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]

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 (aka Trial of the Sixteen)

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]

The main charge was forming a terror organization with the purpose of killing Joseph Stalin and other members of the Soviet government. They were tried by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, with Vasili Ulrikh presiding. The Prosecutor General was Andrei Vyshinsky, a former member of the Mensheviks who in 1917 had signed an order to arrest Lenin.^[17]

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 full list of defendants is as follows:

Grigory Zinoviev
Lev Kamenev
Grigory Yevdokimov
Ivan Bakayev
Sergei Mrachkovsky, a hero of the Russian Civil War in Siberia and the Russian Far East
Vagarshak Arutyunovich Ter-Vaganyan, leader of the Armenian Communist Party
Ivan Nikitich Smirnov, People’s Commissar for communications
Yefim Dreitzer
Isak Reingold
Richard Pickel
Eduard Holtzman
Fritz David
Valentin Olberg
Konon Berman-Yurin
Moissei Lurye
Nathan Lurye

Parallel anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center

Prosecutor General Vyshinskiy (centre), reading the indictment, in 1937

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]

Trial of the Generals and the Tukhachevsky Affair

The Tukhachevsky Affair was a secret trial before a military tribunal of a group of Red Army generals, including Mikhail Tukhachevsky, in June 1937.

It featured the same type of frame-up of the defendants and it is traditionally considered one of the key trials of the Great Purge. Mikhail Tukhachevsky and the senior military officers Iona Yakir, Ieronim Uborevich, Robert Eideman, August Kork, Vitovt Putna, Boris Feldman, and Vitaly Primakov were accused of anti-Communist conspiracy and sentenced to death; they were executed on the night of June 11/12, immediately after the verdict delivered by a Special Session of the Supreme Court of the USSR. This trial triggered a massive purge of the Red Army.

Trial of the Twenty-One

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”:

Nikolai Bukharin – Marxist theoretician, former head of Communist International and member of Politburo
Alexei Rykov – former premier and member of Politburo
Nikolai Krestinsky – former member of Politburo and ambassador to Germany
Christian Rakovsky – former ambassador to Great Britain and France
Genrikh Yagoda – former head of NKVD
Arkady Rosengolts – former People’s Commissar for Foreign Trade
Vladimir Ivanov – former People’s Commissar for Timber Industry
Mikhail Alexandrovich Chernov – former People’s Commissar for Agriculture
Grigori Grinko – former People’s Commissar for Finance
Isaac Zelensky – former Secretary of Central Committee
Sergei Bessonov
Akmal Ikramov – Uzbek leader
Fayzulla Khodzhayev – Uzbek leader
Vasily Sharangovich – former first secretary in Belorussia
Prokopy Zubarev
Pavel Bulanov – NKVD officer
Lev Levin – Kremlin doctor
Dmitry Pletnyov – Kremlin doctor
Ignaty Kazakov – Kremlin doctor
Venyamin Maximov-Dikovsky
Pyotr Kryuchkov

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.

The trials in literature

Koestler, Arthur (1980). Darkness at Noon. London: The Folio Society.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm
Serge, Victor. The Case of Comrade Tulayev
Grieg, Nordahl. Ung må verden endnu være / The world must still be young
Maclean, Fitzroy – Eastern Approaches

Notes

^ Yezhov headed the Central Control Commission of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

References…

Bibliography

Primary sources

The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre Head before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. Moscow, August 19-24, 1936. Moscow 1936.
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.
Khrushchev, Nikita, Speech to the Twentieth Communist Party Congress (1956) (On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences)
Sedov, Lev (1938). The Red Book on the Moscow Trial: Documents. New York: New Park Publications. ISBN 0-86151-015-1

Secondary sources

Conquest, Robert (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505580-2.
Leno, Matthew L. (2010). The Kirov Murder and Soviet History. New Haven: Yale University Press ISBN 978-0-300-11236-8.
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. ISBN 0-929087-77-1.
Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.
Tucker, Robert C. (1973). Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879–1929: A Study in History and Personality. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-05487-X.
Wolfe, Bertram David (1990). Breaking with Communism: The Intellectual Odyssey of Bertram D. Wolfe. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-8881-5.

