Story 1: No Red Flag Laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders — Should Trump Sign A Red Flag Law He Would Be Betraying His Supporters and Risk Losing His Reelection — Assault on Due Process and United States Constitution — Trump Is Wrong — Videos
Judge Napolitano: Red-Flag Laws Violate Due Process, Unconstitutional
Colorado enacts law to seize guns from people posing ‘threat’
Pres. Trump Calls For Similar Action To Colorado’s Red Flag Law
Former NYPD commissioner blasts New Jersey gun laws
Sheriff Elder explains opposition to the red flag bill
New Numbers On Maryland’s Red Flag Law Allowing Gun Seizures In Extreme Cases
USA: Pro-gun supporters rally against ‘Red Flag’ law in Maryland
RED FLAG LAWS: Don’t be FOOLED by the SHILLS!
Do ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws Work?
Napolitano on Trump ‘due process’ comments: The Constitution doesn’t like it
President Donald Trump Says Take Guns ‘Early’ Without Due Process | CNBC
Red flag gun laws: Gun-rights advocates say they’ll lead to confiscations from law-abiding people
Are Red Flag Laws Coming? Lehto’s Law Ep. 5.108
Minnesota Republicans remain opposed to gun reforms
Trump Proposes ‘Red Flag’ Laws. What Are They And Do They Work?
Trump clashes with Republicans in gun control meeting
LIVE SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING ON RED FLAG LAWS 2
Ted Cruz: ‘Offensive’ That Democrats Are Calling For Gun Control After Orlando | NBC News
Trump says he supports “red flag laws” as means of gun control
Kellyanne Conway on mass shootings: Trump stands ready to act
Penn & Teller on Gun Control
Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, Taxes, Trump, Clinton and Weed
Will Universal Background Checks, Red Flag Laws, and Assault Weapon Bans make American’s safer?
What You Need to Know About Red Flag Laws
Congressman Massie Interview on Red Flag Laws
On Red Flag Laws and New Jersey’s Large Magazine Ban
CPRC On One America News Network: The dangers of Red Flag Laws
Taking people’s guns without due process “Red Flag Laws”
Why are so many young men commiting mass murder?
Message to the school shooters: past, present and future
TEDxToronto – Dr. Jordan B. Peterson — Redefining Reality
Jordan Peterson: high school shootings like Parkland, Florida’s
Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro – School Shootings in America
Jordan Peterson Shares His Thoughts on Hitler
Jordan Peterson on the worst thing about Donald Trump
The psychology behind mass shootings
Forensic Psychologist Profiles Mass Killers
Mayo psychiatrist: Taking guns away from mentally ill won’t eliminate mass shootings
J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist discusses an editorial commentary on an essay in Mayo Clinic Proceedings titled “Guns, Schools, and Mental Illness: Potential Concerns for Physicians and Mental Health Professionals.” The authors focus on recent mass shootings and argue that these actions were not and could not have been prevented by more restrictive gun legislation. They further contend that a diagnosis of mental illness does not justify stripping Second Amendment rights from all who carry such a diagnosis, most of whom will never commit violent acts toward others. Dr. Bostwick argues several points including that mass shootings are carefully planned — often spanning weeks or months. There is plenty of time for a meticulous planner and determined killer to get a gun somewhere in that time, he argues.
Most Mass Shooters Are Not Mentally Ill | Carmela Epright | TEDxGreenville
Carmela Epright is a bioethicist who advocates for resources for mental illness while dispelling myths about the profiles of mass shooters. Carmela Epright is a Professor of Philosophy at Furman University and a Clinical Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. She has served as a visiting scholar to the Medical University of South Carolina, The University of South Carolina Medical School’s Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities and to the Institute for Applied Ethics at Dartmouth College. Dr. Epright received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in philosophy and an M.A. in Applied Ethics from Loyola University, Chicago. In 2004 she was awarded the Alester G. Furman, Jr. and Janie Earle Furman Award for Meritorious Teaching at Furman University. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
http://www.physicianfocus.org | http://www.massmed.org/physicianfocus | Dr. Bradley, who retired from the Unites States Army with the rank of Colonel and was previously Chief of Psychiatry at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, appears as the principal guest on the December episode of Physician Focus with the Massachusetts Medical Society. He is joined by Michael Tang, D.O., M.P.H., a psychiatry resident at Harvard South Shore Psychiatry, a program of Harvard Medical School, to discuss a range of topics surrounding mental illness and violence. Hosting the program is John Fromson, M.D., Vice Chairman for Clinical Affairs of the Department of Psychiatry at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Chief of Psychiatry at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital.
I Was Almost A School Shooter | Aaron Stark | TEDxBoulder
Jordan Peterson – What Mass Murderers Think
Tucker: Trace the decline of men to disappearance of fathers
Sen. Lindsey Graham sees “common ground” on “red flag” gun laws
President Trump pushing for ‘red flag’ laws to prevent gun violence
Trump clashes with Republicans in gun control meeting
Shapiro on students who disagree with calls for gun reform
The Worst Arguments For Gun Control | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 523
Tucker: Trump betraying core campaign promises on guns
Tucker: Left has opposed due process on guns for years
Tucker: Assault weapons ban will not stop mass killings
Lindsey Graham: Here is why red flag laws work
The Origin of Red Flag Laws
Red flag law
Psychiatrists and the pharma industry are to blame for the current ‘epidemic’ of mental disorders
Former NYPD commissioner blasts New Jersey gun laws
Jersey Matters – Gun Laws in New Jersey
NJ Attempts Confiscation Of My Friend’s Guns!!! Red Flag Law Gone Wrong!!!
FBI launches study on psychology of mass shooters
Former FBI profiler analyzes Florida shooting suspect
Former FBI agent on warning signs before deadly mass shooting
How the Las Vegas Gunman Planned a Massacre, in 7 Days of Video | NYT – Visual Investigations
Haunted by Columbine | Retro Report Documentary | The New York Times
Due Process of Law: Crash Course Government and Politics #28
What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano
The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
How the Constitution Has Been Twisted to Undermine the Free Market | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom
Nation of Sheep | Andrew Napolitano
The challenge of preventing mass shootings through mental health records
School shooting renews gun control vs. mental health debate
Mass Shootings and Mental Health
Mayo psychiatrist: Taking guns away from mentally ill won’t eliminate mass shootings
BTN11: The danger of connecting mass shootings to mental illness
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Psychiatry: New Explorations
Thomas Szasz Interview by Sheldon Richman
Thomas Szasz on Socialism in Health Care
Minority Report (2002) Official Trailer #1 – Tom Cruise Sci-Fi Action Movie
Minority Report – Final Scene
Trump warned by NRA over background checks
Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim, The Washington Post
Published
President Donald Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials.
Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.
Trump’s previous declarations of support for tougher gun controls, including after the deadly Parkland, Florida, shooting in February 2018, have foundered without a sustained push from the president and support from the NRA or Republican lawmakers. Even Trump’s advisers question how far he will go on any effort.
NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill’s merits, the officials said.
The NRA, which opposes the legislation sponsored by Sens. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., declined to comment.
Advisers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would not bring any gun-control legislation to the floor without widespread Republican support. Trump has waffled, current and past White House officials say, between wanting to do more and growing concerned that doing so could prompt a revolt from his political base. Even some supporters of the Manchin-Toomey bill, which would expand background checks to nearly all firearm sales, say it is unlikely to pass.
“I don’t think the president or his Republican allies are going to become out of nowhere advocates of aggressive gun control,” said Matt Schlapp, who leads the American Conservative Union and is a close ally to Trump.
Trump has focused on guns extensively since the shootings, calling lawmakers and surveying aides about what he should do – outreach that began Sunday evening. White House officials say there have been a series of meetings on a response, convened by acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, including a session Tuesday morning. The president has discussed with aides the idea of a Rose Garden bill-signing ceremony for gun-control legislation, a notion that seems premature to many in the West Wing.
Trump also asked lawyers about what he could enact through an executive order, officials said.
“He seems determined to do something and believes there is space to get something done this time around,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said he had spoken to Trump “four or five times” since the shooting. “The president has a pretty common-sense point of view. He’s never been a sports or gun enthusiast. But he is more determined than ever to do something on his watch.”
Manchin said Trump called him at 6:30 a.m. Monday and that the two spoke again on Tuesday, when Trump said he wanted legislation before September, when the Senate is scheduled to return.
Trump did not express explicit support for the Manchin-Toomey bill but asked a range of questions. Most of the recent mass shootings were carried out with guns purchased legally.
“He was inquisitive, wanting to know why it hadn’t happened. He wanted to know all about it,” Manchin said. “I told him we couldn’t get enough Republicans to help us.”
Manchin said he told Trump that he would need to back any gun-control legislation or it would fail again. Those comments were mirrored by almost a dozen GOP and White House aides.
“If you don’t stand up and say, ‘This is a piece of legislation I support,’ we’re not going to get enough cover to have Republicans stand tall. They won’t be able to do it,” Manchin said.
On Tuesday, Trump outlined some NRA concerns in a second call with Manchin. “We talked about that,” Manchin said. “I told him, we don’t expect the NRA to be supportive. Mr. President, in all honesty, when you did the bump stocks, they weren’t for you. They were against that, too. You didn’t take any hit on that.”
In March, the administration administratively banned bump stocks, the devices used to make semiautomatic rifles fire rapidly like machine guns.
A White House official said Trump had asked some advisers and lawmakers this week about whether the NRA had enduring clout amid an internal leadership battle and allegations of improper spending, as well as what his supporters would think of the bill. The Washington Post reported this week that LaPierre sought to have the NRA buy him a $6 million mansion in a gated Dallas-area golf club after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 students and staff members were killed.
Toomey said he has spoken with the president at least three times since the weekend shootings. He declined to elaborate on the conversations, although he stressed that Trump hasn’t specifically endorsed the bill. Their conversations have been more general, he said, but Toomey noted that they had been “encouraging” and “very recent.”
“I will just tell you generally the president is open-minded about this,” Toomey said.
Some measures – such as a ban on assault weapons – have been ruled out, White House officials and legislative aides say. Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans support some form of a ban on assault rifles, though there is a large partisan divide and fewer than half of Republicans support such measures. A July NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found 57 percent of the public supported a ban on “the sale of semiautomatic assault guns, such as the AK-47 or the AR-15.” Fewer than 3 in 10 Republicans supported the proposal, rising to a slight majority of independents and more than 8 in 10 Democrats.
“There’s no political space for that,” Graham said. “So I don’t think he’s going to go down that road.”
However, about 9 in 10 Americans support requiring background checks for all gun purchases, including more than 8 in 10 Republicans, Democrats and independents, according to polling.
Trump was vague about what he would do in his comments Wednesday, and current and former White House officials said he is often ambivalent on what he should do after shootings.
After the Parkland shooting, Trump expressed support for background checks for gun purchases and greater police power to seize guns from mentally disturbed people. But he faced significant resistance from the NRA and Republicans and abandoned the ideas.
On Air Force One after the October 2017 shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 dead, Trump said he wanted to enact a law to keep such shootings from happening again and would question others for ideas but did not have specific proposals.
After shootings, Trump regularly would poll aides about what measures would have political support, but if they did not gain backing, he was not inclined to lead the charge.
“He would not be blocking it, but he’s not going to be the one forcing it to happen,” this official said.
Some of the president’s more moderate friends and donors have pressed for more-robust gun-control measures. But Trump has also told advisers that he cannot lose any members of his “base.”
“Republicans are headed for extinction in the suburbs if they don’t distance themselves from the NRA. The GOP needs to put forth solutions to help eradicate the gun violence epidemic,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor.
In public, Trump has promoted “red flag” laws – also known as extreme risk protection orders – that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to ban gun access for someone they believe is an imminent threat to themselves or others. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have such laws already in place, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates more restrictions on firearms.
White House aides said such a bill was the most likely outcome and had the most support in the West Wing. Schlapp said that Trump could convince Republicans to support some measures seen as less restrictive.
“It’s the best route forward because it can pass, the president will sign it and it can actually stop the next attack,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who drafted legislation to encourage more states to pass their own red flag laws, said in a phone interview Wednesday. He began working on the legislation after the Parkland shooting.
“If you look at all the studies that have been done, you see that invariably, with perhaps the exception of Las Vegas, they all exhibited signs and warnings to people around them that they could do something,” Rubio said.
Yet any effort on Capitol Hill to implement firearms restrictions is likely to face, at a minimum, skepticism from conservatives concerned about any measure viewed as restricting gun rights.
Early on in his administration, Trump moved to loosen restrictions on gun purchases by people with mental illnesses, signing legislation overturning an Obama-era regulation that barred certain people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms.
Some Republican officials have pointedly noted that Graham didn’t consult other GOP senators before forging ahead with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., on a plan to advance red flag legislation through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A handful of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, through aides and in public comments, have indicated they are open to policies that would encourage states to implement such laws.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., appeared the most skeptical, with a spokesman saying merely that Sasse has asked to review the legislative language from Graham. A spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the lawmaker “believes red flag laws are one of the tools states can consider, but that there are dangers depending on how a state implements these laws,” expressing concern about protecting “due process and our constitutional rights.”
Democrats, while generally supportive of red flag laws, questioned how much congressional efforts would actually help states – particularly conservative ones with Republican governors – enact them. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that Democrats would demand a vote on legislation expanding background checks that had already passed the House and is opposed by the Trump administration in tandem with any Senate vote on red flag laws.
“The question is, what difference can the federal government make in what is largely a state decision?” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., one of the most vocal advocates of gun control in Congress. “I’m all for federal action on extreme risk protection orders. I’m just not sure it’s going to move the needle.”
Republican senators get behind first federal gun control law since 1994 after mass shootings with backing for ‘red flag’ laws to seize guns from dangerous people
Growing number of Republican senators say they back bipartisan bill for nationwide ‘red flag’ laws to seize guns from people who are dangerous
Donald Trump signaled support for the plan Monday in address to the nation after El Paso and Dayton shootings, which claimed 32 lives
Bill is by Lindsey Graham, the Republican close to Trump, and Democrat Richard Blumenthal
In sign of fear among Republicans that mass shootings will harm them, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, proposed more sweeping restrictions
Kinzinger said there should be universal background checks, a raise in the legal age to purchase a gun, and ban on high capacity magazines
A major donor also warned the GOP needs to move toward gun reform so it doesn’t lose the suburbs
‘Republicans are headed for extinction in the suburbs if they don’t distance themselves from the NRA,’ Dan Eberhart said
Democrats have also been pushing for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call a special session to vote on universal background check legislation
PUBLISHED: 10:44 EDT, 6 August 2019 | UPDATED: 21:34 EDT, 6 August 2019
A bipartisan proposal to encourage states to adopt ‘red flag’ laws to take guns away from people believed to be a danger to themselves or others was gaining support among Congressional Republicans Tuesday.
The still-emerging plan would create a federal grant program to encourage states to implement the laws.
The measure would be the first major federal gun control law since the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
But it will go nowhere near as far as Democrats are demanding, with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer demanding a Senate vote on a universal background checks bill which has already passed the House.
The ‘red flag’ laws already apply in at least 15 states and the District of Columbia, but the measure would make them likely to go nationwide.
The bipartisan proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat from Connecticut, was gaining support among GOP senators Tuesday.
Donald Trump appeared to voice support for such a measure Monday when he spoke at the White House – but there has been no indication from Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell on how he will proceed.
The alleged El Paso shooter, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius (pictured) gunned down those shopping in a Walmart and the alleged Dayton shooter was 24-year-old Connor Betts who was shot dead by police less than a minute after he opened fire
Bipartisan move: Republican Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, believe they can get ‘red flag’ laws passed – the first major federal gun control move since 1994
Move on guns: The last significant federal gun control legislation was the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Since then Democratic attempts at more controls have been rebuffed
Nearly all Senate Democrats support red flag laws, along with a growing number of Republicans, including Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Indiana’s Mike Braun and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, a former Judiciary chairman.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters Tuesday he is open to the proposal, noting that the alleged shooter in Dayton, Ohio, had so-called kill lists of intended targets.
‘Clearly people knew something was wrong with this guy, and yet nobody went to the proper authorities or the proper authorities didn’t respond,’ Portman said.
‘RED FLAG’ LAWS AND HOW THEY WORK
HOW DOES A RED FLAG LAW WORK?
In general, red flag or ‘extreme risk protection order’ laws allow courts to issue temporary orders barring someone from possessing guns based on some showing of imminent danger or a risk of misuse.
State laws vary, but most stipulate that only specific people – usually family or household members – may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order.
In some cases, a preliminary order may be granted without prior notice to the person who is the subject of the order.
Such an order typically is brief, ranging from a few days to about three weeks.
Once the person who is alleged to pose a risk of gun violence has been given an opportunity to respond, a more permanent order may be granted, typically for up to a year.
Importantly to Graham and other supporters, before an order can be entered, some factual showing must be made that the subject of the order poses a risk of using a firearm to harm themselves or others.
WHAT IS THE NEW PROPOSAL?
Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal are still developing the plan, but a similar bill proposed last year by Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson essentially would pay states to implement red flag law programs.
