management and Budget official Mark Sandy.
June 19, 2019
In an interview with Fox News, Trump again links Ukraine and the effort to hack the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election — a link that the whistleblower and later reporting show does not exist.
June 21, 2019
Giuliani tweets that Zelensky is “still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres Poroshenko.”
June 27, 2019
Sondland tells Taylor that Zelensky needs to make clear to Trump that he is not impeding “investigations,” as Taylor will later testify.
June 28, 2019
Sondland, Volker, Taylor and Perry participate in a call ahead of a planned call with Zelensky. According to Taylor, before Zelensky is added to the call, Sondland expresses a desire to keep regular interagency officials off the call. Sondland says he does not want anyone monitoring or transcribing the call, according to Taylor. Also on the call, Volker tells the participants that he intends to be explicit with Zelensky during an upcoming meeting in Toronto about what Zelensky needs to do to secure a White House meeting, according to Taylor. But Volker does not say specifically what he will request.
On the call, it is “made clear that some action on a Burisma/Biden investigation was a precondition for an Oval Office meeting,” Taylor tells one of his aides, David Holmes, according to Holmes’s later testimony.
Internal discord and a presidential call
July-August 2019
July 3, 2019
Aid to Ukraine is put on hold, according to three administration officials. Word of the hold is not widely known until later in the month.
July 10, 2019
KEY EVENT Top Ukrainian defense official Oleksandr Danyliuk meets with Sondland, Volker, Perry and White House national security adviser John Bolton in Washington. (Taylor says top Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak was also present.) According to Vindman’s testimony and the testimony of fellow NSC aide Fiona Hill, Bolton cuts the meeting short when Sondland begins requesting specific investigations in exchange for a meeting between Trump and Zelensky. Sondland also states that he coordinated the quid pro quo with Mulvaney, according to Vindman and Hill.
According to Vindman, Sondland in a later meeting emphasizes “the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” and Vindman and Hill both reprimand him for his “inappropriate” requests. Vindman contacts NSC lawyers, according to his testimony, and Hill contacts NSC lawyer John Eisenberg, according to her testimony. According to Taylor, Vindman and Hill tell him later that Bolton said they should have nothing to do with domestic politics and that Hill should “brief the lawyers.” Bolton decries the arrangement as a “drug deal,” according to Hill.
July 10, 2019
Taylor meets in Ukraine with Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Bohdan, and foreign policy adviser Vadym Prystaiko. According to Taylor, they tell him Giuliani had told them a phone call between Trump and Zelensky was unlikely to happen. Taylor relays their disappointment to U.S. officials.
July 12, 2019
Axios reports that Trump and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coatsare at odds, with Trump telling confidants that he wants to remove Coats from his position.
July 18, 2019
KEY EVENT Trump’s decision to withhold nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine is communicated to the State and Defense departments. Members of Congress are told that the hold is part of an “interagency delay.” Taylor later says an Office of Management and Budget official did not explain why, but said that the decision was relayed through Mulvaney.
July 19, 2019
Volker texts Sondland about the upcoming Zelensky call with Trump. “Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation,” Volker says.
July 19, 2019
VolkertextsGiuliani to connect him with Yermak. Giuliani would later say on Fox News that the State Department had asked for his help. “I didn’t know Mr. Yermak on July 19,” Giuliani said. “You see it right there, 2019 at 4:48 in the afternoon I got a call from Volker. Volker said ‘Would you meet with him? It would be helpful to us. We really want you to do it.’ ” Giuliani added: “They basically knew everything I was doing.”
July 19, 2019
Vindman and Hill inform Taylor that they are not aware of an official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, but that Mulvaney is skeptical of the country, according to Taylor’s testimony.
July 20, 2019
Taylor confronts Volker about Hill‘s claim that Volker met with Giuliani, according to Taylor, and Volker does not respond.
July 20, 2019
Sondland tells Taylor that he encouraged Zelensky to tell Trump that he would “leave no stone unturned” when it comes to “investigations,” according to Taylor.
July 20, 2019
Danyliuk tells Taylor that Zelensky does not want to be used as a pawn for a U.S. reelection campaign, also according to Taylor.
July 21, 2019
Taylor relays that concern to Sondlandvia text. “President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously,” he writes, “not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.”
July 22, 2019
Shokinalleges to The Post that he was removed as prosecutor general over the Biden issue. “I will answer that the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son, Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only — I emphasize, the only — motives for organizing my resignation,” he says. Other Ukrainian officials have said this is untrue.
July 22, 2019
Yermak and Giuliani schedule a meeting in early August, according to Giuliani.
July 23, 2019
The OMB reiterates that aid to Ukraine is suspended.
July 24, 2019
Muellertestifies before Congress about his report and its findings.
July 25, 2019
KEY EVENT Before a scheduled call between Trump and Zelensky, Volkertexts with Yermak and again expresses the importance of Zelensky saying he will launch investigations. For the first time on-record, he also ties this to a potential White House meeting for Zelensky. “Heard from White House-assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington,” Volker says.
That message followed outreach from Sondland who, about half an hour prior, had left Volker a message. Sondland had spoken with Trump that morning and would later testify that he believed Volker’s text to Yermak was a message that he had “likely” received from Trump on that call.
July 25, 2019
KEY EVENT Trump and Zelensky speak. As we later find out from a rough transcript released by the White House, Trump repeatedly notes how “good” the United States is to Ukraine and then proceeds to ask Zelensky to open two investigations. One investigation involves CrowdStrike, an Internet security company that probed the Democratic National Committee hack in 2016, and the other involves the Bidens and Burisma.
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,” Trump says before floating the CrowdStrike investigation.
He later adds: “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . . It sounds horrible to me.”
Trump repeatedly suggests William Barr will be involved in working with the Ukrainian government on the investigation. Zelensky tells Trump that his yet-to-be-named new prosecutor general “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue” — apparently referring to Burisma.
Trump says Yovanovitch “was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.” When Zelensky thanks Trump for previously warning him about Yovanovitch, Trump responds: “Well, she’s going to go through some things.”
The Post would later report that at least four national security officials raised concerns about Trump’s Ukraine efforts with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after the Zelensky call. Eisenberg moves a transcript of the call to a classified server that is generally reserved for sensitive national security information, according to multiple witnesses, though Vindman and Morrison said not for nefarious reasons.
July 25, 2019
After the call, Yermak texts Volker back, saying: “Phone call went well. President Trump proposed to choose any convenient dates. President Zelenskiy chose 20,21,22 September for the White House Visit.”
July 25, 2019
State Department staff circulate emails indicating the Ukrainian embassy is asking about U.S. military assistance and appears to be aware of the “situation” involving the aid, according to later testimony by State Department official Laura Cooper.
July 26, 2019
Volker and Sondland travel to Kyiv and meet with Zelensky and other politicians. There, the whistleblower writes, they “reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ‘navigate’ the demands that the President had made of” Zelensky. Zelensky tells Volker and Taylor that he was happy with the call and asks about the Oval Office meeting Trump offered in the May 29 letter, according to Taylor’s later testimony.
July 26, 2019
KEY EVENT Holmes, while in Ukraine with Sondland, overhears a phone call between Trump and Sondland, in which Trump inquires about investigations, according to Taylor’s and Holmes’s later testimonies. Sondland later tells Holmes that Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine as a country and that he just wants the investigations, according to Taylor and Holmes. Sondland later says he doesn’t recall mentioning Biden but otherwise doesn’t contradict their testimony.
Days following July 25
The whistleblowerwrites: “I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”
The whistleblower claims to have been told by White House officials that they were directed by White House lawyers to move the transcript from the normal documentation archive and to “a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature” — a move one official called an “act of abuse.”
In an appendix, the whistleblower adds that officials said “this was ‘not the first time’ under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive — rather than national security sensitive — information.”
Trump holds a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The call is first reported by the Russians; the White House does not confirm it until late in the evening. The Russians, in a much more substantial readout than the United States, claim Trump and Putin spoke about restoring full diplomatic relations one day.
Early August
Mulvaney asks acting OMB director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the Ukraine aid and how much longer it could be delayed, according to Washington Post reporting.
August 2, 2019
Giuliani travels to Madrid, where he meets with Yermak. Parnas is also in the meeting, according to Yermak. According to the New York Times, the meeting involves Giuliani encouraging Zelensky‘s government to investigate Hunter Biden.
August 3, 2019
Zelenskysays he plans to travel to the United States in September to meet with Trump in Washington.
August 8, 2019
Trump announcesJoseph Maguire will take Coats‘s job as director of national intelligence, in an acting capacity. In doing so, he bypasses Sue Gordon, who had been Coats’s No. 2 at the directorate of national intelligence and who was a career intelligence official with bipartisan support. Gordon would later resign.
August 8, 2019
Giuliani tells Fox News that Durham, the Justice Department official investigating the Russia probe’s origins, is “spending a lot of time in Europe” to investigate what happened in Ukraine.
August 9, 2019
Trump says of Zelensky: “I think he’s going to make a deal with President Putin, and he will be invited to the White House. And we look forward to seeing him. He’s already been invited to the White House, and he wants to come. And I think he will. He’s a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine. And I think he will be coming very soon, actually.”
August 9, 2019
Volker and Sondland text with one another about a statement Ukraine might be asked to issue about the investigations. Sondland also indicates that Trump “really wants the deliverable.” Volker and Sondland consult Giulianiabout what the statement should say.
August 10, 2019
Yermakemphasizes that Ukraine would like to lock down a date for Zelensky‘s visit before making the statement. “I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things,” Yermak says. “Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit.”
August 11, 2019
Sondland emails top State Department aides UlrichBrechbuhl, Lisa Kenna and says, “Kurt & I negotiated a statement from Ze to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation. Ze plans to have a big presser on the openness subject (including specifics) next week.” Kenna responds, “I’ll pass to S. Thank you.”
August 12, 2019
KEY EVENTThe whistleblower files a complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community. Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson will later determine the complaint to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern,” which would trigger a legally required disclosure to the House and Senate intelligence committees.
August 13, 2019
Volker and Sondlandtext about what language should be included in Ukraine’s statement.
August 15, 2019
Coats and Gordon officially leave their positions.
August 16, 2019
Volker tells Taylor via text that Yermak asked the U.S. government to submit an official request for the Burisma investigation, according to Taylor’s later testimony. Taylor gives Volker a deputy assistant attorney general to contact regarding whether such a request would be proper.
August 17, 2019
SondlandasksVolker if “we still want Ze[lensky] to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma [sic]?” Volker responds, “That’s the clear message so far …”
August 21, 2019
Taylor asks Brechbuhlwhether there is an official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, according to Taylor, and Brechbuhl says there is not.
August 22, 2019
NSC aide Tim Morrison tells Taylor it “remains to be seen” whether U.S. policy toward Ukraine has changed, according to Taylor, and says the “president doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.”
August 22, 2019
Sondland emails Pompeo and Kenna, saying “Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for Potus to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place ([in] mid-Sept[ember), that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US. Hopefully, that will break the logjam.” Pompeo replies, “Yes.”
Questions swirl around withheld aid
Early September 2019
August 27, 2019
Bolton meets with Zelensky in Kyiv. According to Taylor, the withheld military aid is not discussed.
August 28, 2019
KEY EVENTPolitico posts a story about the Trump administration withholding $250 million in military aid from Ukraine, the first time it has been reported publicly. (Before this point, it was not clear Ukraine even knew the aid was being withheld.)
August 29, 2019
Yermak texts Volker a link to the story and says: “Need to talk with you.” Volker responds: “Hi Andrey — absolutely. When is good for you?” Yermak also contacts Taylor to express his deep concern, according to Taylor, and Taylor says he is “embarrassed” that he has no explanation.
August 29, 2019
Taylor writes a cable to Pompeo, at Bolton‘s urging, decrying the “folly” of withholding the funds at a time when Russia is breathing down Ukraine’s neck.
Late August
Lawmakers raise concerns about Ukraine aid being withheld, citing its importance to defend the former Soviet republic from Russia.
August 30, 2019
Sondland tells Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that Trump was withholding the Ukraine military aid to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending,” according to Johnson’s later recollection.
August 31, 2019
Johnson tries to get Trump to release the military aid. He later says Trump explained that part of the reason for the delay was his concern about Ukraine’s role in 2016 election interference. “I didn’t succeed,” Johnson explains later. “But the president was very consistent on why he was considering it. Again, it was corruption, overall, generalized — but yeah, no doubt about it, what happened in 2016 — what happened in 2016, as relates? What was the truth about that?”
September 1, 2019
KEY EVENTSondland tells Yermak at a meeting in Warsaw that the military aid would not arrive until Zelensky promises to pursue the Burisma investigation, as Taylor, Kent, Morrison and Sondland later confirm. Sondland says in clarified testimony that he “presumed” the two issues were connected “in the absence of any [other] credible explanation.” But he emphasizes that Trump did not directly convey it to him and later explicitly denied a quid pro quo.
September 1, 2019
Taylor tells Kent that Sondland had told Yermak that “POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to [a] microphone and say ‘investigations,’ ‘Biden,’ and ‘Clinton,’ ” according to Kent’s later testimony.
September 1, 2019
Zelensky and Pence also meet in Warsaw for a ceremony commemorating World War II. (Trump had originally been slated to attend the ceremony but remained in the United States to monitor Hurricane Dorian.) Taylor informs Danyliuk before the meeting that if the military aid is not released by the end of the month, the funds would expire because that is the end of the fiscal year, according to Taylor.
At the meeting, Pence tells Zelensky he will talk to Trump about the military aid, according to a readout from Morrison that Taylor says he received. Pence also says Trump wants Europe to do more to support Ukraine and that he wants Ukraine to do more to root out corruption, according to Morrison’s readout, as relayed by Taylor.
September 1, 2019
KEY EVENTTaylor texts Sondland, asking: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland responds, “Call me.” The two speak, according to Taylor, and Sondland explains that Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and the conspiracy theory about Ukraine’s alleged role in the 2016 election interference. Sondland tells Taylor that he regrets not telling Ukrainian officials that “everything” relied on their announcement of the investigations — both a meeting and military aid — according to Taylor.
September 2, 2019
Pence says he did not discuss Biden with Zelensky, but that he did suggest that aid was conditioned on rooting out corruption. “As President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption,” Pence said. “The president wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine.”
September 2, 2019
Danyliuk expresses concern to Morrison that U.S. officials are not able to provide answers about the withheld military aid, according to Taylor, and Ukrainian Defense Minister AndriyZagorodnyukraises similar concerns with Taylor.
September 5, 2019
Johnson and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) meet in Ukraine with Zelensky, with Taylor hosting the meeting. Zelensky’s first question is about the military aid, according to Taylor. Murphy later tells NBC’s Chuck Todd that Zelensky had expressed concerns about Giuliani‘s overtures.
September 5, 2019
KEY EVENT The Post’s editorial board writes that it had been “reliably told” that Trump was “attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.”
September 7, 2019
Trump tells Sondland that he is not asking for a “quid pro quo” but insists Zelensky make the announcement about the two investigations, according Morrison’s testimony and Taylor’s testimony about his conversations with Morrison. Morrison informs NSC lawyers about the call, according to both of them.
September 8, 2019
Sondland tells Taylor that Trump is adamant that Zelensky “clear things up and do it in public,” according to Taylor. Sondland also tells Taylor that he told Zelensky and Yermak that it wasn’t a quid pro quo, but that if they didn’t “clear things up” publicly, there would be a “stalemate,” according to Taylor.
Sondland also explains to Taylor that Trump is a businessman, and that before a businessman signs a check, he expects someone who owes him something to pay up, according to Taylor. (Taylor said Volker had said something similar.)
September 8, 2019
Taylor texts Volker and Sondland, saying: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”
September 9, 2019
TaylortextsSondland again about the idea that the military aid is being withheld in some kind of quid pro quo. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor says.
Sondland speaks with Trump via phone and, during which Trump tells him something similar to, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,” according to Sondland’s testimony.
Sondland then responds to Taylor‘s text, “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.” (Sondland will later explain that he was simply relaying Trump’s denial, rather than vouching for it.)
A whistleblower, a transcript and impeachment
Sept. 9-present
September 9, 2019
The Democrat-controlled House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees announce an investigation into Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine and the administration’s decision to halt aid.
Atkinson notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees that a whistleblower has filed a complaint, but he does not reveal its contents or substance.
September 10, 2019
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) writes to Maguire demanding Congress receive the complaint.