Story 4: Capitalism vs. Socialism or Trump vs. Sanders Not Lying Loser Warren — Capitalism and Trump Winners — Videos

Hot mic catches tense exchange between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders after debate

[9] Yezhov headed the Central Control Commission of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[a]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[*]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

United States Declaration of Independence
1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy
Created	June–July 1776
Ratified	July 4, 1776
Location	Engrossed copy: National Archives and Records Administration Rough draft: Library of Congress
Author(s)	Thomas Jefferson et al.
Signatories	56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress
Purpose	To announce and explain separation from Great Britain^[1]

Introduction Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.	In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.^[80]	“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Indictment A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.^[80]	“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. “He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people. “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: “For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: “For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. “He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Denunciation This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.^[80]	“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
Conclusion The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.	“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Signatures The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison V) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):^[81]	New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward Jr., Thomas Lynch Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Category	June 2018	Apr. 2019	May 2019	June 2019	Change from: May 2019- June 2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population	257,642	258,693	258,861	259,037	176
Civilian labor force	162,129	162,470	162,646	162,981	335
Participation rate	62.9	62.8	62.8	62.9	0.1
Employed	155,592	156,645	156,758	157,005	247
Employment-population ratio	60.4	60.6	60.6	60.6	0.0
Unemployed	6,537	5,824	5,888	5,975	87
Unemployment rate	4.0	3.6	3.6	3.7	0.1
Not in labor force	95,513	96,223	96,215	96,057	-158

Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over	4.0	3.6	3.6	3.7	0.1
Adult men (20 years and over)	3.7	3.4	3.3	3.3	0.0
Adult women (20 years and over)	3.7	3.1	3.2	3.3	0.1
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)	12.6	13.0	12.7	12.7	0.0
White	3.5	3.1	3.3	3.3	0.0
Black or African American	6.5	6.7	6.2	6.0	-0.2
Asian	3.2	2.2	2.5	2.1	-0.4
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity	4.6	4.2	4.2	4.3	0.1

Total, 25 years and over	3.3	2.9	2.9	3.0	0.1
Less than a high school diploma	5.6	5.4	5.4	5.3	-0.1
High school graduates, no college	4.1	3.5	3.5	3.9	0.4
Some college or associate degree	3.3	3.1	2.8	3.0	0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher	2.3	2.1	2.1	2.1	0.0

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs	3,055	2,651	2,664	2,736	72
Job leavers	801	737	803	888	85
Reentrants	2,078	1,926	1,870	1,868	-2
New entrants	579	530	599	541	-58

Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks	2,218	1,904	2,147	1,961	-186
5 to 14 weeks	1,865	1,842	1,559	1,830	271
15 to 26 weeks	862	854	799	769	-30
27 weeks and over	1,467	1,230	1,298	1,414	116

Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons	4,736	4,654	4,355	4,347	-8
Slack work or business conditions	3,018	2,891	2,646	2,707	61
Could only find part-time work	1,453	1,446	1,339	1,337	-2
Part time for noneconomic reasons	21,336	21,322	21,366	21,524	158

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force	1,437	1,417	1,395	1,571	–
Discouraged workers	359	454	338	425	–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Category	June 2018	Apr. 2019	May 2019(P)	June 2019(P)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	262	216	72	224
Total private	236	195	83	191
Goods-producing	56	37	11	37
Mining and logging	7	0	3	-1
Construction	17	34	5	21
Manufacturing	32	3	3	17
Durable goods(1)	27	1	3	12
Motor vehicles and parts	6.2	-2.5	1.5	-0.2
Nondurable goods	5	2	0	5
Private service-providing	180	158	72	154
Wholesale trade	7.8	8.1	7.0	0.1
Retail trade	-34.2	-14.8	-7.3	-5.8
Transportation and warehousing	18.7	8.4	3.3	23.9
Utilities	-0.5	-2.4	1.0	1.4
Information	0	-6	0	2
Financial activities	11	14	2	2
Professional and business services(1)	51	55	24	51
Temporary help services	-1.5	4.3	-0.3	4.3
Education and health services(1)	65	71	28	61
Health care and social assistance	33.1	57.5	26.3	50.5
Leisure and hospitality	43	9	18	8
Other services	18	16	-4	10
Government	26	21	-11	33