A bid last year by Graham and Blumenthal to let federal courts keep guns away from people who show warning signs of violence failed to generate political support.
Blumenthal called the failed effort to create a federal program a learning experience and said the new proposal would set a national standard that states must meet in order to be eligible for federal grants.
He compared it to federal highway laws where grants are dependent on states setting speed limits or drunk-driving standards.
‘If you have speed limits, you get the money,’ he said, adding that the red flag law would operate on the same principle.
A red flag law may ‘bridge this issue of the guns and the mental health issue, where you identify somebody who has a mental health history that might not be formally diagnosed, but that people know about,’ he said.
Many mass shootings ‘involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up on,’ said Graham, chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
‘State red flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late.’
In an interview Tuesday, Blumenthal said there’s ‘a growing wave of support on both sides of the aisle’ for the red-flag plan – more momentum in fact ‘than any other gun violence plan’ being debated in Congress, including a proposal Blumenthal supports to require universal background checks for gun purchases.
However McConnell, who has adopted the nickname the ‘Grim Reaper’ to celebrate his success at blocking Democratic bills, is widely considered the single biggest roadblock to changes in gun laws or any significant legislation in Congress.
The majority leader has not publicly indicated a position on red flag laws but said in a statement Monday that ‘Senate Republicans are prepared to do our part’ to address gun violence.
He said he has spoken with Graham and other committee chairs and asked them to consider ‘potential solutions to help protect our communities without infringing on Americans’ constitutional rights.’
Congress passed a modest measure last year to shore up the federal background checks system and approved a grant program to prevent school violence – signs that action on gun violence is possible, McConnell said.
A National Rifle Association spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, the group said it welcomes Trump’s call ‘to address the root causes of the horrific acts of violence that have occurred in our country. It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment.’
However the organization is now significantly weakened by infighting, allegations of financial impropriety and litigation against it by New York State’s Democratic attorney general over whether it broke laws governing non-profits.
In a sign of concern in Republican ranks at the political impact of the weekend of mass shootings, Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger published an op/ed on Medium that demanded universal background checks and raising the legal age for those purchasing a gun to 21- and a ban on high-capacity magazines.
Connor Betts had two 100-round magazines when he opened fire in Dayton early Sunday morning.
Kinzinger said his proposal is offering a compromise between those who call for the total banning of firearms with those who advocate for loosening gun restrictions so the ‘good guys with guns’ can protect against ‘bad guys with guns.’
‘[T]hose of us not in those two mindsets are left feeling helpless, frustrated, and at a loss,’ Kinzinger wrote. ‘We have a gun violence epidemic, and to address it, we need to change some laws and change some hearts.’
For laws that required drivers of early automobiles to take certain safety precautions, see Red flag traffic laws.
States with red flag laws
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.[1] A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6]
Such orders are known by various names, including “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO) (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont); “Risk Protection Orders” (in Florida); “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (in California); “risk warrants” (in Connecticut); and “Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm” (in Indiana).[7] As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are enforced, vary from state to state.[8]
Other state legislatures considered similar legislation.[30][6][31][32] In 2019, legislatures in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina are considering such legislation.[8]
The Virginia General Assembly voted down red flag legislation in its January 2019 session, and then after being convened for a special session after the Virginia Beach shooting to consider gun control legislation, opted to refer the legislation to the State Crime Commission for study. The bill is scheduled to be taken up again in another special session after the November elections.[33]
The specific provisions of red-flag laws differ from state-to-state, on issues such as who may petition for a risk protection order.[36] For example, in Indiana, only law enforcement may petition for an order.[36] In contrast, in Oregon, any person living with the person of concern may file a petition.[36] The California Legislature passed a measure in 2016 to allow high school and college employees, co-workers and mental health professionals to file such petitions, but this legislation was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown.[10]
Effects
A 2016 study published in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems analyzed data from the 762 gun removals under Connecticut’s “risk warrant” law from October 1999 through June 2013 and determined that there was “one averted suicide for every ten to eleven gun seizure cases.”[37] The researchers concluded that “enacting and implementing laws like Connecticut’s civil risk warrant statute in other states could significantly mitigate the risk posed by that small proportion of legal gun owners who, at times, may pose a significant danger to themselves or others.”[37]
A 2018 study published in the journal Psychiatric Services utilized CDC data from all suicides in all 50 states from 1981-2015 to “examine the effects of Connecticut and Indiana’s risk-based firearm seizure law on state-level firearm suicide rates.”[38]The researchers concluded that “Indiana’s firearm seizure law was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides in the ten years following its enactment, an effect specific to suicides with firearms and larger than that seen in any comparison state by chance alone. Enactment of Connecticut’s law was associated with a 1.6% reduction in firearm suicides immediately after its passage and a 13.7% reduction in firearm suicides in the post–Virginia Tech period, when enforcement of the law substantially increased.” The study also found that “Whereas Indiana demonstrated an aggregate decrease in suicides, Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased nonfirearm suicides.”[38]
Usage
In the first four months after Florida’s risk protection law took effect, a total of 467 risk protection cases were filed in Florida. Slightly over one-fourth of the cases involved holders of concealed-carry firearm licenses; when an order is granted against a license-holder, the license-holder’s license is temporarily suspended.[39]
In California in 2016 and 2017, 189 petitions for gun violence restraining orders were granted. Of these, 12 petitions were filed by family members, while the rest were filed by law enforcement.[40][41]
In Maryland, the courts reviewed 302 petitions for a gun removal order in the first three months of the state’s law; the petition was granted in 148 cases (about half the time). About 60% of petitions were filed by family or household members, one petition was filed by a healthcare worker, and the rest were filed by police.[42] In November 2018, a Maryland man was killed by Anne Arundel County police officers serving a removal order after refusing to surrender his firearms; police said that there was a struggle over the gun and a shot was fired before officers fatally shot the man.[43]
In Marion County, Indiana (which contains Indianapolis, and the most of the uses of Indiana’s ERPO law), a 2015 study published in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law found that seizure petitions were filed in court 404 times between 2006 and 2013, from persons identified at being a risk of suicide (68%), violence (21%), or psychosis (16%). The study found that 28% of firearm-seizure cases involved a domestic dispute and 26% involved intoxication. The study found that “The seized firearms were retained by the court at the initial hearing in 63% of cases; this retention was closely linked to the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court dismissed 29% of cases at the initial hearing, closely linked to the defendant’s presence at the hearing. In subsequent hearings of cases not dismissed, the court ordered the destruction of the firearms in 72% of cases, all when the individual did not appear in court, and dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing.”[44]
In Connecticut, some 764 “imminent risk” gun seizures were served between October 1999 and July 2013, according to a 2014 study in the Connecticut Law Review.[45] Of gun seizure orders served, 91.5% were directed at men and 8.5% were directed to women, and the average age of the individuals was 47.4 years old.[45] Police reports associated with the Connecticut gun seizures in 1999 to 2013 indicated that at the time of confiscation, about 30% of the subject gun owners “showed evidence of alcohol consumption” and about 10% “indicated using prescribed pain medications.”[45] At the time the warrants were served, the majority of gun owners (60% of men and 80% of women) were sent to a local hospital emergency department for an emergency evaluation; a minority (20%) were arrested.[45] The study noted that “In over 70% of the cases, the outcome of the hearings was unknown. For the cases with outcomes reported, the judges ruled that the weapons needed to be held by the state 68% of the time. Weapons were returned in only twenty of the reported cases. In fifteen other cases, guns were given to a family member; in thirty cases, the guns were destroyed.”[45]
Federal legislative proposals
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, introduced a bill, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow states to use grants to develop red flag laws and make it a federal felony under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) to possess a firearm in violation of a state red flag law. The legislation is supported by 25 Democratic senators and two Democratic-aligned independent senators.[46][47] Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, introduced a separate bipartisan bill that would use grants to encourage the passage of state red-flag laws.[46] Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in 2019 that he also planned to introduce legislation to encourage states to pass red flag laws.[36]
Support and opposition
An April 2018 poll found that 85% of registered voters support laws that would “allow the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others” (71% “strongly supported” while 14% “somewhat supported” such laws).[48][49] State-level polling in Colorado and Michigan has shown similar levels of support.[50][51]
Democrats and some Republicans are receptive to this law.[2] Such laws are supported by groups that support gun control, such as Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety. The latter group conducted a nationwide study showing that the perpetrators of mass shootings showed warning signs before the event 42% of the time.[13]
Opponents of red flag laws argue that such legislation infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to due process of law, and object to ex parte hearings.[52][53][54] There has been debate about how soon after the ex parte hearing the adversarial hearing should be held; for example, in Virginia, state senator Glen Sturtevant argued that instead of 14 days, he “would think that for an important issue like this, we would want to have that hearing within 48 hours.”[55]
The National Rifle Association (NRA) had previously argued that red flag laws unnecessarily hamper the right to due process of individuals who are restrained by them,[30] and worked to defeat such legislation in Utah and Maryland.[56] In a March 2018 policy reversal, the NRA suggested that it might support such laws, but conditioned any openness to such laws on an extensive list of conditions,[31][56] including a judicial finding by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person poses a significant risk of danger.[56] The NRA did not identify any federal or state red flag laws that it supported,[56] and even after its March 2018 announcement continued to work to defeat or weaken red flag bills introduced in state legislatures.[57] In summer 2018, the NRA mobilized to defeat red-flag legislation proposed in Pennsylvania because it objected to allowing initial hearings ex parte.[57] In Arizona in 2019, the NRA ghostwrote an opinion piece for sheriffs to submit to the local press stating their opposition to the legislation.[58] A 2019 study by gun rights advocate John Lott found red flag laws have no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.[59]
Some counties and cities have adopted “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions in opposition to red flag laws.[58][60][61] As of 2019, some 75 jurisdictions have declared themselves sanctuaries that oppose emergency protection orders and enforcement of gun background checks, at times with assistance from the NRA.[58]
In the wake of the El Paso, Texas shooting and Dayton, Ohio shooting of August 4 and 5, 2019, President Donald Trump called on states to implement red flag laws to help remove guns from “those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety.”[36]
Gun sales are surging after the weekend mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, fueled by first-time buyers seeking pistols they can carry with them for protection.
The latest jump validated a big increase in purchases and background checks recorded by the FBI that show the four most recent months higher than the same months in 2018.
What’s more, the trend in the “National Instant Criminal Background Check System,” or NICS, is on a path to make 2018 the second biggest year since 2016, when gun owners and prospective gun owners filled stores before the presidential election that was expected to elect gun control advocate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
According to the latest NICS numbers just released, this year there have been nearly 16 million background checks, which are done for gun sales, applications for concealed carry permits and other gun-related legal issues.
As with past mass shootings, applications for concealed carry permits and interest in smaller pistols has increased. But the twin shooting has sparked even more interest.
We checked in with Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s largest, and Marketing Director Justin Anderson explained the trend to us.
“While we have seen a measured rise in sale of certain tactical rifles and accessories this week, most customers are looking for concealed carry handguns,” Anderson said.
“Just this week we have fielded hundreds of calls from people that have never purchased a gun before. Our concealed carry training classes are filling up quickly. People are realizing that even a trip to Walmart isn’t safe these days and they want to be able to protect themselves. Remember that nothing stops a lunatic bent on carnage better than a law abiding citizen with a gun. I continue to urge people to get a gun, get trained with that gun, and carry, always,” he added.
Story 3: Is The U.S. Economy Going Into a Recession?
Bill Maher says recession is ‘worth it’ if Trump loses in 2020
JPMorgan CEO’s bold economic prediction for 2019
Hedge Fund Legend Ray Dalio On The Economy
How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio
Keiser Report: Negative Rates Are Coming (E1357)
Recession odds rise as economists cut growth estimates
Catarina Saraiva
The likelihood of a U.S. recession in the next 12 months rose to 35% in an August survey of economists, from 31% forecast previously, as global trade tensions fuel economic uncertainty.
Growth in the world’s biggest economy will average 2.3% this year, down from 2.5% seen in a July survey. Gross domestic product expansion is forecast to slow to a 1.8% annualized pace in the third quarter, from 3.1% in the first three months of the year and 2.1% in the second quarter.
“Trade tensions are needlessly roiling financial markets, which could eventually destabilize a stable economy,” Parul Jain, chief investment strategist at Macrofin Analytics LLC in Wayne, New Jersey, said in comments attached to her survey response.
President Donald Trump last week announced new tariffs on imported Chinese goods, to take effect on Sept. 1, causing steep declines in global stock markets. The S&P 500 index of U.S. stocks has fallen more than 3% since July 31. That was the day the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the first time since 2008, to a range of 2% to 2.25%, in a bid to support the economy.
Economists moved up expectations for the next Fed interest-rate cut to September from December and now see a 25-basis-point reduction in the benchmark rate, to a range of 1.75% to 2%, at the next meeting, according to the poll.
Global growth forecasts for 2019 were also cut, to 3.2% from 3.3%. Bloomberg’s survey was conducted Aug. 2 to Aug. 7.
Story 1: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2, Day 2 — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote Me and I Will Give You Free Stuff — Take Away Your Employer and Union Provided Health Care Insurance and Replace It With Socialized Medicine — Medicare For All — Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Citizenship and Free Health Insurance and Open Borders With No Border Barrier and Abolish ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement — American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Result: Trump Wins in A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People — Videos
Watch Democratic Debate Highlights In Detroit 2019 Night 2 | Second Half
Democratic Presidential Debate Round 2 Day 1 Highlights | NBC New York
Watch the 9 minutes that has America searching Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard rips Kamala Harris’ record on criminal prosecutions
Cory Booker to Biden: You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and don’t even know the flavor
Ari Fleischer: Democrat debates have been a display of losing ideas
Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.
These criteria could easily halve the field: The first two sets of debates included 20 of the 24 candidates, but a New York Times analysis of polls and donor numbers shows that only 10 to 12 candidates are likely to make the third round.
Seven candidates have already met both qualification thresholds and are guaranteed a spot on stage. They are:
■ Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
■ Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
■ Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.
■ Senator Kamala Harris of California
■ Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas
■ Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
■ Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.
Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).
We asked all three of their campaigns to provide donor numbers so we could assess where they stood. Ms. Gabbard had just under 114,000 donors as of Wednesday night. A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said he was “on track to collect the required number of donors to make the September debate stage” but did not give a number. Mr. Hickenlooper’s campaign did not respond, but Politico reported a month ago that he had only 13,000 donors.
The other 11 candidates in the race have no qualifying polls to their name, and they all went into this week’s debates seeking a viral moment that would attract new donors and lift them, even briefly, in the polls.
The qualification rules do not require enduring support. Even a small post-debate surge could push a 1 percent candidate up to 2 percent in the small handful of polls he or she needs.
But for those who have not qualified, the Aug. 28 deadline is an existential threat. Candidates like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York or Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington could be washed out of the race if they don’t get momentum from this week’s debates. And if you’re wondering whether they’re anxious, the answer is yes.
Ms. Gabbard’s campaign calculated at one point that she needed a new donor every minute to reach 130,000 by the Aug. 28 deadline, so if you go to her website, a timer next to the donation button begins counting down 60 seconds. Then the text changes.
Story 2: President Trump Comments To Big Lie Media — Videos
Trump comments on US-China tensions, upcoming Ohio rally
Student 3: Federal Reserve As Expected Reduces Federal Funds Rate By 25 Basis Points to 2.00%-2.25% As Economic Growth Slows Down – -Videos
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell holds news conference on interest rates | USA TODAY
Federal Reserve Lowers Interest Rates
Federal Reserve lowers interest rates
The Federal Reserve cuts rates by a quarter point
What the Fed interest rate cut means for your wallet
Fed cuts interest rates for first time since financial crisis
Trump tariffs torpedo stock market
Donald Trump rages against the Federal Reserve as it cuts interests rates by 0.25% but signals it WON’T slash them more as he has demanded – in move which sends shares plunging
Key interest set by the Federal Reserve is cut by 0.25 per cent for the first time since 2008, the year of the financial crisis
The central bank moved the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2-1/4 percent, from 2 1/5 to 2 3/4
Move is a departure from its previous policy and comes after Trump heaped pressure on its chairman Jerome Powell to reduce cost of borrowing
But reserve’s committee said in statement it was acting over fears of a worldwide slowdown
PUBLISHED: 14:13 EDT, 31 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:56 EDT, 31 July 2019
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Trump used the market fall to make his case that Powell and his board should have started an ‘agressive’ series of rate cuts.
‘What the Market wanted to hear from Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve was that this was the beginning of a lengthy and aggressive rate-cutting cycle which would keep pace with China, The European Union and other countries around the world.
‘As usual, Powell let us down, but at least he is ending quantitative tightening, which shouldn’t have started in the first place – no inflation. We are winning anyway, but I am certainly not getting much help from the Federal Reserve!’
Trump had gone all-in on a call for a 0.5 per cent reduction to stimulate the U.S. economy. ‘The Fed has made all of the wrong moves. A small rate cut is not enough, but we will win anyway!’ he had tweeted on Monday.