September 10, 2019
Trump announces on Twitter that Bolton has resigned. Trump says it came at his request; Bolton quickly counters by saying he offered first.
September 11, 2019
KEY EVENT The Trump administration releases the Ukraine aid it had been withholding. Taylor informs Zelensky and Prystaiko.
September 12, 2019
Taylor becomes worried that Zelensky will announce the investigations in a planned CNN interview he learned about from Sondland, as he later testifies. He tries to confirm with Danyliuk that Zelensky won’t do such an interview, and Danyliuk confirms. Taylor asks the same question of Yermak, whom he later describes as being “uncomfortable” with the question. But Danyliuk again confirms there would be no CNN interview, Taylor later testifies.
September 13, 2019
SchiffsubpoenasMaguire to compel him to disclose the whistleblower complaint. According to Schiff, the DNI’s office, in a letter from counsel, indicates the whistleblower complaint is being withheld because of confidential and potentially privileged communications by people outside the intelligence community. It is assumed that this refers to Trump.
September 17, 2019
Maguiresays he will not testify or hand over the whistleblower complaint. Schiff says Maguire told him he couldn’t “because he is being instructed not to, that this involved a higher authority, someone above.”
September 18, 2019
The Post reports that the complaint involves Trump’s communications with a foreign leader and some kind of “promise” that was made.
September 18, 2019
Pence holds a call with Zelensky, which U.S. officials tell The Post was somewhat perfunctory. During Vindman’s later public testimony, though, Pence’s office says the call is classified and can’t be discussed in an open setting.
Around Sept. 18 or 19
Zelenskycancelsa planned CNN interview, according to the network.
September 19, 2019
Atkinson briefs Congress in a closed-door session, telling them the complaint involved multiple events and not a single communication. The Post reports the complaint involves Ukraine.
September 19, 2019
Giulianiappears on CNN and denies any wrongdoing by Trump. But he also suggests it would be okay if Trump withheld aid in exchange for Ukraine investigating the Bidens. “The reality is the president of the United States has every right to say to another leader of a foreign country, ‘You got to straighten up before we give you a lot of money,’ ” Giuliani says. “It is perfectly appropriate for [Trump] to ask a foreign government to investigate this massive crime that was made by a former vice president.”
September 23, 2019
Trump suggests aid to Ukraine may have been withheld over “corruption” issues — without citing the Bidens. “If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?” Trump said. “. . . So it’s very important that, on occasion, you speak to somebody about corruption.”
September 24, 2019
Trump confirms he withheld the funding but suggests it was because other European countries should pay for Ukraine’s military aid. Trump later says he will release a transcript of his phone call with Zelensky.
September 24, 2019
KEY EVENT House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces her supportfor a formal impeachment inquiry for the first time, setting that process in motion.
September 25, 2019
KEY EVENT The White House releases a rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, including the details described above.
September 25, 2019
Trump meets with Zelensky at the United Nations. Zelensky maintains he didn’t feel “pressure” to pursue investigations and that he didn’t interfere in his country’s law enforcement process. “We have an independent country and independent [prosecutor general],” he says. “I can’t push anyone. That is the answer. I didn’t call somebody or the new [prosecutor general]. I didn’t ask him. I didn’t push him.”
Zelensky also pointedly notes that, despite repeated invitations, Trump has never actually identified a date for a White House visit.
September 26, 2019
KEY EVENT The White House declassifies the whistleblower complaint, and Schiff releases it. The complaint focuses on Trump’s call with Zelensky but also alleges an effort to cover it up and alludes to substantial concern within the administration about Trump’s actions.
At a hearing later that day, Schiff paraphrases the Trump-Zelensky call, prompting criticism from Republicans.
September 26, 2019
Maguire testifies to the House Intelligence Committee that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel downgraded the inspector general’s determination that the whistleblower complaint was of “urgent concern,” which eliminated the requirement that it be shared with Congress. Democrats allege a conflict of interest, noting that the complaint names William Barr — the head of the Justice Department — as being potentially involved.
More than 300 former U.S. national security and foreign policy officials sign a statement supporting House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
September 28, 2019
A top Pompeo aide, Michael McKinley, rallies support for a State Department statement strongly defending Yovanovitch, according to his testimony, but department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus informs McKinley that Pompeo decides against releasing such a statement — in part to “not draw undue attention to her.”
October 1, 2019
Pompeosends House Democrats a letter declaring that five State Department employees who had been summoned for depositions would not appear. Pompeo calls the inquiry “an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly, the distinguished professionals of the Department of State.”
October 2, 2019
The New York Times reports — and The Post confirms — that the whistleblowerhad approached a staffer for Schiff‘s committee early in the process, contradicting some of Schiff’s claims.
October 2, 2019
State Department Inspector General Steve Linickshares with Congress documents that had been sent to the State Department that include conspiracy theories about the Bidens. Giuliani indicates he was responsible for some of the materials, which were apparently sent to State from the White House.
“Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call?” Trump is asked by a reporter.
“Well,” he replies, “I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”
He tells reporters that he also thinks China should launch an investigation involving the Bidens. “And by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,” Trump says.
October 3, 2019
Kent confronts State officials about the claims in Pompeo‘s letter, calling them inaccurate, according to his later testimony. He tells one official whose name is redacted: “I said, well, you say that the career foreign services are being intimidated. . . . And I asked him, about whom are you speaking? And he said, you’re asking me to reveal confidential information. And I said, no, I’m not. There are only two career Foreign Service officers who subject to this process. I’m one of them. I’m the only one working at the Department of State, and the other one is Ambassador Yovanovitch, who is teaching at Georgetown.”
October 3, 2019
The State Department informs Congress that it has approved the sale of 150 Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine — a type of weaponry Zelensky mentioned on the July 25 call with Trump — at a cost of $39.2 million.
October 6, 2019
Lawyers for the whistleblower indicate they are representing a second whistleblower — this one with firsthand knowledge of some of the key events. They say the second whistleblower has spoken with Atkinson.
October 8, 2019
After blocking Sondland‘s testimony, White House counsel Pat Cipolloneinforms Congress that the White House will not cooperate with any facet of its impeachment inquiry, making curious arguments about the lack of “due process.”
October 10, 2019
Giuliani‘s two Soviet-born business associates, Parnas and Fruman, are arrested shortly before they are set to leave the country. They are indicted on campaign finance charges, with the Southern District of New York accusing them of funneling foreign money into U.S. politics to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations.
October 10, 2019
McKinleyresigns over Pompeo‘s alleged failure to support State Department officials ensnared in the Ukraine controversy.
October 11, 2019
Yovanovitchtestifies to Congress, alleging a politicized effort to remove her as ambassador to Ukraine.
October 12, 2019
The Post reportsSondland will tell Congress that his Sept. 9 text message stating there was no quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine was based on assurances from Trump and that he is not certain Trump’s denial was accurate. Trump and his allies had hailed Sondland’s text as proof there was no quid pro quo.
McKinleytestifies and explains his resignation. “I was disturbed by the implication that foreign governments were being approached to procure negative information on political opponents,” McKinley says. “I was convinced that this would also have a serious impact on Foreign Service morale and the integrity of our work overseas.”
October 17, 2019
Sondland testifies, saying any pressure he applied on Ukraine to investigate Burisma came before he knew the case involved the Bidens. (He claims this despite Giuliani‘s efforts and the Bidens’ proximity to them being in the news by early May.) Sondland says he is making that distinction “because I believe I testified that it would be improper” to push for such political investigations. Asked whether it would be illegal, Sondland says: “I’m not a lawyer, but I assume so.”
October 17, 2019
Trump announces Perry will resign by the end of the year.
October 17, 2019
KEY EVENTMulvaney in a news conference momentarily confirms a quid pro quo with Ukraine. “[Did Trump] also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney said. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. . . . The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.” Mulvaney later issues a statement trying to reverse course, saying there actually was no connection.
Cooper testifies, but not before the proceedings are delayed for five hours as House Republicans storm the secure room where the depositions are being held. The Republicans expressed concern about the secrecy of the process.
State Department officials Catherine Croft and Christopher Andersontestify separately, describing the dim view of Ukraine taken by Trump and those around him.
October 30, 2019
In his confirmation hearing to become ambassador to Russia, Sullivan says he was aware of a“smear” campaign against Yovanovitch and that he believed Giuliani was a part of it. He also says it was appropriate to remove Yovanovitch, though, because Trump had lost confidence in her.
October 31, 2019
Morrisontestifies, corroborating Taylor‘s testimony that Sondlandcommunicated a quid pro quo to Ukraine. Morrison says he raised concerns about Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, but that he did not think it contained anything illegal.
October 31, 2019
The House votes to formalize its impeachment inquiry and open up its hearings, amid GOP criticism that the process was too secretive. No House Republicans vote in favor of the inquiry, and two Democrats vote against it.
Sondland clarifies his testimony to acknowledge he communicated the quid pro quo to Ukraine on July 10, but that he was acting on what he presumed to be the case rather than a direct order from Trump.
Bolton‘s lawyer tells Congress in a letter that his client was “part of many relevant meetings and conversations” pertaining to the impeachment inquiry that aren’t yet public, but reinforces that Bolton will appear only if ordered to by a judge.
November 10, 2019
Parnas‘s lawyer discloses the quid pro quo he allegedly communicated to Ukrainian officials in May.
November 13, 2019
Taylor and Kent testify in an open hearing.
November 15, 2019
Yovanovitchtestifies in an open hearing, during which Trump tweets an attack on her. “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” he said. “She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.” Democrats accuse Trump of witness intimidation.
Vindman, Williams, Volker and Morrisontestify in two consecutive open hearings.
November 20, 2019
Sondlandtestifies in an open hearing, in which he says top administration officials including Pence and Pompeo were aware of the quid pro quo and that it was clear Giuliani was acting on Trump’s wishes when he pushed for it. Sondland’s testimony is followed by Hale and Cooper in their own hearing.
November 21, 2019
Hill and Holmes round out the public impeachment hearings. Hill criticizes efforts by Republicans to draw an equivalence between Russia’s interference in 2016 and the actions of Ukrainians during the campaign. Holmes notes that the pressure felt by Ukraine during its interactions with Trump since Zelensky’s inauguration is on-going, given that Ukraine still seeks to demonstrate that it maintains the U.S.’ support.
The Moscow Trials were a series of show trials held in the Soviet Union at the instigation of Joseph Stalin between 1936 and 1938 against Trotskyists and members of Right Opposition of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. There were three Moscow Trials: the Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center (Zinoviev–Kamenev Trial, aka “Trial of the Sixteen,” 1936), the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center (Pyatakov–Radek Trial, 1937), and the Case of the Anti-Soviet “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” (Bukharin–Rykov Trial, aka “Trial of the Twenty-One,” 1938). The defendants of these were Old Bolshevik party leaders and top officials of the Soviet secret police. Most defendants were charged under Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code with conspiring with the Western powers to assassinate Stalin and other Soviet leaders, dismember the Soviet Union, and restore capitalism.
The Moscow Trials led to the execution of many of the defendants. They are generally seen as part of Stalin’s Great Purge, an attempt to rid the party of current or prior oppositionists, especially but not exclusively Trotskyists, and any leading Bolshevik cadre from the time of the Russian Revolution or earlier, who might even potentially become a figurehead for the growing discontent in the Soviet populace resulting from Stalin’s mismanagement of the economy.[1] Stalin’s hasty industrialization during the period of the First Five Year Plan and the brutality of the forced agricultural collectivization had led to an acute economic and political crisis in 1928-33, a part of the global problem known as the Great Depression, and to enormous suffering on the part of the Soviet workers and peasants. Stalin was acutely conscious of this fact and took steps to prevent it taking the form of an opposition inside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to his increasingly totalitarian rule.[1]
Contents
Background
Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Joseph Stalin formed a ruling triumvirate in early 1923[2] after Vladimir Lenin had become incapacitated from a stroke. In the context of the series of defeats of communist revolutions abroad (crucially the German revolutions of 1919 but also later the Chinese Revolution of 1927) which left the Russian Revolution increasingly isolated in a backward country, the triumvirate was able to effect the marginalization of Leon Trotsky in an internal party political conflict over the issue of Stalin’s theory of Socialism in One Country. It was Trotsky who most clearly represented the wing of the CPSU leadership which claimed that the survival of the revolution depended on the spread of communism to the advanced European economies especially Germany. This was expressed in his theory of permanent revolution.[3]
A few years later, Zinoviev and Kamenev joined the United Front in an alliance with Trotsky which favored Trotskyism and opposed Stalin specifically.[4] Consequently, Stalin allied with Nikolai Bukharin and defeated Trotsky in a power struggle. Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 and Kamenev and Zinoviev temporarily lost their membership in the Communist Party. Zinoviev and Kamenev, in 1932, were found to be complicit in the Ryutin Affair and again were temporarily expelled from the Communist Party. In December 1934, Sergei Kirov was assassinated and, subsequently 15 defendants were found guilty of direct, or indirect, involvement in the crime and were executed.[5] Zinoviev and Kamenev were found to be morally complicit in Kirov’s murder and were sentenced to prison terms of ten and five years, respectively.[6]
Both Kamenev and Zinoviev had been secretly tried in 1935 but it appears that Stalin decided that, with suitable confessions, their fate could be used for propaganda purposes. Genrikh Yagoda oversaw the interrogation proceedings.
Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center
Conspiracy and investigation
In December 1935, the original case surrounding Zinoviev began to widen into what was called the Trotsky-Zinoviev Center.[7] Stalin allegedly received reports that correspondences from Trotsky were found among the possessions of one of those arrested in the widened probe.[8] Consequently, Stalin stressed the importance of the investigation and ordered Nikolai Yezhov to take over the case and ascertain if Trotsky was involved.[8] The central office of NKVD that was headed by Genrikh Yagoda was shocked when it was known that Yezhov (at that time a mere party functionary)[a][9] has discovered the conspiracy,[9] due to the fact that they (NKVD) had no relations to the case.[9] This would have led to inevitable conclusion about unprofessionalism of the NKVD leaders who completely missed the existence of the conspiratorial Trotskyist center.[9] In June 1936, Yagoda reiterated his belief to Stalin that there was no link between Trotsky and Zinoviev, but Stalin promptly rebuked him.[10] Bewilderment was strengthened by the fact that both Zinoviev and Kamenev for a long time were under constant operational surveillance and after the murder of Kirov were held in custody.[9] A key role in investigating played a chief of the Secret-political department of the NKVD Main Directory of State Security (a predecessor of KGB), State Security Commissar of the 2nd Class Georgiy Molchanov.[9]
The basis of the scenario was laid in confession testimonies of three arrested: NKVD agent Valentin Olberg (ru:Ольберг, Валентин Павлович) who was teaching at the Gorky Pedagogic Institute and two former participants of the internal party opposition and Soviet statesmen Isaak Rejngold and Richard Pikel.[9] Wherein Rejngold firmly believed that participating in the case fabrication about mythical conspiracy he executes the party’s task.[9] In relation to their composition, the testimonies looked standard conspiratorial activity, murder of Kirov, preparation to assassination attempts against the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, seizure of power in the Soviet Union with the aim of “restoration of capitalism”.[9]
In July 1936, Zinoviev and Kamenev were brought to Moscow from an unspecified prison.[10] They were interrogated and denied being part of any Trotsky-led conspiracy.[11] Yezhov appealed to Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s devotion to the Soviet Union as old Bolsheviks and advised them that Trotsky was fomenting anti-Soviet sentiment amongst the proletariat in the world. Throughout spring and summer of 1936 the investigators were requesting from the arrested “to lay down arms in front the party” exerting a continuous pressure on them.[9] Furthermore, this loss of support, in the event of a war with Germany or Japan, could have disastrous ramifications for the Soviet Union.[12] To Kamenev specifically, Yezhov showed him evidence that his son was subject to an investigation that could result in his son’s execution.[13] According to one witness, at the beginning of the summer the central heating was turned on in Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s cells. This was very unpleasant for both prisoners but particularly Zinoviev who was asthmatic and couldn’t tolerate the artificially increased temperatures.[9] Finally the exhausted prisoners agreed to a deal with Stalin who promised them, on the behalf of Politburo, their lives in exchange for participation in the anti-Trotskyist spectacle.[9] Kamenev and Zinoviev agreed to confess on condition that they receive a direct guarantee from the entire Politburo that their lives and those of their families and followers would be spared. When they were taken to the supposed Politburo meeting, they were met by only Stalin and Kliment Voroshilov.[13] Stalin explained that they were the “commission” authorized by the Politburo, and Stalin agreed to their conditions in order to gain their desired confessions.[14] After that the future defendants were given some medical treatment and food.[9]
The trial was held from August 19 to August 24, 1936 in the small October Hall of the House of the Unions (chosen instead of the larger Hall of Columns, used for earlier trials)[15] and there were 16 defendants.[16]
Defendant Ivan Nikitich Smirnov was blamed by his co-defendants for being the leader of the Center which planned Kirov’s assassination. He, however, had been in prison since January 1933 and refused to confess.[18]
Another defendant, the Old Bolshevik Eduard Holtzman, was accused at the Trial of the 16 of conspiring with Trotsky in Copenhagen at the Hotel Bristol in 1932, where Trotsky was giving a public lecture. A week after the trial it was revealed by a Danish Social Democratic newspaper that the hotel had been demolished in 1917.[19]
All the defendants were sentenced to death and were subsequently shot in the cellars of Lubyanka Prison in Moscow.[citation needed]
The second trial occurred between January 23 and January 30, 1937.[20]
This second trial involved 17 lesser figures including Karl Radek, Yuri Pyatakov and Grigory Sokolnikov. Alexander Beloborodov was also arrested and intended to be tried along with Radek, but did not make the confession required of him, and so he was not produced in court. Thirteen of the defendants were eventually executed by shooting. The rest received sentences in labour camps.[21][22] Radek was spared as he implicated others, including Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, and Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, setting the stage for the Trial of Military and Trial of the Twenty One.