(3-month average change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	243	142	147	171
Total private	228	131	144	156

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)
Total nonfarm women employees	49.7	49.8	49.8	49.8
Total private women employees	48.3	48.4	48.5	48.4
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees	82.4	82.3	82.3	82.3

HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours	34.5	34.4	34.4	34.4
Average hourly earnings	$27.05	$27.75	$27.84	$27.90
Average weekly earnings	$933.23	$954.60	$957.70	$959.76
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)	109.6	110.9	111.0	111.2
Over-the-month percent change	0.2	-0.2	0.1	0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)	141.7	147.2	147.7	148.3
Over-the-month percent change	0.4	0.1	0.3	0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX (Over 1-month span)(5)
Total private (258 industries)	67.6	58.9	57.6	60.7
Manufacturing (76 industries)	66.4	52.0	52.0	59.9
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (P) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Recent actual, projected and proposed refugee admissions
Year	Africa	%	East Asia	%	Europe	%	Latin America and Caribbean	%	Near East and South Asia	%	Unallocated reserve	Total
FY 2012 actual arrivals^[10]	10,608	18.21	14,366	24.67	1,129	1.94	2,078	3.57	30,057	51.61	–	58,238
FY 2013 ceiling^[10]	12,000		17,000		2,000		5,000		31,000		3,000	70,000
FY 2013 actual arrivals^[11]	15,980	22.85	16,537	23.65	580	0.83	4,439	6.35	32,389	46.32	–	69,925
FY 2014 ceiling^[11]	15,000		14,000		1,000		5,000		33,000		2,000	70,000
FY 2014 actual arrivals^[12]	17,476	24.97	14,784	21.12	959	1.37	4,318	6.17	32,450	46.36	–	69,987
FY 2015 ceiling^[12]	17,000		13,000		1,000		4,000		33,000		2,000	70,000
FY 2015 actual arrivals^[13]	22,472	32.13	18,469	26.41	2,363	3.38	2,050	2.93	24,579	35.14	–	69,933
FY 2016 ceiling^[13]	25,000		13,000		4,000		3,000		34,000		6,000	85,000
FY 2016 actual arrivals^[14]	31,625	37.21	12,518	14.73	3,957	4.65	1,340	1.57	35,555	41.83	–	84,995
FY 2017 ceiling^[15]	35,000		12,000		4,000		5,000		40,000		14,000	110,000
FY 2017 actual arrivals^[16]	20,232	37.66	5,173	9.63	5,205	9.69	1,688	3.14	21,418	39.87	–	53,716
FY 2018 ceiling^[17]	19,000		5,000		2,000		1,500		17,500		–	45,000
FY 2018 actual arrivals^[18]	10,459	46.50	3,668	16.31	3,612	16.06	955	4.25	3,797	16.88	–	22,491
FY 2019 ceiling^[19]	11,000		4,000		3,000		3,000		9,000		–	30,000
*FY 2019 actual arrivals^[20]	3,473	59.28	893	15.24	1,095	18.69	135	2.30	263	4.49	–	5,859

Category	Feb. 2018	Dec. 2018	Jan. 2019	Feb. 2019	Change from: Jan. 2019- Feb. 2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population	256,934	258,888	258,239	258,392	153
Civilian labor force	161,900	163,240	163,229	163,184	-45
Participation rate	63.0	63.1	63.2	63.2	0.0
Employed	155,213	156,945	156,694	156,949	255
Employment-population ratio	60.4	60.6	60.7	60.7	0.0
Unemployed	6,687	6,294	6,535	6,235	-300
Unemployment rate	4.1	3.9	4.0	3.8	-0.2
Not in labor force	95,033	95,649	95,010	95,208	198

Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over	4.1	3.9	4.0	3.8	-0.2
Adult men (20 years and over)	3.7	3.6	3.7	3.5	-0.2
Adult women (20 years and over)	3.8	3.5	3.6	3.4	-0.2
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)	14.4	12.5	12.9	13.4	0.5
White	3.7	3.4	3.5	3.3	-0.2
Black or African American	6.8	6.6	6.8	7.0	0.2
Asian	3.0	3.3	3.1	3.1	0.0
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity	4.9	4.4	4.9	4.3	-0.6