Explanation time: Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, outlined why it had cut interest rates – as the markets reacted in real time with a sell-off which reached as much as 400 points wiped off the Dow in the course of his press conference
How markets reacted: The Dow Jones closed 333 points down in a sign of concern that the rate cut was effectively a one-off – not the stimulus Trump has demanded
President Donald Trump had all but demanded a rate-slashing, but predicted that the Fed wouldn’t do ‘enough’ to stimulate the U.S. economy. He had heaped pressure on Jerome Powell, his own appointment as chairman, to cut the cost of borrowing.
Powell and the reserve, however, defied him.
It voted that the new benchmark interest rate will fall between 2 per cent and 2.25 per cent. The Fed’s board had voted nine times since 2015 to increase it.
Eight of the Fed’s 10 board members voted to trim the short-term benchmark rate. The other two argued for leaving it as-is.
Powell, speaking in a news conference after the release of the Fed statement, characterized the rate cut as ‘a mid-cycle adjustment to policy,’ comments that do not imply sharp further cuts are on the way.
Among his messages at the press conference in Washington D.C. were that job growth was slowing and that trade tensions were bad for the economy’s outlook – but he repeatedly talked up the strength of the economy.
Explaining the cut, Powell cited global weakness and a desire to boost too-low inflation in explaining the central bank’s decision to lower borrowing costs for the first time since 2008 and move up plans to stop winnowing its massive bond holdings.
Financial markets had widely expected the Fed to reduce its key overnight lending rate by a quarter of a percentage point to a target range of 2.00% to 2.25%, but many traders expected a clearer confirmation of forthcoming rate cuts.
Instead Powell’s message was taken to mean that rates will stay where they are, prompting shares to fall.
And the value of the dollar up against other currencies, which will further anger Trump who had wanted it to fall to boost exports.
The rate cut means that consumers will find in the coming months that interest rates will fall for long-term fixed mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.
That can mean significant household savings, which Americans typically pour back into the U.S. economy through higher spending.
For those few who save their winnings in the periodic Fed lottery, however, interest rates for bank savings accounts will also likely fall.
Mortgage rates were already sliding downward before the Fed met, due to other economic factors.
Even with Wednesday’s cut, the Fed’s principal interest rate is the highest in years. But by historical standards it’s still low.
A policy statement appeared to leave the door open for the Fed to cut rates again in September as it ‘contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate.’
‘In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate,’ the U.S. central bank said.
But Powell’s lengthy press conference appeared to close the door on that.
Wednesday’s cut is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Economic indicators: Interest rates remain at historically low levels, while unemployment is at the lowest point since Nixon was president.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Jerome Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
U.S. economic data continues to be mixed, despite Trump’s frequent claims that he presides over a miraculous resurgence.
The unemployment rate is nearing a low point not seen in America since Richard Nixon was president and stock markets have hit repeated new records
Markets watching: Traders had largely expected a reduction in the key interest rate by the Federal Reserve; the Dow was down slightly immediately after it was announced
But the nation’s manufacturing economy, which Trump promised to revitalize, has stalled in the past two quarters, and the growth of America’s economy is growing at 2.1 per cent per year – slower than the president has predicted.
The move is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
WHY WE CUT INTEREST RATES FOR FIRST TIME IN A DECADE: WHAT THE FED SAID IN FULL TO EXPLAIN ITS MOVE
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the labor market remains strong and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate.
Job gains have been solid, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low.
Although growth of household spending has picked up from earlier in the year, growth of business fixed investment has been soft.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy are running below 2 percent.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2-1/4 percent.
This action supports the Committee’s view that sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective are the most likely outcomes, but uncertainties about this outlook remain.
As the Committee contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate, it will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its maximum employment objective and its symmetric 2 percent inflation objective.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
The Committee will conclude the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings in the System Open Market Account in August, two months earlier than previously indicated.
Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michelle W. Bowman; Lael Brainard; James Bullard; Richard H. Clarida; Charles L. Evans; and Randal K. Quarles.
Voting against the action were Esther L. George and Eric S. Rosengren, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 percent.
The term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.
Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.
Structure of the FOMC
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings during the year and other meetings as needed. Links to policy statements and minutes are in the calendars below. The minutes of regularly scheduled meetings are released three weeks after the date of the policy decision. Committee membership changes at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the year.
FOIA
The FOMC makes an annual report pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The FOMC FOIA Service Center provides information about the status of FOIA requests and the FOIA process.
Story 1: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2, Day 1 — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote Me and I Will Give You Free Stuff — Take Away Your Employer and Union Provided Health Care Insurance and Replace It With Socialized Medicine — Medicare For All — Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Citizenship and Free Health Insurance and Open Borders With No Border Barrier and Abolish ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement –– American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Result: Trump Wins in A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People — Videos
Democratic debates in Detroit: Day 1 highlights
Bernie Sanders begins debate with a fight: You’re wrong
Democratic Presidential Debate Round 2 Day 1 Highlights | NBC New York
Who Won the Democratic Debate, Night 1?
Schlapp: Democrats are making a play for union voters
Bret Baier’s key takeaways from first night of second Democratic presidential debate
John Delaney on his Democratic presidential debate clash with Elizabeth Warren
Democratic Debate 2019 Pre, Post coverage : Watch live analysis of the 2nd presidential debate
Senator Kennedy: The lesser of two Socialists is still a Socialist
Story 1: Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan United States District Court for The Southern District Permanently Dismisses Frivolous Democratic Party Lawsuit Against Trump’s Campaign Alleging Conspiracy with Russian Government and Wikileaks Without Merit — Trump Vindicated — Videos —
Trump says The Witch Hunt Ends after judge dismisses DNC lawsuit
BREAKING: Judge tosses DNC suit against Trump 2016, WikiLeaks
Federal Judge Permanently Dismisses DNC Suit Against Trump Campaign: The First Amendment Triumphs
U.S. District Judge (SDNY) John G. Koeltl held that the DNC raised a “number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected” to Russia, but said that “at no point does the DNC allege any facts in the Second Amended Complaint to show that any of the defendants — other than the Russian Federation — participated in the theft of the DNC’s
Democrats’ Lawsuit Alleging Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Dismissed
Democrats’ Lawsuit Alleging Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Dismissed
U.S. judge tosses Democratic Party lawsuit against Trump campaign, Russia over election
PUBLISHED: 19:49 EDT, 30 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:49 EDT, 30 July 2019
By Jan Wolfe
July 30 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Tuesday dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit arguing that the Russian government, President Donald Trump´s campaign and WikiLeaks carried out a conspiracy to influence the 2016 U.S. election.
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan said he could not hear the claims against Russia, which were the focus of the case, because of a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity that shields foreign governments from litigation in the United States.
“The remedies for hostile actions by foreign governments are state actions, including sanctions imposed by the executive and legislative branches of government,” Koeltl’s written opinion said.
Koeltl also said holding WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign liable for dissemination of hacked emails would infringe on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Democratic National Committee’s computer systems were hacked during the campaign and WikiLeaks published party emails.
Trump said on Twitter that the ruling was “yet another total & complete … vindication & exoneration” of him and his campaign, similar language he used in response to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into Russian election interference.
A lawyer for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday’s decision.
The DNC said in its lawsuit that top officials in Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and tilt the election to Trump. Moscow denies interfering in the election.
The lawsuit said that Trump´s campaign “gleefully welcomed Russia´s help” in the 2016 election and accuses it of being a “racketeering enterprise” that worked in tandem with Moscow.
“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump´s campaign,” DNC chair Tom Perez said at the time the lawsuit was filed. “This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery.”
The Mueller report released in April detailed numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia to sway the election.
The Trump campaign argued in court filings that Mueller’s report made clear that the DNC lawsuit was “frivolous” and that the DNC should be sanctioned for refusing to drop the case.
Koeltl denied the request, saying the case was “not so objectively unreasonable as to warrant the imposition of sanctions.” (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; editing by Grant McCool)
Judge Dismisses Democrats’ Suit Against Russia, Trump Campaign
DNC lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to hack into computer network and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign
By Rebecca Davis O’Brien
A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against Russia, the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and others, ruling the committee’s allegations of a wide-ranging conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election were “moot or without merit.”
The lawsuit, filed in April 2018, alleged the defendants conspired to hack into the DNC’s computer network and strategically leak stolen information to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and improve Donald Trump’s odds of winning the election.
The defendants in the lawsuit included the Russian federation and the country’s military intelligence agency; WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange; the Trump campaign and its onetime chairman, Paul Manafort; Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his longtime adviser Roger Stone, as well as others involved in the campaign.
In a written opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl held that Russia—which he said is ”the primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise”—cannot be sued in U.S. courts for government actions, under federal law governing sovereign immunity.
“The remedies for hostile actions by foreign governments are state actions, including sanctions imposed by the executive and legislative branches of government,” Judge Koeltl wrote.
As for the other defendants, who are accused of disseminating the stolen materials, Judge Koeltl said the First Amendment protects such activities, “the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest,” so long as they didn’t participate in wrongdoing to obtain them.
Adrienne E. Watson, deputy communications director for the DNC, said the committee was still reviewing the decision. “At first glance, this opinion raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”
In a tweet, President Trump called the ruling “yet another total & complete…vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others.”
In addition to having the lawsuit dismissed, the Trump campaign also sought to have the DNC and its lawyers sanctioned. Judge Koeltl denied that bid Tuesday.
The lawsuit’s allegations overlapped with concerns addressed by former special counsel Robert Mueller, who in April released a 448-page report detailing efforts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election and its repeated contacts with Trump campaign officials, including the hacking of the DNC computer network.
While Mr. Mueller didn’t establish that the Trump campaign had knowingly conspired with the Russians, his office had previously charged dozens of Russian entities and individuals in connection with those alleged efforts. In light of the report, the Trump campaign had argued the DNC’s claims in the New York lawsuit were frivolous, while the DNC argued that the bar for criminal charges is higher than standards of proof in civil proceedings.
Mr. Mueller’s team secured the convictions of five Trump advisers, several of whom had lied to investigators about their contacts with Russian officials, including Mr. Manafort. Mr. Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to obstruct a congressional inquiry into Russian interference.
Judge Koeltl’s ruling addressed a central concern about press freedoms raised in another case about WikiLeaks. In May, the U.S. Justice Department charged Mr. Assange with violating the Espionage Act for an alleged effort to obtain and publish classified information about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. U.S. authorities are seeking to have Mr. Assange extradited from the U.K., where he was arrested in April.
PUBLISHED: 19:59 EDT, 30 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:59 EDT, 30 July 2019
he unidentified projectiles launched by North Korea early on Wednesday were ballistic missiles that flew about 250 km (155 miles), South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
The projectiles appeared to be a different type to previous launches, minister Jeong Kyeong-doo said, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap.
Japan’s defence minister said any ballistic missile launch by North Korea would violate United Nations resolutions, Japan’s Kyodo news agency reported. (Reporting by Josh Smith Editing by Paul Tait Editing by Paul Tait)
Story 3: Communist China Reconsiders Three-Child Policy as Population Growth Expected To Decline
Population pyramids: Powerful predictors of the future – Kim Preshoff
Which Countries Have Shrinking Populations?
Is the World Running Out of Children? (And Sperm??)
Facing Secrets from China’s Single Child Policy | Kate YiJia Yan | TEDxPuxi
History and its unspoken secrets have an impact on individuals, families and society. Part of China’s history was the single child policy. Psychotherapist, Yijia Yan, explains how secrets linked to the single child policy are affecting Chinese families, parents, and children today. As a psychotherapist and as a mother of two children, Kate’s professional activities are concentrated around enhancing knowledge about and providing professional support for children’s emotional and behavioral development in China. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
The unintended consequences of China’s One Child Policy
One Child Policy Documentary
Video: Millions of single Chinese men desperately seeking a wife
Why China Ended its One-Child Policy
China encourages women to have more children
Object Lessons from the One-Child Policy | Mei Fong | TEDxPasadena
Why Are Millions of Chinese Kids Parenting Themselves?
Painful legacy of China’s one child policy – BBC News
Two Child Policy – China
Chinese province considers ‘three-child policy’ to halt population decline
PUBLISHED: 19:49 EDT, 30 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:49 EDT, 30 July 2019
China’s northeastern province of Liaoning is planning to loosen birth restrictions and allow some couples to have a third child in a bid to improve dwindling fertility rates and stop its workforce from declining.
China introduced a controversial “one-child policy” in 1978, but relaxed restrictions in 2016 to allow all couples to have two children as it tried to rebalance its rapidly ageing population.
However, experts have called for more radical measures, with birth rates still in decline and China’s health services and pension funds expected to come under increasing strain as the number of elderly people increases.
Liaoning’s provincial government said on its website on Tuesday that revising family planning regulations was one of its major priorities for 2019 after previous adjustments failed to arrest the decline in its population.
The rustbelt province has drafted new regulations aimed at improving education, housing and social security and providing more financial support for families choosing to have two children. It will also allow some couples living in “border areas” to have a third child.
While the central government imposes family planning rules nationwide through thousands of family planning offices, it gives leeway to some regions. Ethnic minorities have usually been exempt from birth restrictions and rural families have also been allowed to have more children.
Liaoning’s birth rate fell to 6.39 per 1,000 people last year, far lower than the national rate of 10.94. Its population also dropped for the second consecutive year in 2018, hit not only by the decline in new births but also by an exodus of young people seeking work in other regions.
China’s one-child policy was part of a birth planning program designed to control the size of its population. Distinct from the family planning policies of most other countries (which focus on providing contraceptive options to help women have the number of children they want), it set a limit on the number of children parents could have, the world’s most extreme example of population planning. It was introduced in 1979 (after a decade-long two-child policy),[1] modified in the mid 1980s to allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter, and then lasted three more decades before being eliminated at the end of 2015. The policy also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities. The term one-child policy is thus a misnomer, because for nearly 30 of the 37 years that it existed (1979–2015 included) about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child.
Provincial governments could, and did, require the use of contraception, sterilizations and abortions to ensure compliance, and imposed enormous fines for violations. Local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work. China also rewards families with only one child. From 1982 onwards, in accordance with the instructions on further family planning issued by the CPC central committee and the state council in that year, regulations awarded 5 yuan per month for only children. Parents who had one child would also get a “one-child glory certificate”.[2]
According to the Chinese government, 400million births were prevented, starting from 1970, a decade before the start of the one child policy. Some scholars have disputed this claim, with Martin King Whyte and Wang et alcontending that the policy had little effect on population growth or the size of the total population.[3][4][5] China has been compared to countries with similar socioeconomic development like Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which achieved similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy.[6] However, a recent demographic study challenged these scholars by showing that China’s low fertility was achieved two or three decades earlier than would be expected given its level of development, and that more than 500 million births were prevented between 1970 and 2015 (a calculation based on an alternative model of fertility decline proposed by the scholars themselves),[4] some 400 million of which may have been due to one-child restrictions.[7] In addition, by 2060 China’s birth planning policies may have averted as many as 1 billion people in China when one adds in all the eliminated descendants of the births originally averted by the policies.[8][9] Although 76% of Chinese people said that they supported the policy in a 2008 survey, it was controversial outside of China.[10]
Effective from January 2016, the national birth planning policy became a universal two-child policy that allowed each couple to have two children.
China’s population since 1950
Contents
Background
Birth rate in China
During the period of Mao Zedong‘s leadership in China, the birth rate fell from 37 per thousand to 20 per thousand.[11] Infant mortality declined from 227 per thousand births in 1949 to 53 per thousand in 1981, and life expectancy dramatically increased from around 35 years in 1948 to 66 years in 1976.[11][12] Until the 1960s, the government encouraged families to have as many children as possible[13] because of Mao’s belief that population growth empowered the country, preventing the emergence of family planning programs earlier in China’s development.[14] The population grew from around 540million in 1949 to 940million in 1976.[15] Beginning in 1970, citizens were required to marry at later ages and many were limited to have only two children.[1]
Although China’s fertility rate plummeted faster than anywhere else in the world during the 1970s under these restrictions, the Chinese government thought that fertility was still too high, influenced by the global debate over a possible overpopulation catastrophe suggested by organizations such as Club of Rome and Sierra Club. It thus began to encourage one-child families in 1978, and then announced in 1979 its intention to advocate for one-child families. In 1980, the central government organized a meeting in Chengdu to discuss the speed and scope of one-child restrictions.[1]
One participant at the Chengdu meeting had read two influential books about population concerns, The Limits to Growth and A Blueprint for Survival while visiting Europe in 1979. That official, Song Jian, along with several associates, determined that the ideal population of China was 700million, and that a universal one-child policy for all would be required to meet that goal.[16] Moreover, Song and his group showed that if fertility rates remained constant at 3 births per woman, China’s population would surpass 3 billion by 2060 and 4 billion by 2080.[1] In spite of some criticism inside the party, the plan (also referred to as the Family Planning Policy[17]) was formally implemented as a temporary measure on 18 September 1980.[18][19][20][21] The plan called for families to have one child each in order to curb a then-surging population and alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems in China.[22][23]
Although a recent and often-repeated interpretation by Greenhalgh claims that Song Jian was the central architect of the one-child policy and that he “hijacked” the population policymaking process,[24] that claim has been refuted by several leading scholars, including Liang Zhongtang, a leading internal critic of one-child restrictions and an eye-witness at the discussions in Chengdu.[25] In the words of Wang et al., “the idea of the one-child policy came from leaders within the Party, not from scientists who offered evidence to support it”[3] Central officials had already decided in 1979 to advocate for one-child restrictions before knowing of Song’s work and, upon learning of his work in 1980, already seemed sympathetic to his position.[26] Moreover, even if Song’s work convinced them to proceed with universal one-child restrictions in 1980, the policy was loosened to a “1.5”-child policy just five years later, and it is that policy which has been misnomered since as the “one-child policy.” Thus, it is misleading to suggest that Song Jian was either the inventor or architect of the policy.
History
The one-child policy was originally designed to be a “One-Generation Policy”.[27] It was enforced at the provincial level and enforcement varied; some provinces had more relaxed restrictions. The one-child limit was most strictly enforced in densely populated urban areas.[28]
Beginning in 1980, the official policy granted local officials the flexibility to make exceptions and allow second children in the case of “practical difficulties” (such as cases in which the father was a disabled serviceman) or when both parents were single children,[29] and some provinces had other exemptions worked into their policies as well. In most areas, families were allowed to apply to have a second child if their first-born was a daughter.[30][31] Furthermore, families with children with disabilities have different policies and families whose first child suffers from physical disability, mental illness, or intellectual disability were allowed to have more children.[32] However, second children were sometimes subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Children born in overseas countries were not counted under the policy if they did not obtain Chinese citizenship. Chinese citizens returning from abroad were allowed to have a second child.[33] Sichuan province allowed exemptions for couples of certain backgrounds.[34]By one estimate there were at least 22 ways in which parents could qualify for exceptions to the law towards the end of the one-child policy’s existence.[35] As of 2007, only 36% of the population were subjected to a strict one-child limit. 53% were permitted to have a second child if their first was a daughter; 9.6% of Chinese couples were permitted two children regardless of their gender; and 1.6% – mainly Tibetans – had no limit at all.[36]
The Danshan, Sichuan Province Nongchang Village people Public Affairs Bulletin Board in September 2005 noted that RMB 25,000 in social compensation fees were owed in 2005. Thus far 11,500 RMB had been collected, so another 13,500 RMB had to be collected.
Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, a new exception to the regulations was announced in Sichuan for parents who had lost children in the earthquake.[37][38] Similar exceptions had previously been made for parents of severely disabled or deceased children.[39] People have also tried to evade the policy by giving birth to a second child in Hong Kong, but at least for Guangdong residents, the one-child policy was also enforced if the birth was given in Hong Kong or abroad.[40]
In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups are subjected to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas. Han Chinese living in rural towns were also permitted to have two children.[41] Because of couples such as these, as well as who simply pay a fine (or “social maintenance fee”) to have more children,[42] the overall fertility rate of mainland China was close to 1.4 children per woman as of 2011.[43]
On 6 January 2010, the former national population and family planning commission issued the “national population development” 12th five-year plan.[44]
Enforcement
Chinese One-Child Policy propaganda from 1982
Financial
The Family Planning Policy was enforced through a financial penalty in the form of the “social child-raising fee”, sometimes called a “family planning fine” in the West, which was collected as a fraction of either the annual disposable income of city dwellers or of the annual cash income of peasants, in the year of the child’s birth.[45] For instance, in Guangdong, the fee was between 3 and 6 annual incomes for incomes below the per capita income of the district, plus 1 to 2 times the annual income exceeding the average. The family was required to pay the fine.[46]
Mandatory contraception and sterilization
As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 108 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.
In 2016, following the abolition of the one-child policy, the Chinese government announced that IUD removals would now be paid for by the government.[47]
Relaxation
In 2013, Deputy Director Wang Peian of the National Health and Family Planning Commission said that “China’s population will not grow substantially in the short term”.[48] A survey by the commission found that only about half of eligible couples wish to have two children, mostly because of the cost of living impact of a second child.[49]
In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families could have two children if one parent, rather than both parents, was an only child.[50][51] This mainly applied to urban couples, since there were very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[52]Zhejiang, one of the most affluent provinces, became the first area to implement this “relaxed policy” in January 2014,[53] and 29 out of the 31 provinces had implemented it by July 2014,[54] with the exceptions of Xinjiang and Tibet. Under this policy, approximately 11million couples in China are allowed to have a second child; however, only “nearly one million” couples applied to have a second child in 2014,[55] less than half the expected number of 2 million per year.[54] By May 2014, 241,000 out of 271,000 applications had been approved. Officials of China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission claimed that this outcome was expected, and that “second-child policy” would continue progressing with a good start.[56]
In 2016, 433 births and 211 deaths were recorded in Wulipu, Hubei. The birth rate was 8.9% and death rate was 4.3% resulting in a natural population increase of 4.6%.[57] In the results of a separate survey published by the Shayang County government, Wulipu’s population had increased from 48,044 to 48,132 during a survey period. 424 children were born during the survey period resulting in a birth rate of 8.82%. During the same period, 63 people died, resulting in death rate of 1.31%. Of the births in the survey, 406 (95.75%) were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. 312 (73.58%) of the births were the firstborn in the family. (All of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China.) Among the firstborn children, 157 were female. 107 (25.24%) of the births were the second-born child in the family. 90 of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. Among the second-born children, 47 were female. Five (1.18%) of the births surveyed were neither the firstborn nor second-born child in the family. Four of these births were in compliance with the family planning policy of China. Among the children born who were neither firstborn nor second-born, two were female.[58]
In October 2015, the Chinese news agency Xinhua announced plans of the government to abolish the one-child policy, now allowing all families to have two children, citing from a communiqué issued by the Communist Party “to improve the balanced development of population” – an apparent reference to the country’s female-to-male sex ratio – and to deal with an aging population according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.[22][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] The new law took effect on 1 January 2016 after it was passed in the standing committee of the National People’s Congress on 27 December 2015.[66][67]
The rationale for the abolition was summarized by former Wall Street Journal reporter Mei Fong: “The reason China is doing this right now is because they have too many men, too many old people, and too few young people. They have this huge crushing demographic crisis as a result of the one-child policy. And if people don’t start having more children, they’re going to have a vastly diminished workforce to support a huge aging population.”[68] China’s ratio is about five working adults to one retiree; the huge retiree community must be supported, and that will dampen future growth, according to Fong.
Since the citizens of China are living longer and having fewer children, the growth of the population imbalance is expected to continue, as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which referred to a United Nations projections forecast that “China will lose 67million working-age people by 2030, while simultaneously doubling the number of elderly. That could put immense pressure on the economy and government resources.”[22] The longer term outlook is also pessimistic, based on an estimate by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, revealed by Cai Fang, deputy director. “By 2050, one-third of the country will be aged 60 years or older, and there will be fewer workers supporting each retired person.”[69]
Although many critics of China’s reproductive restrictions approve of the policy’s abolition, Amnesty International said that the move to the two-child policy would not end forced sterilizations, forced abortions, or government control over birth permits.[70][71] Others also stated that the abolition is not a sign of the relaxation of authoritarian control in China. A reporter for CNN said, “It was not a sign that the party will suddenly start respecting personal freedoms more than it has in the past. No, this is a case of the party adjusting policy to conditions. … The new policy, raising the limit to two children per couple, preserves the state’s role.”[72][73]
The abolition may not achieve a significant benefit, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation analysis indicated: “Repealing the one-child policy may not spur a huge baby boom, however, in part because fertility rates are believed to be declining even without the policy’s enforcement. Previous easings of the one-child policy have spurred fewer births than expected, and many people among China’s younger generations see smaller family sizes as ideal.”[22] The CNN reporter adds that China’s new prosperity is also a factor in the declining[69] birth rate, saying, “Couples naturally decide to have fewer children as they move from the fields into the cities, become more educated, and when women establish careers outside the home.”[72]
The Chinese government had expected the abolishing of the one-child rule would lead to an increase in births to about 21.9 million births in 2018. The actual number of births was 15.2 million – the lowest birth rate since 1961.[74]
The policy was enforced at the provincial level through fines that were imposed based on the income of the family and other factors. “Population and Family Planning Commissions” existed at every level of government to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.[75]
Effects
Fertility reduction: Debates over the roles of policy vs. socio-economic change
The fertility rate in China continued its fall from 2.8 births per woman in 1979 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.5 by the mid 1990s. Some scholars claim that this decline is similar to that observed in other places that had no one-child restrictions, such as Thailand as well as Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, a claim designed to support the argument that China’s fertility might have fallen to such levels anyway without draconian fertility restrictions.[3][76][6][77]
According to a 2017 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “the one-child policy accelerated the already-occurring drop in fertility for a few years, but in the longer term, economic development played a more fundamental role in leading to and maintaining China’s low fertility level.”.[78] However, a more recent study found that China’s fertility decline to very low levels by the mid 1990s was far more impressive given its lower level of socio-economic development at that time;[9] even after taking rapid economic development into account, China’s fertility restrictions likely averted over 500 million births between 1970 and 2015, with the portion caused by one-child restrictions possibly totaling 400 million.[7] Fertility restrictions also had other unintended consequences, such as a deficit of 40 million female babies. Most of this deficit was due to sex-selective abortion as well as the 1.5 child stopping rule, which required rural parents to stop childbearing if their first born was a son.[79] Another consequence was the acceleration of the aging of China’s population.[80][81]
Disparity in sex ratio at birth
The sex ratio at birth in People’s Republic of China, males per 100 females, 1980–2010.
The sex ratio of a newborn infant (between male and female births) in mainland China reached 117:100, and stabilized between 2000 and 2013, about 10% higher than the baseline, which ranges between 103:100 and 107:100. It had risen from 108:100 in 1981—at the boundary of the natural baseline—to 111:100 in 1990.[82] According to a report by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability, and courtship-motivated emigration.[83]
The disparity in the gender ratio at birth increases dramatically after the first birth, for which the ratios remained steadily within the natural baseline over the 20 year interval between 1980 and 1999. Thus, a large majority of couples appear to accept the outcome of the first pregnancy, whether it is a boy or a girl. If the first child is a girl, and they are able to have a second child, then a couple may take extraordinary steps to assure that the second child is a boy. If a couple already has two or more boys, the sex ratio of higher parity births swings decidedly in a feminine direction. This demographic evidence indicates that while families highly value having male offspring, a secondary norm of having a girl or having some balance in the sexes of children often comes into play. Zeng 1993 reported a study based on the 1990 census in which they found sex ratios of just 65 or 70 boys per 100 girls for births in families that already had two or more boys.[84] A study by Anderson & Silver (1995) found a similar pattern among both Han and non-Han nationalities in Xinjiang Province: a strong preference for girls in high parity births in families that had already borne two or more boys.[85] This tendency to favour girls in high parity births to couples who had already borne sons was later also noted by Coale and Banister, who suggested as well that once a couple had achieved its goal for the number of males, it was also much more likely to engage in “stopping behavior”, i.e., to stop having more children.[86]
The long-term disparity has led to a significant gender imbalance or skewing of the sex ratio. As reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, China has between 32million and 36million more males than would be expected naturally, and this has led to social problems. “Because of a traditional preference for baby boys over girls, the one-child policy is often cited as the cause of China’s skewed sex ratio … Even the government acknowledges the problem and has expressed concern about the tens of millions of young men who won’t be able to find brides and may turn to kidnapping women, sex trafficking, other forms of crime or social unrest.”[22] The situation will not improve in the near future. According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, there will be 24 million more men than women of marriageable age by 2020.[87]
Education
According to a 2017 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “existing studies indicate either a modest or minimal effect of the fertility change induced by the one-child policy on children education”.[78]
Adoption and abandonment
A roadside sign in rural Sichuan: “It is forbidden to discriminate against, mistreat or abandon baby girls.”
For parents who had “unauthorized” births or who wanted a son but had a daughter, giving up the child for adoption was a kind of strategy to avoid penalties under one-child restrictions. In fact, “out adoption” was not uncommon in China even before birth planning. In the 1980s, adoptions of daughters accounted for slightly above half of the so-called “missing girls”, as out-adopted daughters often went unreported in censuses and survey and adoptive parents were not penalized for violating birth quotas [88] However, in 1991, a central decree attempted to close off this loophole by raising penalties and levying those penalties on any household that had an “unauthorized” child, including those that had adopted children.[89] This closing of the adoption loophole resulted in the abandonment of some two million Chinese children (mostly daughters),[9] many of who ended up in orphanages, some 120,000 of whom would be adopted by international parents.
The peak wave of abandonment occurred in the 1990s, with a smaller wave after 2000.[89] Around the same time, poor care and high mortality rates in some state orphanages generated intense international pressure for reform.[90][91]
After 2005, the number of international adoptions declined, due both to falling birth rates and the related increase in demand for adoptions by Chinese parents themselves. In an interview with National Public Radio on 30 October 2015, Adam Pertman,[92] president and CEO of the National Center on Adoption and Permanency, indicated that “the infant girls of yesteryear have not been available, if you will, for five, seven years. China has been … trying to keep the girls within the country … And the consequence is that, today, rather than those young girls who used to be available – primarily girls – today, it’s older children, children with special needs, children in sibling groups. It’s very, very different.”[93]
Twins
Since there are no penalties for multiple births, it is believed that an increasing number of couples are turning to fertility medicines to induce the conception of twins. According to a 2006 China Daily report, the number of twins born per year was estimated to have doubled.[timeframe?][94]
Quality of life for women
Some sources state that the one-child policy has played a major role in improving the quality of life for women in China.[citation needed] Proponents of this view hold that with the one-child policy, gender equality started to be emphasized in China and women had the same opportunity to be educated as men.[citation needed] For thousands of years, girls have held a lower status in Chinese households. However, the one-child policy’s limit on the number of children has prompted parents of women to start investing money in their well-being. As a result of being an only child, women have increased opportunity to receive an education, and support to get better jobs. One of the side effects of the one-child policy is to have liberated women from heavy duties in terms of taking care of many children and the family in the past; instead women had a lot of spare time for themselves to pursue their career or hobbies. The other major “side effect” of the one child policy is that the traditional concepts of gender roles between men and women have weakened. Being one and the only “chance” the parents have, women are expected to compete with peer men for better educational resources or career opportunities. Especially in cities where one-child policy was much more regulated and enforced, expectations on women to succeed in life are no less than on men. Recent data has shown that the proportion of women attending college is higher than that of men. The policy also has a positive effect of the policy fines at 10 to 19 years of age on the likelihood of completing senior high school in women of Han ethnicity. At the same time, the one-child policy reduces the economic burden for each family. The condition for each family has become better. As a result, women also have much more freedom within the family.They are supported by their family to pursue their life achievements.[95]
Healthcare improvements
It is reported that the focus of China on population planning helps provide a better health service for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes that contributed to the policy’s success in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese people more money with which to invest. Second, since Chinese adults can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.[96]
“Four-two-one” problem
A government sign in Tangshan Township: “For a prosperous, powerful nation and a happy family, please practice family planning.”
As the first generation of law-enforced only-children came of age for becoming parents themselves, one adult child was left with having to provide support for his or her two parents and four grandparents.[97][98] Called the “4-2-1 Problem”, this leaves the older generations with increased chances of dependency on retirement funds or charity in order to receive support. If not for personal savings, pensions, or state welfare, most senior citizens would be left entirely dependent upon their very small family or neighbours for assistance. If, for any reason, the single child is unable to care for their older adult relatives, the oldest generations would face a lack of resources and necessities. In response to such an issue, by 2007, all provinces in the nation except Henan had adopted a new policy allowing couples to have two children if both parents were only children themselves;[99][failed verification][100] Henan followed in 2011.[101]
Being excluded from the family register means they do not possess a Hukou, which is “an identifying document, similar in some ways to the American social security card.”[102] In this respect they do not legally exist and as a result cannot access most public services, such as education and health care, and do not receive protection under the law.[103][104][105]
Potential social problems
See also: Shidu (bereavement), a social phenomenon denoting the loss of an only child
Some parents may over-indulge their only child. The media referred to the indulged children in one-child families as “little emperors“.[106] Since the 1990s, some people have worried that this will result in a higher tendency toward poor social communication and cooperation skills amongst the new generation, as they have no siblings at home. No social studies have investigated the ratio of these so-called “over-indulged” children and to what extent they are indulged. With the first generation of children born under the policy (which initially became a requirement for most couples with first children born starting in 1979 and extending into the 1980s) reaching adulthood, such worries were reduced.[107]
However, the “little emperor syndrome” and additional expressions, describing the generation of Chinese singletons are very abundant in the Chinese media, Chinese academia and popular discussions. Being over-indulged, lacking self-discipline and having no adaptive capabilities are traits that are highly associated with Chinese singletons.[108]
Some 30 delegates called on the government in the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in March 2007 to abolish the one-child rule, citing “social problems and personality disorders in young people”. One statement read, “It is not healthy for children to play only with their parents and be spoiled by them: it is not right to limit the number to two children per family, either.”[109] The proposal was prepared by Ye Tingfang, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who suggested that the government at least restore the previous rule that allowed couples to have up to two children. According to a scholar, “The one-child limit is too extreme. It violates nature’s law. And in the long run, this will lead to mother nature’s revenge.”[109][110]
Birth tourism
Reports surfaced of Chinese women giving birth to their second child overseas, a practice known as birth tourism. Many went to Hong Kong, which is exempt from the one-child policy. Likewise, a Hong Kong passport differs from China mainland passport by providing additional advantages. Recently though, the Hong Kong government has drastically reduced the quota of births set for non-local women in public hospitals. As a result, fees for delivering babies there have surged. As further admission cuts or a total ban on non-local births in Hong Kong are being considered, mainland agencies that arrange for expectant mothers to give birth overseas are predicting a surge in those going to North America.[111][unreliable source?]
As the United States practises birthright citizenship, all children born in the US will automatically have US citizenship. The closest US location from China is Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US dependency in the western Pacific Ocean that allows Chinese visitors without visa restrictions. As of 2012, the island was experiencing an upswing in Chinese births, since birth tourism there had become cheaper than to Hong Kong. This option is used by relatively affluent Chinese who often have secondary motives as well, wishing their children to be able to leave mainland China when they grow older or bring their parents to the US. Canada, compared to US, is less achievable as their government denies many visa requests.[112][113]
Sex-selective abortion
Due to the preference in Rural Chinese society to give birth to a son,[114] pre-natal sex determination and sex-selective abortions are illegal in China.[115] Often argued as one of the key factors in the imbalanced sex-ratio in China, as excess female infant mortality and underreporting of female births cannot solely explain this gender disparity.[116] Researchers have found that the gender of the firstborn child in rural parts of China impact whether or not the mother will seek an ultrasound for the second child. 40% of women with a firstborn son seek an ultrasound for their second pregnancy, versus 70% of women with firstborn daughters. This clearly depicts a desire for women to birth a son if one has not yet been birthed.[117] In response to this, the Chinese government made sex-selective abortions illegal in 2005.[117]
Criticism
The policy is controversial outside China for many reasons, including accusations of human rights abuses in the implementation of the policy, as well as concerns about negative social consequences.[118]
Statement of the effect of the policy on birth reduction
The Chinese government, quoting Zhai Zhenwu, director of Renmin University’s School of Sociology and Population in Beijing, estimates that 400million births were prevented by the one-child policy as of 2011, while some demographers challenge that number, putting the figure at perhaps half that level, according to CNN.[119] Zhai clarified that the 400million estimate referred not just to the one-child policy, but includes births prevented by predecessor policies implemented one decade before, stating that “there are many different numbers out there but it doesn’t change the basic fact that the policy prevented a really large number of births”.[120]
This claim is disputed by Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy, and Cai Yong from the Carolina Population Center at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill[120] Wang claims that “Thailand and China have had almost identical fertility trajectories since the mid 1980s”, and “Thailand does not have a one-child policy.”[120] China’s Health Ministry has also disclosed that at least 336million abortions were performed on account of the policy.[121]
According to a report by the US Embassy, scholarship published by Chinese scholars and their presentations at the October 1997 Beijing conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population seemed to suggest that market-based incentives or increasing voluntariness is not morally better but that it is in the end more effective.[122] In 1988, Zeng Yi and Professor T. Paul Schultz of Yale University discussed the effect of the transformation to the market on Chinese fertility, arguing that the introduction of the contract responsibility system in agriculture during the early 1980s weakened family planning controls during that period.[123] Zeng contended that the “big cooking pot” system of the People’s Communes had insulated people from the costs of having many children. By the late 1980s, economic costs and incentives created by the contract system were already reducing the number of children farmers wanted.
A long-term experiment in a county in Shanxi, in which the family planning law was suspended, suggested that families would not have many more children even if the law were abolished.[35] A 2003 review of the policy-making process behind the adoption of the one-child policy shows that less intrusive options, including those that emphasized delay and spacing of births, were known but not fully considered by China’s political leaders.[124]
Unequal enforcement
Corrupted government officials and especially wealthy individuals have often been able to violate the policy in spite of fines.[125] Filmmaker Zhang Yimou had three children and was subsequently fined 7.48million yuan ($1.2million).[126] For example, between 2000 and 2005, as many as 1,968 officials in Hunan province were found to be violating the policy, according to the provincial family planning commission; also exposed by the commission were 21 national and local lawmakers, 24 political advisors, 112 entrepreneurs and 6 senior intellectuals.[125]
Some of the offending officials did not face penalties,[125] although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to “expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child”.[125] Also, people who lived in the rural areas of China were allowed to have two children without punishment, although the family is required to wait a couple of years before having another child.[127]
The one-child policy has been challenged for violating a human right to determine the size of one’s own proper family. According to a 1968 proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, “Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.”[128][129]
According to the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilizations was set for Huaiji County, Guangdong in one year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. According to the article local officials were being pressured into purchasing portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages. The article also reported that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort, usually by an injection of saline solution.[130] A 1993 book by social scientist Steven W. Mosher reported that women in their ninth month of pregnancy, or already in labour, were having their children killed whilst in the birth canal or immediately after birth.[131]
According to a 2005 news report by Australian Broadcasting Corporation correspondent John Taylor, China outlawed the use of physical force to make a woman submit to an abortion or sterilization in 2002 but ineffectively enforces the measure.[132] In 2012, Feng Jianmei, a villager from Shaanxi province was forced into an abortion by local officials after her family refused to pay the fine for having a second child. Chinese authorities have since apologized and two officials were fired, while five others were sanctioned.[133]
In the past, China promoted eugenics as part of its population planning policies, but the government has backed away from such policies, as evidenced by China’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which compels the nation to significantly reform its genetic testing laws.[134] Recent[when?] research has also emphasized the necessity of understanding a myriad of complex social relations that affect the meaning of informed consent in China.[135] Furthermore, in 2003, China revised its marriage registration regulations and couples no longer have to submit to a pre-marital physical or genetic examination before being granted a marriage license.[136]
The United Nations Population Fund‘s (UNFPA) support for family planning in China, which has been associated with the One-Child policy in the United States, led the United States Congress to pull out of the UNFPA during the Reagan administration,[137] and again under George W. Bush‘s presidency, citing human rights abuses[138] and stating that the right to “found a family” was protected under the Preamble in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[139] President Obama resumed U.S. government financial support for the UNFPA shortly after taking office in 2009, intending to “work collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries”.[140][141]
Multiple research studies have also found that sex-selective abortion – where a woman undergoes an ultrasound to determine the sex of her baby, and then aborts it if it’s a girl – was widespread for years, particularly for second or subsequent children. Millions of female fetuses have been aborted since the 1970s. China outlawed sex selective abortions in 2005, but the law is tough to enforce because of the difficulty of proving why a couple decided to have an abortion. The abandonment, and killing, of baby girls has also been reported, though recent research studies say it has become rare, in part due to strict criminal prohibitions.[22]
This section appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject’s impact on popular culture, using references to reliable sources, rather than simply listing appearances. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(March 2019)
Ball, David (2002). China Run. Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-0-74322743-8. A novel about an American woman who travels to China to adopt an orphan of the one-child policy, only to find herself a fugitive when the Chinese government informs her that she has been given “the wrong baby”.
The prevention of a state-imposed abortion during labor to conform with the one child policy is a key plot point in Tom Clancy‘s novel The Bear and the Dragon.
The difficulties of implementing the one-child policy are dramatized in Mo Yan‘s novel Frog (2009; English translation by Howard Goldblatt, 2015).
Avoiding the family-planning enforcers is at the heart of Ma Jian‘s novel The Dark Road (translated by Flora Drew, 2013).
Novelist Lu Min writes about her own family’s experience with the One Child Policy in her essay “A Second Pregnancy, 1980” (translated by Helen Wang, 2015).[150]
Xue, Xinran (2015). Buy Me the Sky. Rider (imprint). ISBN978-1-8460-4471-7. Tells the stories of the children brought up under China’s one-child policy and the effect that has had on their lives, families and ability to deal with life’s challenges.
Fong, Mei (2016). One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN9780544275393.
This distribution is named for the frequently pyramidal shape of its graph.
A population pyramid, also called an “age-sex- pyramid“, is a graphical illustration that shows the distribution of various age groups in a population (typically that of a country or region of the world), which forms the shape of a pyramid when the population is growing.[1] Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right, and they may be measured by raw number or as a percentage of the total population. This tool can be used to visualize and age of a particular population.[2] It is also used in ecology to determine the overall age distribution of a population; an indication of the reproductive capabilities and likelihood of the continuation of a species.
Population pyramids often contain continuous stacked-histogram bars, making it a horizontal bar diagram. The population size is depicted on the x-axis (horizontal) while the age-groups are represented on the y-axis (vertical).[3] The size of the population can either be measured as a percentage of the total population or by raw number. Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right. Population pyramids are often viewed as the most effective way to graphically depict the age and distribution of a population, partly because of the very clear image these pyramids represent.[4] A great deal of information about the population broken down by age and sex can be read from a population pyramid, and this can shed light on the extent of development and other aspects of the population.
The measures of central tendency, mean, median, and mode, should be considered when assessing a population pyramid. since the data is not completely accurate. For example, the average age could be used to determine the type of population in a particular region. A population with an average age of 15 would have a young population compared to a population that has an average age of 55, which would be considered an older population. It is also important to consider these measures because the collected data is not completely accurate. The mid-year population is often used in calculations to account for the number of births and deaths that occur.
A population pyramid gives a clear picture of how a country transitions from high fertility to low fertility rate. The broad base of the pyramid means the majority of population lies between ages 0–14, which tells us that the fertility rate of the country is high and above population sub-replacement fertility level. The older population is declining over time due to a shorter life expectancy of sixty years.[5] However, there are still more females than males in these ranges since women have a longer life expectancy. As reported by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women tend to live longer than men because women do not partake in risky behaviors. Also, Weeks’ Population: an Introduction to Concepts and Issues, considered that the sex ratio gap for the older ages will shrink due to women’s health declining due to the effects of smoking, as suggested by the United Nations and U.S. Census Bureau. Moreover, it can also reveal the age-dependency ratio of a population. Populations with a big base, young population, or a big top, an older population, shows that there is a higher dependency ratio. The dependency ratio refers to how many people are dependent on the working class (ages 15–64). According to Weeks’ Population: an Introduction to Concepts and Issues, population pyramids can be used to predict the future, known as a population forecast. Population momentum, when a population’s birth rates continue to increase even after replacement level has been reached, can even be predicted if a population has a low mortality rate since the population will continue to grow. This then brings up the term doubling time, which is used to predict when the population will double in size. Lastly, a population pyramid can even give insight on the economic status of a country from the age stratification since the distribution of supplies are not evenly distributed through a population.
In the demographic transition model, the size and shape of population pyramids vary. In stage one of the demographic transition model, the pyramids have the most defined shape. They have the ideal big base and skinny top. In stage two, the pyramid looks similar, but starts to widen in the middle age groups. In stage three, the pyramids start to round out and look similar in shape to a tombstone. In stage four, there is a decrease in the younger age groups. This causes the base of the widened pyramid to narrow. Lastly, in stage five, the pyramid starts to take on the shape of a kite as the base continues to decrease. The shape of the population is dependent upon what the economy is like in the country. More developed countries can be found in stages three four and five while the least developed countries have a population represented by the pyramids in stages one and two.
Types
Each country will have different or unique population pyramids. However, population pyramids will be defined as the following: stationary, expansive, or constrictive. These types have been identified by the fertility and mortality rates of a country.[6]
“Stationary” pyramid
A pyramid can be described as stationary if the percentages of population (age and sex) remains constant over time.[7] Stationary population is when a population contains equal birth rates and death rates.[7]
“Expansive” pyramid
A population pyramid that is very wide at the younger ages, characteristic of countries with high birth rate and low life expectancy.[6] The population is said to be fast-growing, and the size of each birth cohort gets larger than the size of the previous year.[8]
“Constrictive” pyramid
A population pyramid that is narrowed at the bottom. The population is generally older on average, as the country has long life expectancy, a low death rate, but also a low birth rate.[6] However, the percentage of younger population are extremely low, this can cause issues with dependency ratio of the population.[8] This pyramid is more common when immigrants are factored out. This is a typical pattern for a very developed country, a high level of education, easy access to and incentive to use birth control, good health care, and few negative environmental factors.[9]
Median age by country. A youth bulge is evident for Africa, and to a lesser extent for West Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central America.
Map of countries by fertility rate (2018), according to CIA World Factbook
Gary Fuller (1995) described Youth bulge as a type of expansive pyramid. Gunnar Heinsohn (2003) argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the “third and fourth sons” that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology.
Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built-up youth bulge, including European colonialism, 20th-century fascism, rise of Communism during the Cold War, and ongoing conflicts such as that in Darfur and terrorism.[10] This factor has been also used to account for the Arab Spring events.[11]Economic recessions, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Late 2000’s recession, are also claimed to be explained in part due to a large youth population who cannot find jobs.[11] Youth bulge can be seen as one factor among many in explaining social unrest and uprisings in society.[12] A 2016 study finds that youth bulges increases the chances of non-ethnic civil wars, but not ethnic civil wars.[13]
A large population of adolescents entering the labor force and electorate strains at the seams of the economy and polity, which were designed for smaller populations. This creates unemployment and alienation unless new opportunities are created quickly enough – in which case a ‘demographic dividend’ accrues because productive workers outweigh young and elderly dependents. Yet the 16–30 age range is associated with risk-taking, especially among males. In general, youth bulges in developing countries are associated with higher unemployment and, as a result, a heightened risk of violence and political instability.[14][15] For Cincotta and Doces (2011), the transition to more mature age structures is almost a sine qua non for democratization.[16]
To reverse the effects of youth bulges, specific policies such as creating more jobs, improving family planning programs, and reducing over all infant mortality rates should be a priority.[17]
Population pyramid of Egypt in 2005. Many of those 30 and younger are educated citizens who are experiencing difficulty finding work.
Nearly half of Libya‘s 2011 population consists of children younger than age 20.
The Middle East and North Africa are currently experiencing a prominent youth bulge. “Across the Middle East, countries have experienced a pronounced increase in the size of their youth populations over recent decades, both in total numbers and as a percentage of the total population. Today, the nearly 111 million individuals aging between 15 to 29 living across the region make up nearly 27 percent of the region’s population.” [18] Structural changes in service provision, especially health care, beginning in the 1960s created the conditions for a demographic explosion, which has resulted in a population consisting primarily of younger people. It is estimated that around 65% of the regional population is under the age of 30.[19]
The Middle East has invested more in education, including religious education, than most other regions such that education is available to most children.[20] However, that education has not led to higher levels of employment, and youth unemployment is currently at 25%, the highest of any single region.[21] Of this 25%, over half are first time entrants into the job market.[20]
The youth bulge in the Middle East and North Africa has been favorably compared to that of East Asia, which harnessed this human capital and saw huge economic growth in recent decades.[22] The youth bulge has been referred to by the Middle East Youth Initiative as a demographic gift, which, if engaged, could fuel regional economic growth and development.[23] “While the growth of the youth population imposes supply pressures on education systems and labor markets, it also means that a growing share of the overall population is made up of those considered to be of working age; and thus not dependent on the economic activity of others. In turn, this declining dependency ratio can have a positive impact on overall economic growth, creating a demographic dividend. The ability of a particular economy to harness this dividend, however, is dependent on its ability to ensure the deployment of this growing working-age population towards productive economic activity, and to create the jobs necessary for the growing labor force.” [18]
Gary Fuller, “The Youth Crisis in Middle Eastern Society” (2004) download
Gary Fuller, The Demographic Backdrop to Ethnic Conflict: A Geographic Overview, was born in 1989 and was produced by Edward Gewin: The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990s, Washington: CIA (RTT 95-10039, October), 151-154.
Heinsohn, Gunnar (2003). Söhne und Weltmacht : Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen (in German). Zürich: Orell Füssli. ISBN3-280-06008-7.
Story 4: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 1 — Radical Extremist Democrat Socialists (REDS) — All We Are Saying Is Give Socialism A Chance — De Plane — De Plane — Videos
De Plane De Plane | Tatoo On Fantasy Island
Fantasy Island Season 1 Presentation
July Democratic Debates – Night One | The Daily Show
The Second 2019 Democratic Debate: The Key Moments, Day 1 | NYT News
Story 1: Black Swan Song — Pathetic Incompetent Corrupt Swamp Swan Figurehead Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III Exposed As Fraud — “A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations” — Corrupt Democrat Punks — “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk? — “Go Ahead Make My Day” — Impeach Trump — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Exposed — No Credibility and No Longer Trusted — No Evidence or Basis For Impeachment — Mueller “Outside My Purview”: Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — American People Will Reelect Trump for Second Term in A Landslide Victory — Videos
Black Swan – Last Dance Scene (“I was perfect…”)
The Real ‘Black Swan’: Double Speaks
Magnum Force (10/10) Movie CLIP – A Man’s Got to Know His Limitations (1973) HD
A Good Man Always Has to Know His Limitations
Dirty Harry Do You ( I ) Feel Lucky Punk? ( high quality)
Dirty Harry – inadmissible
Dirty Harry Do You Feel Lucky Punk
Dirty Harry – Best Quotes, Lines (Clint Eastwood)
Robert Mueller testifies before Judiciary Committees on Capitol Hill (LIVE) | USA TODAY
Robert Mueller’s full testimony to House Judiciary committee
MUELLER HEARING: House Judiciary Committee Part 1
MUELLER HEARING: House Intelligence Committee Part 2
Full: Robert Mueller Testimony To Congress, Reaction And Analysis | NBC News
Collins at Mueller hearing: I hope this brings us closure
WATCH: Rep. Steve Chabot’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Ted Lieu’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. Debbie Lesko’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
WATCH: Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Ratcliffe Questions Former Special Counsel Mueller on Report
Representative Turner questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Matt Gaetz’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Rep. Jim Jordan blasts Mueller for dodging questions
Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan presses former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Jordan says maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started.
Rep. Gohmert grills Mueller: Did you know Strzok hated Trump?
Representative Nunes questions Mueller
WATCH: Rep. Ben Cline’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony
Joe diGenova: The public got to see Mueller’s incompetence
Whitaker says it was clear Mueller didn’t have a grasp of Russia report
Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America
Hannity: Mueller’s testimony was an unmitigated disaster
Ingraham: Trump beats the elites again
Jim Jordan says Dems are never going to stop going after Trump
Gowdy on Mueller: I would’ve beaten the hell out of that exoneration
Trump’s legal team takes victory lap after Mueller hearings
WATCH: Key moments from Mueller’s testimony
Takeaways and analysis of Mueller hearings
‘Disoriented’ Mueller’s stumbling responses to questions during blockbuster hearing leave social media concerned the special counsel seems a ‘confused old man’ but some think it is all a strategy to frustrate the committee members
Mueller faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russia investigation
Viewers reacting on social media noticed Mueller stumbled at several points
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ one viewer wrote on Twitter. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man’
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation
Another theory suggests the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit the report
Viewers also noted that Mueller is hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report
PUBLISHED: 10:11 EDT, 24 July 2019 | UPDATED: 16:45 EDT, 24 July 2019
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of Congress.
The special counsel faced members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning at a highly-anticipated hearing on the Russiainvestigation.
Viewers reacting on social media have noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points.
‘Robert Mueller comes across as a doddering old fool with a questionable moral compass based on situational ethics who should never have been appointed in the first place based on reduced mental capacity,’ one person tweeted.
‘Mueller is acting like he doesn’t know what’s going on,’ another wrote. ‘He’s acting like a confused old man.’
Some are saying the wobbly performance is a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to President Donald Trump.
When it came to questions at the core of the report, Mueller has delivered firm answers without hesitation.
Asked whether Trump had been exonerated or if he could be charged with obstruction of justice when he leaves office, Mueller replied: ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ respectively.
‘Lots of twitter folks are dogging Mueller out for looking old and feeble,’ MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted. ‘But optically, that just makes the Republicans yelling at him look more absurd. Mueller is quite definitive in his one word answers, which only Dems are eliciting from him so far.’
Perplexed viewers are questioning Robert Mueller’s ‘confused’ demeanor as he testifies in front of members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday morning
Viewers reacting on social media noticed that Mueller appeared to stumble at multiple points
Several Twitter users expressed the opinion that the 74-year-old veteran prosecutor’s shaky demeanor calls his entire report into question.
‘Listening too Mueller the cracking in his voice shows clearly that he is a conflicted Skunk and lying ! And I think he is senile !’
‘As I said when Mueller gave speech in May, he is feeble,’ radio personality Mark Levin tweeted. ‘I say that not as a personal attack but as a rational observation. It’s on display today during this hearing.
‘This underscores that the person who influenced this investigation most was Andrew Weissman, his top lieutenant.’
Replying to Levin’s tweet, one man wrote: ‘Agreed, Mueller looks geriatric and lost…. find that man a time machine.’
‘It’s quite entertaining. Mueller can’t make a coherent statement. Looks like the circus made a stop in DC,’ a woman tweeted.
‘I’d say Democrats right now regretting they ever subpoenaed Mueller. He looks confused,’ a man wrote.
Some viewers have said Mueller’s shaky demeanor calls his report into question
Others think Mueller sounds uncertain because he is being overly-cautious about coming off as impartial.
‘I’m concerned that Mueller is so concerned with not appearing political that he is really under-performing at times by failing to clarify things that need clarification,’ one woman wrote.
‘To let crazy GOP statements stand without clarification could be interpreted as agreement.’
Some noted that Mueller is being hindered by the mammoth task of manually searching through 397 pages to effectively answer questions about the report his team took two years to compile.
He repeatedly had to ask committee members for page numbers when asked to comment on specific sections.
One woman tweeted that Mueller would have a much easier time referring to the report if he had searchable copy on a computer.
‘Give Robert Mueller a computer, he desperately needs CTRL + F,’ Vice Media VP Katie Drummond wrote.
Ironically, the copy of the report released by the Justice Department was a scanned printout and thus couldn’t be searched. Several searchable versions have cropped up in the months since then.
Unfortunately for Mueller, witnesses are not allowed to use computers during hearings.
Mueller frequently had to pause and manually search through the 397-page report to effectively answer questions from lawmakers
Throughout the hearing, Democrats, who hold the majority on both committees present, worked to elicit short, definitive answers from Mueller.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler asked him: ‘Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it?
‘That is correct. That is not what the report said,’ Mueller responding.
‘Does that say there was no obstruction?’ Nadler followed up later.
‘No,’ the former special counsel said.
‘In fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president,’ Nadler told him.
‘Yes it does,’ Mueller replied.
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
‘When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm was Fusion GPS, is that correct?’
‘I’m not familiar with that,’ said Mueller.
‘That’s not a trick question. It’s Fusion GPS.’
Most of Mueller’s fumbles came in response to Republicans trying to get him to stray from his typical dry, technical explanations
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose trips to Russia drew attention of investigators.
‘Director Mueller, the third FISA renewal happens a month after you’re named special counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page?’ Jordan asked.
‘I’m not going to talk to that,’ said Mueller.
In his prepared statement, Mueller began by defending his probe following an onslaught of attacks, and spelling out questions he will and will not answer.
He said he told his team at the start of the Russia probe to ‘work quietly, thoroughly and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.
‘We needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than necessary,’ Mueller said.
He said his team of lawyers and agents worked ‘fairly and with absolute integrity’ – minutes after President Trump once again attacked it as a ‘witch hunt’.
‘Our team would not leak or take other actions that would compromise the integrity of our work,’ said Mueller. ‘All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.’
Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan sought to draw Mueller out on the surveillance warrants for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whose Russia trips drew investigators’ attention
Rep Doug Collins tried to get Mueller to contradict his report by asking him whether ‘collusion’ and ‘conspiracy’ are the same thing after Mueller testified that they weren’t.
Collins cited a portion of the report that states: ‘Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute.’
Mueller critics declared that the special counsel had been bested by Collins, while experts explained that Collins’ citation was taken out of context.
The part of the report in question was about collusion in the sense of corporate collusion – when companies conspire in an illegal fashion to help each other at consumers’ expense.
Corporate collusion is unrelated to ‘collusion with Russia’, the colloquial term adopted in the debate about potential cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Both sides sought to get Mueller on record on the question of whether he had any potential conflict that would prevent him from overseeing the probe.
Georgia Democrat Rep Hank Johnson asked Mueller if he had any conflicts of interest that prevented him from being special counsel. Mueller said he did not. Trump has repeatedly said Mueller was ‘highly conflicted,’ saying he had interviewed to be his FBI director and that the two men had a nasty business dispute.
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility.
‘No matter your political party, it’s absolutely disgusting to see those attacking Mueller’s integrity,’ one man tweeted.
‘The way the @JudiciaryGOP members talked and yelled at Robert Mueller is beyond awful. They’ve all lost their souls,’ another wrote.
‘Republicans can’t argue the facts, so they attack the investigation and the investigators,’ another said.
‘Remember this slander of Mueller the next time you hear republicans going on about their love & respect for veterans. They will throw anyone under the bus who doesn’t toe the party line.’
Some people on social media lambasted Republican committee members for trying to damage Mueller’s credibility
TOP 10 MUELLER TAKEAWAYS
Below are the 10 most important takeaways gleaned from Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday.
Mueller said all he wanted to say in his report
When Mueller finally agreed to testify before Congress – after more than two years of silence about the Russia investigation – the special counsel said he ‘would not provide information beyond that which is already public’ in the report published in April.
He stuck to that promise throughout Wednesday’s hearing, declining or deferring nearly 200 questions from committee members.
Mueller’s reasons for not answering included not wanting to speculate, being unable to detail internal Justice Department deliberations and being under orders not to broach specific topics.
Trump was paying attention
After saying that he couldn’t be bothered to watch Mueller’s testimony, President Trump made it clear that he was tuned in as he tweeted multiple reactions to the proceedings on Wednesday.
‘I’m not going to be watching Mueller because you can’t take all those bites out of the apple,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. ‘We had no collusion, no obstruction.’
Before the hearing even kicked off Trump had posted seven tweets about the hearing, echoing his go-to attacks on ‘Mueller & his band of 18 Angry Democrats’.
Over the next eight hours tweeted and retweeted 14 posts about Mueller’s testimony, including multiple videos of Republican lawmakers grilling the special counsel.
‘TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!’ he declared just after 2.30pm.
Mueller didn’t subpoena Trump to avoid a lengthy court battle
The special counsel addressed why Trump wasn’t interviewed during the two-year-long investigation when New York Democratic Rep Sean Maloney asked him: ‘Why didn’t you subpoena the president?’
Trump’s legal team had refused to have him be interviewed in the probe because they felt such a meeting would amount to a ‘perjury trap’.
Before Congress Mueller stated that his team had ‘little success’ when pushing for an interview for over a year and decided that they didn’t want to delay the investigation with a lengthy court battle.
‘We did not want to exercise the subpoena power because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation,’ he said, adding that no one at the Justice Department pressured him to finish the probe.
Mueller acknowledged that Trump’s written answers to questions about possible conspiracy with Russia were ‘not as useful as the interview would be’.
Trump was not exonerated by the Russia investigation
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, kicked off Wednesday’s proceedings by asking Mueller directly if the Russia investigation exonerated President Trump.
‘No,’ Mueller stated without hesitation.
That goes against the president’s repeated claims that the probe proved there was ‘no obstruction, no collusion’.
Mueller’s team never determined whether Trump committed a crime
While the majority of his answers were straightforward and technical, Mueller struggled when questioned about why he did not indict the president.
During an exchanged with California Democratic Rep Ted Lieu, Mueller stated that the reason he did not even consider indicting Trump on obstruction charges was because of guidance from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
That goes against assertions by Attorney General William Barr, who has repeatedly said the OLC’s opinion was not the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump.
Arizona Republican Rep Debbie Lesko asked Mueller to clarify that contradiction, at which point he said he ‘would have to look closer at it’.
He later conceded that he had misspoken when he characterized the OLC’s guidance to Lieu.
‘We did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime,’ he said.
‘Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.’
Mueller was much less steady than in previous hearings
At times, Mueller, 74, stumbled during answers, asking fast-talking lawmakers to repeat page citations and repeat their questions. He sometimes had to scan the hearing room to locate questioners.
Although his stock answer was to say issues were beyond the purview of his mandate, he also appeared not to recall specific information at times.
‘Where are you reading from?’ he asked one member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner. ‘I am reading from my question,’ the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker told him.
Under questioning by Republican Rep Steve Chabot, Mueller didn’t show immediate familiarity with political intelligence firm Fusion GPS, a key player in the trail of the Steele Dossier, and a fixture of attention of President Trump and GOP critics of the Mueller probe.
Viewers reacting on social media called out Mueller’s unsteadiness early on, remarking that he was acting ‘like a confused old man’.
Some said the wobbly performance could be a delaying tactic on the part of the special counsel to frustrate Republican committee members determined to discredit findings that are damaging to Trump.
Mueller and Trump have opposing accounts of what led up to special counsel appointment
Republicans probed Mueller’s professional links with Trump in an attempt to show he may have had a reason to be biased against the president – specifically questioning whether he was turned down for the FBI director position the day before being tapped to lead the Russia investigation.
Trump gave his version of events on Wednesday morning, tweeting: ‘It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel.
‘Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the interview, including the Vice President of the United States!’
Mueller contradicted Trump’s account when Texas Republican Rep Louie Gohmert seized on his alleged conflicts of interest.
Gohmert asked Mueller about a meeting he had with Trump the day before the special counsel appointment and contended that it was a job interview for the FBI director slot.
Mueller stated that he was not interviewed ‘as a candidate’ for the position.
Mueller fiercely defended his team’s impartiality
The special counsel was calm and composed throughout the proceedings, save for one moment when Florida Republican Rep Greg Steube decried the political affiliations of the lawyers on his team.
Mueller said never in his 25 years in his position had he felt the need to ask the people he works with about their political affiliation.
Rep Gohmert also called Mueller’s hiring practices into question, particularly his appointment of FBI agent Peter Strzok – who was later removed from the probe after he was found to have sent anti-Trump text messages to a woman he was involved with.
Mueller said he did not know of Strzok’s disdain for Trump before the probe started and learned about it in the summer of 2017, several months into the investigation.
Republicans tried to collect evidence for a probe into Mueller’s investigation
Republicans committee members tried both the blast the origins of the Russia probe and potentially establish a record that might play out in an ongoing investigation overseen by Attorney General William Barr.
‘Before you arrested [Trump campaign foreign policy aide] George Papadopoulos in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in ash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?’ California Rep Devin Nunes asked Mueller.
‘Again, that’s outside our … questions such as that should go to the FBI or the department,’ said Mueller.
‘But it involved your investigation,’ said Nunes.
‘It involved persons involved in my investigation,’ said Mueller.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow released a statement saying: ‘This morning’s testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The testimony revealed that this probe was conducted by a small group of politically-biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish either obstruction, conspiracy, or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It is also clear that the Special Counsel conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. The American people understand that this issue is over. They also understand that the case is closed.’
Democrats tried to breathe life into a dense, technical report
The Democrats, who hold a majority on both committees, made a concerted effort to present the investigation’s findings in a more provocative and damning light than they had been in the dense, 337-page report.
‘Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign — including Trump himself — knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it,’ California Rep Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chair, said when the afternoon portion began.
‘Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?’ Schiff continued.
‘That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime, in any event’, he added.
However, a levelheaded Mueller didn’t play along, making for a rather mundane hearing.
In a moment that quickly made the rounds on conservative media on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan sharply questioned Robert Mueller on the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
The Ohio Republican pressed the former special counsel to detail who told George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy aide on the Trump campaign, that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. When Mueller said he would not go into it, Jordan became heated.
“Yes you can, because you wrote about it – you gave us the answer!” Jordan said. “Joseph Mifsud.”
The name of the shadowy Maltese academic kept coming up on Wednesday as Republicans accused Mueller of covering up how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, a popular talking point for Trump allies. At the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Rep. Devin Nunes pointed to a large photo of Mifsud with then-U.K. foreign secretary Boris Johnson as evidence that he “has extensive contacts with Western governments and the FBI”.
Boris Johnson makes an appearance at this hearing — Nunes is trying to prove that the investigation was started wrongly, shows a photo of him with Joseph Mifsud
Mifsud’s name would have been familiar for regular consumers of Fox News and conservative outlets that have spent two years dissecting what they believe was a “deep state” attempt to take down the Trump campaign. The London-based professor at the center of the Trump-Russia probe has not been seen in public since October 2017, just days after Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with him. One of those was a key conversation in London in April 2016, in which Mifsud told him the Russians had damaging information on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Mifsud also introduced him to a Russian graduate student that Papadopoulos believed to be Putin’s niece, and connected him with an official with ties to the Russian foreign ministry who said he could set up a meeting with the country’s ambassador, according to Mueller’s report. Papadopoulos later relayed that information to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who passed it on to U.S. government officials, setting into motion the FBI investigation into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos’ interactions with Mifsud, and his allegation that the Maltese professor was an FBI plant, has been at the center of some Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s probe. Papadopoulos told TIME in May that he believes he was part of an elaborate set-up by U.S. intelligence to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign. Since serving a short sentence for lying to the FBI, Papadopoulos has continued to make the rounds alleging that Mifsud was a “Western intelligence operative” who tried to use him to entrap the Trump campaign.
“People are very fascinated about what I have to say, people are just like — their mouths are dropping,” he told TIME on April 17. “They’ve never heard this information because Mueller and the FBI wanted to keep me silenced.”
Perhaps anticipating this line of questioning, Mueller made it clear in his opening statement that he would be “unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation” because it is the subject of an ongoing review by the Justice Department.
That did not stop Jordan and Nunes, both vocal Trump supporters, from trying.
“He’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime,” Jordan exclaimed, angrily listing others charged by Mueller, including Michael Flynn and “13 Russians no one’s ever heard of.”
“But the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it off, for three years we have lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him,” he said.
“I’m not sure I agree with your characterization,” Mueller tersely responded, but Jordan’s performance was already going viral in conservative corners of the internet with headlines like “WATCH: Jim Jordan Steals the Show, Calls into Question Entire Basis of Probe!” and “‘BRUTAL’: Jim Jordan grills Mueller about why ‘guy who put this whole story in motion’ lied but wasn’t held accountable.” On Wednesday afternoon, Trump himself retweeted a clip of the exchange, indicating that Mifsud is unlikely to fade from the debate over the Russia investigation.
Rep. Jim Jordan
✔@Jim_Jordan
Why didn’t Mueller charge Joseph Mifsud for lying to the FBI?
Joseph Mifsud (born 1960)[1] is a Maltese academic, with reportedly high level connections to the Russian government.[2] In 2016, he became involved with George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, and was later accused of being a link between that campaign and Russia. In 2018, he was described as missing, and an Italian court listed his location as “residence unknown”.[3] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Contents
Education
Mifsud holds a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Malta (1982) and a master’s degree in education from the University of Padua (1989).[1] He was awarded a PhD in 1995 from Queen’s University Belfast; his thesis was titled “Managing educational reform: a comparative approach from Malta (and Northern Ireland); a headteachers’ perspective”.[5]
Career
From 2006 to 2008, Mifsud served as the chef de cabinet of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta.[1] He later became a principal in the London Centre of International Law Practice. In 2008, he was named President of the Euro-Mediterranean University of Slovenia(EMUNI).[1][6] At least as early as 2010, he began making numerous trips to Russia.[7] He was a professorial teaching fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland,[8] as well as director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, where he served as director from 2012 until it closed in 2016. The academy was partnered with the University of Stirling.[9][10][11] He has also served as president of the University Consortium of the Province of Agrigento in Sicily; in September 2018, an Italian court ordered him to repay the Consortium 49,000 euros ($56,700) in overpayments.[3]
In a 2017 interview, he claimed to be a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR),[12] although the ECFR website in 2018 did not list him as a member.[13] He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a “wheeler-dealer” by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud’s former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17]Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying “I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian.”[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud “maintained various Russian contacts while living in London”, including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.[18]
Connection to George Papadopoulos
In March 2016, shortly after Papadopoulos was named as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, Mifsud met Papadopoulos in Rome. They later met again in London, where Mifsud allegedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman that he falsely claimed was Putin’s niece; Mifsud has denied the report.[8][14] At a meeting in April, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had learned that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly repeated the information to the Australian High Commissioner in London, Alexander Downer, who later reported to American authorities that Papadopoulos had apparently known about Russia’s theft of emails from Democratic sources before it was publicly reported. Papadopoulos has since publicly declared that he did tell Downer about the fact that he was offered “dirt” on Clinton but he has denied any recollection of communicating this theft of emails with Downer. The FBI then launched an investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.[19]
Volume 1 of the Mueller Report[20] states that Mifsud travelled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.[18] It also mentions that Papadopoulos “suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton”. This would appear to corroborate the contact with Downer.
According to Mifsud, he was interviewed by the FBI in February 2017 while visiting the United States to speak at a conference.[21][22] The FBI has not confirmed that they interviewed him, but he is listed as a featured speaker at the February 2017 national meeting of Global Ties, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of State.[23] Mifsud left the United States on 11 February 2017. Prosecutors with the investigation into Russian interference in the election suggested, in a 17 August 2018 sentencing memorandum for Papadopoulos, that they might have wanted to challenge, detain, or arrest Mifsud if Papadopoulos had told the truth about their interactions.[24]
Connection to Stephan Roh
Stephan Roh, a Russian-speaking[25] German lawyer and multimillionaire with close ties to Russia, has worked alongside Mifsud for years. Papadopoulos’s wife, who briefly worked for Mifsud, has described Roh as Mifsud’s lawyer, best friend, and funder. Roh owns multiple businesses, many headquartered in Moscow or Cyprus; he also co-owns Link Campus University, a university also known for its diplomatic, intelligence and analytical studies, such as the School of Analysis – Security and Intelligence section, and the place where Mifsud taught.[citation needed] The fact that Mifsud taught at the Link Campus University has been denied by the current president of this university, Vincenzo Scotti.[26] Roh was detained and questioned by investigators on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team in October 2017.[27]
Missing report
According to a filing in a U.S. federal court in the case Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation in September 2018, Mifsud “is missing and may be deceased”. Mifsud’s whereabouts were unknown and he could not be served with the complaint.[28] He spoke to his girlfriend on 31 October 2017. The next day an Italian newspaper revealed that the “professor” referred to in news reports about Papadopoulos was Mifsud, and she has not heard from him since then.[29] According to CNN, he has “gone to ground” and was last seen on 6 November 2017 at Link University, a private university in Rome where he was teaching at the time.[21] In September 2018, an Italian court described his location as “residence unknown”.[3]
In September 2018, a few days after the DNC filing, his associate Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller that he had gotten an indirect message from “really good sources” indicating that Mifsud is alive and living under a new identity.[30] According to media reports he was in Rome as of April 2019.[4]
Mueller was born on August 7, 1944 at Doctors Hospital in the New York City borough of Manhattan,[11][12] the first child of Alice C. Truesdale (1920–2007) and Robert Swan Mueller, Jr. (1916–2007). He has four younger sisters: Susan, Sandra, Joan, and Patricia.[13] His father was an executive with DuPont who had served as a Navy officer in the Atlantic and Mediterranean theaters during World War II.[13] His father majored in psychology at Princeton University and played varsity lacrosse, both of which he followed (see below).[13]
Mueller is of German, English and Scottish descent. His paternal great-grandfather, Gustave A. Mueller, was a prominent doctor in Pittsburgh, whose own father August C. E. Müller had immigrated to the United States in 1855 from the Province of Pomerania in the Kingdom of Prussia (a historical territory whose area included land now part of Poland and north-eastern edge of Germany).[14] On his mother’s side, he is a great-grandson of the railroad executive William Truesdale.[15]
Mueller has cited his teammate David Spencer Hackett’s death in the Vietnam War as an influence on his decision to pursue military service.[21] Of his classmate, Mueller has said, “One of the reasons I went into the Marine Corps was because we lost a very good friend, a Marine in Vietnam, who was a year ahead of me at Princeton. There were a number of us who felt we should follow his example and at least go into the service. And it flows from there.”[22] Hackett was a Marine Corps first lieutenant in the infantry and was killed in 1967 in Quảng Trị Province by small arms fire.[23]
After waiting a year so a knee injury could heal, Mueller was accepted for officer training in the United States Marine Corps in 1968, attending training at Parris Island, Officer Candidate School, Army Ranger School, and Army jump school. Of these, he said later that he considered Ranger School the most valuable because he felt “more than anything teaches you about how you react with no sleep and nothing to eat.”[24][25]
After recuperating at a field hospital near Da Hong, Mueller became aide-de-camp to 3rd Marine Division’s commanding general, then–Major General William K. Jones, where he “significantly contributed to the rapport” Jones had with other officers, according to one report.[24][31] Mueller had originally considered making the Marines his career, but he explained later that he found non-combat life in the Corps to be unexciting.[25]
Reflecting on his service in the Vietnam War, Mueller said, “I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have made it out of Vietnam. There were many—many—who did not. And perhaps because I did survive Vietnam, I have always felt compelled to contribute.”[32] In 2009, he told a writer that despite his other accomplishments he was still “most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines.”[25]
After returning from Vietnam, Mueller was briefly stationed at Henderson Hall, before leaving active-duty service in August 1970 [31] at the rank of captain.[31]
After serving as a partner at the Boston law firm of Hill and Barlow, Mueller returned to government service. In 1989, he served in the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburghand as acting Deputy Attorney General. James Baker, with whom he worked on national security matters, said he had “an appreciation for the Constitution and the rule of law”.[34]:33–34
In 1993, Mueller became a partner at Boston’s Hale and Dorr, specializing in white-collar crime litigation.[24] He returned to public service in 1995 as senior litigator in the homicide section of the District of Columbia United States Attorney’s Office. In 1998, Mueller was named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California and held that position until 2001.[12]
Federal Bureau of Investigation
PresidentGeorge W. Bush nominated Mueller for the position of FBI director on July 5, 2001.[37] He and two other candidates, Washington lawyer George J. Terwilliger III and veteran Chicago prosecutor and white-collar crime defense lawyer Dan Webb, were up for the job, but Mueller, described at the time as a conservative Republican,[38][39] was always considered the front-runner.[40] Terwilliger and Webb both pulled out from consideration around mid-June, while confirmation hearings for Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee were quickly set for July 30, only three days before his prostate cancer surgery.[41][42]
Official portrait, circa 2001
The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.[43] He had previously served as acting deputy attorney general of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for several months before officially becoming the FBI director on September 4, 2001, just one week before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.[12]
On February 11, 2003, one month before the U.S.-ledinvasion of Iraq, Mueller gave testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mueller informed the American public that “[s]even countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans. As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powellpresented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material.”[44][45]Highlighting this worry in February 2003, FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley wrote an open letter to Mueller in which she warned that “the bureau will [not] be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq”[46][47] and encouraged Mueller to “share [her concerns] with the President and Attorney General.”[47]
On March 10, 2004, while United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft was at the George Washington University Hospital for gallbladder surgery,[48]James Comey, the then deputy attorney general, received a call from Ashcroft’s wife informing him that White House Chief of StaffAndrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were about to visit Ashcroft to convince him to renew a program of warrantless wiretapping under the Terrorist Surveillance Program which the DOJ ruled unconstitutional.[48] Ashcroft refused to sign, as he had previously agreed, but the following day the White House renewed the program anyway.[48] Mueller and Comey then threatened to resign.[49] On March 12, 2004, after private, individual meetings with Mueller and Comey at the White House, the president supported changing the program to satisfy the concerns of Mueller, Ashcroft, and Comey.[34]:289–290[49]
President Bush is presented with an honorary FBI Special Agent credential, 2008
He was inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame in 2004.[31][50]
As director, Mueller also barred FBI personnel from participating in enhanced interrogations with the CIA.[51][52] At a dinner, Mueller defended an attorney (Thomas Wilner) who had been attacked for his role in defending Kuwaiti detainees. Mueller stood up, raised his glass, and said, “I toast Tom Wilner. He’s doing what an American should.” However, the White House pushed back, encouraging more vigorous methods of pursuing and interrogating terror suspects. When Bush confronted Mueller to ask him to round up more terrorists in the U.S., Mueller responded, saying, “If they [suspects] don’t commit a crime, it would be difficult to identify and isolate” them. Vice President Dick Cheney objected, by saying, “That’s just not good enough. We’re hearing this too much from the FBI.”[34]:157, 205, 270
In May 2011, President Barack Obama asked Mueller to continue at the helm of the FBI for two additional years beyond his normal 10-year term, which would have expired on September 4, 2011.[53] The Senate approved this request 100–0 on July 27, 2011.[54][55] On September 4, 2013, Mueller was replaced by James Comey.[56]
In June 2013, Mueller defended NSAsurveillance programs in testimony before a House Judiciary Committee hearing.[57] He said that surveillance programs could have “derailed” the September 11 attacks.[58][59] Congressman John Conyers disagreed: “I am not persuaded that that makes it OK to collect every call.”[59] Mueller also testified that the government’s surveillance programs complied “in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution”.[60] He said that “We are taking all necessary steps to hold Edward Snowden responsible for these disclosures.”[61]
On June 19, 2017, in the case of Arar v. Ashcroft, Mueller, along with Ashcroft and former Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner James W. Ziglar and others, was shielded from civil liability by the Supreme Court for post-9/11 detention of Muslims under policies then brought into place.[62]
Return to private sector
Mueller at the White House in April 2013, discussing the Boston Marathon bombing, with (from left) President Obama, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of CIA John O. Brennan, and Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
After leaving the FBI in 2013, Mueller served a one-year term as consulting professor and the Arthur and Frank Payne distinguished lecturer at Stanford University, where he focused on issues related to cybersecurity.[63]
In addition to his speaking and teaching roles, Mueller also joined the law firm WilmerHale as a partner in its Washington office in 2014.[64] Among other roles at the firm, he oversaw the independent investigation into the NFL‘s conduct surrounding the video that appeared to show NFL player Ray Rice assaulting his fiancée.[65] In January 2016, he was appointed as Settlement Master in the U.S. consumer litigation over the Volkswagen emissions scandal; as of May 11, 2017, the scandal has resulted in $11.2 billion in customer settlements.[66]
On October 19, 2016, Mueller began an external review of “security, personnel, and management processes and practices” at government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton after Harold T. Martin III was indicted for massive data theft from the National Security Agency.[67] On April 6, 2017, he was appointed as Special Master for disbursement of $850 million and $125 million for automakers and consumers, respectively, affected by rupture-prone Takata airbags.[68]
“Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election and Related Matters”, by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
On May 16, 2017, Mueller met with President Trump as a courtesy to provide perspectives on the FBI and input on considerations for hiring a new FBI Director.[71] This meeting was initially widely reported to have been an interview to serve again as the FBI Director.[72] President Trump broached resuming the position in their meeting; however, Mueller was ineligible to return as FBI Director due to statutory term limits, nor did Mueller have interest in resuming the position.[71]
The next day, Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversaw the investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.[73]
Mueller’s appointment to oversee the investigation immediately garnered widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.[74][75]Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and prominent conservative political commentator, stated via Twitter that “Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.”[76] Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) said, “Former Director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.” Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) stated, “former FBI dir. Mueller is well qualified to oversee this probe”.[74] Some, however, pointed out an alleged conflict of interest. “The federal code could not be clearer—Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks (R–AZ), who first called for Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement to Fox News. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”[77]
Upon his appointment as special counsel, Mueller and two colleagues (former FBI agent Aaron Zebley[78] and former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution ForceJames L. Quarles III) resigned from WilmerHale.[79] On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts announced they had declared Mueller ethically able to function as special counsel.[80] The spokesperson for the special counsel, Peter Carr, told NBC Newsthat Mueller has taken an active role in managing the inquiry.[81] In an interview with the Associated Press, Rosenstein said he would recuse himself from supervision of Mueller if he were to become a subject in the investigation due to his role in the dismissal of James Comey.[82]
On June 14, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Mueller’s office is also investigating Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice, in reference to the Russian probe.[83] The report was questioned by Trump’s legal team attorney Jay Sekulow, who said on June 18 on NBC‘s Meet the Press, “The President is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction, period.”[84] Due to the central role of the Trump family in the campaign, the transition, and the White House, the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also reportedly under scrutiny by Mueller.[85] Also in June, Trump allegedly ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, but backed down when then-White House Counsel Don McGahnthreatened to quit.[86]
During a discussion about national security at the Aspen security conference on July 21, 2017, former CIA directorJohn Brennan reaffirmed his support for Mueller and called for members of Congress to resist if Trump fires Mueller. He also said it was “the obligation of some executive-branch officials to refuse to carry out some of these orders that, again, are inconsistent with what this country is all about”.[87] After Peter Strzok, an investigator for Mueller, was removed from the investigation for alleged partiality, Senator Mark Warner, the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a speech on December 20, 2017, before the Senate warned of a constitutional crisis if the President fired Mueller.[88] On June 22, 2018, Warner hosted a fundraising party for 100 guests and was quoted there saying, “If you get me one more glass of wine, I’ll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you’ve seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild couple of months.”[89]
On October 30, 2017, Mueller filed charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign co-chairman Rick Gates. The 12 charges include conspiracy to launder money, violations of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and conspiracy against the United States.[90]
On December 1, 2017, Mueller reached a plea agreement with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to giving false testimony to the FBI about his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.[91]As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, was not expected to be charged, and Flynn was prepared to testify that high-level officials on Trump’s team directed him to make contact with the Russians.[92][93][94] On February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian individuals and 3 Russian companies for attempting to trick Americans into consuming Russian propaganda that targeted Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton[95] and later President-elect Donald Trump.[96]
On February 20, 2018, Mueller charged attorney Alex van der Zwaan with making false statements in the Russia probe.[97][98][99]
On May 20, 2018, Trump criticized Mueller, tweeting “the World’s most expensive Witch Hunt has found nothing on Russia & me so now they are looking at the rest of the World!”[100] Mueller started investigating the August 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary for the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The emissary offered help to the Trump presidential campaign.[101][100] Mueller is also investigating the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Turkey, Qatar, Israel, and China.[102]
On December 18, 2018, the Washington Post published an article concerning a report prepared for the U.S. Senate which stated that Russian disinformation teams had targeted Mueller.[103]
On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and submitted the Special Counsel’s final report to Attorney General William Barr.[104] A senior Department of Justice official said that the report did not recommend any new indictments.[8] On March 24, Attorney General Barr submitted a summary of findings to the United States Congress. He stated in his letter, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russian in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Mueller’s report also reportedly did not take a stance on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice; Barr quoted Mueller as saying “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”[105]
On May 29, 2019, Mueller announced that he was retiring as special counsel and that the office would be shut down, and he spoke publicly about the report for the first time.[106] Saying “The report is my testimony,” he indicated he would have nothing to say that wasn’t already in the report. On the subject of obstruction of justice, he said “under long-standing Department [of Justice] policy, a president cannot be charged with a crime while he is in office.”[107]He repeated his official conclusion that the report neither accused nor exonerated the president, while adding that any potential wrongdoing by a president must be addressed by a “process other than the criminal justice system”.[108] Mueller reasserted the involvement of Russian operatives in the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and their parallel efforts to influence American public opinion using social media.[107] Referring to those actions, he declared that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”[109]
Robert Mueller was initially scheduled to publicly testify before two House committees on July 17, 2019, with two hours for lawmakers to ask questions, but the hearing was postponed to July 24 with a third hour added for questions.[110] His verbal testimony is expected to help inform the public—Democrats believe most Americans have not read the report—and to help Democratic leadership finally decide whether or not to impeach the President.[111]In particular, the Democrats aim to highlight what they consider to be the worst examples of Trump’s conduct. Representative Jamie Raskin from Maryland said he would use visual aids, such as posters, to help people understand the implications of the Mueller report.[112] Republicans, on the other hand, plan to question Mueller on the origins of this investigation.[113]
In 2001, Mueller’s Senate confirmation hearings to head the FBI were delayed several months while he underwent treatment for prostate cancer.[120] He was diagnosed in the fall of 2000, postponing being sworn in as FBI director until he received a good prognosis from his physician.[121]
Mueller and William Barr—the attorney general who supervised the late stage of Mueller’s special counsel investigation—have known each other since the 1980s and have been described as good friends. Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters, and their wives attend Bible study together.[123]
Military awards
Mueller received the following military awards and decorations:[30]
.jpg)
.png){kind=small}
The Pronk Pops Show 1300, August 1, 2019, Story 1: Story 1: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2 — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote Me and I Will Give You Free Stuff — Take Away Your Employer and Union Provided Health Care Insurance and Replace It With Socialized Medicine — Medicare For All — Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Citizenship and Free Health Insurance and Open Borders With No Border Barrier and Abolish ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement — American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Result: Trump Wins in A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Comments To Big Lie Media — Videos — Student 3: Federal Reserve As Expected Reduces Federal Funds Rate By 25 Basis Points to 2.0-2.25% –Videos
Posted on August 2, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Anthropology, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, City, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corey Booker, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Killing, Kirsten Gillibrand, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Pete Buttigieg, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Psychology, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Sciences, Social Security, Sociology, Spying on American People, Subversion, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Fraud, Tax Policy, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: 1 August 2019, America, American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS), Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2, Easy Monetary Policy, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Federal Reserve As Expected Reduces Federal Funds Rate By 25 Basis Points to 2.0-2.25%, Federal Reserve cuts Federal Funds Target Rate by .25%, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens In U.S. Citizenship And Free Health Insurance, Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens In U.S. Citizenship And Free Health Insurance And Open Borders With No Border Barrier And Abolish ICE Or Immigration, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Joe Biden Attacked, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Medicare for All, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Donald J. Trump, President Trump Comments To Big Lie Media, Prosperity, Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS), Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Result: Trump Wins In A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Santa Claus Socialism, Second Democrat Party Presidential Debate Day 2, Show Notes, Take Away Your Employer And Union Provided Health Care Insurance And Replace It With Socialized Medicine, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1300, Trump Press Comments, Truth, Tulsi Gabbard, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, Vote Me And I Will Give You Free Stuff, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1282 June 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1281 June 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1280 June 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1279 June 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1278 June 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1277 June 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1276 June 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1275 June 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1274 June 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1273 June 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1272 June 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1271 June 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1270 June 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1269 June 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1268 June 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1267 May 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1266 May 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1265 May 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1264 May 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1263 May 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1262 May 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1261 May 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1260 May 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1259 May 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019
Story 1: Democrat Destruction Derby Debate 2, Day 2 — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote Me and I Will Give You Free Stuff — Take Away Your Employer and Union Provided Health Care Insurance and Replace It With Socialized Medicine — Medicare For All — Give All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. Citizenship and Free Health Insurance and Open Borders With No Border Barrier and Abolish ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement — American People Betrayed By Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Result: Trump Wins in A Landslide With A Message That Resonates With American People — Videos
Watch Democratic Debate Highlights In Detroit 2019 Night 2 | Second Half
Democratic Presidential Debate Round 2 Day 1 Highlights | NBC New York
Watch the 9 minutes that has America searching Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard rips Kamala Harris’ record on criminal prosecutions
Cory Booker to Biden: You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and don’t even know the flavor
Ari Fleischer: Democrat debates have been a display of losing ideas
CNN Democratic debate night 2
By Veronica Rocha, Meg Wagner, Amanda Wills and Elise Hammond, CNN
[The race is fluid, and other things we learned from the July Democratic debates.]
Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.
These criteria could easily halve the field: The first two sets of debates included 20 of the 24 candidates, but a New York Times analysis of polls and donor numbers shows that only 10 to 12 candidates are likely to make the third round.
Seven candidates have already met both qualification thresholds and are guaranteed a spot on stage. They are:
■ Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
■ Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
■ Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.
■ Senator Kamala Harris of California
■ Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas
■ Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
■ Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.
Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).
We asked all three of their campaigns to provide donor numbers so we could assess where they stood. Ms. Gabbard had just under 114,000 donors as of Wednesday night. A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said he was “on track to collect the required number of donors to make the September debate stage” but did not give a number. Mr. Hickenlooper’s campaign did not respond, but Politico reported a month ago that he had only 13,000 donors.
The other 11 candidates in the race have no qualifying polls to their name, and they all went into this week’s debates seeking a viral moment that would attract new donors and lift them, even briefly, in the polls.
The qualification rules do not require enduring support. Even a small post-debate surge could push a 1 percent candidate up to 2 percent in the small handful of polls he or she needs.
But for those who have not qualified, the Aug. 28 deadline is an existential threat. Candidates like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York or Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington could be washed out of the race if they don’t get momentum from this week’s debates. And if you’re wondering whether they’re anxious, the answer is yes.
Ms. Gabbard’s campaign calculated at one point that she needed a new donor every minute to reach 130,000 by the Aug. 28 deadline, so if you go to her website, a timer next to the donation button begins counting down 60 seconds. Then the text changes.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/only-7-candidates-have-qualified-for-the-next-democratic-debate/ar-AAFbiYl
Story 2: President Trump Comments To Big Lie Media — Videos
Trump comments on US-China tensions, upcoming Ohio rally
Student 3: Federal Reserve As Expected Reduces Federal Funds Rate By 25 Basis Points to 2.00%-2.25% As Economic Growth Slows Down – -Videos
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell holds news conference on interest rates | USA TODAY
Federal Reserve Lowers Interest Rates
Federal Reserve lowers interest rates
The Federal Reserve cuts rates by a quarter point
What the Fed interest rate cut means for your wallet
Fed cuts interest rates for first time since financial crisis
Trump tariffs torpedo stock market
Donald Trump rages against the Federal Reserve as it cuts interests rates by 0.25% but signals it WON’T slash them more as he has demanded – in move which sends shares plunging
By DAVID MARTOSKO, U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 14:13 EDT, 31 July 2019 | UPDATED: 19:56 EDT, 31 July 2019
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Donald Trump unleashed on the Federal Reserve Wednesday afternoon after it made its first interest rate cut in more than a decade saying it was not ‘much help’ after the bank’s chairman signaled the move was a one-off reduction.
Jerome Powell sent share prices plunging as he called the 0.25 per cent cut in the key interest rate a ‘mid-cycle adjustment’ and talked down the chances of more cuts following.
The Dow Jones fell by 400 points as Powell signaled at a press conference in Washington D.C. that the cut was a one-off.
The Dow closed down 333 points and both the NASDAQ and S&P 500 lost 1% of their value.
Trump used the market fall to make his case that Powell and his board should have started an ‘agressive’ series of rate cuts.
‘What the Market wanted to hear from Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve was that this was the beginning of a lengthy and aggressive rate-cutting cycle which would keep pace with China, The European Union and other countries around the world.
‘As usual, Powell let us down, but at least he is ending quantitative tightening, which shouldn’t have started in the first place – no inflation. We are winning anyway, but I am certainly not getting much help from the Federal Reserve!’
Trump had gone all-in on a call for a 0.5 per cent reduction to stimulate the U.S. economy. ‘The Fed has made all of the wrong moves. A small rate cut is not enough, but we will win anyway!’ he had tweeted on Monday.
Explanation time: Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, outlined why it had cut interest rates – as the markets reacted in real time with a sell-off which reached as much as 400 points wiped off the Dow in the course of his press conference
How markets reacted: The Dow Jones closed 333 points down in a sign of concern that the rate cut was effectively a one-off – not the stimulus Trump has demanded
President Donald Trump had all but demanded a rate-slashing, but predicted that the Fed wouldn’t do ‘enough’ to stimulate the U.S. economy. He had heaped pressure on Jerome Powell, his own appointment as chairman, to cut the cost of borrowing.
It voted that the new benchmark interest rate will fall between 2 per cent and 2.25 per cent. The Fed’s board had voted nine times since 2015 to increase it.
Eight of the Fed’s 10 board members voted to trim the short-term benchmark rate. The other two argued for leaving it as-is.
Powell, speaking in a news conference after the release of the Fed statement, characterized the rate cut as ‘a mid-cycle adjustment to policy,’ comments that do not imply sharp further cuts are on the way.
Among his messages at the press conference in Washington D.C. were that job growth was slowing and that trade tensions were bad for the economy’s outlook – but he repeatedly talked up the strength of the economy.
Explaining the cut, Powell cited global weakness and a desire to boost too-low inflation in explaining the central bank’s decision to lower borrowing costs for the first time since 2008 and move up plans to stop winnowing its massive bond holdings.
Financial markets had widely expected the Fed to reduce its key overnight lending rate by a quarter of a percentage point to a target range of 2.00% to 2.25%, but many traders expected a clearer confirmation of forthcoming rate cuts.
Instead Powell’s message was taken to mean that rates will stay where they are, prompting shares to fall.
And the value of the dollar up against other currencies, which will further anger Trump who had wanted it to fall to boost exports.
The rate cut means that consumers will find in the coming months that interest rates will fall for long-term fixed mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.
That can mean significant household savings, which Americans typically pour back into the U.S. economy through higher spending.
For those few who save their winnings in the periodic Fed lottery, however, interest rates for bank savings accounts will also likely fall.
Mortgage rates were already sliding downward before the Fed met, due to other economic factors.
Even with Wednesday’s cut, the Fed’s principal interest rate is the highest in years. But by historical standards it’s still low.
A policy statement appeared to leave the door open for the Fed to cut rates again in September as it ‘contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate.’
‘In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate,’ the U.S. central bank said.
But Powell’s lengthy press conference appeared to close the door on that.
Wednesday’s cut is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Economic indicators: Interest rates remain at historically low levels, while unemployment is at the lowest point since Nixon was president.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Jerome Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
U.S. economic data continues to be mixed, despite Trump’s frequent claims that he presides over a miraculous resurgence.
The unemployment rate is nearing a low point not seen in America since Richard Nixon was president and stock markets have hit repeated new records
But the nation’s manufacturing economy, which Trump promised to revitalize, has stalled in the past two quarters, and the growth of America’s economy is growing at 2.1 per cent per year – slower than the president has predicted.
The move is seen as an early bid to prevent a downturn in the U.S. economy that forecasters say will result from Trump’s trade war with China.
Uncertainties in global markets have paralyzed some businesses, starting what could soon be a global slowdown.
The Fed’s statement said that the U.S. labor market ‘remains strong,’ and that the domestic economy is continuing to grow ‘at a moderate rate.’ Overall inflation is running below 2 per cent.
Trump griped on July 22 that the federal funds rate, which determines how much banks – and, by extension, consumers – pay to borrow money, continued to be too high.
‘With almost no inflation, our Country is needlessly being forced to pay a MUCH higher interest rate than other countries only because of a very misguided Federal Reserve,’ he wrote then in a tweet.
On Monday he added that the Fed had previously hiked rates ‘way too early and way too much.’
Trump believes that other countries are more adept at managing the money supplies that move in and out of their financial systems, and in keeping the interest rates that drive borrowing and bond trading flexible.
He has grown increasingly impatient with Fed chairman Powell, who he believes he can replace at will.
‘I have the right to demote him. I have the right to fire him,’ the president said last month, cautioning that he had ‘never suggested’ doing so.
Any move to oust Powell would likely touch off a legal fight with major repercussions in financial markets as greater uncertainties spook traders.
WHY WE CUT INTEREST RATES FOR FIRST TIME IN A DECADE: WHAT THE FED SAID IN FULL TO EXPLAIN ITS MOVE
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the labor market remains strong and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate.
Job gains have been solid, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low.
Although growth of household spending has picked up from earlier in the year, growth of business fixed investment has been soft.
On a 12-month basis, overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy are running below 2 percent.
Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability.
In light of the implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 to 2-1/4 percent.
This action supports the Committee’s view that sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective are the most likely outcomes, but uncertainties about this outlook remain.
As the Committee contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate, it will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its maximum employment objective and its symmetric 2 percent inflation objective.
This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
The Committee will conclude the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings in the System Open Market Account in August, two months earlier than previously indicated.
Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michelle W. Bowman; Lael Brainard; James Bullard; Richard H. Clarida; Charles L. Evans; and Randal K. Quarles.
Voting against the action were Esther L. George and Eric S. Rosengren, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 percent.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7307165/Federal-Reserve-cuts-rates-0-25-reduction-2008.html
Federal Open Market Committee
About the FOMC
FOMC Search
FOMC calendar
Recent FOMC press conference
July 31, 2019
Play Video
Accessible Keys for Video
[Space Bar]toggles play/pause;
[Right/Left Arrows]seeks the video forwards and back (5 sec );
[Up/Down Arrows]increase/decrease volume;
[M]toggles mute on/off;
[F]toggles fullscreen on/off (Except IE 11);
The [Tab]key may be used in combination with the [Enter/Return]key to navigate and activate control buttons, such as caption on/off.
Press Conference Materials
Opening Statement (PDF)
FOMC Transcripts and other historical materials
FAQs
The term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.
Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.
Structure of the FOMC
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.
For more detail on the FOMC and monetary policy, see section 2 of the brochure on the structure of the Federal Reserve Systemand chapter 2 of Purposes & Functions of the Federal Reserve System. FOMC Rules and Authorizations are also available online.
2019 Committee Members
Alternate Members
Federal Reserve Bank Rotation on the FOMC
Committee membership changes at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the year.
Cleveland
Philadelphia
Dallas
Minneapolis
Chicago
Richmond
Atlanta
San Francisco
Cleveland
Boston
St. Louis
Kansas City
Members
Chicago
Richmond
Atlanta
San Francisco
Cleveland
Boston
St. Louis
Kansas City
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
Minneapolis
†For the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the First Vice President is the alternate for the President. Return to table
For additional information, please use the FOMC FOIA request form.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm
Federal Open Market Committee
Meeting calendars, statements, and minutes (2014-2019)
FOMC Search
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings during the year and other meetings as needed. Links to policy statements and minutes are in the calendars below. The minutes of regularly scheduled meetings are released three weeks after the date of the policy decision. Committee membership changes at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the year.
FOIA
The FOMC makes an annual report pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The FOMC FOIA Service Center provides information about the status of FOIA requests and the FOIA process.
2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014
Next year: 2020
2019 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Press Conference
Longer-Run Goals and Policy Strategy
Statement Regarding Monetary Policy Implementation and Balance Sheet Normalization
PDF | HTML
(Released February 20, 2019)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTMLBalance Sheet Normalization Principles and Plans
PDF | HTML
(Released April 10, 2019)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Press Conference
PDF | HTML
(Released May 22, 2019)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released July 10, 2019)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Press Conference
2018 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released February 21, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released April 11, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released May 23, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released July 05, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released August 22, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released October 17, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released November 29, 2018)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released January 09, 2019)
2017 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released February 22, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released April 05, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released May 24, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
Addendum to the Policy Normalization Principles and Plans
PDF | HTML
(Released July 05, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released August 16, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released October 11, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released November 22, 2017)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released January 03, 2018)
2016 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released February 17, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released April 06, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released May 18, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released July 06, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released August 17, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released October 12, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
PDF | HTML
(Released November 23, 2016)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released January 04, 2017)
2015 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
(Released February 18, 2015)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released April 08, 2015)
PDF | HTML
(Released May 20, 2015)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released July 08, 2015)
PDF | HTML
(Released August 19, 2015)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released October 08, 2015)
PDF | HTML
(Released November 18, 2015)
PDF | HTML
Implementation Note
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released January 06, 2016)
2014 FOMC Meetings
PDF | HTML
(Released February 19, 2014)
Minutes: See end of minutes of March 18-19 meeting
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released April 09, 2014)
PDF | HTML
(Released May 21, 2014)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released July 09, 2014)
PDF | HTML
(Released August 20, 2014)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
Policy Normalization Principles and Plans
PDF | HTML
(Released October 08, 2014)
PDF | HTML
(Released November 19, 2014)
Projection Materials
PDF | HTML
PDF | HTML
(Released January 07, 2015)
2020 FOMC Meetings
Note: A two-day meeting is scheduled for January 26-27, 2021. Each meeting date is tentative until confirmed at the meeting immediately preceding it.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9