Radek provided the pretext for the purge on a massive scale with his testimony that there was a “third organization separate from the cadres which had passed through [Trotsky’s] school”[23] as well as “semi-Trotskyites, quarter-Trotskyites, one-eighth-Trotskyites, people who helped us, not knowing of the terrorist organization but sympathizing with us, people who from liberalism, from a Fronde against the Party, gave us this help.”[24]
By the third organization, he meant the last remaining former opposition group called Rightists led by Bukharin, whom he implicated by saying: “I feel guilty of one thing more: even after admitting my guilt and exposing the organisation, I stubbornly refused to give evidence about Bukharin. I knew that Bukharin’s situation was just as hopeless as my own, because our guilt, if not juridically, then in essence, was the same. But we are close friends, and intellectual friendship is stronger than other friendships. I knew that Bukharin was in the same state of upheaval as myself. That is why I did not want to deliver him bound hand and foot to the People’s Commissariat of Home Affairs. Just as in relation to our other cadres, I wanted Bukharin himself to lay down his arms.”[23]
At the time, many Western observers who attended the trials said that they were fair and that the guilt of the accused had been established. They based this assessment on the confessions of the accused, which were freely given in open court, without any apparent evidence that they had been extracted by torture or drugging. Joseph E. Davies, the U.S. ambassador, wrote in Mission to Moscow:
In view of the character of the accused, their long terms of service, their recognized distinction in their profession, their long-continued loyalty to the Communist cause, it is scarcely credible that their brother officers … should have acquiesced in their execution, unless they were convinced that these men had been guilty of some offense.[*] It is generally accepted by members of the Diplomatic Corps that the accused must have been guilty of an offense which in the Soviet Union would merit the death penalty.
* The Bukharin trial six months later developed evidence which, if true, more than justified this action. Undoubtedly those facts were all full known to the military court at this time.[25]
The third show trial, in March 1938, known as The Trial of the Twenty-One, tied together all the loose threads from earlier trials. It included 21 defendants alleged to belong to the so-called “Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites”:
The fact that Yagoda was one of the accused showed the speed at which the purges were consuming its own. Meant to be the culmination of previous trials, it now alleged that Bukharin and others had conspired to assassinate Lenin and Stalin numerous times after 1918 and had murdered Soviet writer Maxim Gorky by poison in 1936. The group also stood accused of espionage. Bukharin and others were claimed to have plotted the overthrow and territorial partition of the Soviet Union in collusion with agents of the German and Japanese governments, among other preposterous charges.
Even sympathetic observers who had stomached the earlier trials found it hard to swallow the new charges as they became ever more absurd, and the purge had now expanded to include virtually every living Old Bolshevik leader except Stalin.
The preparation for this trial was delayed in its early stages due to the reluctance of some party members to denounce their comrades. It was at this time that Stalin personally intervened to speed up the process and replaced Yagoda with Yezhov. Stalin also observed some of the trial in person from a hidden chamber in the courtroom. On the first day of the trial, Krestinsky caused a sensation when he repudiated his written confession and pleaded not guilty to all the charges. However, he changed his plea the next day after “special measures”, which dislocated his left shoulder among other things.[26]
Anastas Mikoyan and Vyacheslav Molotov later claimed that Bukharin was never tortured, but it is now known that his interrogators were given the order, “beating permitted,” and were under great pressure to extract confessions out of the “star” defendant. Bukharin held out for three months, but threats to his young wife and infant son, combined with “methods of physical influence” wore him down. But when he read his confession, amended and corrected personally by Stalin, he withdrew his whole confession. The examination started all over again, with a double team of interrogators.[27]
Bukharin’s confession in particular became the subject of much debate among Western observers, inspiring Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon and a philosophical essay by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in Humanism and Terror among others. His confessions were somewhat different from others in that, while he pleaded guilty to general charges, he denied knowledge of any specific crimes. Some astute observers noted that he would allow only what was in his written confession and refused to go any further. The fact that he was allowed to write in prison (he wrote four book-length manuscripts including an autobiographical novel, How It All Began, a philosophical treatise, and a collection of poems – all of which were found in Stalin’s archive and published in the 1990s) suggests that some kind of deal was reached as a condition for his confession. He also wrote a series of emotional letters to Stalin, protesting his innocence and professing his love for Stalin, which contrasts with his critical opinion of Stalin and his policies as expressed to others and with his conduct in the trial.
There are several possible interpretations of Bukharin’s motivation (besides coercion) in the trial. Koestler and others viewed it as a true believer’s last service to the Party (while preserving a modicum of personal honor), whereas Bukharin’s biographers Stephen Cohen and Robert Tucker saw traces of Aesopian language, with which Bukharin sought to turn the tables and conduct a trial of Stalinism (while still keeping his part of the bargain to save his family). Bukharin himself speaks of his “peculiar duality of mind” in his last plea, which led to “semi-paralysis of the will” and Hegelian “unhappy consciousness“.
The result was a curious mix of fulsome confessions and subtle criticisms of the trial. After disproving several charges against him (one observer noted that he proceeded to demolish, or rather showed he could very easily demolish, the whole case[28]), Bukharin said that “the confession of the accused is not essential. The confession of the accused is a medieval principle of jurisprudence”, his point being that the trial was solely based on coerced confessions. He finished his last plea with “the monstrousness of my crime is immeasurable, especially in the new stage of the struggle of the U.S.S.R. May this trial be the last severe lesson, and may the great might of the U.S.S.R. become clear to all.”[29]
Romain Rolland and others wrote to Stalin seeking clemency for Bukharin, but all the leading defendants were executed except Rakovsky and two others (they were killed in prison in 1941). Despite the promise to spare his family, Bukharin’s wife, Anna Larina, was sent to a labor camp, but she survived.
Aftermath
Communist Party leaders in most Western countries denounced criticism of the trials as capitalist attempts to subvert Communism.[30]
A number of American communists and progressive “fellow travellers” outside of the Soviet Union signed a Statement of American Progressives on the Moscow Trials. These included Langston Hughes[31] and Stuart Davis,[32] who would later express regrets.
Some contemporary observers who thought the trials were inherently fair cite the statements of Molotov, who while conceding that some of the confessions contain unlikely statements, said there may have been several reasons or motives for this – one being that the handful who made doubtful confessions were trying to undermine the Soviet Union and its government by making dubious statements in their confessions to cast doubts on their trial. Molotov postulated that a defendant might invent a story that he collaborated with foreign agents and party members to undermine the government so that those members would falsely come under suspicion, while the false foreign collaboration charge would be believed as well. Thus, the Soviet government was in his view the victim of false confessions. Nonetheless, he said the evidence of mostly out-of-power Communist officials conspiring to make a power grab during a moment of weakness in the upcoming war truly existed.[citation needed] This defense collapsed after the release of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech to the Twentieth Congress.
In Britain, the lawyer and Labour MP Denis Nowell Pritt, for example, wrote: “Once again the more faint-hearted socialists are beset with doubts and anxieties,” but “once again we can feel confident that when the smoke has rolled away from the battlefield of controversy it will be realized that the charge was true, the confessions correct and the prosecution fairly conducted”, while socialist thinker Beatrice Webb “was pleased that Stalin had ‘cut out the dead wood'”.[33] Communist Party leader Harry Pollitt, in the Daily Worker of March 12, 1936, told the world that “the trials in Moscow represent a new triumph in the history of progress”. The article was ironically illustrated by a photograph of Stalin with Yezhov, himself shortly to vanish and his photographs airbrushed from history by NKVD archivists.[34]
In the United States, left-wing advocates such as Corliss Lamont and Lillian Hellman also denounced criticism of the Moscow trials, signing An Open Letter To American Liberals in support of the trials for the March 1937 issue of Soviet Russia Today.[35] In the political atmosphere of the 1930s, the accusation that there was a conspiracy to destroy the Soviet Union was not incredible, and few outside observers were aware of the events inside the Communist Party that had led to the purge and the trials.
However, the Moscow trials were generally viewed negatively by most Western observers including many liberals. The New York Times noted the absurdity in an editorial on March 1, 1938: “It is as if twenty years after Yorktown somebody in power at Washington found it necessary for the safety of the State to send to the scaffold Thomas Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Hamilton, Jay and most of their associates. The charge against them would be that they conspired to hand over the United States to George III.”[36]
For Bertram Wolfe, the outcome of the Bukharin trial marked his break with Stalinism.[37]
In May 1937, the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials, commonly known as the Dewey Commission, was set up in the United States by supporters of Trotsky, to establish the truth about the trials. The commission was headed by the noted American philosopher and educator John Dewey, who led a delegation to Mexico, where Trotsky lived, to interview him and hold hearings from April 10 to April 17, 1937. The hearings were conducted to investigate the allegations against Trotsky who publicly stated in advance of them that if the commission found him guilty as charged he would hand himself over to the Soviet authorities. They brought to light evidence which established that some of the specific charges made at the trials could not be true.
The Dewey Commission published its findings in the form of a 422-page book titled Not Guilty. Its conclusions asserted the innocence of all those condemned in the Moscow Trials. In its summary the commission wrote: “Independent of extrinsic evidence, the Commission finds:
That the conduct of the Moscow Trials was such as to convince any unprejudiced person that no attempt was made to ascertain the truth.
That while confessions are necessarily entitled to the most serious consideration, the confessions themselves contain such inherent improbabilities as to convince the Commission that they do not represent the truth, irrespective of any means used to obtain them.”
That Trotsky never instructed any of the accused or witnesses in the Moscow trials to enter into agreements with foreign powers against the Soviet Union [and] that Trotsky never recommended, plotted, or attempted the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
The commission concluded: “We therefore find the Moscow Trials to be frame-ups.”
For example, in Moscow, Pyatakov had testified that he had flown to Oslo in December 1935 to “receive terrorist instructions” from Trotsky. The Dewey Commission established that no such flight had taken place.
In Britain, the trials were also subject to criticism. A group called the British Provisional Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky was set up. In 1936, the Committee published an open letter in the Manchester Guardian calling for an international inquiry into the Trials. The letter was signed by several notable figures, including H. N. Brailsford, Harry Wicks, Conrad Noel, Frank Horrabin and Eleanor Rathbone.[38][39] The Committee also supported the Dewey Commission. Emrys Hughes, the British MP, also attacked the Moscow Trials as unjust in his newspaper Forward.[38]
Legacy
All of the surviving members of the Lenin-era party leadership except Stalin and Trotsky, were tried. By the end of the final trial Stalin had arrested and executed almost every important living Bolshevik from the Revolution. Of 1,966 delegates to the party congress in 1934, 1,108 were arrested. Of 139 members of the Central Committee, 98 were arrested. Three out of five Soviet marshals (Alexander Ilyich Yegorov, Vasily Blyukher, Tukhachevsky) and several thousands of the Red Army officers were arrested or shot. The key defendant, Leon Trotsky, was living in exile abroad, but he still did not survive Stalin’s desire to have him dead and was assassinated by a Soviet agent in Mexico in 1940.
While Khrushchev’s Secret Speech denounced Stalin’s personality cult and purges as early as 1956, rehabilitation of Old Bolsheviks proceeded at a slow pace. Nikolai Bukharin and 19 other co-defendants were officially completely rehabilitated in February 1988. Yagoda, who was deeply involved in the great purge as the head of NKVD, was not included. In May 1988, rehabilitation of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, and co-defendants was announced.
After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev repudiated the trials in a speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Russian Communist Party:
The commission has become acquainted with a large quantity of materials in the NKVD archives and with other documents and has established many facts pertaining to the fabrication of cases against Communists, to glaring abuses of Socialist legality which resulted in the death of innocent people. It became apparent that many party, Government and economic activists who were branded in 1937–38 as ‘enemies,’ were actually never enemies, spies, wreckers, etc., but were always honest Communists … They were only so stigmatized and often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves (at the order of the investigative judges – falsifiers) with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes.[40]
It is now known that the confessions were given only after great psychological pressure and torture had been applied to the defendants. From the accounts of former GPU officer Alexander Orlov and others the methods used to extract the confessions are known: repeated beatings, torture, making prisoners stand or go without sleep for days on end, and threats to arrest and execute the prisoners’ families. For example, Kamenev’s teenage son was arrested and charged with terrorism. After months of such interrogation, the defendants were driven to despair and exhaustion.[41]
In January 1989, the official newspaper Pravda reported that 25,000 persons had been posthumously rehabilitated.
Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre. Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, January 23-30, 1937. Moscow 1937.
Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”. Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U. S. S. R, Moscow, March 2- 13, 1938. Moscow 1938.
Leno, Matthew L. (2010). The Kirov Murder and Soviet History. New Haven: Yale University Press ISBN978-0-300-11236-8.
Orlov, Alexander (1953). The Secret History of Stalin’s Crimes. Random House, Inc.
Redman, Joseph, The British Stalinists and the Moscow Trials. Labour Review Vol. 3 No. 2, March–April 1958
Rogovin, Vadim Z. (1998). 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror. Oak Park, MI: Mehring Books, Inc. ISBN0-929087-77-1.
Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN978-0-465-00239-9.
Tucker, Robert C. (1973). Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879–1929: A Study in History and Personality. New York: Norton. ISBN0-393-05487-X.
Wolfe, Bertram David (1990). Breaking with Communism: The Intellectual Odyssey of Bertram D. Wolfe. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN0-8179-8881-5.
Further reading
Getty, J. Arch and Naumov, Oleg V. (2010). The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932–1939. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-10407-3.
Goldman, Wendy Z. (2011). Inventing the Enemy: Denunciation and Terror in Stalin’s Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-19196-8.
Story 1: Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) Presidential Candidates — Debate of Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers — No Contest — Trump in A Landslide — Videos
Biggest takeaways from the Iowa debate
Democratic Debate Recap In 4 Minutes | NBC News
The Iowa Democratic debate, in 5 minutes
Iran takes center stage at Democratic debate
Trump touts Soleimani strike and slams Democrats during Milwaukee rally
2020 Democrats Spar on Foreign Policy, Electability, Free College & More at 7th Democratic Debate
Trump reveals new details on imminent threat from Soleimani
Amy Klobuchar – and Donald Trump – are crowned the winners of the 2020 Democratic debate but one reviewer calls final clash before Iowa caucus ‘night of the living dead’
Six candidates took the stage on Tuesday night in Des Moines to face off for the final time before the Iowa caucuses on February 3
While none of the candidates pulled off a runaway win, Minnesota Sen Amy Klobuchar was widely praised by analysts for her pragmatic performance
President Donald Trump was also branded a winner after escaping the debate largely unscathed compared to his would-be opponents
Viewers were disappointed by the lack of fireworks between Sens Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
The pair were engaged in a heated row ahead of the debate over a report that Sanders told Warren a female candidate couldn’t beat Trump
Warren confirmed that report while Sanders firmly denied it
The pair calmly addressed the issue on stage but failed to come to an agreement
There was little doubt among analysts over the night’s biggest loser: Tom Steyer
Pundits say Amy Klobuchar and Donald Trump came out on top of the first Democratic debate of 2020 – an event one reviewer branded ‘the night of the living dead’.