Total, 25 years and over	3.4	3.1	3.3	3.1	-0.2
Less than a high school diploma	5.6	5.8	5.7	5.3	-0.4
High school graduates, no college	4.4	3.8	3.8	3.8	0.0
Some college or associate degree	3.5	3.3	3.4	3.2	-0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher	2.2	2.1	2.4	2.2	-0.2

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs	3,227	2,903	3,082	2,857	-225
Job leavers	784	839	805	840	35
Reentrants	1,954	1,958	1,945	1,905	-40
New entrants	703	588	606	623	17

Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks	2,458	2,126	2,325	2,194	-131
5 to 14 weeks	1,900	2,027	2,013	1,810	-203
15 to 26 weeks	933	897	902	942	40
27 weeks and over	1,403	1,306	1,252	1,271	19

Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons	5,115	4,657	5,147	4,310	-837
Slack work or business conditions	3,293	2,891	3,451	2,792	-659
Could only find part-time work	1,537	1,496	1,419	1,347	-72
Part time for noneconomic reasons	21,120	21,234	20,949	21,153	204

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force	1,602	1,556	1,614	1,424	–
Discouraged workers	373	375	426	428	–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment status, race, sex, and age	Not seasonally adjusted			Seasonally adjusted(1)
Employment status, race, sex, and age	Feb. 2018	Jan. 2019	Feb. 2019	Feb. 2018	Oct. 2018	Nov. 2018	Dec. 2018	Jan. 2019	Feb. 2019
WHITE
Civilian noninstitutional population	199,799	200,382	200,447	199,799	200,596	200,690	200,774	200,382	200,447
Civilian labor force	125,658	125,516	126,102	125,862	126,100	126,334	126,680	126,351	126,313
Participation rate	62.9	62.6	62.9	63.0	62.9	63.0	63.1	63.1	63.0
Employed	120,646	120,542	121,628	121,241	121,923	122,036	122,318	121,880	122,168
Employment-population ratio	60.4	60.2	60.7	60.7	60.8	60.8	60.9	60.8	60.9
Unemployed	5,012	4,974	4,475	4,621	4,177	4,299	4,362	4,471	4,144
Unemployment rate	4.0	4.0	3.5	3.7	3.3	3.4	3.4	3.5	3.3
Not in labor force	74,141	74,866	74,345	73,937	74,496	74,355	74,094	74,030	74,134
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force	65,802	65,684	65,925	65,887	65,771	65,961	66,110	66,051	66,052
Participation rate	72.0	71.6	71.8	72.1	71.6	71.8	71.9	72.0	72.0
Employed	63,185	63,112	63,636	63,651	63,785	63,960	64,046	63,890	64,088
Employment-population ratio	69.1	68.8	69.3	69.6	69.4	69.6	69.6	69.6	69.8
Unemployed	2,617	2,572	2,289	2,236	1,986	2,000	2,064	2,161	1,964
Unemployment rate	4.0	3.9	3.5	3.4	3.0	3.0	3.1	3.3	3.0
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force	55,465	55,612	56,042	55,254	55,778	55,819	55,995	55,740	55,814
Participation rate	57.8	57.7	58.1	57.5	57.8	57.9	58.0	57.8	57.9
Employed	53,640	53,733	54,365	53,456	54,062	54,023	54,226	53,959	54,151
Employment-population ratio	55.9	55.8	56.4	55.7	56.1	56.0	56.2	56.0	56.2
Unemployed	1,825	1,879	1,677	1,798	1,716	1,796	1,769	1,781	1,663
Unemployment rate	3.3	3.4	3.0	3.3	3.1	3.2	3.2	3.2	3.0
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force	4,392	4,219	4,135	4,721	4,551	4,554	4,575	4,560	4,447
Participation rate	35.6	34.4	33.7	38.3	37.0	37.0	37.2	37.2	36.3
Employed	3,822	3,697	3,627	4,134	4,076	4,052	4,047	4,031	3,929
Employment-population ratio	31.0	30.1	29.6	33.5	33.1	32.9	32.9	32.9	32.0
Unemployed	570	523	508	587	476	502	528	530	518
Unemployment rate	13.0	12.4	12.3	12.4	10.5	11.0	11.6	11.6	11.6