Six candidates took the stage on Tuesday night in Des Moines to face off for the final time before the Iowa caucuses on February 3.
Analysts are largely in agreement that none of the candidates pulled off a runaway win, although Klobuchar took a commanding lead in a Drudge poll with 25 percent of the vote.
The Minnesota senator was widely praised for her pragmatic presence on stage.
Her strongest moment came when she sounded off on Medicare-for-all, pointing to growing concern among voters the Democratic nominee will need a more widely-supported alternative.
‘This debate isn’t real,’ Klobuchar said. ‘I was in Vegas the other day, and someone said don’t put your chips on a number on the wheel that isn’t even on the wheel. That’s the problem. Over two thirds of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not on the bill that [Sanders] and Senator Warren are on.’
She went on to reference her list of 137 things she will accomplish in her first 100 days in office without going through Congress.
CNN‘s Chris Cillizza listed Klobuchar among his winners for the night, writing that she accomplished her goal of casting herself as a ‘pragmatic alternative to voters looking for someone other than Biden (or, to a lesser extent, Buttigieg) to vote for’.
Trump was also branded a winner after escaping the debate largely unscathed compared to his would-be opponents, despite early attacks over last week’s assassination of a top Iranian general.
CNN’s Van Jones remarked that he was dispirited by the debate because none of the candidates showed signs that they were strong enough to beat Trump.
Pundits say Amy Klobuchar and Donald Trump came out on top of the first Democratic debate of 2020 – a night one reviewer branded ‘the night of the living dead’
Six Democratic presidential contenders took the stage at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday night. Pictured left to right: Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar
2020 candidates speak with the media after Iowa debate
Perhaps one of the reasons the debate felt dull to some viewers was the lack of an anticipated clash between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The pair had been engaged in a heated back-and-forth ahead of the debate over a report that Sanders told Warren in a private 2018 meeting at her Washington D.C. apartment that a female candidate couldn’t beat Donald Trump.
Warren confirmed that report while Sanders insisted that he never said anything of the sort.
The pair calmly addressed the issue on stage but failed to come to an agreement over what Sanders said.
Perhaps one of the reasons the debate felt dull to some viewers was the lack of an anticipated clash between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
Vox analyst Anna North concluded that the discussion benefited both candidates as they used it to focus attention back on their on their strengths.
‘Warren made the point that when it comes to winning elections, she and Sen Amy Klobuchar actually have a better record than some of their male opponents: “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy and me,”‘ North wrote.
‘Later, she noted the importance of female candidates and voters in delivering the House and state legislatures around the country for Democrats in 2018.
HOW LONG EACH CANDIDATE SPOKE
Elizabeth Warren – 19 minutes, 11 seconds
Bernie Sanders – 18 minutes, 26 seconds
Amy Klobuchar – 16 minutes, 59 seconds
Pete Buttigieg – 16 minutes, 48 seconds
Joe Biden – 16 minutes, 17 seconds
Tom Steyer – 12 minutes, 24 seconds
Source: NBC News
‘And she offered a clear and concise argument for herself as the woman and person to beat Trump in 2020: “We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.”‘
North praised Sanders for how he handled the discussion, which put him in the difficult position of defending himself against sexism allegations while simultaneously arguing that he, a man, should be the nominee.
‘Anybody who knows me knows it is incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be president of the United States,’ the Vermont senator said.
‘Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. How could anybody in a million years think a woman could become president of the United States?
‘And let me be very clear, if any of the women on this stage, or any of the men on this stage, win the nomination – I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me – but if they do, I will do everything in my power to ensure they are elected in order to defeat the most president in the history of our country,’ he added to applause from the audience.
Elizabeth Warren refused to shake Bernie Sanders hand at the end of debate
Pundits were also split over former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg’s performance
Some pundits disagreed over how successful Sanders and Warren were throughout the entirety of the debate.
Another Vox analyst, Dylan Matthews, chose Sanders as one of his winners, writing: ‘He solidly owned discussions of health care and climate change, and he solidified his status, recently regained from Warren, as the leading voice of the party’s left.’
Meanwhile, Cillizza put Sanders in his ‘losers’ column, writing: ‘Sanders’ dismissiveness about Warren’s statement that he had told her a woman couldn’t win the White House in 2020 — “I didn’t say it,” he claimed — bothered me.
‘Sanders tried to portray the issue as immaterial — hatched by Republicans and the media to distract voters. But it’s not. Warren herself said — on the record! — that when she told Sanders she thought a woman could win, “he disagreed,” (Warren reiterated that stance in the debate.)
‘Sanders did effectively contrast his record on the war in Iraq and on trade with Biden. But he was somehow on the outside looking in when the subject turned to ‘Medicare for All’ – it was mostly Warren vs. Buttigieg – and never had any sort of even decent answer to the question of the actual costs of his programs.’
Warren, however, made it into Cillizza’s “winners” column.
‘The Massachusetts senator delivered the line of the night, noting that the four men on the stage had lost 10 races while the two women on stage — she and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — had never lost a race.
‘And wasn’t just a zinger that will be quickly forgotten, either; it’s an effective pushback against the idea that she is too liberal to beat Trump.’
Pundits were also split over former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg’s performance.
Cillizza and Matthews both ranked Buttigieg among the winners – noting that he is currently leading many polls in Iowa.
Cillizza wrote that Buttigieg ‘proved Tuesday night that he is the best debater in this field. But he also did something more important than that, too: In the first 30 minutes of the debate, Buttigieg showed a competency, steadiness and depth of knowledge coupled with personal experience that should help him pass the commander-in-chief test in the eyes of voters.’
Matthews praised Buttigieg for how he handled an early discussion of foreign policy, arguably his weakest area.
The analyst wrote: ‘Buttigieg more than held his own, deftly reframing his lack of experience with a more forward-looking response: “The next president is going to be confronted with national security challenges different in scope and in kind from anything we’ve seen before. Not just conventional military challenges, not just stateless terrorism, but cybersecurity challenges, climate security challenges, foreign interference in our elections.”
‘Translation: Your experience is not relevant, or at least not more relevant than mine,’ Matthews added.
Aaron Blake of the Washington Post, however, was unimpressed by Buttigieg’s performance.
‘For arguably the first time on one of these debate stages, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was something of a bystander who didn’t really add much,’ Blake wrote.
‘He hit many of the same notes he has in previous debates, including by criticizing Medicare-for-all as being unrealistic and knocking a “Washington mentality.” He at one point emphasized the national debt and deficit — one wonders whether these are huge priorities for Democratic voters right now.
‘Iowa is so important for Buttigieg, because it’s such a good constituency for him. He wasn’t bad Tuesday, but it may not help him address some of his arrested momentum.’
Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t fare well with analysts, who placed him either in the middle or on the bottom
There was little doubt among analysts or Drudge poll voters over the night’s biggest loser: billionaire Tom Steyer
Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t fare well with analysts, who placed him either in the middle or on the bottom.
Cillizza was in the latter category, writing: ‘If Buttigieg is the best of the debaters among the top six, then the former vice president is the worst.
‘On Tuesday night he consistently seemed to forget or misstate a point, forcing him to go back and restate it to make sure he got it right. It made for a halting performance, in which he came across as less forceful and sure of himself than others on the stage.’
Blake called Biden’s performance ‘just okay’, emphasizing the fact that the front-runner wasn’t in desperate need of a big night given his strong poll numbers in Iowa.
There was little doubt among analysts or Drudge poll voters over the night’s biggest loser: billionaire Tom Steyer.
CNN’s Cillizza summed up Steyer’s performance by writing: ‘Simply put, the billionaire businessman looked badly out of his depth.
‘He struggled badly to make the case that he was better equipped than his rivals to manage the country’s foreign policy – his answer amounted to the fact that he has traveled a lot internationally (and, no, I am not kidding) — and things didn’t get much better for him from there.
Cillizza added: ‘For most of the debate, it felt like the Top 5 were involved in one conversation and Steyer was just, well, there.’
Vox analyst German Lopez agreed, writing: ‘There is one question surrounding Tom Steyer’s presence at Tuesday’s debate: Why?’
Lopez continued: ‘Steyer isn’t going to win the nomination. He’s polling in the single digits nationally, and there isn’t a single state, based on the RealClearPolitics polling average, where he breaks the top three.
‘He only clinched the polls he needed to qualify for this debate in the past week. After multiple debates — most of them with Steyer participating — his poor support has shown few signs of changing.’
Story 2: House Votes 228-193Along Party Lines To Submit Articles of Impeachment To Senate — Videos —
House votes to send articles of impeachment to Senate for trial l ABC News
BREAKING NEWS: House votes 228-193 to send the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the Senate TODAY with just one Democrat voting against as Nancy Pelosi
The House of Representatives passed a resolution Wednesday that named House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seven impeachment managers
The vote kicked off the process of officially sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate
Pelosi and the impeachment managers will participate in an Engrossment Ceremony later Wednesday
There will then be a procession through the U.S. Capitol as the two articles are delivered to the Senate side of the building
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he expects President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial to begin Tuesday
The House of Representatives passed a resolution 228 to 193 Wednesday that kicks off the process of sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Only one Democrat defected from the party, with Rep. Collin Peterson from Minnesota voting with Republicans. Peterson has been against President Trump’s impeachment from day one. Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Democrat- voted alongside the Democrats.
At 5 p.m., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will hold an Engrossment Ceremony with the newly announced impeachment managers and then there will be a procession through the Capitol as the articles are officially delivered to the Senate side of the buildilng.
Leading up to the vote, House Democrats encouraged the Senate to hold President Trump accountable.
‘The Senate is on trial,’ said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who was picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as one of the seven impeachment managers. ‘We will see whether they conduct a fair trial and allow the witnesses or conduct a cover-up. Today’s resolution is the next step in this serious and solemn constitutional process.’
Pelosi also uttered the c-word – ‘cover-up’ – should Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pursue a dismissal vote once the articles are in the Senate’s hands. ‘Dismissal is cover-up,’ Pelosi stated on the House floor, minutes before the House voted on the resolution appointing the managers.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, one of Democrats seven impeachment managers, said Wednesday on the House floor that the ‘Senate is on trial’ too – and needed to hold President Trump accountable
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Republicans swiftly dismissed the two articles of impeachment against President Trump in the Senate, it would amount to a ‘cover-up’
Pelosi announced the managers at a Wednesday morning press conference on Capitol Hill.
Pelosi made official that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff would lead the effort, along with Nadler.
In the House, Schiff and Nadler’s committees handled impeachment, which Pelosi called Wednesday ‘an impeachment that would last forever.‘
The speaker also named the No. 5 Democrat in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, as a manager. Jeffries is a member of the Judiciary Committee. As are Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings and Sylvia Garcia, named Wednesday by the speaker. She also picked Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (center) announced impeachment managers Wednesday morning including House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (left) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (right)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (center) names the following impeachment managers: (from left) Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, Sylvia Garcia, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Val Demings, Zoe Lofgren and Jason Crow
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrives on Capitol Hill Wednesday, in advance of announcing the House impeachment managers
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, arriving on Capitol Hill Wedneseday, will move the two articles of impeachment against President Trump over to the Senate in the coming hours
Both Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (left) and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (right) were named as impeachment managers Wednesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is photograhed as she arrived on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning. Pelosi announces that seven Democrats would serve as impeachment managers
President Trump objected to the Democrats’ plea that the Senate include new evidence in the impeachment trial, sending out this tweet minutes after Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment managers
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (left) put House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (right) in charge
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (left) was asked about GOP threats to call Hunter Biden to testify during the Senate trial, she had House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (right) answer the question instead
There was a push by some to have her also select Amash, who left the GOP to become an independent and supported Trump’s impeachment.
She did not, choosing only Democrats to serve in the role.
McConnell says the Republican-led upper chamber will begin opening arguments in the impeachment hearing Tuesday next week. Members of Congress will observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday.
The House voted, almost entirely along party lines, last month to impeach Donald Trump.
Pelosi then held the impeachment articles in the House, breaking with precedent in sending them immediately to the Senate following the vote.
The California Democrat said she wanted to prove to the American people in that time that there was a need for witnesses in the Senate trial.
She repeated that stance Wednesday morning during the brief press conference.
‘On December 18, the House of Representatives impeached the President of the United States. An impeachment that will last forever,’ Pelosi began. ‘Since December 18 there have been comments about when are we going to send the articles over.’
She said she had hoped the Senate would extend the ‘courtesy’ to tell the House ‘what the process would be.’
‘Short of that, that time has revealed many things since then,’ Pelosi continued. ‘Time has been our friend in all of this because as we’ve yielded incriminating evidence, more truth into the public domain.’
President Trump and the White House disputed this.
‘Here we go again, another Con Job by the Do Nothing Democrats. All of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate!’ Trump tweeted, moments after Pelosi announced the roster of managers.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also slapped Pelosi in a statement.
‘The Speaker lied when she claimed this was urgent and vital to national security because when the articles passed, she held them for an entire month in an egregious effort to garner political support,’ Grisham said Wednesday morning.
McConnell says there will be a vote after opening arguments to decide if the Senate should call witnesses to testify in the hearing that will decide if the president will be removed from office.
The weeks-long trial in the Senate is expected to ultimately end in the president’s acquittal. But it will focus attention on Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, as the 2020 presidential campaign begins in earnest.
Biden is one of 12 candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, and the trial might still be under way when Iowa and New Hampshire hold their first nominating contests in early February.
None of the Senate’s 53 Republicans have voiced support for ousting Trump, a step that would require a two-thirds majority in the 100-member chamber.
Though the ultimate outcome is not in doubt, the trial could deliver some moments of drama.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell arrives at the U.S. Capitol Wednesday. His chamber will take over President Trump’s impeachment later in the day
Democrats are pressing to call Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness, which could prove damaging to Trump. Other witnesses in the impeachment inquiry said Bolton was a vocal critic of the effort to pressure Ukraine.
McConnell, however, has resisted the idea of calling witnesses at all. He claims his chamber should only consider evidence that has already been dug up by the House.
But other Republicans and Trump himself have said they would like to call witnesses of their own – including Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma from 2014-2019.
Asked Wednesday about GOP plans to call Hunter Biden to testify, Pelosi backed away from the podium, letting Nadler address the question instead.
‘We are prepared. But the relevant question is relevance – is relevance,’ Nadler said. ‘In any trial, you call witnesses who have information about the allegations, about the charges.’
The New York Democrat reminded reporters that the charges involved whether Trump held up $391 million in military aid to Ukraine ‘in order to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of a domestic political opponent,’ Nadler said.
‘Any witness who has information about whether that is true or not true is a relevant witness. Anybody – like Hunter Biden – who has no information about any of that, is not a relevant witness,’ Nadler explained.
The night before the House vote, some indication of just how explosive the next few weeks could be came with the House Intelligence Committee releasing a new trove of information from Lev Parnas, the Soviet-born sidekick of Rudy Giuliani who is now indicted on felony charges.
In more than 30 pages of messages and image retrieved from one of Parnas’ devices, it revealed how Giuliani had written to Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Voldomyr Zelensky, saying that with the president’s ‘consent and knowledge’ he was requesting a meeting.
It also showed Parnas writing down the apparent details of a ‘deal’ to secure an investigation of ‘Biden’; Parnas pressing Giuliani to get a visa for an allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor and the attorney saying he had ‘No. 1 on it’; and Parnas and a fanatically pro-Trump Republican congressional candidate exchanging messages calling Marie Yovanovitch, then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine a ‘b***h’ and suggesting her movements were being monitored.
In one message the would-be Congressman, Robert Hyde, told Parnas he had men watching her and said: ‘They are willing to help if we/you would like a price.’
Hyde, who has posed repeatedly with the president and given more than $50,000 to pro-Trump campaign groups at the same time as owning child support, said on twitter: ‘How low can liddle Adam Bull Schiff go? I was never in Kiev. For them to take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote back to some dweeb we were playing with that we met a few times while we had a few drinks is definitely laughable. Schiff is a desperate turd playing with this Lev guy.’
The Parnas files may be the tip of an iceberg; the House Intelligence Committee has three of his devices.
THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS: MEET THE SEVEN DEMOCRATS PROSECUTING DONALD TRUMP
Adam Schiff of California: The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 59, led the impeachment process against Donald Trump. He became a frequent target of Trump’s fury: the president called him ‘Liddle’ Adam Schiff and made fun of his neck. But Schiff won praise for his leadership during witnesses hearings. Schiff served in the California State Assembly and was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles for six years. He oversaw the prosecution of Richard Miller, the first FBI agent ever to be indicted for espionage. Elected to Congress in 2012.
Jerry Nadler of New York: The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 72, led the series of hearings that developed the two articles of impeachment against the president: abuse of power and obstruction of justice. He’s in his 15th term in Congress and was a New York State Assembly man before joining Capitol Hill. He was in law school when he was first elected to state office and completed his J.D. while serving in Albany. He and Schiff were expected to be named. Elected to Congress in 1992.
Zoe Lofgren of California: A close Nancy Pelosi ally and a long time friend of the speaker, Lofgren, 72, has the unique experience of playing a role in three presidential impeachment proceedings: as a Judiciary Committee staffer during Richard Nixon’s in 1974, as a Judiciary Committee Member during Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment, and now in President Trump’s. Additionally, she heads the Committee on House Administration, a position that has the moniker ‘Mayor of Capitol Hill’ given the panel’s jurisdiction over the everyday running of the Capitol, including members’ allowance, office space, and rules of the House. Elected to Congress in 1994.
Hakeem Jeffries of New York: Jeffries, 49, was a litigator in private practice before running for elected office. He worked in the litigation department of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison before becoming assistant litigator for Viacom and CBS, where he worked on litigation stemming from the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, when Janet Jackson’s breast, adorned with a nipple shield, was exposed by Justin Timberlake for about half a second, in what was later referred to as a ‘wardrobe malfunction’. The Federal Election Commission fined CBS $550,000 after a long legal case. The Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Jeffries serves on the House Judiciary Committee. Before Congress, he was in the New York State Assembly for six years. Elected to Congress in 2012 and a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Val Demings of Florida: Demings, 62, served in the Orlando Police Department for 27 years, including serving as the city’s first female chief of police. She is one of seven children born in poverty – her father worked in Florida orange groves and her mother was a housekeeper. She was the first member of her family graduate from college. She worked as a social worker before joining the Orlando police department. A member of the House Intelligence panel and the Judiciary Committee, Demings won plaudits for her careful questioning of witnesses during the impeachment hearings. She wrote on Twitter in December, during the impeachment process: ‘I am a descendant of slaves, who knew that they would not make it, but dreamed and prayed that one day I would make it. So despite America’s complicated history, my faith is in the Constitution. I’ve enforced the laws, and now I write the laws. Nobody is above the law.’ She spends her free time riding her Harley-Davidson Road King Classic motorcycle. Elected to Congress in 2016.
Jason Crow of Colorado: Crow, 40, was an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he served three tours and was awarded a Bronze Star. He was a private litigator with the Holland and Hart Law Firm before running for Congress. He was elected to Congress in 2018 and serves on the House Armed Services Committee.
Sylvia Garcia of Texas: Garcia, 69, has a strong judicial background. She was the director and presiding judge of the Houston Municipal System and was elected city controller. She was also the first Hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right to the Harris County Commissioner’s Court. Elected to Congress in 2018, she serves on the House Judiciary Committee.
Dems add Trump associates under investigation to impeachment evidence
House votes 228-193 to send the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the Senate TODAY
House votes to send Trump impeachment to Senate for trial
By LISA MASCARO25 minutes ago
The U.S. House voted Wednesday to send two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate and approve House prosecutors for only the third impeachment trial in American history.
The nearly party-line vote moved Trump’s impeachment from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic-run House to the Republican-majority Senate, where Trump expects quick acquittal, even as new evidence is raising fresh questions about his Ukraine dealings.
The vote was 228-193, coming at the start of a presidential election year and one month after the House impeached Trump alleging abuse of power over his pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, using military aid to the country as leverage. Trump was also charged with obstructing Congress’ ensuing probe..
“We are here today to cross a very important threshold in American history,” Pelosi said, addressing the House before the vote.
“This is what an impeachment is about,″ she said earlier, announcing the prosecution team. “The president violated his oath of office, undermined our national security, jeopardized the integrity of our elections.”
Trump, during an event at the White House, rejected the charges as a “hoax.”
The president’s team expects acquittal with a Senate trial lasting no more than two weeks, according to senior administration officials unauthorized to discuss the matter and granted anonymity.
Trump opposes the calling of additional witnesses, and the officials said they expect the trial to conclude before Trump delivers his State of the Union address Feb. 4.
All but one Democrat, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, voted to transmit the articles. All Republicans voted against. One former Republican-turned-independent, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, joined Democrats.
The top Republican in the House, Kevin McCarthy of California, said Americans will look back on this “sad saga” that tried to remove the president with the “weakest case.”
Later Wednesday, the House managers were to walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate in a dramatic procession. The Senate trial is set to start Thursday.
The seven-member prosecution team will be led by the chairmen of the House impeachment proceedings, Reps. Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, two of Pelosi’s top lieutenants for only the third presidential impeachment in the nation’s history.
Ahead of Wednesday’s session, Schiff released new records from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, about the Ukraine strategy. including an exchange with another man about surveilling later-fired Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch.
Schiff said the new evidence should bring more pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is reluctant to allow witnesses to testify.
“If McConnell makes this the first trial in history without witnesses, it will be exposed for what it is and that is an effort to cover up for the president,” Schiff said.
McConnell opened the Senate dismissing what he called a rushed impeachment that is more about the politics of Democrats who don’t like Trump than the charges against him.
“This isn’t really about Ukraine policy or military money,” McConnell said. “This has been naked partisanship all along.”
During Pelosi’s press conference announcing managers, Trump tweeted that impeachment was “another Con Job by the Do Nothing Democrats. All of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate!”
The Senate is expected to transform into an impeachment court as early as Thursday, although significant proceedings wouldn’t begin until next Tuesday after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The Constitution calls for the chief justice to preside over senators, who serve as jurors and swear an oath to deliver “impartial justice.″
The managers are a diverse group with legal, law enforcement and military experience, including Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Sylvia Garcia of Texas, Val Demings of Florida, Jason Crow of Colorado and Zoe Lofgren of California.
McConnell, who is negotiating rules for the trial proceedings, is under competing pressure from his party for more witnesses, from centrists who are siding with Democrats on the need to hear full testimony and conservatives mounting Trump’s defense.
Senate Republicans signaled they would reject the idea of simply voting to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Trump, as Trump himself has suggested. McConnell agreed he does not have the votes to do that.
McConnell said Tuesday. ’’Our members feel we have an obligation to listen to the arguments.”
A mounting number of senators say they want to ensure the ground rules include the possibility of calling new witnesses.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is leading an effort among some Republicans, including Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for votes on witnesses.
Romney said he wants to hear from John Bolton, the former national security adviser at the White House, who others have said raised alarms about the alternative foreign policy toward Ukraine being run by Giuliani.
Democrats have been pushing Republicans to consider new testimony, arguing that fresh information has emerged during Pelosi’s monthlong delay in transmitting the charges.
Republicans control the chamber, 53-47, and are all but certain to acquit Trump. But it takes just 51 votes during the trial to approve rules or call witnesses. Just four GOP senators could form a majority with Democrats to insist on new testimony. It also would take only 51 senators to vote to dismiss the charges against Trump.
At Tuesday’s private GOP lunch, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky warned that if witnesses are allowed, defense witnesses could also be called. He and other Republicans want to subpoena Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine, Burisma, while his father was vice president.
McConnell prefers to model Trump’s trial partly on the process used for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. It, too, contained motions for dismissal or calling new witnesses.
McConnell is hesitant to call new witnesses who would prolong the trial and put vulnerable senators who are up for reelection in 2020 in a bind with tough choices. At the same time, he wants to give those same senators ample room to show voters they are listening.
—-
Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Matthew Daly, Andrew Taylor, Mary Clare Jalonick, Laurie Kellman, and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.
That was up $48,008,200,000 from the $1,115,081,800,000 (in constant December 2019 dollars) that the federal government spent in the first three months of fiscal 2019.
While spending a record amount of money in the first quarter of fiscal 2020, total federal tax collections were only the third highest in the nation’s history.
Although the $806,512,000,000 that the Treasury collected in total taxes in October through December was $17,651,230,000 more than $788,860,770,000 in total taxes (in constant December 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in October through December of fiscal 2019, it was $25,327,590,000 less than the all-time record $831,839,590,000 (in December 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first quarter of fiscal 2015.
Fiscal 2014 ranks second for total tax collections with $809,275,710,000 (in constant December 2019 dollars).
With the record spending in the October-through-December period exceeding the third-highest tax collections in history, the federal government ran a deficit of $356,578,000,000 during the period.
The Department of Health and Human Services led all federal agencies by spending $309,340,000,000 in October through December. The Social Security Administration was second with $285,056,000,000. The Defense Department was third with $187,348,000,000. Interest on Treasury securities was the fourth highest spending category with $160,187,000,000 in the October through December period.
(Numbers in this story were converted into constant December 2019 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
Part 1 of 2 Story 4: President Trump Signs Phase One Trade Agreement With Communist China — Will It Be Fully Enforceable? — Time Will Tell — Videos
Trump speaks before signing “Phase One” of China trade deal
Larry Kudlow breaks down the implications of the US-China trade deal
Trump signs phase one of US-China trade deal
Trump signs partial trade deal with China l ABC News
Mnuchin: US won’t lift China tariffs until phase two of trade deal
Jamie Dimon praises Trump economy, China trade deal in exclusive interview
US Trade Rep. Lighthizer on historic ‘phase-one’ China trade deal
Donald Trump signs ‘phase one’ of trade deal with China which ends escalation of his trade war—and complains about the ‘impeachment hoax’ at White House ceremony with Xi Jinping’s deputy looking on
Donald Trump took a victory lap as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House – as his impeachment sped ahead at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue
He touted his economy and launched attack after attack on his enemies at packed East Room ceremony, railing against the ‘impeachment hoax’
Trump has vowed that he would ink a trade deal with China for more than two years and imposed steep tariffs to bring Beijing to the table
Signing is for ‘phase one’ and the White House promises more segments in the future
Xi Jinping didn’t come for the signing but sent a lower-level official, vice-premier Liu He and Trump said he will go back to China soon to ‘reciprocate’
It’s unclear what he’s reciprocating for, since Xi didn’t come
East Room press credentials didn’t have a date printed on them, suggesting the White House wasn’t confident the event would happen on schedule
President urged House members in the audience to leave early if they needed to cast a vote on sending impeachment articles to the Senate
Donald Trump took a victory lap on Wednesday as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House as his impeachment sped towards the Senate on Capitol Hill.
He boasted to an audience of dignitaries that a new trade deal with China will bring ‘a future of fair and reciprocal trade,’ then complained about the ‘impeachment hoax,’ and praised a string of Republican senators who he needs to vote for his acquittal.
The president has long complained about a massive trade deficit between Washington and Beijing. He pledged during the 2016 campaign to come down hard on China.
‘We are righting the wrongs of the past,’ he said Wednesday, observing that ‘our negotiations were tough, honest, open and respectful.’
‘This is the biggest deal anyone’s ever seen,’ he said, because ‘China has 1.5 billion people.’
The president spent nearly a half-hour acknowledging business leaders and lawmakers who crowded into the East Room to watch. And he noted that some House members might have to leave early in order to vote on a motion to send articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.
Some of the congressmen may have a vote—it’s on the impeachment hoax—so if you want, you go out and vote. … It’s not going to matter becausae it’s gone very well. But I’d rather have you voting than sitting here listening to me introduce you, okay?’ he said with a grin.
‘They have a hoax going on over there. Let’s take care of it.’
Trump was not accompanied by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who sent Vice Premier Liu He in his place. Xi’s absence left some with the impression that Washington wants the deal more than Beijing does.
Done deal: Donald Trump and Liu He sign the phase one trade deal which calls a halt to escalations in the U.S.-China trade deal and is claimed to mean up to $50 billion in agricultural sales to China
Signed, sealed, delivered: China’s vice-premier Liu He and Donald Trump show their signatures in the completed phase one trade deal
East room ceremony: Donald Trump hosted the Chinese vice-premier Liu He in the East Wing in front of an audience of Republican senators and Congressmen and figures from the American business world – almost all of whom he named
President Donald Trump stood alongside China’s vice premier Liu He, not its president Xi Jinping, when he signed a landmark trade deal on Wednesday
Awkward exchange: Donald Trump moved to shake hands with China’s vice-premier Liu He, who extended his left hand instead
Unusual handshake: After Liu He extended his left hand, Donald Trump grasped two of his fingers in an attempt to shake his hand
The president announced that he will ‘be going back to China in the not-too-distant future to reciprocate,’ but it’s unclear what he would be reciprocating for.
Vice President Mike Pence said the deal would guarantee $40-50 billion in Chinese purchases of American agriculture products.
And Trump said China will stop forcing American companies to share proprietary technologies with Chinese partners. ‘You don’t have to give up anything anymore. Just be strong,’ he said to business leaders in the room.
The White House’s guests included top executives from UPS, Boeing, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, VISA, Citibank, Honeywell, Dow Chemical, eBay and Ford Motor Company; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who aims to see markets opened to him in China; television commentator Lou Dobbs; and Trump’s ambassador in Beijing, Terry Branstad.
Second time lucky: After Liu He spoke through a translator, the two succeeded in shaking hands
Trump acknowledged lawmakers and businessmen in the East Room including casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson
Chinese representative: President Xi Jinping sent vice-premier Liu He, who spoke through a translator (left)
Packed: The East Room was fool for the invited audience of business leaders, White House aides and congressional Republicans
Everyone gets a mention: Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator was asked to stand, while Trump claimed that Grassley had ‘made [James] Comey choke like a dog’
Official delegation:Donald Trump is flanked by as Vice President Mike Pence and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer
First daughter: Ivanka Trump was followed into the East Room by Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor
Branstad, a longtime Iowa governor before coming to Washington, got the job because of his deep ties to global agriculture.
While Wall Street will carefully examine the fine print, the trade deal will allow businesses around the globe to breathe a sigh of relief.
After a nearly two-year battle, the signing could give Trump an election-year boost as well. Still, tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in imports remain in place, leaving many Americans to foot the bill.
Reporters covering the East Room event on Wednesday wore White House credentials with no date printed on them. That unusual feature suggests Trump’s trade negotiators weren’t certain whether the event would happen as scheduled.
Journalists shoot shoulder-to-shoulder, including a contingent of dozens from Chinese media outlets.
The ‘phase one’ agreement—which includes pledges from China to beef up purchases of American crops and other exports—also comes just as Trump faces an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, giving him a victory to trumpet at least in the short term.
As he is about the face an impeachment trial, President Donald Trump will be able to tout a trade deal with China
It’s unclear which country will get the better end of the deal, but Trump has trumpeted every development that is favorable to the United States
China-US trade has diminished in both directions since Trump began venting about an imbalance of hundreds of billions of dollars wach year
The easing of US-China trade frictions has boosted stock markets worldwide in recent weeks, as it takes the threat of new tariffs off the table for now.
And Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump’s negotiating stance led to a ‘fully enforceable deal’ which could bring additional tariffs.
If China fails to abide by the agreement, ‘the president has the ability to put on additional tariffs,’ Mnuchin said on CNBC Wednesday as part of a media blitz promoting the new pact.
However, the most difficult issues remain to be dealt with in ‘phase two’ negotiations, including massive subsidies for state industry and forced technology transfer.
But Mnuchin said the deal puts pressure on Beijing to stay at the negotiating table and make further commitments, including on cyber-security and other services to win relief from the tariffs that remain in place.
‘In phase two there will be additional roll backs,’ Mnuchin said. ‘This gives China a big incentive to get back to the table and agree to the additional issues that are still unresolved.’
Still, elements of the deal the administration has touted as achievements effectively take the relationship between the two powers back to where it was before Trump took office.
‘The US-China phase-one deal is essentially a trade truce, with large state-directed purchases attached,’ economist Mary Lovely said in an analysis.
Even so, ‘The truce is good news for the U.S. and the world economy.’
Still, the trade expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cautioned that ‘we will continue to see the impact of this in slower investment and higher business costs.’
U.S. officials have said they will release details of the agreement set to be signed at a White House ceremony at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday.