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
Civilian noninstitutional population	32,607	32,868	32,897	32,607	32,887	32,923	32,956	32,868	32,897
Civilian labor force	20,360	20,549	20,441	20,518	20,564	20,451	20,460	20,628	20,575
Participation rate	62.4	62.5	62.1	62.9	62.5	62.1	62.1	62.8	62.5
Employed	18,928	19,033	18,944	19,118	19,290	19,232	19,107	19,220	19,137
Employment-population ratio	58.1	57.9	57.6	58.6	58.7	58.4	58.0	58.5	58.2
Unemployed	1,432	1,516	1,497	1,399	1,274	1,219	1,353	1,408	1,437
Unemployment rate	7.0	7.4	7.3	6.8	6.2	6.0	6.6	6.8	7.0
Not in labor force	12,246	12,318	12,457	12,089	12,323	12,472	12,496	12,240	12,322
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force	9,339	9,320	9,333	9,448	9,400	9,310	9,284	9,367	9,414
Participation rate	68.5	67.6	67.6	69.3	68.2	67.4	67.2	67.9	68.2
Employed	8,744	8,584	8,595	8,889	8,814	8,771	8,709	8,705	8,734
Employment-population ratio	64.1	62.2	62.3	65.2	63.9	63.5	63.0	63.1	63.3
Unemployed	595	736	738	559	586	539	575	662	680
Unemployment rate	6.4	7.9	7.9	5.9	6.2	5.8	6.2	7.1	7.2
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force	10,261	10,433	10,358	10,264	10,327	10,303	10,359	10,419	10,366
Participation rate	62.4	62.8	62.3	62.4	62.2	62.0	62.2	62.8	62.4
Employed	9,615	9,820	9,793	9,642	9,825	9,789	9,749	9,847	9,822
Employment-population ratio	58.4	59.2	58.9	58.6	59.2	58.9	58.6	59.3	59.1
Unemployed	646	613	565	621	501	515	611	572	544
Unemployment rate	6.3	5.9	5.5	6.1	4.9	5.0	5.9	5.5	5.3
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force	760	797	750	806	837	837	817	842	795
Participation rate	30.3	32.2	30.3	32.1	33.6	33.6	32.8	34.0	32.1
Employed	569	629	556	587	650	672	650	669	582
Employment-population ratio	22.7	25.4	22.5	23.4	26.1	27.0	26.1	27.0	23.5
Unemployed	191	168	194	219	187	165	167	173	213
Unemployment rate	25.2	21.0	25.9	27.1	22.4	19.7	20.5	20.6	26.8

ASIAN
Civilian noninstitutional population	15,792	16,034	16,055	15,792	16,030	16,096	16,138	16,034	16,055
Civilian labor force	9,934	10,264	10,383	9,925	10,280	10,334	10,262	10,298	10,369
Participation rate	62.9	64.0	64.7	62.8	64.1	64.2	63.6	64.2	64.6
Employed	9,635	9,938	10,053	9,630	9,956	10,050	9,929	9,978	10,045
Employment-population ratio	61.0	62.0	62.6	61.0	62.1	62.4	61.5	62.2	62.6
Unemployed	299	326	329	294	324	284	334	321	324
Unemployment rate	3.0	3.2	3.2	3.0	3.1	2.7	3.3	3.1	3.1
Not in labor force	5,858	5,770	5,672	5,868	5,750	5,762	5,876	5,736	5,686
Footnotes (1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups will not sum to totals shown in table A-1 because data are not presented for all races. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Hate Crimes in the US (2008–2012) by Population Group
Population Group	Estimated Population	Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012)^[90]^[91]^[92]^[93]^[94]	Rate (per 100,000 people)	Violent Hate Crimes Against^[95]	Rate (per 100,000 people)
Jewish	5,248,674^[96]	4,457	84.9	411	7.8
LGBT	9,000,000^[97]	7,231	66.9	3,849	35.6
Muslim	1,852,473^[96]	761	41.1	258	13.9
Black	38,929,319^[98]	13,411	34.4	4,356	11.2
Aboriginal	2,932,248^[98]	364	12.4	161	5.5
Hispanic	50,477,594^[98]	3,064	6.1	1,482	2.9
Asian & Pacific Islander	15,214,265^[98]	798	5.2	276	1.8
White	223,553,265^[98]	3,459	1.5	1,614	0.7
Catholic	67,924,018^[99]	338	0.5	32	0.0
Atheist & Agnostic	17,598,496^[99]	47	0.3	5	0.0
Protestant	148,197,858^[99]	229	0.2	17	0.0