After announcing the deal December 13, the U.S. canceled a damaging round of new tariffs that were due to kick in two days later and promised to slash in half the 15 percent tariffs on $120 billion imposed September 1 on consumer goods like clothing.
Mnuchin dismissed a Bloomberg report that the initial agreement could include provisions to roll back more tariffs on China after the election.
‘The tariffs will stay in place until there is a phase two. If the president gets phase two quickly, he will consider releasing tariffs. If not, there won’t be any tariff relief,’ Mnuchin said Tuesday on Bloomberg TV.
‘It has nothing to do with the election or anything else.’
Washington said Beijing agreed to import, over two years, $200 billion of U.S. products above the levels in 2017, before Trump launched his offensive.
Trump has repeatedly touted the trade pact as a boon for American farmers, saying China will buy $40 to $50 billion in agricultural goods.
U.S. farmers were hit hard by the tariff war—notably on soybeans which saw exports to China plunge to just $3 billion from more than $12 billion in 2017. The Trump administration paid out $28 billion in aid to farmers in the last two years.
But many economists question whether they have the capacity to meet that demand.
And Lovely raised a question about the wisdom on relying so heavily on the Chinese market.
‘It also means Chinese retaliation could be reinstated, dampening farmers’ willingness to invest to meet the very hard export targets in the deal.’
Trump and Xi Jinping have a cordial working rapport but the Chinese president didn’t travel to Washington—leaving the impression that Trump wants it more than he does
U.S. and Chinese officials say the agreement includes protections for intellectual property and addresses financial services and foreign exchange while including a pr.ovision for dispute resolution, which Mnuchin said will be binding for the first time.
Trump in August formally accused China of manipulating its currency to gain an advantage in trade and offset the impact of the tariffs.
The label, which had no real practical impact, was removed earlier this week.
The deal also restores a twice-yearly dialogue process that previous administrations conducted regularly but that Trump scrapped.
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: The Day of Reckoning Is Approaching And Not A Word Is Spoken — National Debt More Than $23 Trillion — Plus Unfunded Obligations Estimates Over $100 Trillion to Over $200 Trillion — Videos —
Deficits and debt | AP Macroeconomics | Khan Academy
Story 2: Democrats Trying To Talk & Tank The Economy Into a Recession — Big Failure — Economy Still Growing — Videos
Ingraham: An animated series of failures
How the Fed creates free money for big banks, CEOs and billionaires
Trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and hardly a voice of caution to be heard
BY ALBERT HUNT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/01/19 11:30 AM EST 2,649
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
In the old days, a decade or so ago, Democrats would have assailed Donald Trump‘s failure on federal deficits; instead of eliminating it, as promised, the deficit has doubled to a trillion dollars as far as the eye can see.
Republicans would be in full fury over the spending schemes of Democratic presidential candidates; even the mainstream moderates propose huge increases for health care, education and the social safety net for the disadvantaged.
Yet deficits, as a political issue, are dead.
The political impact always was exaggerated, but out-of-control deficits were a staple of opposition rhetoric. There invariably was some budget-balancing blue-ribbon group, the most famous being the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
For Democrats, the pressing urgency of unmet needs in health care, education, infrastructure and the social safety net far outweigh any rising debt. They favor tax hikes, mainly on the rich, to reverse the huge 2017 Republican tax cuts, but there’s less premium on the green eyeshade test of paying for all spending initiatives.
Most Republicans strongly want to keep those tax cuts — the only significant achievement of three years of party rule — and have little interest in tackling politically popular entitlements. In the years the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, it focused only on gutting the Affordable Care Act.
This has become the Trump Party, which overshadows the old Republican battle lines between budget balancers and tax cutters. This Republican executive is a tax cutter and budget buster.
As well as the politics, Democrats have a strong policy basis for their position. Early this year, the two most prominent Democratic economists — former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, both under Barack Obama — wrote an influential article citing structural declines in interest rates. This means that “policymakers should reconsider the traditional fiscal approach that has often wrong-headedly limited worthwhile investments in such areas as education, health care and infrastructure,” they said.
“Politicians and policymakers should focus on urgent social programs, not deficits,” they advised.
They don’t go as far as the Modern Monetary Theorists who basically argue the sky is the limit on debt unless inflation takes off. Instead, Summers and Furman claim a key is that the federal debt — as a percentage of the economy — stays at a relatively stable 3 percent to 4 percent, where it has been for the past five years.
The Republican deficits hawks, most recently former House Speaker Paul Ryan, have been rendered obsolete, as least as long it’s the party of Trump.
Even back in the 1970s, however, some Republicans embraced what supply-side propagandist Jude Wanniski called the “Two-Santa Theory” — namely, to counter Democrats’ support for popular spending programs, Republicans should favor huge tax cuts without concern for the deficit. (Ronald Reagan once joked he didn’t worry about the deficit, as it was “big enough to take care of itself.”)
Moreover, the Republican cries about the evils of big deficits have been more rhetorical than real, although the general perception of Democrats as more fiscally profligate is a canard.
The deficit also soared under George W. Bush, especially at the end of his term, with the economic crisis.
Obama inherited a massive $1.4 trillion shortfall and in eight years cut it by 60 percent.
The shortfall has doubled under Trump.
As a percentage of the economy, however, it has risen from 3 percent in the final Obama year to a bit more than 4 percent now.
Even Washington’s most stalwart and consistent fiscal hawk, Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, acknowledges the budget deficit isn’t a top policy concern right now “as low interest rates buy us some time.”
However, she cautions that the fiscal situation “is the worst it has been since just after World War II,” adding, “No one knows when the tipping point is or what it looks like, but those are questions we shouldn’t want to find the answers to.”
Albert R. Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for the Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter-century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then the International New York Times and Bloomberg View. Follow him on Twitter @alhuntdc.
Story 3: Federal Reserve Intervenes and Adds More Liquidity or Money Into Economy — Overnight and 42-Day Term Repos Madness Bubble — Return of Quantitative Easing? –Videos —
Fed is in a ‘lose, lose, lose situation,’ says Mohamed A. El-Erian
Repo Madness: Up to $300 Billion Per Day As First 42 Day Term Repo Kicks In Going Into 2020!
Repo: How Roughly $1 Trillion Moves Overnight | WSJ
How the Fed creates free money for big banks, CEOs and billionaires
The ‘repo’ market explained
The Central Banks’ Monetary Policy Is Backfiring (w/ Simon White)
New York Fed Adds Liquidity Amid Heavy Demand for Year-End Funding
Interventions ensure markets have enough liquidity and short-term borrowing rates remain well-behaved
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York intervened in financial markets again Monday. PHOTO: EDUARDO MUNOZ/REUTERS
By
Michael S. Derby
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York again saw very strong demand for liquidity aimed at helping financial markets navigate the turn of the year.
The demand once again arrived as the Fed added temporary liquidity to financial markets Monday. All together the central bank pumped in $97.9 billion in two parts. One was via overnight repurchase agreements, or repos, that totaled $72.9 billion. The other was via 42-day repos.
While the Fed took all the securities that dealers offered it for the overnight repo, the longer-term operation saw eligible banks offer $42.55 billion in securities versus the $25 billion the Fed took. That level of interest was a replay from the last 42-day repo operation held Nov. 25, when eligible banks submitted $49.05 billion in securities against the $25 billion the central bank accepted.
The robust demand for year-end liquidity could alter the path of future longer-term Fed interventions and induce the central bank to increase their size. Central banks want to ensure that markets remain well behaved over year end, and they have signaled they will be flexible in achieving that. The Fed has already increased the size of other temporary operations, making it possible future term operations could be bigger as well.
The Repo Market, Explained
The repo market shook the financial world in September when an unexpected rate spike choked short-term lending, spurring the Federal Reserve to intervene. WSJ explains how this critical, but murky part of the financial system works, and why some banks say the crunch could have been prevented. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds for The Wall Street Journal
Fed repo interventions take in Treasury and mortgage securities from eligible banks in what is effectively a short-term loan of central-bank cash, collateralized by the securities.
The Fed’s interventions are aimed at ensuring that the financial system has enough liquidity and that short-term borrowing rates remain well-behaved, with the central bank’s federal-funds rate staying within the 1.5%-to-1.75% target range. The effective fed-funds rate stood at 1.56% on Friday. The broad general collateral rate for repo trading stood at 1.62%, also for Tuesday.
The Fed has been intervening in markets in the current fashion since mid-September, when short-term rates unexpectedly shot up on a confluence of factors, although it has used similar operations for decades to manage short-term rates.
Since the large interventions started, money-market rates have been well-behaved. The Fed is using temporary operations to tamp down any possible volatility, while purchasing Treasury bills to build up reserves in the banking system. It hopes that by buying Treasury bills it will be able to cut back on repo interventions at the start of next year.
The Fed currently expects to buy Treasury bills through the middle of next year.
Story 4: Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz Report Will Be Released on December 9 and Horowitz Will Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee December 11, 2019 — Videos —
‘They Tried to Overthrow the Presidency’: Trump Says Results of IG’s Report Could be ‘Historic’
FBI official allegedly altered document in Russia probe: Report
DOJ Inspector General to testify on alleged 2016 campaign spying
IG Horowitz to testify on Russia probe, FISA abuse
TRUMP PROBE REPORT AND HEARING – DECEMBER 9/11, 2019
DiGenova: Comey, Clapper and Brennan will have to pay the ‘Barr bill’
Jason Chaffetz: FBI deep state clear – will FISA report finally lead to action?
Jason Chaffetz By Jason Chaffetz | Fox News
PROGRAMMING ALERT: Watch Jason Chaffetz discuss this op-ed and much more on “Mornings with Maria” on Monday, December 2.
Following a series of four damning inspector general reports over the last two years, there is little doubt the senior leadership of the Obama-era FBI was weaponized in the service of the Democratic Party. But as America awaits what many expect to be the most damning investigation of all, it’s fair to ask what has been done to rein in our rogue FBI.
The report on FISA abuse set for release on Dec. 9 is expected to show how the FBI used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on American citizens affiliated with the Trump campaign in 2016. As damning as such a conclusion would be, it will only be the latest in a series of explosive revelations from the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, some of which got muted coverage from the mainstream press. Advance leaks suggest the upcoming report will, at a minimum, show an FBI lawyer illegally altered documents to justify a FISA application.
Even before next week’s anticipated release, we already have IG reports implicating the FBI director, assistant director, deputy assistant director, and chief of the counterintelligence section. Though none of them remain at the bureau, we have seen little reassurance from current FBI Director Christopher Wray that the culture they created has changed.
Thus far, no one has been prosecuted, despite a long string of damaging reports and referrals. An IG can make a recommendation but it is up to the DOJ to prosecute, even if it is one of their own.
A 63-page report released last month found “numerous issues” with the FBI’s use of confidential sources during a period that included the 2016 election. That report revealed that the FBI lacked appropriate procedures to vet and maintain oversight of sources like the ones used against the Trump campaign. This created a security risk for the United States. Yet no prosecutions have been announced.
Last August, an even more serious finding was released when the IG determined that the FBI director himself had violated FBI policy and the terms of his own employment agreement in disseminating classified information for release to the media. Though the DOJ could have prosecuted based on the report’s findings, it declined to do so.
A May 2019 IG report implicated the FBI deputy assistant director for unauthorized contacts with the media, illegally disclosing sealed court documents and other sensitive information to the media, and accepting gifts from the media. The DOJ declined to prosecute. But why? The IG recommended prosecution.
The IG’s June 2018 probe into the Hillary Clinton email investigation implicated the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, of repeatedly articulating a strong political bias even as he headed up the investigation of Clinton’s exposure of classified information. The 500-page report, which reviewed 1.2 million documents and included interviews with more than 100 witnesses, documented numerous questionable decisions that benefited Clinton or damaged Trump, though the IG acknowledged the parties denied their political bias impacted their decisions.
The FBI is in shambles and there has been little to no public acknowledgment of the crisis by the current director. No work by him to stem this tide of political bias is evident to the public.
The report also highlighted an interoffice affair between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, both of whom worked on the Clinton and Trump investigations. Next week’s IG report is also expected to document an affair between two other FBI lawyers who worked together on the FISA applications.
What is going on at the FBI and why no consequences for such blatant violations of internal policy and the law? And why did these vulnerabilities exist for so long without detection? No doubt adversarial intelligence agencies could have figured this out quite easily, making our intelligence operations vulnerable to exploitation.
Finally, an April 2018 report implicated FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe of inappropriately authorizing the disclosure of sensitive information to a reporter and repeatedly lying to investigators about it. The report found McCabe lied four times, three under oath, and that it was done “in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.” Though McCabe was fired, he wasn’t prosecuted.
What message does it send when the Justice Department protects its own?
The FBI is in shambles and there has been little to no public acknowledgment of the crisis by Director Wray. No work by him to stem this tide of political bias is evident to the public.
With the release of next week’s FISA report, we must demand action by Wray. Given the well-documented wrongdoing by the previous FBI director, deputy director, deputy assistant director, the chief of counterintelligence, and evidently DOJ counsel, the American people are right to question the legitimacy of America’s federal law enforcement apparatus.
If the American people are going to regain confidence in the senior leadership of the FBI, the Justice Department will need to prosecute wrongdoing as they would if it weren’t one of their own. Until then, questions of imbalance, favoritism and bias in one direction will persist. Certainly, we deserve better.
Story 4: Lisa Page Role in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court Warrant Application Process? — Videos
Lisa Page Breaks Silence On Trump’s DISGUSTING Behavior
Trump viciously mocks Strzok, Page at Minneapolis rally
Rep. Biggs: Lisa Page once engaged in FBI cabal, now playing the victim
Whitaker: Lisa Page made calculated move to front run IG report
Lisa Page Speaks: ‘There’s No Fathomable Way I Have Committed Any Crime at All’
STRIKING BACK
The former FBI lawyer and ongoing Trump target breaks two years of silence in this exclusive interview. And she has quite a lot to say.
Molly Jong-Fast
It’s not often that you interview a subject who has no interest in being famous. But recently, I did just that when I sat down with Lisa Page the week before Thanksgiving in my hotel room in Washington, D.C. Page, of course, is the former FBI lawyer whose text-message exchanges with agent Peter Strzok that belittled Donald Trump and expressed fear at his possible victory became international news. They were hijacked by Trump to fuel his “deep state” conspiracy.
For the nearly two years since her name first made the papers, she’s been publicly silent (she did have a closed-door interview with House members in July 2018). I asked her why she was willing to talk now. “Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she says. The president called out her name as he acted out an orgasm in front of thousands of people at a Minneapolis rally on Oct. 11.
That was the moment Page decided she had to speak up. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse,” she says. “It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”
She is also about to be back in the news cycle in a big way. On Dec. 9, the Justice Department inspector general report into Trump’s charges that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign will come out. Leaked press accounts indicate the report will exonerate Page of the allegation that she acted unprofessionally or showed bias against Trump.
How does it feel after all this time to finally have the IG apparently affirm what she’s been saying all along? She said she wouldn’t discuss the findings until they were officially public, but she did note: “While it would be nice to have the IG confirm publicly that my personal opinions had absolutely no bearing on the course of the Russia investigations, I don’t kid myself that the fact will matter very much for a lot of people. The president has a very loud megaphone.”
Page, 39, is thin and athletic. She speaks in an exceedingly confident, clear, and lawyerly way. But having been through the MAGA meat grinder has clearly worn her down, not unlike the other women I’ve met who’ve been subjected to the president’s abuse. She is just slightly crumbly around the edges the way the president’s other victims are.
My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again.
“It’s almost impossible to describe” what it’s like, she told me. “It’s like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening.”
“But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”
Does it affect you in your normal day-to-day life?
“I wish it didn’t,” she said. “I’m someone who’s always in my head anyway—so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning. Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.”
Rising Through the Ranks
Lisa Page did not aspire to fame or fortune. She was, she says, “one of those nerdy kids who from very early on knew I wanted work for the government and make the world a better place.” Born in the San Fernando Valley, she and her family moved to Ohio in her teens. She went to American University in Washington, D.C., and then moved back home to central Ohio to attend law school, living with her parents so she could save money.
After graduating from law school, she was one of an elite group selected for admission in the Department of Justice Honors Program in 2006—and the only woman in her class of five entering the Criminal Division. She worked as a federal prosecutor for six years before moving across the street to the FBI’s office of general counsel. Soon after her arrival, the deputy general counsel over national-security law hired her for a new special-counsel-type position in 2013.
Once there, her path begins to be set.
“I start [in the role] in early 2013, and there are two big events that kind of set the trajectory for the rest of my career at the FBI: the Boston bombing in April 2013, and Edward Snowden’s leaks in June of the same year,” she told me. “And those are both significant in their own ways, because the Boston bombing introduces me to Andy McCabe, who at the time was the head of the counterterrorism division at the FBI. Two months later, the Snowden leaks hit, which became a transformative moment for the intelligence community, setting off a series of reforms by the Obama administration with respect to the legal authorities that we rely on to collect intelligence.”
Eventually, she was asked to lead that effort, “which gives me a lot of exposure to senior FBI executives, as well as leaders through the IC, DOJ, and White House.”
Page continued to rise through the ranks of the FBI and was assigned to more significant and substantive work. She became close with McCabe. Eventually she became McCabe’s special counsel.
Story 1: Coup Cover-up Campaign Continues — Big Lie Media Continues Peddling Progressive Propaganda Lies — Both Phony Whistle Blower and Trump Dirt Digger Must Testify — Democrat Operative Activist and CIA Analyst Eric A. Ciaramella Is The Whistleblower — Democrat National Committee (DNC) Ukraine Trump Dirt Digger –Alexandra Chalupa — Both Must Testify In Public or Impeachment Fails — Videos —
House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing – Vindman & Williams Testimony
Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with Lt. Col. Vindman and Vice President Pence Aide Jennifer Williams. Hearing begins with gavel at 31:40. https://cs.pn/377wOPm
Rep. Devin Nunes Opening Statement
WATCH: Rep. Nunes’ full opening statement in Volker and Morrison hearing
WATCH: Rep. Elise Stefanik’s full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Michael Turner’s full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Jordan criticizes Vindman for discussing Trump Ukraine call | Trump impeachment inquiry
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Schiff’s full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counsel’s full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Nunes’ full opening statement in Volker and Morrison hearing
Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said there has been in a “disconnect” between what’s been seen and heard in the public impeachment hearings so far, and what’s been reported by media. Repeating a GOP argument in the hearings, Nunes raised questions about Democrats’ “prior coordination” with the whistleblower. Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has previously said he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower or communicated with them. Nunes spoke ahead of testimony from Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The impeachment inquiry has focused on a July 25 phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. For more on who’s who in the Trump impeachment inquiry, read: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics…
Day 3, Part 13: Devin Nunes and Steve Castor question Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Republican counsel’s full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Michael Turner’s full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counsel’s full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing – Vindman & Williams Testimony
George Soros, Marie Yovanovitch, Democrats & Ukraine: How the DEEP STATE Takes Control
Glenn breaks down the several steps our shadow government, or deep state, uses to take control of both domestic and foreign policy, allowing them to gain power and shape the world into their socialistic viewpoint. Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded by George Soros. Why? George Soros is working with the State Department on the two final steps to take power there: training activists to go into action when cued, and actively supporting that opposition.
Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference
There is a long way to go in the impeachment process, and there are some very important issues still to be resolved. But as the process marches on, a growing number of myths and falsehoods are being spread by partisans and their allies in the news media.
The early pattern of misinformation about Ukraine, Joe Biden and election interference mirrors closely the tactics used in late 2016 and early 2017 to build the false and now-debunked narrative that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
Facts do matter. And they prove to be stubborn evidence, even in the midst of a political firestorm. So here are the facts (complete with links to the original materials) debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.
Myth: There is no evidence the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraine’s assistance during the 2016 election.
The Facts: The Ukrainian embassy in Washington confirmed to me this past April that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort during the spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The embassy also stated Chalupa tried to get Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to do an interview on Manafort with an American investigative reporter working on the issue. The embassy said it turned down both requests.
You can read the Ukraine embassy’s statement here. The statement essentially confirmed a January 2017 investigative article in Politico that first raised concerns about Chalupa’s contacts with the embassy.
Chalupa’s activities involving Ukraine were further detailed in a May 2016 email published by WikiLeaks in which she reported to DNC officials on her efforts to dig up dirt on Manafort and Trump. You can read that email here. Myth: There is no evidence that Ukrainian government officials tried to influence the American presidential election in 2016.
The Facts: There are two documented episodes involving Ukrainian government officials’ efforts to influence the 2016 American presidential election. The first occurred in Ukraine, where a court last December ruled that a Parliamentary member and a senior Ukrainian law enforcement official improperly tried to influence the U.S. election by releasing financial records in spring and summer 2016 from an investigation into Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities. The publicity from the release of the so-called Black Ledger documents forced Manafort to resign. You can read that ruling here. While that court ruling since has been set aside on a jurisdiction technicality, the facts of the released information are not in dispute.
The second episode occurred on U.S. soil back in August 2016 when Ukraine’s then-ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, took the extraordinary step of writing an OpEd in The Hill criticizing GOP nominee Donald Trump and his views on Russia just three months before Election Day. You can read that OpEd here.
Chaly later told me through his spokeswoman that he wasn’t writing the OpEd for political purposes but rather to address his country’s geopolitical interests. But his article, nonetheless, was viewed by many in career diplomatic circles as running contrary to the Geneva Convention’s rules barring diplomats from becoming embroiled in the host country’s political affairs. And it clearly adds to the public perception that Ukraine’s government at the time preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election.
Myth: The allegation that Joe Biden tried to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian gas firm employer has been debunked, and there is no evidence the ex-vice president did anything improper.
The Facts: Joe Biden is captured on videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Biden told a foreign policy group in early 2018 that he used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev to successfully force Shokin’s firing. You can watch Biden’s statement here.
It also is not in dispute that at the time he forced the firing, the vice president’s office knew Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, the company where Hunter Biden worked as a board member and consultant. Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times article. You can read that article here.
The unresolved question is what motivated Joe Biden to seek Shokin’s ouster. Biden says he took the action solely because the U.S. and Western allies believed Shokin was ineffective in fighting corruption. Shokin told me, ABC News and others that he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy that the Burisma investigation was not shut down. He made similar statements in an affidavit prepared to be filed in an European court. You can read that affidavit here.
In the end, though, whether Joe Biden had good or bad intentions in getting Shokin fired is somewhat irrelevant to the question of the vice president’s ethical obligation.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. Ethics experts I talked with say Biden should have recused himself from the Shokin matter once he learned about the Burisma investigation to avoid the appearance issue.
And a senior U.S. diplomat was quoted in testimony reported by The Washington Post earlier this month that he tried to raise warnings with Biden’s VP office in 2015 that Hunter Biden’s role at the Ukrainian firm raised the potential issue of conflicts of interest.
Myth: Ukraine’s investigation into Burisma Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing in March 2016.
The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media. Ukraine’s official case file for Burisma Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016, one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.
In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevsky’s homes and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe. You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizure here.
Burisma’s own legal activities also clearly show the investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29, 2016 – the very day Shokin was fired – Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking a meeting with Shokin’s temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open cases.
In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed, Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the investigations of Burisma and Zlochevsky. You can read that letter here.
Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016 and the tax case by early January 2017. You can read Buretta’s interview here.
In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at the time Vice President Biden forced Shokin’s firing, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure misinformation.
Myth: There is no evidence Vice President Joe Biden did anything to encourage Burisma’s hiring of his son Hunter.
The Facts: This is another area where the public facts cry out for more investigation and raise a question in some minds about another appearance of a conflict of interest.
Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, was appointed to Burisma’s board in mid-April 2014 and the firm Rosemont Seneca Bohai — jointly owned by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer — received its first payments from the Ukrainian gas company on April 15, 2014, according to the company’s ledgers. That very same day as the first Burisma payment, Devon Archer met with Joe Biden at the White House, according to White House visitor logs. It is not known what the two discussed.
A week later, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and met with then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. During that meeting, the American vice president urged Ukraine to ramp up energy production to free itself from its Russian natural gas dependence. Biden even boasted that “an American team is currently in the region working with Ukraine and its neighbors to increase Ukraine’s short-term energy supply.” Yatsenyuk welcomed the help from American “investors” in modernizing natural gas supply lines in Ukraine. You can read the Biden-Yatsenyuk transcript here.
Less than three weeks later, Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board to join Archer. To some, the sequence of events creates the appearance that Joe Biden’s pressure to increase Ukrainian gas supply and to urge Kiev to rely on Americans might have led Burisma to hire his son. More investigation needs to be done to determine exactly what happened. And until that occurs, the appearance issue will likely linger over this episode.
Myth: Hunter Biden’s firm only received $50,000 a month for his work as a board member and consultant for Burisma Holdings.
The Facts: This figure frequently cited by Biden defenders and the media significantly understates what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm for his and Devon Archer’s services. Bank records obtained by the FBI in an unrelated case show that between May 2014 and the end of 2015, Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s firm received monthly consulting payments totaling $166,666, or three times the amount cited by the media. In some months, there was even more money than that paid. You can review those bank records here.
The monthly payments figures are confirmed by the accounting ledger that Burisma turned over to Ukrainian prosecutors. That ledger, which you can read here, also shows that in spring and summer of 2014 Burisma paid more than $283,000 to the American law firm of Boies Schiller, where Hunter Biden also worked as an attorney.
Myth: President Trump was trying to force Ukraine to reopen a probe into Burisma Holdings and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky when he talked to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in July of this year.
The Facts: Trump could not have forced the Ukrainians into opening a new Burisma investigation in July because the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office had already done so on March 28, 2019, or three months before the call.
The prosecutors filed this notice of suspicion in Ukraine announcing the re-opening of the investigation. The revival of the case was even widely reported in the Ukrainian press, something U.S. intelligence and diplomats who are now testifying to Congress behind closed doors should have known. Here’s an example of one such Ukrainian media report at the time.
Myth: Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko retracted or recanted his claim that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in 2016 identified people and entities she did not what to see prosecuted in Ukraine.
The Facts: In a March interview with me at Hill.TV captured on videotape, Lutsenko stated that during his first meeting with Yovanovitch in summer 2016, the American diplomat rattled off a list of names of Ukrainian individuals and entities she did not want to see investigated or prosecuted. Lutsenko called it a “do not prosecute” list. You can watch that video here. The State Department disputed his characterization as a fabrication, which Hill.TV reported in its original report.
A few weeks later, a Ukrainian news outlet claimed it interviewed Lutsenko and he backed off his assertion about the list. Several American outlets have since picked up that same language.
There is just one problem. I re-interviewed Lutsenko after the Ukrainian report suggesting he recanted. He adamantly denied recanting, retracting or changing his story, and said the Ukrainian newspaper simply misunderstood that the list of names were conveyed orally during the meeting and not in writing, just like he said in the original Hill.TV interview.
Here is Lutsenko’s full explanation to me back last spring: “At no time since our interview have I ever retracted the statement I made about the U.S. ambassador providing me a list of names of people and organizations she did not want my office to prosecute. Shortly after my televised interview with your news organization I was asked by a Ukraine reporter if I had a copy of the letter that Ambassador Yovanovitch provided me with the names of those she did not want prosecuted. The reporter misunderstood how the names were transmitted to me. I explained to the reporter that the Ambassador did not hand me a written list but rather provided the list of names orally over the course of a meeting.” Lutsenko reaffirmed he stood by his statements again in September.
It is important to note Lutsenko’s story was also backed up by State Department officials and contemporaneous memos before his interview was ever aired. For instance, a senior U.S. official I interviewed for the Lutsenko story reviewed the list of names that Lutsenko recalled being on the so-called do-not-prosecute list.
That official stated during the interview: ““I can confirm to you that at least some of those names are names that U.S. embassy Kiev raised with the Prosecutor General’s office because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”
Separately, both U.S. and Ukrainian official confirmed to me a letter written by then-U.S. embassy official George Kent in April 2016 in which U.S. officials pointedly (and in writing) demanded that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down an investigation into several Ukrainian nonprofit groups suspected of misspending U.S. foreign aid. The letter even named one of the groups, the AntiCorruption Action Centre, a nonprofit funded jointly by the State Department and liberal megadonor George Soros.
“We are gravely concerned about this investigation, for which we see no basis,” Kent wrote the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office in April 2016. You can read the letter here.
So even without Lutsenko’s claim, there is substantial evidence that the U.S. embassy in Kiev applied pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors not to pursue certain investigations in 2016.
Myth: The narratives about Biden, the U.S. embassy and Ukrainian election interference are conspiracy theories invented by Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to impact the 2020 election.
The Facts: Giuliani began investigating matters in Ukraine in late fall 2018 as a personal lawyer to the president. But months before his quest began, Ukrainian prosecutors believed they possessed evidence about Burisma, the Bidens and 2016 election interference that might interest the U.S. Justice Department. It is the same evidence that came to light this spring and summer and that is now a focus of the impeachment proceedings.
Originally, one of Ukraine’s senior prosecutors tried to secure a visa to come to the United States to deliver that evidence. But when the U.S. embassy in Kiev did not fulfill his travel request, the group of Ukrainian prosecutors used an intermediary to hire a former U.S. attorney in America to reach out to the U.S. attorney office in New York and try to arrange a transfer of the evidence. The Ukrainian prosecutors’ story about making the overture to the DOJ was independently verified by the American lawyer they hired.
So the activities and allegation now at the heart of impeachment actually pre-date Giuliani starting work on Ukraine. You can read the prosecutors’ account of their 2018 effort to get this information to Americans here.
Solomon speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
John F. Solomon is an American media executive, and a conservative political commentator. He was an editorialist and executive vice president of digital video for The Hill[1] and as of October 2019, is a contributor to Fox News.[2] He was formerly employed as an executive and as editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[3]
While he won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism in the 1990s and 2000s,[4][5] he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.[6][7][8] During Donald Trump’s presidency, he has been known for advancing Trump-friendly stories. He played a role in advancing conspiracy theories about wrongdoing involving Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden and Ukraine; Solomon’s stories about the Bidens influenced President Trump to request that the Ukrainian president launch an investigation into 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which led to an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.[2]
Contents
Career
Solomon graduated from Marquette University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and sociology.[9]
From May 1987 to December 2006, Solomon worked at the Associated Press, where he became the assistant bureau chief in Washington, helping to develop some of the organization’s first digital products, such as its online elections offering.
In February 2008, Solomon became editor-in-chief of The Washington Times.[10] During this time, Solomon made a mission to make the paper’s coverage more objective while expanding its reach. Under Solomon, the Times changed some of its style guide to conform to more mainstream media usage. The Times announced that it would no longer use words like “illegal aliens” and “homosexual,” and instead opt for “more neutral terminology” such as “illegal immigrants” and “gay,” respectively. The paper also decided to stop using “Hillary” when referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, and to stop putting the word “marriage” in the expression “gay marriage” in quotes.[11] He also oversaw the redesign of the paper’s website and the launch of the paper’s national weekly edition. A new television studio was built in the paper’s Washington DC headquarters, and the paper also launched a syndicated three-hour morning-drive radio news program.[8]
Solomon left the paper in November 2009 after internal shakeups and financial uncertainty among the paper’s ownership.[12]
Return
After a three-and-a-half-year hiatus, most of which was spent at Circa News, Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013 to oversee the newspaper’s content, digital and business strategies.[13] He helped to craft digital strategies to expand online traffic, created new products and partnerships, and led a reorganization of the company’s advertising and sales team. He also helped launch a new subscription-only national edition targeted for tablets, cellphones and other mobile devices, and helped push a redesign of the paper’s website.