Date	President	Viewers,millions	Households,millions	Rating	Networks
1/29/2019^[44]	Donald Trump	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD
1/30/2018	Donald Trump	45.551	32.168	26.9	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESTRELLA, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, PBS
2/28/2017	Donald Trump	47.741	33.857	28.7	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, UNIVISION, PBS, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, NBC UNIVERSO
1/12/2016	Barack Obama	31.334	23.040	19.6	ABC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, AZTECA, CBS, CNN, FOX, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, NBC, NBC UNIVERSO, UNIVISION**
1/20/2015	Barack Obama	31.710	23.137	19.9	ABC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, AZTECA, CBS, CNN, FOX, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, MUNDOFOX, NBC, UNIVISION**
1/28/2014	Barack Obama	33.299	23.949	20.7	CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, AZTECA, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, GALAVISION, MUN2, UNIVISION**
2/12/2013	Barack Obama	33.497	24.767	21.8	FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, AZTECA, UNIVISION, MFX, CNBC, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, CURRENT, CENTRIC, GALAVISION
1/24/2012	Barack Obama	37.752	27.569	24.0	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, TF, UNIVISION, CNBC, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, MUN2
1/25/2011	Barack Obama	42.789	30.871	26.6	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, CENTRIC, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/2010	Barack Obama	48.009	34.182	29.8	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, BET, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
2/24/2009	Barack Obama	52.373	37.185	32.5	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION
1/28/2008	George W. Bush	37.515	27.702	24.7	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO**, UNIVISION
1/24/2007	George W. Bush	45.486	32.968	29.6	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION
1/31/2006	George W. Bush	43.179	30.528	31.2	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, AZTECA AMERICA, TELFUTURA
2/02/2005	George W. Bush	39.432	28.359	35.3	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, TELEFUTURA
1/20/2004	George W. Bush	43.411	30.286	28.0	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/28/2003	George W. Bush	62.061	41.447	38.8	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/29/2002	George W. Bush	51.773	35.547	33.6	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
2/27/2001	George W. Bush	39.793	28.201	27.6	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/2000	Bill Clinton	31.478	22.536	22.4	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/19/1999	Bill Clinton	43.500	30.700	31.0	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/1998	Bill Clinton	53.077	36.513	37.2	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, CNBC
2/04/1997	Bill Clinton	41.100	27.600	28.4	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN
1/23/1996	Bill Clinton	40.900	28.400	29.6	ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN
1/24/1995	Bill Clinton	42.200	28.100	29.5	ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
1/25/1994	Bill Clinton	45.800	31.000	32.9	ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
2/17/1993	Bill Clinton	66.900	41.200	44.3	ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN

Discrimination
Part of a series on
General forms[show]
Specific forms

Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Policies[show]
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics[show]
Discrimination portal
v t e

Federal Communications Commission

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Story 1: President Trump Wins All 14 States and Over 740 Delegates On Super Tuesday and Has Total Delegates of 859 With 1,276 Delegates Needed To Win Republican Nomination for President — Americans Love A Winner — Videos

Patton (1/5) Movie CLIP – Americans Love a Winner (1970) HD

President Trump delivers remarks at CPAC

President Donald Trump Sweeps Super Tuesday

The president picked up hundreds of delegates in an unsurprising victory in more than a dozen states.

Story 2: Democrats Deeply Divided — Democratic Establishment Candidate Creepy Sleepy Dopey Joey Biden vs. Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Bernie Sanders — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. Trump The Winner — Americans Love A Winner — Videos

Super Tuesday results show clear two-man race for Democratic nomination

Rubio on Biden vs. Sanders: It’s either old Obama policies or Marxism

Trump calls Warren ‘selfish’ for staying in 2020 race

Mike Bloomberg drops out of the 2020 race

Gowdy: Biden only looks moderate because he is next to Bernie

NOT A JOKE: Biden Has Dementia?! | Louder with Crowder

Mike Bloomberg QUITS 2020 race after disastrous Super Tuesday saying winning is ‘impossible’ after spending $1 BILLION for just 44 delegates – and immediately endorses Joe Biden, while Elizabeth Warren ‘assesses her path forward’

I’M ALL IN FOR JOE – HOW BLOOMBERG QUIT

TRUMP ROASTS HIS RIVALS AND TOASTS HIS OWN SUCCESS

WARREN LOSES HER HOME STATE

WHO ARE THE 4 DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020?

Story 3: Containing Circulating COVID-19 Communist Chinese Cough Crisis Chaos — Do Not Touch Your Face and Wash Your Hands to Prevent Droplet Spreading and Infecting You and Others — Videos

Coronavirus outbreak: U.S. task force led by Mike Pence holds a media briefing in Washington | LIVE

The facts about coronavirus: What you need to know

An ER Doctor Answers Your Coronavirus Questions

U.S. Surgeon General Urges People to Stop Buying Masks Amid Coronavirus

Containing COVID-19: Efficacy of protective masks

Coronavirus: Does wearing a mask actually protect you from Covid-19? Questions answered | 5 News

Rand Paul gives optimistic take on coronavirus fears

Coronavirus: How to prepare for a global pandemic

Lou Dobbs grills Azar in heated debate over coronavirus transparency

Why another flu pandemic is likely just a matter of when

Why the race to stop the next flu outbreak starts at state fairs and the beach

After Ebola: Nebraska and the Next Pandemic

1918 Spanish Flu historical documentary | Swine Flu Pandemic | Deadly plague of 1918

How did the 1918 flu pandemic start and could we have another one? | Ockham’s Razor

Spanish Flu: a warning from history

Emergence of the 2009 Swi

ne-Origin Influenza Pandemic

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

What’s New

10 Things to Know About CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 + TOP 3 SOURCES to Follow—For

Family & Friends

WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

‘Not a lot of evidence’ to support wearing face masks

‘Don’t touch your face’

Story 4: Federal Reserve Cuts Target Federal Fund Rate By 50 Basis Points or .5% To 1.00% to 1.25% — Return of Easy Monetary Policy — Bubble Blowing — Is Quantitative Easing or Money Printing Next? — Absolutely — Videos

Federal Reserve cuts interest rates to combat coronavirus

Federal Reserve’s rate cut was a ‘disaster’: Expert

Fed Will Cut Rates 50 Basis Points Next Meeting, Strategist Orlando Predicts

The Fed’s gonna need a bigger rate cut – Ep 540

What Happens When the Fed Lowers Interest Rates

PBS NewsHour 9pm live episode, Mar 3, 2020

BlackRock’s Mike Pyle outlines three big uncertainties in the markets because of coronavirus

Story 5: United States Stock Market Corrected for Bubble Prices — Stock Market Prices Surge Fueled by Easy Money Policy of Federal Reserve and Biden Victory on Super Tuesday — Videos

Stockman Warns: Coronavirus Will Crash Stock Market, ‘The Jig Is Up’

Hannity: Dems, media mob will do anything to stop President Trump

Dow soars more than 1,100 points as market rallies off Biden win, UnitedHealth pops 10%

Trump Job Approval Relapses Amid Coronavirus Threat: IBD/TIPP Poll

President Trump Job Approval

Trump Job Approval Slumps With Economic Outlook

Trump Slips In Matchups Vs. Democrats

Story 1: President Trump Wins All 14 States and Over 740 Delegates On Super Tuesday and Has Total Delegates of 859 With 1,276 Delegates Needed To Win Republican Nomination for President — Videos

President Donald Trump Sweeps Super Tuesday

The president picked up hundreds of delegates in an unsurprising victory in more than a dozen states.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1400-1406

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