Solomon left the paper in December 2015 to serve as chief creative officer of the mobile news application Circa, which was relaunching at that time.[3]
Packard Media Group
Solomon was president of Packard Media Group from November 2009 to December 2015.[14] Solomon also served as journalist in residence at the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit organization that specializes in investigative journalism, from March 2010 to June 2011.[8] He was also named executive editor of the Center for Public Integrity in November 2010 and helped oversee the launch of iWatch News, but resigned quickly after to join Newsweek/The Daily Beast in May 2011.[15][16][8]
Washington Guardian
In 2012, Solomon and former Associated Press executives Jim Williams and Brad Kalbfeld created the Washington Guardian, an online investigative news portal. It was acquired by The Washington Times when Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013.[3]
Circa
After leaving The Washington Times, Solomon became chief creative officer for Circa News. Circa is a mobile news application founded in 2011 that streams updates on big news events to users. In June 2015, it shut down, but its relaunch was announced after its acquisition by Sinclair Broadcast Group.[3]
Upon leaving Circa, Solomon became executive vice president of digital video for The Hill.[1][19] Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces for The Hill.[19] According to the New York Times, Solomon tended to push narratives about alleged misdeeds by Trump’s political enemies.[20]
In October 2017, Solomon published an article in The Hill about the Uranium One controversy where he insinuated that Russia made payments to the Clinton Foundation at the time when the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.[21] Solomon’s story also focused on the alleged failures of the Department of Justice to investigate and report on the controversy, suggesting a cover-up.[21] Subsequent to Solomon’s reporting, the story “took off like wildfire in the right-wing media ecosystem,” according to a 2018 study by scholars at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University.[21] No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrongdoing has surfaced.[21]
In January 2018, it was reported that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[22][23][24] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill‘s reputation.[22][23] They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[22] In May 2018, the editor-in-chief of The Hill announced that Solomon would become an “opinion contributor” at The Hill while remaining executive vice president of digital video.[19] He frequently appeared on Fox News, which continued to describe him as an investigative reporter, even after he became an opinion contributor for the Hill.[24]
Pro-Donald Trump opinion pieces
Solomon published a story alleging that women who had accused Trump of sexual assault had sought payments from partisan donors and tabloids.[24]
On June 19, 2019, The Hill published an opinion piece written by Solomon alleging that the FBI and Robert Mueller disregarded warnings that evidence used against Paul Manafort may have been faked.[25] His source was Nazar Kholodnytsky, a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor, and Konstantin Kilimnik, who has been linked to Russian intelligence and who happens to be Paul Manafort’s former business partner.[26]
In April 2019, The Hill published two opinion pieces by Solomon regarding allegations by Ukrainian officials that “American Democrats” and particularly former Vice-President Joe Biden of collaborating with “their allies in Kiev” in “wrongdoing…ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes.”[27][28] Solomon’s stories attracted attention in conservative media.[23] Fox News frequently covered Solomon’s claims;[29] Solomon also promoted these allegations on Sean Heannity’s Fox News show.[23] According to The Washington Post Solomon’s pieces “played an important role in advancing a flawed, Trump-friendly tale of corruption in Ukraine, particularly involving Biden and his son Hunter”, and inspired “the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to pressure Ukraine’s government into digging up dirt on Trump’s Democratic rivals.”[23] On the same day that The Washington Post published its article, The Hill published another opinion piece by Solomon in which Solomon states that there are “(h)undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents…(that) conflict with Biden’s narrative.”[30]
Solomon’s stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as “an outright fabrication”, but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon’s claim.[23][20]Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon’s claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon’s Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]
Prior to the publication of a story where Solomon alleged that the Obama administration had pressured the Ukrainian government to stop investigating a group funded by George Soros, Solomon sent the full text of his report to Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and the two pro-Trump lawyers and conspiracy theorists Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing.[34] Solomon said he did so for fact-checking, but Parnas, DiGenova and Toensing were not mentioned in the text, nor did Solomon send individual items of the draft for vetting (but rather the whole draft).[34]
During October 2019 hearings for the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, two government officials experienced in Ukraine matters — Alexander Vindman and George Kent — testified that Ukraine-related articles Solomon had written and that were featured in conservative media circles contained a “false narrative” and in some cases were “entirely made up in full cloth.”[35][36]
Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani – the personal attorney of President Trump – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas, “No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle.” Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]
Advertising controversy
Solomon was accused of breaking the traditional ethical “wall” that separated news stories from advertising at The Hill. In October 2017, Solomon negotiated a $160,000 deal with a conservative group called Job Creators Network to target ads in The Hill to business owners in Maine. He then had a quote from the group’s director inserted into a news story about a Maine senator’s key role in an upcoming vote on the Trump administration’s tax bill. Solomon “pops by the advertising bullpen almost daily to discuss big deals he’s about to close,” Johanna Derlega, then The Hill’s publisher, wrote in an internal memo at the time, according to Pro Publica. “If a media reporter gets ahold of this story, it could destroy us.”[2]
Departure
In September 2019, the Washington Examiner reported that Solomon would leave The Hill at the end of the month to start his own media firm.[37] In October 2019, it was reported he was joining Fox News as an opinion contributor.[38]
Reception
Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[7] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon “has a history of bending the truth to his storyline,” and that he “was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”[8][23] During the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Thomas Lang wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review that a Solomon story for the Associated Press covered criticism of John Kerry’s record on national security appeared to mirror a research report released by the Republican National Committee. Lang wrote that Solomon’s story was “a clear demonstration of the influence opposition research is already having on coverage of the [presidential] campaign.”[39][40]
The Washington Post wrote in September 2019 that Solomon’s “recent work has been trailed by claims that it is biased and lacks rigor.”[23]The Post noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.[23] According to Foreign Policy magazine, Solomon had “grown into a prominent conservative political commentator with a somewhat controversial track record.”[31]
In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon’s reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[6]Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon’s reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[41][42][43] According to The Intercept, Just Security and The Daily Beast, Solomon helps to advance right-wing and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.[26][24][44] The New Republic described Solomon’s columns for the Hill as “right-wing fever dreams.”[45] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing fake scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[46] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[8]
In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[47] According to the Huffington Post, Solomon’s reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, “Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week.”[47]
Story 2: Illegal Alien Invasion Continues and Democrats Continue To Support Open Borders and Citizenship For All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Now In The United States — Democrats More Concerned With Illegal Aliens Than Welfare of American People — The Great Betrayal of The American People By The Political Elitist Establishment of Both Big Government Parties — Videos
Former ICE Director Has to Explain to Democrat That Crossing the Border Illegally is a Crime
Homan slams Dems, says Americans need to hear the truth about border
Former ICE acting director Thomas Homan discusses speaking in front of a House subcommittee on the border crisis and says he won’t stand for Congressmembers speaking ill about ICE workers
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.
![Everyone gets a mention: Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator was asked to stand, while Trump claimed that Grassley had 'made [James] Comey choke like a dog'](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/15/21/23442700-7889301-Everyone_gets_a_mention_Chuck_Grassley_the_Iowa_senator_was_aske-a-5_1579124268848.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12008943/xinjiang_uygur_map.jpg)
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1408, March 6, 2020, Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate at 3.5% and Labor Participating Rate of 63.4% and 273,000 New Job Created and 95 Million Not In Labor Force in February 2020 — Economy Growing at 2.1% in Fourth Quarter 2019 — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Signs $8.3 Billion Coronavirus Funding Bill and Visit Center for Disease Control (CDC) — Story 3: Vice-President Pence Update of COVID-19 Task Force — The Risk To American People of Getting COVID-19 Is Low — By End of Next Week Over 4 Million COVID-19 Test Kits Will Be Available — Videos
Posted on March 7, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Center for Disease Control, China, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, CZOVID-19 or Novel Coronavirus, Defense Spending, Diseases, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Flu, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Italy, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Medicine, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, Networking, News, Public Corruption, Public Relations, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, South Korea, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weather, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: 273000 New Jobs Created, 6 March 2020, 95 Million Not In Labor Force in February 2020, America, Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, By End of Next Week Over 4 Million COVID-19 Test Kits Will Be Available, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Knowledge, Labor Participating Rate of 63.4%, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Trump Visits Center for Disease Control, 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 1408, The Risk To American People of Getting COVID-19 Is Low, Truth, Tyranny, U-3 Unemployment Rate at 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate is 7.0%, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 202
Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate at 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate at 7.0% and Labor Participating Rate of 63.4% and 273,000 New Job Created and 95 Million Not In Labor Force in February 2020 — Economy Growing at 2.1% in Fourth Quarter 2019 — Videos —
CNBC’s full interview with White House advisor Larry Kudlow on February jobs and coronavirus concern
February jobs report: US employment growth soars
February Jobs Report Beats Expectations, Adds 273,000 New Jobs | MSNBC
Here’s how the coronavirus is already affecting China’s economy
Job growth smashes expectations for February as unemployment falls back to 3.5%
Nonfarm payrolls grew far more than expected in February as companies continued to hire leading into a growing coronavirus scare.
The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. economy added 273,000 new jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate was 3.5%, matching its lowest level in more than 50 years. An alternative measure of joblessness that counts those not looking for work and holding part-time jobs for economic reasons edged higher to 7%.
There was more good news for the jobs market: The previous two months’ estimates were revised higher by a total of 85,000. December moved up from 147,000 to 184,000, while January went from 225,000 to 273,000. Those revisions brought the three-month average up to a robust 243,000 while the average monthly gain in 2019 was 178,000.
Despite the strong numbers, Wall Street was heading for more losses stemming from worries over the effects of the coronoavirus outbreak, though Friday’s futures were off their bottom after the report.
“This could be the last perfect employment report the market gets for some time,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank.
Gains were spread across a multitude of sectors as the total employment level hit 158.8 million, near its December 2019 record.
Health care and social assistance led the way in job creation with 57,000 new positions. Food services and drinking places both added 53,000 while government employment grew by 45,000 due to Census hiring and state government education. Construction added 42,000 thanks to continued mild weather, while professional and technical services contributed 32,000 and finance rose by 26,000, part of a 160,000 gain over the past 12 months.
In the survey of households, employment rose by 126,000 while the ranks of the unemployed decreased by 105,000.
“While it’s too early to see the impact of the coronavirus on the labor market, we can say the labor market was in a good place before the virus began to spread,” said Nick Bunker, economic research director at job placement firm Indeed. “But the next few months will be a test of just how resilient this labor market is.”
Jobs market still looks strong
The jobs numbers took on particular importance in February as worries intensified over the economic impact from the novel coronavirus, though the report covered the time frame before worries over the disease intensified.
Most of the indicators thus far have shown little damage. Jobless claims remain well within their recent trend, coming in at 216,000 in the latest reading Thursday. Job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas also reported Thursday that planned layoffs actually fell 16% from January. And key ISM readings on both manufacturing and services show companies still plan to hire.
“Now more than ever, we need to focus on the labor market data,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “The consumer has kind of kept things afloat.”
Most of the consumer-related data points have been good, though the reports coming in now largely cover the early stages of the coronavirus scare and the sharp recent stock market volatility.
With the large measure of uncertainty around the disease, its impacts may be felt in increments rather than suddenly. But if cracks begin to form, the first notices likely will come in employment data.
“If we start to handle things the way they’re handled in Italy and South Korea, closing schools and having mandated cancellations of travel and sporting events, I think there’s no way we don’t start to see it in the labor market and in consumer confidence and spending,” Sonders said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/us-jobs-report-february-2020.html
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-20-0379 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 6, 2020 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 -- FEBRUARY 2020 Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance, food services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and technical services, and financial activities. 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 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 5.8 million, changed little in February. The unemployment rate has been either 3.5 percent or 3.6 percent for the past 6 months. (See table A-1.) Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Asians declined to 2.5 percent in February. The rates for adult men (3.3 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), teenagers (11.0 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Blacks (5.8 percent), and Hispanics (4.4 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.1 million, changed little in February and accounted for 19.2 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.) The labor force participation rate remained at 63.4 percent in February. The employment-population ratio, at 61.1 percent, changed little over the month but was up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.) The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million, changed little in February. 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 February, 1.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from the previous month. 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 but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, numbered 405,000 in February, little different from the previous month. (See Summary table A.) Establishment Survey Data Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, after an increase of the same magnitude in January. In 2019, job growth averaged 178,000 per month. In February, notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance, food services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and technical services, and financial activities. (See table B-1.) Employment in health care and social assistance increased by 57,000 in February. Health care added 32,000 jobs, with gains in offices of physicians (+10,000), home health care services (+10,000), and hospitals (+8,000). Employment in social assistance increased by 25,000, with a majority of the gain in individual and family services (+18,000). Over the past 12 months, employment increased by 368,000 in health care and by 191,000 in social assistance. Food services and drinking places added 53,000 jobs in February. Employment in the industry has increased by 252,000 over the past 7 months, following a lull in job growth earlier in 2019. In February, government employment increased by 45,000, led by a gain in state government education (+16,000). Federal employment increased by 8,000, reflecting the hiring of 7,000 temporary workers for the 2020 Census. Construction added 42,000 jobs in February, following a similar gain in January (+49,000). In 2019, job gains averaged 13,000 per month. In February, employment gains occurred in specialty trade contractors (+26,000) and residential building (+10,000). In February, employment in professional and technical services increased by 32,000. Job growth occurred in architectural and engineering services (+10,000) and in scientific research and development services (+5,000). Employment continued to trend up in computer systems design and related services (+8,000). Over the past 12 months, professional and technical services has added 285,000 jobs. Employment in financial activities increased by 26,000 in February, with gains in real estate (+8,000) and in credit intermediation and related activities (+6,000). Over the past 12 months, financial activities has added 160,000 jobs. Employment in other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and information, changed little over the month. In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 9 cents to $28.52. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.0 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 8 cents to $23.96 in February. (See tables B-3 and B-8.) The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 0.1 hour to 34.4 hours in February. In manufacturing, the workweek increased by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.) The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised up by 37,000 from +147,000 to +184,000, and the change for January was revised up by 48,000 from +225,000 to +273,000. With these revisions, employment gains in December and January combined were 85,000 higher 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 243,000 per month over the last 3 months. _____________ The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on Friday, April 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).The PDF version of the news release
News release charts
Supplemental Files Table of Contents
Table of Contents
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age[Numbers in thousands]
2019
2020
2020
2019
2019
2019
2019
2020
2020
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Persons who currently want a job
Men, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Women, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
Footnotes
(1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Second Estimate)
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (table 1), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP also increased 2.1 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was also 2.1 percent. In the second estimate, an upward revision to private inventory investment was offset by a downward revision to nonresidential fixed investment (see “Updates to GDP” on page 2).
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and nonresidential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased (table 2).
Real GDP growth in the fourth quarter was the same as that in the third. In the fourth quarter, a downturn in imports and an acceleration in government spending were offset by a larger decrease in private inventory investment and a slowdown in PCE.
Current dollar GDP increased 3.5 percent, or $184.2 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $21.73 trillion. In the third quarter, GDP increased 3.8 percent, or $202.3 billion (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, the same increase as in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.3 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.
More information on the source data that underlie the estimates is available in the “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file on BEA’s website.
Updates to GDP
In the second estimate, the fourth-quarter growth rate in real GDP was unrevised from the advance estimate. Private inventory investment, exports, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment were revised up. These upward revisions were offset by downward revisions to nonresidential fixed investment, PCE, state and local government spending, and an upward revision to imports. For more information, see the Technical Note and the “Additional Information” section below.
For the third quarter of 2019, the percent change in real GDI was revised from 2.1 percent to 1.2 percent based on new third-quarter data from the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
2019 GDP
Real GDP increased 2.3 percent in 2019 (from the 2018 annual level to the 2019 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.9 percent in 2018 (table 1).
The increase in real GDP in 2019 reflected positive contributions from PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, state and local government spending, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from residential fixed investment. Imports increased (table 2).
The deceleration in real GDP in 2019, compared to 2018, primarily reflected decelerations in nonresidential fixed investment and PCE, which were partly offset by accelerations in both state and local and federal government spending. Imports increased less in 2019 than in 2018.
Current-dollar GDP increased 4.1 percent, or $846.9 billion, in 2019 to a level of $21.43 trillion, compared with an increase of 5.4 percent, or $1,060.8 billion, in 2018 (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in 2019, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in 2018 (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 4).
Measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, real GDP increased 2.3 percent during the period. That compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2018. The price index for gross domestic purchases, as measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, increased 1.4 percent during 2019. That compared with an increase of 2.2 percent during 2018. The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 6).
* * *
Next release, March 26, 2020 at 8:30 A.M. EDT
Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019
* * *
https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2019-second-estimate
Story 2: President Trump Signs $8.3 Billion Coronavirus Funding Bill and Visit Center for Disease Control (CDC) — Videos
Trump signs coronavirus funding bill, reacts to February jobs report
Coronavirus outbreak: Trump visits CDC laboratories, says he’s ‘not concerned’ about COVID-19
Live: Trump receives a Coronavirus briefing from officials at the CDC
President Trump Visits the CDC Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia
President Trump in Atlanta at CDC
Story 3: Vice-President Pence Update of COVID-19 Task Force — The Risk To American People of Getting COVID-19 Is Low — By End of Next Week Over 4 Million COVID-19 Test Kits Will Be Available — Videos
WATCH LIVE: Mike Pence and health officials deliver updates on coronavirus response – 3/6/2020
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1408
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1400-1407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392 1399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )