Story 1: Department of Justice Will Not Prosecute Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe — When are U.S. Attorney John Durham Indictments Coming Down for Illegally Syping on Trump Campaign? — Summer or 12th of Never — Will Justice Be Done — Videos
FBI Director Confirms to Ratcliffe that FBI Illegally Surveilled Trump Campaign Associate
Feb 10, 2020
Gohmert in Judiciary Hearing on FBI Oversight: “This is Serious”
Hannity: Democrats’ unequal standard of justice exposed
Trish Regan: Andrew McCabe walking free is ‘a total injustice’
Gaetz: An old FBI business card isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card’
Feb 14, 2020
Trump notably quiet on DOJ decision not to prosecute Andrew McCabe
Bannon: GOP has to subpoena John Brennan, Adam Schiff
Feb 8, 2020
DOJ Declines To Prosecute Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC
‘General Flynn was set up’: KT McFarland
IG report hearing part 4: Lindsey Graham questions Michael Horowitz
Dec 11, 2019
Cruz on spying: This wasn’t Jason Bourne, this was ‘Beavis and Butt-head’
Dec 11, 2019
Tom Fitton: Why is the DOJ Editing “302” Interviews They Had With General Flynn?
Sebastian Gorka Radio: Trust Bill Barr and John Durham. Matt Whitaker with Sebastian Gorka
Hans von Spakovsky: CIA Director Haspel is Obligated to Comply with the Durham Investigation
Spygate Indictments Coming, Says Former Intelligence Operative Tony Shaffer
Aug 10, 2019
Fitton: Ohr 302s show ‘disturbing’ desperation to oust Trump
Aug 9, 2019
Tucker Carlson – Trump’s Claims of Spying
May 13, 2019
Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign?
May 22, 2018
FBI Trump campaign spying allegations: How much did Obama know?
May 21, 2018
Roger Stone reacts to reports FBI spied on Trump campaign
May 17, 2018
DiGenova: Comey, Clapper and Brennan will have to pay the ‘Barr bill’
May 14, 2019
Watch Barr double down on Trump spying claims in heated exchange
FBI chief: No evidence of spying on Trump campaign
Barr: ‘I think spying did occur’ on Trump campaign
Apr 10, 2019
Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges
Feb 7, 2018
Should Obama be investigated over Trump wiretapping claims?
Mar 31, 2017
Former FBI agent says his privacy was violated by Justice Dept.
AG Barr appoints outside prosecutor to review Michael Flynn case
Should officials who started the Russia probe be worrying?
Russia origins probe now a criminal investigation
Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges
The proof that he willfully deceived investigators appears strong, but the Justice Department likely felt there were too many obstacles to convicting him.
TheĀ Justice Department announced Friday that it is closing itsĀ investigation of Andrew McCabe, the FBIās former deputy director, over his false statements to investigators probing an unauthorized leak that McCabe had orchestrated. McCabe was fired in March 2018, shortly after a blistering Justice Department inspector general (IG)Ā reportĀ concluded that he repeatedly and blatantly lied ā or, as the Bureau lexicon puts it, ālacked candorā ā when questioned, including under oath.
I emphasize Flynnās intent because purported lack of intent is McCabeās principal defense, too.Ā Even McCabe himself, to say nothing of his lawyers and his apologists in the anti-Trump network of bureaucrats-turned-pundits, cannot deny that he made false statements to FBI agents and the IG. Rather, they argue that the 21-year senior law-enforcement official did not mean to lie, that he was too distracted by his high-level responsibilities to focus on anything as mundane as a leak ā even though he seemed pretty damned focused on the leak while he was orchestrating it.
It will be a while before we learn the whole story of why the Justice Department walked away from the McCabe case, if we ever do. I have some supposition to offer on that score. First, however, it is worth revisiting the case against McCabe as outlined by the meticulous and highly regarded IG, Michael Horowitz. If you want to know why people are so angry, and why they are increasingly convinced that, for all President Trumpās ādrain the swampā rhetoric, a two-tiered justice system that rewards the well-connected is alive and well, consider the following.
In fact, the Bureauās then-director, James Comey, had tried to keep the Clinton Foundation probe under wraps, refusing to confirm or deny its existence even to the House Judiciary Committee. Comey had been right to stay mum: Public revelation would have harmed the probe and thrust the FBI deeper into the politics of the then-imminent 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate and her investigation by the Bureau was an explosive campaign issue.
Notwithstanding these concerns, according to Horowitzās report, McCabe orchestrated the leak āto advance his personal interestsā ā to paint himself in a favorable light in comparison to Justice Department officials amid an internal dispute about the Clinton Foundation probe (specifically, about theĀ Obama Justice Departmentās pressure on the Bureau to drop it). As the IG put it: āMcCabeās disclosure was an attempt to make himself look good by making senior department leadership . . . look bad.ā
McCabeās account has been contradicted by Comey, a witness who is otherwise sympathetic to him and hostile to the Trump Justice Department, and whose actions ā like his ā are being examined in prosecutor John Durhamās probe of the Trump-Russia investigation. Comeyās testimony is directly at odds with McCabeās version of events, and the IG painstakingly explained why the former directorās version was credible while his deputyās was not. (Comey was, nevertheless, exceedingly complimentary of McCabeĀ after the IG report was published.)
Page is regarded by McCabe backers as key to his defense. SheĀ reportedly told the grand juryĀ that, because McCabe had authority to approve media disclosures, he hadĀ no motive to lieĀ about the leak. Thatās laughable. McCabe did serially mislead investigators, so plainly he had some reason for doing so. But even putting that aside, the IGās conclusion was not that McCabe lacked authority to leak; it was that he lacked a public-interest justification for exercising that authority. He leaked for self-promotion purposes, and then he lied about it because it was humiliating to be caught putting his personal interests ahead of the Bureauās investigative integrity. That said, Pageās account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: Itās tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant. (Oh, and have you seenĀ Pageās tweet toasting McCabeĀ in the aftermath of the news that the DOJ had closed the investigation?)
McCabeās Multiple False Statements
BarrettāsĀ JournalĀ article appeared on October 30, 2016. The very next day, McCabe deceived Comey about it, indicating that he had not authorized the leak and had no idea who its source was. In Comeyās telling, credited by the IG, McCabe ādefinitelyā did not acknowledge that he had approved the leak.
Thereafter, the FBIās Inspection Division (INSD) opened an investigation of the leak. On May 9, 2017, McCabe denied to two INSD investigators that he knew the source of the leak. This was not a fleeting conversation. McCabe was placed under oath, and the INSD agents provided him with a copy of Barrettās article. He read it and initialed it to acknowledge that he had done so. He was questioned about it by the agents, who took contemporaneous notes. McCabe told the agents that he had āno idea where [the leaked information] came fromā or āwho the source was.ā
On July 28, 2017, McCabe was interviewed by the IGās office ā under oath and recorded on tape. In that session, he preposterously claimed to be unaware that Page, his FBI counsel, was directed to speak to reporters around the time of the October 30Ā JournalĀ report. McCabe added that he was out of town then, and thus unaware of what Page had been up to. In point of fact, McCabe had consulted closely with Page about the leak. A paper trail of their texts and phone contacts evinced his keen interest in Pageās communications with Barrett. Consequently, the IG concluded that McCabeās denials were ādemonstrably false.ā
Clearly concerned about the hole he had dug for himself, McCabe called the IGās office four days later, on August 1, 2017, to say that, shucks, come to think of it, he just might have kinda, sorta told Page to speak with Barrett after all. He might even have told her to coordinate with Mike Kortan, then the Bureauās top media liaison, and follow-up with theĀ JournalĀ aboutĀ some of its prior reporting.
As the IG observed, this āattempt to correct his prior false testimonyā was the āappropriateā thing for McCabe to do. Alas, when he was given an opportunity to come in and explain himself, he compounded his misconduct by making more false statements while under oath: In an interview with investigators on November 29, 2017, McCabe purported to recall informing Comey that he, McCabe,Ā hadĀ authorized the leak, and that Comey had responded that the leak was a good idea.
These were quite stunning recollections, given that the deputy director had previously disclaimed any knowledge about the source of the leak. But McCabe took care of that little hiccup by simply denying his prior denial. That is, he insisted that he had not feigned ignorance about the leak when INSD interviewed him on May 9. Indeed, McCabe even denied that the May 9 interview had been a real interview. To the contrary, he claimed that agents had casually pulled him aside at the conclusion of a meeting on an unrelated topic, and peppered him out of the blue with a question or two about theĀ JournalĀ leak. As General Flynn could tell you, that sort of thing can be tough on a busy top U.S. government official . . . although Flynn did not get much sympathy for it when McCabe was running the FBI.
Again, the IG concluded that McCabeās version of events was ādemonstrably false.ā
McCabe Covers His Tracks
As an old trial lawyer, Iād be remiss if I failed to rehearse my favorite part of the IGās report ā the part that would tell a jury everything they needed to know about good olā Andy McCabe.
Again, theĀ JournalĀ story generated by McCabeās leak was published on October 30, a Sunday. Late that afternoon, McCabe called the head of the FBIās Manhattan office. Why? Well . . . to ream him out over media leaks, thatās why. McCabe railed that New York agents must be the culprits. He also made a similar call to the Bureauās Washington field office, warning its chief to āget his house in orderā and stop these terribly damaging leaks.
It is worth remembering McCabeās October 30 scolding of subordinates when you think about how he later claimed that, on the very next day, heād freely admitted to his superior, Comey, that he himself was the source of the leak. Quite the piece of work, this guy: To throw the scent off himself after carefully arranging the leak, McCabe dressed down the FBIās two premier field offices, knowing they were completely innocent, and then pretended for months that he knew nothing about the leak.
This is the second-highest-ranking officer of the nationās top law-enforcement agency weāre talking about, here.
The Non-Prosecution Decision
We may never get a satisfying explanation for the Justice Departmentās decision to drop the McCabe probe. Thatās the way it is when such complicated reasons and motives are at play.
The aforementioned challenge of hostile witnesses is not to be underestimated. In addition, there are growing indications that the Justice Department had lost confidence in the U.S. attorney who was overseeing the probe, Jesse Liu.Ā As I noted this week, while Liu was once seen as a rising Trump administration star, she was quietly edged out of her post last month, and the White House just pulled her nomination to fill an important Treasury Department post.
There have been rumblings that the McCabe investigation was botched. Kamil Shields, a prosecutor whoĀ reportedlyĀ grew frustrated by her supervisorsā inordinate delays in making decisions about the McCabe probe, ultimately left the Justice Department to take a private-practice job. Another prosecutor, David Kent, quit last summer as DOJ dithered over the decision on whether to prosecute. Things became so drawn out that the investigating grand juryās term lapsed. Meanwhile, the Justice Department endorsed Liuās aggressive decision to bring a thin, politically fraught false-statements case against former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig, in connection with lobbying for a foreign country ā the sort of crime that is rarely prosecuted.Ā Craig was swiftly acquitted. Reportedly,Ā Liu advocated charging McCabe, but the DOJ may have harbored doubts about her judgment.
No matter the outcome, the Justice Department stood to take some hits if McCabe had been charged. Focus on McCabeās leak would have drawn attention to pressure DOJ officials had put on the Bureau over the Clinton Foundation investigation (which,Ā reportedly, is likely to be closed without charges). It would also renew interest in the question of whether the FBI improperly allowed McCabe to play a role in Clinton-related investigations when his wife, as a political candidate, got major funding from Clinton-tied sources.
Moreover, new Freedom of Information Act disclosures ā made to meet a deadline set by District Judge Reggie Walton, which may explain the timing of the non-prosecution announcement ā indicate that the Justice Department and FBI did notĀ comply with regulationsĀ in what appears to be the rushed termination of McCabe, adding heft to the former deputy directorās claim that he was being singled out for abusive treatment, potentially including prosecution, because of vengeful politics.
On that score, Judge Walton took pains to decry the fusillade of tweets directed at McCabe by President Trump. I must note here that if a district U.S. attorney publicly labeled as a liar a suspect the Justice Department had indicted for false statements, that U.S. attorney would be sanctioned by the court. The U.S. attorneys, like the rest of the Justice Department, work for Trump. The president is correct when he insists,Ā as he did this week, that he has the constitutional power to intervene in Justice Department matters.Ā But that means he is subject to the same legal obligations that inhibit his Justice Department subordinates.Ā Those obligations include protecting McCabeās right to a fair trial ā a duty the president may chafe at, but which is part of the deal when you take an oath to preserve the Constitution and execute the laws faithfully.
If you envision Judge Walton as part of the Obama-appointed robed resistance, check your premises. He is a no-nonsense jurist originally named to the D.C. Superior Court by President Reagan, and then to the federal district court by President George W. Bush.Ā AsĀ PoliticoĀ reports, he had this to say about President Trumpās commentary on the McCabe investigation:
The public is listening to whatās going on, and I donāt think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. . . . I just think itās a banana republic when we go down that road. . . . I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undo inappropriate pressure being brought to bear. . . . Itās just, itās very disturbing that weāre in the mess that weāre in in that regard. . . . I just think the integrity of the process is being unduly undermined by inappropriate comments and actions on the part of people at the top of our government. . . . I think itās very unfortunate. And I think as a government and as a society weāre going to pay a price at some point for this.
If you want to know why Attorney General Barr was warning this week that the presidentās tweets are undermining the Justice Departmentās pursuit of its law-enforcement mission, Judge Waltonās words are worth heeding.Ā I have been making this point since the start of the Trump presidency. If you want people held accountable for their crimes, you have to ensure their fundamental right to due process. When the government poisons the well, the bad guys reap the benefits.
Finally, we must note that when the District of Columbia is the venue for any prosecution with political overtones, Justice Department charging decisions must factor in the jury pool, which is solidly anti-Trump.
The proof that McCabe willfully deceived investigators appears strong ā it is noteworthy that IG Horowitz, who has strained to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt in many dubious contexts, was unequivocal in slamming McCabe. Nevertheless, a D.C. jury would be weighing that evidence, as discounted by whatever pro-McCabe slant reluctant prosecution witnesses put on it. And the jury would be weighing against that evidence (a) whatever problems caused prosecutors at the U.S. attorneyās office to beg off, and more significantly, (b) defense arguments that McCabe would not have been fired or prosecuted if not for the fact that he had gotten crosswise with a president of the United States whom at least some of the jurors are apt to dislike.
McCabe is not out of the woods yet, of course: The Durham investigation is a separate matter, and it is continuing. But it is unclear whether he will face any criminal charges arising from that inquiry, whereas the now-dead-and-buried false-statements case against him looked cut-and-dried.
The FBIās former deputy director, though he undeniably misled investigators, remains a commentator at CNN. In the meantime, Papadopoulos is a felon convicted and briefly imprisoned for misleading investigators, while Flynn and Stone are awaiting sentencing on their false-statements charges. That covers both tiers of our justice system.
US wonāt charge ex-FBI official McCabe, a Trump target
By ERIC TUCKER and MICHAEL BALSAMOan hour ago
Ā In this June 7, 2017, file photo, then FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe listens during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) ā Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether the longtime target of President Donald Trumpās ire lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabeās legal team said Friday.
The decision, coming at the end of a tumultuous week between the Justice Department and the White House, is likely to further agitate a president who has loudly complained that federal prosecutors have pursued cases against his allies but not against his perceived political enemies.
The action resolves a criminal investigation that began nearly two years ago with a referral from the Justice Departmentās inspector generalās office, which concluded that McCabe had repeatedly lied about having authorized a subordinate to share information with a newspaper reporter for a 2016 article about an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The case was handled by the U.S. attorneyās office in Washington, which was at the center of a public rift with Justice Department leadership this week over the recommended sentence for Trump ally Roger Stone. Senior Justice Department officials overruled a decision on a recommended prison sentence that they felt was too harsh, prompting the trial team to quit the case. Attorney General William Barr also took a rare public swipe at Trump by saying in a television interview that the presidentās tweets about the Stone case and other matters were making his job āimpossible.ā
Separately, the Justice Department has begun reviewing the handling of the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.
On Friday, prosecutors notified McCabeās attorneys in a phone call and a letter that they were closing the case. The letter, signed by the chief of the officeās public corruption unit, did not give a precise reason but said the decision was reached after ācareful considerationā and ābased on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time.ā
McCabeās lawyers, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, said they were gratified by the decision.
āAt long last, justice has been done in this matter,ā the lawyers said in a statement. āWe said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought.ā
Speaking Friday on CNN, where he works as a contributor, McCabe said it was an āabsolute disgraceā that the investigation had taken so long and that he was relieved to be done with a process that he described as āso unbelievably tense.ā
Though federal prosecutors wrote that they consider the matter closed, Justice Department actions in the last few months have proven unpredictable, with a willingness to scrutinize or revisit decisions that had appeared resolved.
McCabe, a frequent target of Trumpās attacks, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing ā for what the Justice Department called ālack of candorā ā was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector generalās conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him.
The decision is likely to further exacerbate tensions between Trump and Barr, who before speaking out in the television interview had privately complained to aides and the president himself that Trumpās comments about the Justice Department were undercutting his political agenda and raising questions about the departmentās credibility. The White House was not given a heads-up about the decision beforehand, a person familiar with the matter said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
The moment came against a backdrop of growing anger from Trump at the Justice Department. The president has seethed that more of his political enemies have not been charged, included former FBI Director James Comey and his associates.
The president was particularly incensed no charges were filed over Comeyās handling of memos about his interactions with Trump, a matter that was referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, according to a White House official and Republican close to the White House who werenāt authorized to speak publicly about private discussions and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The president angrily denounced the decision and berated Barr over it, according to the officials. Aides expected that the decision not to charge McCabe could produce a similar eruption of rage. Trump did not address the matter during a media appearance Friday.
Trump has also repeatedly complained about FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months, saying he has not done enough to rid the bureau of people who are disloyal to Trump.
It was not immediately clear what had prompted a review of the Flynn case, though the person familiar with the matter said U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of St. Louis was working on it. The New York Times first reported Jensenās involvement.
The decision to spare McCabe criminal charges eliminates the prospect of a sensational trial that would have refocused public attention on the chaotic months of 2016, when the FBI was entangled in presidential politics through investigations touching both main contenders ā Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, her Republican opponent.
The criminal investigation arose from an October 2016 story in The Wall Street Journal that described internal debates roiling the FBI and the Justice Department weeks before the presidential election about how aggressively the Clinton Foundation should be investigated. The article recounted a particularly tense phone call between McCabe and a senior Justice Department official.
The inspector generalās report said McCabe told internal investigators that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to speak with the reporter and that he did not know who did. The report said McCabe ultimately corrected that account and confirmed that he had encouraged the conversation with the reporter to counter a narrative that he thought was false.
McCabe has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was distracted by the tumult surrounding the FBI and the White House during the times he was questioned. One of the interviews took place the same day that Comey was fired.
āDuring these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me,ā McCabe has said in a statement. āAnd when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.ā
McCabe has been a target of Trumpās attacks since even before he was elected, after news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabeās wife had accepted campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with ex-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe during an unsuccessful run for the state Senate there.
DOJ drops leak case vs. McCabe, judge said White House involvement like a ‘banana republic’
The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, said “the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted” was like a “banana republic.”
Andrew McCabe, acting director of the FBI, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington on May 11, 2017.Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
ByĀ Tom Winter and Dareh Gregorian
The Department of Justice has told lawyers for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that he will not face criminal charges for allegedly lying to investigators about a leak to the media, the ex-official’s attorneys said Friday.
The decision was released on the same day it was revealed that a federal judge had expressed concerns months ago that McCabe’s case was looking like a “banana republic” prosecution.
“We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client,ā J.P. Cooney of the U.S. Attorneyās Office in Washington, D.C., told McCabeās attorneys inĀ a letterĀ Friday. āBased on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time, we consider the matter closed.ā
McCabe’s lawyers Michael R. Bromwich and David Schertler responded in a statement, saying, “At long last, justice has been done in this matter.”
President Donald Trump had publicly urged that action be taken against McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who briefly became acting head of the agency after Trump fired James Comey in 2017.
“He LIED! LIED! LIED!” Trump wrote in one 2018 tweet about McCabe after the Justice Department’s inspector general found McCabe “lacked candor” when being interviewed about whether he was a source for two news articles pertaining to the FBI in 2016.
The Justice Department’s announcement came one day after Attorney General William BarrĀ pushed back against criticismĀ he’s using the department to do Trump’s bidding, and said Trump’s tweeting about his agency’s work was undercutting his authority.
“Public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity,” Barr, who was sworn in a year ago Friday, told ABC News.
McCabe told CNN on Friday that “the timing is curious” but he was relieved that the Justice Department “did the right thing today.”
“To have this horrific black cloud that’s been hanging over me and my family for almost the last two years, to have that finally lifted is just unbelievable,” he said. “It’s a relief that I’m not sure I can really explain to you adequately. It’s just a very emotional moment for my whole family.”
McCabe has denied intentionally misleading investigators. He told CNN that he has maintained from the day the inspector general’s report came out that if investigators “followed the law and they followed the facts, that I would have nothing to worry about. But as the president’s interest in pursuing his perceived political enemies continued over the last two years, we were getting more and more concerned about where this would end up.”
Those worries had increased in recent days, he told the network.
“I’ve been greatly concerned by what I’ve seen take place in the White House and in the Department of Justice, quite frankly, in the last week,” McCabe said. “And certainly the president’s kind ofĀ revenge tiradeĀ following his acquittal in the impeachment proceeding has only kind of amplified my concerns about what would happen in my own case.”
The Justice Department’s decision came the same day it was required by a judge to make details about the McCabe investigation public in a case stemming from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The court transcripts, released after the Justice Department’s letter to McCabe’s lawyers, show prosecutors struggling with how to proceed in his case, and the judge in the matter expressing concerns about political pressure
DOJ hits Huawei with NEW charges for ‘plotting to steal trade secrets’ from SIX US companies including Cisco and T-Mobile by ‘offering employees cash bounties and sending spy with farcical ‘Weihua’ badge to trade shows’
DoJ brought new charges against Huawei in indictment unsealed on ThursdayĀ
AccusesĀ Chinese tech giant of a deliberate ‘campaign’ to steal US trade secrets
Details bounties Huawei allegedly offered to staff to steal proprietary data
Describes brazen spy with ‘Weihua’ badge breaking into trade show booth
Though not named in indictment, Cisco and T-Mobile are among alleged victims
Feds also claim Huawei covered up secret subsidiary operating in Iran
CFO Meng Wanzhoua is still fighting extradition from Canada on Iran chargesĀ
The Department of Justice has announced new criminal charges against Huawei, accusing the Chinese tech giant of being engaged in a ‘decades-long’ effort to steal trade secrets from a slew of US companies.
The 16-count superseding indictment unsealed on Thursday adds RICO charges to the criminal case againstĀ Huawei and its CFO Meng Wanzhoua, who is currently fighting extradition in Canada.
The charges come in addition to previous criminal charges accusing Huawei and Wanzhoua of operating a secret subsidiary in Iran and lying to U.S. financial institutions about the violation of sanctions on that country.
The new charges detail a brazen decades-long scheme to steal trade secrets from at least six U.S. companies. Cisco and T-Mobile are among the alleged victims in the case, though the companies are not actually named in the new indictment.
Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei is seen with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015. US officials accuse the company of building a secret back door into its mobile network hardware
The new indictment alleges Huawei and two of its US subsidiaries – Huawei USA and Futurewei – ‘conspired to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)’ by stealing trade secrets.
Prosecutors say that in 2013, Huawei instituted a cash bounty program ‘to reward employees who obtained confidential information from competitors’ and that the more valuable the secrets were, the more the company paid out.
The indictment details a shocking incident from 2004, at a trade show in Chicago, where prosecutors say a Huawei employee was busted in the middle of the night while breaking into a competitor’s booth.
The employee was wearing a bogus badge identifying him as an employee of ‘Weihua’, which is the syllables of Huawei reversed, and was caught taking pictures of the interior circuit boards of a competitor’s product, according to the indictment.
A Huawei spokesman denied the allegations, saying that the indictment was ‘part of an attempt to irrevocably damage Huawei’s reputation and its business for reasons related to competition rather than law enforcement.’
The company called the racketeering accusation ‘nothing more than a contrived repackaging of a handful of civil allegations that are almost 20 years old.’
Huawei pleaded not guilty to the earlier indictment unsealed against the company in January 2019, which charged it with bank and wire fraud, violating sanctions against Iran, and obstructing justice.
Wanzhoua, the CFO, was arrested in December 2018 in Canada on charges in the prior indictment, but she has protesting her innocence and fighting extradition to the US. She is the daughter of Huawei’s founder and CEO, 75-year-old Ren Zengfei.
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhoua was arrested in December 2018 in Canada on charges in the initial Department of Justice indictment against the Chinese tech company. She is protesting her innocence and fighting extradition to the US.Ā She is pictured wearing a court-ordered ankle monitor last month
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou arrives at extradition hearing
The new indictment alsoĀ includes ‘new allegations about Huawei and its subsidiaries’ involvement in business and technology projects in countries subject to sanctions, such as Iran and North Korea’.
The DoJ asserts that the Chinese company even tired to cover up the fact they were doing business with such countries, by using code names. ‘A2’ reportedly referred to Iran, and ‘A9’ is alleged to have referred to North Korea.
The new indictment is the latest effort in a global campaign by the United States against the company, which Washington has warned could spy on customers for Beijing. The United States also placed Huawei on a trade blacklist last year, citing national security concerns.
‘The indictment paints a damning portrait of an illegitimate organization that lacks any regard for the law,’ U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr and vice chairman Mark Warner said in a joint statement.
The Republican and Democratic Senators called it ‘an important step in combating Huawei’s state-directed and criminal enterprise.’
In a statement on Tuesday, the DoJ alleges that Huawei’s ‘campaign’ to steal trade secrets from US competitors formed part of their global growth strategy.
The DoJ statement alleges that Huawei even launched a policy ‘instituting a bonus program to reward employees who misappropriated intellectual property from competitors.’
Prosecutors allege some Huawei employees entered into confidential agreements with the six US companies, before violating such agreements by then handing over the information to the Chinese tech giant.
Thus, the DoJ statements alleges that ‘Huawei’s efforts to steal trade secrets and other sophisticated US technology were successful.’
Trump administration officials, increasingly intent on preventing China from global technological domination, have urged allies not to use Huawei hardware
‘As a consequence of its campaign to steal this technology and intellectual property, Huawei was able to drastically cut its research and development costs and associated delays, giving the company a significant and unfair competitive advantage,’ the statement goes on to say.
The case was unsealed as the Trump administration is raising national security and surveillance concerns about Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer.
Huawei, one of the largest tech firms and a major telecom equipment maker, has been blacklisted by Washington amid concerns of its ties to the Chinese government and intelligence services.
New charges have been filed in the US against Huawei (Dominic Lipinski/PA)
Earlier this week, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien alleged that Huawei builds secret back doors into its hardware that allow it to covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world.
‘We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world,’ O’Brien told the Wall Street Journal.
US officials say that Huawei’s back door allows the company to access network data without the carrier’s knowledge, potentially giving the Chinese government a potent spy tool.
Huawei denied the allegations, telling the Journal that it ‘has never and will never do anything that would compromise or endanger the security of networks and data of its clients.’
The U.S. has long tried to convince its allies, such as the U.K. and Germany, to ban the use of Huawei telecom equipment in the building of 5G networks.
Ā Germany’s legislature is set to vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would allow Huawei full access to its 5G market if the company provides security guarantees.
WHO IS MENG WANZHOU?
Meng Wanzhou, 46,Ā is widely assumed to be the heiress of her billionaire father Ren Zhengfei who founded Huawei in 1987
Meng Wanzhou, also known as Sabrina Meng and Cathy Meng, is the daughter and eldest child of Huawei’s founder Ren Zhengfei, 74, by his first wife Meng Jun.
Billed as a ‘Red Princess’, the 47-year-old is widely assumed to be the heiress of her former Communist soldier father, who founded the world’s current second largest smartphone seller at the age of 43 with just 21,000 yuan (Ā£2,388).
Ms Meng, who is also the Vice-Chairman of Huawei, was ranked No. 12 by Frobes on the list of China’s most outstanding businesswomen in 2018.
She graduated from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in central China’s Wuhan city.
She worked in a bank for a year upon graduation before taking up a position at Huawei’s front desk in 1993 to answer phone calls.
Over the years, Ms Meng worked as the director of the international accounting department, CFO of Huawei’s Hong Kong branch office, president of the accounts management department and brought Huawei to its current success.
Ms Meng has a brother and a 20-year-old half-sister Annabel Yao who is a ballerina and debutante.
Annabel is said to be extremely international and have lived in Britain, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
Tension between Brown and the rest of the band soon began to surface. When “Walk Away Renee” belatedly became a hit, the original band had become inactive. Brown decided to capitalize on the single’s success by assembling a new version of The Left Banke for touring purposes, withĀ Bert SommerĀ onĀ lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member ofĀ Spinal Tap)Ā Michael McKeanĀ on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy”Ā b/wĀ “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group ofĀ session musicians.[6][7]Ā The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged theirĀ fan clubĀ to boycott the record,[8]Ā which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio andĀ Smash RecordsĀ ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group calledĀ The Cherry PeopleĀ and became a minor hit.[9]Ā McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & Shirley,Ā This Is Spinal Tap,Ā Better Call Saul).
In late 1967, the original group reunited and recorded more material, including the single “Desiree.” Brown left the group permanently shortly thereafter and was replaced for touring purposes by Emmett Lake. Cameron, Finn and Martin continued to record and tour, with Tom Feher replacing Lake on keyboards and writing half of the band’s new material. The songs recorded by various incarnations of the group in 1967 and 1968 were assembled into a secondĀ LP,Ā The Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a youngĀ Steven TylerĀ (who later became the lead singer ofĀ Aerosmith) on “Nice To See You”, “My Friend Today” and “Dark Is The Bark”. The band continued playing live in 1969, without Martin, but soon disbanded due to lack of success and financial problems. Later that same year, Brown and Martin reunited in the studio to record another single as The Left Banke, “Myrah” b/w “Pedestal”, which was their final single for Smash Records.
1971āpresent: various reunions
In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movieĀ Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single onĀ Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producerĀ Les FradkinĀ offered to produce the group for a project onĀ Bell Records. Although these sessions were not released at the time, one of the songs, “I Could Make It Last Forever”, composed by Fradkin and Diane Ellis, was released on Fradkin’sĀ Goin’ BackĀ soloĀ CDĀ in 2006. It was a rare recording since it featured Caro, Finn, Cameron and Brown, along with Brown’s father, violinist Harry Lookofsky. Fradkin sang and playedĀ 12-string guitarĀ on the sessions. In 1978, Martin, Cameron and Finn reunited as The Left Banke to record an album’s worth of material which unfortunately was not released at the time. However, a single from these 1978 sessions, “Queen of Paradise” (b/w “And One Day”), was released in late 1978 with modest success. The album was eventually issued byĀ Relix RecordsĀ in 1986 under the titleĀ Strangers on a TrainĀ (Voices CallingĀ in Europe). However, the album did little to restore the popularity of the group.
After leaving The Left Banke in 1967, Michael Brown helped form the band,Ā Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10]Ā The band released one self-titled album in 1969, which included a re-recording of The Left Banke song “Desiree”, before Brown left. Brown’s next project was the bandĀ Stories, featuring singerĀ Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100 charts.[5]Ā However, Brown had left the group after their 2nd album “About Us”, but before the success of “Brother Louie”. Brown’s next project was with The Beckies, although the band achieved only modest success and Brown soon left.
In 1994, Michael Brown and his wife Yvonne Vitale produced and released an album titledĀ On This Moment. Between 2001 and 2006, Brown hosted a series of recording sessions at his home studio with Ian Lloyd (vocals), Tom Finn (bass guitar/vocals), Jim McAllister (guitar), and Jon Ihle (drums).[11]
Former guitarist Jeff Winfield died of complications from pneumonia on June 13, 2009, at age 60.[3]
2011ā12
The previous touring version of The Left Banke featured one original member, George Cameron. Initially, Tom Finn and George Cameron reformed The Left Banke in March 2011, tapping New York City’s Mike Fornatale (already a veteran of numerous other 60s band reunions, including The Monks and Moby Grape) to sing lead vocals in Steve Martin Caro’s stead. The reunited group also featured new players: Paul Alves (lead guitar, backing vocals), Charly Cazalet (bass), Mickey Finn (keyboards), Rick Reil (drums, percussion, backing vocals) and second keyboardist/synth player Joe McGinty (replaced by John Spurney in 2012). They appeared live at Joe’s Pub in New York City on March 5, 2011, and March 6, 2011, to sold-out audiences. In April 2011, Tom Finn revealed in a Facebook posting that he had reformed the group,[13]Ā with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15]Ā Tom Finn only performed with the re-formed group in 2011, after which he left due to disagreements with Cameron and due to back trouble.
In early 2011,Ā SundazedĀ released reissues of the two Smash vinyl albums on CD and LP, utilizing the original running order and artwork.
In February 2012, Tom Finn notified the YouTube community that the Left Banke was in the process of creating a new record featuring contributions from co-founder Michael Brown.
George Cameron (3rd from left) and Tom Finn (Center, 4th from left) with band during their 2012 reunion tour.
On April 29, 2012, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at B.B. King’s in New York City for a version of his “Pretty Ballerina.” His performance was greeted with a standing ovation. Rick Brand, guitarist with the band in 1966-67 was also in attendance. Tom Finn sang a newly written song called “City Life” which showed a heavier rock version of the Left Banke with baroque string section intact. No new recordings begun in 2012 were ever released, and Brown died in 2015.
At the beginning of their reunion dates, the group was joined onstage by a two or three-piece string section and even a guest oboe player for one or two shows. Both Michael Brown and George Cameron were in touch with Steve Martin Caro, who wanted to rejoin the group, but was unable to tour in 2012 due to previous commitments.
Unrealized reunions
On March 18, 2015, the day before Mike Brown’s death, it was announced that original vocalist Steve Martin Caro officially rejoined the current touring version of The Left Banke. Photos on The Left Banke official Facebook and Twitter pages displayed Steve signing a contract. Two 2015 shows featured co-headlinerĀ Ian LloydĀ ofĀ StoriesĀ and Sam Kogon as vocalist. The re-formed Cameron band played for the last time twice in 2015; once in Sellersville, PA and once in Natick, MA. No shows under any Left Banke configuration have been performed since 2015, and by 2020 the major players of 1966 were all deceased except for the disabled Tom Finn.
In January, 2018, it was announced on the official Facebook page operated by Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron that they were planning a tour. Several photos of Steve Martin Caro rehearsing with George Cameron and guitarist Sam Kogon were posted with a message which stated “it was Steve’s first time behind the microphone in over 15 years. We went through and workshopped much of the Left Banke catalog.” However, Cameron passed away five months later, before any performances could take place under this collaboration.
Deaths
Michael Brown died from heart disease on March 19, 2015, at age 65. Brown had been writing new material and planned to participate in the 2015 reunion of The Left Banke with Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron. Brown’s funeral and memorial service was held on March 25, 2015 at Fort Lee Gospel Church in Fort Lee, New Jersey.[16]
Story 3: $19 Billion of 30-Year Bonds Sold At Record Low Yield of 2.06% — Inverted Yield Curve Flashes Recession Warning — Videos
Dow Flatlines While Fedās Recession Alarm Screams
Treasury Sells 30-Year Bonds at Record Low Yield
Fear that the coronavirus will slow global growth has helped push down Treasury yields in recent weeks
The Treasury sold $19 billion of 30-year bonds on Thursday afternoon.
PHOTO:Ā CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS
By Sam Goldfarb
The U.S. Treasury Department sold 30-year bonds at a record low yield on Thursday, highlighting investorsā demand for longer-term debt and its benefits to the government.
The Treasury sold $19 billion of 30-year bonds on Thursday afternoon at a 2.061% yield. That beat the previous record of 2.170% set last October, according to data from BMO Capital Markets.
The auction came as Treasury yields generally moved lower after Chinese officials changed the way they counted coronavirus infections, leading to a bigĀ jump in the number of confirmed casesĀ in the countryās Hubei province. The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note settled at 1.616%, compared with 1.629% Wednesday.
Yields fall when bond prices rise.
Fear that the coronavirus will slow global growth has helped push down Treasury yields in recent weeks. Other factors include persistently soft inflation, which has limited one of the main threats to the value of longer-term Treasurys, analysts said.
Investors have also grown more comfortable buying 30-year bonds because they view them as insurance against losses in riskier assets, said Jon Hill, a U.S. interest-rates strategist at BMO. Prices of 30-year bonds increase more for every one-percentage point decline in yields than those of shorter-term bonds. That means on days like Thursday, when investors are selling stocks and buying bonds, the holders of 30-year bonds are well-hedged, Mr. Hill said.
Thursdayās level doesnāt represent the lowest point that the 30-year bond yield has ever reached. Last August, it settled as low as 1.941%, but yields rose again before the next 30-year auction in September.
In recent years, low Treasury yields have, at times, caused U.S. officials to flirt with issuing bonds with maturities beyond 30 years to lock in low interest rates for a longer period.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said last September that the Treasury Department was āvery seriously consideringāĀ issuing a 50-year bond. The department, however, dropped that idea due to a lack of interest from bond dealers. Instead, it recently announced plans toĀ issue 20-year bonds, which havenāt been issued regularly since the 1980s.
Tension between Brown and the rest of the band soon began to surface. When “Walk Away Renee” belatedly became a hit, the original band had become inactive. Brown decided to capitalize on the single’s success by assembling a new version of The Left Banke for touring purposes, withĀ Bert SommerĀ onĀ lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member ofĀ Spinal Tap)Ā Michael McKeanĀ on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy”Ā b/wĀ “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group ofĀ session musicians.[6][7]Ā The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged theirĀ fan clubĀ to boycott the record,[8]Ā which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio andĀ Smash RecordsĀ ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group calledĀ The Cherry PeopleĀ and became a minor hit.[9]Ā McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & Shirley,Ā This Is Spinal Tap,Ā Better Call Saul).
In late 1967, the original group reunited and recorded more material, including the single “Desiree.” Brown left the group permanently shortly thereafter and was replaced for touring purposes by Emmett Lake. Cameron, Finn and Martin continued to record and tour, with Tom Feher replacing Lake on keyboards and writing half of the band’s new material. The songs recorded by various incarnations of the group in 1967 and 1968 were assembled into a secondĀ LP,Ā The Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a youngĀ Steven TylerĀ (who later became the lead singer ofĀ Aerosmith) on “Nice To See You”, “My Friend Today” and “Dark Is The Bark”. The band continued playing live in 1969, without Martin, but soon disbanded due to lack of success and financial problems. Later that same year, Brown and Martin reunited in the studio to record another single as The Left Banke, “Myrah” b/w “Pedestal”, which was their final single for Smash Records.
1971āpresent: various reunions
In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movieĀ Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single onĀ Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producerĀ Les FradkinĀ offered to produce the group for a project onĀ Bell Records. Although these sessions were not released at the time, one of the songs, “I Could Make It Last Forever”, composed by Fradkin and Diane Ellis, was released on Fradkin’sĀ Goin’ BackĀ soloĀ CDĀ in 2006. It was a rare recording since it featured Caro, Finn, Cameron and Brown, along with Brown’s father, violinist Harry Lookofsky. Fradkin sang and playedĀ 12-string guitarĀ on the sessions. In 1978, Martin, Cameron and Finn reunited as The Left Banke to record an album’s worth of material which unfortunately was not released at the time. However, a single from these 1978 sessions, “Queen of Paradise” (b/w “And One Day”), was released in late 1978 with modest success. The album was eventually issued byĀ Relix RecordsĀ in 1986 under the titleĀ Strangers on a TrainĀ (Voices CallingĀ in Europe). However, the album did little to restore the popularity of the group.
After leaving The Left Banke in 1967, Michael Brown helped form the band,Ā Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10]Ā The band released one self-titled album in 1969, which included a re-recording of The Left Banke song “Desiree”, before Brown left. Brown’s next project was the bandĀ Stories, featuring singerĀ Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100 charts.[5]Ā However, Brown had left the group after their 2nd album “About Us”, but before the success of “Brother Louie”. Brown’s next project was with The Beckies, although the band achieved only modest success and Brown soon left.
In 1994, Michael Brown and his wife Yvonne Vitale produced and released an album titledĀ On This Moment. Between 2001 and 2006, Brown hosted a series of recording sessions at his home studio with Ian Lloyd (vocals), Tom Finn (bass guitar/vocals), Jim McAllister (guitar), and Jon Ihle (drums).[11]
Former guitarist Jeff Winfield died of complications from pneumonia on June 13, 2009, at age 60.[3]
2011ā12
The previous touring version of The Left Banke featured one original member, George Cameron. Initially, Tom Finn and George Cameron reformed The Left Banke in March 2011, tapping New York City’s Mike Fornatale (already a veteran of numerous other 60s band reunions, including The Monks and Moby Grape) to sing lead vocals in Steve Martin Caro’s stead. The reunited group also featured new players: Paul Alves (lead guitar, backing vocals), Charly Cazalet (bass), Mickey Finn (keyboards), Rick Reil (drums, percussion, backing vocals) and second keyboardist/synth player Joe McGinty (replaced by John Spurney in 2012). They appeared live at Joe’s Pub in New York City on March 5, 2011, and March 6, 2011, to sold-out audiences. In April 2011, Tom Finn revealed in a Facebook posting that he had reformed the group,[13]Ā with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15]Ā Tom Finn only performed with the re-formed group in 2011, after which he left due to disagreements with Cameron and due to back trouble.
In early 2011,Ā SundazedĀ released reissues of the two Smash vinyl albums on CD and LP, utilizing the original running order and artwork.
In February 2012, Tom Finn notified the YouTube community that the Left Banke was in the process of creating a new record featuring contributions from co-founder Michael Brown.
George Cameron (3rd from left) and Tom Finn (Center, 4th from left) with band during their 2012 reunion tour.
On April 29, 2012, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at B.B. King’s in New York City for a version of his “Pretty Ballerina.” His performance was greeted with a standing ovation. Rick Brand, guitarist with the band in 1966-67 was also in attendance. Tom Finn sang a newly written song called “City Life” which showed a heavier rock version of the Left Banke with baroque string section intact. No new recordings begun in 2012 were ever released, and Brown died in 2015.
At the beginning of their reunion dates, the group was joined onstage by a two or three-piece string section and even a guest oboe player for one or two shows. Both Michael Brown and George Cameron were in touch with Steve Martin Caro, who wanted to rejoin the group, but was unable to tour in 2012 due to previous commitments.
Unrealized reunions
On March 18, 2015, the day before Mike Brown’s death, it was announced that original vocalist Steve Martin Caro officially rejoined the current touring version of The Left Banke. Photos on The Left Banke official Facebook and Twitter pages displayed Steve signing a contract. Two 2015 shows featured co-headlinerĀ Ian LloydĀ ofĀ StoriesĀ and Sam Kogon as vocalist. The re-formed Cameron band played for the last time twice in 2015; once in Sellersville, PA and once in Natick, MA. No shows under any Left Banke configuration have been performed since 2015, and by 2020 the major players of 1966 were all deceased except for the disabled Tom Finn.
In January, 2018, it was announced on the official Facebook page operated by Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron that they were planning a tour. Several photos of Steve Martin Caro rehearsing with George Cameron and guitarist Sam Kogon were posted with a message which stated “it was Steve’s first time behind the microphone in over 15 years. We went through and workshopped much of the Left Banke catalog.” However, Cameron passed away five months later, before any performances could take place under this collaboration.
Deaths
Michael Brown died from heart disease on March 19, 2015, at age 65. Brown had been writing new material and planned to participate in the 2015 reunion of The Left Banke with Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron. Brown’s funeral and memorial service was held on March 25, 2015 at Fort Lee Gospel Church in Fort Lee, New Jersey.[16]
Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders lead the delegate race after the first two contests of the primary season, according to the Associated Press. The vast majority of delegates are awarded after February. Super Tuesday, whenĀ a third of all delegatesĀ are allocated in a single day, looms large with 16 contests at the beginning of March. Here is a look at when every state goes to the polls and where the largest troves of delegates are at stake.
Another key early state with a high-turnout caucus, and the first one with a significant Hispanic population.
36
Clinton
29Ā Sat.
South Carolina primary
This state will offer the first real indication of the candidatesā strengths with black voters.
54
Clinton
March 2020
DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES
2016 PRIMARY WINNER
3Ā Tue.
Alabama primary
Alabama is one of 16 contests on Super Tuesday, when a third of delegates are allocated.
52
Clinton
American Samoa caucus
6
Clinton
Arkansas primary
31
Clinton
California primary
Because it has the largest delegate trove in the country, California is key to Super Tuesday.
415
Clinton
Colorado primary
67
Sanders
Democrats abroad primary
13
Sanders
Maine primary
24
Sanders
Massachusetts primary
91
Clinton
Minnesota primary
75
Sanders
North Carolina primary
110
Clinton
Oklahoma primary
37
Sanders
Tennessee primary
64
Clinton
Texas primary
The second-largest delegate trove of Super Tuesday.
228
Clinton
Utah primary
29
Sanders
Vermont primary
16
Sanders
Virginia primary
99
Clinton
10Ā Tue.
Idaho primary
20
Sanders
Michigan primary
Midwestern powerhouses like Michigan will test the candidatesā appeal among suburbanites, African-Americans and working-class white voters. If the race is not decided on Super Tuesday, this could be a line of demarcation.
125
Sanders
Mississippi primary
36
Clinton
Missouri primary
68
Clinton
North Dakota primary
14
Sanders
Washington primary
89
Sanders
14Ā Sat.
Northern Marianas convention
6
Clinton
17Ā Tue.
Arizona primary
67
Clinton
Florida primary
219
Clinton
Illinois primary
155
Clinton
Ohio primary
136
Clinton
24Ā Tue.
Georgia primary
105
Clinton
29Ā Sun.
Puerto Rico primary
51
Clinton
April 2020
DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES
2016 PRIMARY WINNER
4Ā Sat.
Alaska primary
15
Sanders
Hawaii primary
24
Sanders
Louisiana primary
54
Clinton
Wyoming caucus
14
Sanders
7Ā Tue.
Wisconsin primary
84
Sanders
28Ā Tue.
Connecticut primary
60
Clinton
Delaware primary
21
Clinton
Maryland primary
96
Clinton
New York primary
This may be the last big delegate day of the race. If one candidate dominates every state this late in the primary, party leaders will most likely move to get behind that person and seek to bring the race to an end.
2020 United States presidential primary election results
Live
Updated at 2:53 PM CST
DEMOCRATIC
DelegatesĀ Ā·Ā 64 delegates declared
1,990 delegates needed to win the nomination
Candidate
Delegates
Pete Buttigieg
22
Bernie Sanders
21
Elizabeth Warren
8
Amy Klobuchar
7
Joe Biden
6
Andrew Yang
0
Deval Patrick
0
John Delaney
0
Michael Bennet
0
Michael Bloomberg
0
Tom Steyer
0
Tulsi Gabbard
0
Uncommitted
0
Other candidates
0
Sanders edges Buttigieg in NH, giving Dems 2 front-runners
By STEVE PEOPLES, KATHLEEN RONAYNE and HUNTER WOODALL
Bernie Sanders won New Hampshireās presidential primary, edging moderate rival Pete Buttigieg and scoring the first clear victory in the Democratic Partyās chaotic 2020 nomination fight.
In his Tuesday night win, the 78-year-old Sanders, aĀ self-described democratic socialist, beat back a strong challenge from the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The dueling Democrats represent different generations, see divergent paths to the nomination and embrace conflicting visions of Americaās future.
As Sanders and Buttigieg celebrated,Ā Amy Klobuchar scored an unexpected third-place finishĀ that gives her a road out of New Hampshire as the primary season moves on to the string of state-by-state contests that lie ahead.
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden posted disappointing fourth and fifth place finishes respectively and were on track to finish with zero delegates from the state.
The New Hampshire voteĀ gives new clarityĀ to a Democratic contest shaping up to be a battle between two men separated by four decades in age and clashing political ideologies. Sanders is a leading progressive voice, having spent decades demanding substantial government intervention in health care and other sectors of the economy. Buttigieg has pressed for more incremental change, preferring to give Americans the option of retaining their private health insurance while appealing to Republicans and independents who may be dissatisfied with Trump.
Their disparate temperaments were on display Tuesday as they spoke before cheering supporters.
āWe are gonna win because we have the agenda that speaks to the needs of working people across this country,ā Sanders declared. āThis victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.ā
Buttigieg struck an optimistic tone: āThanks to you, a campaign that some said shouldnāt be here at all has shown that we are here to stay.ā
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg addresses supporters at a rally at Nashua Community College Tuesday in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Both men have strength heading into the next phase of the campaign, yet they face very different political challenges.
While Warren made clear she will remain in the race, Sanders, well-financed and with an ardent army of supporters, has cemented his status as the clear leader of the progressive wing of the party.
Meanwhile, Buttigieg must prove he can attract support from voters of color who are critical to winning the nomination. And unlike Sanders, he still has multiple rivals in his own ideological wing of the party to contend with. They include Klobuchar, whose standout debate performance led to a late surge in New Hampshire and a growing national following. While deeply wounded, Biden promises strength in upcoming South Carolina. And though former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was not on Tuesdayās ballot, he looms next month when the contest reaches states offering hundreds of delegates.
After a chaotic beginning to primary votingĀ last week in Iowa, Democrats hoped New Hampshire would help give shape to their urgent quest to pick someone to take on Trump in November. At least two candidates dropped out in the wake of weak finishes Tuesday night: moderate Colorado Sen.Ā Michael BennetĀ and political newcomerĀ Andrew Yang, who attracted a small but loyal following over the past year and was one of just three candidates of color left in the race.
The struggling candidatesĀ still in the raceĀ sought to minimize the latest results.
Warren, who spent months as a Democratic front-runner, offered an optimistic outlook as she faced cheering supporters: āOur campaign is built for the long haul, and we are just getting started.ā
Having already predicted he would ātake a hitā in New Hampshire after a distant fourth-place finish in Iowa, Biden essentially ceded the state. He traveled to South Carolina Tuesday as he bet his candidacy on a strong showing there later this month boosted by support from black voters.
Still, history suggests that the first-in-the-nation primary will have enormous influence shaping the 2020 race. In the modern era, no Democrat has ever become the partyās general election nominee without finishing first or second in New Hampshire.
Sanders and Buttigieg were on track to win the same number of New Hampshire delegates with most of the vote tallied, with Klobuchar a few behind. Warren, Biden and the rest of the field were shut out, failing to reach the 15% threshold needed for delegates.
Results from New Hampshire’s Democratic primary. (AP Graphic)
The AP allocated nine delegates each to Sanders and Buttigieg and six to Klobuchar.
The action was on the Democratic side, but Trump easily won New Hampshireās Republican primary. He was facing token opposition from former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.
With most of the vote in, Trump already had amassed more votes in the New Hampshire primary than any incumbent president in history. His vote share was approaching the modern historical high for an incumbent president, 86.43% set by Ronald Reagan in 1984. Weld received about 9% of the vote of New Hampshire Republicans.
The political spotlight quickly shifts to Nevada, where Democrats will hold caucuses on Feb. 22. But several candidates, including Warren and Sanders, plan to visit other states in the coming days that vote on Super Tuesday, signaling they are in the race for the long haul.
___
Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Zeke Miller in Washington, Will Weissert, Holly Ramer and Thomas Beaumont contributed from New Hampshire.
Country Joe McDonald, whose rock band Country Joe and the Fish appeared at the Woodstock festival, remembers how strained his life was growing up in a communist family.
Joan Sokoloff, a 48-year-old therapist, grew up in Boston in the 1950s. But she might as well have spent her childhood on another planet. While other children were watching ā³Father Knows Best,ā³ Sokoloff, the daughter of communists, was contemplating world change.
ā³I couldnāt care less if they were investigated as communists or not,ā³ said McDonald, who grew up in Southern California. ā³All I cared about was when I went to a Cub Scout meeting or went to play baseball. … I didnāt feel comfortable anymore.ā³
Said Sokoloff: ā³They (my parents) always used to say that the revolution is just around the corner. So there was always a sense that we were working toward something imminent.ā³
McDonald and Sokoloff are two of five so-called ā³red diaper babies,ā³ the children of communists, who appear in ā³Children of the Left,ā³ a new documentary by filmmaker Eric Stange. The 60-minute film traces the evolution of children raised as communists who are now adults in a conservative America.
The topic is a hot one. ā³Loyalties – a Sonās Memoir,ā³ a new book by former Washington Post investigative reporter Carl Bernstein, is the story of Bernsteinās childhood in a communist family.
Bernstein writes about the conflicting legacy left by communist parents. His story is woven out of what he says are the torn loyalties and lasting repercussions of a communist childhood.
Stange found that communist parents left a mixed legacy. Some of their children remained communists. One became a Reagan conservative. But almost all remain political and most vote.
Stange, 35, a former reporter and editor for the Boston Herald, had made one previous documentary, ā³The Pitch of Grief,ā³ when he decided to make a film about the children of communists. He knew several as friends and found out about others through them. A network exists among them as adults, he said, formed from childhood when communist families often sent their children to the same progressive summer camps and schools.
But Stange said that even now, many who grew up in communist households were still hesitant going public about the experience.
ā³The penalties were too great in the ā50s,ā³ he said.
Stange spoke to 50 former ā³red diaper babies,ā³ interviewed 15 on tape and culled five for his film. The term ā³red diaper babiesā³ has several rumored origins. One is that communist parents in the ā20s were so poor that they used the red flags they received in return for their party dues to diaper their babies.
ā³I found an incredible mixture of pride and anger,ā³ he said. ā³It was a way of looking at the world that was much more open and diverse and worldly than what most American kids were getting.ā³
The film, which premiered last month in Cambridge and was co-produced with the Newton Television Foundation, also will be shown at New Yorkās Public Theater this month and in Los Angeles in June.
The stories that unfold on camera are generally happy ones. Though they participated in one of the most tumultuous periods in American history, Stangeās subjects recall their childhoods with more pleasure than pain.
Eugene Dennis Jr., son of the former general secretary in the American Communist Party, was a longshoreman for many years and is now a historian. In the film, tears come to his eyes as he recalls how ā³safeā³ he felt, held in the arms of singer-actor-writer Paul Robeson at one point during the worst of the communist witch hunts in the ā50s.
David Horowitz, the son of public schoolteachers in New York, edited the leftist magazine Ramparts in the ā60s. He has since become a best-selling author of biographies with David Collier and a conservative Republican. Richard Healey, whose mother was a high-ranking communist leader in Southern California, edits an anti-nuclear magazine.
The film uses archival footage to trace the relatively swift downfall of the Communist Party in the United States, which had formed in 1919 and enjoyed peak years in the ā30s and early ā40s.
ā³Children of the Leftā³ also outlines the turmoil that marked the partyās rapid decline, beginning with the Red Scare initiated in the ā50s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 and revelations in 1956 that Soviet leader Josef Stalin was a murderous dictator.
Several subjects of the film recall their parents were jailed regularly. Joan Sokoloff remembers the day one of her motherās arrests made the front page of The Boston Globe, her struggle to overcome her own embarrassment and her eventual pride in her parentsā work.
Healey recalls his childhood years at Communist Party meetings and picnics as ā³the happiest moments of my life.ā³
ā³Growing up with ideals like that, with a world view of wanting a better life for people, it was still a very rich way of life,ā³ said Sokoloff.
Story 2: TheĀ Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) Hunt Down Deplorables — Socialist Satire — Coming To A Theater Nearest You March 13, 2020 — Friday The 13th –Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers vs. American Winners — Videos
The Wreck called Hillary Clinton
How voters are responding to Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ remark
Clinton: Trump supporters in ‘basket of deplorables…
Deplorables: Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses
Tucker: American elites more comfortable with attacking US
1. America’s Ruling Class
Angelo Codevilla – Does America Have a Ruling Class?
Universal cancels release of film where elites hunt ‘deplorables’
The Hunt – Official Trailer [HD]
Why The Hunt Is Finally Being Released with a New Marketing Campaign
The Hunt – Trailer Reaction – New Release Date of March 13th
The film was originally scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. However, following theĀ DaytonĀ andĀ El PasoĀ mass shootings in early August 2019,Ā Universal PicturesĀ decided to shelve the release of the film.[2]Ā The decision came a day after criticism regarding the film came from United States PresidentĀ Donald Trump.[3]Ā It has since been rescheduled for a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4][5]
Premise
Loosely based on the 1924 short storyĀ The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell,[6]Ā the film follows 12 strangers who mysteriously wake up in a clearing.[2][7][8]Ā They do not know where they are or how they got there. They discover that they have been chosen to be hunted in a game devised by a group of people from the richĀ elite.[2][9]Ā The hunters gather in a remote facility called the Manor House, but their sport gets derailed when one of the hunted, Crystal (Betty Gilpin), fights back and starts killing them one by one.[10]
Though some reports indicated the original title of the film wasĀ Red State vs. Blue StateĀ (after the U.S. political termĀ red states and blue states), Universal issued a statement denying that the film had ever had that as itsĀ working title.[13]
Casting
In March 2019, Emma Roberts,Ā Justin Hartley,Ā Glenn Howerton, Ike Barinholtz and Betty Gilpin were announced as being cast in the film.[14][15][16]Ā In April 2019,Ā Amy Madigan, Jim Klock, Charli Slaughter, Steve Mokate and Dean West joined the cast of the film.[17][18]Ā Hilary SwankĀ was announced as being cast in July.[19]
Filming
Filming began on February 20, 2019, inĀ New OrleansĀ and was due to finish on April 5.[20]
Release
The film was scheduled for release on September 27, 2019. It was, for a time, moved back to October 18 before shifting back to its original release date of September 27.[21]
On August 7, 2019, Universal announced that in the wake of theĀ DaytonĀ andĀ El PasoĀ mass shootings, they would be suspending the film’s promotional campaign.[22][23]Ā Several days later, the film was pulled from the studio’s release schedule.[24][25]Ā An international release is still a possibility.[26]
On February 11, 2020, it was announced the film would receive a theatrical release on March 13, 2020.[4]
Reception
The Hollywood ReporterĀ wrote that there were a pair of test screenings for the film which had “negative reactions”. The second screening was held on August 6, 2019, in Los Angeles, in which “audience members were again expressing discomfort with the politics” of it, an issue Universal had not foreseen (although other studios had initially passed on the script for that very reason). In a statement toĀ Variety, Universal pushed back on a report that test audiences had been uncomfortable with the film’s political slant, and also countered claims that the script had originally had a politically explosive title.[26]Ā “While some outlets have indicated that test screenings forĀ The HuntĀ resulted in negative audience feedback; in fact, the film was very well-received and tallied one of the highest test scores for an original Blumhouse film,” a Universal spokesperson said. “Additionally, no audience members in attendance at the test screening expressed discomfort with any political discussion in the film. While reports also sayĀ The HuntĀ was formerly titledĀ Red State vs. Blue State, that was never the working title for the film at any point throughout the development process, nor appeared on any status reports under that name.”[26]
Prior to the film’s shelving, the film attracted criticism from some of the media as an alleged portrayal ofĀ liberal elitistsĀ hunting supporters of Donald Trump.[23][27]Ā Trump issued aĀ tweetĀ on August 9, 2019, calling “Liberal Hollywood” “[r]acist at the highest level” and writing: “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos”, adding “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others”. Although Trump did not specify the name of the film, news vehicles believed that was most likely a reference toĀ The Hunt.[27][28][29]
“The Most Dangerous Game“, also published as “The Hounds of Zaroff“, is aĀ short storyĀ byĀ Richard Connell,[1]Ā first published inĀ Collier’sĀ on January 19, 1924.[2]Ā The story features aĀ big-game hunterĀ fromĀ New York CityĀ who falls off aĀ yachtĀ and swims to what seems to be an abandoned and isolatedĀ islandĀ in theĀ Caribbean, where he is hunted by a Russian aristocrat.[3]Ā The story is inspired by the big-game huntingĀ safarisĀ inĀ AfricaĀ andĀ South AmericaĀ that were particularly fashionable among wealthy Americans in the 1920s.[4]
Sanger Rainsford and his friend, Whitney, are traveling to theĀ Amazon rainforestĀ to hunt the region’s big cat: theĀ jaguar. After a discussion about how they are “the hunters” instead of “the hunted”, Whitney goes to bed and Rainsford hears gunshots. He climbs onto the yacht’s rail and accidentally falls overboard, swimming to Ship-Trap Island, which is notorious for shipwrecks. On the island, he finds a palatial chateau inhabited by twoĀ Cossacks: the owner, General Zaroff, and his giganticĀ deaf-muteĀ servant, Ivan.
Zaroff, another big-game hunter, knows of Rainsford from his published account of huntingĀ snow leopardsĀ inĀ Tibet. After inviting him to dinner, General Zaroff tells Rainsford he is bored of hunting because it no longer challenges him; he has moved to Ship-Trap in order to capture shipwrecked sailors. Any captives who can elude Zaroff, Ivan, and a pack ofĀ hunting dogsĀ for three days are set free. Zaroff reveals that no one has lasted that long, although a couple of sailors had come close. Zaroff also says that he offers sailors a “choice”; should they decline to be hunted they will be handed over to Ivan, who had once been officialĀ knouterĀ forĀ The Great White Czar. Rainsford denounces this as barbarism. Zaroff reacts in a cosmopolitan manner that “life is for the strong“. Realizing he has no way out, Rainsford reluctantly agrees to be hunted.
During his three-hour head start, Rainsford lays an intricate trail in the forest and then climbs a tree. Zaroff finds him easily, but decides to play with him like a cat would a mouse, standing underneath the tree Rainsford is hiding in, smoking a cigarette, and then abruptly departing. After the failed attempt at eluding Zaroff, Rainsford builds a Malay man-catcher, aĀ weighted log attached to a trigger. This contraption injures Zaroff’s shoulder, causing him to return home for the night, but before doing so shouts that if Rainsford is within earshot, his trap was commendable as few could pull it off. The next day Rainsford creates aĀ Burmese tiger pit, which kills one of Zaroff’s hounds. He sacrifices his knife and ties it to a sapling to make aĀ UgandanĀ knife trap; Ivan is killed when he stumbles into this trap and the knife plunges into his heart. To escape Zaroff and his approaching hounds, Rainsford dives off a cliff into the sea; Zaroff, disappointed at Rainsford’s apparent suicide, returns home. Zaroff smokes a pipe by his fireplace, but two issues keep him from peace of mind: first, the difficulty of replacing Ivan; and second, the uncertainty of whether Rainsford did indeed perish.
Zaroff locks himself in his bedroom and turns on the lights, only to find Rainsford waiting for him; he had swum around the island in order to sneak into the chateau without the dogs finding him. Zaroff congratulates him on winning the “game”, but Rainsford decides to fight him, saying he is still a beast-at-bay and that the original hunt is not over. Accepting the challenge, Zaroff says that the loser will be fed to the dogs, while the winner will sleep in his bed. The story ends with Rainsford enjoying the comfort of Zaroff’s bed.
Analysis
“The Most Dangerous Game” is a popular read within middle and high school curricula due to the strength of the themes within the story. The first and foremost question that the story bears is that of justifiable murder. Rainsford justifies his hunting of animals because he believes that man is superior to animals because animals do not feel. To contradict, General Zaroff believes that men are superior because they are able to reason. Zaroff uses his reasoning to explain why men are the most interesting game to hunt; men can reason, and thus provide a challenge that no animal can contend with. The story simultaneously highlights through the experience of Rainsford, as he is hunted, the fears that animals must experience while being hunted.
Zaroff himself is a contradiction because his exquisite manners are juxtaposed with his heartless brutality in killing men. The idea of a man who is proper in all aspects, but still contains a desire to kill, is a suggestion by Connell that men possess murderous instincts that can only be subdued by the presence of society and law. Zaroff is only able to partake in his “hobby” because he does not live within a civilization.
The ending of the story bears questions about the true nature of Rainsford, who is implied to have killed Zaroff in order to secure his own safety. By killing Zaroff, he thus took part in the “game” that Zaroff wanted him to play.[8]
The first major film adaption wasĀ RKO Pictures‘ film released inĀ 1932,Ā The Most Dangerous Game.Ā Joel McCreaĀ stars as Rainsford;Ā Leslie BanksĀ portrays Zaroff. The adaptation byĀ James Ashmore CreelmanĀ adds two other principal characters, brother-and-sister pair Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray) and Martin Trowbridge (Robert Armstrong), who are castaways from a shipwreck.Ā The Most Dangerous GameĀ was co-directed byĀ Ernest B. SchoedsackĀ andĀ Irving Pichel; also with a score byĀ Max Steiner, the film was a favorite project of producerĀ Merian C. Cooper. The production shared several sets withĀ King KongĀ (1933), a simultaneous RKO project that also involved Schoedsack, Cooper, Wray, Armstrong, Creelman, and Steiner.Ā The Most Dangerous GameĀ was a modest success.[9][10][11]:51
RKO produced a remake titledĀ A Game of DeathĀ (1945), directed byĀ Robert Wise, from a screenplay Norman Houston wrote. This film starsĀ John LoderĀ andĀ Audrey Long, withĀ Edgar BarrierĀ as the mad hunter.[11]:206Ā In order to keep with events of that time,Ā A Game of DeathĀ changed Zaroff into “Erich Kreiger”, a Nazi, and was set in the aftermath of theĀ Second World War.[12]
Also in 1972,Ā The Suckers, tells a sexploitation version of the story, with the hunter using models as his prey.[16]Ā In 1973,Ā The Perverse CountessĀ was released.[17]Ā The 1982 Australian filmĀ Turkey ShootĀ has similar elements.[18]
The 1987 film,Ā Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity, transports the story to an alien world using scantily clad women as the hunted and a mad scientist, Zed as the Zaroff character.[17][19]
John Woo‘s first Hollywood directorial effort, theĀ Jean-Claude Van DammeĀ thrillerĀ Hard TargetĀ (1993), was loosely based on the same story. The locale was shifted to 1990s New Orleans, with homeless Vietnam war veterans voluntarily serving (in return for potential payment from a shady businessman) as human prey. It was followed byĀ Hard Target 2, a direct-to-video sequel released in 2016.
InĀ Surviving the GameĀ (1994), a homeless man is hired as a survival guide for a group of wealthy businessmen on a hunting trip in the mountains. He is unaware that they are killers who hunt humans for sport, and that he is their new prey. Directed by Ernest R. Dickerson, the film starsĀ Rutger Hauer,Ā Ice-T, andĀ Charles S. Dutton.
The PestĀ (1997) is a comedic parody of the story, with German huntsman Gustav Shank accidentally bringing Puerto Rican teenage hustler Pestario “Pest” Vargas to his island instead of the skilled man he had intended to hunt, only to decide to hunt the Pest anyway due to his sheer obnoxiousness. Shank’s ambition is to have a head of a warrior of every ethnicity in his Trophy Room. He also rigs the “game” by having his prey unknowingly drink a slow-acting poison before the hunt, making sure that they die even if they escape him.
InĀ The EliminatorĀ (2004), seven captured people are hunted at night for sport on an island as a betting game for the wealthy.
The 2019-produced filmĀ The HuntĀ follows a similar premise. It will release in March 13, 2020 and was originally going to be released in September 27, 2019. It was originally cancelled due toĀ DaytonaĀ andĀ El PasoĀ mass shootings in early August 2019.
Radio
“The Most Dangerous Game” was presented four times as aĀ radio play.
On February 1, 1945, it was presented withĀ J. Carrol NaishĀ as Zaroff andĀ Joseph CottenĀ as Rainsford.[20]Ā BothĀ SuspenseĀ productions presented an adaptation by Jack Finke in which Rainsford narrates the story inĀ retrospectĀ as he waits in Zaroff’s bedroom for the final confrontation.[6][17]
On October 1, 1947, another adaption was used for theĀ CBSĀ radio program,Ā Escape.[21]
InĀ Have Gun Will TravelĀ episode “The Black Bull” Paladin is forced to play the part of a black bull against an insane matador (Ned Romero)
InĀ The Wild Wild WestĀ episode, 1/4 “The Night of Sudden Death”, Jim West and a circus girl are trapped inside an Africa Reserve wild animal Park in Colorado and are hunted by an insane big-game hunter Warren (Robert Loggia).
In theĀ Get SmartĀ episode, “Island of the Darned”, Agents 86 and 99 are trapped on an island with a mad KAOS killer, Hans Hunter (Harold Gould).
This trope was used in the season 3 (1968), episode 22 ofĀ I Spy, “The Name of the Game”.
In theĀ Gilligan’s IslandĀ episode “The Hunter”, big-game hunter Jonathan Kincaid (Rory Calhoun) turned his sights on Gilligan when he realized there were no wild animals on the island.
In the series finale ofĀ Bonanza, entitled “The Hunter”, a deranged killer, Corporal Bill Tanner (Tom Skerritt), who was formerly a tracker for the United States Army, hunts Little Joe (Michael Landon).
In the 1974 TV movie “Savages” after a young man accidentally witnesses a murder, he must survive both the desert and being hunted by the killer (Andy Griffith).[23]
In the 1977 pilot episode ofĀ Fantasy Island, a big-game hunter comes to the island to be hunted by a man, an interesting twist on the usual version in which the hunted participates against his will.
The Canadian seriesĀ Relic HunterĀ had an episode called “Run Sydney Run” that was very closely based on “The Most Dangerous Game”, withĀ Peter StebbingsĀ acting as General Tsarlov.[citation needed]
The SimpsonsĀ Halloween special “Treehouse of Horror XVI” contained a segment titled “Survival of the Fattest” which parodied the story closely. In this segment Mr. Burns invited much of the cast to his hunting lodge on a private island, only to reveal that he intended to hunt them all for sport. Another episode makes a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” whenĀ Rainier WolfcastleĀ says that he bought aĀ YMCAĀ to demolish it and install a hunting ground dedicated to “hunt the most dangerous animal of all… Man”.
In an episode of the animated sitcomĀ American Dad!, the Smith family and a young woman become stranded on an island after Francine jumps off a cruise. Stan goes up to the mansion on this island to ask for help, but the inhabitants say that they are going to hunt the family. The Smiths and the young woman become trapped in a cave, where the young woman dies and they eat her to survive. The hunters then break into the cave and shoot the family. Stan sits up, realizing it isĀ paint. At a party later, the hunters reveal that nobody really dies on The Most Dangerous Game Island.
The Incredible HulkĀ episode “The Snare” has Banner trapped on a private island owned by an insane hunter who not only craves the challenge of hunting humans, but considers the discovery of Banner’s powerful Hulk form as a sign of a particularly appealing quarry.
In Season 2, Episode 21 ofĀ Criminal Minds, “Open Season”, two brothers capture people stranded in a remote region of the wilderness outsideĀ Challis, Idaho, release them into the hills, and hunt them with compound bows for sport, referring the men as “bucks” and the women as “does”.
In Season 13, Episode 15 ofĀ Law and Order: SVU, “Hunting Ground”, a serial rapist and killer lures female escorts after their date to a remote area where he sets them free while he hunts them down to recapture them again.
In the Disney animated seriesĀ The Mighty DucksĀ “The Most Dangerous Duck Hunt” episode, the heroes are trapped on an island and hunted.
In a “Dial M for Monkey” segment of the animated seriesĀ Dexter’s Laboratory, the hero Monkey is trapped by an alien big-game hunter named “Huntor”, who also makes a cameo among a league of Hunters of “Sumarai Jack” in the Cartoon Network cartoon seriesĀ Samurai Jack.
In Season 1, Episode 15 ofĀ Supernatural, “The Benders”, a family has been behind disappearances in a city. The family snatches victims to hunt and kill. Sam and a police officer are taken, but Dean finds them and helps them subdue the family before it can cause them any harm.
In Season 7, Episode 12 ofĀ Futurama, “31st Century Fox“,Ā BenderĀ becomes the target of a fox hunting club and is referred to as ‘the most dangerous game.’
In Season 2 Episode 6 ofĀ The Blacklist, Elizabeth Keen and her FBI task force encounter a family in Idaho who trained the mother’s youngest son to hunt and kill humans kidnapped by the eldest son.
The Outer LimitsĀ 1998 episode “The Hunt” is a story in which the hunting of animals has been banned by environmentalists, and black market hunting of obsolete androids takes its place.
In the Season 3, Episode 5 episode ofĀ Archer, “El Contador”, Lana and Archer are hunted by a drug lord.
In Season 3, Episode 22 episode ofĀ Riverdale, “Chapter Fifty-Seven: Survive the Night”
InĀ Season 4, Episode 2Ā ofĀ Game of Thrones, there is a scene in whichĀ Ramsay BoltonĀ hunts a woman (one of his former lovers). She is cornered by the hunting party and eaten alive by Ramsay’s dogs. It is implied that this was not the only time Ramsay indulged inĀ human huntingĀ “for sport.”
In Season 3, Episodes 21 and 22 ofĀ Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Ahsoka Tano and Chewbacca are hunted on an island.
An episode of the animated seriesĀ Johnny BravoĀ entitled “Hunted!” is an obvious parody of the story. The titular Johnny is forced to go through the same ordeal, but his stupidity and foolishness greatly frustrates the hunter, who eventually allows him to leave.
Season 6 episode 11 ofĀ Xena: Warrior Princess, “Dangerous Prey”, is also inspired by The Most Dangerous Game. In this episode, Prince Morloch is a hunter who has grown bored of hunting animals, saying he’s “killed one of every creature that walks this earth”. He started hunting Amazons which grabbed the attention of Xena.
In season 3 ofĀ Wrecked, the plane crash survivors land on another island, where four wealthy men make them hunt each other, then hunting the survivor.
In the anime seriesĀ Psycho-Pass, episodes 10 and 11 feature a wealthy cyborg tycoon who dons gentleman’s hunting gear and hunts people in an underground maze with his robotic hounds.
In the video gameĀ Hitman: Contracts, the mission “Beldingford Manor” takes inspiration from this story.
In the video gameĀ Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc, the character Razoff takes inspiration from General Zaroff, even sharing similar names.
In the comic-book story “The Second Most Dangerous Game” (serialized inĀ Martian ComicsĀ #8ā10), Martians possess humans to continue their tradition of hunting other humans, after the practice has been outlawed. Richard Connell is a character.
In the comic book issueĀ DaredevilĀ #4 Daredevil fights a mad manhunter on a remote island.
In Clive Cussler’s bookĀ DRAGONĀ Dirk Pitt is chased by “Kamatori” on Soseki Island.
In the online gameĀ Poptropica, the five-part Survival Island features the player in a situation much like the one in the original story. At the end of the third episode, the player is rescued by a hunter known as Myron van Buren. The fourth episode revolves around the player in van Buren’s cabin, finding out that van Buren plans to hunt them. In the fifth episode, the player teams up with another victim of van Buren to defeat him by trapping him in a waterwheel.
In the video gameĀ Psychonauts, Vernon, one of the campers, references to hunting the most dangerous game while playing hide and seek.
In 2006,Ā The OnionĀ parodied the premise, positing that humans would actually make rather pitiful prey.[24]
In Don Pendleton’sĀ The ExecutionerĀ series, book #441, calledĀ Murder IslandĀ has a similar plot to the book. The protagonist, Mack “The Executioner” Bolan (a vigilante/government agent) encounters a rich businessman hunter on an island while on a mission and ends up in a similar position as the Rainsford character, while the rich hunter takes a similar role as Zaroff.
In a song called “Fly on the Wall” by Joey Pecoraro, the opening interaction between Rainsford and General Zaroff is used as a prelude to the actual song.
In 1987, American Metal band Laaz Rockit retold the story in their song “Most Dangerous Game” on their album Know Your Enemy.Ā [25]
TheĀ Rooster TeethĀ series “Let’s Play Minecraft” featured an adaptation of the story into a game played by the show’s cast members in the video gameĀ Minecraft, where one player was given a map and hunted by the other five in and around the in-game world created by theĀ Achievement HunterĀ cast members.
A translated version was published inĀ MalayalamĀ as an audio book by Kathacafe in 2017.[26]
In the video gameĀ West of LoathingĀ a hunter’s ghost challenges the player to play “the most dangerous game”. After the player character shows disgust at hunting people the ghost says that wasn’t what he meant.
Real-life parallels
Robert Hansen, a serial killer who was active in the early 1980s, would kidnap women and release them in Alaska’sĀ Knik RiverĀ Valley. He would then hunt them, armed with a knife and aĀ Ruger Mini-14Ā rifle.[27][28]Ā A 2003 American crime drama filmĀ The Frozen GroundĀ starring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage is based on this case.[29]Ā Hanson was arrested and imprisoned for life where he died of an undisclosed illness.
In 1976, Hayes Noel, Bob Gurnsey, andĀ Charles GainesĀ discussed Gaines’s recent trip to Africa and his experiences huntingĀ African buffalo. Inspired in part by “The Most Dangerous Game”, they createdĀ paintballĀ in 1981āa game where they would stalk and hunt each otherāto recreate the same adrenaline rush from hunting animals.[30]
There is a reference to “The Most Dangerous Game” in letters theĀ Zodiac KillerĀ wrote toĀ San Francisco Bay AreaĀ newspapers in his three-part cipher: “Man is the most dangerous animal of all to kill”.[31]Ā The Most Dangerous GameĀ film is also mentioned a number of times in the context of the Zodiac Killer in the 2007 film,Ā Zodiac.[32]
Story 3: U.S. Houshold Debt Rising To Over $14,000,000,000 While Federal Reserve Continues To Expand Liquidity By Over $1,000,000,000 in Repo Market — Videos
The Credit Card Crisis
Fed keeps rates unchanged
Powell hinting Federal Reserve will remain on sidelines in 2020
WATCH LIVE: Fed Chair Powell testifies on coronavirus, state of economy
Fed expects inflation to move closer to 2% in coming months: Fed chairman
Economic language was downgraded in Fed decision: Portfolio manager
Stocks close near session lows after the Fed keeps interest rates unchanged
More Investors are starting to assume the Fed may be cutting rates by the end of the year: Economist
What is ACTUALLY going on in the repo market and what do Hedge Funds have to do with it?
What Caused the Repo Blowup in 2019? | Explained in 3 Minutes
What is the Repo Market? | Explained in 3 Minutes
U.S. Household Debt Exceeds $14 Trillion for the First Time
(Bloomberg) — Americans increased their borrowing for the 22nd straight quarter as more households took out loans to buy homes or refinance existing mortgages, according to a report released today from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Total U.S. household debt rose by $601 billion in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, or 1.4%, surpassing $14 trillion for the first time, the New York Fedās quarterly household credit and debt report showed. Thatās $1.5 trillion above the previous peak in the third quarter of 2008. Overall household debt is now 26.8% above the second-quarter 2013 trough.
Mortgage borrowing rose by $120 billion to $9.56 trillion. The rate for a 30-year mortgage has fallen by about 100 basis points over the past year, adding to home purchasersā buying power. For example, a $500,000, 30-year loan costs about $300 less per month.
āMortgage originations, including refinances, increased significantly in the final quarter of 2019,ā Wilbert Van Der Klaauw, vice president at the New York Fed, said in a statement.
Mortgage loans for young adults age 18 to 29 rose to a the highest level since the third quarter of 2007. Originations for 30-year-olds rose to $210.1 billion last quarter — the highest level since the end of 2005.
Total debt for people ages 18 to 29 rose to a record $1.04 trillion.
Student debt increased to $1.51 trillion from $1.46 trillion at the end of 2018. More than $100 billion in student debt is held by those age 60 and over. Auto loans rose to $1.33 trillion, while credit card debt rose to a record $930 billion.
Auto debt, which has risen for 35 consecutive quarters, increased $16 billion from the previous quarter. Almost 5% of auto loans are 90 days of more delinquent. This is the highest percentage since the third quarter of 2011.
Credit card delinquencies rose to 8.36% an 18-month high.
Among student debt, one in nine borrowers were 90+ days delinquent or in default in 2019, and this figure may be understated. About half of student loans are currently in deferment, in grace periods or in forbearance and therefore temporarily not in the repayment cycle. Once these loans enter that cycle, delinquency rates are projected to be roughly twice as high, according to the Fed report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Tanzi in Washington at atanzi@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah McGregor at smcgregor5@bloomberg.net, Anita Sharpe
For more articles like this, please visit us atĀ bloomberg.com
Subscribe nowĀ to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
Part 1 of 2 — Story 1: Trump’s Legal Team Concludes Opening Arguments With Three Presentations — The Fools on The HillĀ –Long and Winding Road to Election Day November 3, 2020 and People Power — Videos
Trump defense concludes opening arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 7
WATCH: Dershowitz says charges against Trump are āoutside’ of impeachment offenses
Story 1: President Trump’s Legal Defense Team Destroys Democrat Case For Impeachment — Big Lie Media Mob on Bolton Book Bombshell Another Big Dud — Democrat Corruption in Ukraine By Hunter and Joe Biden Not Debunked By Democrats Far From It — Trump Should Be Acquitted By 55 Plus Votes in Favor of Not Guilty Verdict — President Trump Should Win November 2020 Election With Majority and 70 Million Votes and 330 Electoral College Votes in Landslide Victory — The Impeachment’s Unintended Consequences — Videos
Story 1: President Trump’s Legal Team Destroys Democrat Case For Impeachment, Bolton Book Details and Biden Appearance of Corruption Examined — Trump Should Be Acquitted or Found Not Guitly By At Least 55 Votes —Ā Videos
MUST WATCH: Jim Jordan SLAMS John Bolton Book Details
Day six impeachment trial highlights as Republicans continue their defence of President Donald Trump
Trump team continues defense in Senate impeachment trial | Day 6
Trump defense continues arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 6
WATCH: Herschmann suggests Hunter Biden sought to profit from Burisma board position
Eric Herschmann, a member of Trumpās legal team, argued before the Senate on Jan. 27 that Hunter Biden made millions of dollars serving on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma while his father was serving as vice president, profiting off of his last name. Herschmann cast doubt on Hunterās previous statements that he joined the board of Burisma to enforce corporate governance and transparency in Ukraine and criticized Democrats for dismissing the issue: āCan you imagine what House manager Schiff would say if it was one of the President Trumpās children who was on an oligarchās payroll?ā he asked. President Donald Trumpās defense team is presenting their arguments as part of the Senate impeachment trial. Trumpās trial has entered a pivotal week as his defense team resumes its case and senators face a critical vote on whether to hear witnesses or proceed directly to a vote that is widely expected to end in his acquittal. The articles of impeachment charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House of Representatives impeached the president in December on those two counts.
WATCH: Dershowitz says charges against Trump are āoutside’ of impeachment offenses
MUST WATCH: Jim Jordan SLAMS John Bolton Book Details
Jim Jordan: Bolton report doesn’t alter the facts in impeachment trial
WATCH LIVE: Senate Democrats, GOP respond to Bolton revelation as Trump impeachment trial continues
Part 2 of 2 — Story 1: President Trump Signs Phase One Trade Agreement With Communist China — Will It Be Fully Enforceable? — Time Will Tell — Videos
Trump speaks before signing “Phase One” of China trade deal
Larry Kudlow breaks down the implications of the US-China trade deal
Trump signs phase one of US-China trade deal
Trump signs partial trade deal with China l ABC News
Mnuchin: US wonāt lift China tariffs until phase two of trade deal
Jamie Dimon praises Trump economy, China trade deal in exclusive interview
US Trade Rep. Lighthizer on historic ‘phase-one’ China trade deal
Wilbur Ross: China trade deal, USMCA total $2 trillion in trade
Donald Trump signs ‘phase one’ of trade deal with China which ends escalation of his trade warāand complains about the ‘impeachment hoax’ at White House ceremony with Xi Jinping’s deputy looking on
Donald Trump took a victory lap as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House – as his impeachment sped ahead at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue
He touted his economy and launched attack after attack on his enemies at packed East Room ceremony, railing against the ‘impeachment hoax’
Trump has vowed that he would ink a trade deal with China for more than two years and imposed steep tariffs to bring Beijing to the table
Signing is for ‘phase one’ and the White House promises more segments in the future
Xi Jinping didn’t come for the signing but sent a lower-level official, vice-premier Liu He and Trump said he will go back to China soon to ‘reciprocate’
It’s unclear what he’s reciprocating for, since Xi didn’t comeĀ
East Room press credentials didn’t have a date printed on them, suggesting the White House wasn’t confident the event would happen on schedule
President urged House members in the audience to leave early if they needed to cast a vote on sending impeachment articles to the SenateĀ
Donald Trump took a victory lap on Wednesday as he signed a trade deal with China at the White House as his impeachment sped towards the Senate on Capitol Hill.
He boasted to an audience of dignitaries that a new trade deal with China will bring ‘a future of fair and reciprocal trade,’ then complained about the ‘impeachment hoax,’ and praised a string of Republican senators who he needs to vote for his acquittal.
The president has long complained about a massive trade deficit between Washington and Beijing. He pledged during the 2016 campaign to come down hard on China.
‘We are righting the wrongs of the past,’ he said Wednesday, observing that ‘our negotiations were tough, honest, open and respectful.’
‘This is the biggest deal anyone’s ever seen,’ he said, because ‘China has 1.5 billion people.’
The president spent nearly a half-hour acknowledging business leaders and lawmakers who crowded into the East Room to watch. And he noted that some House members might have to leave early in order to vote on a motion to send articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.
Some of the congressmen may have a voteāit’s on the impeachment hoaxāso if you want, you go out and vote. … It’s not going to matter becausae it’s gone very well. But I’d rather have you voting than sitting here listening to me introduce you, okay?’ he said with a grin.
‘They have a hoax going on over there. Let’s take care of it.’
Trump was not accompanied by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who sent Vice Premier Liu He in his place. Xi’s absence left some with the impression that Washington wants the deal more than Beijing does.
Done deal: Donald Trump and Liu He sign the phase one trade deal which calls a halt to escalations in the U.S.-China trade deal and is claimed to mean up to $50 billion in agricultural sales to China
Signed, sealed, delivered: China’s vice-premier Liu He and Donald Trump show their signatures in the completed phase one trade deal
East room ceremony: Donald Trump hosted the Chinese vice-premier Liu He in the East Wing in front of an audience of Republican senators and Congressmen and figures from the American business world – almost all of whom he named
President Donald Trump stood alongside China’s vice premier Liu He, not its president Xi Jinping, when he signed a landmark trade deal on Wednesday
Awkward exchange: Donald Trump moved to shake hands with China’s vice-premier Liu He, who extended his left hand instead
Unusual handshake: After Liu He extended his left hand, Donald Trump grasped two of his fingers in an attempt to shake his hand
The president announced that he will ‘be going back to China in the not-too-distant future to reciprocate,’ but it’s unclear what he would be reciprocating for.
Vice President Mike Pence said the deal would guarantee $40-50 billion in Chinese purchases of American agriculture products.
And Trump said China will stop forcing American companies to share proprietary technologies with Chinese partners. ‘You don’t have to give up anything anymore. Just be strong,’ he said to business leaders in the room.
The White House’s guests included top executives from UPS, Boeing, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, VISA, Citibank, Honeywell, Dow Chemical, eBay and Ford Motor Company; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who aims to see markets opened to him in China; television commentator Lou Dobbs; and Trump’s ambassador in Beijing, Terry Branstad.
Second time lucky: After Liu He spoke through a translator, the two succeeded in shaking hands
Trump acknowledged lawmakers and businessmen in the East Room including casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson
Chinese representative: President Xi Jinping sent vice-premier Liu He, who spoke through a translator (left)
Packed: The East Room was fool for the invited audience of business leaders, White House aides and congressional Republicans
Everyone gets a mention: Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator was asked to stand, while Trump claimed that Grassley had ‘made [James] Comey choke like a dog’
Official delegation:Donald Trump is flanked by as Vice President Mike Pence and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer
First daughter: Ivanka Trump was followed into the East Room by Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor
Branstad, a longtime Iowa governor before coming to Washington, got the job because of his deep ties to global agriculture.
While Wall Street will carefully examine the fine print, the trade deal will allow businesses around the globe to breathe a sigh of relief.
After a nearly two-year battle, the signing could give Trump an election-year boost as well. Still, tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in imports remain in place, leaving many Americans to foot the bill.
Reporters covering the East Room event on Wednesday wore White House credentials with no date printed on them. That unusual feature suggests Trump’s trade negotiators weren’t certain whether the event would happen as scheduled.
Journalists shoot shoulder-to-shoulder, including a contingent of dozens from Chinese media outlets.
The ‘phase one’ agreementāwhich includes pledges from China to beef up purchases of American crops and other exportsāalso comes just as Trump faces an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, giving him a victory to trumpet at least in the short term.
As he is about the face an impeachment trial, President Donald Trump will be able to tout a trade deal with China
It’s unclear which country will get the better end of the deal, but Trump has trumpeted every development that is favorable to the United States
China-US trade has diminished in both directions since Trump began venting about an imbalance of hundreds of billions of dollars wach year
The easing of US-China trade frictions has boosted stock markets worldwide in recent weeks, as it takes the threat of new tariffs off the table for now.
And Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump’s negotiating stance led to a ‘fully enforceable deal’ which could bring additional tariffs.
If China fails to abide by the agreement, ‘the president has the ability to put on additional tariffs,’ Mnuchin said on CNBC Wednesday as part of a media blitz promoting the new pact.
However, the most difficult issues remain to be dealt with in ‘phase two’ negotiations, including massive subsidies for state industry and forced technology transfer.
But Mnuchin said the deal puts pressure on Beijing to stay at the negotiating table and make further commitments, including on cyber-security and other services to win relief from the tariffs that remain in place.
‘In phase two there will be additional roll backs,’ Mnuchin said. ‘This gives China a big incentive to get back to the table and agree to the additional issues that are still unresolved.’
Still, elements of the deal the administration has touted as achievements effectively take the relationship between the two powers back to where it was before Trump took office.
‘The US-China phase-one deal is essentially a trade truce, with large state-directed purchases attached,’ economist Mary Lovely said in an analysis.
Even so, ‘The truce is good news for the U.S. and the world economy.’
Still, the trade expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cautioned that ‘we will continue to see the impact of this in slower investment and higher business costs.’
U.S. officials have said they will release details of the agreement set to be signed at a White House ceremony at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday.
After announcing the deal December 13, the U.S. canceled a damaging round of new tariffs that were due to kick in two days later and promised to slash in half the 15 percent tariffs on $120 billion imposed September 1 on consumer goods like clothing.
Mnuchin dismissed a Bloomberg report that the initial agreement could include provisions to roll back more tariffs on China after the election.
‘The tariffs will stay in place until there is a phase two. If the president gets phase two quickly, he will consider releasing tariffs. If not, there won’t be any tariff relief,’ Mnuchin said Tuesday on Bloomberg TV.
‘It has nothing to do with the election or anything else.’
Washington said Beijing agreed to import, over two years, $200 billion of U.S. products above the levels in 2017, before Trump launched his offensive.
Trump has repeatedly touted the trade pact as a boon for American farmers, saying China will buy $40 to $50 billion in agricultural goods.
U.S. farmers were hit hard by the tariff warānotably on soybeans which saw exports to China plunge to just $3 billion from more than $12 billion in 2017. The Trump administration paid out $28 billion in aid to farmers in the last two years.
But many economists question whether they have the capacity to meet that demand.
And Lovely raised a question about the wisdom on relying so heavily on the Chinese market.
‘It also means Chinese retaliation could be reinstated, dampening farmers’ willingness to invest to meet the very hard export targets in the deal.’
Trump and Xi Jinping have a cordial working rapport but the Chinese president didn’t travel to Washingtonāleaving the impression that Trump wants it more than he does
U.S. and Chinese officials say the agreement includes protections for intellectual property and addresses financial services and foreign exchange while including a pr.ovision for dispute resolution, which Mnuchin said will be binding for the first time.
Trump in August formally accused China of manipulating its currency to gain an advantage in trade and offset the impact of the tariffs.
The label, which had no real practical impact, was removed earlier this week.
The deal also restores a twice-yearly dialogue process that previous administrations conducted regularly but that Trump scrapped.
U.S. and China tiptoe around holes in new trade agreement
by Reuters
Thursday, 16 January 2020 00:46 GMT
By Jeff Mason, Andrea Shalal and David Lawder
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) – The United States and China signed an initial trade deal on Wednesday that will roll back some tariffs and boost Chinese purchases of U.S. products, defusing an 18-month row between the world’s two largest economies but leaving a number of sore spots unresolved.
Beijing and Washington touted the “Phase 1” agreement as a step forward after months of start-and-stop talks, and investors greeted the news with relief. Even so, there was skepticism the U.S.-China trade relationship was now firmly on the mend.
The deal fails to address structural economic issues that led to the trade conflict, does not fully eliminate the tariffs that have slowed the global economy, and sets hard-to-achieve purchase targets, analysts and industry leaders said.
While acknowledging the need for further negotiations with China to solve a host of other problems, President Donald Trump hailed the agreement as a win for the U.S. economy and his administration’s trade policies.
“Together, we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers and families,” Trump said in rambling remarks at the White House alongside U.S. and Chinese officials.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He read a letter from President Xi Jinping in which the Chinese leader praised the deal as a sign the two countries could resolve their differences with dialogue.
The centerpiece of the deal is a pledge by China to purchase at least an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. farm products and other goods and services over two years, above a baseline of $186 billion in purchases in 2017, the White House said.
Commitments include $54 billion in additional energy purchases, $78 billion in additional manufacturing purchases, $32 billion more in farm products, and $38 billion in services, according to a deal document released by the White House.
Liu said Chinese companies would buy $40 billion in U.S. agricultural products annually over the next two years “based on market conditions.” Beijing had balked at committing to buy set amounts of U.S. farm goods earlier, and has inked new soybean contracts with Brazil since the trade war started.
Key world stock market indexes climbed to record highs on hopes the deal would reduce tensions, before closing below those highs, while oil prices slid on doubts the pact will spur world economic growth and boost crude demand.
Soybean futures, which traded 0.4% lower throughout much of the deal signing ceremony, sank even further after Liu’s remarks, a sign that farmers and traders were dubious about the purchase goals.
The deal does not end retaliatory tariffs on American farm exports, makes farmers “increasingly reliant” on Chinese state-controlled purchases, and does not address “big structural changes,” Michelle Erickson-Jones, a wheat farmer and spokeswoman for Farmers for Free Trade, said in a statement.
Trump and his economic advisers had pledged to attack Beijing’s long-standing practice of propping up state-owned companies and flooding international markets with low-priced goods as the trade war heated up.
Although the deal could be a boost to U.S. farmers, automakers and heavy equipment manufacturers, some analysts question https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL4N29J26S China’s ability to divert imports from other trading partners to the United States.
“I find a radical shift in Chinese spending unlikely. I have low expectations for meeting stated goals,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group in Minneapolis. “But I do think the whole negotiation has moved the football forward for both the U.S. and China.”
Trump, who has embraced an “America First” policy aimed at rebalancing global trade in favor of U.S. companies and workers, said China had pledged action to confront the problem of pirated or counterfeited goods and said the deal included strong protection of intellectual property rights.
U.S. Speaker of the House of Representative Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s China strategy had “inflicted deep, long-term damage to American agriculture and rattled our economy in exchange for more of the promises that Beijing has been breaking for years,” in a statement.
Earlier, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told Fox News the agreement would add 0.5 percentage point to U.S. gross domestic product growth in both 2020 and 2021.
Aviation industry sources said Boeing Co was expected to win a major order for wide-body jets from China, including its 787 or 777-9 models, or a mixture of both. Such a deal could ease pressure on the 787 Dreamliner, which has suffered from a broad downturn in demand for large jets, forcing the planemaker to trim production late last year.
CCTV, China’s state-run television outlet, said the deal would satisfy China’s increasingly demanding consumers by supplying products like dairy, poultry, beef, pork, and processed meat from the United States.
TARIFFS TO STAY
The Phase 1 deal, reached in December, canceled planned U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made cellphones, toys and laptop computers and halved the tariff rate to 7.5% on about $120 billion worth of other Chinese goods, including flat-panel televisions, Bluetooth headphones and footwear.
But it will leave in place 25% tariffs on a $250-billion array of Chinese industrial goods and components used by U.S. manufacturers, and China’s retaliatory tariffs on over $100 billion in U.S. goods.
Market turmoil and reduced investment tied to the trade war cut global growth in 2019 to its lowest rate since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund said in October.
Tariffs on Chinese imports have cost U.S. companies $46 billion. Evidence is mounting that tariffs have raised input costs for U.S. manufacturers, eroding their competitiveness.
Diesel engine maker Cummins Inc said on Tuesday the deal will leave it paying $150 million in tariffs for engines and castings that it produces in China. It urged the parties to take steps to eliminate all the tariffs.
Trump, who has been touting the Phase 1 deal as a pillar of his 2020 re-election campaign, said he would agree to remove the remaining tariffs once the two sides had negotiated a “Phase 2” agreement.
“They will all come off as soon as we finish Phase 2,” said Trump, who added that he would visit China in the not-too-distant future.
Trump added that those negotiations would start soon, though in a Fox Business Network interview that aired on Wednesday evening, Vice President Mike Pence said: “We’ve already begun discussions on a Phase 2 deal.”
(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Andrea Shalal and Dave Lawder Additional reporting by Echo Wang, Lisa Lambert, Susan Heavey Lisa Lambert and Doina Chiacu in Washington, Tim Aeppel in New York, Mark Weinraub in Chicago, Se Young Lee and Stella Qui in Beijing and Tim Hepher in Paris; Writing by Heather Timmons; Editing by Paul Simao, Leslie Adler and Richard Chang)
Story 2: President Trump’sĀ United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) Bill Passes SenateĀ 89 to 10 Vote– On It Way For President Trump’s SignatureĀ — Big Win For Trump and American People — Videos —
Senate passes USMCA trade deal
U.S. Senate passes USMCA trade agreement
Donald Trump’s USMCA trade pact finally passes through both houses of Congress as he touts China truce as ‘one of the greatest trade deals ever made’ but Democrats’ impeachment overshadows everything
NAFTA replacement will go to Trump’s Oval Office desk for his signature
President has pushed the plan for months but it languished in Democrat-run House of Representatives
Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it on the agenda a day after her caucus impeached the president
That sent it to the Senate, which will try the impeachment cases beginning next week
Trump inked a major trade deal with China on Wednesday but even that has been overshadowed by impeachmentĀ
Donald TrumpĀ tried to nudge the news cycle away from impeachment on Thursday as his long-languishing U.S. MexicoĀ CanadaĀ Agreement finally passed in the Senate.
The final tally was 89-10. DemocratsĀ Elizabeth WarrenĀ andĀ Bernie Sanders, two of the presidential primary front-runners, took different approaches. Warren voted yes, Sanders no.
The vote was a rare moment of bipartisanship, a blipp on senators’ radar as they prepared for weeks of wrangling during Trump’s impeachment trial.
The president said farmers in America are ‘really happy’ with both the USMCA and a broad trade truce he signed Wednesday with China.Ā
Impeachment politics also overshadowed the House’s vote to green-light the USMCA, which came just one day after Democrats led a vote to charge Trump with two constitutional crimes.
The U.S. Senate passed the U.S> Mexico Canada Agreement on Thursday just before launching full bore into impeachment procedures
President Donald Trump got a double trade victory after his deal with China on Wednesday but all eyes were on the impeachment ceremonies
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (center) had to wait to put the USMCA on the Senate floor for a vote until the House passed it; Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on the trade treaty for months
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described the pact as a ‘major win for the Trump administration, a major win for those of us who are already ready to move past this season of toxic political noise.’Ā
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa called the USMCA ‘a major achievement for President Trump and a bipartisan deal for the American people.’
Democrats scrambled to take credit for upgrading the USMCA’s environmental and worker-protection clauses. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden claimed he and his colleagues gave the plan ‘a trade enforcement regime with real teeth.’
He also praised Trump’s chief negotiator Robert Lighthizer as ‘the hardest working man in the trade business.
Trump blamed the current trade pact with Canada and Mexico, the Bill Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement, for sending millions of manufacturing jobs to low-wage plants south of the U.S. border. His administration secured changes that aim to have more cars produced where workers earn an average of at least $16 an hour.Ā
Pelosi held onto the USMCA until she could deny Trump a positivev news cycle, letting impeachment overshadow it completely
It also secured changes that require Mexico to change its laws to make it easier for workers to form independent unions, which should improve worker conditions and wages and reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to relocate their plants.
While the administration completed its negotiations with Canada and Mexico more than a year ago, Democrats in the House insisted on changes to the pact that they say make it more likely Mexico will follow through on its commitments.
As part of those negotiations, the administration agreed to drop a provision that offered expensive biologic drugsāmade from living cellsā10 years of protection from cheaper knockoff competition.
Republicans and the president have complained about how long it took to complete the negotiations, but the talks resulted in a rare mix of support for USMCA. The AFL-CIO, an association of trade unions, endorsed the measure along with scores of business and farm groups.Ā
The biggest holdouts are environmental groups, which continue to oppose the measure because it doesnĀ“t address climate change. Indeed, they contend the agreement would contribute to rising temperatures.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., marveled Wednesday at how leaders of organized labor and farm groups in his state appeared together to support the pact.
‘They both agree that this USMCA trade agreement is a step forward, an improvement over the original NAFTA,’ Durbin said. ‘I think weĀ“ve added to this process by making it truly bipartisan.’
Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, checks his watch while waiting for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to wrap up a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV studio on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020. Sen. Risch along with Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, were waiting to hold a press conference on USMCA, which passed the Senate Thursday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The Senate approved implementing legislation Thursday for a renegotiated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, giving President Donald Trump a victory as the Senate moved to swearing in its members as jurors in Trumpās impeachment trial.
The Senate voted 89-10 to clear the bill for Trump’s signature, with several dissenting Democrats citing the absence of climate change provisions as a lost opportunity to address the issue on an international scale since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who negotiated the deal, watched the vote from the public gallery.
The vote on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement occurred after the Senate voted to waive budget restrictions. Sen.Ā Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., argued on the floor, as he did in the Budget Committee, that the bill included appropriations that violate budget rules.
The Democrat-controlled House approved the bill on Dec. 19 with a bipartisan vote of 385-41. SpeakerĀ Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said House Democrats had negotiated several changes to the USMCA to make it acceptable.
Key changes for Democrats included enforcement of labor provisions they believe will make it more difficult and expensive for U.S. manufacturers, particularly auto makers, to shift production to Mexico. The changes won the endorsement of the AFL-CIO, but other unions such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers oppose it.
The pact also would give technology companies provisions to address e-commerce, which did not exist when NAFTA was negotiated. A chapter based on Section 230 of a 1996 telecommunications law (PL 104-104) gives companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter immunity from liability for user content posted on their platforms.
Trump is expected to tout the vote in his reelection campaign as a promise kept. In 2016, he vowed either to revamp the 1994 trade agreement or to withdraw the U.S. from the pact. As president, Trump caused anxiety among businesses large and small and his base of farm support with threats to pull out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not make concessions.
Business groups say congressional approval of the USMCA implementing bill makes it less likely Trump will try to upend a trade agreement negotiated and renamed by his administration.
The bill now goes to Trump for signing, but the Canadian Parliament still must ratify the USMCA before the agreement can take effect. Mexico has already approved the new pact.
The implementing legislation provides the framework and mechanisms the Trump administration will use to enforce labor rights and environmental standards with a focus on Mexico. For example, an interagency task force on labor will be established 90 days after the bill takes effect.
The USMCA will replace NAFTA, an agreement credited with building the three nations into a $1.2 trillion-a-year trading bloc and blamed for contributing to the loss of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs to low-wage Mexico.
Trump campaigned against NAFTA as the āworst trade deal ever made.ā
In committee reviews, floor comments and statements, several senators cited the absence of environmental provisions addressing climate change as one reason for voting against the implementing bill.
Environmental concern
It seemed unlikely the administration would have pursued climate change, not only because of Trumpās skepticism of the science behind it, but also because a trade-negotiating objective Congress approved in 2015 says trade agreements are not to establish obligations for the U.S. regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The language is part of a customs enforcement law that added several negotiating guidelines to the Trade Promotion Authority statute, which sets the ground rules for trade deals sent to Congress for approval.
Democratic presidential candidatesĀ Amy KlobucharĀ of Minnesota,Ā Elizabeth WarrenĀ of Massachusetts andĀ Michael BennetĀ of Colorado voted for the pact. Sanders, another candidate, said in a written statement that it should be rewritten because it does not guarantee that companies will stop shifting jobs to Mexico.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the USMCA will increase U.S. government revenue by $2.97 billion from fiscal 2020 to 2029 due to higher expected duty revenue on car and truck parts that do not meet stricter rules.
Some vehicles and parts would no longer qualify for duty-free treatment because they don’t meet new requirements that 75 percent of content in cars and auto parts come from North America and that 40 percent of car content and 45 percent of truck content be made by workers earning $16 an hour.
The CBO also estimates that the agreement would reduce the federal deficit by $3 billion over a 10-year period. The agency estimates that appropriations not subject to emergency status would total $833 million in outlays from fiscal 2020 to 2029.
Under the USMCA, U.S. dairy, poultry and egg products would gain greater access to Canadian markets, and Canada will adopt a new quality-grading system for U.S. wheat.
Canada also will end pricing schemes the U.S. dairy industry says keep Canadian skim milk powder prices at artificially lower levels, giving domestic producers an edge in sales to Canadian cheese-makers over U.S. high-protein ultrafiltered milk.
The International Trade Commission, an independent agency, said the trade agreement, āif fully implemented and enforced,ā over several years would increase real GDP by $68.2 billion, or 0.35 percent, and would add 176,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.
House Democrats’ negotiations with the Trump administration in 2019 resulted in the removal of provisions that would have given pharmaceutical companies a 10-year pricing monopoly on biologic drugs in Mexico and Canada. The U.S. has 12-year pricing exclusivity for biologics, and Democrats worried that keeping the provisions in the USMCA would prevent future Congresses from reducing the U.S. timeframe to less than 10 years.
Story 3: REDS (Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist) Show Trial In House is Over — An American Fair Trial Begins Next Tuesday in Senate — Acquittal of President Trump Expected In 30 Days or Less As Hoax Exposed — Trump Goes On Offense — Videos
Graham blasts the Dems, ‘Impeachment is manufactured BS’
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired
Nunes: Biden admitted he did the very thing Trump is accused of doing
Hannity: The Biden shakedown and the real Ukraine scandal
Hunter Biden says he never spoke to father about Ukraine business dealings | Nightline
Rep. Jim Jordan reacts to Hunter Biden’s interview
Donald Trump Jr. speaks out on Hunter Biden-Ukraine scandal
Ukraine gas company where Hunter Biden worked hacked by Russia
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff’s full opening statement on whistleblower complaint | DNI hearing
Hannity: House trial managers a ‘gift’ to Donald Trump
The Five’ reacts to Dems’ impeachment stunts as Senate trial kicks off
Trump accuses Adam Schiff of ‘making up’ conversation with Ukraine
Schiff slammed for ‘parody’ of Trump call transcript
Rep. Biggs introduces motion to censure Schiff for parody transcript
Sen. Ted Cruz: Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment circus is done
Trump slams impeachment process, denies knowing Lev Parnas
U.S. Senate: Swearing-in of Chief Justice & Senators
U.S. Senate: Reading of Articles of Impeachment
Ken Starr predicts the top witnesses for Trump impeachment trial
Stalin’s Great Purge | The Great Terror (1932-1940)
Show Trial Russia 1938 – Bukharin and 20 others
Inside a Russian Show Trial
Trump Impeachment Trial Begins as Senators Are Sworn In
House managers read charges as watchdog faults presidentās hold on Ukraine aid and Kyiv probes whether U.S. envoy was tailed
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swears in members of the Senate for the impeachment trial against President Trump.Ā PHOTO:Ā SENATE TELEVISION/ASSOCIATED PRESS
ByĀ Lindsay Wise
WASHINGTONāThe Senate opened the impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday with Chief Justice John Roberts swearing in the senators, who pledged to deliver impartial justice, and the formal reading of the two charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Hours before the senators took their oath, the Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency, determined that Mr. Trumpās administrationĀ violated the law when it withheld aid to Ukraine, an issue at the heart of the impeachment case against the president.
Democrats allege that Mr. Trump, a Republican, improperly withheld the aid to pressure Kyiv to launch investigations that would help him politically in the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, calling the case against him a ābig hoaxā on Thursday. He is the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.
The GAO wrote that the White House Office of Management and Budget improperly froze Ukraine funding over the summer for policy reasons. It was later released after pressure from Congress. A spokeswoman for OMB said it disagreed with the GAO finding.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian authorities opened a criminal probe into whether U.S. citizensĀ placed the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under surveillance, as text messages suggest, before she was removed from her post last year by Mr. Trump. The information came to light after House Democrats released documents Tuesday showing that an associate of Mr. Trumpās personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was sent text messages about tracking Marie Yovanovitch in Ukraine.
Democratic and GOP lawmakers continued to wrangle on Thursday over whether new witnesses and evidence will be allowed in the trial. Those issues arenāt expected to be decided until well after the trial begins in earnest on Tuesday.
āIf any of my colleagues had doubts about the case for witnesses and documents in a Senate trial, the stunning revelations this week should put those to rest,ā said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamberās Democratic leader.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said it wasnāt the Senateās job to shore up the case the House built in what he called a āslapdash inquiry.ā The Senate wonāt āredo their homework and rerun the investigation,ā he said
Chief Justice Roberts and Senators Sworn In for Impeachment Trial
The impeachment trial of President Trump opened in the U.S. Senate as Chief Justice John Roberts and senators were sworn in. Photo: Associated Press
Mr. McConnell is set to release his plans for a trial framework on Tuesday, but Senate Republicans and White House officials said the contents of the resolution have largely been settled. Republicans briefed on the resolution have said they expect it to include a guaranteed vote on whether to subpoena witnesses and documents, as requested by some moderate Republicans.
GOP leaders believe they can keep Republicans united to block any efforts by Democrats to subpoena witnesses at the outset of the trial, according to people familiar with their plans. A vote on witnesses would be held later, after the House managers and Mr. Trumpās legal team present their cases, a process expected to stretch over two weeks.
A guaranteed vote to dismiss the charges wonāt be built into the trial rules, according to these people. The White House and Senate Republicans are discussing holding a vote on a motion to dismiss after Democrats present their case but before Mr. Trumpās team addresses the Senate, according to an administration official.
At least two-thirds of the senators would have to vote to convict Mr. Trump to remove him from office.
By noon on Thursday, the fighting over the scope of the Senate trial took a pause. Every senator was seated at his or her desk, a rare sight during the ordinary legislative business, when it is common to see senators delivering speeches to an empty chamber. Senators typically donāt sit in their assigned seats even during roll call votes, preferring to stroll around and chitchat.
As they waited for the formal āexhibitionā of articles, some senators scrolled on their cellphones or talked quietly to each other.
At 12:05 p.m.,Ā House managers, who will act as prosecutors during the trial, arrived at the ornate doors of the Senate. They walked in two-by-two, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). Freshman Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D., Texas) trailed as the seventh. A Democratic aide said the order was chosen according to seniority.
All managers carried large blue folders containing their own copy of the articles of impeachmentĀ passed by the House last monthĀ and the resolution passed on Wednesday authorizing them as managers.
Silence fell and phones disappeared as the sergeant at arms warned senators to keep quiet āon pain of imprisonment.ā Then Mr. Schiff, the lead manager, began reading the articles aloud from the well of the Senate.
āResolved, that Donald John Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,ā he said.
The House managers make their way to the Senate before the reading of the two articles of impeachment, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress..Ā PHOTO:Ā ALYSSA SCHUKAR FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The first article of impeachment stems from Mr. Trump pressing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, including byĀ withholding the almost $400 million in aidĀ to help Kyiv combat Russian aggression. The second article accuses Mr. Trump of impeding Congressās investigation by preventing witnesses from testifying and defying subpoenas for documentary evidence.
The senators watched, with stony faces, as Mr. Schiff spoke. Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) stifled a cough. Next to her, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) sat motionless with her hands folded in her lap. Sens. Rob Portman (R., Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) scribbled notes.
At 12:22, when Mr. Schiff had finished, the managers departed. They briefly huddled outside the chamber, once again got in order, and marched back toward the House side of the Capitol.
Shortly after 2 p.m., Chief Justice RobertsĀ was escorted into the Senate by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.).
Everyone in the chamber rose. The only sound was the scratching of reportersā pens.Then Chief Justice Roberts spoke: āSenators, I attend the Senate in conformity with your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the President of the United States. I am now prepared to take the oath.ā
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the Senateās president pro tempore, asked him to raise his right hand, place his left hand on the Bible, and swore him in.
Chief Justice Roberts then administered an oath to senators, who will act as the jury. āDo you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?ā
āI do,ā the senators said.
Senators were then called in alphabetical order to the Senate clerkās desk to sign their names in an oath book. As the lawmakers waited to sign, there were flashes of bipartisan bonhomie. Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) warmly shook Mr. Grassleyās hand. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) patted the shoulder of Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), and the two shared a laugh with Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.). Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) gave Mr. Portmanās arm a squeeze.
All of the senators were present for the swearing-in except for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), who is at home with a family member facing a medical issue, according to his office. He plans to be sworn in next week, before the trial begins in earnest.
Senate Officially Accepts Articles of Impeachment
Senate Officially Accepts Articles of Impeachment
The Senate accepted the articles of impeachment against President Trump, marking the official start of the trial. Photo: Associated Press
After the swearing-in, the Senate formally notified the White House of the pending trial and summoned Mr. Trump, who will be given until Saturday evening to reply.
Mr. McConnell also said the House has until Saturday at 5 p.m. to file a trial brief with the secretary of the Senate, and Mr. Trump has until noon on Monday to do so. The deadline for the Houseās rebuttal is noon on Tuesday. The Senate trial was then adjourned until Tuesday at 1 p.m.
Although historic, Thursday entailed mostly pomp and circumstance. The trial wonāt get under way substantively until the Senate reconvenes after the holiday weekend.
All 100 senators agreed on rules for the 1999 Clinton impeachment trialās initial phase. There is no such bipartisan agreement now, and while Mr. McConnell says all 53 Republicans in his caucus are united on the path forward, he hasnāt released the text of his resolutionĀ laying out the proceduresĀ agreed upon by GOP senators.
In 1999, a resolution dealing with witnesses passed a few weeks into the trial, along party lines. Three witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Mr. Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship, were deposed privately in the presence of a senator from each party. Excerpts were shown by video during the trial.
There are 15 senators now serving who also voted in the Clinton impeachment trial, including Messrs. McConnell and Schumer.
āI remember the solemnity of this, when you see the chief justice sitting in the chair with his august robes, when you hear your name called and you hear the charges, your hair sort of stands on end,ā Mr. Schumer said in a recent interview.
Throughout the trial, all senators will be expected to be present and seated at their assigned desks. They wonāt be allowed to talk.
Any deliberations among senators likely will be held in closed session, meaning that no press or cameras will be allowed. The rest of the trial will be open.
āIt is a solemn feeling when youāre sitting in the seat, and youāre listening closely to whatās going on,ā said Sen. Mike Braun (R., Ind.).
Mr. Braun said he and other senators are worried about the precedent being set. āMany senators have on their minds: Is this the new dynamic? Having two impeachments within 20 years of one another?ā he said. āI donāt think anybody likes that feeling.ā
NPR’s Rachel Martin speaks with constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley about his testimony on Wednesday
RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says she is instructing her committee chairs to draft articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office. She framed her decision as a historic moment.
(SOUNDBITE OF PRESS CONFERENCE)
NANCY PELOSI: The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief, Article II says I can do whatever I want. No. His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution.
MARTIN: Pelosi says the impeachment process has shown the public how the president has abused his power. Yesterday, four constitutional experts laid out the standards for and against impeachment in front of the House Judiciary Committee. One of them was Jonathan Turley. He’s a law professor at George Washington University. We spoke with him earlier today.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, first of all, my testimony, I said, as I did in the Clinton impeachment, that a president could be impeached for a noncriminal act and that President Trump could be impeached for abuse of power. You just have to prove it. He can also be impeached for obstruction of Congress.
The problem with the obstruction of Congress claim, in my view, is that it’s based on a very short period of investigation. This is one of the shortest we’ve had. It depends how you count the days between this and the Johnson impeachment, but it’s a very short period of investigation.
And what Congress is saying is that if the president invokes executive privilege or immunities and goes to court, he can be impeached for that – that he has to just turn over the information to Congress. Now, that’s a position that was maintained during the Nixon impeachment. In fact, it was the basis of the third article of impeachment. I’ve always disagreed with it. It’s not that you can’t impeach a president for withholding documents and witnesses. You can, and President Trump could well be the next one to be impeached on those grounds.
MARTIN: Mmm hmm.
TURLEY: What I was telling Congress is that they’ve burned two months. They should have gone to court over people like John – I’m sorry, subpoenaed and gone to court over people like John Bolton and gotten a court order. That would make it a stronger case.
MARTIN: So let’s talk about what you just laid out here. I mean, you are saying that because the White House has refused to allow certain people to come and testify, refused to hand over certain documents that the committees have requested and is fighting this in court, you’re saying that that process should be allowed to play out, that Congress is making an impeachment argument that is weak because they’re not waiting for the courts to weigh in?
TURLEY: I’m saying that this case could be much stronger. No one has really explained why they have to have a vote by the end of December rather than…
MARTIN: Well, isn’t the case about election interference? I mean, isn’t that the answer, that the central query here is about the interference of U.S. elections and 2020’s coming right up?
TURLEY: Well, 2020 is coming right up. But the problem is that when you look at how fast this has unfolded, the record remains thin. It remains conflicted. You have about 12 witnesses. You have other witnesses with direct evidence. And more importantly, you have a lot of defenses that have not been fully addressed. It’s not a fully developed record.
And all I’m saying is that before you give that record to the Senate, you should deal with some of those conflicts and some of those gaps. And this is an example of one of those, that I think the president could very well be impeached and removed for obstruction based on these acts. But by the way, that record is – conflicts in other respects. We had 12 witnesses. Many of those witnesses correctly appeared before Congress. They did so against the wishes of the president, but they remain in federal employment. They have not been disciplined. And does that…
MARTIN: But you’re saying their testimony is insufficient to prove obstruction or abuse of power.
TURLEY: Well, it’s insufficient because there remain conflicts. You know, part of the problems I have with the arguments made by my esteemed colleagues on the panel is that they kept on using the terms inference and circumstantial evidence. Those actually can be used in an impeachment, but it’s problematic if there’s information out there you can still get. This is not a question of the unknowable. This is using the peripheral. This is using information that could be strengthened. That’s what I’m arguing.
MARTIN: Although they pointed to the Mueller report as evidence of obstruction. Presumably, you don’t believe that the Mueller report conclusions are true then.
TURLEY: Well, I never said I didn’t think they were true, but the obstruction claim was rejected by the Department of Justice – not just Attorney General Bill Barr, but by Rod Rosenstein, who is a respected deputy attorney general. And I agree with their decision on that.
MARTIN: All right. Jonathan Turley, one of the constitutional scholars testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. Thank you.
Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR āĀ 04/01/19 09:37 PM EDTĀ 2,330
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Two years after leaving office,Ā Joe BidenĀ couldnāt resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,Ā Biden described howĀ he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didnāt immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired
āI said, āYouāre not getting the billion.ā Iām going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: āIām leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, youāre not getting the money,āā Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
āWell, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,ā Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Bidenās account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraineās parliament obliged byĀ ending Shokinās tenureĀ as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.
But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didnāt mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firmĀ Burisma HoldingsĀ that employed Bidenās younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Bidenās American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts ā usually more than $166,000 a month ā from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice PresidentĀ Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutorās official file for the Burisma probe ā shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials ā shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made āspecific plansā for the investigation that āincluded interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.ā
He added: āI would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraineā and that he couldnāt describe the evidence further.
William Russo, a spokesman for Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden did not respond to email messages Monday seeking comment. The phone number at Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC in Washington was no longer in service on Monday.
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office clearly had to know about the general prosecutor’s probe of Burisma and his son’s role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden’s work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor’s case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden’s office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the general prosecutor’s Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president’s office suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administrationās point man on Ukraine in February 2014, after a popular revolution ousted Russia-friendly PresidentĀ Viktor YanukovychĀ and as Moscow sent military forces into Ukraineās Crimea territory.
According to Schweizerās book, Vice President Biden met with Archer in April 2014 right as Archer was named to the board at Burisma. A month later,Ā Hunter Biden was named to the board, to oversee Burismaās legal team.
But the Ukrainian investigation and Joe Bidenās effort to fire the prosecutor overseeing it has escaped without much public debate.
Most of the general prosecutorās investigative work on Burisma focused on three separate cases, and most stopped abruptly once Shokin was fired. The most prominent of the Burisma cases was transferred to a different Ukrainian agency, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), according to the case file and current General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.
NABU closed that case, and a second case involving alleged improper money transfers in London was dropped when Ukrainian officials failed to file the necessary documents by the required deadline. The general prosecutorās office successfully secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in a tax evasion case, Lutsenko said. He did not say who was the actual defendant in that case.
As a result, the Biden family appeared to have escaped the potential for an embarrassing inquiry overseas in the final days of the Obama administration and during an election in which DemocratĀ Hillary Clintonwas running for president in 2016.
But then, as Bidenās 2020 campaign ramped up over the past year, Lutsenko ā the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden once hailed as a āsolidā replacement for Shokin ā began looking into what happened with the Burisma case that had been shut down.
Lutsenko told me that, while reviewing the Burisma investigative files, he discovered āmembers of the Board obtained funds as well as another U.S.-based legal entity, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, for consulting services.ā
Lutsenko said some of the evidence he knows about in the Burisma case may interest U.S. authorities and heād like to present that information to new U.S. Attorney GeneralĀ William Barr, particularly the vice presidentās intervention.
āUnfortunately, Mr. Biden had correlated and connected this aid with some of the HR (personnel) issues and changes in the prosecutorās office,ā Lutsenko said.
Nazar Kholodnytskyi, the lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Lutsenkoās office, confirmed to me in an interview that part of the Burisma investigation was reopened in 2018, after Joe Biden made his remarks. āWe were able to start this case again,ā Kholodnytskyi said.
But he said the separate Ukrainian police agency that investigates corruption has dragged its feet in gathering evidence. āWe donāt see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence,ā he said, declining to be more specific.
Ukraine is in the middle of aĀ hard-fought presidential election, is a frequent target of intelligence operations by neighboring Russia and suffers from rampant political corruption nationwide. Thus, many Americans might take the restart of the Burisma case with a grain of salt, and rightfully so.
But what makes Lutsenkoās account compelling is that federal authorities in America, in an entirely different case, uncovered financial records showing just how much Hunter Bidenās and Archerās company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obamaās point man on Ukraine.
Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an account linked to Bidenās and Archerās Rosemont Seneca firm,Ā according to the financial recordsĀ placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated case against Archer.
The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Senecaāconnected account on the same day. The same Rosemont Senecaālinked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.
Lutsenko said Ukrainian company board members legally can pay themselves for work they do if it benefits the companyās bottom line, but prosecutors never got to determine the merits of the payments to Rosemont because of the way the investigation was shut down.
As for Joe Bidenās intervention in getting Lutsenkoās predecessor fired in the midst of the Burisma investigation, Lutsenko suggested that was a matter to discuss with Attorney General Barr: āOf course, I would be happy to have a conversation with him about this issue.ā
As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when some matters of a case involve foreigners. The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Burisma in the Ukraine case.
Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, toĀ run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Bidenās firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?
Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR āĀ 09/26/19 06:00 PM EDTĀ 11,128
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Former Vice PresidentĀ Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.
He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official wasĀ corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.
Thereās just one problem.
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents ā many from inside theĀ AmericanĀ team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles ā conflict with BidenāsĀ narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burismaās legal troubles andĀ stop prosecutorsā plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidentialĀ election.
For instance, BurismaāsĀ AmericanĀ legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the countryās chief prosecutor and offered āan apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figuresā about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to theĀ Ukrainian governmentās official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.
In addition, BurismaāsĀ AmericanĀ team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officialsĀ to make amends, according toĀ that memoĀ and theĀ AmericanĀ legal teamās internal emails.
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.)Ā Ā Ā If the Ukraine prosecutorās firing involved only his allegedĀ corruption and ineptitude,Ā why did Burisma’sĀ AmericanĀ legal team refer toĀ those allegations as āfalse information?”
2.)Ā Ā Ā If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burismaās American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have triedĀ to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to PresidentĀ Trumpās personal lawyer,Ā Rudy Giuliani.
Ukraineās new president, Volodymyr Zelensky,Ā toldĀ TrumpĀ in JulyĀ that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.
āIām knowledgeable about the situation,ā Zelensky toldĀ Trump, asking theĀ AmericanĀ president to forward any evidence he might know about. “The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.ā
Biden has faced scrutiny since December 2015, when theĀ New York Times published a story noting that BurismaĀ hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Bidenās office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder.
Documents I obtained this year detail an effort to change the narrative after the Times story about Hunter Biden, with the help of the Obama State Department.
Hunter BidenāsĀ AmericanĀ business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleagueĀ two daysĀ after the Times story about a strategy to counter the ānew wave of scrutinyā and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department.Ā The text suggested there was about to be a new āUSAID project the embassy is announcing with usā and that it was āperfect for us to move forward now with momentum.ā
I have sued the State Department for any records related to that meeting. The reason is simple: There is both a public interest and an ethics question to knowing if Hunter Biden and his team sought Stateās assistance while his father was vice president.
The controversy ignited anew earlier this yearĀ when I disclosedĀ that Joe Biden admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancelĀ $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraineās then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin.
At the time, Shokinās office was investigatingĀ Burisma. ShokinĀ told meĀ he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer,Ā collected from BurismaĀ through theirĀ AmericanĀ firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000. Ā
Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. BurismaĀ announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.
After I firstĀ reported it in a column, the New York Times andĀ ABC NewsĀ published similar stories confirming my reporting.
Joe Biden has since responded that heĀ forced Shokinās firing over concerns about corruptionĀ and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.
Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.
In aĀ newly sworn affidavitĀ prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.Ā āThe truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Bidenās son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,ā Shokin testified.
āOn several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,ā Shokin added.
Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing.Ā But his account is supported by documents from Burismaās legal team inĀ America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Bidenās effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.
Burismaās own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of anĀ AmericanĀ lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run byĀ Sally PainterĀ andĀ Karen Tramontano, who bothĀ served in PresidentĀ Bill Clintonās administration.
Just days before Biden forced Shokinās firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there.Ā Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: āWith regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the governmentās reshuffle.ā
Ukraineās Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokinās firing or anything to do with Burisma.
Painter thenĀ askedĀ one of the Ukraine embassyās workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraineās prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show.Ā Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor’s office.
At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with anĀ AmericanĀ criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.
Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Bidenās campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.
On March 29, 2016, the day Shokinās firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down,Ā the memos show.
Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokinās firing.Ā Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Starās memos.
Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memoĀ that the general prosecutorās office provided to me, stating that the threeĀ AmericansĀ offered an apology for the āfalseā narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.
āThey realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,ā the memo stated.
The memo also quoted theĀ AmericansĀ as saying they knewĀ Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burismaās owner, only to be thwarted by British allies:Ā āThese individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor Generalās Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution ā¦ and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.ā
The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of ShokinĀ than Biden’s. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.
For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. āThe reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly,ā she wrote.
Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that āI think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washingtonā and providing contact information for Swartz. āI would be happy to help,ā added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.
Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.
Just days beforeĀ TrumpĀ took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. AndĀ Buretta gave an interview in UkraineĀ about how he helped navigate the issues.
Ā Today, two questions remain.
One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burismaās case, given his sonās interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.
The second is whether Biden has given theĀ AmericanĀ people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his storyās credibility.Ā And thatās an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.
The House of Representatives is engaged in a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump. It is focused on his efforts to secure specific investigations in Ukraine that carried political benefits for him ā including aides allegedly tying those investigations to official U.S. government concessions.
Below is a timeline of relevant events.
The timeline is sortable. “Trump” refers to events in which Trump himself was involved. “Quid pro quo” is events that involve government concessions being tied to investigations. “Ukraine” tracks what Ukrainian officials were doing, while “Giuliani” does the same for Trumpās personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and “Biden” tracks every event in which Joe or Hunter Biden were invoked.
How much detail would you like?
Key eventsĀ An in-depth lookĀ Everything
Which topics are you interested in?
All topicsĀ TrumpĀ UkraineĀ Quid pro quoĀ BidenĀ Giuliani
Unrest in Ukraine
2014-2016
February 22, 2014
Ukrainian PresidentĀ Viktor YanukovychĀ is ousted from power during a popular uprising in the country. He flees to Russia. After his ouster, Ukrainian officials begin aĀ wide-ranging investigationĀ into corruption in the country.
March 7, 2014
Lev Parnas, eventually an associate of former New York City mayorĀ Rudolph W. Giuliani, has his first known interaction withĀ DonaldĀ TrumpĀ at a golf tournament in Florida.
March 1, 2014
Russia invades the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea,Ā annexing it.
May 13, 2014
KEY EVENTĀ Hunter Biden, a son of then-U.S. Vice PresidentĀ Joe Biden,Ā joins the boardĀ of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. It is owned by oligarchĀ Mykola Zlochevsky, one of several subjects of the Ukrainian corruption probe.
May 25, 2014
Petro PoroshenkoĀ is elected president of Ukraine.
February 10, 2015
Viktor ShokinĀ becomesĀ Ukraineās prosecutor general.
Early 2015
Top State Department aideĀ George KentĀ raises concerns aboutĀ Hunter Bidenās work for Burisma, asĀ he later testifies. Bidenās office turns him away and explains that the vice president does not have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue at a time when his other son,Ā Beau Biden, is dealing with cancer, according to Kentās testimony.
September 24, 2015
Then-U.S. Ambassador to UkraineĀ Geoffrey PyattĀ blastsĀ ShokinĀ in a speech in Odessa, Ukraine. He points to a “glaring problem” that threatens the good work regional leaders are doing: “the failure of the institution of the prosecutor general of Ukraine to successfully fight internal corruption.” He adds: “The United States stands behind those who challenge these bad actors.”
October 8, 2015
Assistant U.S. Secretary of StateĀ Victoria NulandĀ testifies to the SenateĀ thatĀ Shokinās “office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.”
December 8, 2015
KEY EVENTĀ In Kyiv, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fireĀ ShokinĀ or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokinās ouster.
February 10, 2016
The International Monetary FundĀ threatensĀ to halt a bailout program for Ukraine unless the country addresses its corruption issues.
February 11, 2016
Biden speaks withĀ PoroshenkoĀ by phoneĀ and emphasizes the urgency of rooting out corruption.
Paul ManafortĀ is hired as Donald Trumpās presidential campaign chairman, where he is chiefly in charge of securing delegates at the Republican National Convention. Manafort formerly worked forĀ Yanukovych‘s Party of Regions in Ukraine.
March 29, 2016
ShokinĀ isĀ oustedĀ from his position by Ukraineās parliament.
Yuri LutsenkoĀ becomes Ukraineās new prosecutor general, replacingĀ Shokin.
May 13, 2016
The White House says it “welcomes”Ā Lutsenko‘s appointment and the addition of an independent counsel in Lutsenko’s office, and declares itĀ will guarantee the $1 billion in loans.
ManafortĀ becomes the head of Trump’s campaign after campaign managerĀ Corey LewandowskiĀ is fired.
August 14, 2016
Ukrainian officialsĀ revealĀ the existence of a handwritten “black ledger” suggestingĀ ManafortĀ had received millions in off-the-books payments fromĀ Yanukovych‘s party. These payments will ultimately be part of criminal charges filed against Manafort in the United States.
August 19, 2016
ManafortĀ is forced out of Trump’s campaign.
November 8, 2016
KEY EVENTĀ Trump is elected president, defeatingĀ Hillary Clinton.
Seeds of a conspiracy theory
2017-April 2019
January 11, 2017
KEY EVENTĀ PoliticoĀ reportsĀ Ukrainian officials “helpedĀ Clinton‘s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers” during the campaign. It said they were also trying to make amends after questioning Trump’s fitness for office and disseminating theĀ ManafortĀ documents. The article notes, however, that there is no indication of an effort originating within the leadership of the Ukrainian government itself.
January 12, 2017
Ukraine’s probes of Burisma are finalized and closed,Ā according to the company, thoughĀ LutsenkoĀ later tellsĀ BloombergĀ that one sale of an oil storage terminal will still be investigated.
Trump for the first time floats a conspiracy theory that Ukraine might have played a role in falsely fingering Russia for its 2016 election interference. “[The Democrats] get hacked, and the FBI goes to see them, and they won’t let the FBI see their server,” TrumpĀ tells AP, adding, “They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based. That’s what I heard. I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian.”
Giuliani, who would later become Trump’s personal lawyer,Ā meetsĀ withĀ PoroshenkoĀ andĀ Lutsenko, according to a later-released House investigation.
June 9, 2017
Lutsenkoās officeĀ joinsĀ in an existing investigation into the black ledger, which had been under the control of an independent anti-corruption bureau. CriticsĀ allegeĀ the effort is intended to stifle the investigation.
June 14, 2017
EuropeanĀ reportsĀ indicateĀ PoroshenkoĀ will meet with Trump in the White House.
June 20, 2017
Poroshenko visits the White House to meet withĀ Vice President Pence, but receives only a brief audience withĀ Trump.
July 25, 2017
Trump tweets about “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign” and asks: “So where is the investigation A.G.” ā referring to Attorney GeneralĀ Jeff Sessions.
December 20, 2017
The Trump administrationĀ approvesĀ the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine for the first time.
January 23, 2018
KEY EVENTĀ At an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, BidenĀ describesĀ his pressure campaign in Ukraine. “I said, youāre not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’ ” Biden says. “Well, son of a b—-. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
Early April
Ukrainian officials close their Manafort probes and have also decide to stop assisting special counselĀ Robert S. Mueller III‘s Russia investigation out of concern that doing so would harm their relationship with Trump’s administration and jeopardize military assistance, according to the New York Times.
April 19, 2018
KEY EVENTĀ The Washington Post reports Trump hasĀ hired GiulianiĀ as his personal lawyer, initially focused on seeing out the Russia investigation.
April 2018
Two Soviet-born business associates ofĀ Giuliani,Ā ParnasĀ andĀ Igor Fruman, attend an event for a pro-Trump super PAC at Trumpās Washington hotel. While speaking with Trump, they badmouth U.S. Ambassador to UkraineĀ Marie Yovanovitch, and Trump immediately suggests she be fired,Ā according to Parnas.
April 30, 2018
Poroshenko announces the first shipment of Javelins from the United StatesĀ have arrived.
Three Democratic senators āĀ Robert MenendezĀ (N.J.),Ā Richard J. Durbin(Ill.) andĀ PatrickĀ J.Ā LeahyĀ (Vt.) āĀ write to Lutsenko, urging him to continue working withĀ Mueller.
May 9, 2018
ParnasĀ posts a photo of him and his business partnerĀ David CorreiaĀ meetingwith Rep.Ā Pete SessionsĀ (R-Tex.) in Sessions’s Capitol Hill office. The two men commit to raise $20,000 for Sessions, according to their laterĀ indictments.
May 9, 2018
That same day, Pete Sessions writes to the State Department seeking the dismissal ofĀ Yovanovitch. Sessions says he has “received notice of concrete evidence” that she had “spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current Administration.”
May 17, 2018
ParnasĀ andĀ FrumanĀ contribute $325,000Ā to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action through a newly formed business named Global Energy Producers, which is supposedly a liquefied natural gas company. In their laterĀ indictments, prosecutors will say the funds actually came from a $1.26 million private lending transaction that occurred two days earlier.
May 21, 2018
ParnasĀ posts a pictureĀ on Facebook showing him andĀ FrumanĀ at breakfast withĀ Donald Trump Jr.Ā in Beverly Hills, Calif.
December 5, 2018
GiulianiĀ meetsĀ with former Ukrainian prime ministerĀ Yulia Tymoshenko, according to a lobbying database. They talk about “security issues, including the escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the US assistance to our country,” according to a Ukrainian report.
Late 2018
GiulianiĀ speaks withĀ Shokin, according to a later-revealedĀ complaintĀ from an anonymousĀ whistleblower.
January
GiulianiĀ andĀ LutsenkoĀ meet in New York, as Bloomberg News later reports.
Mid-February
GiulianiĀ againĀ meets with Lutsenko, this time in Warsaw, according toĀ the whistleblower.
February 1, 2019
Ukrainian Interior MinisterĀ Arsen AvakovĀ tellsĀ YovanovitchĀ that the country is worried about being wrapped up in U.S. political campaigns, according toĀ Yovanovitch’s testimony. He cites theĀ ManafortĀ situation and both the Bidens and Trump’s conspiracy theory involving Ukraine’s role in 2016 election interference.
March 6, 2019
YovanovitchĀ gives a speech in Ukraine in which sheĀ targetsĀ Lutsenko. “To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” she says. “Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases.”
March 20, 2019
In an interview with pro-Trump journalistĀ John Solomon,Ā LutsenkoĀ allegesĀ thatĀ YovanovitchĀ gave him “a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The State Department calls the claim an “outright fabrication,” but Trump promotes the story in a tweet. It is later revealed thatĀ Parnas facilitated the interview.The whistleblowerĀ later notes that Lutsenko was working for the incumbent,Ā Poroshenko, who had been trailing challengerĀ Volodymyr ZelenskyĀ in the upcoming March 31 election. Zelensky had pledged to replace Lutsenko. Yovanovitch later speculates, in congressional testimony, that Lutsenko was hoping Trump would endorse Poroshenko.
March 24, 2019
Trump Jr.Ā attacksĀ YovanovitchĀ on Twitter, saying: “We need more ā¦[Germany Ambassador]Ā @RichardGrenell‘s and less of these jokers as ambassadors.”
March 26, 2019
GiulianiĀ speaks with Secretary of StateĀ Mike Pompeo, according toĀ State Department emails.
March 29, 2019
GiulianiĀ speaks withĀ PompeoĀ again, according to theĀ State Department emails. The call lasts about four minutes.
March 31, 2019
The first round of Ukraine’s presidential election is held.Ā PoroshenkoĀ andĀ ZelenskyĀ head to a runoff.
April 1, 2019
After speaking withĀ Lutsenko, SolomonĀ reportsĀ that a probe into Joe Biden’s push to fire Lutsenko’s predecessor is underway. Lutsenko tells Solomon that he wants to present his evidence to Attorney GeneralĀ William P. Barr.
Mid-April
Hunter Biden‘s term as a Burisma board member ends.
April 18, 2019
LutsenkoĀ retractsĀ his claim thatĀ YovanovitchĀ gave him a list of people not to prosecute.
April 18, 2019
Separately,Ā MuellerĀ releasesĀ his report on the Russia investigation. Mueller finds no illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but says he decided not to reach a firm conclusion on potential obstruction of justice by Trump.Ā William BarrĀ later opts not to accuse Trump of obstruction, despite extensive evidence laid out in the Mueller report.
April 21, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Zelensky, a former TV comedian, is elected president of Ukraine with 73 percent of the vote.
Ahead of a Trump phone call with Zelensky,Ā VindmanĀ writes talking points that indicate Trump should bring up “corruption” with the president-elect, according to VindmanāsĀ later testimony, and a White House readout is drafted declaring Trump did so, according toĀ Washington Post reporting. But Trump does not mention corruption on the call, according to a transcript released later by the White House.
April 23, 2019
GiulianiĀ tweets about a Ukrainian investigation into alleged foreign collusion by the Democrats. “Now Ukraine is investigating Hillary campaign and DNC conspiracy with foreign operatives including Ukrainian and others to affect 2016 election,” he says. “And there’s no [former FBI directorĀ James B.]ComeyĀ to fix the result.”
April 24, 2019
Foreign Service Director GeneralĀ Carol PerezĀ speaks withĀ YovanovitchĀ at 1 a.m. and urges her to come back to Washington immediately, according toĀ Yovanovitch’s testimony. “I was like, what? What happened?” Yovanovitch would later testify. “And she said, āI don’t know, but this is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane.ā ” Once home, she says she meets with Deputy Secretary of StateĀ John Sullivan, who informs her that her time as ambassador is being curtailed. “He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the department had been under pressure from the president to remove me since the Summer of 2018,ā³ Yovanovitch says in her testimony. “He also said that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.”
April 25, 2019
In an interview with Fox News, Trump addresses the suggestion that Ukraine interfered in 2016. “I would imagine [William Barr] would want to see this,” heĀ says. “People have been saying this whole ā the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.”
KEY EVENTĀ The New York Times publishesĀ a storyĀ tying Joe Biden’s pressure campaign in Ukraine toĀ ShokinĀ having investigated Burisma, portraying it as a potential liability in his 2020 campaign.
May 7, 2019
BloombergĀ NewsĀ casts doubt on the Times report, citing Ukrainian officials who say the Burisma investigation had long been dormant when Joe Biden applied pressure on Ukraine’s government.
May 7, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ It is reported thatĀ YovanovitchĀ has beenĀ recalledĀ by the State Department, two months before her scheduled departure date. Democrats allege a “political hit job” aimed at creating a pretext to remove her.
May 7, 2019
ZelenskyĀ holds a meeting with top advisers that is supposed to be about energy policy.Ā According to AP, though, most of the three-hour meeting winds up being devoted to how to navigateĀ Giuliani‘s efforts and avoid being wrapped up in U.S. politics.
May 9, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ GiulianiĀ tellsĀ the New York TimesĀ that he will travel to Ukraine to push for investigations related to the Bidens and the 2016 election “because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
May 11, 2019
GiulianiĀ cancelsĀ his Ukraine trip, acceding to the pressure.
May 11, 2019
Separately,Ā LutsenkoĀ andĀ ZelenskyĀ meet for two hours, according toĀ the whistleblower, with Lutsenko requesting to stay in his position.
Early May
Former Ukrainian prosecutorĀ Kostiantyn H. KulykĀ tells the Times thatĀ YovanovitchĀ had thwarted his efforts to deliver damaging information about the Bidens to the FBI byĀ denying his visa request.
May 13, 2019
William BarrĀ announcesĀ a probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, which Trump and his congressional allies had pushed for by alleging a coup attempt. HeĀ appointsĀ U.S. attorneyĀ John DurhamĀ to lead it.
Mid-May
The whistleblowerĀ is told that officials, including Special Representative for Ukraine NegotiationsĀ Kurt VolkerĀ and Ambassador to the European UnionĀ Gordon Sondland, had spoken withĀ GiulianiĀ to “contain the damage” he was doing, according to their complaint.
Mid-May
ParnasĀ andĀ Fruman, the Giuliani associates, travel to Ukraine and meet withĀ Sergey Shefir, who later became an aide toĀ Zelensky, andĀ Ivan Bakanov, who is now the head of Ukraine’s secret police. Parnas’s lawyer laterĀ claimsParnas told Ukrainian officials that they had to announce the investigations of the Bidens or elseĀ Vice President PenceĀ would skip Zelensky’s inauguration and the United States would freeze aid to Ukraine.
Mid-May
Trump tellsĀ PenceĀ not to attendĀ Zelensky‘s inauguration, according to the whistleblower. Instead, Energy SecretaryĀ Rick PerryĀ attends.Ā The whistleblowerĀ says it was “made clear” to them that “the President did not want to meet with Mr. Zelensky until he saw how Zelensky ‘chose to act’ in office.”
May 14, 2019
GiulianiĀ tells a Ukrainian journalist thatĀ YovanovitchĀ was “removed . . . because she was part of the efforts against the president.”
May 16, 2019
LutsenkoĀ saysĀ there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.
May 19, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ In an interview with Fox News, TrumpĀ explicitlyĀ references Biden’s efforts in Ukraine. “Biden, he calls them and says, ‘Don’t you dare persecute, if you don’t fire this prosecutor’ ā The prosecutor was after his son,” Trump says. “Then he said, ‘If you fire the prosecutor, you’ll be okay. And if you don’t fire the prosecutor, ‘We’re not giving you $2 billion in loan guarantees,’ or whatever he was supposed to give. Can you imagine if I did that?” Trump makes the allegation even though there wasĀ no evidenceĀ the investigation focused on any actions by the Bidens.
May 20, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ ZelenskyĀ is inaugurated as president of Ukraine. Shortly after his inauguration,Ā GiulianiĀ meets withĀ LutsenkoĀ allies who made the allegations included in Solomon’s reporting.
May 23, 2019
The administration notifies Congress that it intends to release hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid to Ukraine.
May 23, 2019
AtĀ a White House meetingĀ with Trump and acting White House chief of staffĀ Mick Mulvaney,Ā Perry,Ā SondlandĀ andĀ Volkerāwho later dub themselves the “three amigos” ā debrief the president onĀ Zelenskyās inauguration and their views of the new Ukrainian leader. Trump is skeptical, telling them that Ukraine is “not serious about reform” and “tried to take him down,” according to later testimony from Sondland. Trump puts them in charge of a back-channel diplomacy effort in Ukraine, according to theĀ later testimony of Kent, instructing them to “talk with Rudy” as they did so.
Trump sendsĀ ZelenskyĀ a congratulatory letter inviting him to a White House meeting.
Some time in May
GiulianiĀ meets with a top Ukrainian anti-corruption prosecutor,Ā Nazar Kholodnytsky, in Paris,Ā according to Kholodnytsky. Kholodnytsky, who had clashed withĀ Yovanovitch, has declined to comment on what he and Giuliani discussed, but he said the Burisma investigation should be reopened.
June 13, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ In an interview with ABC News, Trump says he might accept electoral assistance from a foreign government, if offered. “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump says. “If somebody called from a country, Norway ā ‘We have information on your opponent’ ā oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” The chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission subsequently points out on Twitter that this would be illegal.
June 18, 2019
The Department of DefenseĀ publicly announcesĀ $250 million in military aid to Ukraine.
June 19, 2019
Trump begins asking questions about the military aid after seeing news reports, according to theĀ testimonyĀ of Office of Management and Budget officialĀ Mark Sandy.
June 19, 2019
In an interview with Fox News, Trump againĀ linksĀ Ukraine and the effort to hack the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election ā a link thatĀ the whistleblowerĀ andĀ laterĀ reportingĀ show does not exist.
June 21, 2019
GiulianiĀ tweets thatĀ ZelenskyĀ is “still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of PresĀ Poroshenko.”
June 27, 2019
SondlandĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ thatĀ ZelenskyĀ needs to make clear to Trump that he is not impeding “investigations,” as Taylor will laterĀ testify.
June 28, 2019
Sondland,Ā Volker,Ā TaylorĀ andĀ PerryĀ participate in a call ahead of a planned call withĀ Zelensky. According to Taylor, before Zelensky is added to the call, Sondland expresses a desire to keep regular interagency officials off the call. Sondland says he does not want anyone monitoring or transcribing the call, according to Taylor. Also on the call, Volker tells the participants that he intends to be explicit with Zelensky during an upcoming meeting in Toronto about what Zelensky needs to do to secure a White House meeting, according to Taylor. But Volker does not say specifically what he will request.
On the call, it is “made clear that some action on a Burisma/Biden investigation was a precondition for an Oval Office meeting,” Taylor tells one of his aides,Ā David Holmes, according toĀ Holmesās later testimony.
Internal discord and a presidential call
July-August 2019
July 3, 2019
Aid to Ukraine is put on hold, according toĀ three administration officials. Word of the hold is not widely known until later in the month.
July 10, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Top Ukrainian defense officialĀ Oleksandr DanyliukĀ meets withĀ Sondland,Ā Volker,Ā PerryĀ and White House national security adviserĀ John BoltonĀ in Washington. (TaylorĀ says top Zelensky aideĀ Andriy YermakĀ was also present.) According toĀ Vindman’s testimonyĀ and theĀ testimonyĀ of fellow NSC aideĀ Fiona Hill, Bolton cuts the meeting short when Sondland begins requesting specific investigations in exchange for a meeting between Trump andĀ Zelensky. Sondland also states that he coordinated the quid pro quoĀ with Mulvaney, according toĀ VindmanĀ and Hill.
According to Vindman, Sondland in a later meeting emphasizes “the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” and Vindman and Hill both reprimand him for his “inappropriate” requests. Vindman contacts NSC lawyers, according to his testimony, and Hill contacts NSC lawyerĀ John Eisenberg, according to her testimony. According to Taylor, Vindman and Hill tell him later that Bolton said they should have nothing to do with domestic politics and that Hill should “brief the lawyers.” Bolton decries the arrangement as a “drug deal,” according to Hill.
July 10, 2019
TaylorĀ meets in Ukraine with Zelensky’s chief of staff,Ā Andriy Bohdan, and foreign policy adviserĀ Vadym Prystaiko. According to Taylor, they tell himĀ GiulianiĀ had told them a phone call between Trump andĀ ZelenskyĀ was unlikely to happen. Taylor relays their disappointment to U.S. officials.
July 12, 2019
AxiosĀ reportsĀ that Trump and Director of National IntelligenceĀ Daniel Coatsare at odds, with Trump telling confidants that he wants to remove Coats from his position.
July 18, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Trumpās decision to withhold nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine isĀ communicatedĀ to the State and Defense departments. Members of Congress are told that the hold is part of an “interagency delay.”Ā TaylorĀ later says an Office of Management and Budget official did not explain why, but said that the decision was relayed throughĀ Mulvaney.
July 19, 2019
VolkerĀ textsĀ SondlandĀ about the upcomingĀ ZelenskyĀ call with Trump. “Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation,” VolkerĀ says.
July 19, 2019
VolkerĀ textsĀ GiulianiĀ to connect him withĀ Yermak. Giuliani would later say on Fox News that theĀ State Department had asked for his help. “I didnāt know Mr. Yermak on July 19,” Giuliani said. “You see it right there, 2019 at 4:48 in the afternoon I got a call from Volker. Volker said āWould you meet with him? It would be helpful to us. We really want you to do it.’ ” Giuliani added: “They basically knew everything I was doing.”
July 19, 2019
VindmanĀ andĀ HillĀ informĀ TaylorĀ that they are not aware of an official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, but thatĀ MulvaneyĀ is skeptical of the country, according to Taylorās testimony.
July 20, 2019
TaylorĀ confrontsĀ VolkerĀ aboutĀ Hill‘s claim that Volker met withĀ Giuliani, according to Taylor, and Volker does not respond.
July 20, 2019
SondlandĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ that he encouragedĀ ZelenskyĀ to tell Trump that he would “leave no stone unturned” when it comes to “investigations,” according to Taylor.
July 20, 2019
DanyliukĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ thatĀ ZelenskyĀ does not want to be used as a pawn for a U.S. reelection campaign, also according to Taylor.
July 21, 2019
TaylorĀ relays that concern toĀ SondlandĀ via text. “President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously,” he writes, “not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.”
July 22, 2019
ShokinĀ allegesĀ to The Post that he was removed as prosecutor general over the Biden issue. “I will answer that the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son,Ā Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only ā I emphasize, the only ā motives for organizing my resignation,” he says. Other Ukrainian officials have said this is untrue.
July 22, 2019
YermakĀ andĀ GiulianiĀ schedule a meeting in early August, according to Giuliani.
July 23, 2019
The OMB reiterates that aid to Ukraine is suspended.
July 24, 2019
MuellerĀ testifiesĀ before Congress about his report and its findings.
July 25, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Before a scheduled call between Trump andĀ Zelensky,Ā Volkertexts withĀ YermakĀ and again expresses the importance of Zelensky saying he will launch investigations. For the first time on-record, he also ties this to a potential White House meeting for Zelensky. “Heard from White House-assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington,” VolkerĀ says.
That message followed outreach fromĀ SondlandĀ who, about half an hour prior, had left Volker a message. Sondland had spoken with Trump that morning and would later testify that he believed Volkerās text to Yermak was a message that he had “likely” received from Trump on that call.
July 25, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Trump andĀ ZelenskyĀ speak. As we later find out fromĀ a rough transcriptĀ released by the White House, Trump repeatedly notes how “good” the United States is to Ukraine and then proceeds to ask Zelensky to open two investigations. One investigation involves CrowdStrike, an Internet security company that probed the Democratic National Committee hack in 2016, and the other involves the Bidens and Burisma.
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,” Trump says before floating theĀ CrowdStrikeĀ investigation.
He later adds: “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . . It sounds horrible to me.”
Trump repeatedly suggestsĀ William BarrĀ will be involved in working with the Ukrainian government on the investigation. Zelensky tells Trump that his yet-to-be-named new prosecutor general “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue” ā apparently referring to Burisma.
Trump saysĀ YovanovitchĀ “was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.” When Zelensky thanks Trump for previously warning him about Yovanovitch, Trump responds: “Well, she’s going to go through some things.”
The Post would laterĀ reportĀ that at least four national security officials raised concerns about Trump’s Ukraine efforts with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after the Zelensky call. Eisenberg moves a transcript of the callĀ to a classified serverĀ that is generally reserved for sensitive national security information, according to multiple witnesses, thoughĀ VindmanĀ andĀ MorrisonĀ said not for nefarious reasons.
July 25, 2019
After the call,Ā YermakĀ textsĀ VolkerĀ back, saying: “Phone call went well. President Trump proposed to choose any convenient dates. President Zelenskiy chose 20,21,22 September for the White House Visit.”
July 25, 2019
State Department staffĀ circulate emailsĀ indicating the Ukrainian embassy is asking about U.S. military assistance and appears to be aware of the “situation” involving the aid, according to later testimony by State Department officialĀ Laura Cooper.
July 26, 2019
VolkerĀ andĀ SondlandĀ travel to Kyiv and meet withĀ ZelenskyĀ and other politicians. There,Ā the whistleblowerĀ writes, they “reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ‘navigate’ the demands that the President had made of” Zelensky. Zelensky tells Volker andĀ TaylorĀ that he was happy with the call and asks about the Oval Office meeting Trump offered in the May 29 letter, according to Taylor’s later testimony.
July 26, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Holmes, while in Ukraine withĀ Sondland, overhears a phone call between Trump and Sondland, in which Trump inquires about investigations, according toĀ TaylorāsĀ andĀ HolmesāsĀ later testimonies. Sondland later tells Holmes that Trump doesnāt care about Ukraine as a country and that he just wants the investigations, according toĀ TaylorĀ and Holmes. Sondland later says he doesnāt recall mentioning Biden but otherwise doesnāt contradict their testimony.
Days following July 25
The whistleblowerĀ writes: “I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced ā as is customary ā by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”
The whistleblower claims to have been told by White House officials that they were directed by White House lawyers to move the transcript from the normal documentation archive and to “a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature” ā a move one official called an “act of abuse.”
In an appendix, the whistleblower adds that officials said “this was ‘not the first time’ under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive ā rather than national security sensitive ā information.”
July 28, 2019
TrumpĀ announcesĀ thatĀ CoatsĀ will resign in August.
July 31, 2019
Trump holds aĀ phone callĀ with Russian PresidentĀ Vladimir Putin. The call is first reported by the Russians; the White House does not confirm it until late in the evening. The Russians, in a much more substantial readout than the United States, claim Trump and Putin spoke about restoring full diplomatic relations one day.
Early August
MulvaneyĀ asks acting OMB directorĀ Russell VoughtĀ for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the Ukraine aid and how much longer it could be delayed, according toĀ Washington Post reporting.
August 2, 2019
GiulianiĀ travels to Madrid, where he meets withĀ Yermak.Ā ParnasĀ is also in the meeting,Ā according to Yermak.Ā AccordingĀ to the New York Times, the meeting involves Giuliani encouragingĀ Zelensky‘s government to investigateĀ Hunter Biden.
August 3, 2019
ZelenskyĀ says he plansĀ to travel to the United States in September to meet with Trump in Washington.
August 8, 2019
TrumpĀ announcesĀ Joseph MaguireĀ will takeĀ Coats‘s job as director of national intelligence, in an acting capacity. In doing so, he bypassesĀ Sue Gordon, who had been Coats’s No. 2 at the directorate of national intelligence and who was a career intelligence official with bipartisan support. Gordon would later resign.
August 8, 2019
GiulianiĀ tells Fox News thatĀ Durham, the Justice Department official investigating the Russia probe’s origins, is “spending a lot of time in Europe” to investigate what happened in Ukraine.
August 9, 2019
Trump says ofĀ Zelensky: “I think he’s going to make a deal with President Putin, and he will be invited to the White House. And we look forward to seeing him. He’s already been invited to the White House, and he wants to come. And I think he will. He’s a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine. And I think he will be coming very soon, actually.”
August 9, 2019
VolkerĀ andĀ SondlandĀ text with one another about a statement Ukraine might be asked to issue about the investigations. Sondland also indicates that Trump “reallyĀ wants the deliverable.” Volker and Sondland consultĀ Giulianiabout what the statement should say.
August 10, 2019
YermakĀ emphasizesĀ that Ukraine would like to lock down a date forĀ Zelensky‘s visit before making the statement. “I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things,” Yermak says. “Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit.”
August 11, 2019
SondlandĀ emails top State Department aidesĀ UlrichĀ Brechbuhl,Ā Lisa KennaĀ and says, “Kurt & I negotiated a statement from Ze to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation. Ze plans to have a big presser on the openness subject (including specifics) next week.” Kenna responds, “Iāll pass to S. Thank you.”
August 12, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ The whistleblowerĀ files a complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community. Intelligence Community Inspector GeneralĀ Michael AtkinsonĀ will later determine the complaint to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern,” which would trigger a legally required disclosure to the House and Senate intelligence committees.
August 13, 2019
VolkerĀ andĀ SondlandĀ textĀ about what language should be included in Ukraine’s statement.
August 15, 2019
CoatsĀ and Gordon officially leave their positions.
August 16, 2019
VolkerĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ via text thatĀ YermakĀ asked the U.S. government to submit an official request for the Burisma investigation, according to Taylor’s later testimony. Taylor gives Volker a deputy assistant attorney general to contact regarding whether such a request would be proper.
August 17, 2019
SondlandĀ asksĀ VolkerĀ if “we still want Ze[lensky] to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma [sic]?” Volker responds, “That’s the clear message so far ā¦”
August 21, 2019
TaylorĀ asksĀ BrechbuhlĀ whether there is an official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, according to Taylor, and Brechbuhl says there is not.
August 22, 2019
NSC aideĀ Tim MorrisonĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ it “remains to be seen” whether U.S. policy toward Ukraine has changed, according to Taylor, and says the “president doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.”
August 22, 2019
SondlandĀ emailsĀ PompeoĀ andĀ Kenna, saying “Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for Potus to meetĀ Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraineās new justice folks are in place ([in] mid-Sept[ember), that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US. Hopefully, that will break the logjam.” Pompeo replies, “Yes.”
Questions swirl around withheld aid
Early September 2019
August 27, 2019
BoltonĀ meets withĀ ZelenskyĀ in Kyiv. According toĀ Taylor, the withheld military aid is not discussed.
August 28, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ Politico posts a storyĀ about the Trump administration withholding $250 million in military aid from Ukraine, the first time it has been reported publicly. (Before this point, it was not clear Ukraine even knew the aid was being withheld.)
August 29, 2019
YermakĀ textsĀ VolkerĀ a link to the story and says: “Need to talk with you.” Volker responds: “Hi Andrey ā absolutely. When is good for you?” Yermak also contactsĀ TaylorĀ to express his deep concern, according to Taylor, and Taylor says he is “embarrassed” that he has no explanation.
August 29, 2019
TaylorĀ writes a cable toĀ Pompeo, atĀ Bolton‘s urging, decrying the “folly” of withholding the funds at a time when Russia is breathing down Ukraine’s neck.
Late August
Lawmakers raise concerns about Ukraine aid being withheld,Ā citingĀ its importance to defend the former Soviet republic from Russia.
August 30, 2019
SondlandĀ tells Sen.Ā Ron JohnsonĀ (R-Wis.) that Trump was withholding the Ukraine military aid to “getĀ to the bottom of what happened in 2016Ā ā if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending,” according to Johnson’s later recollection.
August 31, 2019
JohnsonĀ tries to get Trump to release the military aid. He later says Trump explained that part of the reason for the delay was his concern about Ukraine’s role in 2016 election interference. “I didn’t succeed,” JohnsonĀ explains later. “But the president was very consistent on why he was considering it. Again, it was corruption, overall, generalized ā but yeah, no doubt about it, what happened in 2016 ā what happened in 2016, as relates? What was the truth about that?”
September 1, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ SondlandĀ tellsĀ YermakĀ at a meeting in Warsaw that the military aid would not arrive untilĀ ZelenskyĀ promises to pursue the Burisma investigation, asĀ Taylor, Kent,Ā MorrisonĀ and Sondland laterĀ confirm. Sondland says in clarified testimony that he “presumed” the two issues were connected “in the absence of any [other] credible explanation.” But he emphasizes that Trump did not directly convey it to him and later explicitly denied a quid pro quo.
September 1, 2019
TaylorĀ tells Kent thatĀ SondlandĀ had toldĀ YermakĀ that “POTUS wanted nothing less than PresidentĀ ZelenskyĀ to go to [a] microphone and say āinvestigations,ā āBiden,ā and āClinton,ā ” according toĀ Kentās later testimony.
September 1, 2019
ZelenskyĀ andĀ PenceĀ alsoĀ meetĀ in Warsaw for a ceremony commemorating World War II. (Trump had originally been slated to attend the ceremony but remained in the United States to monitor Hurricane Dorian.)Ā TaylorĀ informsĀ DanyliukĀ before the meeting that if the military aid is not released by the end of the month, the funds would expire because that is the end of the fiscal year, according to Taylor.
At the meeting, Pence tells Zelensky he will talk to Trump about the military aid, according to a readout fromĀ MorrisonĀ that Taylor says he received. Pence also says Trump wants Europe to do more to support Ukraine and that he wants Ukraine to do more to root out corruption, according to Morrison’s readout, as relayed by Taylor.
September 1, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ TaylorĀ textsĀ Sondland,Ā asking: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland responds, “Call me.” The two speak, according to Taylor, and Sondland explains that Trump wantsĀ ZelenskyĀ to say publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and the conspiracy theory about Ukraine’s alleged role in the 2016 election interference. Sondland tells Taylor that he regrets not telling Ukrainian officials that “everything” relied on their announcement of the investigations ā both a meeting and military aid ā according to Taylor.
September 2, 2019
PenceĀ says he did not discuss Biden withĀ Zelensky, but that he didĀ suggest that aid was conditioned on rooting out corruption. “As President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption,” Pence said. “The president wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine.”
September 2, 2019
DanyliukĀ expresses concern toĀ MorrisonĀ that U.S. officials are not able to provide answers about the withheld military aid, according toĀ Taylor, and Ukrainian Defense MinisterĀ AndriyĀ ZagorodnyukĀ raises similar concerns with Taylor.
September 5, 2019
Johnson and Sen.Ā Chris MurphyĀ (D-Conn.) meet in Ukraine withĀ Zelensky, withĀ TaylorĀ hosting the meeting. Zelensky’s first question is about the military aid, according to Taylor. Murphy laterĀ tells NBC’s Chuck ToddĀ that Zelensky had expressed concerns aboutĀ Giuliani‘s overtures.
September 5, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ The Postās editorial boardĀ writesĀ that it had been “reliably told” that Trump was “attempting to force Mr.Ā ZelenskyĀ to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.”
September 7, 2019
Trump tellsĀ SondlandĀ that he is not asking for a “quid pro quo” but insistsĀ ZelenskyĀ make the announcement about the two investigations, accordingĀ Morrisonās testimony andĀ Taylorās testimony about his conversations with Morrison. Morrison informs NSC lawyers about the call, according to both of them.
September 8, 2019
SondlandĀ tellsĀ TaylorĀ that Trump is adamant thatĀ ZelenskyĀ “clear things up and do it in public,” according to Taylor. Sondland also tells Taylor that he told Zelensky andĀ YermakĀ that it wasn’t a quid pro quo, but that if they didn’t “clear things up” publicly, there would be a “stalemate,” according to Taylor.
Sondland also explains to Taylor that Trump is a businessman, and that before a businessman signs a check, he expects someone who owes him something to pay up, according to Taylor. (Taylor saidĀ VolkerĀ had said something similar.)
September 8, 2019
TaylorĀ textsĀ VolkerĀ and Sondland,Ā saying: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”
September 9, 2019
TaylorĀ textsĀ SondlandĀ again about the idea that the military aid is being withheld in some kind of quid pro quo. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor says.
SondlandĀ speaks with Trump via phoneĀ and, during which Trump tells him something similar to, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. TellĀ ZelenskyĀ to do the right thing,” according toĀ Sondlandās testimony.
Sondland then responds toĀ Taylor‘s text, “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you giveĀ Lisa KennaĀ or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.” (Sondland will later explain that he was simply relaying Trump’s denial, rather than vouching for it.)
A whistleblower, a transcript and impeachment
Sept. 9-present
September 9, 2019
The Democrat-controlled House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committeesĀ announceĀ an investigation intoĀ Giulianiās efforts in Ukraine and the administrationās decision to halt aid.
AtkinsonĀ notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees that a whistleblower has filed a complaint, but he does not reveal its contents or substance.
September 10, 2019
House Intelligence Committee ChairmanĀ Adam B. SchiffĀ (D-Calif.)Ā writesĀ toĀ MaguireĀ demanding Congress receive the complaint.
September 10, 2019
TrumpĀ announcesĀ on Twitter thatĀ BoltonĀ has resigned. Trump says it came at his request; Bolton quickly counters by saying he offered first.
September 11, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ The Trump administrationĀ releasesĀ the Ukraine aid it had been withholding.Ā TaylorĀ informsĀ ZelenskyĀ andĀ Prystaiko.
September 12, 2019
TaylorĀ becomes worried thatĀ ZelenskyĀ will announce the investigations in a planned CNN interview he learned about fromĀ Sondland, as he later testifies. He tries to confirm withĀ DanyliukĀ that Zelensky won’t do such an interview, and Danyliuk confirms. Taylor asks the same question ofĀ Yermak, whom he later describes as being “uncomfortable” with the question. But Danyliuk again confirms there would be no CNN interview, Taylor later testifies.
September 13, 2019
SchiffĀ subpoenasĀ MaguireĀ to compel him to disclose the whistleblower complaint. According to Schiff, the DNI’s office, in a letter from counsel, indicates the whistleblower complaint is being withheld because of confidential and potentially privileged communications by people outside the intelligence community. It is assumed that this refers to Trump.
September 17, 2019
MaguireĀ saysĀ he will not testify or hand over the whistleblower complaint.Ā SchiffĀ says Maguire told him he couldn’t “because he is being instructed not to, that this involved a higher authority, someone above.”
September 18, 2019
The PostĀ reportsĀ that the complaint involves Trump’s communications with a foreign leader and some kind of “promise” that was made.
September 18, 2019
PenceĀ holds a call withĀ Zelensky, which U.S. officials tell The Post was somewhat perfunctory. DuringĀ Vindmanās later public testimony, though, Penceās office says the call is classified and canāt be discussed in an open setting.
Around Sept. 18 or 19
ZelenskyĀ cancelsĀ a planned CNN interview, according to the network.
September 19, 2019
AtkinsonĀ briefs Congress in a closed-door session, telling them the complaint involved multiple events and not a single communication. The Post reports the complaintĀ involves Ukraine.
September 19, 2019
GiulianiĀ appearsĀ on CNN and denies any wrongdoing by Trump. But he also suggests it would be okay if Trump withheld aid in exchange for Ukraine investigating the Bidens. “The reality is the president of the United States has every right to say to another leader of a foreign country, ‘You got to straighten up before we give you a lot of money,’ ” Giuliani says. “It is perfectly appropriate for [Trump] to ask a foreign government to investigate this massive crime that was made by a former vice president.”
September 23, 2019
TrumpĀ suggestsĀ aid to Ukraine may have been withheld over “corruption” issues ā without citing the Bidens. “If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?” Trump said. “. . . So it’s very important that, on occasion, you speak to somebody about corruption.”
September 24, 2019
TrumpĀ confirms he withheld the fundingĀ but suggests it was because other European countries should pay for Ukraine’s military aid. Trump later says he will release a transcript of his phone call withĀ Zelensky.
September 24, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ House SpeakerĀ Nancy PelosiĀ (D-Calif.)Ā announces her supportfor a formal impeachment inquiry for the first time, setting that process in motion.
September 25, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ The White HouseĀ releases a rough transcriptĀ of Trump’s July 25 call withĀ Zelensky, including the details described above.
September 25, 2019
Trump meets withĀ ZelenskyĀ at the United Nations. Zelensky maintains he didn’t feel “pressure” to pursue investigations and that he didn’t interfere in his country’s law enforcement process. “We have an independent country and independent [prosecutor general],” he says. “I can’t push anyone. That is the answer. I didn’t call somebody or the new [prosecutor general]. I didn’t ask him. I didn’t push him.”
Zelensky also pointedly notes that, despite repeated invitations, Trump has never actually identified a date for a White House visit.
September 26, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ The White HouseĀ declassifies the whistleblower complaint, andĀ SchiffĀ releases it. The complaint focuses on Trump’s call withĀ ZelenskyĀ but also alleges an effort to cover it up and alludes to substantial concern within the administration about Trump’s actions.
At a hearing later that day, SchiffĀ paraphrasesĀ the Trump-Zelensky call, prompting criticism from Republicans.
September 26, 2019
MaguireĀ testifies to the House Intelligence Committee that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel downgraded the inspector general’s determination that the whistleblower complaint was of “urgent concern,” which eliminated the requirement that it be shared with Congress. Democrats allege a conflict of interest, noting that the complaint namesĀ William BarrĀ ā the head of the Justice Department ā as being potentially involved.
More than 300 former U.S. national security and foreign policy officials signĀ a statementĀ supporting House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
September 28, 2019
A topĀ PompeoĀ aide,Ā Michael McKinley, rallies support for a State Department statement strongly defendingĀ Yovanovitch, according to his testimony, but department spokeswomanĀ Morgan OrtagusĀ informs McKinley that PompeoĀ decides against releasing such a statementĀ ā in part to “not draw undue attention to her.”
October 1, 2019
PompeoĀ sendsĀ House Democrats a letter declaring that five State Department employees who had been summoned for depositions would not appear. Pompeo calls the inquiry “an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly, the distinguished professionals of the Department of State.”
October 2, 2019
The New York Times reports ā and The Post confirms ā thatĀ the whistleblowerhad approached a staffer forĀ Schiff‘s committee early in the process,Ā contradictingĀ some of Schiff’s claims.
October 2, 2019
State Department Inspector GeneralĀ Steve LinickĀ sharesĀ with Congress documents that had been sent to the State Department that include conspiracy theories about the Bidens.Ā GiulianiĀ indicates he was responsible for some of the materials, which were apparently sent to State from the White House.
October 3, 2019
VolkerĀ submits to a deposition, sharing text messages (as described above) withĀ Taylor,Ā Sondland,Ā GiulianiĀ andĀ Yermak. He says heĀ never had a quid pro quo communicated to him.
October 3, 2019
“Mr. President, what exactly did you hopeĀ ZelenskyĀ would do about the Bidens after your phone call?” Trump is asked by a reporter.
“Well,” he replies, “I would think that, if they were honest about it, theyād start a major investigation into the Bidens. Ā Itās a very simple answer.”
He tells reporters that he also thinksĀ ChinaĀ should launch an investigation involving the Bidens. “And by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,” Trump says.
October 3, 2019
Kent confronts State officials about the claims inĀ Pompeo‘s letter, calling them inaccurate, according toĀ his later testimony. He tells one official whose name is redacted: “I said, well, you say that the career foreign services are being intimidated. . . . And I asked him, about whom are you speaking? And he said, you’re asking me to reveal confidential information. And I said, no, I’m not. There are only two career Foreign Service officers who subject to this process. I’m one of them. I’m the only one working at the Department of State, and the other one is AmbassadorĀ Yovanovitch, who is teaching at Georgetown.”
October 3, 2019
The State DepartmentĀ informs CongressĀ that it has approved the sale of 150 Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine ā a type of weaponryĀ ZelenskyĀ mentioned on the July 25 call with Trump ā at a cost of $39.2 million.
October 6, 2019
Lawyers for the whistleblower indicate they areĀ representing a second whistleblowerĀ ā this one with firsthand knowledge of some of the key events. They say the second whistleblower has spoken withĀ Atkinson.
October 8, 2019
After blockingĀ Sondland‘s testimony, White House counselĀ Pat CipolloneinformsĀ Congress that the White House will not cooperate with any facet of its impeachment inquiry, makingĀ curious argumentsĀ about the lack of “due process.”
October 10, 2019
Giuliani‘s two Soviet-born business associates,Ā ParnasĀ andĀ Fruman, are arrested shortly before they are set to leave the country. They areĀ indictedĀ on campaign finance charges, with the Southern District of New York accusing them of funneling foreign money into U.S. politics to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations.
October 10, 2019
McKinleyĀ resignsĀ overĀ Pompeo‘s alleged failure to support State Department officials ensnared in the Ukraine controversy.
October 11, 2019
YovanovitchĀ testifiesĀ to Congress, alleging a politicized effort to remove her as ambassador to Ukraine.
October 12, 2019
The Post reportsĀ SondlandĀ will tell Congress that his Sept. 9 text message stating there was no quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine was based on assurances from Trump and that he is not certain Trump’s denial was accurate. Trump and his allies hadĀ hailed Sondland’s textĀ as proof there was no quid pro quo.
McKinleyĀ testifiesĀ and explains his resignation. “I was disturbed by the implication that foreign governments were being approached to procure negative information on political opponents,” McKinley says. “I was convinced that this would also have a serious impact on Foreign Service morale and the integrity of our work overseas.”
October 17, 2019
SondlandĀ testifies, saying any pressure he applied on Ukraine to investigate BurismaĀ came before he knew the case involved the Bidens. (He claims this despiteĀ Giuliani‘s efforts and the Bidens’ proximity to them being in the news by early May.) Sondland says he is making that distinction “because I believe I testified that it would be improper” to push for such political investigations. Asked whether it would be illegal, Sondland says: “I’m not a lawyer, but I assume so.”
October 17, 2019
Trump announcesĀ PerryĀ will resign by the end of the year.
October 17, 2019
KEY EVENTĀ MulvaneyĀ in a news conference momentarilyĀ confirms a quid pro quoĀ with Ukraine. “[Did Trump] also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney said. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. . . . The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.” Mulvaney later issues a statement trying to reverse course, saying there actually was no connection.
Cooper testifies, but not before the proceedings are delayed for five hours as House RepublicansĀ storm the secure roomĀ where the depositions are being held. The Republicans expressed concern about the secrecy of the process.
State Department officialsĀ Catherine CroftĀ andĀ Christopher AndersontestifyĀ separately, describing the dim view of Ukraine taken by Trump and those around him.
October 30, 2019
In his confirmation hearing to become ambassador to Russia,Ā SullivanĀ says heĀ was aware of aĀ “smear”Ā campaignĀ againstĀ YovanovitchĀ and that he believedĀ GiulianiĀ was a part of it. He also says it was appropriate to remove Yovanovitch, though, because Trump had lost confidence in her.
October 31, 2019
MorrisonĀ testifies, corroboratingĀ Taylor‘s testimony thatĀ Sondlandcommunicated a quid pro quo to Ukraine. Morrison says he raised concerns about Trump’s July 25 call withĀ Zelensky, but that heĀ didĀ notĀ think it contained anything illegal.
October 31, 2019
The HouseĀ votes to formalize its impeachment inquiryĀ and open up its hearings, amid GOP criticism that the process was too secretive. No House Republicans vote in favor of the inquiry, and two Democrats vote against it.
SondlandĀ clarifies his testimony to acknowledge he communicated the quid pro quo to Ukraine on July 10, but that he was acting on what he presumed to be the case rather than a direct order from Trump.
Bolton‘s lawyer tells Congress in a letter that his client was “part of many relevant meetings and conversations” pertaining to the impeachment inquiryĀ that aren’t yet public, but reinforces that Bolton will appear only if ordered to by a judge.
November 10, 2019
Parnas‘s lawyerĀ disclosesĀ the quid pro quo he allegedly communicated to Ukrainian officials in May.
November 13, 2019
TaylorĀ and Kent testify in an open hearing.
November 15, 2019
YovanovitchĀ testifiesĀ in an open hearing, during which Trump tweets an attack on her. “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” he said. “She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. Presidentās absolute right to appoint ambassadors.” Democrats accuse Trump of witness intimidation.
Vindman, Williams,Ā VolkerĀ andĀ MorrisonĀ testifyĀ in two consecutive open hearings.
November 20, 2019
SondlandĀ testifiesĀ in an open hearing, in which he says top administration officials includingĀ PenceĀ andĀ PompeoĀ were aware of the quid pro quo and that it was clearĀ GiulianiĀ was acting on Trumpās wishes when he pushed for it. Sondlandās testimony is followed by Hale and Cooper in their own hearing.
November 21, 2019
HillĀ and HolmesĀ round outĀ the public impeachment hearings. Hill criticizes efforts by Republicans to draw an equivalence between Russiaās interference in 2016 and the actions of Ukrainians during the campaign. Holmes notes that the pressure felt by Ukraine during its interactions with Trump sinceĀ Zelenskyās inauguration is on-going, given that Ukraine still seeks to demonstrate that it maintains the U.S.ā support.
TheĀ Moscow TrialsĀ were a series ofĀ show trialsĀ held in theĀ Soviet UnionĀ at the instigation ofĀ Joseph StalinĀ between 1936 and 1938 againstĀ TrotskyistsĀ and members ofĀ Right OppositionĀ of theĀ Communist Party of the Soviet Union. There were three Moscow Trials: the Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center (Zinoviev–KamenevĀ Trial, aka “Trial of the Sixteen,” 1936), the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center (Pyatakov–RadekĀ Trial, 1937), and the Case of the Anti-Soviet “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” (Bukharin–RykovĀ Trial, aka “Trial of the Twenty-One,” 1938). The defendants of these wereĀ Old BolshevikĀ party leaders and top officials of theĀ Soviet secret police. Most defendants were charged underĀ Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal CodeĀ with conspiring with the Western powers to assassinate Stalin and other Soviet leaders, dismember the Soviet Union, and restoreĀ capitalism.
The Moscow Trials led to the execution of many of the defendants. They are generally seen as part of Stalin’sĀ Great Purge, an attempt to rid the party of current or prior oppositionists, especially but not exclusively Trotskyists, and any leading Bolshevik cadre from the time of theĀ Russian RevolutionĀ or earlier, who might even potentially become a figurehead for the growing discontent in the Soviet populace resulting from Stalin’s mismanagement of theĀ economy.[1]Ā Stalin’s hastyĀ industrializationĀ during the period of theĀ First Five Year PlanĀ and the brutality of the forcedĀ agricultural collectivizationĀ had led to an acute economic and political crisis in 1928-33, a part of the global problem known as theĀ Great Depression, and to enormous suffering on the part of the Soviet workers and peasants. Stalin was acutely conscious of this fact and took steps to prevent it taking the form of an opposition inside theĀ Communist Party of the Soviet UnionĀ to his increasinglyĀ totalitarian rule.[1]
Contents
Background
Grigory Zinoviev,Ā Lev Kamenev, andĀ Joseph StalinĀ formed a rulingĀ triumvirateĀ in early 1923[2]Ā afterĀ Vladimir LeninĀ had become incapacitated from a stroke. In the context of the series of defeats of communist revolutions abroad (crucially theĀ German revolutions of 1919Ā but also later the Chinese Revolution of 1927) which left the Russian Revolution increasingly isolated in a backward country, the triumvirate was able to effect the marginalization ofĀ Leon TrotskyĀ in an internal party political conflict over the issue of Stalin’s theory ofĀ Socialism in One Country. It was Trotsky who most clearly represented the wing of the CPSU leadership which claimed that the survival of the revolution depended on the spread of communism to the advanced European economies especially Germany. This was expressed in his theory ofĀ permanent revolution.[3]
A few years later, Zinoviev and Kamenev joined theĀ United FrontĀ in an alliance with Trotsky which favoredĀ TrotskyismĀ and opposed Stalin specifically.[4]Ā Consequently, Stalin allied withĀ Nikolai BukharinĀ and defeated Trotsky in a power struggle. Trotsky was expelled from theĀ Soviet UnionĀ in 1929 and Kamenev and Zinoviev temporarily lost their membership in the Communist Party. Zinoviev and Kamenev, in 1932, were found to be complicit in theĀ Ryutin AffairĀ and again were temporarily expelled from the Communist Party. In December 1934,Ā Sergei KirovĀ was assassinated and, subsequently 15 defendants were found guilty of direct, or indirect, involvement in the crime and were executed.[5]Ā Zinoviev and Kamenev were found to be morally complicit in Kirov’s murder and were sentenced to prison terms of ten and five years, respectively.[6]
Both Kamenev and Zinoviev had been secretly tried in 1935 but it appears that Stalin decided that, with suitable confessions, their fate could be used for propaganda purposes.Ā Genrikh YagodaĀ oversaw the interrogation proceedings.
Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center
Conspiracy and investigation
In December 1935, the original case surrounding Zinoviev began to widen into what was called theĀ Trotsky-Zinoviev Center.[7]Ā Stalin allegedly received reports that correspondences from Trotsky were found among the possessions of one of those arrested in the widened probe.[8]Ā Consequently, Stalin stressed the importance of the investigation and orderedĀ Nikolai YezhovĀ to take over the case and ascertain if Trotsky was involved.[8]Ā The central office ofĀ NKVDĀ that was headed byĀ Genrikh YagodaĀ was shocked when it was known that Yezhov (at that time a mere party functionary)[a][9]Ā has discovered the conspiracy,[9]Ā due to the fact that they (NKVD) had no relations to the case.[9]Ā This would have led to inevitable conclusion about unprofessionalism of the NKVD leaders who completely missed the existence of the conspiratorial Trotskyist center.[9]Ā In June 1936, Yagoda reiterated his belief to Stalin that there was no link between Trotsky and Zinoviev, but Stalin promptly rebuked him.[10]Ā Bewilderment was strengthened by the fact that both Zinoviev and Kamenev for a long time were under constant operational surveillance and after theĀ murder of KirovĀ were held in custody.[9]Ā A key role in investigating played a chief of the Secret-political department of the NKVD Main Directory of State Security (a predecessor ofĀ KGB), State Security Commissar of the 2nd Class Georgiy Molchanov.[9]
The basis of the scenario was laid in confession testimonies of three arrested: NKVD agent Valentin Olberg (ru:ŠŠ»ŃŠ±ŠµŃŠ³, ŠŠ°Š»ŠµŠ½ŃŠøŠ½ ŠŠ°Š²Š»Š¾Š²ŠøŃ) who was teaching at the Gorky Pedagogic Institute and two former participants of the internal party opposition and Soviet statesmen Isaak Rejngold and Richard Pikel.[9]Ā Wherein Rejngold firmly believed that participating in the case fabrication about mythical conspiracy he executes the party’s task.[9]Ā In relation to their composition, the testimonies looked standard conspiratorial activity, murder of Kirov, preparation to assassination attempts against the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, seizure of power in the Soviet Union with the aim of “restoration of capitalism”.[9]
In July 1936, Zinoviev and Kamenev were brought to Moscow from an unspecified prison.[10]Ā They were interrogated and denied being part of any Trotsky-led conspiracy.[11]Ā Yezhov appealed to Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s devotion to the Soviet Union as old Bolsheviks and advised them that Trotsky was fomenting anti-Soviet sentiment amongst the proletariat in the world. Throughout spring and summer of 1936 the investigators were requesting from the arrested “to lay down arms in front the party” exerting a continuous pressure on them.[9]Ā Furthermore, this loss of support, in the event of a war with Germany or Japan, could have disastrous ramifications for the Soviet Union.[12]Ā To Kamenev specifically, Yezhov showed him evidence that his son was subject to an investigation that could result in his son’s execution.[13]Ā According to one witness, at the beginning of the summer the central heating was turned on in Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s cells. This was very unpleasant for both prisoners but particularly Zinoviev who was asthmatic and couldn’t tolerate the artificially increased temperatures.[9]Ā Finally the exhausted prisoners agreed to a deal with Stalin who promised them, on the behalf of Politburo, their lives in exchange for participation in the anti-Trotskyist spectacle.[9]Ā Kamenev and Zinoviev agreed to confess on condition that they receive a direct guarantee from the entire Politburo that their lives and those of their families and followers would be spared. When they were taken to the supposed Politburo meeting, they were met by only Stalin andĀ Kliment Voroshilov.[13]Ā Stalin explained that they were the “commission” authorized by the Politburo, and Stalin agreed to their conditions in order to gain their desired confessions.[14]Ā After that the future defendants were given some medical treatment and food.[9]
The trial was held from August 19 to August 24, 1936 in the small October Hall of theĀ House of the UnionsĀ (chosen instead of the larger Hall of Columns, used for earlier trials)[15]Ā and there were 16 defendants.[16]
DefendantĀ Ivan Nikitich SmirnovĀ was blamed by his co-defendants for being the leader of the Center which planned Kirov’s assassination. He, however, had been in prison since January 1933 and refused to confess.[18]
Another defendant, the Old Bolshevik Eduard Holtzman, was accused at the Trial of the 16 of conspiring with Trotsky in Copenhagen at the Hotel Bristol in 1932, where Trotsky was giving a public lecture. A week after the trial it was revealed by a Danish Social Democratic newspaper that the hotel had been demolished in 1917.[19]
All the defendants were sentenced to death and were subsequently shot in the cellars ofĀ LubyankaĀ Prison inĀ Moscow.[citation needed]
Prosecutor GeneralĀ Vyshinskiy (centre), reading the indictment, in 1937
The second trial occurred between January 23 and January 30, 1937.[20]
This second trial involved 17 lesser figures includingĀ Karl Radek,Ā Yuri PyatakovĀ andĀ Grigory Sokolnikov.Ā Alexander BeloborodovĀ was also arrested and intended to be tried along with Radek, but did not make the confession required of him, and so he was not produced in court. Thirteen of the defendants were eventually executed by shooting. The rest received sentences in labour camps.[21][22]Ā Radek was spared as he implicated others, includingĀ Nikolai Bukharin,Ā Alexei Rykov, and MarshalĀ Mikhail Tukhachevsky, setting the stage for the Trial of Military and Trial of the Twenty One.
Radek provided the pretext for the purge on a massive scale with his testimony that there was a “third organization separate from the cadres which had passed through [Trotsky’s] school”[23]Ā as well as “semi-Trotskyites, quarter-Trotskyites, one-eighth-Trotskyites, people who helped us, not knowing of the terrorist organization but sympathizing with us, people who from liberalism, from aĀ FrondeĀ against the Party, gave us this help.”[24]
By the third organization, he meant the last remaining former opposition group calledĀ RightistsĀ led by Bukharin, whom he implicated by saying: “I feel guilty of one thing more: even after admitting my guilt and exposing the organisation, I stubbornly refused to give evidence about Bukharin. I knew that Bukharin’s situation was just as hopeless as my own, because our guilt, if not juridically, then in essence, was the same. But we are close friends, and intellectual friendship is stronger than other friendships. I knew that Bukharin was in the same state of upheaval as myself. That is why I did not want to deliver him bound hand and foot to the People’s Commissariat of Home Affairs. Just as in relation to our other cadres, I wanted Bukharin himself to lay down his arms.”[23]
At the time, many Western observers who attended the trials said that they were fair and that the guilt of the accused had been established. They based this assessment on the confessions of the accused, which were freely given in open court, without any apparent evidence that they had been extracted by torture or drugging.Ā Joseph E. Davies, the U.S. ambassador, wrote inĀ Mission to Moscow:
In view of the character of the accused, their long terms of service, their recognized distinction in their profession, their long-continued loyalty to the Communist cause, it is scarcely credible that their brother officersĀ … should have acquiesced in their execution, unless they were convinced that these men had been guilty of some offense.[*]Ā It is generally accepted by members of the Diplomatic Corps that the accused must have been guilty of an offense which in the Soviet Union would merit the death penalty.
*Ā The Bukharin trial six months later developed evidence which, if true, more than justified this action. Undoubtedly those facts were all full known to the military court at this time.[25]
The third show trial, in March 1938, known asĀ The Trial of the Twenty-One, tied together all the loose threads from earlier trials. It included 21 defendants alleged to belong to the so-called “Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites”:
The fact that Yagoda was one of the accused showed the speed at which the purges were consuming its own. Meant to be the culmination of previous trials, it now alleged that Bukharin and others had conspired toĀ assassinateĀ Lenin and Stalin numerous times after 1918 and had murdered Soviet writerĀ Maxim GorkyĀ by poison in 1936. The group also stood accused ofĀ espionage. Bukharin and others were claimed to have plotted theĀ overthrowĀ andĀ territorial partitionĀ of theĀ Soviet UnionĀ in collusion with agents of theĀ GermanĀ andĀ JapaneseĀ governments, among other preposterous charges.
Even sympathetic observers who had stomached the earlier trials found it hard to swallow the new charges as they became ever more absurd, and the purge had now expanded to include virtually every living Old Bolshevik leader except Stalin.
The preparation for this trial was delayed in its early stages due to the reluctance of some party members to denounce their comrades. It was at this time that Stalin personally intervened to speed up the process and replaced Yagoda with Yezhov. Stalin also observed some of the trial in person from a hidden chamber in the courtroom. On the first day of the trial, Krestinsky caused a sensation when he repudiated his written confession and pleaded not guilty to all the charges. However, he changed his plea the next day after “special measures”, which dislocated his left shoulder among other things.[26]
Anastas MikoyanĀ andĀ Vyacheslav MolotovĀ later claimed that Bukharin was never tortured, but it is now known that his interrogators were given the order, “beating permitted,” and were under great pressure to extract confessions out of the “star” defendant. Bukharin held out for three months, but threats to his young wife and infant son, combined with “methods of physical influence” wore him down. But when he read his confession, amended and corrected personally by Stalin, he withdrew his whole confession. The examination started all over again, with a double team of interrogators.[27]
Bukharin’s confession in particular became the subject of much debate among Western observers, inspiring Koestler’s novelĀ Darkness at NoonĀ and a philosophical essay byĀ Maurice Merleau-PontyĀ inĀ Humanism and TerrorĀ among others. His confessions were somewhat different from others in that, while he pleaded guilty to general charges, he denied knowledge of any specific crimes. Some astute observers noted that he would allow only what was in his written confession and refused to go any further. The fact that he was allowed to write in prison (he wrote four book-length manuscripts including an autobiographical novel,Ā How It All Began, a philosophical treatise, and a collection of poems ā all of which were found in Stalin’s archive and published in the 1990s) suggests that some kind of deal was reached as a condition for his confession. He also wrote a series of emotional letters to Stalin, protesting his innocence and professing his love for Stalin, which contrasts with his critical opinion of Stalin and his policies as expressed to others and with his conduct in the trial.
There are several possible interpretations of Bukharin’s motivation (besides coercion) in the trial. Koestler and others viewed it as a true believer’s last service to the Party (while preserving a modicum of personal honor), whereas Bukharin’s biographers Stephen Cohen and Robert Tucker saw traces ofĀ Aesopian language, with which Bukharin sought to turn the tables and conduct a trial of Stalinism (while still keeping his part of the bargain to save his family). Bukharin himself speaks of his “peculiar duality of mind” in his last plea, which led to “semi-paralysis of the will” and Hegelian “unhappy consciousness“.
The result was a curious mix of fulsome confessions and subtle criticisms of the trial. After disproving several charges against him (one observer noted that he proceeded to demolish, or rather showed he could very easily demolish, the whole case[28]), Bukharin said that “the confession of the accused is not essential. The confession of the accused is a medieval principle of jurisprudence”, his point being that the trial was solely based on coerced confessions. He finished his last plea with “the monstrousness of my crime is immeasurable, especially in the new stage of the struggle of the U.S.S.R. May this trial be the last severe lesson, and may the great might of the U.S.S.R. become clear to all.”[29]
Romain RollandĀ and others wrote to Stalin seeking clemency for Bukharin, but all the leading defendants were executed except Rakovsky and two others (they were killed in prison in 1941). Despite the promise to spare his family, Bukharin’s wife,Ā Anna Larina, was sent to a labor camp, but she survived.
Aftermath
Communist Party leaders in most Western countries denounced criticism of the trials as capitalist attempts to subvert Communism.[30]
A number of American communists and progressive “fellow travellers” outside of the Soviet Union signed aĀ Statement of American Progressives on the Moscow Trials. These includedĀ Langston Hughes[31]Ā andĀ Stuart Davis,[32]Ā who would later express regrets.
Some contemporary observers who thought the trials were inherently fair cite the statements ofĀ Molotov, who while conceding that some of the confessions contain unlikely statements, said there may have been several reasons or motives for this ā one being that the handful who made doubtful confessions were trying to undermine the Soviet Union and its government by making dubious statements in their confessions to cast doubts on their trial. Molotov postulated that a defendant might invent a story that he collaborated with foreign agents and party members to undermine the government so that those members would falsely come under suspicion, while the false foreign collaboration charge would be believed as well. Thus, the Soviet government was in his view the victim of false confessions. Nonetheless, he said the evidence of mostly out-of-power Communist officials conspiring to make a power grab during a moment of weakness in the upcoming war truly existed.[citation needed]Ā This defense collapsed after the release ofĀ Khrushchev’s Secret SpeechĀ to the Twentieth Congress.
In Britain, the lawyer andĀ LabourĀ MPĀ Denis Nowell Pritt, for example, wrote: “Once again the more faint-hearted socialists are beset with doubts and anxieties,” but “once again we can feel confident that when the smoke has rolled away from the battlefield of controversy it will be realized that the charge was true, the confessions correct and the prosecution fairly conducted”, while socialist thinkerĀ Beatrice WebbĀ “was pleased that Stalin had ‘cut out the dead wood'”.[33]Ā Communist Party leaderĀ Harry Pollitt, in theĀ Daily WorkerĀ of March 12, 1936, told the world that “the trials in Moscow represent a new triumph in the history of progress”. The article was ironically illustrated by a photograph of Stalin with Yezhov, himself shortly to vanish and his photographs airbrushed from history byĀ NKVDĀ archivists.[34]
In the United States,Ā left-wingĀ advocates such asĀ Corliss LamontĀ andĀ Lillian HellmanĀ also denounced criticism of the Moscow trials, signingĀ An Open Letter To American LiberalsĀ in support of the trials for the March 1937 issue ofĀ Soviet Russia Today.[35]Ā In the political atmosphere of the 1930s, the accusation that there was a conspiracy to destroy the Soviet Union was not incredible, and few outside observers were aware of the events inside the Communist Party that had led to the purge and the trials.
However, the Moscow trials were generally viewed negatively by most Western observers including many liberals. TheĀ New York TimesĀ noted the absurdity in an editorial on March 1, 1938: “It is as if twenty years after Yorktown somebody in power at Washington found it necessary for the safety of the State to send to the scaffold Thomas Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Hamilton,Ā JayĀ and most of their associates. The charge against them would be that they conspired to hand over the United States toĀ George III.”[36]
ForĀ Bertram Wolfe, the outcome of the Bukharin trial marked his break with Stalinism.[37]
In May 1937, the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made againstĀ Leon TrotskyĀ in the Moscow Trials, commonly known as theĀ Dewey Commission, was set up in the United States by supporters of Trotsky, to establish the truth about the trials. The commission was headed by the noted American philosopher and educatorĀ John Dewey, who led a delegation to Mexico, where Trotsky lived, to interview him and hold hearings from April 10 to April 17, 1937. The hearings were conducted to investigate the allegations against Trotsky who publicly stated in advance of them that if the commission found him guilty as charged he would hand himself over to the Soviet authorities. They brought to light evidence which established that some of the specific charges made at the trials could not be true.
The Dewey Commission published its findings in the form of a 422-page book titledĀ Not Guilty. Its conclusions asserted the innocence of all those condemned in the Moscow Trials. In its summary the commission wrote: “Independent of extrinsic evidence, the Commission finds:
That the conduct of the Moscow Trials was such as to convince any unprejudiced person that no attempt was made to ascertain the truth.
That while confessions are necessarily entitled to the most serious consideration, the confessions themselves contain such inherent improbabilities as to convince the Commission that they do not represent the truth, irrespective of any means used to obtain them.”
That Trotsky never instructed any of the accused or witnesses in the Moscow trials to enter into agreements with foreign powers against the Soviet Union [and] that Trotsky never recommended, plotted, or attempted the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
The commission concluded: “We therefore find the Moscow Trials to be frame-ups.”
For example, in Moscow, Pyatakov had testified that he had flown toĀ OsloĀ in December 1935 to “receive terrorist instructions” from Trotsky. The Dewey Commission established that no such flight had taken place.
In Britain, the trials were also subject to criticism. A group called the British Provisional Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky was set up. In 1936, the Committee published an open letter in theĀ Manchester GuardianĀ calling for an international inquiry into the Trials. The letter was signed by several notable figures, includingĀ H. N. Brailsford,Ā Harry Wicks,Ā Conrad Noel,Ā Frank HorrabinĀ andĀ Eleanor Rathbone.[38][39]Ā The Committee also supported the Dewey Commission.Ā Emrys Hughes, the British MP, also attacked the Moscow Trials as unjust in his newspaperĀ Forward.[38]
Legacy
All of the surviving members of theĀ Lenin-era party leadership except Stalin and Trotsky, were tried. By the end of the final trial Stalin had arrested and executed almost every important living Bolshevik from the Revolution. Of 1,966 delegates to the party congress in 1934, 1,108 were arrested. Of 139 members of theĀ Central Committee, 98 were arrested. Three out of five Soviet marshals (Alexander Ilyich Yegorov,Ā Vasily Blyukher,Ā Tukhachevsky) and several thousands of theĀ Red ArmyĀ officers were arrested or shot. The key defendant,Ā Leon Trotsky, was living in exile abroad, but he still did not survive Stalin’s desire to have him dead and was assassinated by a Soviet agent in Mexico in 1940.
While Khrushchev’sĀ Secret SpeechĀ denouncedĀ Stalin’s personality cultĀ and purges as early as 1956, rehabilitation ofĀ Old BolsheviksĀ proceeded at a slow pace. Nikolai Bukharin and 19 other co-defendants were officially completely rehabilitated in February 1988. Yagoda, who was deeply involved in the great purge as the head of NKVD, was not included. In May 1988, rehabilitation of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, and co-defendants was announced.
After the death of Stalin,Ā Nikita KhrushchevĀ repudiated the trials in a speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Russian Communist Party:
The commission has become acquainted with a large quantity of materials in the NKVD archives and with other documents and has established many facts pertaining to the fabrication of cases against Communists, to glaring abuses of Socialist legality which resulted in the death of innocent people. It became apparent that many party, Government and economic activists who were branded in 1937ā38 as ‘enemies,’ were actually never enemies, spies, wreckers, etc., but were always honest Communists … They were only so stigmatized and often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves (at the order of the investigative judges ā falsifiers) with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes.[40]
It is now known that the confessions were given only after great psychological pressure and torture had been applied to the defendants. From the accounts of formerĀ GPUĀ officerĀ Alexander OrlovĀ and others the methods used to extract the confessions are known: repeated beatings, torture, making prisoners stand or go without sleep for days on end, and threats to arrest and execute the prisoners’ families. For example, Kamenev’s teenage son was arrested and charged with terrorism. After months of such interrogation, the defendants were driven to despair and exhaustion.[41]
In January 1989, the official newspaperĀ PravdaĀ reported that 25,000 persons had been posthumously rehabilitated.
Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre. Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, January 23-30, 1937.Ā Moscow 1937.
Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”. Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U. S. S. R, Moscow, March 2- 13, 1938. Moscow 1938.
Leno, Matthew L. (2010).Ā The Kirov Murder and Soviet History. New Haven: Yale University PressĀ ISBNĀ 978-0-300-11236-8.
Orlov, Alexander (1953).Ā The Secret History of Stalin’s Crimes. Random House, Inc.
Redman, Joseph,Ā The British Stalinists and the Moscow Trials. Labour Review Vol. 3 No. 2, MarchāApril 1958
Rogovin, Vadim Z. (1998).Ā 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror. Oak Park, MI: Mehring Books, Inc.Ā ISBNĀ 0-929087-77-1.
Snyder, Timothy (2010).Ā Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books.Ā ISBNĀ 978-0-465-00239-9.
Tucker, Robert C. (1973).Ā Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879ā1929: A Study in History and Personality. New York: Norton.Ā ISBNĀ 0-393-05487-X.
Wolfe, Bertram David (1990).Ā Breaking with Communism: The Intellectual Odyssey of Bertram D. Wolfe. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Ā ISBNĀ 0-8179-8881-5.
Further reading
Getty, J. Arch and Naumov, Oleg V. (2010).Ā The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932ā1939. New Haven: Yale University Press.Ā ISBNĀ 978-0-300-10407-3.
Goldman, Wendy Z. (2011).Ā Inventing the Enemy: Denunciation and Terror in Stalin’s Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Ā ISBNĀ 978-0-521-19196-8.
Story 1: Senate Republicans Go For Acquittal or Not Guilty Not Dismissal of All House Democrat Articles of Impeachment — Witnesses Will Be Called By Both Sides Including Phony Whistle Blower Eric Ciaramella, Alexandra Chalupa, Michael Atkinson (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community), Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden —Ā Senate Trial Should Begin By Wednesday January 21 and Last 10 to 30 Days (With Witnesses) —Ā Videos —
McConnell on impeachment: “No need for judge and jury to reopen investigation”
The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Wednesday (January 15) to send formal impeachment charges against President Donald Trump to the Senate, lawmakers said on Tuesday, bringing the start of Trump’s trial one step closer.
White House confirms members of Trump’s impeachment defense team
Ted Cruz predicts impeachment will end with acquittal, not dismissal in Senate
Jordan makes the case for dismissing Dems’ impeachment articles
House and Senate in standoff over impeachment trial
Hannity: Pelosi is a source of official embarrassment for top Dems
Gowdy: Democrats’ real goal with Trump impeachment
Republican senators will reject plans to dismiss impeachment charges against Trump ‘because both sides need to be heard’
Senate Republicans to reject idea of voting to dismiss articles of impeachment
Speaker Nancy Pelosi not set timing for House vote that will start Senate action
GOP senators conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismissĀ
Senators could seek to dismiss or could call additional witnesses for testimonyĀ
But one GOP lawmaker said it would be rejected as ‘both sides need to be heard’
Senate Republicans signaled they would reject the idea of simply voting to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump as the House prepares to send the charges to the chamber for the historic trial.
One GOP lawmaker said the suggestion articles of impeachment would be thrown out if they were not sent from the House to the Senate would be rejected because ‘both sides need to be heard’.
It will be only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, a serious and dramatic endeavor coming amid the backdrop of a politically divided nation and the start of an election year.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not set the timing for the House vote that will launch the Senate action.
rump was impeached by the Democratic-led House last month on charges of abuse of power over pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and obstruction of Congress in the probe. Democrats said the vote could be Wednesday.
With the impeachment trial starting in a matter of days, senators are still debating the rules of the proceedings.
GOP senators are conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismiss the charges against the president or to call additional witnesses for testimony.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi arriving at the Capitol in Washington on Friday. Pelosi hasn ot relayed the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial three weeks since President Donald Trump was impeached on charges of abuse and obstruction
President Donald Trump speaking to the media before leaving the White House on Monday
Sen. Roy Blunt, who is part of GOP leadership, said on Monday: ‘I think our members, generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard.’Ā
Trump suggested over the weekend he might prefer simply dismissing the charges rather than giving legitimacy to charges from the House, which he considers a ‘hoax’.
It was an extraordinary suggestion, but one being proposed by Trump allies with support from some GOP senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
But it is clear McConnell does not have the votes needed from his GOP majority to do that.
One key Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she too would oppose a motion to dismiss the charges.
Collins is leading an effort among some Republicans, including Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to ensure the ground rules include plans to eventually consider voting to call witnesses.
‘My position is that there should be a vote on whether or not witnesses should be called,’ Collins said.
Romney said he wants to hear from John Bolton, the former national security adviser at the White House, who others have said raised alarms about the alternative foreign policy toward Ukraine being run led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Pelosi will send impeachment articles ‘when I’m ready’
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supported simply dismissing impeachment charges against President Trump. Her is pictured (above) leaving his office to depart Capitol Hill last week
‘I’ve said I’d like to hear from John Bolton,’ Romney told reporters Monday. ‘I expect that barring some kind of surprise, I’ll be voting in favor of hearing from witnesses after those opening arguments.’
Democrats have been pushing Republicans, who have the majority in the Senate, to consider new testimony, arguing that fresh information has emerged during Pelosi’s month-long delay in transmitting the charges.
McConnell is drafting an organizing resolution that will outline the steps ahead. Approving it will be among the first votes senators take after they are sworn as jurors by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court of Impeachment.
Republicans control the chamber, 53-47, and are all but certain to acquit Trump. McConnell is hesitant to call new witnesses who would prolong the trial. He prefers to model Trump’s trial partly on the process used for then-President Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999.
Sen. Mitt Romney arriving for a closed meeting with fellow Republicans about the looming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, last Tuesday
It takes just 51 votes during the impeachment trial to approve rules or call witnesses. Just four GOP senators could form a majority with Democrats to insist on new testimony. It also would take only 51 senators to vote to dismiss the charges against Trump.
Most Republicans appear willing to go along with McConnell’s plan to start the trial first then consider witnesses later, rather than upfront, as Democrats want.
Collins is pushing to have at least the promise of witness votes included in the organizing resolution. She and the others appear to be gathering support.
‘I’ve been working to make sure that we will have a process that we can take a vote on whether or not we need additional information, and yes, that would include witnesses,’ Murkowski told reporters.
McConnell is expected to huddle privately with senators at their weekly lunch Tuesday.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the House vote might come Wednesday. ‘Could be,’ he said.
The first article is about āabuse of powerā and focuses on the underlying facts of the Ukraine scandal ā it alleges that Trump improperlyĀ pressured the Ukrainians to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, by withholding both a White House meeting and military aid from them.
The second article, on āobstruction of Congress,ā is about Trumpās attempts to stonewall the impeachment inquiry by instructing witnesses not to testify and government agencies not to comply with subpoenas.
An article of impeachment is essentially a āchargeā against the president that the House of Representatives is considering approving. The final House votes on impeachment will be a yes or no vote on each article. If even one is approved, Trump would be impeached ā and the Senate would then hold a trial to determine whether to actually remove him from office.
Before these articles of impeachment make it to the House floor next week, the Judiciary Committee will vote on both this week, and is expected to approve them easily. You can read the full text of each article below, Ā or at this link.
Sen.Ā Roy BluntĀ (R-Mo.) told reporters on Monday that the Senate Republican caucus doesn’t have the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment againstĀ President Trump, who endorsed an “outright dismissal” over the weekend.
“I think our members generally are not interested in a motionĀ to dismiss. … Certainly there aren’t 51 votes for a motion to dismiss,” Blunt, the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters after a closed-door leadershipĀ meeting.Ā
Republicans have warned for months that they will not dismiss the two articles of impeachment against Trump, predicting a trial will end with votes on either acquitting or convicting him.Ā
But Trump revived talk of trying to dismiss the articles over the weekend,Ā saying the Senate was “giving credence” to the allegations against himĀ by having a trial.
“Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!” Trump tweeted on Sunday.
Dismissing the articles of impeachmentĀ would require 51 votes. Because no Democrats would support the effort, Senate Majority LeaderĀ Mitch McConnellĀ (R-Ky.) could afford to lose only two GOP senators and still successfullyĀ dismiss the articles.Ā
Multiple Republicans, including Sens.Ā Susan CollinsĀ (Maine) andĀ Rob PortmanĀ (Ohio), have indicated they would oppose a motion to dismiss, arguing that both Trump’s legal team and House impeachment managers should be able to make their case.
The resolution on the Clinton impeachment trial rules in the 1990sĀ had a motion to dismiss built into it. The motion, made after opening arguments and questions from senators, was ultimately unsuccessful.
Republicans are still crafting the rules resolution for the Trump trial, but some GOP senators have suggested they will not include a specific motion to dismiss in the resolution. That would not, according to aides and senators, prevent a senator from trying to make a motion to dismiss during the trial.
āIf 51 senators wanted to have that vote, we could have it at some point. I donāt believe itās going to be baked into the underlying resolution,ā Sen.Ā John CornynĀ (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell, told The Hill.
On Thursday, President Trump retweeted aĀ Washington ExaminerĀ article that named the alleged whistleblower who alerted officials to improprieties on theĀ July 25 callĀ between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump’s retweet of the @TrumpWarRoom tweet marks the first time the president has referenced Ciaramella’s name. The flurry of tweets occurred after the whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid, ripped Sen. Marsha Blackburn for her attacks on the still unidentified whistleblower.
“Members of Senate Whistleblower Caucus should protect#whistleblowers,” wrote Zaid.
āItās pretty simple,ā Trump War Room responded, āThe CIA āwhistleblowerā is not a real whistleblower!” Included in the tweet was a link to theĀ Washington Examiner’sĀ article “Schiff hired former colleague of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella the day after Trump-Ukraine call,” published on Dec. 3.
Later in the evening, Trump retweeted the Twitter spat to his more than 65 million followers.
The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page.
In September 2013, after lawmakers were told it was time to raise the debt ceiling, the then-Republican majority put together an almost comical wish-list/ransom-note, filled with demands the GOP expected the Obama administration to meet.
Republicans said they would agree to raise the federal debt limit, preventing a global crisis,Ā but only ifDemocrats delayed implementation of the ACA, approved the Keystone XL pipeline, imposed Medicare means testing, made the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory-reform law more Wall Street friendly, increased oil drilling, and ended the EPAās efforts to combat the climate crisis.
Ezra KleinĀ wrote at the timeĀ that the list showed the Republican-led House was no longer āa sane place.ā Ezra added, āThe House GOPās debt limit bill ā¦ isnāt a serious governing document. Itās not even a plausible opening bid. Itās a cry for help.ā
Six years later, Republican leaders have some ideas about the witnesses who should testify in the House impeachment inquiry as it advances to its next phase, which includes public hearings that begin this week. But reading the GOPās witness list, it doesnāt strike me as a plausible opening bid ā it seems more like a cry for help. TheĀ Washington PostĀ reportedĀ over the weekend:
House Republicans on Saturday pressed ahead with their efforts to move the impeachment inquiry away from President Trump, calling on Democrats to add witnesses to the probe including former vice president Joe Bidenās son and the whistleblower whose initial complaint kicked off the investigation. [ā¦]
The sprawling list of potential witnesses named by Republicans on Saturday ā¦ included Hunter Biden, whose father is a leading Democratic candidate to challenge Trump in 2020; Hunter Bidenās business partner Devon Archer; the unnamed whistleblower, who Trump and some of his allies have campaigned to publicly identify; the researcher Nellie Ohr of Fusion GPS, which commissioned a dossier linking Russia and Trump; and Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American who worked with the Democratic National Committee.
This is not a list compiled by officials who are serious about the inquiry.
Of course, as a procedural matter, House Republicans, from their minority perch, canāt simply call whatever witnesses they want. Rather, their wish list was turned over to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who soon afterĀ explainedĀ that the impeachment probe would not serve āto carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interferenceā that Trump asked Ukraine to conduct.
Or put another way, the Republicansā requested witness list probably wonāt be taken too seriously by the House majority. The interesting thing is to consider what happens after the document ends up in the circular file in Schiffās office.
Itās not hard to imagine how the dominoes are likely to fall. Schiff will dismiss the House GOPās witness list as ridiculous, at which point Republicans will (again) denounce the impeachment inquiry as unfair. Theyāve already made these claims, of course, and theyāve been discredited, but the complaints have never been conveyed as an accurate point rooted in good faith. The GOPās audience has been the electorate at large, which Republicans hope to sway through dubious process claims.
But thatās not the only intended audience. I also wonder whether Senate Republicans, whoād be responsible for holding the impeachment ātrialā in the event the House approves articles, might use something like this as an excuse to short-circuit the proceedings.
Indeed, by some measure, itās already begun. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), doing lasting harm to whatās left of his reputation, told Fox News yesterday the impeachment inquiry would be āinvalidā unless the intelligence communityās whistleblower is exposed.
Thatās bonkers, but itās where the debate appears to be headed.
White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial
BY BEN TRACY AND KATHRYN WATSON
Ā / CBS NEWS
The White House is preparing for some Republican senators to join Democrats in voting to call witnesses in President Trump’sĀ impeachment trial, which could get underway in the coming days.
Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a “wild card” and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an “institutionalist” who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it.
Last week, CollinsĀ saidĀ she was working with a “fairly small group” of GOP senators to allow new testimony, adding that her colleagues “should be completely open to calling witnesses.” Romney has expressed an interest in hearing from former national security adviserĀ John Bolton, who has said he would testify under subpoena. Murkowski said last week that the Senate should proceed as it did during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial.
GardnerĀ andĀ AlexanderĀ have both said the Senate trial should be fair and impartial.Ā Paul has saidĀ the president should be able to call his own witnesses, including the whistleblower whose complaint about Ukraine sparked the impeachment inquiry in the first place.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the question of whether to call new witnesses in the trial would be decided by the full Senate after the trial gets underway. A simple majority of 51 votes will be needed to approve motions to call witnesses, meaning Democrats would need to convince four out of the 53 Republicans in the Senate to vote with them to compel testimony.
The House isĀ expected to voteĀ this week on a resolution to name impeachment managers and transmit the two articles to the Senate, a necessary step before the trial can begin. Democrats had previously demanded McConnell agree to allow testimony from witnesses, including four administration officials, before transmitting the articles.
The White House officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, reiterated the president’s intention to claim executive privilege if necessary to block Bolton from testifying. Mr. Trump told Fox News last week that he would likely do so to “protect the office.” While Bolton could testify about some events that would fall outside the scope of executive privilege, the White House would fight to prevent Bolton from discussing direct conversations with the president.
One senior official said the White House’s impeachment team and counsel’s office do not expect a quick dismissal of the impeachment articles in the Senate, despite the president’s weekend tweet in which he said Republicans should vote to throw the articles out. Some Republican senators have introduced a proposal to change Senate rules and simply dismiss the articles.
“Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!” the presidentĀ tweetedĀ Sunday.Ā
White House officials said the optics of a vote to dismiss would be tough for Republicans, but White House lawyers do expect the question of acquittal to come up immediately following opening arguments and periods for written questions submitted by senators.
The president has offered various opinions about how he would like a Senate trial to proceed, while at the same time nodding and deferring to the Senate. He has also said he would like to hear from the whistleblower, along with House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Joe and Hunter Biden. However, motions to call them as witnesses are unlikely to succeed, even though Republicans hold the majority in the upper chamber.Ā
Story 2: President Trump’s State of Union Message for 2020 Scheduled for February 4, 2020 or After The End of The Senate’s Impeachment Trial with Trump Acquittal — How Sweet It Is — Real Jury is The American People andĀ The Whole World Is Watching — FailedĀ Coup Attempt By Democrats in Obama Administration Is The Crime of The Century —Ā Videos
JACKIE GLEASON – HOW SWEET IT IS
Steve Bannon: Trump should delay State of the Union until impeachment trial ends
Trump reveals new details on imminent threat from Soleimani
Why won’t Democrats release the Intelligence Community IG’s testimony?
Rudy Giuliani shreds impeachment in exclusive interview with Judge Jeanine
Jackie Gleason tells why he only did one season of The Honeymooners
Article II, Section 3, Clause 1Ā of theĀ United States ConstitutionĀ states that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”[1]
The State of the Union Address is expected to take place at 9:00 p.m.Ā ESTĀ and be televised on all major U.S.Ā broadcastĀ andĀ cable televisionĀ networks. The tentative date for the address falls one day after the Iowa caucus in theĀ 2020 presidential election.
Story 3: President Trump’s Federal Income Tax Cuts and Deregulation Resulted in All U.S. Metros Enjoying Income (Tax) Gains For First Time in 26 Years — Trump Landslide Victory in 2020 Looking Real Good With 70 Million Plus Votes and 330 Electoral College Votes — Impeach and Remove All Democrats By Voting Them Out of Office — Videos
For First Time in 26 Years, All U.S. Metros Enjoyed Income Gains
Ā Americans in every U.S. metropolitan area experienced economic prosperity in 2018, according to a recent report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
For the first time in 26 years, no metro area saw per-capita incomes fall that year — the latest available data — and it was only the fourth time since 1970 that every U.S. urban region experienced prosperity.
Americans in fewer than 6% of metropolitan areas have experienced uninterpreted gains in personal income since 1970. In contrast, as the country began to recover from the Great Recession in 2009, residents of 84% of metro areas saw incomes decline. A large number of areas saw significant decreases in 2013 and to a lesser extent in 2016.
Metros that havenāt experienced per-capita income drops in recent years include Washington D.C. and Pittsburgh. The nationās capital is buffered from sector-based recessions by a federal government that pulls tax revenue from a variety of sources and geographies. The Pennsylvania city, meanwhile, has emerged as a health care, education, and technology hub even as its population declines.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Tanzi in Washington at atanzi@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah McGregor at smcgregor5@bloomberg.net, Anita Sharpe, Ana Monteiro
Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate 6.8% and 145,000 Non-farm Payroll Jobs Created in December 2019 — Labor Participation Rate Stuck at 63.3% — Not In Labor ForceĀ 95,625,000 — Videos —
The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for December 2019 is 20.8%.
Labor Secretary on jobs report: Strong end to āextraordinary yearā
December jobs report: ‘Best labor market for workers’
CNNās King: Trumpās Booming Economy, Low Unemployment Rate A āGood Calling Cardā For 2020
47% of Americans approve of Donald Trump’s job as president
Keiser Report 1485
Bad monetary and fiscal policy is good for gold
U.S. Economic Outlook 2020: On Firmer Ground
Civilian Labor Force Level
164,556,000
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Data extracted on: January 10, 2020 (6:05:45 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
142267(1)
142456
142434
142751
142388
142591
142278
142514
142518
142622
142962
143248
2001
143800
143701
143924
143569
143318
143357
143654
143284
143989
144086
144240
144305
2002
143883
144653
144481
144725
144938
144808
144803
145009
145552
145314
145041
145066
2003
145937(1)
146100
146022
146474
146500
147056
146485
146445
146530
146716
147000
146729
2004
146842(1)
146709
146944
146850
147065
147460
147692
147564
147415
147793
148162
148059
2005
148029(1)
148364
148391
148926
149261
149238
149432
149779
149954
150001
150065
150030
2006
150214(1)
150641
150813
150881
151069
151354
151377
151716
151662
152041
152406
152732
2007
153144(1)
152983
153051
152435
152670
153041
153054
152749
153414
153183
153835
153918
2008
154063(1)
153653
153908
153769
154303
154313
154469
154641
154570
154876
154639
154655
2009
154210(1)
154538
154133
154509
154747
154716
154502
154307
153827
153784
153878
153111
2010
153484(1)
153694
153954
154622
154091
153616
153691
154086
153975
153635
154125
153650
2011
153263(1)
153214
153376
153543
153479
153346
153288
153760
154131
153961
154128
153995
2012
154381(1)
154671
154749
154545
154866
155083
154948
154763
155160
155554
155338
155628
2013
155763(1)
155312
155005
155394
155536
155749
155599
155605
155687
154673
155265
155182
2014
155352(1)
155483
156028
155369
155684
155707
156007
156130
156040
156417
156494
156332
2015
157030(1)
156644
156643
157060
157651
157062
156997
157172
156733
157167
157463
158035
2016
158342(1)
158653
159103
158981
158787
158973
159123
159579
159817
159734
159551
159710
2017
159647(1)
159767
160066
160309
160060
160232
160339
160690
161212
160378
160510
160538
2018
161068(1)
161783
161684
161742
161874
162269
162173
161768
162078
162605
162662
163111
2019
163142(1)
163047
162935
162546
162782
163133
163373
163894
164051
164401
164347
164556
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Employment Level
158,803,000
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Employed
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
136559(1)
136598
136701
137270
136630
136940
136531
136662
136893
137088
137322
137614
2001
137778
137612
137783
137299
137092
136873
137071
136241
136846
136392
136238
136047
2002
135701
136438
136177
136126
136539
136415
136413
136705
137302
137008
136521
136426
2003
137417(1)
137482
137434
137633
137544
137790
137474
137549
137609
137984
138424
138411
2004
138472(1)
138542
138453
138680
138852
139174
139556
139573
139487
139732
140231
140125
2005
140245(1)
140385
140654
141254
141609
141714
142026
142434
142401
142548
142499
142752
2006
143150(1)
143457
143741
143761
144089
144353
144202
144625
144815
145314
145534
145970
2007
146028(1)
146057
146320
145586
145903
146063
145905
145682
146244
145946
146595
146273
2008
146378(1)
146156
146086
146132
145908
145737
145532
145203
145076
144802
144100
143369
2009
142152(1)
141640
140707
140656
140248
140009
139901
139492
138818
138432
138659
138013
2010
138438(1)
138581
138751
139297
139241
139141
139179
139438
139396
139119
139044
139301
2011
139250(1)
139394
139639
139586
139624
139384
139524
139942
140183
140368
140826
140902
2012
141584(1)
141858
142036
141899
142206
142391
142292
142291
143044
143431
143333
143330
2013
143292(1)
143362
143316
143635
143882
143999
144264
144326
144418
143537
144479
144778
2014
145150(1)
145134
145648
145667
145825
146247
146399
146530
146778
147427
147404
147615
2015
148145(1)
148045
148128
148511
148817
148816
148830
149181
148826
149246
149463
150128
2016
150621(1)
150908
151157
151006
151119
151187
151465
151770
151850
151907
152063
152216
2017
152129(1)
152368
152978
153224
153001
153299
153471
153593
154371
153779
153813
153977
2018
154486(1)
155142
155191
155324
155665
155750
155993
155601
156032
156482
156628
156825
2019
156627(1)
156866
156741
156696
156844
157148
157346
157895
158298
158544
158536
158803
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Not in Labor Force
95,625,000
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status:Ā Ā Not in labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2009
80529
80374
80953
80762
80705
80938
81367
81780
82495
82766
82865
83813
2010
83349
83304
83206
82707
83409
84075
84199
84014
84347
84895
84590
85240
2011
85441
85637
85623
85603
85834
86144
86383
86111
85940
86308
86312
86589
2012
87888
87765
87855
88239
88100
88073
88405
88803
88613
88429
88836
88722
2013
88900
89516
89990
89780
89827
89803
90156
90355
90481
91708
91302
91563
2014
91563
91603
91230
92070
91938
92107
92016
92099
92406
92240
92350
92695
2015
92694
93256
93437
93205
92804
93601
93880
93924
94592
94374
94284
93901
2016
94055
93924
93665
93988
94388
94424
94497
94275
94274
94587
94989
95031
2017
94435
94479
94348
94279
94707
94725
94812
94667
94350
95388
95439
95571
2018
95712
95151
95414
95529
95579
95373
95670
96297
96212
95909
96045
95777
2019
95097
95345
95602
96147
96079
95905
95852
95538
95587
95444
95673
95625
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:Ā Ā Unemployment rate
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2001
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.7
2002
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.0
2003
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
2004
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
2005
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
2006
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
2007
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
2008
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
2009
7.8
8.3
8.7
9.0
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.9
2010
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.8
9.3
2011
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.9
2013
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.7
2014
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.8
5.6
2015
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.3
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.0
2016
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.7
2017
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
2018
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.9
2019
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
U-6 Labor Unemployment Rate
6.8%
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:Ā Ā Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Percent/rates:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
2001
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
2002
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
2003
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
2004
9.9
9.7
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.2
2005
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
9.0
8.7
8.7
8.6
2006
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.9
2007
8.4
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.8
2008
9.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.7
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
11.8
12.6
13.6
2009
14.2
15.2
15.8
15.9
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.7
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.1
2010
16.7
17.0
17.1
17.1
16.6
16.4
16.4
16.5
16.8
16.6
16.9
16.6
2011
16.2
16.0
15.9
16.1
15.8
16.1
15.9
16.1
16.4
15.8
15.5
15.2
2012
15.2
15.0
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.6
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.4
2013
14.6
14.4
13.8
14.0
13.8
14.2
13.8
13.6
13.5
13.6
13.1
13.1
2014
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.3
12.2
12.0
12.1
12.0
11.7
11.5
11.4
11.2
2015
11.3
11.0
10.8
10.9
10.9
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.9
2016
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.5
9.7
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.2
2017
9.3
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.3
8.0
8.0
8.1
2018
8.1
8.2
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.6
2019
8.0
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3%
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
2
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.2
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.6
64.3
2011
64.2
64.1
64.2
64.2
64.1
64.0
64.0
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.1
64.0
2012
63.7
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.7
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
63.8
63.6
63.7
2013
63.7
63.4
63.3
63.4
63.4
63.4
63.3
63.3
63.2
62.8
63.0
62.9
2014
62.9
62.9
63.1
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.9
62.9
62.8
2015
62.9
62.7
62.6
62.8
62.9
62.7
62.6
62.6
62.4
62.5
62.5
62.7
2016
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.7
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
2017
62.8
62.8
62.9
63.0
62.8
62.8
62.8
62.9
63.1
62.7
62.7
62.7
2018
62.7
63.0
62.9
62.9
62.9
63.0
62.9
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.9
63.0
2019
63.2
63.1
63.0
62.8
62.9
63.0
63.0
63.2
63.2
63.3
63.2
63.2
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-20-0010
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 10, 2020
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- DECEMBER 2019
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 145,000 in December, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Notable job gains occurred in retail trade and health care, while mining
lost jobs.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these
two surveys, see the Technical Note.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data |
| |
| Seasonally adjusted household survey data have been revised using updated seasonal |
| adjustment factors, a procedure done at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally |
| adjusted estimates back to January 2015 were subject to revision. The unemployment |
| rates for January 2019 through November 2019 (as originally published and as revised)|
| appear in table A, along with additional information about the revisions. |
|_______________________________________________________________________________________|
Household Survey Data
In December, the unemployment rate held at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons was unchanged at 5.8 million. A year earlier, the jobless rate was 3.9 percent,
and the number of unemployed persons was 6.3 million. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.1 percent), adult
women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.9 percent),
Asians (2.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in December.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million,
was unchanged in December and accounted for 20.5 percent of the unemployed. (See table
A-12.)
The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 63.2 percent in December. The
employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the fourth consecutive month but was
up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.1 million, changed
little in December but was down by 507,000 over the year. These individuals, who would
have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been
reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In December, 1.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
310,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were
not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 277,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 98,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for
them. The remaining 969,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in December
had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 145,000 in December. Notable job gains
occurred in retail trade and health care, while mining lost jobs. In 2019, payroll
employment rose by 2.1 million, down from a gain of 2.7 million in 2018. (See table B-1.)
In December, retail trade added 41,000 jobs. Employment increased in clothing and
accessories stores (+33,000) and in building material and garden supply stores (+7,000);
both industries showed employment declines in the prior month. Employment in retail trade
changed little, on net, in both 2019 and 2018 (+9,000 and +14,000, respectively).
Employment in health care increased by 28,000 in December. Ambulatory health care services
and hospitals added jobs over the month (+23,000 and +9,000, respectively). Health care
added 399,000 jobs in 2019, compared with an increase of 350,000 in 2018.
Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up in December (+40,000). The
industry added 388,000 jobs in 2019, similar to the increase in 2018 (+359,000).
Mining employment declined by 8,000 in December. In 2019, employment in mining declined
by 24,000, after rising by 63,000 in 2018.
Construction employment changed little in December (+20,000). Employment in the industry
rose by 151,000 in 2019, about half of the 2018 gain of 307,000.
In December, employment in professional and business services showed little change
(+10,000). The industry added 397,000 jobs in 2019, down from an increase of 561,000
jobs in 2018.
Employment in transportation and warehousing changed little in December (-10,000).
Employment in the industry increased by 57,000 in 2019, about one-fourth of the 2018
gain of 216,000.
Manufacturing employment was little changed in December (-12,000). Employment in the
industry changed little in 2019 (+46,000), after increasing in 2018 (+264,000).
In December, employment showed little change in other major industries, including wholesale
trade, information, financial activities, and government.
In December, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 3 cents to $28.32. Over the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
2.9 percent. In December, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees, at $23.79, were little changed (+2 cents). (See tables B-3 and
B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.3
hours in December. In manufacturing, the average workweek and overtime remained at 40.5
hours and 3.2 hours, respectively. The average workweek of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees held at 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised down by 4,000 from
+156,000 to +152,000, and the change for November was revised down by 10,000 from +266,000
to +256,000. With these revisions, employment gains in October and November combined were
14,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports
received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and
from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged
184,000 over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for January is scheduled to be released on Friday, February 7,
2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Upcoming Changes to Household Survey Data |
| |
| With the publication of The Employment Situation for January 2020 on February 7, |
| 2020, two not seasonally adjusted series currently displayed in Summary table |
| A--persons marginally attached to the labor force and discouraged workers--will |
| be replaced with new seasonally adjusted series. The new seasonally adjusted |
| series will be available in the BLS online database back to 1994. Not seasonally |
| adjusted data for persons marginally attached to the labor force and for |
| discouraged workers will continue to be published in table A-16. These series |
| will also be available in the BLS online database back to 1994. |
| |
| Persons marginally attached to the labor force and discouraged workers are inputs |
| into three alternative measures of labor underutilization displayed in table A-15. |
| Therefore, with the publication of The Employment Situation for January 2020, data |
| for U-4, U-5, and U-6 in table A-15 will reflect the new seasonally adjusted |
| series. Revised data back to 1994 will be available in the BLS online database. |
| Not seasonally adjusted series for the alternative measures will be unaffected. |
| |
| Beginning with data for January 2020, occupation estimates in table A-13 will |
| reflect the introduction of the 2018 Census occupation classification system into |
| the household survey. This occupation classification system is derived from the |
| 2018 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. In addition, industry |
| estimates in table A-14 will reflect the introduction of the 2017 Census industry |
| classification system, which is derived from the 2017 North American Industry |
| Classification System (NAICS). Historical data on occupation and industry will |
| not be revised. Beginning with data for January 2020, estimates will not be |
| strictly comparable with earlier years. |
| |
| Also beginning with data for January 2020, estimates of married persons will |
| include those in opposite- and same-sex marriages. Prior to January 2020, these |
| estimates included only those in opposite-sex marriages. This will affect marital |
| status estimates in tables A-9 and A-10. Historical data will not be revised. |
| |
| Also effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2020, new |
| population controls will be used in the household survey estimation process. These |
| new controls reflect the annual update of intercensal population estimates by the |
| U.S. Census Bureau. In accordance with usual practice, historical data will not |
| be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data |
| for January 2020 will not be directly comparable with data for December 2019 or |
| earlier periods. A table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor |
| force series will be included in the January 2020 news release. In addition, the |
| population controls for veterans, which are derived from a Department of Veterans |
| Affairs' population model and are updated periodically, will also be updated with |
| the release of January data. |
|______________________________________________________________________________________|
______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Upcoming Revisions to Establishment Survey Data |
| |
| Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2020 on February |
| 7, 2020, the establishment survey will revise nonfarm payroll employment, hours, |
| and earnings data to reflect the annual benchmark process and updated seasonal |
| adjustment factors. Not seasonally adjusted data beginning with April 2018 and |
| seasonally adjusted data beginning with January 2015 are subject to revision. |
| Consistent with standard practice, additional historical data may be revised as a |
| result of the benchmark process. |
|______________________________________________________________________________________|
Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data
At the end of each calendar year, BLS routinely updates the seasonal adjustment
factors for the national labor force series derived from the household survey. As
a result of this process, seasonally adjusted data for January 2015 through
November 2019 were subject to revision. (Not seasonally adjusted data were not
subject to revision.)
Table A shows the unemployment rates for January 2019 through November 2019, as
first published and as revised. The rates were unchanged for all 11 months.
Revised seasonally adjusted data for other major labor force series beginning
in December 2018 appear in table B.
More information on this year's revisions to seasonally adjusted household series
is available at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps-seas-adjustment-methodology.pdf.
Detailed information on the seasonal adjustment methodology is found at
www.bls.gov/cps/seasonal-adjustment-methodology.htm.
Historical data for the household series contained in the A tables of this news
release can be accessed at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm. Revised historical
seasonally adjusted data are available at www.bls.gov/cps/data.htm and
https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/ln/.
Table A. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in 2019 and changes due to revision
January - November 2019
Month As first published As revised Change
January............. 4.0 4.0 0.0
February............ 3.8 3.8 0.0
March............... 3.8 3.8 0.0
April............... 3.6 3.6 0.0
May................. 3.6 3.6 0.0
June................ 3.7 3.7 0.0
July................ 3.7 3.7 0.0
August.............. 3.7 3.7 0.0
September........... 3.5 3.5 0.0
October............. 3.6 3.6 0.0
November............ 3.5 3.5 0.0
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table B. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Category
Dec.
2018
Oct.
2019
Nov.
2019
Dec.
2019
Change from:
Nov.
2019-
Dec.
2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
258,888
259,845
260,020
260,181
161
Civilian labor force
163,111
164,401
164,347
164,556
209
Participation rate
63.0
63.3
63.2
63.2
0.0
Employed
156,825
158,544
158,536
158,803
267
Employment-population ratio
60.6
61.0
61.0
61.0
0.0
Unemployed
6,286
5,857
5,811
5,753
-58
Unemployment rate
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
Not in labor force
95,777
95,444
95,673
95,625
-48
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
Adult men (20 years and over)
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.1
-0.1
Adult women (20 years and over)
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.0
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
12.6
12.3
12.0
12.6
0.6
White
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.0
Black or African American
6.6
5.5
5.6
5.9
0.3
Asian
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.5
-0.1
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
0.0
Total, 25 years and over
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
-0.1
Less than a high school diploma
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.2
-0.1
High school graduates, no college
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
0.0
Some college or associate degree
3.3
2.8
2.9
2.7
-0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
-0.1
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
2,892
2,691
2,804
2,686
-118
Job leavers
827
846
776
829
53
Reentrants
1,968
1,698
1,663
1,655
-8
New entrants
600
622
581
551
-30
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,117
1,978
2,026
2,065
39
5 to 14 weeks
2,007
1,747
1,753
1,730
-23
15 to 26 weeks
899
884
865
812
-53
27 weeks and over
1,311
1,259
1,219
1,186
-33
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
4,655
4,397
4,288
4,148
-140
Slack work or business conditions
2,895
2,747
2,634
2,657
23
Could only find part-time work
1,487
1,278
1,259
1,215
-44
Part time for noneconomic reasons
21,230
21,544
21,532
21,586
54
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
1,556
1,229
1,246
1,246
–
Discouraged workers
375
341
325
277
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Footnotes
(1)Ā Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2)Ā Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3)Ā The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4)Ā The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5)Ā Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P)Ā Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
This July 16, 2019, file photo shows the Capitol Dome in Washington. The U.S. budget deficit through the first three months of this budget year is up 11.8% from the same period a year ago, putting the country on track to record its first $1 trillion deficit in eight years. The Treasury Department said Monday, Jan. 13, 2020, that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
The U.S. budget deficit through the first three months of this budget year is up 11.8% from the same period a year ago, putting the country on track to record its first $1 trillion deficit in eight years.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion, up from $318.9 billion for the same period last year.
Both government spending and revenues set records for the first three months of this budget year but spending rose at a faster clip than tax collections, pushing the deficit total up.
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the current 2020 budget year will hit $1 trillion and will remain over $1 trillion for the next decade. The country has not experienced $1 trillion annual deficits since the period from 2009 through 2012 following the 2008 financial crisis.
The actual deficit for the 2019 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $984.4 billion, up 26% from the 2018 imbalance, reflecting the impact of the $1.5 trillion tax cut President Donald Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 and increased spending for military and domestic programs that Trump accepted as part of a budget deal with Democrats.
The projections of trillion-dollar deficits are in contrast to Trumpās campaign promise in 2016 that even with his proposed tax cuts, he would be able to eliminate future deficits with cuts in spending and growth in revenues that would result from a stronger economy.
For the first three months of the 2020 budget year, revenues have totaled $806.5 billion, up 4.8% from the same three months a year ago, while government spending has totaled $948.9 billion, an increase of 6.3% from a year ago.
Both the spending amounts and revenue amounts are records for the first three months of a budget year. The deficit in December totaled $13.3 billion, slightly lower than the $13.5 billion deficit in December 2019.
Summers would go on toĀ suggestĀ that secular stagnation āmay be the defining macroeconomic challenge of our timesā. There followed aĀ major debateĀ between heavyweight economists about whether he was right, but for several years the global economy contradicted him by growingĀ steadily.
Now, however, this looks to be at an end. Look no further than theĀ OECD projectionsĀ from March 6, which foresee all advanced economies growing much more slowly than anticipated a few months ago. The left-hand chart below shows the OECD projections from last May, while the right-hand chart shows the latest outlook, complete with red arrows to indicate the sharpest downward revisions.
The overarchingĀ global themeĀ seems to be Donald Trumpās trade war and the fact that central banks have been tightening monetary policy: the US Federal ReserveĀ has hikedĀ interest rates four times in the past year, while the European Central Bank isĀ no longerĀ āprintingā money through its programme of quantitative easing. There are additional local reasons, such as UK fears about a hard Brexit, or excessive levels of private sector debt in China. Underlying all of this, however, is the growing feeling that secular stagnation is a major drag behind the scenes.
Back in fashion
The theory was originallyĀ put forwardĀ in 1938 by the Harvard economist Alvin Hansen in response to the Great Depression. HeĀ argued thatĀ Americaās economy was suffering from a lack of investment opportunities linked to waning technological innovation; and not enough new workers due to an ageing population, too little immigration, and the closing of the old economic frontier in the American West.
In Hansenās view, the weak growth in the economy was therefore here to stay ā āsecularā means ālong termā in this context. Yet he would soon be proved spectacularly wrong as World War II provided a big temporary boost to the economy in the form of military spending, followed by a post-war baby boom and rapid technological progress in the 1950s and 1960s. Little more was heard of secular stagnation until Larry Summersā intervention.
At the core of the theory today is real interest rates. This refers to the long-term interest rate, meaning the rate of return on ten-year government bonds, after inflation has been stripped out. For example, if a countryās long-term interest rate is 1% but the rate of inflation is 2.5%, the real interest rate is -1.5%.
When you take a global average of real interest rates from different countries, my own researchĀ shows thatĀ the global rate has declined from more than 5% in the early 1980s to below 0% after the financial crisis of 2007-09. Today, real interest ratesĀ remain negativeĀ in many advanced economies, including Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the entire eurozone.
Summers hasĀ pointed toĀ several structural factors behind this long-term decline. In an echo of what appeared true in 1938, rich countries are ageing as birth rates decline and people live longer. This hasĀ pushed downĀ real interest rates because investors think these trends will mean they will make lower returns from investing in future, making them more willing to accept a lower return on government debtĀ as a result.
Other factors that make investors similarly pessimistic includeĀ rising global inequalityĀ and the slowdown in productivity growth. It is a major paradox that labour productivity, the most important source of long-run economic growth, is actually rising much slower today than for decades, even though technological progress has seemingly accelerated.
This decline in real interest rates matters because economists believe that to overcome an economic downturn, a central bank must drive down the real interest rate to a certain level to encourage more spending and investment. This isĀ referredĀ to as the level required to reach full employment. Because real interest rates are so low, Summers and his supporters believe that the rate required to reach full employment is so far into negative territory that it is effectively impossible.
The remedy
Summers argues that this problem is why the massive cuts to headline interest rates after the financial crisis did not solve the problem. In other words, monetary policy was actually much less expansionary than many people believe (even though quantitative easing was actuallyĀ helpful here). Not only that, there is now substantialĀ evidence thatĀ austerity policies in places like southern Europe made things significantly worse.
The upshot is that in the eurozone and elsewhere, there is little or no room to cut interest rates when the next recession comes ā probably fairly soon given the current expansion is already a few years old. Central bankers will meanwhile be wary of using more quantitative easing, since it hasĀ generatedĀ a lot of political backlash.
So what to do instead? Interestingly, theĀ one countryĀ not to have had a recession in almost 30 years is Australia, which has enjoyed very high population growth and has never seen interest rates as low as many countries. This suggests that in the long run, more immigration might be a vital part of curing secular stagnation. Summers also heavily prescribes increased government spending,Ā arguingĀ that it might actually be more prudent than cutting back ā especially if the money is spent on infrastructure, education and research and development.
Of course, governments in Europe and the US are instead trying to shut their doors to migrants. And austerity policiesĀ have taken their tollĀ on infrastructure and public research. This looks set to ensure that the next recession will be particularly nasty when it comes. Alvin Hansen may have been wrong in the 1930s but his analysis is looking increasingly persuasive today. Unless governments change course radically, we could be in for a sobering period ahead.
Global debt has hit an all-time high ofĀ $188 trillion, which is more than double the output of the global economy, the IMF warned today.
The global debt load has surged to a new record of aroundĀ 230 per cent of world’s output, IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said.
While private sector borrowing accounts for the vast majority of the total, the rise puts governments and individuals at risk if the economy slows, she said.
‘Global debt – both public and private – has reached an all-time high of $188 trillion.Ā This amounts to about 230 per cent of world output,’ Georgieva said in a speech to open a two-day conference on debt.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva speaks during a news conference last month. She warned debt burdens on governments around the world
That is up from the previous record of $164 trillion in 2016, according to IMF figures.
While interest rates remain low, borrowers can use debt to make investments in productive activities or weather a bout of low commodity prices.
But it can become ‘a drag on growth’, she said.
‘The bottom line is that high debt burdens have left many governments, companies, and households vulnerable to a sudden tightening of financial conditions,’ she cautioned.
Corporate debt accounts for about two thirds of the total but government borrowing has risen as well in the wake of the global financial crisis.
‘Public debt in advanced economies is at levels not seen since the Second World War,’ she warned.Ā And ’emerging market public debt is at levels last seen during the 1980s debt crisis.’
She called for steps to ensure ‘borrowing is more sustainable,’ including making lending practices more transparent and preparing for debt restructuring with ‘non-traditional lenders’ – an apparent reference to China, which has become a major creditor to developing nations including in Africa.
In economics,Ā secular stagnationĀ is a condition when there is negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy.[1]Ā In this context, the termĀ secularĀ means long-term (from Latin “saeculum“ācentury or lifetime), and is used in contrast toĀ cyclicalĀ orĀ short-term. It suggests a change of fundamental dynamics which would play out only in its own time. The concept was originally put forth byĀ Alvin HansenĀ in 1938. According toĀ The Economist, it was used to “describe what he feared was the fate of the American economy following the Great Depression of the early 1930s: a check to economic progress as investment opportunities were stunted by the closing of the frontier and the collapse of immigration”.[2][3]Ā Warnings of impending secular stagnation have been issued after all deep recessions since theĀ Great Depression, but the hypothesis has remained controversial.[4][5]
Sectoral balancesĀ in U.S. economy 1990-2017. By definition, the three balances must net to zero. The green line indicates a private sector surplus, where savings exceeds investment. Since 2008, the foreign sector surplus and private sector surplus have been offset by a government budget deficit.[6]
The term secular stagnation refers to a market economy with a chronic (secular or long-term) lack of demand. Historically, a booming economy with low unemployment and high GDP growth (i.e., an economy at or above capacity) would generate inflation in wages and products. However, an economy facing secular stagnation behaves as if it is operating below capacity, even when the economy appears to be booming; inflation does not appear. Savings by households exceeds investment by businesses, which in a healthy economy would cause interest rates to fall, stimulating spending and investment thereby bringing the two into balance. However, an economy facing secular stagnation may require an interest rate below zero to bring savings and investment into balance. The surplus of savings over investment may be generating price appreciation in financial assets or real estate. For example, the U.S. had low unemployment but low inflation in the years leading up to theĀ Great Recession, although a massive housing bubble developed.[7]
The idea of secular stagnation dates back to theĀ Great Depression, when some economists feared that the United States had permanently entered a period of low growth.[8]Ā The EconomistĀ explained in 2018 that many factors may contribute to secular stagnation, by either driving up savings or reducing investment. Households paying down debt (i.e., deleveraging) increase savings and are spending less; businesses react to the lack of demand by investing less. This was a major factor in the slow U.S. GDP growth during 2009-2012 following the Great Recession. Another possible cause is income inequality, which shifts more money to the wealthy, who tend to save it rather than spend it, thus increasing savings and perhaps driving up financial asset prices. Aging populations (which spend less per capita) and a slowdown in productivity may also reduce investment. Governments facing secular stagnation may choose to: a) accept slower growth; b) accept an asset bubble to temporarily stimulate the economy; or c) absorb the savings surplus through higher budget deficits, which reduces national savings but increases the risk of financial crises. Central banks face a difficult dilemma; do they raise interest rates to ward off inflation (e.g., implement monetary policy austerity) assuming the economy is in a cyclical boom, or assume the economy (even if temporarily booming) is in secular stagnation and therefore take a more stimulative approach?[7]
An analysis of stagnation and what is now calledĀ financializationĀ was provided in the 1980s byĀ Harry MagdoffĀ andĀ Paul Sweezy, coeditors of the independent socialist journalĀ Monthly Review. Magdoff was a former economic advisor to Vice PresidentĀ Henry A. WallaceĀ in RooseveltāsĀ New DealĀ administration, while Sweezy was a former Harvard economics professor. In their 1987 book,Ā Stagnation and the Financial Explosion, they argued, based on Keynes, Hansen,Ā MichaÅ Kalecki, and Marx, and marshaling extensive empirical data,[citation needed]Ā that, contrary to the usual way of thinking, stagnation or slow growth was the norm for mature, monopolistic (or oligopolistic) economies, while rapid growth was the exception.[9]
Private accumulation had a strong tendency to weak growth and high levels of excess capacity and unemployment/underemployment, which could, however, be countered in part by such exogenous factors as state spending (military and civilian), epoch-making technological innovations (for example, the automobile in its expansionary period), and the growth of finance.[10]Ā In the 1980s and 1990s Magdoff and Sweezy argued that a financial explosion of long duration was lifting the economy, but this would eventually compound the contradictions of the system, producing ever bigger speculative bubbles, and leading eventually to a resumption of overt stagnation.
2008ā2009
Economists have asked whether the low economic growth rate in the developed world leading up to and following theĀ subprime mortgage crisisĀ of 2007-2008 was due to secular stagnation.Ā Paul KrugmanĀ wrote in September 2013: “[T]here is a case for believing that the problem of maintaining adequate aggregate demand is going to be very persistent ā that we may face something like the ‘secular stagnation’ many economists feared after World War II.” Krugman wrote that fiscal policy stimulus and higher inflation (to achieve a negative real rate of interest necessary to achieve full employment) may be potential solutions.[11]
Larry SummersĀ presented his view during November 2013 that secular (long-term) stagnation may be a reason that U.S. growth is insufficient to reach full employment: “Suppose then that the short term real interest rate that was consistent with full employment [i.e., the “natural rate”] had fallen to negative two or negative three percent. Even with artificial stimulus to demand you wouldn’t see any excess demand. Even with a resumption in normal credit conditions you would have a lot of difficulty getting back to full employment.”[12][13]
Robert J. GordonĀ wrote in August 2012: “Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative ‘exercise in subtraction’ suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades”.[14]
Post-2009
This chart compares U.S. potential GDP under two CBO forecasts (one from 2007 and one from 2016) versus the actual real GDP. It is based on a similar diagram from economist Larry Summers from 2014.[15]
Secular stagnation was dusted off byĀ Hans-Werner SinnĀ in a 2009 articleĀ [16]Ā dismissing the threat of inflation, and became popular again whenĀ Larry SummersĀ invoked the term and concept during a 2013 speech at the IMF.[17]
However,Ā The EconomistĀ criticizes secular stagnation as “a baggy concept, arguably too capacious for its own good”.[2]Ā Warnings of impending secular stagnation have been issued after all deep recessions, but turned out to be wrong because they underestimated the potential of existing technologies.[4]
Paul Krugman, writing in 2014, clarified that it refers to “the claim that underlying changes in the economy, such as slowing growth in the working-age population, have made episodes like the past five years in Europe and the United States, and the last 20 years in Japan, likely to happen often. That is, we will often find ourselves facing persistent shortfalls of demand, which canāt be overcome even with near-zero interest rates.”[18]Ā At its root is “the problem of building consumer demand at a time when people are less motivated to spend”.[19]
One theory is that the boost in growth by the internet and technological advancement in computers of theĀ new economyĀ does not measure up to the boost caused by the greatĀ inventionsĀ of the past. An example of such a great invention is theĀ assembly lineĀ production method ofĀ Fordism. The general form of the argument has been the subject of papers by Robert J. Gordon.[20]Ā It has also been written about by Owen. C. Paepke andĀ Tyler Cowen.[21]
Secular stagnation has also been linked to the rise of the digital economy.Ā Carl Benedikt Frey, for example, has suggested that digital technologies are much less capital-absorbing, creating only little new investment demand relative to other revolutionary technologies.[22]
A third is that there is a “persistent and disturbing reluctance of businesses to invest and consumers to spend”, perhaps in part because so much of the recent gains have gone to the people at the top, and they tend to save more of their money than peopleāordinary working people who can’t afford to do that.[19]
A fourth is that advanced economies are just simply paying the price for years of inadequate investment in infrastructure and education, the basic ingredients of growth.
A fifth is related to decreased mortality and increased longevity, thus changes in the demographic structure in advanced economies, affecting both demand, through increased savings, and supply, through reduced innovation activities.[23]
And a sixth is that economic growth is largely related to the concept ofĀ energy returned on energy investedĀ (EROEI), or energy surplus, which with the discovery ofĀ fossil fuelsĀ shot up to very high and historically unprecedented levels. This allowed, and in effect fueled, dramatic increases in human consumption since theĀ Industrial RevolutionĀ and many related technological advances. Under this argument, diminishing and increasingly difficult to access fossil fuel reserves directly lead to significantly reduced EROEI, and therefore put a brake on, and potentially reverse, long-term economic growth, leading to secular stagnation.[24]Ā Linked to the EROEI argument are those stemming from theĀ Limits to GrowthĀ school of thinking, whereby environmental and resource constraints in general are likely to impose an eventual limit on the continued expansion of human consumption and incomes. While ‘limits to growth’ thinking went out of fashion in the decades following the initial publication in 1972, a recent study[25]Ā shows human development continues to align well with the ‘overshoot and collapse’ projection outlined in the standard run of the original analysis, and this is before factoring in the potential effects ofĀ climate change.
A 2018 CUSP working paper byĀ Tim Jackson, TheĀ Post-GrowthĀ Challenge,[26]Ā argues that low growth rates might in fact be āthe new normalā.[27]
Story 3: The Peace and Prosperity President Trump With A Non-interventionist Foreign and Domestic Policies — Back To Realpolitik with Offshore Balancing? — Videos
Trump reveals new details on imminent threat from Soleimani
Iran’s Power Over Iraq | VICE on HBO
Anti-government protests in Iran over downing of Ukrainian passenger plane
Gutfeld on the Iran protests over the jetliner
Iran Shot Down a Ukrainian Passenger Plane. Here’s How it Happened. | Visual Investigations
What is OFFSHORE BALANCING? What does OFFSHORE BALANCING mean? OFFSHORE BALANCING meaning
Foreign Policy: Crash Course Government and Politics #50
Trump’s 2018 Foreign Policy: Year in Review | NowThis World
US Foreign Policy in Donald Trump’s Era
President-elect Trump’s Emerging Foreign Policy
Is Trump’s Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist? Not So Fast
Stephen Walt: Can the U.S. Still Have a Successful Foreign Policy?
Welcome To “THE HELL OF GOOD INTENTIONS”
Realism and Restraint: America’s New Foreign Policy
Stephen Walt: The Repeated Failures of the US Foreign Policy Elite
Stephen Walt ā What Grand Strategy for America?: Why Offshore Balancing is Best
A New Vision for American Foreign Policy
Oct 21, 2019
Stephen M. Walt: What Went Wrong with Liberalism?
Stephen Walt: From Israel to Iran to Mexico, Trump Has Already Blown It on Foreign Policy
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
The Great Delusion with Professor John Mearsheimer
“Iran must come after Iraq” Israel Lobby Steers U.S. Foreign Policy – John Mearsheimer
Theory & Practice of Security Conference | Keynote: Dr. John Mearsheimer
The rise and fall of the liberal international order
John Mearsheimer – The Future of NATO in the Age of Trump | ROEC
Nov 4, 2018
John Mearsheimer: We are Moving to a Multipolar World with Three Great Powers
John J. Mearsheimer, āThe False Promise of Liberal Hegemonyā
John J. Mearsheimer, āThe Roots of Liberal Hegemonyā
Why are Iran and Saudi Arabia enemies?
Trumpās Iran Policy Is Brain-Dead
Lacking coherent objectives and a strategy for achieving them, moves like the assassination of Qassem Suleimani are foreign policy as theaterāand could leave the United States worse off.
A man holds a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani during a demonstration in Tehran on Jan. 3.Ā ATTA KENARE/ AFP/ GETTY IMAGES
Well, that didnāt take long. 2020 is less than a week old, and U.S. President Donald Trump has managed to stumble into another pointless and dangerous crisis with Iran. It is the near-inevitable result of his myopic approach to the entire Middle East (and especially Iran) and another demonstration of Washingtonās inability to formulate a coherent and effective policy toward any important global issue.
When did this country get so bad at strategy?
Trending Articles
āWe Will Have to Wait and See if Iran Is Doneā
Former Centcom commander says the United States would be mistaken to take Iranās word that it does not seek escalation.
In fairness, the problem predates Trump, although his own incompetence, impulsiveness, indifference to advice, and uncanny ability to pick third-rate advisors has made the problem worse. The end result may be moreĀ innocent lives lostāsome of them Americanāand a further erosion in the United Statesā global position. And thatās assuming that Trumpās ordering of the killing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Suleimani doesnāt lead to all-out war.
With respect to Iran, the assassination is a strategic error entirely of Trumpās own making. Egged on by Saudi Arabia, Israel, hawkish institutes like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, andĀ some of his wealthy backers, the president abandoned the multilateral agreement that had successfully capped Iranās nuclear program and also created a diplomatic opening that a savvier administration could have used to address Iranās regional activities. He then began his campaign of so-called maximum pressureāaĀ comprehensive program of economic warfare against IranĀ that sought to eliminate the countryās enrichment capacity, force Iran to change its foreign policy to suit the United States, and maybe topple the regime itself. Ordinary Iranians are suffering mightily as a result of U.S. sanctions, but the regime has neither caved to Trumpās demands nor collapsed. Instead, it has moved gradually to restart its nuclear program,Ā cultivatedĀ closer ties with Russia and China, andĀ retaliatedĀ against U.S. allies in the region. The logic of Tehranās response is straightforward and utterly predictable: If the United States wants to make life difficult for Iran, its leaders will demonstrate that they can make life difficult for the United States too. It wouldnāt take more than a shred of strategic thinking to anticipate Iranās response and recognize that unilateral pressure was not going to work.
By eschewing diplomacy and relying solely on threats and coercion, Trump gave himself no choice but to back down or escalate once it became clear that maximum pressure had backfired. When an Iraqi militia with ties to Iran staged a rocket attack in early December 2019 that killed a U.S. contractor, Trump responded with airstrikes against the militia camps that killed some two dozen Iraqis. Pro-Iranian Iraqi demonstrators proceeded to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, although with no loss of life. The demonstrators eventually dispersed, and the situation seemed to be deescalating. But then Trump approved the assassination of Suleimani, a very senior and highly respected Iranian official, in Baghdad early Friday morning.
To understand how this chain of events might look from Iranās perspective, consider how the United States might respond if a foreign adversary killed a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of the CIA, or maybe even the vice president. Washington would not just shrug it off. To say this is not to defend Suleimani, who was by all accounts an ardent foe of the United States. It is rather to ask the proper strategic question: Did assassinating a prominent official of a foreign government advance the countryās national interest? Will this act make Americans safer and richer, or increase their influence around the world? The answer is: no and no.
For starters, Iran will almost inevitablyĀ respond, just as the United States would were the situation reversed. The regime will do so at a time and with means of its own choosing, and in ways designed to maximize the pain and political impact. Second, the assassination is going to inflame Iranian nationalism and strengthen hard-line forces in Iran, further reducing any possibility of regime change there. Third, killing Suleimani on Iraqi soil is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty that put its fragile government on even shakier ground, and it is worth noting that caretaker Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi has alreadyĀ condemnedĀ the U.S. action. Fourth, Trump has now given Iran even more incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, a step that would force Washington to go to all-out war or back down and accept an Iranian bomb. All this over a country that has serious disputes with some of the United Statesā regional partners butĀ does not threaten the security or prosperity of the United States itselfĀ in any meaningful way.
And finally, thereās the precedent the United States is setting. As the political scientist Ward Thomas explained in aĀ seminal articleĀ in 2000, there has long been a powerful international norm against assassinations by governments, largely because the leaders of powerful states understand that it is in their mutual self-interest not to try to kill each other. The taboo didnāt completely eliminate the use of this tactic, of course, and Thomas argues that the norm has begun to break down in recent decades. But do we really want to live in a world where assassination is regarded as a perfectly normal way of doing business and becomes more and more commonplace? Surely hawkish American politicians who think killing Suleimani was acceptable donāt really want to run the risk of ending up on somebody elseās target list. And to be sure, if Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the killing of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, or if North Korean leader Kim Jong Un decided to redouble his grandfatherās efforts to murder politicians in South Korea, it would be far harder for the United States to object.
Moreover, although taking out bad guys may appeal to a crude desire for vengeance, it rarely solves the underlying political problem. A lot of bad leaders have departed this mortal coil in recent decades, yet the political challenges they embodied continue to bedevil us. Al Qaedaās Osama bin Laden, Libyaās Muammar al-Qaddafi, North Koreaās Kim Jong Il, Iraqās Saddam Hussein, the Talibanās Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Islamic Stateās Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many other U.S. foes are gone, but their deaths didnāt magically solve the foreign-policy problems with which they were associated. Indeed,Ā there is some evidenceĀ that ādecapitationā (that is, killing top leaders) tends to empower extremists and incline them toward even greater violence.
In short, the Trump administrationās approach to Iranāincluding this most recent incidentāappears devoid of strategic logic or purpose. Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and the rest of the administrationās foreign-policy team are like chess players who have failed to consider more than one move at a time and thus miss what should be an obvious fact of life in international politics: The other player gets to move their pieces too. Their denunciations, reinforcements, sanctions, and drone strikes are foreign policy as performance art, instead of the tough-minded and careful realpolitik that should inform a great nationās approach to the world.iran
Now for the really bad news: The lack of strategic thinkingāformulating a clear objective and developing a coherent plan to achieve it that anticipates how others are likely to respondāisnāt limited to the United Statesā dealings with Iran. And it goes well beyond the Trump administration, besides. Indeed, Iād argue that the countryās ability to formulate clear and effective strategies has been steadily eroding for some time. In my next column, Iāll offer some additional illustrations of the problem and explain why genuine strategic thinking is now an endangered species in the Land of the Free.
Donald Trump attends a roundtable discon April 16, 2018 in Hialeah, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Thereās reason to think Donald Trump is becoming a closet realist or even ā dare I say it? ā an offshore balancer.
Admittedly, itās hard to credit him with having a coherent strategy of any kind, given the recurring contradictions in what he says and his penchant for reversing course without warning or explanation. But in the Middle East, at least, one could argue that Trump is trying ā in his own ill-informed, impulsive, and erratic way ā to return to the strategy of offshore balancing that the United States pursued more or less successfully in this region from 1945 to 1992.
To review: After World War II, U.S. leaders recognized that the Middle East was of increasing strategic importance. Oil and natural gas were fueling the world economy, and the Middle East contained enormous and readily accessible reserves. Accordingly, preventing any single power from dominating the region and gaining effective control of these critical resources became a central U.S. objective. But the United States didnāt try to protect Middle East oil by colonizing the region or garrisoning it with its own troops. Instead, it relied on Great Britain (until the late 1960s) and a variety of local clients to maintain a regional balance of power and prevent the Soviet Union from acquiring excessive influence.
When the United States did intervene with military force ā as it did in Lebanon in 1958 ā it kept its presence small and didnāt stay long. Concerns about a potential Soviet grab for the Gulf led the United States to create a new Rapid Deployment Force after the 1979 Iranian revolution, but Washington kept it offshore and over the horizon and didnāt bring it into the region until Iraq seized Kuwait in 1990. Because that invasion posed a serious threat to the regional balance of power, it made good sense for the United States (and many others) to intervene to expel Iraq and demolish much of its military machine.
The United States abandoned this sensible strategy after the first Gulf War, however, opting first for dual containment and then regional transformation. The first approach helped produce 9/11; the second brought us the debacle in Iraq and played no small role in the emergence of the Islamic State and the wider chaos we see there today. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Trump was critical of past U.S. involvement and promised to act differently as president.
In that light, consider what Trump has done since he took office.
First, as his recent actions in Syria remind us, he has shown no enthusiasm whatsoever for an expanded U.S. role in that conflict and especially not if it might involve a major U.S. ground force presence. Remember that a couple of weeks ago he was talking about getting out entirely, to the horror of nearly everyone in the foreign-policy mainstream. Like his predecessors, heās willing to order missile strikes on thugs such as Bashar al-Assad ā earning the usual cheers fromĀ liberal interventionistsĀ who never saw a military action they couldnāt find some rationale for supporting ā but heās not going to do more than that, and thereās no sign of a U.S.-led diplomatic initiative (such as the oneĀ Aaron SteinĀ has proposed) that might actually move that brutal conflict closer to a solution. Blowing things up from a safe distance is all Trump seems willing to contemplate, even when it wonāt affect the situation in Syria in the slightest.
The rest of Trumpās approach to the Middle East has been to let Americaās local clients ā Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Syrian Kurdish militias, etc. ā do more to counter various regional opponents (Iran, Syria, and increasingly Russia), as well as nonstate troublemakers, including al Qaeda and offshoots such as the Islamic State. Hezbollah and Hamas fall under that bad guy umbrella, too. To aid these efforts, the United States will sell or give its allies lots of sophisticated weapons (which helps reduce the trade deficit) and provide them with diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Washington will also turn a blind eye to whateverĀ foolish crueltiesĀ its regional partners decide to inflict onĀ mostly helpless victimsĀ and forget about trying to promote democracy, human rights, regional transformation, or any of that idealistic sob stuff.
Isnāt this more restrained approach what I (and other realists) have beenĀ recommending for years, to little avail? The United States stays out of the region and lets the locals duke it out so long as none of them comes close to winning it all. Over time, it can worry less and less about the entire Middle East as the world weans itself off fossil fuels (and the countryās own shale gas production provides whatever residual it needs). In the meantime, the United States can focus its attention on regions that matter more, such as East and Southeast Asia. Shouldnāt I be cheering (and claiming credit) for Trumpās handling of these issues?
Not quite.
Thereās no question that Trump is appropriately wary of what he sees as open-ended military quagmires, and thatās a step in the right direction after the follies of the past 25 years. But that wariness hardly makes him unique at this point. No sensible leader starts a war if he or she knows in advance that it will be an open-ended and costly affair, and for the United States, the more demanding challenge is gettingĀ outĀ of the endless wars of choice it has stumbled into by mistake.And here Trump has visibly failed.
Tweeted misgivings and sometimes sensible rhetoric aside, the cold, hard truth is that Trump has done next to nothing to reduce the U.S. footprint in the greater Middle East. In addition to sending more troops to the unwinnable Afghan war, he has authorized the Defense Department to ramp up U.S. counterterrorism activities in several places and sent more troops to do the job. By oneĀ estimate, the U.S. military presence in the region has increased by about 33 percent on Trumpās watch, to a total of roughly 54,000 troops and civilian support personnel.
To be clear, thatās not exactly what people like me mean by āoffshore.ā
Second, the central goal of offshore balancing is to prevent any hostile power from dominating a critical strategic region and, if possible, to get others to bear most of the burden of that effort. Well, as Trump (or George W. Bush) might say: āMission accomplished.ā Preserving a balance of power in the region is easier today than it has ever been because the Middle East is already as divided as it has ever been and thereās no outside power (like the old Soviet Union) that might aspire to such a goal. (Russiaās role in Syria is limited to keeping Assad in power ā full stop ā and thatās a very modest objective.) The idea thatĀ anyĀ single power is going to dominate or control the entire region is presently remote and likely to remain so for decades. The United States couldnāt do it when it was the uncontested unipolar power, and China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Iran wouldnāt be able to do it if they tried.
Yet Trumpās headlong support for Americaās present clients rests on the assumption that the regional balance of power is actually quite delicate. Poorly informed and easily bamboozled, he has swallowed the Saudi/Israeli/Emirati view that Iran is a rapacious potential hegemon that is on the brink of establishing a new Persian Empire. In Trumpās mind, therefore, the United States has little choice but to give its local allies uncritical and unconditional support. (One suspects the equally gullible Jared Kushner had a role in this feverish vision, too.) At the same time, Trump inexplicably thinks walking away from the nuclear deal with Iran will make containing the country easier because he fails to grasp that sabotaging the deal will make it more likely that Iran ends up a nuclear weapons state like North Korea. The United States could launch a preventive war, but that possibility has quagmire written all over it and is hardly what offshore balancers would recommend. Americaās local clients may be delighted if it took this fateful step (and if it worked, of course), but that would only prove that Washingtonās allies were better at passing the buck to it than it was at passing the buck back to them.
Needless to say, Trumpās uncritical embrace of U.S. alliesā self-interested worldview is at odds with the sober realism that offshore balancers recommend. And as Iāve already explained in anĀ earlier column, paranoia about Iran is badly at odds with reality and just gets in the way of a more sensible Middle East strategy.
Furthermore, giving present allies unconditional support while ostracizing Iran reduces Americaās leverage over everyoneās behavior and thus limits its ability to shape events in positive ways. It encourages allies to take U.S. support for granted ā and why shouldnāt they, given the fawning adoration on display for leaders such as Israeli Prime MinisterĀ Benjamin NetanyahuĀ and Saudi Crown PrinceĀ Mohammed bin SalmanĀ ā and gives them little incentive to do what they can to stay in Americaās good graces.
Even worse, such an uncritical stance encourages what Barry Posen, a security studies expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calls āreckless driving,ā meaning the tendency for allies to take unnecessary risks and pursue foolhardy policies because they believe their powerful patron will bail them out if they get into difficulties. That overconfidence explains why the Israeli government thinks building settlements poses no risks and helps us understand why Mohammed bin Salman is waging a costly and inhumane war in Yemen, trying (and failing) to ostracize Qatar, and interfering in Lebanon and Syria to no good purpose. It is partly because he is headstrong and impulsive but also because heās confident that America has his back now no matter how badly his initiatives fare.
If the United States were truly acting like an offshore balancer (i.e., the way Great Britain did in its great-power heyday), it would have diplomatic relations and businesslike dealings with all countries in the Middle East, not just the ones that have successfully convinced it to back their agendas and ignore its own interests. Offshore balancers want U.S. diplomats talking to everyone pretty much all of the time and to drive a hard bargain with friends and foes alike. Thatās the luxury Americaās providential position in the Western Hemisphere affords it, and youād think a selfish guy like Trump would understand it easily. The United States should have regular dealings with its adversaries not because it likes them or agrees with them but because that is the best way to advance U.S. interests. Frequent interactions with both friends and (current) foes give Washington the opportunity to explain how it sees things, make it easier for it to understand what others are thinking, and facilitate devising strategies that will get them to give the United States most of what it wants.
Lastly, talking to everyone reminds enemies that they might become friends if they play their cards right and reminds current friends that they arenāt the only game in town and that they shouldnāt take American support for granted. When U.S. officials meet with their counterparts in in Riyadh or Tel Aviv or Cairo, I want everyone in the room to know that some other U.S. officials are busy discussing regional affairs in Tehran and Moscow, too. And vice versa, of course. Thatās how other great powers do it: Why shouldnāt the United States?
To sum up: Trump has a ways to go before he can be considered a true offshore balancer. He seems to grasp part of the logic ā itās better to let others contend than to do the heavy lifting yourself ā but he lacks the knowledge, skill, and subtlety to make a sophisticated strategy like this work. Iām not expecting him to improve either, because he may not haveĀ that much time left. AndĀ even if he does, learning on the job just doesnāt seem to be in his skill set.
Non-interventionismĀ is the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history among government and popular opinion in theĀ United States. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known asĀ isolationism, such as theĀ period between the world wars.
Background
Robert Walpole, Britain’s firstĀ WhigĀ Prime Minister, proclaimed in 1723: “My politics are to keep free from all engagements as long as we possibly can.” He emphasized economic advantage and rejected the idea of intervening in European affairs to maintain aĀ balance of power.[1]Ā Walpole’s position was known to Americans. However, during theĀ American Revolution, theĀ Second Continental CongressĀ debated about forming an alliance with France. It rejected non-interventionism when it was apparent that theĀ American Revolutionary WarĀ could be won in no other manner thanĀ a military alliance with France, which Benjamin Franklin successfully negotiated in 1778.[2]
After Britain and France went to war in 1792,Ā George WashingtonĀ declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply.[3]Ā Washington’s Farewell AddressĀ of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.[4]
PresidentĀ Thomas JeffersonĀ extended Washington’s ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801Ā inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the “essential principles of our government” is that of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”[5]Ā He also stated that “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be” the motto of the United States.[6]
In 1823, PresidentĀ James MonroeĀ articulated what would come to be known as theĀ Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.” It was applied to Hawaii in 1842 in support of eventual annexation there, and to supportĀ U.S. expansion on the North American continent.
AfterĀ Tsar Alexander IIĀ put down the 1863Ā January UprisingĀ inĀ Poland, French EmperorĀ Napoleon IIIĀ asked the United States to “join in a protest to the Tsar.”[7]Ā Secretary of StateĀ William H. SewardĀ declined, “defending ‘our policy of non-interventionāstraight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'” and insisted that “[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”[7]
Theodore Roosevelt‘s administration is credited with inciting theĀ Panamanian RevoltĀ against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).
The President of the United StatesĀ Woodrow Wilson, afterĀ winning reelectionĀ with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” was able to navigate neutrality inĀ World War IĀ for about three years. Early on, their historic shunning of foreign entanglements, and the presence in the US of immigrants with divided loyalties in the conflict helped maintain neutrality. Various causes compelledĀ American entry into World War I, and Congress would vote to declare war on Germany;[9]Ā this would involve the nation on the side of theĀ Triple Entente, but only as an “associated power” fighting the same enemy, not one officially allied with them.[10]Ā A few months after the declaration of War, Wilson gave a speech to congress outlining his aims to end the conflict, labeled theĀ Fourteen Points. While this American proclamation was less triumphalist than the aims of some of its allies, it did propose in the final point, that aĀ general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.Ā After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe and stayed for months to labor on the post-war treaty; no president had previously enjoined such sojourn outside of the country. In thatĀ Treaty of Versailles, Wilson’sĀ associationĀ was formulated as theĀ League of Nations.
Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before theĀ attack on Pearl Harbor.
In theĀ wakeĀ of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. TheĀ Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States’ participation in theĀ League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson’s presidency. Republican Senate leaderĀ Henry Cabot LodgeĀ supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected theĀ Lodge Reservations,
The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations came from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as theĀ Irreconcilables, led byĀ William BorahĀ andĀ George Norris, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. SenatorĀ William Borah, of Idaho, declared that it would “purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence.”[11]Ā SenatorĀ Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a “gigantic war trust.”[12]Ā While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion ofĀ nativistĀ and inward-looking policy.[13]
The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through theĀ Washington Naval ConferenceĀ in 1921-22. TheĀ Dawes PlanĀ refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany, In August 1928, fifteen nations signed theĀ KelloggāBriand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of StateĀ Frank KelloggĀ and French Foreign MinisterĀ Aristide Briand.[14]Ā This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.[15]Ā For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.[16]Ā The KelloggāBriand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.
The economic depression that ensued after theĀ Crash of 1929, also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive expansionism policies byĀ Fascist ItalyĀ and theĀ Empire of JapanĀ led to conflicts such as theĀ Italian conquest of EthiopiaĀ and theĀ Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutalĀ Spanish Civil War.
Non-interventionism before entering World War II
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, theĀ United States CongressĀ continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed theĀ Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I.
On September 1, 1939,Ā Germany invaded Poland;Ā BritainĀ andĀ FranceĀ subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.[17]Ā However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said.[17]Ā Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.[17]
The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America’s involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunningĀ defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany.[18][19]Ā In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we ā¦ can safely permit the United States to become a lone island ā¦ in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”[20]Ā A national survey found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported “arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble”, and that 71% favored “the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men”.[21]
Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. WriterĀ Archibald MacLeishĀ asked, “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?”[22]Ā In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”[23]
However, there were still many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress.[24]Ā Pro-German or anti-British opinion contributed to non-interventionism. Roosevelt’s national share of theĀ 1940 presidential voteĀ declined by seven percentage points from 1936. Of the 20 counties in which his share declined by 35 points or more, 19 were largely German-speaking. Of the 35 counties in which his share declined by 25 to 34 points, German was the largest or second-largest original nationality in 31.[25]Ā Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I.[26]Ā “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,”Ā Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay.[27]Ā Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war.[28]
As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.[24]Ā This policy was quickly dubbed, ‘Cash and Carry.’[29]Ā The second phase was theĀ Lend-LeaseĀ Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President “to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'”[30]Ā American public opinion supported Roosevelt’s actions. As United States involvement in theĀ Battle of the AtlanticĀ grew with incidents such as the sinking of theĀ USSĀ Reuben James(DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that “the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government”, and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.[31]
Ohio SenatorĀ Robert A TaftĀ was a leading opponent of interventionism after 1945, although it always played a secondary role to his deep interest in domestic affairs. Historian George Fujii, citing the Taft papers, argues:
Taft fought a mostly losing battle to reduce government expenditures and to curtail or prevent foreign aid measures such as the British loan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan. He feared that these measures would “destroy the freedom of the individual, freedom of States and local communities, freedom of the farmer to run his own farm and the workman to do his own job” (p. 375), thereby threatening the foundations of American prosperity and leading to a “totalitarian state” (p. 377).[33]
In 1951, in the midst of bitter partisan debate over the Korean War, Taft increasingly spoke out on foreign policy issues. According to his biographer James T. Patterson:
Two basic beliefs continued to form a fairly consistent core of Taft’s thinking on foreign policy. First, he insisted on limiting America’s overseas commitments. [Taft said] “Nobody today can be an isolationist…. The only question is the degree to which we shall take action throughout the entire world.” America had obligations that it had to honor ā such as NATO ā and it could not turn a blind eye to such countries as Formosa or Israel. But the United States had limited funds and problems at home and must therefore curb its commitments….This fear of overcommitment was rooted in Taft’s even deeper faith in liberty, which made him shrink from a foreign policy that would cost large sums of money, increase the power of the military, and transform American society into what he called a garrison state.[34]
Norman A. Graebner argues:
Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a “go-it-aloner” in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own inĀ Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft’s election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO.[35]
Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft’s support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower’s internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda.[36]Ā Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on foreign aid and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies.[37]Ā By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behindĀ Barry GoldwaterĀ who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted toĀ roll backĀ Communism and win the Cold War, asking “Why Not Victory?”[38]
Non-interventionism in the 21st century
During theĀ presidency of Barack Obama, some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of StateĀ John Kerry, considered intervening militarily in theĀ Syrian Civil War.[39][40]Ā A poll from late April 2013 found that 62% of Americans thought that the “United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups,” with only twenty-five percent disagreeing with that statement.[41]Ā A writer forĀ The New York TimesĀ referred to this as “an isolationist streak,” a characterization international relations scholarĀ Stephen WaltĀ strongly objected to, calling the description “sloppy journalism.”[41][42]Ā According to Walt, “the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement inĀ Syriaāincluding yours trulyāare not ‘isolationist.’ They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world.”[42]
In December 2013, theĀ Pew Research CenterĀ reported that their newest poll, “American’s Place in the World 2013,” had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”[43]Ā This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964.[44]Ā Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.[44]
A July 2014 poll of “battleground voters” across the United States found “77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, ‘U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'”[45]
Conservative policies
Rathbun (2008) compares three separate themes in conservative policies since the 1980s:Ā conservatism,Ā neoconservatism, andĀ isolationism. These approaches are similar in that they all invoked the mantle of “realism” and pursued foreign policy goals designed to promote national interests. Conservatives, however, were the only group that was “realist” in the academic sense in that they defined the national interest narrowly, strove forĀ balances of powerĀ internationally, viewed international relations as amoral, and especially valuedĀ sovereignty. By contrast, neoconservatives based their foreign policy onĀ nationalism, and isolationists sought to minimize any involvement in foreign affairs and raise new barriers toĀ immigration.[46]Ā Former Republican CongressmanĀ Ron PaulĀ favored a return to the non-interventionist policies ofĀ Thomas JeffersonĀ and frequently opposed military intervention in countries likeĀ IranĀ andĀ Iraq.
Offshore balancingĀ is a strategic concept used inĀ realistĀ analysis inĀ international relations. It describes a strategy in which aĀ great powerĀ uses favored regional powers to check the rise of potentially-hostile powers. This strategy stands in contrast to the dominant grand strategy in the United States,Ā liberal hegemony. Offshore balancing calls for a great power to withdraw from onshore positions and focus its offshore capabilities on the three key geopolitical regions of the world:Ā Europe, theĀ Persian Gulf, andĀ Northeast Asia.
History
Christopher Layne[1]Ā attributes the introduction of the term “offshore balancing” to himself in his 1997 article.[2]Ā Several experts on strategy, such asĀ John Mearsheimer[3],Ā Stephen Walt[4],Ā Robert Pape[5], Sumantra Maitra[6], Patrick Porter[7]Ā andĀ Andrew Bacevich, have embraced the approach. They argue that offshore balancing has its historical roots in British grand strategy regarding Europe, which was eventually adopted and pursued by the United States and Japan at various points in their history.Ā [8]
According to political scientistĀ John Mearsheimer, in his University of Chicago “American Grand Strategy” class, offshore balancing was the strategy used by the United States in the 1930s and also in the 1980ā1988 Iran-Iraq War. Mearsheimer argues that when the United States gave Lend-Lease aid to Britain in the 1940s, the United States engaged in offshore balancing by being the arsenal of democracy, not the fighter for it.
That is consistent with offshore balancing because the US initially did not want to commit American lives to the European conflict. The United States supported the losing side (Iraq) in theĀ IranāIraq WarĀ to prevent the development of aĀ regional hegemon, which could ultimately threaten US influence. Furthermore, offshore balancing can seem likeĀ isolationismĀ when a roughĀ balance of power in international relationsĀ exists, which was the case in the 1930s. It was also the strategy used during the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union.
Theory
The grand strategy of “offshore balancing” arguably permits a great power to maintain its power without the costs of large military deployments around the world. It can be seen as the informal-empire analogue toĀ federalismĀ in formal ones (for instance the proposal for theĀ Imperial FederationĀ in the lateĀ British Empire). Offshore balancing, as its name implies, is a grand strategy that can be pursue only by island states on the edges of Eurasia and by isolated great powers, such as the United States.
The strategy calls for such states to maintain a rough balance of power in the three key geopolitical regions of the world:Ā Europe, theĀ Persian Gulf, andĀ Northeast Asia. The three regions are the focus, since Europe and Northeast Asia are the major industrial centers of the world, which contain all of the otherĀ great powersĀ and the Persian Gulf for its importance to the global oil market. Outside of these regions, an offshore balancer should not worry about developments. Also, a state pursuing offshore balancing should first seek to pass the buck to local powers and intervene only if the threat is too great for the other powers in the region to handle.[9]
Notable thinkers associated with offshore balancing
^Ā Kennan, George (2012).Ā American Diplomacy Sixtieth-Anniversary Expanded Edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. pp.Ā xiāxvi.
Walt pursued his undergraduate studies atĀ Stanford University. He first majored in chemistry with an eye to becoming a Biochemist. He then shifted to history, and finally to International Relations.[3]
After attaining his B.A., Walt began graduate work atĀ UC Berkeley, graduating with a M.A. in Political Science in 1978, and a Ph.D. in Political Science in 1983.
In a comprehensive 2005 article, “Taming American Power”, Walt argued that the US should “make its dominant position acceptable to others ā by using military force sparingly, by fostering greater cooperation with key allies, and, most important of all, by rebuilding its crumbling international image.” He proposed the US “resume its traditional role as an ‘offshore balancer'”, intervening “only when absolutely necessary” and keeping “its military presence as small as possible.”[10]
In a late 2011 article forĀ The National InterestĀ entitled “The End of the American Era”, Walt wrote that America is losing its position of world dominance.[11]
Walt gave a speech in 2013 to theĀ Norwegian Institute for Defence StudiesĀ entitled “Why does US foreign policy keep failing?” The Institute later described him as seeing “an overwhelming bias among US foreign policy institutions toward an activist foreign policy” and “a propensity to exaggerate threats, noting the chances of being struck by lightning have been far greater since 2001 than death by terrorist attack.” He also characterized the US as lacking “diplomatic skill and finesse” and advised Europeans “to think of themselves and not rely on the US for guidance or advice on solving their security issues.” Ultimately, he argued, “the United States is simply not skilled enough to run the world.”[12]
“Why are Americans so willing to pay taxes in order to support a world-girdling national security establishment,” asked Walt in 2013, “yet so reluctant to pay taxes to have better schools, health care, roads, bridges, subways, parks, museums, libraries, and all the other trappings of a wealthy and successful society?” He said this question was especially puzzling given that “the United States is the most secure power in history and will remain remarkably secure unless it keeps repeating the errors of the past decade or so.”[13]
Foreign policy views
A critic ofĀ military interventionism, Walt stated, “Hawks like to portray opponents of military intervention as ‘isolationist’ because they know it is a discredited political label. Yet there is a coherent case for a more detached and selective approach to U.S. grand strategy, and one reason that our foreign policy establishment works so hard to discredit is their suspicion that a lot of Americans might find it convincing if they weren’t constantly being reminded about looming foreign dangers in faraway places. The arguments in favor of a more restrained grand strategy are far from silly, and the approach makes a lot more sense to than neoconservatives’ fantasies of global primacy or liberal hawks’ fondness for endless quasi-humanitarian efforts to reform whole regions.”[14]
Europe
In 1998, Walt wrote that “deep structural forces” were “beginning to pull Europe and America apart.”[15]
Walt argues thatĀ NATOĀ must be sustained because of four major areas where close cooperation is beneficial to European and American interest.[16]
Defeating international terrorism; Walt sees a need for cooperation between Europe and the United States in managing terrorist networks and stopping the flow of money to terror cells.[16]
Limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction; Walt argues that anti-proliferation efforts are most successful when Europe and the U.S. work in concert to bring loose nuclear material into responsible custody. He cites the case of Libya’s willingness to abandon its nascent fission program after being pressured multilaterally as evidence of this.[16]
Managing the world economy; lowering barriers to trade and investment particularly between the U.S. and the E.U. will accelerate economic growth. Notable differences in trade policy stem mainly in areas of agricultural policy.[16]
Dealing with failed states; failed states are breeding grounds for anti-Western movements. Managing failed states such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia require a multinational response since the U.S. has insufficient wealth to modernise and rebuild these alone. In this area European allies are especially desirable because they have more experience with peacekeeping and “nation-building”.[16]
Eastern Europe and Russia
Walt believes extending invitations forĀ NATOĀ membership to countries in the formerĀ Soviet blocĀ is a “dangerous and unnecessary goal” and that nations such asĀ UkraineĀ ought to be “neutral buffer state(s) in perpetuity”.[17]Ā From this perspective, he believed that arming Ukrainian armed forces after theĀ annexation of the Crimea by RussiaĀ “is a recipe for a longer and more destructive conflict.”[17]
Middle East
Walt said in December 2012 that America’s “best course in the Middle East would be to act as an ‘offshore balancer’: ready to intervene if the balance of power is upset, but otherwise keeping our military footprint small. We should also have normal relationship with states like Israel and Saudi Arabia, instead of the counterproductive ‘special relationships’ we have today.”[18]
An article by Stephen Walt, ā³What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins? Live with itā³, appeared on June 10, 2015 inĀ Foreign Policy Magazine.[19]Ā He explained his view that the Islamic State is unlikely to grow into a long-lasting world power onĀ Point of Inquiry, the podcast of theĀ Center for InquiryĀ in July 2015.[20]
Israel
Walt has been a critic of theĀ Israel lobby in the United StatesĀ and the influence he says it has onĀ foreign policy. He wrote that President Obama erred by breaking with the principles in his Cairo speech by allowing continuedĀ Israeli settlementĀ activity and by participating in a “well-coordinated assault” against theĀ Goldstone Report.[4]
Walt suggested in 2010 that, owing to State Department diplomatĀ Dennis Ross‘s alleged partiality toward Israel, he might give President Obama advice that was against US interests.[21]Ā Robert Satloff, executive director of theĀ Washington Institute for Near East PolicyĀ (WINEP), defended Ross and criticized Walt, in a piece published byĀ Foreign AffairsĀ (which had published Walt’s piece a few days earlier).[22]Ā Satloff wrote that Ross’s connection to WINEP is innocuous (Ross was a distinguished fellow at WINEP throughout George W. Bush’s administration, and Mearsheimer and Walt’s book described WINEP as “part of the core” of the Israel lobby in the United States) and that Walt mistakenly believes the U.S. cannot simultaneously “advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states”[22]
After theĀ Itamar attack, in which a Jewish family was killed on theĀ West BankĀ in March 2011, Walt condemned the murderers, but added that “while we are at it, we should not spare the other parties who have helped create and perpetuate the circumstances”, listing “every Israeli government since 1967, for actively promoting the illegal effort to colonize these lands”, “Palestinian leaders who have glorified violence”, and “the settlers themselves, some of whom routinely use violence to intimidate the Palestinians who live in the lands they covet”.[23]
Walt criticized the US for voting against a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s West Bank settlements, calling the vote a “foolish step” because “the resolution was in fact consistent with the official policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.”[24]
Iran
Walt has frequently criticized America’s policy with respect toĀ Iran. In 2011, Walt told an interviewer that the American reaction to an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States “might be part of a larger American diplomatic effort to put Iran on the hot seat.”[25]
“Washington continues to insist on a near-total Iranian capitulation,” wrote Walt in December 2012. “And because Iran has been effectively demonized here in America, it would be very hard for President Obama to reach a compromise and then sell it back home.”[26]
Walt said in November 2013 that “Americans often forget just how secure the United States is, especially compared with other states,” thanks to its power, resources, and geography, and thus “routinely blows minor threats out of all proportion. I mean: Iran has a defense budget of about $10 billion…yet we manage to convince ourselves that Iran is a Very Serious Threat to U.S. vital interests. Ditto the constant fretting about minor-league powers like Syria, North Korea, Muammar al-Qaddafi’s Libya, and other so-called ‘rogue states.'” Therefore, whatever happens in the Middle East, “the United States can almost certainly adjust and adapt and be just fine.”[13]
Libya
After visitingĀ Libya, Walt wrote inĀ Foreign PolicyĀ in January 2010 that while “Libya is far from a democracy, it also doesn’t feel like other police states that I have visited. I caught no whiff of an omnipresent security serviceāwhich is not to say that they aren’t there…. The Libyans with whom I spoke were open and candid and gave no sign of being worried about being overheard or reported or anything like that. … I tried visiting various political websites from my hotel room and had no problems, although other human rights groups report that Libya does engage in selective filtering of some political websites critical of the regime. It is also a crime to criticize Qaddafi himself, the government’s past human rights record is disturbing at best, and the press in Libya is almost entirely government-controlled. Nonetheless, Libya appears to be more open than contemporary Iran or China and the overall atmosphere seemed far less oppressive than most places I visited in the old Warsaw Pact.”[27]
David E. Bernstein, Foundation Professor at theĀ George Mason University School of Law, criticized Walt in 2011 for accepting funding from the Libyan government for a trip to Libya, where he addressed that country’s Economic Development Board and then wrote what Bernstein called “a puff piece” about his visit. Bernstein said it was ironic that “Walt, after fulminating about the American domestic ‘Israel Lobby'” had thus become “a part of the ‘Libya lobby'”. Bernstein found it ironic that “Walt, a leading critic of the friendship the U.S. and Israel, concludes his piece with the hope ‘that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship.’ Because, you know, Israel is so much nastier than Qaddafi’s Libya.”[28]
Under the headline “Is Stephen Walt Blind, a Complete Fool, or a Big Liar?”,Ā Martin PeretzĀ of theĀ New RepublicĀ mocked Walt for praising Libya, which Peretz called a “murderous place” and for viewing its dictator as “civilized”. Peretz contrasted Walt’s view of Libya, which, Peretz noted, he had visited for less than a day.[29]
Syria
In August 2013, Walt argued that even if it turned out thatĀ Bashar al-AssadĀ ofĀ SyriaĀ had used chemical weapons, the U.S. should not intervene. “Dead is dead, no matter how it is done”, wrote Walt. Yes, “Obama may be tempted to strike because he foolishly drew a ‘red line’ over this issue and feels his credibility is now at stake. But following one foolish step with another will not restore that lost standing.”[30]Ā In September 2013, Walt wrote an open letter asking his congressman to vote against a strike on Syria. Dr. Josef Olmert pointed out “at least two glaring inaccuracies”, including Walt’s failure to recognize that Syria is already a failed state and already riven by sectarian struggle, “something that ‘realist’ liberals find somehow hard to accept.” Olmert noted that despite Walt’s professed belief that Israel is at the center of all Middle East conflicts, Israel in fact has nothing to do with the conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, or other countries in the region, which “are mostly the makings of the Arabs, ones which ought to be solved by them.”[31]
Asia
Walt posits that offshore balancing is the most desirable strategy when dealing withĀ China.[32][33]Ā In 2011 Walt argued that China will seek to gain regional hegemony and a broad sphere of influence in Asia which was comparable in size to the USA’s position in the western hemisphere.[32]Ā If this happens, he predicts that China would be secure enough on the mainland to give added attention to shaping events to its favour in far flung areas. Given that China is resource poor, the nation will likely aim to safeguard vital sea lanes in areas such as the Persian Gulf.[34][35]
In a December 2012 interview, Walt said that “the United States does not help its own cause by exaggerating Chinese power. We should not base our policy today on what China might become twenty or thirty years down the road.”[36]
“Balance of Threat” theory
Walt developed the ‘balance of threat‘ theory, which defined threats in terms of aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive power, and aggressive intentions. It is a modification of the “balance of power” theory developed by neorealist Kenneth Waltz.[37]
Snowden case
In July 2013, Walt argued that President Obama should giveĀ Edward SnowdenĀ an immediate pardon. “Mr Snowden’s motives,” wrote Walt, “were laudable: he believed fellow citizens should know their government was conducting a secret surveillance programme enormous in scope, poorly supervised and possibly unconstitutional. He was right.” History, Walt suggested, “will probably be kinder to Mr Snowden than to his pursuers, and his name may one day be linked to the other brave men and women āĀ Daniel Ellsberg,Ā Martin Luther King Jr,Ā Mark Felt,Ā Karen SilkwoodĀ and so on ā whose acts of principled defiance are now widely admired.”[38]
Books
In his 1987 bookĀ The Origins of Alliances, Walt examines the way in which alliances are made, and “proposes a fundamental change in the present conceptions of alliance systems.”[39]
Revolution and WarĀ (1996) exposes “the flaws in existing theories about the relationship between revolution and war” by studying in detail the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions and providing briefer views of the American, Mexican, Turkish, and Chinese revolutions.[40]
Taming American PowerĀ (2005) provides a thorough critique of U.S. strategy from the perspective of its adversaries.[41]Ā Anatol LievenĀ called it “a brilliant contribution to the American foreign policy debate.”[42]
In March 2006,Ā John MearsheimerĀ and Walt, then academic dean of theĀ Kennedy School of Government, published a working paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”[43]Ā and an article entitled “The Israel Lobby” in theĀ London Review of BooksĀ on the negative effects of “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.” They defined the Israel lobby as “the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.”[44]Ā Mearsheimer and Walt took the position that “What the Israel lobby wants, it too often gets.”[45]
The articles, as well as the bestsellingĀ bookĀ Walt and Mearsheimer later developed, generated considerable media coverage throughout the world. Contending that Walt and Mearsheimer are members of a “school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started”,Ā Christopher HitchensĀ concluded that, “Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem….”[46]Ā Former U.S. AmbassadorĀ Edward PeckĀ wrote the “tsunami” of responses condemning the report proved the existence of the lobby and “Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby’s views of Israel’s interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies.”[47]
Mearsheimer proposed the theory ofĀ offensive realismĀ which describes the interaction betweenĀ great powersĀ as dominated by aĀ rational desireĀ to achieveĀ hegemonyĀ in a world of insecurity and uncertainty regarding other states’ intentions. He wasĀ a vocal opponentĀ of theĀ Iraq WarĀ in 2003 and was almost alone in opposing Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 and predicted that, without a deterrent, they wouldĀ face Russian aggression.
His most controversial views concern alleged influence by interest groups over US government actions in theĀ Middle EastĀ which he wrote about inĀ The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer considers that China’s growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States. His work is frequently taught to and read by twenty-first century students ofĀ political scienceĀ andĀ international relations.
Early years
Mearsheimer was born in December 1947 inĀ Brooklyn,Ā New York. He was raised in New York City until the age of eight, when his parents moved his family toĀ Croton-on-Hudson, New York, a suburb located inĀ Westchester County.[4]Ā When he was 17, Mearsheimer enlisted in theĀ U.S. Army. After one year as an enlisted member, he chose to attend theĀ United States Military AcademyĀ atĀ West Point. He attended West Point from 1966 to 1970. After graduation, he served for five years as an officer in theĀ U.S. Air Force.[5][6]
Since 1982, Mearsheimer has been a member of theĀ facultyĀ of the Department of Political Science Faculty at theĀ University of Chicago.[7]Ā He became anĀ associate professorĀ in 1984, aĀ full professorĀ in 1987, and was appointed the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in 1996. From 1989 to 1992, he served as chairman of the department. He also holds a position as a faculty member in theĀ Committee on International RelationsĀ graduate program, and is the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy.[8]
Mearsheimer has won several teaching awards. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. In addition, he was selected as aĀ Phi Beta KappaĀ Visiting Scholar for the 1993ā1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. In 2003, he was elected to theĀ American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[8]
Work
Conventional deterrence
Mearsheimer’s first bookĀ Conventional DeterrenceĀ (1983) addresses the question of how decisions to start a war depend on the projected outcome of military conflict. In other words, how do decision makers’ beliefs about the outcome of war affect the success or failure of deterrence? Mearsheimer’s basic argument is that deterrence is likely to work when the potential attacker believes that a successful attack will be unlikely and costly. If the potential attacker, however, has reason to believe the attack will likely succeed and entail low costs, then deterrence is likely to break down. This is now widely accepted to be the way the principle of deterrence works. Specifically, Mearsheimer argues that the success of deterrence is determined by the strategy available to the potential attacker. He lays out three strategies. First, a war-of-attrition strategy, which entails a high level of uncertainty about the outcome of war and high costs for the attacker. Second, a limited-aims strategy, which entails fewer risks and lower costs. And, third, aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy, which provides a way to defeat the enemy rapidly and decisively, with relatively low costs. For Mearsheimer, failures in the modern battlefield are due mostly to the potential attacker’s belief that it can successfully implement aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy in which tanks and other mechanized forces are employed swiftly to effect a deep penetration and disrupt the enemy’s rear.[9]Ā The other two strategies are unlikely to lead to deterrence failures because they would entail a low probability of success accompanied by high costs (war of attrition) or limited gains and the possibility of the conflict turning into a war of attrition (limited aims). If the attacker has a coherentĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy available, however, an attack is likely to ensue, as its potential benefits outweigh the costs and risks of starting a war.[10]
Besides analyzing cases fromĀ World War IIĀ and theĀ ArabāIsraeli conflict, Mearsheimer extrapolates implications from his theory for the prospects of conventional deterrence inĀ Central EuropeĀ during the lateĀ Cold War. Here, he argues that aĀ SovietĀ attack is unlikely because the Soviet military would be unable to successfully implement aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy. The balance of forces, the difficulty of advancing rapidly with mechanized forces through Central Europe, and the formidableĀ NATOĀ forces opposing such a Soviet attack made it unlikely, in Mearsheimer’s view, that the Soviets would start a conventional war in Europe.[11]
Nuclear proliferation and nuclear deterrence
In 1990 Mearsheimer published an essay[12]Ā where he predicted that Europe would revert to aĀ multipolarĀ environment similar to that in the first half of the twentieth century if American and Soviet forces left following the end of theĀ Cold War. In another article that year, inĀ The Atlantic, he predicted that this multipolar environment would increase nuclear proliferation in Europe, especially in Germany.[13]
In this essay and in the 1993Ā Foreign AffairsĀ article “The case for a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent”,[14]Ā he argued that to reduce the dangers of war, the United States should encourage Germany andĀ UkraineĀ to develop aĀ nuclear arsenal, while working to prevent the rise of hyper-nationalism. Mearsheimer presented several possible scenarios for a post-Cold-War Europe from which American and Russian forces had departed. He believed that a Europe with nuclear proliferation was most likely to remain at peace, because without a nuclear deterrent Germany would be likely to once more try to conquer the continent (See pages 32ā33).[12]Ā Mearsheimer argued that it would be strategically unwise forĀ UkraineĀ to surrender its nuclear arsenal (remnants of the Soviet stockpile). However, in 1994Ā Ukraine consentedĀ to get rid of its entire former Soviet nuclear stockpile, a process that was complete by 1996. When challenged on the former assertion at a lecture given to the International Politics department at theĀ University of WalesĀ inĀ Aberystwyth, he maintained that in spite ofĀ European integrationĀ and expansion, he still believed that his predictions would come true if the United States military left Europe.[15]
Also, in op-ed pieces written in 1998 and 2000 forĀ The New York Times, Mearsheimer supported India’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons. In support of this position, he argued that India has good strategic reasons to want a nuclear deterrent, especially in order to balance against China andĀ Pakistan, guaranteeing regional stability. He also criticized United StatesĀ counter-proliferationĀ policy towards India, which he considered unrealistic and harmful to American interests in the region.[16]
Offensive neorealism
Mearsheimer is the leading proponent ofĀ offensive neorealism. It is a structural theory which, unlike theĀ classical realismĀ ofĀ Hans Morgenthau, places the principal emphasis on security competition among great powers within the anarchy of the international system, and not principally on the human nature of statesmen and diplomats. In contrast to another structural realist theory, theĀ defensive neorealismĀ ofĀ Kenneth Waltz, offensive neorealism maintains that states are not satisfied with a given amount of power, but seek hegemony for security because the anarchic makeup of the international system creates strong incentives for states to seek opportunities to gain power at the expense of competitors.[17]Ā Mearsheimer summed this view up in his 2001 bookĀ The Tragedy of Great Power Politics:
Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[18]
Mearsheimer usually does not believe it is possible for a state to become a globalĀ hegemonĀ and occasionally recognizes the global hegemon as an accomplished fact (see chapter “Night Watchman” below). When the global hegemon is theoretically impossible, it is because there is too much landmass and too many oceans which he posits have effective stopping power and act as giant moats. Instead he believes that states can only achieveĀ regional hegemony. Furthermore, he argues that states attempt to prevent other states from becoming regional hegemons, since peer competitors could interfere in a state’s affairs. States which have achieved regional hegemony, such as the U.S., will act as offshore balancers, interfering in other regions only when the great powers in those regions are not able to prevent the rise of a hegemon.
Endorsement of E. H. Carr
In a 2004 speech, Mearsheimer praised the British historianĀ E. H. CarrĀ for his 1939 bookĀ The Twenty Years’ CrisisĀ and argued that Carr was correct when he claimed that international relations was a struggle of all against all with states always placing their own interests first.[20]Ā Mearsheimer maintained that Carr’s points were still as relevant for 2004 as for 1939, and went on to deplore what he claimed was the dominance of “idealist” thinking about international relations among British academic life.[20]
Night Watchman
Night WatchmanĀ is “global hegemon” in Mearsheimer’s terminologyātheoretical impossibility as stated inĀ The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.[21]Ā Nevertheless, in 1990 Mearsheimer mentioned an existing “watchman”: Democracies lived at peace because “America’s hegemonic position in NATO… mitigated the effects of anarchy on the Western democracies and induced cooperation among them … With the United States serving as aĀ night watchman, fears about relative gains among the Western European states were mitigatedā¦”[22]
Afterwards, Mearsheimer lost the watchman. A decade later, he described the “international anarchy” as having not changed with the end of the Cold War, “and there are few signs that such change is likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still noĀ night watchmanĀ standing above them.”[23]Ā Five more years later, Mearsheimer confirmed that “in an anarchic system there is noĀ night watchmanĀ for state to call when trouble comes knocking at their door.”[24]
Precisely two decades since Mearsheimer detected the watchman in the world for the last time, he rediscovered him again. Watchman exists and, moreover, keeps Europe at peace. The article titled by question “Why Is Europe Peaceful Today?” unambiguously answers: “The reason is simple: the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and it effectively acts as aĀ night watchman.”[25]
Gulf War
In January and early February 1991, Mearsheimer published two op-eds in theĀ Chicago TribuneĀ and theĀ New York TimesĀ arguing that the war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi forces should be quick and lead to a decisive US victory, with less than 1,000 American casualties. This view countered the conventional wisdom at the start of the war, that predicted a conflict lasting for months and costing thousands of American lives. Mearsheimer’s argument was based on several points. First, the Iraqi Army was a Third World military, unprepared to fight mobile armored battles. Second, US armored forces were better equipped and trained. Third, US artillery was also far better than its Iraqi counterpart. Fourth, US airpower, unfettered by the weak Iraqi air force, should prove devastating against Iraqi ground forces. Fifth and finally, the forward deployment of Iraqi reserves boded ill for their ability to counter US efforts to penetrate the Iraqi defense line along the SaudiāKuwaiti border. These predictions came true in the course of the war.[26][27]
Noelle-Neumann controversy
In October 1991, Mearsheimer was drawn into a bitter controversy at the University of Chicago regardingĀ Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a visiting professor from Germany. Noelle-Neumann was a prominent German pollster and a leading academic on public opinion research, who authored the highly regarded book,Ā The Spiral of Silence. The debate centered on an article written byĀ Leo BogartĀ called “The Pollster and the Nazis”. It described Noelle-Neumann’s past employment as a writer and editor for the Nazi newspaperĀ Das ReichĀ from 1940ā42. Noelle-Neumann’s response to the article was to claim “texts written under a dictatorship more than 50 years ago cannot be read as they were in 1937, 1939 or 1941. Severed from the time and place where they were written, they are no longer real, for reality is in part based on time and place.”[28]
As chairman of Chicago’s political science department at the time, Mearsheimer sat down with Noelle-Neumann to discuss the article and the allegations. After meeting with her for over three hours, Mearsheimer publicly declared, “I believe that Noelle-Neumann was an anti-Semite,”[28]Ā and he spearheaded a campaign asking her for an apology.[29]Ā He joined other University of Chicago faculty in writing a joint piece for Commentary Magazine that reacted to Noelle-Neumann’s reply to the accusation against her. They declared, “by providing rhetorical support for the exclusion of Jews, her words helped make the disreputable reputable, the indecent decent, the uncivilized civilized, and the unthinkable thinkable.”[30]Ā Mearsheimer said “Knowing what we know now about the Holocaust, there is no reason for her not to apologize. To ask somebody who played a contributing role in the greatest crime of the 20th century to say ‘I’m sorry’ is not unreasonable.”[31]
In March 2006, Mearsheimer andĀ Stephen Walt, began to write jointly about the Israel lobby. Stephen Walt was the former academic dean and professor of International Relations at theĀ HarvardĀ Kennedy School of Government, and together they published aĀ Harvard UniversityĀ Kennedy School of GovernmentĀ working paper[32]Ā and aĀ London Review of BooksĀ article[33]Ā discussing the power of theĀ Israel lobbyĀ in shaping theĀ foreign policy of the United States. They define the Israel lobby as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”. They emphasize that it is not appropriate to label it a “Jewish lobby“, because not allĀ JewsĀ feel a strong attachment toĀ IsraelĀ and because some of the individuals and groups who work to foster U.S. support for Israel are not Jewish; according to Mearsheimer and Walt,Ā Christian ZionistsĀ play an important role. Finally, they emphasize that the lobby is not aĀ cabalĀ or a conspiracy but simply a powerful interest group like theĀ National Rifle AssociationĀ or the farm lobby. Their core argument is that the policies that the lobby pushes are not in the United States’Ā national interest, nor ultimately that ofĀ Israel. Those pieces generated extensive media coverage and led to a wide-ranging and often heated debate between supporters and opponents of their argument. The article was subsequently turned into a book entitledĀ The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Statements on Israeli wars and a Palestinian state
Mearsheimer was critical ofĀ Israel’s war against LebanonĀ in the summer of 2006. He argued that Israel’s strategy was “doomed to fail” because it was based on the “faulty assumption” that Israeli air power could defeat Hezbollah, which was essentially a guerrilla force. The war, he argued, was a disaster for the Lebanese people, as well as a “major setback” for the United States and Israel.[34]Ā The lobby, he said, played a key role in enabling Israel’s counterproductive response by preventing the United States from exercising independent influence.[35]
Mearsheimer was also critical of Israel’sĀ offensive against Hamas in the Gaza StripĀ that began in December 2008. He argued that it would not eliminate Hamas’s capability to fire missiles and rockets at Israel, and that it would not cause Hamas to end its fight with Israel. In fact, he argued that relations between Israel and the Palestinians were likely to get worse in the years ahead.[36]
Mearsheimer emphasizes that the only hope for Israel to end its conflict with the Palestinians is to end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to have their own state in Gaza and the West Bank. Otherwise, Israel is going to turn itself into an “apartheid state.” That would be a disastrous outcome not only for Israel, but also for the United States and especially the Palestinians.[37]
Mearsheimer’s criticisms of Israel further extended to Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. In remarks made at the International Spy Museum in 2010, Mearsheimer asserted that a nuclear Israel was contrary to U.S. interests and questioned Israel’s accountability in the matter, stating that there was “no accountability for Israel on any issue” because, he surmised, “The Israelis can do almost anything and get away with it.”[38]
The “Future of Palestine” lecture
In April 2010, Mearsheimer delivered theĀ Hisham B. SharabiĀ Memorial Lecture at theĀ Palestine CenterĀ in Washington, DC, which he titled “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners.” He argued that “the two-state solution is now a fantasy” because Israel will incorporate the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a “Greater Israel”, which would become anĀ apartheidĀ state. This state, according to Mearsheimer, would not be politically viable, most American Jews would not support it, and it would eventually become a democratic bi-national state, politically dominated by its Palestinian majority. He suggested that “American Jews who care deeply about Israel” could be divided into three categories: the “newĀ Afrikaners” who will support Israel even if it is an apartheid state, “righteous Jews,” who believe that individual rights are universal, and apply equally to Jews and Palestinians, and the largest group who he called the “great ambivalent middle”. He concludes that most of the “great ambivalent middle” would not defend an apartheid Israel because “American Jews are among the staunchest defenders of traditional liberal values” resulting in the “new Afrikaners” becoming increasingly marginalized over time. Mearsheimer stated that he “would classify most of the individuals who head the Israel lobby’s major organizations as “‘new Afrikaners'” and specifically listedĀ Abraham FoxmanĀ of theĀ Anti-Defamation League,Ā David HarrisĀ of theĀ American Jewish Committee,Ā Malcolm HoenleinĀ of theĀ Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,Ā Ronald LauderĀ of theĀ World Jewish Congress,Ā Morton KleinĀ of theĀ Zionist Organization of America, as well as businessmen such asĀ Sheldon Adelson,Ā Lester Crown, andĀ Mortimer ZuckermanĀ and “media personalities” likeĀ Fred Hiatt,Ā Charles Krauthammer,Ā Bret StephensĀ andĀ Martin Peretz.[39]
Statements on Gilad Atzmon
In 2011, John Mearsheimer wrote ofĀ Gilad Atzmon‘s bookĀ The Wandering Who: “Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish.Ā The Wandering Who?Ā should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.”[40]
Atzmon has been called anĀ antisemiteĀ andĀ Holocaust denier, andĀ Jeffrey GoldbergĀ said the book espousedĀ Neo-NaziĀ views.[41]Ā Alan DershowitzĀ wrote an article in response titled: “Why are John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk Endorsing a Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book?” and the book “argues that Jews seek to control the world.”[42]
Mearsheimer said he had “no reason to amend it or embellish” his review,[41]Ā and defended his position. Writing with regard to the charge byĀ Jeffrey GoldbergĀ that Atzmon is anti-semitic, and by implication so is his own positive review of Atzmon’s work, Mearsheimer responded: “Atzmon’s basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists… It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the “Holocaust religion,” Zionism, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth.”[40][40]
The rise and containment of China
Mearsheimer asserts that China’s rise will not be peaceful[43][44][45]Ā and that the U.S. will seek to contain China and prevent it from achieving regional hegemony.[46][47][48][49]Ā Although military, and perhaps diplomatic containment of China is possible, economic containment of China is not.[50]Ā Mearsheimer believes that China will attempt to dominate the Indo-Pacific region just as, he asserts, the U.S. set out to dominate the western hemisphere. The motivation for doing so would be to gain a position of overwhelming security and superiority against its neighbors which it sees as potential challengers to its status.[51]Ā Additionally, he maintains that the U.S. will attempt to form a balancing coalition that consists primarily of India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia to counter the growing strength and power projection capabilities of China.[52]Ā He points to increased alliances and warming U.S.āVietnam and U.S.āIndia relations as evidence of this.[53][54]
Mearsheimer asserts that Australia should be concerned with China’s accretion of power because it will lead to an intense security competition between China and the US that would destabilize the region.[55]Ā He also argues that China is implementing the militarily aggressive philosophy of the U.S. naval strategistĀ Alfred Thayer Mahan, who argued for sea control and decisive battle.[51]
Why Leaders Lie
Mearsheimer wrote a book that analyzes lying in international politics. He argues inĀ Why Leaders LieĀ (Oxford University Press, 2011) that leaders lie to foreign audiences as well as their own people because they think it is good for their country. For example, he maintains that President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied about theĀ GreerĀ incidentĀ in September 1941, because he was deeply committed to getting the United States into World War II, which he thought was in America’s national interest.[56]
His two main findings are that leaders actually do not lie very much to other countries, and that democratic leaders are actually more likely thanĀ autocratsĀ to lie to their own people.[57]Ā Thus, he starts his book by saying that it is not surprising that Saddam Hussein did not lie about havingĀ WMDāhe truthfully said he had noneābut that George Bush and some of his key advisors did lie to the American people about the threat from Iraq. Mearsheimer argues that leaders are most likely to lie to their own people in democracies that fight wars of choice in distant places. He says that it is difficult for leaders to lie to other countries because there is not much trust among them, especially when security issues are at stake, and you need trust for lying to be effective. He says that it is easier for leaders to lie to their own people because there is usually a good deal of trust between them.[56]
Types of lies
Mearsheimer does not consider the moral dimension of international lying, which he views from a utilitarian perspective. He argues that there are five types of international lies.[58]
Inter-state liesĀ are where the leader of one country lies to a leader of another country, or more generally, any foreign audience, to induce a desired reaction.
Fear-mongeringĀ is where a leader lies to his or her own domestic public.
Strategic cover-upsĀ employ lies to prevent controversial policies and deals from being made known publicly.
Nationalist mythsĀ are stories about a country’s past that portray that country in a positive light while its adversaries in a negative light.
Liberal liesĀ are given to clear up the negative reputation of institutions, individuals, or actions.
He explains the reasons why leaders pursue each of these different kinds of lies. His central thesis is that leaders lie more frequently to domestic audiences than to leaders of other states. This is because international lying can have negative effects includingĀ blowbackĀ andĀ backfiring. “Blowback” is where telling international lies helps cause a culture of deceit at home. “Backfiring” is where telling a lie leads to a failed policy. He also emphasizes that there are two other kinds of deception besides lying: “concealment,” which is where a leader remains silent about an important matter, and “spinning,” which is where a leader tells a story that emphasizes the positive and downplays or ignores the negative.[56]
The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Yale University Press, 2018)
In his 2018 book,Ā The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Mearsheimer presents a critique of the geopolitical strategy he refers to as ‘liberal hegemony’. Mearsheimer’s definition of liberal hegemony includes a three-part designation of it as an extension of Woodrow Wilson’s original initiatives to make a world safe by turning its governments into democracies, turning geopolitical economic initiatives towards open markets compatible with democratic governments, and thirdly opening up and promoting other democratically liberal international social and culture societies on a global scale of inclusion. Mearsheimer states in an interview broadcast on CSPAN that this represents a ‘great delusion’ and that much more weight should be associated withĀ nationalismĀ as a policy of enduring geopolitical value rather than the delusions he associated withĀ liberalĀ hegemony.
After the break up of the Soviet Union, the new independent Ukraine had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons on its territory. However, in 1994 Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear arms, became a member of theĀ Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and within two years had removed all atomic weapons. Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw a Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent as likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia.Ā [59]
2014 Crimean Crisis
In September 2014 Mearsheimer wrote the article “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin” published inĀ Foreign Affairs. The essay was highly critical of American policy towards Russia since the conclusion of the Cold War.[60]Ā Mearsheimer argued that Russian intervention inĀ CrimeaĀ and Ukraine had been motivated by what he saw as the irresponsible strategic objectives of NATO in Eastern Europe. He compared US-led NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and planned inclusion of Ukraine to the hypothetical scenario of a Chinese military alliance in North America, stating, “Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.”
Mearsheimer argued that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea was fueled by concerns that it would lose access to itsĀ Black Sea FleetĀ naval base atĀ SevastopolĀ if Ukraine continued to move towards NATO and European integration. Mearsheimer concluded that US policy should shift towards recognising Ukraine as aĀ buffer stateĀ between NATO and Russia rather than attempting to absorb Ukraine into NATO.[60][citation needed]Ā Mearsheimer’s article provokedĀ Michael McFaulĀ andĀ Stephen SestanovichĀ to publish their response in November/December 2014 issue ofĀ Foreign Affairs.[61]
China
Mearsheimer has been critical of US policy toward China, which he regards as fated to engage in “intense security competition” and possible war, if it continues on its steep trajectory of economic growth.[62]Ā His recommended US policy towards China is containment, which calls for the US to keep China from occupying territory and expanding its influence in Asia.[63]Ā Mearsheimer recommended that US policy makers form a balancing coalition with China’s neighbors. According to Mearsheimer, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam could be potential allies of the United States against a great-power China’s attempt to dominate.[62]
Mearsheimer argued in a 2019 article forĀ International SecurityĀ that the “liberal international orderĀ was crumbling by 2019″ and that the liberal order will be replaced by “three realist orders: a thin international order that facilitates cooperation, and two bounded ordersāone dominated by China, the other by the United Statesāpoised for waging security competition between them.”[64]
Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stepen M. Walt from Harvard University wrote the article Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. They point out that in recent years International Relations scholars have devoted less effort to creating and refining theories or using them to guide empirical research. Instead there is a focus on what they call a simplistic hypothesis testing which emphasizes discovering well-verified empirical regularities. They state that that is a mistake, because insufficient attention to theory leads to misspecified empirical models or misleading measures of key concepts. They also point out that because of the poor quality data in International Relations it is less likely that these efforts will produce cumulative knowledge. This will only lead to a short term gain and make International Relationship scholarship less useful to concerned citizens and policymakers.
Theories gives a scholar an overarching framework of the myriad realms of activity. Theories are like maps, they both aim to simplify a complex reality, but unlike maps theories provide a causal story where a theory says that one or more factors can explain a particular phenomenon. Theories attempt to simplify assumptions about the most relevant factors in the aim to explain how the world works. Some grand theories like realism or liberalism claim to explain broad patterns of state behavior while middle-range theories focus on more narrowly defined phenomena like coercion. Deterrence and economic sanctions. They list eight reasons why theories are important. The problems that arise from inadequate attention to theory is that it isn’t possible to construct good models or interpret statistical findings correctly. By privileging hypothesis testing this is overlooked. It might make sense to pay more attention to hypothesis testing if it produced a lot of useful knowledge about international relations, however, Mearsheimer and Walt claim that this is not the case and simplistic hypothesis test is inherently flawed. One of the consequences is that it will result in omitted variable bias. This is often treated as a methodological issue, though it should be treated as a theoretical matter. Selection bias is also a problem that arise from inadequate attention to theory. To examine this clearer the authors point out James Fearson’s critique of Paul Huth and Bruce Russett’s analyses of extended deterrence. Mearsheimer and Walt also point out that contemporary International Relations scholarship faces challenging measurement issues that are because of inadequate attention to theory and cause misleading measures. A few examples are given to support their claim, including Dan Reiter and Allan Stam’s work called Democracies at War. There Mearsheimer and Walt state that it is a sophisticated study that however contains questionable measures of key concepts and that the measure they employ to test their idea do not capture the theories core concepts. Poor data, absence of explanation and lack of cumulation is also some problems that arise from inadequate attention to theory by focusing too much on simplistic hypothesis testing.[65]
Personal Life
John Mearsheimer currently lives in Chicago and is married to his second wife, Pamela. They have 2 children together. John also has multiple children from his first marriage.
Story 1: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers of Radical Extremist Democrat Socialists (REDS) Commit Political Suicide With Presentation of Articles of Impeachment — American People Will Vote Out All Democrats Representative and Senators Who Vote For Impeachment of President Trump on Election Day November 3, 2020– No Crime — No Evidence — No Sense — Not Guilty — Videos
WATCH LIVE: House Democrats unveil articles of impeachment against Trump
Democrats File Articles of Impeachment
SHAM IMPEACHMENT: Kevin McCarthy Unloads on “WITCH HUNT” Against President Trump
Republicans react after articles of impeachment served against Donald Trump | FULL
I will be EXONERATED says Donald Trump as Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against him: President says he will take part in Senate trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – with full House to vote next week
Speaker Pelosi and Democrats announced formal articles of impeachment
The White House said the president will fight the charges in the SenateĀ
‘The President will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated,’ press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statementĀ
Charges against Trump focus on the abuse of power and obstruction of justice
‘We must be clear, no one, not even the president, is above the law,’ House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said in announcing chargesĀ
House Judiciary Committee will mark up charges this week
Sets up vote in full House to impeach Trump some time next week
Vote is expected to pass Democratic-controlled chamber
Donald Trump will participate in some form when the Senate tries the impeachment case against him, the White House announced Tuesday as the administration expressed confidence the president would be exonerated.
‘The announcement of two baseless articles of impeachment does not hurt the President, it hurts the American people, who expect their elected officials to work on their behalf to strengthen our Nation. The President will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated, because he did nothing wrong,’ press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement after Democrats formally announced two charges of impeachment against President Trump.
It’s unclear how the president will launch his defense in the upper chamber. He could delegate the matter to his lawyers.Ā White House counsel Pat Cipollone met with Republican senators about impeachment earlier this month.
Trump, for his part, has already launched his defense using his favorite method of communication: Twitter.Ā Ā And he will hold a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening where impeachment will likely be one of the main topics.
ADVERTISING
The White House focus on the Senate, which is the next stage in the impeachment process, indicates the administration has accepted the foregone conclusion that Trump will become the third president in American history to be impeached.
The Democratic-controlled House is expected to take up a formal impeachment vote next week – where it is expected to pass – and then the battle moves to theĀ the Republican-controlled Senate.
A vote to convict the president requires a two-thirds vote in the upper chamber, where Republicans hold 53 out of 100 seats. It is unlikely that any Republican senators would cross party lines and vote to remove the president from office.
Technically the Senate is supposed to begin a trial immediately but it’s unlikely the chamber will start the proceedings before January.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,Ā flanked by Reps. Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Richard Neal and Adam Schiff, formally announce impeachment charges into Trump
Donald Trump is expected to become the third president to be impeached
Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats charged Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors on Tuesday.
The speaker brushed aside questions about whether or not Democrats are moving too quickly.
NEXT STEPS
The House Judiciary Committee must āmarkupā the articles of impeachment: This is the process by which a bill is amended or rewritten thereby giving lawmakers another chance to make their support or objections known.
Given the partisan nature of impeachment this process is expected to go long. The markup of Bill Clintonās articles of impeachment took three days.
Typically at the beginning of a markup, each of the committee members (Judiciary has 41) will get to make an opening statements, usually not exceeding five minutes apiece.
Then the amendment process begins. Any member of the committee can offer amendments. And the amendments will be debated and voted upon.
The committee concludes a markup not by voting on the impeachment process as a whole, but by voting on a motion to order the articles reported to the House with the amendments that the committee has approved.
Next the articles of impeachment are expected to go the Rules Committee, which adopts the rules that will govern the procedures under which the articles will be considered by the House.
Those rules include deciding how many amendments can be offered and setting the time limits on the debate.
Then the articles move to the floor for debate, followed by the vote by the full House.
‘It’s not about speed. It’s about urgency,’ she told Politico’s Women Rule summit on Tuesday. ‘If we allow one president, any president, no matter who she or he may be, to go down this path, we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a president king.’
Their two formal articles of impeachment – charging the president with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – will be debated in the Judiciary Committee this week in a process that could take two or three days.
That still leaves leadership time to get a vote done in the full House before lawmakers leave for the year on Friday, December 20.
Democrats made their pronouncement early Tuesday morning the Capitol – a group of impeachment managers joining the speaker to stand before a portrait of George Washington and four American flags to make their case against the president.
‘Today, in service to our duty to the constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment charging the president of the united States, Donald J. Trump, with committing high crimes and misdemeanors,’ saidĀ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
Nadler released the nine-page text of the formal articles outlining the charges.
‘President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting Democratic elections,’ reads the first charge.
‘In the history of the Republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,”‘ reads the second.
Each crime comes with a final note on the formal impeachment accusation: ‘Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.’
That’s because each article of impeachment would have to be voted on separately, requiring the punishment to be spelled out for each.
Additionally, the punishment outlined in the resolution forbids Trump from ever holding elective office again – a requirement that requires a separate vote in the Senate.
Nadler charged the president with soliciting the Ukraine to help him win re-election next year.
‘The first article is for abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense for the president to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest. That is exactly what President Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election. Thus damaging our national security, undermining the integrity of the next election and violating his oath to the American people,’ Nadler said in announcing the impeachment charges.
‘These actions, moreover, are consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in our 2016 presidential election. And when he was caught, when the House investigated and opened an impeachment inquiry, President Trump engaged in unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry. This gives rise to the second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress,’ Nadler argued.
‘We must be clear, no one, not even the president, is above the law,’ he added.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler formally announced the charges as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Carolyn Maloney, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff look on
Trump slammed the Democrats case, arguing he put no pressure on the Ukraine to ‘interfere in our 2020 election.’
‘Nadler just said that I ‘pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 Election.’ Ridiculous, and he knows that is not true. Both the President & Foreign Minister of Ukraine said, many times, that there ‘WAS NO PRESSURE.’ Nadler and the Dems know this, but refuse to acknowledge!,’ he tweeted after the Democrats’ impeachment announcement.
And he used his favorite derogatory term for the investigation: ‘Witch Hunt.’
Democrats allege that the president with held nearly $400 million in aid to the Ukraine in order to pressure that country to investigate the Bidens and an unproven conspiracy theory that it was the Ukraine – and not Russia – that interfered in the 2016 election.
Pelosi was joined in Tuesday’s announcement by the committee chairmen who have been leading the investigation into the president:Ā Nadler, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney.
Schiff made the legal case for impeachment.
‘We stand here today because the president’s continuing abuse ofĀ his power has left us no choice,’ he said.
‘President Trump solicited a foreign nation, Ukraine, to publicly announce investigations into his opponent and a baseless conspiracy theory promoted by Russia to help his re-election campaign. President Trump abused the power of his office by conditioning two official acts to get Ukraine to help his re-election,’ he noted.
”The argument, ‘Why don’t you just wait?’ amounts to this: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time,” Schiff said.
‘The evidence of the president’s misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested. And how could it not be when the president’s own words on July 25th – ‘I would like you to do us a favor, though’ – lays so bare his intentions, his willingness to sacrifice the national security for his own personal interests. And when the president got caught, he committed his second impeachable act – obstruction of Congress of the very ability to make sure that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,’ he added.
Trump also targeted his anger at Schiff who is a frequent punching bag for the president.
‘Shifty Schiff, a totally corrupt politician, made up a horrible and fraudulent statement, read it to Congress, and said those words came from me. He got caught, was very embarrassed, yet nothing happened to him for committing this fraud. He’ll eventually have to answer for this!,’ he wrote on Twitter.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff made the formal legal argument against Trump for the Democrats
Speaker Pelosi arrives in the Capitol Tuesday morning ahead of Democrats’ announcement
+13
Pelosi, Nadler and Democratic lawmakers head to their announcement
+13
Speaker Pelosi – on her way to the Democrats’ news conference with her fellow lawmakers could schedule an impeachment vote in the House next week
Ā Pelosi only spoke for a few moments at the beginning of the Democrats 15 minute announcement and kept her remarks focused on thanking the work of lawmakers and staff.
‘The first order of business for members of Congress is the solemn act to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ she said.
Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale accused Democrats of impeaching Trump because they can’t beat him at the ballot box.
‘For months, Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t move forward on impeachment because it was too divisive and it needed bipartisan support. Well, it is divisive and only the Democrats are pushing it, but she’s doing it anyway. Americans don’t agree with this rank partisanship, but Democrats are putting on this political theater because they don’t have a viable candidate for 2020 and they know it,’ he said in a statement.
The impeachment charges against the president focus on two areas – the abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
Democrats laid out their case for each charge in a nine hour hearing Monday in the House Judiciary Committee that summarized their 10-week investigation into Trump.
‘President Trump’s persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security,’ argued Daniel Goldman, the Democratic lawyer for the House Intelligence Committee, who testified before lawmakers on Monday.
‘President Trump’s persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security,’ he said.
Their argument focuses on four central points: 1) Trump used his office to pressure the president of the Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for Trump’s benefit; 2) Trump with held an Oval Office meeting and $391 million in military aid to increase that pressure; 3) Trump’s conduct poses an imminent threat to our national security; and 4) Trump tried to obstruct the investigation.
Republican attorney Stephen Castor was charged with making the case for President Trump. He claimed Democrats were attacking the president for policies they do not agree with.
And he called evidence from the transcript of a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky ‘baloney.’
‘To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors but because they disagree with his policies,’ he said.
The Judiciary panel is expected to mark up the impeachment articles on Thursday, setting up a vote in the full House next week.
Staff on the committee huddled throughout the night on Capitol Hill to write the formal articles impeaching the president.
Trump offered his thoughts Tuesday morning, tweeting about the matter before Democrats held their formal announcement, calling it ‘sheer Political Madness.’
‘To Impeach a President who has proven through results, including producing perhaps the strongest economy in our country’s history, to have one of the most successful presidencies ever, and most importantly, who has done NOTHING wrong, is sheer Political Madness! #2020Election,’ he wrote.
Republican House leader says Trump did nothing impeachable
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff arrives at Speaker Pelosi’s office on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning
+13
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler held a nine-hour impeachment hearing Monday
Pelosi huddled on Monday night with the chairmen running the investigation of the president, including Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, who led a nine hour hearing on the probe on Monday, and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
But Tuesday was not be all bad news for Trump.
The speaker also announced a deal has been reached on president’s USMCA trade deal – an event that is a victory for the president.
Trump has railed against Pelosi for not passing his signature deal with Mexico and Canada. And he’s accused her of being too busy trying to impeach him to work on such legislative matters.
‘It makes all the difference in the world,’ Pelosi said of the newly-negotiated agreement, citing better protections for workers and the environment.
The speaker said there was no coincidence that both announcements were made on the same day.
‘No it’s not a coincidence, it’s just as we come to the end of a session, decisions have to be made,’ she said at a press conference announcing the deal.
Passing the trade deal would give a win to Democrats in swing districts who would be able to return home for holidays to talk about that victory instead of the impeachment of the president.
The new trade pact would replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.
Story 2: Attorney General Barr — Gross Abuses of FISA — Trump Campaign Was Spied On By Obama Administration — Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy Plotters Will Be Indicted and Prosecuted — A Real Abuse of Power —Ā Ā Video
Graham: If Russia investigation started legitimate, it became criminal quick
Rep. Devin Nunes says Dems are poisoning public with impeachment
Attorney General Barr slams FBI following release of IG report on Russia probe
Hannity: Intel tools were weaponized against a presidential campaign
Rep. Ratcliffe: IG Report is an indictment of James Comey
John Durham Compromises Credibility With Public Statement On IG Report | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
The Five’ reacts to Barr blasting FBI’s Trump probe
Ted Cruz: The IG report was ‘nothing short of stunning’
Collins on impeachment: Trump deserves better than this
Story 1: Unfair Partisan Democrat Impeachment Inquiry Ends– No Evidence of Bribery or Quid Pro Que — American People Unconvinced That President Trump Did Anything WrongĀ — American People Do Not Support Impeachment of President Trump — House Speaker Pelosi Will Not Call For An Impeachment Vote Arguing The Republican Senate Will Not Convict President Trump of A Non-existent Crime or Impeachment Offense — American People Will Elect President Trump For A Second Term in Landslide of 70 Million Votes and Over 330 Electoral College Votes — Elections Have Consequences — Schiff Parody of Richard III Cries– A Horse A Horse My Kingdom for A Horse — The End — Videos
rabĀ·bit hole
noun
1.
a rabbit’s burrow.
“a heather-covered hillside full of rabbit holes”
2.
used to refer to a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.
“he’ll continue fearmongering to promote his agenda no matter how farĀ down the rabbit holeĀ it takes him”
Jefferson Airplane White Rabbit (Live At Woodstock 1969)
One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you, don’t do anything at all
Go ask Alice, when she’s ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you’re going to fall
Tell ’em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call
And call Alice, when she was just small
When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go
And you’ve just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low
Go ask Alice, I think she’ll know
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen’s off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head
Fox News Live: Trump impeachment hearing Day 5 – Fiona Hill testifies
Rep. Devin Nunes Opening Statement
Fiona Hill Opening Statement
David Holmes Opening Statement
Day 5, Part 6: Devin Nunes and Steve Castor question Fiona Hill and David Holmes
WATCH: Republican counsel and Rep. Nunesā full questioning of Hill and Holmes
Nunes presses Fiona Hill over the Steele dossier and its origins
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan speaks during testimony by Hill and Holmes | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Nunesā full closing statement in Hill and Holmes hearing | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counselās full questioning of Hill and Holmes | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiffās full questioning of David Holmes | Trump impeachment hearings
ADAM SCHIFF ERUPTS: Closing Statement On CONTENTIOUS Impeachment Hearing
EXCLUSIVE: Rudy Giuliani Responds to Dems’ ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Claims Amid Impeachment Hearings
Glenn Beck Lays Out the Case Against The Media
Glenn Beck Presents: The Democratsā Hydra
Biden’s Ukraine Scandal Explained I Glenn Beck
House GOP speak following the fifth public impeachment hearing
Tucker’s big takeaways from the Trump impeachment saga
The Doors – The End – Live At Hollywood Bowl 1968
The Doors Lyrics
Play “The End”
on Amazon Music
“The End”
This is the end Beautiful friend This is the end My only friend
The end Of our elaborate plans The end Of everything that stands The end No safety or surprise The end I’ll never look into your eyes Again
Can you picture what will be So limitless and free Desperately in need of some stranger’s hand In a desperate land
Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain And all the children are insane All the children are insane Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There’s danger on the edge of town Ride the king’s highway, baby Weird scenes inside the gold mine Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake To the lake The ancient lake Baby
The snake is long, seven miles Ride the snake He’s old And his skin is cold
The west is the best The west is the best Get here, and we’ll do the rest
The blue bus is callin’ us The blue bus is callin’ us Driver, where you taking us
The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on He took a face from the ancient gallery And he walked on down the hall He went into the room where his sister lived, and…then he Paid a visit to his brother, and then he He walked on down the hall, and And he came to a door…and he looked inside “Father?” “Yes, son.” “I want to kill you.” “Mother, I want to…”
C’mon babe
C’mon baby, take a chance with us C’mon baby, take a chance with us C’mon baby, take a chance with us And meet me at the back of the blue bus Doin’ a blue rock On a blue bus Doin’ a blue rock C’mon, yeah
Hill was born inĀ Bishop Auckland,Ā County DurhamĀ inĀ northern England, the daughter of aĀ coal miner, Alfred Hill, and aĀ midwife, June Murray. Her father died in 2012; her mother still resides in Bishop Auckland.[1]Ā In the 1960s, after the last of theĀ local coal mines had closed, her father wanted to emigrate to find work in the mines of Pennsylvania or West Virginia, but his mother’s poor health required him to stay in England.[2]Ā Her family struggled financially; June sewed clothes for her daughters and at age 13, Fiona began working at odd jobs, including washing cars and working as a waitress at a local hotel.[1]
Hill served as an intelligence analyst under PresidentsĀ George W. BushĀ andĀ Barack ObamaĀ from 2006 to 2009. She was appointed, in the first quarter of 2017, by PresidentĀ Donald TrumpĀ as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on hisĀ National Security CouncilĀ staff,[6][5][7]Ā and resigned her position on July 19, 2019.[8]
Fiona Hill (center left) withĀ John R. BoltonĀ at a meeting with Vladimir Putin on June 27, 2018
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019.[12]Ā While being questioned byĀ Steve Castor, the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, Hill commented onĀ Gordon Sondland‘s involvement in the Ukraine matter: “It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right,” she said. “Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged.”[13]Ā In response to a question from that committee’s chairman, Rep.Ā Adam Schiff, Hill stated: “The Russiansā interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency.ā¦Ā The goal of the Russians [in 2016] was really to putĀ whoeverĀ became the president ā by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale āĀ under a cloud.”[14]
Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR āĀ 09/26/19 06:00 PM EDTĀ Ā 11,214
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
96,086
Former Vice PresidentĀ Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.
He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official wasĀ corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.
Thereās just one problem.
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents ā many from inside theĀ AmericanĀ team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles ā conflict with BidenāsĀ narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burismaās legal troubles andĀ stop prosecutorsā plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidentialĀ election.
For instance, BurismaāsĀ AmericanĀ legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the countryās chief prosecutor and offered āan apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figuresā about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to theĀ Ukrainian governmentās official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.
In addition, BurismaāsĀ AmericanĀ team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officialsĀ to make amends, according toĀ that memoĀ and theĀ AmericanĀ legal teamās internal emails.
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.)Ā Ā Ā If the Ukraine prosecutorās firing involved only his allegedĀ corruption and ineptitude,Ā why did Burisma’sĀ AmericanĀ legal team refer toĀ those allegations as āfalse information?”
2.)Ā Ā Ā If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would BurismaāsĀ AmericanĀ lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have triedĀ to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to PresidentĀ Trumpās personal lawyer,Ā Rudy Giuliani.
Ukraineās new president, Volodymyr Zelensky,Ā toldĀ TrumpĀ in JulyĀ that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.
āIām knowledgeable about the situation,ā Zelensky toldĀ Trump, asking theĀ AmericanĀ president to forward any evidence he might know about. “The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.ā
Biden has faced scrutiny since December 2015, when theĀ New York Times published a story noting that BurismaĀ hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Bidenās office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder.
Documents I obtained this year detail an effort to change the narrative after the Times story about Hunter Biden, with the help of the Obama State Department.
Hunter BidenāsĀ AmericanĀ business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleagueĀ two daysĀ after the Times story about a strategy to counter the ānew wave of scrutinyā and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department.Ā The text suggested there was about to be a new āUSAID project the embassy is announcing with usā and that it was āperfect for us to move forward now with momentum.ā
I have sued the State Department for any records related to that meeting. The reason is simple: There is both a public interest and an ethics question to knowing if Hunter Biden and his team sought Stateās assistance while his father was vice president.
The controversy ignited anew earlier this yearĀ when I disclosedĀ that Joe Biden admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancelĀ $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraineās then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin.
At the time, Shokinās office was investigatingĀ Burisma. ShokinĀ told meĀ he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer,Ā collected from BurismaĀ through theirĀ AmericanĀ firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000. Ā
Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. BurismaĀ announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.Ā
After I firstĀ reported it in a column, the New York Times andĀ ABC NewsĀ published similar stories confirming my reporting.
Joe Biden has since responded that heĀ forced Shokinās firing over concerns about corruptionĀ and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.
Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.
In aĀ newly sworn affidavitĀ prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.Ā āThe truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Bidenās son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,ā Shokin testified.
āOn several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,ā Shokin added.
Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing.Ā But his account is supported by documents from Burismaās legal team inĀ America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Bidenās effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.
Burismaās own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of anĀ AmericanĀ lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run byĀ Sally PainterĀ andĀ Karen Tramontano, who bothĀ served in PresidentĀ Bill Clintonās administration.
Just days before Biden forced Shokinās firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there.Ā Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: āWith regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the governmentās reshuffle.ā
Ukraineās Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokinās firing or anything to do with Burisma.
Painter thenĀ askedĀ one of the Ukraine embassyās workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraineās prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show.Ā Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor’s office.
At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with anĀ AmericanĀ criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.
Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Bidenās campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.
On March 29, 2016, the day Shokinās firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down,Ā the memos show.
Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokinās firing.Ā Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Starās memos.
Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memoĀ that the general prosecutorās office provided to me, stating that the threeĀ AmericansĀ offered an apology for the āfalseā narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.
āThey realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,ā the memo stated.
The memo also quoted theĀ AmericansĀ as saying they knewĀ Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burismaās owner, only to be thwarted by British allies:Ā āThese individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor Generalās Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution ā¦ and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.ā
The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of ShokinĀ than Biden’s. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.
For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. āThe reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly,ā she wrote.
Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that āI think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washingtonā and providing contact information for Swartz. āI would be happy to help,ā added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.
Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.
Just days beforeĀ TrumpĀ took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. AndĀ Buretta gave an interview in UkraineĀ about how he helped navigate the issues.
Today, two questions remain.
One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burismaās case, given his sonās interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.
The second is whether Biden has given theĀ AmericanĀ people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his storyās credibility.Ā And thatās an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.
John SolomonĀ is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientistsā misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on TwitterĀ @jsolomonReports.
Story 1: Coup Cover-up Campaign Continues — Big Lie Media Continues Peddling Progressive Propaganda Lies — Both Phony Whistle Blower and Trump Dirt Digger Must Testify — Democrat Operative Activist and CIA Analyst Eric A. Ciaramella Is The Whistleblower — Democrat National Committee (DNC) Ukraine Trump Dirt Digger –Alexandra Chalupa — Both Must Testify In Public or Impeachment Fails — Videos —Ā
House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing – Vindman & Williams Testimony
Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with Lt. Col. Vindman and Vice President Pence Aide Jennifer Williams. Hearing begins with gavel at 31:40. https://cs.pn/377wOPm
Rep. Devin Nunes Opening Statement
WATCH: Rep. Nunesā full opening statement in Volker and Morrison hearing
WATCH: Rep. Elise Stefanikās full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Michael Turnerās full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Jordan criticizes Vindman for discussing Trump Ukraine call | Trump impeachment inquiry
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordanās full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Schiffās full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counselās full questioning of Vindman and Williams | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Nunesā full opening statement in Volker and Morrison hearing
Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said there has been in a “disconnect” between what’s been seen and heard in the public impeachment hearings so far, and what’s been reported by media. Repeating a GOP argument in the hearings, Nunes raised questions about Democratsā “prior coordination” with the whistleblower. Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has previously said he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower or communicated with them. Nunes spoke ahead of testimony from Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The impeachment inquiry has focused on a July 25 phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. For more on whoās who in the Trump impeachment inquiry, read: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics…
Day 3, Part 13: Devin Nunes and Steve Castor question Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordanās full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Republican counselās full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Michael Turnerās full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Democratic counselās full questioning of Volker and Morrison | Trump impeachment hearings
House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing – Vindman & Williams Testimony
George Soros, Marie Yovanovitch, Democrats & Ukraine: How the DEEP STATE Takes Control
Glenn breaks down the several steps our shadow government, or deep state, uses to take control of both domestic and foreign policy, allowing them to gain power and shape the world into their socialistic viewpoint. Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded by George Soros. Why? George Soros is working with the State Department on the two final steps to take power there: training activists to go into action when cued, and actively supporting that opposition.
Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference
There is a long way to go in the impeachment process, and there are some very important issues still to be resolved. But as the process marches on, a growing number of myths and falsehoods are being spread by partisans and their allies in the news media.
The early pattern of misinformation about Ukraine, Joe Biden and election interference mirrors closely the tactics used in late 2016 and early 2017 to build the false and now-debunked narrative that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
Facts do matter. And they prove to be stubborn evidence, even in the midst of a political firestorm. So here are the facts (complete with links to the original materials) debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.
Myth: There is no evidence the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraineās assistance during the 2016 election.
The Facts: The Ukrainian embassy in Washington confirmed to me this past April that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort during the spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaignās ties to Russia. The embassy also stated Chalupa tried to get Ukraineās president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to do an interview on Manafort with an American investigative reporter working on the issue. The embassy said it turned down both requests.
You can read the Ukraine embassyās statementĀ here. The statement essentially confirmed aĀ January 2017 investigative article in PoliticoĀ that first raised concerns about Chalupaās contacts with the embassy.
Chalupaās activities involving Ukraine were further detailed in a May 2016 email published by WikiLeaks in which she reported to DNC officials on her efforts to dig up dirt on Manafort and Trump. You can read that emailĀ here. Ā Myth: There is no evidence that Ukrainian government officials tried to influence the American presidential election in 2016.
The Facts: There are two documented episodes involving Ukrainian government officialsā efforts to influence the 2016 American presidential election. The first occurred in Ukraine, where a court last December ruled that a Parliamentary member and a senior Ukrainian law enforcement official improperly tried to influence the U.S. election by releasing financial records in spring and summer 2016 from an investigation into Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafortās lobbying activities. The publicity from the release of the so-called Black Ledger documents forced Manafort to resign. You can read that rulingĀ here. Ā While that court ruling since has been set aside on a jurisdiction technicality, the facts of the released information are not in dispute.
The second episode occurred on U.S. soil back in August 2016 when Ukraineās then-ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, took the extraordinary step of writing an OpEd in The Hill criticizing GOP nominee Donald Trump and his views on Russia just three months before Election Day. You can read that OpEdĀ here.
Chaly later told me through his spokeswoman that he wasnāt writing the OpEd for political purposes but rather to address his countryās geopolitical interests. But his article, nonetheless, was viewed by many in career diplomatic circles as running contrary to the Geneva Conventionās rules barring diplomats from becoming embroiled in the host countryās political affairs. And it clearly adds to the public perception that Ukraineās government at the time preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election.
Myth: The allegation that Joe Biden tried to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Hunter Bidenās Ukrainian gas firm employer has been debunked, and there is no evidence the ex-vice president did anything improper.
The Facts: Joe Biden is captured on Ā videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm Ukraineās president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Biden told a foreign policy group in early 2018 that he used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev to successfully force Shokinās firing. You can watch Bidenās statementĀ here.
It also is not in dispute that at the time he forced the firing, the vice presidentās office knew Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, the company where Hunter Biden worked as a board member and consultant. Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times article. You can read that articleĀ here.
The unresolved question is what motivated Joe Biden to seek Shokinās ouster. Biden says he took the action solely because the U.S. and Western allies believed Shokin was ineffective in fighting corruption. Shokin told me,Ā ABC NewsĀ and others that he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy that the Burisma investigation was not shut down. He made similar statements in an affidavit prepared to be filed in an European court. You can read that affidavitĀ here.
In the end, though, whether Joe Biden had good or bad intentions in getting Shokin fired is somewhat irrelevant to the question of the vice presidentās ethical obligation.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. Ethics experts I talked with say Biden should have recused himself from the Shokin matter once he learned about the Burisma investigation to avoid the appearance issue.
And a senior U.S. diplomat was quoted in testimonyĀ reported by The Washington PostĀ earlier this month that he tried to raise warnings with Bidenās VP office in 2015 that Hunter Bidenās role at the Ukrainian firm raised the potential issue of conflicts of interest.
Myth: Ukraineās investigation into Burisma Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokinās firing in March 2016.
The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media. Ukraineās official case file for Burisma Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016, one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.
In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevskyās homes and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe. You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizureĀ here.
Burismaās own legal activities also clearly show the investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29, 2016 ā the very day Shokin was fired ā Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking a meeting with Shokinās temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open cases.
In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed, Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the investigations of Burisma Ā and Zlochevsky. You can read that letterĀ here.
Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016 and the tax case by early January 2017. Ā You can read Burettaās interviewĀ here.
In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at the time Vice President Biden forced Shokinās firing, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure misinformation.
Myth: There is no evidence Vice President Joe Biden did anything to encourage Burismaās hiring of his son Hunter.
The Facts: This is another area where the public facts cry out for more investigation and raise a question in some minds about another appearance of a conflict of interest.
Hunter Bidenās business partner, Devon Archer, was appointed to Burismaās board in mid-April 2014 and the firm Rosemont Seneca Bohai ā jointly owned by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer ā received its first payments from the Ukrainian gas company on April 15, 2014, according to the companyās ledgers. That very same day as the first Burisma payment, Devon Archer met with Joe Biden at the White House, according to White House visitor logs. It is not known what the two discussed.
A week later, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and met with then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. During that meeting, the American vice president urged Ukraine to ramp up energy production to free itself from its Russian natural gas dependence. Biden even boasted that āan American team is currently in the region working with Ukraine and its neighbors to increase Ukraineās short-term energy supply.ā Yatsenyuk welcomed the help from American āinvestorsā in modernizing natural gas supply lines in Ukraine. You can read the Biden-Yatsenyuk transcriptĀ here.
Less than three weeks later, Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board to join Archer. To some, the sequence of events creates the appearance that Joe Bidenās pressure to increase Ukrainian gas supply and to urge Kiev to rely on Americans might have led Burisma to hire his son. More investigation needs to be done to determine exactly what happened. And until that occurs, the appearance issue will likely linger over this episode.
Myth: Hunter Bidenās firm only received $50,000 a month for his work as a board member and consultant for Burisma Holdings.
The Facts: This figure frequently cited by Biden defenders and the media significantly understates what Burisma was paying Hunter Bidenās Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm for his and Devon Archerās services. Bank records obtained by the FBI in an unrelated case show that between May 2014 and the end of 2015, Hunter Bidenās and Archerās firm received monthly consulting payments totaling $166,666, or three times the amount cited by the media. In some months, there was even more money than that paid. You can review those bank recordsĀ here.
The monthly payments figures are confirmed by the accounting ledger that Burisma turned over to Ukrainian prosecutors. That ledger, which you can readĀ here, also shows that in spring and summer of 2014 Burisma paid more than $283,000 to the American law firm of Boies Schiller, where Hunter Biden also worked as an attorney.
Myth: President Trump was trying to force Ukraine to reopen a probe into Burisma Holdings and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky when he talked to Ukraineās new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in July of this year.
The Facts: Trump could not have forced the Ukrainians into opening a new Burisma investigation in July because the Ukrainian Prosecutor Generalās office had already done so on March 28, 2019, or three months before the call.
The prosecutors filedĀ this notice of suspicionĀ in Ukraine announcing the re-opening of the investigation. The revival of the case was even widely reported in the Ukrainian press, something U.S. intelligence and diplomats who are now testifying to Congress behind closed doors should have known. Hereās an example of one suchĀ Ukrainian media reportĀ at the time.
Myth: Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko retracted or recanted his claim that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in 2016 identified people and entities she did not what to see prosecuted in Ukraine.
The Facts:Ā In a March interview with me at Hill.TV captured on videotape, Lutsenko stated that during his first meeting with Yovanovitch in summer 2016, the American diplomat rattled off a list of names of Ukrainian individuals and entities she did not want to see investigated or prosecuted. Lutsenko called it a ādo not prosecuteā list. You can watch that videoĀ here. The State Department disputed his characterization as a fabrication, which Hill.TV reported in its original report.
A few weeks later, a Ukrainian news outlet claimed it interviewed Lutsenko and he backed off his assertion about the list. Several American outlets have since picked up that same language.
There is just one problem. I re-interviewed Lutsenko after the Ukrainian report suggesting he recanted. He adamantly denied recanting, retracting or changing his story, and said the Ukrainian newspaper simply misunderstood that the list of names were conveyed orally during the meeting and not in writing, just like he said in the original Hill.TV interview.
Here is Lutsenkoās full explanation to me back last spring: āAt no time since our interview have I ever retracted the statement I made about the U.S. ambassador providing me a list of names of people and organizations she did not want my office to prosecute. Shortly after my televised interview with your news organization I was asked by a Ukraine reporter if I had a copy of the letter that Ambassador Yovanovitch provided me with the names of those she did not want prosecuted. The reporter misunderstood how the names were transmitted to me. I explained to the reporter that the Ambassador did not hand me a written list but rather provided the list of names orally over the course of a meeting.ā Lutsenko reaffirmed he stood by his statements again in September.
It is important to note Lutsenkoās story was also backed up by State Department officials and contemporaneous memos before his interview was ever aired. For instance, a senior U.S. official I interviewed for the Lutsenko story reviewed the list of names that Lutsenko recalled being on the so-called do-not-prosecute list.
That official stated during the interview: āāI can confirm to you that at least some of those names are names that U.S. embassy Kiev raised with the Prosecutor Generalās office because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.ā
Separately, both U.S. and Ukrainian official confirmed to me a letter written by then-U.S. embassy official George Kent in April 2016 in which U.S. officials pointedly (and in writing) demanded that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down an investigation into several Ukrainian nonprofit groups suspected of misspending U.S. foreign aid. The letter even named one of the groups, the AntiCorruption Action Centre, a nonprofit funded jointly by the State Department and liberal megadonor George Soros.
āWe are gravely concerned about this investigation, for which we see no basis,ā Kent wrote the Ukrainian prosecutorās office in April 2016. You canĀ read the letter here.
So even without Lutsenkoās claim, there is substantial evidence that the U.S. embassy in Kiev applied pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors not to pursue certain investigations in 2016.
Myth: The narratives about Biden, the U.S. embassy and Ukrainian election interference are conspiracy theories invented by Donald Trumpās personal lawyer, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to impact the 2020 election.
The Facts: Giuliani began investigating matters in Ukraine in late fall 2018 as a personal lawyer to the president. But months before his quest began, Ukrainian prosecutors believed they possessed evidence about Burisma, the Bidens and 2016 election interference that might interest the U.S. Justice Department. It is the same evidence that came to light this spring and summer and that is now a focus of the impeachment proceedings.
Originally, one of Ukraineās senior prosecutors tried to secure a visa to come to the United States to deliver that evidence. But when the U.S. embassy in Kiev did not fulfill his travel request, the group of Ukrainian prosecutors used an intermediary to hire a former U.S. attorney in America to reach out to the U.S. attorney office in New York and try to arrange a transfer of the evidence. The Ukrainian prosecutorsā story about making the overture to the DOJ was independently verified by the American lawyer they hired.
So the activities and allegation now at the heart of impeachment actually pre-date Giuliani starting work on Ukraine. You can read the prosecutorsā account of their 2018 effort to get this information to AmericansĀ here.
Solomon speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
John F. SolomonĀ is an American media executive, and a conservative political commentator. He was an editorialist and executive vice president of digital video forĀ The Hill[1]Ā and as of October 2019, is a contributor toĀ Fox News.[2]Ā He was formerly employed as an executive and as editor-in-chief atĀ The Washington Times.[3]
While he won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism in the 1990s and 2000s,[4][5]Ā he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.[6][7][8]Ā DuringĀ Donald Trump’s presidency, he has been known for advancing Trump-friendly stories. He played a role in advancing conspiracy theories about wrongdoing involvingĀ Joe Biden, his sonĀ Hunter BidenĀ andĀ Ukraine; Solomon’s stories about the Bidens influenced President Trump to request that the Ukrainian president launch an investigation into 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which led to anĀ impeachment inquiryĀ into President Trump.[2]
Contents
Career
Solomon graduated fromĀ Marquette UniversityĀ with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and sociology.[9]
From May 1987 to December 2006, Solomon worked at theĀ Associated Press, where he became the assistant bureau chief in Washington, helping to develop some of the organization’s first digital products, such as its online elections offering.
In February 2008, Solomon became editor-in-chief ofĀ The Washington Times.[10]Ā During this time, Solomon made a mission to make the paper’s coverage more objective while expanding its reach. Under Solomon, theĀ TimesĀ changed some of its style guide to conform to more mainstream media usage. TheĀ TimesĀ announced that it would no longer use words like “illegal aliens” and “homosexual,” and instead opt for “more neutral terminology” such as “illegal immigrants” and “gay,” respectively. The paper also decided to stop using “Hillary” when referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, and to stop putting the word “marriage” in the expression “gay marriage” in quotes.[11]Ā He also oversaw the redesign of the paper’s website and the launch of the paper’s national weekly edition. A new television studio was built in the paperāsĀ Washington DCĀ headquarters, and the paper also launched a syndicated three-hour morning-drive radio news program.[8]
Solomon left the paper in November 2009 after internal shakeups and financial uncertainty among the paper’s ownership.[12]
Return
After a three-and-a-half-year hiatus, most of which was spent atĀ Circa News, Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013 to oversee the newspaper’s content, digital and business strategies.[13]Ā He helped to craft digital strategies to expand online traffic, created new products and partnerships, and led a reorganization of the company’s advertising and sales team. He also helped launch a new subscription-only national edition targeted for tablets, cellphones and other mobile devices, and helped push a redesign of the paper’s website.
Solomon left the paper in December 2015 to serve asĀ chief creative officerĀ of the mobile news application Circa, which was relaunching at that time.[3]
Packard Media Group
Solomon was president of Packard Media Group from November 2009 to December 2015.[14]Ā Solomon also served as journalist in residence at theĀ Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit organization that specializes in investigative journalism, from March 2010 to June 2011.[8]Ā He was also named executive editor of the Center for Public Integrity in November 2010 and helped oversee the launch of iWatch News, but resigned quickly after to joinĀ Newsweek/The Daily BeastĀ in May 2011.[15][16][8]
Washington Guardian
In 2012, Solomon and former Associated Press executives Jim Williams and Brad Kalbfeld created theĀ Washington Guardian, an online investigative news portal. It was acquired byĀ The Washington TimesĀ when Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013.[3]
Circa
After leavingĀ The Washington Times, Solomon became chief creative officer forĀ Circa News. Circa is a mobile news application founded in 2011 that streams updates on big news events to users. In June 2015, it shut down, but its relaunch was announced after its acquisition byĀ Sinclair Broadcast Group.[3]
As chief of Circa, he wrote and published a number of political articles, often defending theĀ Trump administration[17]Ā andĀ Michael Flynn.[18]Ā He left in July 2017.
The Hill
Upon leaving Circa, Solomon became executive vice president of digital video forĀ The Hill.[1][19]Ā Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces forĀ The Hill.[19]Ā According to theĀ New York Times, Solomon tended to push narratives about alleged misdeeds by Trump’s political enemies.[20]
In October 2017, Solomon published an article inĀ The HillĀ about theĀ Uranium One controversyĀ where he insinuated that Russia made payments to theĀ Clinton FoundationĀ at the time when the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.[21]Ā Solomon’s story also focused on the alleged failures of the Department of Justice to investigate and report on the controversy, suggesting a cover-up.[21]Ā Subsequent to Solomon’s reporting, the story “took off like wildfire in the right-wing media ecosystem,” according to a 2018 study by scholars at theĀ Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society,Ā Harvard University.[21]Ā No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrongdoing has surfaced.[21]
In January 2018, it was reported that newsroom staffers atĀ The HillĀ had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[22][23][24]Ā The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this underminedĀ The Hill‘s reputation.[22][23]Ā They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship withĀ Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[22]Ā In May 2018, the editor-in-chief ofĀ The HillĀ announced that Solomon would become an “opinion contributor” atĀ The HillĀ while remaining executive vice president of digital video.[19]Ā He frequently appeared on Fox News, which continued to describe him as an investigative reporter, even after he became an opinion contributor for the Hill.[24]
Pro-Donald Trump opinion pieces
Solomon published a story alleging that women who had accused Trump of sexual assault had sought payments from partisan donors and tabloids.[24]
On June 19, 2019,Ā The HillĀ published an opinion piece written by Solomon alleging that the FBI andĀ Robert MuellerĀ disregarded warnings that evidence used against Paul Manafort may have been faked.[25]Ā His source was Nazar Kholodnytsky, a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor, andĀ Konstantin Kilimnik, who has been linked to Russian intelligence and who happens to be Paul Manafort’s former business partner.[26]
In April 2019,Ā The HillĀ published two opinion pieces by Solomon regarding allegations by Ukrainian officials that “American Democrats” and particularly former Vice-PresidentĀ Joe BidenĀ of collaborating with “their allies in Kiev” in “wrongdoing…ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes.”[27][28]Ā Solomon’s stories attracted attention in conservative media.[23]Ā Fox News frequently covered Solomon’s claims;[29]Ā Solomon also promoted these allegations on Sean Heannity’s Fox News show.[23]Ā According toĀ The Washington PostĀ Solomon’s pieces “played an important role in advancing a flawed, Trump-friendly tale of corruption in Ukraine, particularly involving Biden and his son Hunter”, and inspired “the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to pressure Ukraineās government into digging up dirt on Trumpās Democratic rivals.”[23]Ā On the same day thatĀ The Washington PostĀ published its article,Ā The HillĀ published another opinion piece by Solomon in which Solomon states that there are “(h)undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents…(that) conflict with Bidenās narrative.”[30]
Solomon’s stories had significant flaws.[23][20]Ā Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as “an outright fabrication”, but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon’s claim.[23][20]Ā Foreign PolicyĀ noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon’s claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31]Ā Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he wasĀ reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20]Ā By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23]Ā There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32]Ā WNYC characterized Solomon’s Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]
Prior to the publication of a story where Solomon alleged that the Obama administration had pressured the Ukrainian government to stop investigating a group funded by George Soros, Solomon sent the full text of his report to Ukrainian-American businessmanĀ Lev ParnasĀ and the two pro-Trump lawyers and conspiracy theoristsĀ Joseph diGenovaĀ andĀ Victoria Toensing.[34]Ā Solomon said he did so for fact-checking, but Parnas, DiGenova and Toensing were not mentioned in the text, nor did Solomon send individual items of the draft for vetting (but rather the whole draft).[34]
During October 2019 hearings for theĀ impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, two government officials experienced in Ukraine matters āĀ Alexander VindmanĀ andĀ George KentĀ ā testified that Ukraine-related articles Solomon had written and that were featured in conservative media circles contained a “false narrative” and in some cases were “entirely made up in full cloth.”[35][36]
Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate ofĀ Rudy GiulianiĀ ā the personal attorney of President Trump ā who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas, “No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle.” Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]
Advertising controversy
Solomon was accused of breaking the traditional ethical “wall” that separated news stories from advertising atĀ The Hill. In October 2017, Solomon negotiated a $160,000 deal with a conservative group calledĀ Job Creators NetworkĀ to target ads inĀ The HillĀ to business owners in Maine. He then had a quote from the group’s director inserted into a news story about a Maine senator’s key role in an upcoming vote on the Trump administration’s tax bill. Solomon āpops by the advertising bullpen almost daily to discuss big deals heās about to close,” Johanna Derlega, thenĀ The Hillās publisher, wrote in an internal memo at the time, according toĀ Pro Publica. “If a media reporter gets ahold of this story, it could destroy us.”[2]
Departure
In September 2019, theĀ Washington ExaminerĀ reported that Solomon would leaveĀ The HillĀ at the end of the month to start his own media firm.[37]Ā In October 2019, it was reported he was joining Fox News as an opinion contributor.[38]
Reception
Paul McCleary, writing for theĀ Columbia Journalism ReviewĀ in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[7]Ā In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for theĀ Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon “has a history of bending the truth to his storyline,” and that he “was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”[8][23]Ā During the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Thomas Lang wrote for theĀ Columbia Journalism ReviewĀ that a Solomon story for the Associated Press covered criticism of John Kerry’s record on national security appeared to mirror a research report released by theĀ Republican National Committee. Lang wrote that Solomon’s story was “a clear demonstration of the influence opposition research is already having on coverage of the [presidential] campaign.”[39][40]
The Washington PostĀ wrote in September 2019 that Solomon’s “recent work has been trailed by claims that it is biased and lacks rigor.”[23]Ā The PostĀ noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.[23]Ā According toĀ Foreign PolicyĀ magazine, Solomon had “grown into a prominent conservative political commentator with a somewhat controversial track record.”[31]
In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman atĀ The Washington PostĀ criticized a story that Solomon wrote forĀ The PostĀ which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidateĀ John EdwardsĀ in a real estate purchase; Solomon’s reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[6]Ā ProgressiveĀ news outletsĀ ThinkProgress,Ā Media Matters for AmericaĀ andĀ Crooked MediaĀ have argued that Solomon’s reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[41][42][43]Ā According toĀ The Intercept,Ā Just SecurityĀ and The Daily Beast, Solomon helps to advance right-wing and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.[26][24][44]Ā The New Republic described Solomon’s columns for the Hill as “right-wing fever dreams.”[45]Ā Independent journalistĀ Marcy WheelerĀ accused Solomon of manufacturing fake scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes intoĀ Russian interference in the 2016 election.[46]Ā Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[8]
In January 2018, Solomon published a report forĀ The HillĀ suggesting thatĀ Peter StrzokĀ and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of aĀ Wall Street JournalĀ article and that they themselves had leaked to theĀ Wall Street Journal.[47]Ā According to theĀ Huffington Post, Solomon’s reporting omitted that theĀ Wall Street JournalĀ article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to theĀ Huffington Post, “Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week.”[47]
Story 2: Illegal Alien Invasion Continues and Democrats Continue To Support Open Borders and Citizenship For All 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Now In The United States — Democrats More Concerned With Illegal Aliens Than Welfare of American People — The Great Betrayal of The American People By The Political Elitist Establishment of Both Big Government Parties —Ā Videos
Former ICE Director Has to Explain to Democrat That Crossing the Border Illegally is a Crime
Homan slams Dems, says Americans need to hear the truth about border
Former ICE acting director Thomas Homan discusses speaking in front of a House subcommittee on the border crisis and says he wonāt stand for Congressmembers speaking ill about ICE workers
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
9
![Everyone gets a mention: Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator was asked to stand, while Trump claimed that Grassley had 'made [James] Comey choke like a dog'](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/15/21/23442700-7889301-Everyone_gets_a_mention_Chuck_Grassley_the_Iowa_senator_was_aske-a-5_1579124268848.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19367722/twitter_share.jpg)
2
+13
+13
+13
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3HNCOEIPQ5BSXD4BLOWAM4SJGQ.jpg)
.jpg)
_06.jpg)
Ā 
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1399, February 14, 2020, Story 1: Department of Justice Will Not Prosecute Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe — When are U.S. Attorney John Durham Indictments Coming Down for Illegally Syping on Trump Campaign? — Summer or 12th of Never — Will Justice Be Done — Videos — Story 2: Department of Justice Unseals 16-Count Indictment Against Huawei To Steal Trade Secrets of Six U.S. Companies — VideosĀ — Story 3: Just Walk Away From Two Party Tyranny Big Government Parties — Walk Away Renee — Videos
Posted on February 16, 2020. Filed under: 2020 President Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Applications, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Computers, Congress, Consitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Michael Bloomber, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Security, Software, Spying, Spying on American People, Subversion, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending | Tags: 14 February 2020, 1966Walk Away Renee, America, American People, An old FBI business card isn't a 'get out of jail free card', Andrew McCabe walking free is 'a total injustice', Articles, Attorney General Bill Barr, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspiracy, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Corruption in Washington, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Department of Justice Unseals 16-Count Indictment Against Huawei To Steal Trade Secrets of Six U.S. Companies, Department of Justice Will Not Prosecute Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Following Orders, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, George Carlin, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Johnny Mathis - 12th of Never, Just Walk Away From Two Party Tyranny Big Government Parties -, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, Music, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Roger Stone, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Ruling Elites, S;pygate, Should officials who started the Russia probe be worrying?, Show Notes, Song, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1399, Truth, Two Party Tyrannin, Two Tier Justice System, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, ust Walk Away From Two Party Tyranny Big Government Parties, Videos, Virtue, Walk Away Renee, War, When Are U.S. Attorney John Durham Indictments Coming Down For Illegally Syping On Trump Campaign?, When are U.S. Attorney John Durham Indictments Coming Down? -- Summer or 12th of Never, Why is the DOJ Editing "302" Interviews They Had With General Flynn?, Will Justice Be Done, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019Ā
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019
Story 1: Department of Justice Will Not Prosecute Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe — When are U.S. Attorney John Durham Indictments Coming Down for Illegally Syping on Trump Campaign? — Summer or 12th of Never — Will Justice Be Done — Videos
FBI Director Confirms to Ratcliffe that FBI Illegally Surveilled Trump Campaign Associate
Gohmert in Judiciary Hearing on FBI Oversight: “This is Serious”
Hannity: Democrats’ unequal standard of justice exposed
Trish Regan: Andrew McCabe walking free is ‘a total injustice’
Gaetz: An old FBI business card isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card’
Trump notably quiet on DOJ decision not to prosecute Andrew McCabe
Bannon: GOP has to subpoena John Brennan, Adam Schiff
DOJ Declines To Prosecute Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC
‘General Flynn was set up’: KT McFarland
IG report hearing part 4: Lindsey Graham questions Michael Horowitz
Cruz on spying: This wasn’t Jason Bourne, this was ‘Beavis and Butt-head’
Dec 11, 2019
Tom Fitton: Why is the DOJ Editing “302” Interviews They Had With General Flynn?
Sebastian Gorka Radio: Trust Bill Barr and John Durham. Matt Whitaker with Sebastian Gorka
Hans von Spakovsky: CIA Director Haspel is Obligated to Comply with the Durham Investigation
Spygate Indictments Coming, Says Former Intelligence Operative Tony Shaffer
Fitton: Ohr 302s show ‘disturbing’ desperation to oust Trump
Tucker Carlson – Trump’s Claims of Spying
Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign?
FBI Trump campaign spying allegations: How much did Obama know?
Roger Stone reacts to reports FBI spied on Trump campaign
DiGenova: Comey, Clapper and Brennan will have to pay the ‘Barr bill’
Watch Barr double down on Trump spying claims in heated exchange
FBI chief: No evidence of spying on Trump campaign
Barr: ‘I think spying did occur’ on Trump campaign
Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges
Should Obama be investigated over Trump wiretapping claims?
Former FBI agent says his privacy was violated by Justice Dept.
AG Barr appoints outside prosecutor to review Michael Flynn case
Should officials who started the Russia probe be worrying?
Russia origins probe now a criminal investigation
Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges
Johnny Mathis – 12th of Never
Why Wasnāt Andrew McCabe Charged?
ByĀ ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
The proof that he willfully deceived investigators appears strong, but the Justice Department likely felt there were too many obstacles to convicting him.
TheĀ Justice Department announced Friday that it is closing itsĀ investigation of Andrew McCabe, the FBIās former deputy director, over his false statements to investigators probing an unauthorized leak that McCabe had orchestrated. McCabe was fired in March 2018, shortly after a blistering Justice Department inspector general (IG)Ā reportĀ concluded that he repeatedly and blatantly lied ā or, as the Bureau lexicon puts it, ālacked candorā ā when questioned, including under oath.
I emphasize Flynnās intent because purported lack of intent is McCabeās principal defense, too.Ā Even McCabe himself, to say nothing of his lawyers and his apologists in the anti-Trump network of bureaucrats-turned-pundits, cannot deny that he made false statements to FBI agents and the IG. Rather, they argue that the 21-year senior law-enforcement official did not mean to lie, that he was too distracted by his high-level responsibilities to focus on anything as mundane as a leak ā even though he seemed pretty damned focused on the leak while he was orchestrating it.
It will be a while before we learn the whole story of why the Justice Department walked away from the McCabe case, if we ever do. I have some supposition to offer on that score. First, however, it is worth revisiting the case against McCabe as outlined by the meticulous and highly regarded IG, Michael Horowitz. If you want to know why people are so angry, and why they are increasingly convinced that, for all President Trumpās ādrain the swampā rhetoric, a two-tiered justice system that rewards the well-connected is alive and well, consider the following.
In fact, the Bureauās then-director, James Comey, had tried to keep the Clinton Foundation probe under wraps, refusing to confirm or deny its existence even to the House Judiciary Committee. Comey had been right to stay mum: Public revelation would have harmed the probe and thrust the FBI deeper into the politics of the then-imminent 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate and her investigation by the Bureau was an explosive campaign issue.
Notwithstanding these concerns, according to Horowitzās report, McCabe orchestrated the leak āto advance his personal interestsā ā to paint himself in a favorable light in comparison to Justice Department officials amid an internal dispute about the Clinton Foundation probe (specifically, about theĀ Obama Justice Departmentās pressure on the Bureau to drop it). As the IG put it: āMcCabeās disclosure was an attempt to make himself look good by making senior department leadership . . . look bad.ā
McCabeās account has been contradicted by Comey, a witness who is otherwise sympathetic to him and hostile to the Trump Justice Department, and whose actions ā like his ā are being examined in prosecutor John Durhamās probe of the Trump-Russia investigation. Comeyās testimony is directly at odds with McCabeās version of events, and the IG painstakingly explained why the former directorās version was credible while his deputyās was not. (Comey was, nevertheless, exceedingly complimentary of McCabeĀ after the IG report was published.)
Page is regarded by McCabe backers as key to his defense. SheĀ reportedly told the grand juryĀ that, because McCabe had authority to approve media disclosures, he hadĀ no motive to lieĀ about the leak. Thatās laughable. McCabe did serially mislead investigators, so plainly he had some reason for doing so. But even putting that aside, the IGās conclusion was not that McCabe lacked authority to leak; it was that he lacked a public-interest justification for exercising that authority. He leaked for self-promotion purposes, and then he lied about it because it was humiliating to be caught putting his personal interests ahead of the Bureauās investigative integrity. That said, Pageās account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: Itās tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant. (Oh, and have you seenĀ Pageās tweet toasting McCabeĀ in the aftermath of the news that the DOJ had closed the investigation?)
McCabeās Multiple False Statements
BarrettāsĀ JournalĀ article appeared on October 30, 2016. The very next day, McCabe deceived Comey about it, indicating that he had not authorized the leak and had no idea who its source was. In Comeyās telling, credited by the IG, McCabe ādefinitelyā did not acknowledge that he had approved the leak.
Thereafter, the FBIās Inspection Division (INSD) opened an investigation of the leak. On May 9, 2017, McCabe denied to two INSD investigators that he knew the source of the leak. This was not a fleeting conversation. McCabe was placed under oath, and the INSD agents provided him with a copy of Barrettās article. He read it and initialed it to acknowledge that he had done so. He was questioned about it by the agents, who took contemporaneous notes. McCabe told the agents that he had āno idea where [the leaked information] came fromā or āwho the source was.ā
On July 28, 2017, McCabe was interviewed by the IGās office ā under oath and recorded on tape. In that session, he preposterously claimed to be unaware that Page, his FBI counsel, was directed to speak to reporters around the time of the October 30Ā JournalĀ report. McCabe added that he was out of town then, and thus unaware of what Page had been up to. In point of fact, McCabe had consulted closely with Page about the leak. A paper trail of their texts and phone contacts evinced his keen interest in Pageās communications with Barrett. Consequently, the IG concluded that McCabeās denials were ādemonstrably false.ā
Clearly concerned about the hole he had dug for himself, McCabe called the IGās office four days later, on August 1, 2017, to say that, shucks, come to think of it, he just might have kinda, sorta told Page to speak with Barrett after all. He might even have told her to coordinate with Mike Kortan, then the Bureauās top media liaison, and follow-up with theĀ JournalĀ aboutĀ some of its prior reporting.
As the IG observed, this āattempt to correct his prior false testimonyā was the āappropriateā thing for McCabe to do. Alas, when he was given an opportunity to come in and explain himself, he compounded his misconduct by making more false statements while under oath: In an interview with investigators on November 29, 2017, McCabe purported to recall informing Comey that he, McCabe,Ā hadĀ authorized the leak, and that Comey had responded that the leak was a good idea.
These were quite stunning recollections, given that the deputy director had previously disclaimed any knowledge about the source of the leak. But McCabe took care of that little hiccup by simply denying his prior denial. That is, he insisted that he had not feigned ignorance about the leak when INSD interviewed him on May 9. Indeed, McCabe even denied that the May 9 interview had been a real interview. To the contrary, he claimed that agents had casually pulled him aside at the conclusion of a meeting on an unrelated topic, and peppered him out of the blue with a question or two about theĀ JournalĀ leak. As General Flynn could tell you, that sort of thing can be tough on a busy top U.S. government official . . . although Flynn did not get much sympathy for it when McCabe was running the FBI.
Again, the IG concluded that McCabeās version of events was ādemonstrably false.ā
McCabe Covers His Tracks
As an old trial lawyer, Iād be remiss if I failed to rehearse my favorite part of the IGās report ā the part that would tell a jury everything they needed to know about good olā Andy McCabe.
Again, theĀ JournalĀ story generated by McCabeās leak was published on October 30, a Sunday. Late that afternoon, McCabe called the head of the FBIās Manhattan office. Why? Well . . . to ream him out over media leaks, thatās why. McCabe railed that New York agents must be the culprits. He also made a similar call to the Bureauās Washington field office, warning its chief to āget his house in orderā and stop these terribly damaging leaks.
It is worth remembering McCabeās October 30 scolding of subordinates when you think about how he later claimed that, on the very next day, heād freely admitted to his superior, Comey, that he himself was the source of the leak. Quite the piece of work, this guy: To throw the scent off himself after carefully arranging the leak, McCabe dressed down the FBIās two premier field offices, knowing they were completely innocent, and then pretended for months that he knew nothing about the leak.
This is the second-highest-ranking officer of the nationās top law-enforcement agency weāre talking about, here.
The Non-Prosecution Decision
We may never get a satisfying explanation for the Justice Departmentās decision to drop the McCabe probe. Thatās the way it is when such complicated reasons and motives are at play.
The aforementioned challenge of hostile witnesses is not to be underestimated. In addition, there are growing indications that the Justice Department had lost confidence in the U.S. attorney who was overseeing the probe, Jesse Liu.Ā As I noted this week, while Liu was once seen as a rising Trump administration star, she was quietly edged out of her post last month, and the White House just pulled her nomination to fill an important Treasury Department post.
There have been rumblings that the McCabe investigation was botched. Kamil Shields, a prosecutor whoĀ reportedlyĀ grew frustrated by her supervisorsā inordinate delays in making decisions about the McCabe probe, ultimately left the Justice Department to take a private-practice job. Another prosecutor, David Kent, quit last summer as DOJ dithered over the decision on whether to prosecute. Things became so drawn out that the investigating grand juryās term lapsed. Meanwhile, the Justice Department endorsed Liuās aggressive decision to bring a thin, politically fraught false-statements case against former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig, in connection with lobbying for a foreign country ā the sort of crime that is rarely prosecuted.Ā Craig was swiftly acquitted. Reportedly,Ā Liu advocated charging McCabe, but the DOJ may have harbored doubts about her judgment.
No matter the outcome, the Justice Department stood to take some hits if McCabe had been charged. Focus on McCabeās leak would have drawn attention to pressure DOJ officials had put on the Bureau over the Clinton Foundation investigation (which,Ā reportedly, is likely to be closed without charges). It would also renew interest in the question of whether the FBI improperly allowed McCabe to play a role in Clinton-related investigations when his wife, as a political candidate, got major funding from Clinton-tied sources.
Moreover, new Freedom of Information Act disclosures ā made to meet a deadline set by District Judge Reggie Walton, which may explain the timing of the non-prosecution announcement ā indicate that the Justice Department and FBI did notĀ comply with regulationsĀ in what appears to be the rushed termination of McCabe, adding heft to the former deputy directorās claim that he was being singled out for abusive treatment, potentially including prosecution, because of vengeful politics.
On that score, Judge Walton took pains to decry the fusillade of tweets directed at McCabe by President Trump. I must note here that if a district U.S. attorney publicly labeled as a liar a suspect the Justice Department had indicted for false statements, that U.S. attorney would be sanctioned by the court. The U.S. attorneys, like the rest of the Justice Department, work for Trump. The president is correct when he insists,Ā as he did this week, that he has the constitutional power to intervene in Justice Department matters.Ā But that means he is subject to the same legal obligations that inhibit his Justice Department subordinates.Ā Those obligations include protecting McCabeās right to a fair trial ā a duty the president may chafe at, but which is part of the deal when you take an oath to preserve the Constitution and execute the laws faithfully.
If you envision Judge Walton as part of the Obama-appointed robed resistance, check your premises. He is a no-nonsense jurist originally named to the D.C. Superior Court by President Reagan, and then to the federal district court by President George W. Bush.Ā AsĀ PoliticoĀ reports, he had this to say about President Trumpās commentary on the McCabe investigation:
If you want to know why Attorney General Barr was warning this week that the presidentās tweets are undermining the Justice Departmentās pursuit of its law-enforcement mission, Judge Waltonās words are worth heeding.Ā I have been making this point since the start of the Trump presidency. If you want people held accountable for their crimes, you have to ensure their fundamental right to due process. When the government poisons the well, the bad guys reap the benefits.
Finally, we must note that when the District of Columbia is the venue for any prosecution with political overtones, Justice Department charging decisions must factor in the jury pool, which is solidly anti-Trump.
The proof that McCabe willfully deceived investigators appears strong ā it is noteworthy that IG Horowitz, who has strained to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt in many dubious contexts, was unequivocal in slamming McCabe. Nevertheless, a D.C. jury would be weighing that evidence, as discounted by whatever pro-McCabe slant reluctant prosecution witnesses put on it. And the jury would be weighing against that evidence (a) whatever problems caused prosecutors at the U.S. attorneyās office to beg off, and more significantly, (b) defense arguments that McCabe would not have been fired or prosecuted if not for the fact that he had gotten crosswise with a president of the United States whom at least some of the jurors are apt to dislike.
McCabe is not out of the woods yet, of course: The Durham investigation is a separate matter, and it is continuing. But it is unclear whether he will face any criminal charges arising from that inquiry, whereas the now-dead-and-buried false-statements case against him looked cut-and-dried.
The FBIās former deputy director, though he undeniably misled investigators, remains a commentator at CNN. In the meantime, Papadopoulos is a felon convicted and briefly imprisoned for misleading investigators, while Flynn and Stone are awaiting sentencing on their false-statements charges. That covers both tiers of our justice system.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/
US wonāt charge ex-FBI official McCabe, a Trump target
WASHINGTON (AP) ā Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether the longtime target of President Donald Trumpās ire lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabeās legal team said Friday.
The decision, coming at the end of a tumultuous week between the Justice Department and the White House, is likely to further agitate a president who has loudly complained that federal prosecutors have pursued cases against his allies but not against his perceived political enemies.
The case was handled by the U.S. attorneyās office in Washington, which was at the center of a public rift with Justice Department leadership this week over the recommended sentence for Trump ally Roger Stone. Senior Justice Department officials overruled a decision on a recommended prison sentence that they felt was too harsh, prompting the trial team to quit the case. Attorney General William Barr also took a rare public swipe at Trump by saying in a television interview that the presidentās tweets about the Stone case and other matters were making his job āimpossible.ā
Separately, the Justice Department has begun reviewing the handling of the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.
On Friday, prosecutors notified McCabeās attorneys in a phone call and a letter that they were closing the case. The letter, signed by the chief of the officeās public corruption unit, did not give a precise reason but said the decision was reached after ācareful considerationā and ābased on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time.ā
McCabeās lawyers, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, said they were gratified by the decision.
āAt long last, justice has been done in this matter,ā the lawyers said in a statement. āWe said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought.ā
Speaking Friday on CNN, where he works as a contributor, McCabe said it was an āabsolute disgraceā that the investigation had taken so long and that he was relieved to be done with a process that he described as āso unbelievably tense.ā
Though federal prosecutors wrote that they consider the matter closed, Justice Department actions in the last few months have proven unpredictable, with a willingness to scrutinize or revisit decisions that had appeared resolved.
McCabe, a frequent target of Trumpās attacks, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing ā for what the Justice Department called ālack of candorā ā was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector generalās conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him.
The decision is likely to further exacerbate tensions between Trump and Barr, who before speaking out in the television interview had privately complained to aides and the president himself that Trumpās comments about the Justice Department were undercutting his political agenda and raising questions about the departmentās credibility. The White House was not given a heads-up about the decision beforehand, a person familiar with the matter said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
The moment came against a backdrop of growing anger from Trump at the Justice Department. The president has seethed that more of his political enemies have not been charged, included former FBI Director James Comey and his associates.
The president was particularly incensed no charges were filed over Comeyās handling of memos about his interactions with Trump, a matter that was referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, according to a White House official and Republican close to the White House who werenāt authorized to speak publicly about private discussions and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The president angrily denounced the decision and berated Barr over it, according to the officials. Aides expected that the decision not to charge McCabe could produce a similar eruption of rage. Trump did not address the matter during a media appearance Friday.
Trump has also repeatedly complained about FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months, saying he has not done enough to rid the bureau of people who are disloyal to Trump.
It was not immediately clear what had prompted a review of the Flynn case, though the person familiar with the matter said U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of St. Louis was working on it. The New York Times first reported Jensenās involvement.
The decision to spare McCabe criminal charges eliminates the prospect of a sensational trial that would have refocused public attention on the chaotic months of 2016, when the FBI was entangled in presidential politics through investigations touching both main contenders ā Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, her Republican opponent.
The criminal investigation arose from an October 2016 story in The Wall Street Journal that described internal debates roiling the FBI and the Justice Department weeks before the presidential election about how aggressively the Clinton Foundation should be investigated. The article recounted a particularly tense phone call between McCabe and a senior Justice Department official.
The inspector generalās report said McCabe told internal investigators that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to speak with the reporter and that he did not know who did. The report said McCabe ultimately corrected that account and confirmed that he had encouraged the conversation with the reporter to counter a narrative that he thought was false.
McCabe has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was distracted by the tumult surrounding the FBI and the White House during the times he was questioned. One of the interviews took place the same day that Comey was fired.
āDuring these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me,ā McCabe has said in a statement. āAnd when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.ā
McCabe has been a target of Trumpās attacks since even before he was elected, after news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabeās wife had accepted campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with ex-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe during an unsuccessful run for the state Senate there.
https://apnews.com/ec85aa4a4fdc5a36b7b85c7a34f1b8f9
DOJ drops leak case vs. McCabe, judge said White House involvement like a ‘banana republic’
Andrew McCabe, acting director of the FBI, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington on May 11, 2017.Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
The Department of Justice has told lawyers for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that he will not face criminal charges for allegedly lying to investigators about a leak to the media, the ex-official’s attorneys said Friday.
The decision was released on the same day it was revealed that a federal judge had expressed concerns months ago that McCabe’s case was looking like a “banana republic” prosecution.
“We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client,ā J.P. Cooney of the U.S. Attorneyās Office in Washington, D.C., told McCabeās attorneys inĀ a letterĀ Friday. āBased on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time, we consider the matter closed.ā
McCabe’s lawyers Michael R. Bromwich and David Schertler responded in a statement, saying, “At long last, justice has been done in this matter.”
Did a secret grand jury refuse to indict Andrew McCabe?
SEPT. 13, 201904:20
President Donald Trump had publicly urged that action be taken against McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who briefly became acting head of the agency after Trump fired James Comey in 2017.
“He LIED! LIED! LIED!” Trump wrote in one 2018 tweet about McCabe after the Justice Department’s inspector general found McCabe “lacked candor” when being interviewed about whether he was a source for two news articles pertaining to the FBI in 2016.
The Justice Department’s announcement came one day after Attorney General William BarrĀ pushed back against criticismĀ he’s using the department to do Trump’s bidding, and said Trump’s tweeting about his agency’s work was undercutting his authority.
“Public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity,” Barr, who was sworn in a year ago Friday, told ABC News.
McCabe told CNN on Friday that “the timing is curious” but he was relieved that the Justice Department “did the right thing today.”
“To have this horrific black cloud that’s been hanging over me and my family for almost the last two years, to have that finally lifted is just unbelievable,” he said. “It’s a relief that I’m not sure I can really explain to you adequately. It’s just a very emotional moment for my whole family.”
McCabe has denied intentionally misleading investigators. He told CNN that he has maintained from the day the inspector general’s report came out that if investigators “followed the law and they followed the facts, that I would have nothing to worry about. But as the president’s interest in pursuing his perceived political enemies continued over the last two years, we were getting more and more concerned about where this would end up.”
Those worries had increased in recent days, he told the network.
“I’ve been greatly concerned by what I’ve seen take place in the White House and in the Department of Justice, quite frankly, in the last week,” McCabe said. “And certainly the president’s kind ofĀ revenge tiradeĀ following his acquittal in the impeachment proceeding has only kind of amplified my concerns about what would happen in my own case.”
The Justice Department’s decision came the same day it was required by a judge to make details about the McCabe investigation public in a case stemming from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The court transcripts, released after the Justice Department’s letter to McCabe’s lawyers, show prosecutors struggling with how to proceed in his case, and the judge in the matter expressing concerns about political pressure
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-drops-leak-case-against-former-fbi-acting-head-n1137066
Story 2: Department of Justice Unseals 16-Count Indictment Against Huawei To Steal Trade Secrets of Six U.S. Companies — VideosĀ
New U.S. charges against Huawei
The US DOJ and the FBI have announced a 16 count indictment against Huawei
Huawei faces new charges in US
US charges Huawei with racketeering
Is America right to fear Huawei? | The Economist
DOJ announces criminal charges against Huawei
DOJ announces indictments against China’s Huawei
Prosecutors Hit Huawei With New Charges For Allegedly Working With Iran | NBC News NOW
U.S. unveils new charges against Chinese telecom giant Huawei
Riley Walters: Trump Can Be Tough on Huawei and Keep Negotiating on Trade With China
Live: Huawei CEO speaks on ‘averting tech war’ at Davos
Extradition hearing begins for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou
Does China have a backdoor to your phone?
Huawei: Rises After US Ban
Meng extradition case: What you should know | Vancouver Sun
Special Report: Huawei – Connected & Contested
Huawei probed for security, espionage risk
Investment in US tech will reduce Huawei threat: Secretary of the Army
[youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UtzbA0qQgM]
DOJ hits Huawei with NEW charges for ‘plotting to steal trade secrets’ from SIX US companies including Cisco and T-Mobile by ‘offering employees cash bounties and sending spy with farcical ‘Weihua’ badge to trade shows’
ByĀ ANDREW COURTĀ andĀ KEITH GRIFFITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COMĀ andĀ WIRES
PUBLISHED:|Ā UPDATED:
The Department of Justice has announced new criminal charges against Huawei, accusing the Chinese tech giant of being engaged in a ‘decades-long’ effort to steal trade secrets from a slew of US companies.
The 16-count superseding indictment unsealed on Thursday adds RICO charges to the criminal case againstĀ Huawei and its CFO Meng Wanzhoua, who is currently fighting extradition in Canada.
The charges come in addition to previous criminal charges accusing Huawei and Wanzhoua of operating a secret subsidiary in Iran and lying to U.S. financial institutions about the violation of sanctions on that country.
The new charges detail a brazen decades-long scheme to steal trade secrets from at least six U.S. companies. Cisco and T-Mobile are among the alleged victims in the case, though the companies are not actually named in the new indictment.
Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei is seen with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015. US officials accuse the company of building a secret back door into its mobile network hardware
Prosecutors say that in 2013, Huawei instituted a cash bounty program ‘to reward employees who obtained confidential information from competitors’ and that the more valuable the secrets were, the more the company paid out.
The indictment details a shocking incident from 2004, at a trade show in Chicago, where prosecutors say a Huawei employee was busted in the middle of the night while breaking into a competitor’s booth.
The employee was wearing a bogus badge identifying him as an employee of ‘Weihua’, which is the syllables of Huawei reversed, and was caught taking pictures of the interior circuit boards of a competitor’s product, according to the indictment.
A Huawei spokesman denied the allegations, saying that the indictment was ‘part of an attempt to irrevocably damage Huawei’s reputation and its business for reasons related to competition rather than law enforcement.’
The company called the racketeering accusation ‘nothing more than a contrived repackaging of a handful of civil allegations that are almost 20 years old.’
Huawei pleaded not guilty to the earlier indictment unsealed against the company in January 2019, which charged it with bank and wire fraud, violating sanctions against Iran, and obstructing justice.
Wanzhoua, the CFO, was arrested in December 2018 in Canada on charges in the prior indictment, but she has protesting her innocence and fighting extradition to the US. She is the daughter of Huawei’s founder and CEO, 75-year-old Ren Zengfei.
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhoua was arrested in December 2018 in Canada on charges in the initial Department of Justice indictment against the Chinese tech company. She is protesting her innocence and fighting extradition to the US.Ā She is pictured wearing a court-ordered ankle monitor last month
The new indictment alsoĀ includes ‘new allegations about Huawei and its subsidiaries’ involvement in business and technology projects in countries subject to sanctions, such as Iran and North Korea’.
The DoJ asserts that the Chinese company even tired to cover up the fact they were doing business with such countries, by using code names. ‘A2’ reportedly referred to Iran, and ‘A9’ is alleged to have referred to North Korea.
The new indictment is the latest effort in a global campaign by the United States against the company, which Washington has warned could spy on customers for Beijing. The United States also placed Huawei on a trade blacklist last year, citing national security concerns.
‘The indictment paints a damning portrait of an illegitimate organization that lacks any regard for the law,’ U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr and vice chairman Mark Warner said in a joint statement.
The Republican and Democratic Senators called it ‘an important step in combating Huawei’s state-directed and criminal enterprise.’
In a statement on Tuesday, the DoJ alleges that Huawei’s ‘campaign’ to steal trade secrets from US competitors formed part of their global growth strategy.
The DoJ statement alleges that Huawei even launched a policy ‘instituting a bonus program to reward employees who misappropriated intellectual property from competitors.’
Prosecutors allege some Huawei employees entered into confidential agreements with the six US companies, before violating such agreements by then handing over the information to the Chinese tech giant.
Thus, the DoJ statements alleges that ‘Huawei’s efforts to steal trade secrets and other sophisticated US technology were successful.’
Trump administration officials, increasingly intent on preventing China from global technological domination, have urged allies not to use Huawei hardware
‘As a consequence of its campaign to steal this technology and intellectual property, Huawei was able to drastically cut its research and development costs and associated delays, giving the company a significant and unfair competitive advantage,’ the statement goes on to say.
The case was unsealed as the Trump administration is raising national security and surveillance concerns about Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer.
Huawei, one of the largest tech firms and a major telecom equipment maker, has been blacklisted by Washington amid concerns of its ties to the Chinese government and intelligence services.
New charges have been filed in the US against Huawei (Dominic Lipinski/PA)
Earlier this week, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien alleged that Huawei builds secret back doors into its hardware that allow it to covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world.
‘We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world,’ O’Brien told the Wall Street Journal.
US officials say that Huawei’s back door allows the company to access network data without the carrier’s knowledge, potentially giving the Chinese government a potent spy tool.
Huawei denied the allegations, telling the Journal that it ‘has never and will never do anything that would compromise or endanger the security of networks and data of its clients.’
The U.S. has long tried to convince its allies, such as the U.K. and Germany, to ban the use of Huawei telecom equipment in the building of 5G networks.
Ā Germany’s legislature is set to vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would allow Huawei full access to its 5G market if the company provides security guarantees.
WHO IS MENG WANZHOU?
Meng Wanzhou, 46,Ā is widely assumed to be the heiress of her billionaire father Ren Zhengfei who founded Huawei in 1987
Meng Wanzhou, also known as Sabrina Meng and Cathy Meng, is the daughter and eldest child of Huawei’s founder Ren Zhengfei, 74, by his first wife Meng Jun.
Billed as a ‘Red Princess’, the 47-year-old is widely assumed to be the heiress of her former Communist soldier father, who founded the world’s current second largest smartphone seller at the age of 43 with just 21,000 yuan (Ā£2,388).
Ms Meng, who is also the Vice-Chairman of Huawei, was ranked No. 12 by Frobes on the list of China’s most outstanding businesswomen in 2018.
She graduated from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in central China’s Wuhan city.
She worked in a bank for a year upon graduation before taking up a position at Huawei’s front desk in 1993 to answer phone calls.
Over the years, Ms Meng worked as the director of the international accounting department, CFO of Huawei’s Hong Kong branch office, president of the accounts management department and brought Huawei to its current success.
Ms Meng has a brother and a 20-year-old half-sister Annabel Yao who is a ballerina and debutante.
Annabel is said to be extremely international and have lived in Britain, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
She was one of the 19 young women to be presented at the 25th annual Bal des DĆ©butantes held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Paris in 2018.
Story 3: Just Walk Away From Two Party Tyranny Big Government Parties — Walk Away Renee — Videos
Walk Away Renee – The left Banke
The lot we used to pass by every day
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Still finds a way to haunt me, though they’re so small
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
George Carlin – It’s a Big Club and You Ain’t In It! The American Dream
Tucker: Our ruling class is authoritarian, not Trump
Federal budget deficit to hit $1 trillion in 2020: CBO forecast
Walk Away RenƩe + The Left Banke + Lyrics
George Carlin Politicians
The Left Banke
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Left BankeĀ is an AmericanĀ baroque popĀ band, formed inĀ New York CityĀ in 1965.[1]Ā They are best remembered for their two US hit singles, “Walk Away RenĆ©e” and “Pretty Ballerina“.[2]Ā The band often used what theĀ music pressĀ referred to as “baroque” string arrangements, which led to their music being variously termed as “Bach-rock” or “baroque rock“.[3]Ā The band’sĀ vocal harmoniesĀ borrowed from contemporaries such asĀ The Beatles,Ā The Zombies, and otherĀ British InvasionĀ groups.[1]
In 2004,Ā Rolling StoneĀ placed “Walk Away RenĆ©e” at #220 in its list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time“.[4]
Contents
History
1965ā69: early years and disbandment
The Left Banke was formed in 1965 and consisted ofĀ keyboard player/songwriterĀ Michael Brown,Ā drummer/singerĀ George Cameron,Ā bass guitarist/singerĀ Tom Finn,Ā singerĀ Steve MartinĀ (who also used the name Steve Martin Caro), andĀ drummerĀ Warren David-Schierhorst. Brown’s father,Ā Harry Lookofsky, a well-knownĀ sessionĀ violinist, ran a studio in New York and took an interest in the band’s music, acting asĀ producer,Ā managerĀ andĀ publisher.[5]After some initialĀ recording sessions, David-Schierhorst was ousted, with Cameron switching to drums and Jeff Winfield on guitar. Brown’s song, “Walk Away Renee”, was sold toĀ Smash Records, a subsidiary ofĀ Mercury Records, and became a huge hit in late 1966. The band’s secondĀ single, “Pretty Ballerina”, also written by Brown, charted in early 1967, and The Left Banke released anĀ albumĀ entitledĀ Walk Away Renee/Pretty Ballerina, by which time, Rick Brand had replaced Winfield on guitar.
Tension between Brown and the rest of the band soon began to surface. When “Walk Away Renee” belatedly became a hit, the original band had become inactive. Brown decided to capitalize on the single’s success by assembling a new version of The Left Banke for touring purposes, withĀ Bert SommerĀ onĀ lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member ofĀ Spinal Tap)Ā Michael McKeanĀ on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy”Ā b/wĀ “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group ofĀ session musicians.[6][7]Ā The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged theirĀ fan clubĀ to boycott the record,[8]Ā which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio andĀ Smash RecordsĀ ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group calledĀ The Cherry PeopleĀ and became a minor hit.[9]Ā McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & Shirley,Ā This Is Spinal Tap,Ā Better Call Saul).
In late 1967, the original group reunited and recorded more material, including the single “Desiree.” Brown left the group permanently shortly thereafter and was replaced for touring purposes by Emmett Lake. Cameron, Finn and Martin continued to record and tour, with Tom Feher replacing Lake on keyboards and writing half of the band’s new material. The songs recorded by various incarnations of the group in 1967 and 1968 were assembled into a secondĀ LP,Ā The Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a youngĀ Steven TylerĀ (who later became the lead singer ofĀ Aerosmith) on “Nice To See You”, “My Friend Today” and “Dark Is The Bark”. The band continued playing live in 1969, without Martin, but soon disbanded due to lack of success and financial problems. Later that same year, Brown and Martin reunited in the studio to record another single as The Left Banke, “Myrah” b/w “Pedestal”, which was their final single for Smash Records.
1971āpresent: various reunions
In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movieĀ Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single onĀ Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producerĀ Les FradkinĀ offered to produce the group for a project onĀ Bell Records. Although these sessions were not released at the time, one of the songs, “I Could Make It Last Forever”, composed by Fradkin and Diane Ellis, was released on Fradkin’sĀ Goin’ BackĀ soloĀ CDĀ in 2006. It was a rare recording since it featured Caro, Finn, Cameron and Brown, along with Brown’s father, violinist Harry Lookofsky. Fradkin sang and playedĀ 12-string guitarĀ on the sessions. In 1978, Martin, Cameron and Finn reunited as The Left Banke to record an album’s worth of material which unfortunately was not released at the time. However, a single from these 1978 sessions, “Queen of Paradise” (b/w “And One Day”), was released in late 1978 with modest success. The album was eventually issued byĀ Relix RecordsĀ in 1986 under the titleĀ Strangers on a TrainĀ (Voices CallingĀ in Europe). However, the album did little to restore the popularity of the group.
After leaving The Left Banke in 1967, Michael Brown helped form the band,Ā Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10]Ā The band released one self-titled album in 1969, which included a re-recording of The Left Banke song “Desiree”, before Brown left. Brown’s next project was the bandĀ Stories, featuring singerĀ Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100 charts.[5]Ā However, Brown had left the group after their 2nd album “About Us”, but before the success of “Brother Louie”. Brown’s next project was with The Beckies, although the band achieved only modest success and Brown soon left.
In 1992,Ā Mercury RecordsĀ released a Left BankeĀ compilationĀ titledĀ There’s Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966ā1969. It was intended to bring together the band’s entire recorded output from the years 1966 to 1969, although a 1969Ā outtakeĀ titled “Foggy Waterfall”, which had previously appeared on two earlier compilations, was not included.
In 1994, Michael Brown and his wife Yvonne Vitale produced and released an album titledĀ On This Moment. Between 2001 and 2006, Brown hosted a series of recording sessions at his home studio with Ian Lloyd (vocals), Tom Finn (bass guitar/vocals), Jim McAllister (guitar), and Jon Ihle (drums).[11]
In 2005,Ā Alice CooperĀ included a cover version of “Pretty Ballerina” on his albumĀ Dirty Diamonds. In 2006, ex-member ofĀ The BanglesĀ Susanna HoffsĀ andĀ Matthew Sweet, as Sid ‘n’ Susie, covered “She May Call You Up Tonight” for their first albumĀ Under the Covers, Vol. 1. In addition,Ā Stuart MurdochĀ of the bandĀ Belle and SebastianĀ has cited The Left Banke as one of the early influences on the sound of the band.[12]
Former guitarist Jeff Winfield died of complications from pneumonia on June 13, 2009, at age 60.[3]
2011ā12
The previous touring version of The Left Banke featured one original member, George Cameron. Initially, Tom Finn and George Cameron reformed The Left Banke in March 2011, tapping New York City’s Mike Fornatale (already a veteran of numerous other 60s band reunions, including The Monks and Moby Grape) to sing lead vocals in Steve Martin Caro’s stead. The reunited group also featured new players: Paul Alves (lead guitar, backing vocals), Charly Cazalet (bass), Mickey Finn (keyboards), Rick Reil (drums, percussion, backing vocals) and second keyboardist/synth player Joe McGinty (replaced by John Spurney in 2012). They appeared live at Joe’s Pub in New York City on March 5, 2011, and March 6, 2011, to sold-out audiences. In April 2011, Tom Finn revealed in a Facebook posting that he had reformed the group,[13]Ā with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15]Ā Tom Finn only performed with the re-formed group in 2011, after which he left due to disagreements with Cameron and due to back trouble.
In early 2011,Ā SundazedĀ released reissues of the two Smash vinyl albums on CD and LP, utilizing the original running order and artwork.
In February 2012, Tom Finn notified the YouTube community that the Left Banke was in the process of creating a new record featuring contributions from co-founder Michael Brown.
George Cameron (3rd from left) and Tom Finn (Center, 4th from left) with band during their 2012 reunion tour.
On April 29, 2012, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at B.B. King’s in New York City for a version of his “Pretty Ballerina.” His performance was greeted with a standing ovation. Rick Brand, guitarist with the band in 1966-67 was also in attendance. Tom Finn sang a newly written song called “City Life” which showed a heavier rock version of the Left Banke with baroque string section intact. No new recordings begun in 2012 were ever released, and Brown died in 2015.
At the beginning of their reunion dates, the group was joined onstage by a two or three-piece string section and even a guest oboe player for one or two shows. Both Michael Brown and George Cameron were in touch with Steve Martin Caro, who wanted to rejoin the group, but was unable to tour in 2012 due to previous commitments.
Unrealized reunions
On March 18, 2015, the day before Mike Brown’s death, it was announced that original vocalist Steve Martin Caro officially rejoined the current touring version of The Left Banke. Photos on The Left Banke official Facebook and Twitter pages displayed Steve signing a contract. Two 2015 shows featured co-headlinerĀ Ian LloydĀ ofĀ StoriesĀ and Sam Kogon as vocalist. The re-formed Cameron band played for the last time twice in 2015; once in Sellersville, PA and once in Natick, MA. No shows under any Left Banke configuration have been performed since 2015, and by 2020 the major players of 1966 were all deceased except for the disabled Tom Finn.
In January, 2018, it was announced on the official Facebook page operated by Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron that they were planning a tour. Several photos of Steve Martin Caro rehearsing with George Cameron and guitarist Sam Kogon were posted with a message which stated “it was Steve’s first time behind the microphone in over 15 years. We went through and workshopped much of the Left Banke catalog.” However, Cameron passed away five months later, before any performances could take place under this collaboration.
Deaths
Michael Brown died from heart disease on March 19, 2015, at age 65. Brown had been writing new material and planned to participate in the 2015 reunion of The Left Banke with Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron. Brown’s funeral and memorial service was held on March 25, 2015 at Fort Lee Gospel Church in Fort Lee, New Jersey.[16]
Justo George Cameron (born October 16, 1947 in New York City) died of cancer at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan on June 24, 2018, at age 70.[17]Ā Thomas Leo Feher died from heart failure on August 5, 2018.[18]Ā Steve Martin Caro died from heart disease on January 14, 2020. He was 71.[19]Ā This left Tom Finn (later a renowned disc jockey) as the only surviving member from the original “Walk Away RenĆ©e” lineup.
Band members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Banke
Story 3: $19 Billion of 30-Year Bonds Sold At Record Low Yield of 2.06% — Inverted Yield Curve Flashes Recession Warning — Videos
Dow Flatlines While Fedās Recession Alarm Screams
Treasury Sells 30-Year Bonds at Record Low Yield
Fear that the coronavirus will slow global growth has helped push down Treasury yields in recent weeks
The Treasury sold $19 billion of 30-year bonds on Thursday afternoon.
PHOTO:Ā CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS
The U.S. Treasury Department sold 30-year bonds at a record low yield on Thursday, highlighting investorsā demand for longer-term debt and its benefits to the government.
The Treasury sold $19 billion of 30-year bonds on Thursday afternoon at a 2.061% yield. That beat the previous record of 2.170% set last October, according to data from BMO Capital Markets.
The auction came as Treasury yields generally moved lower after Chinese officials changed the way they counted coronavirus infections, leading to a bigĀ jump in the number of confirmed casesĀ in the countryās Hubei province. The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note settled at 1.616%, compared with 1.629% Wednesday.
Yields fall when bond prices rise.
Fear that the coronavirus will slow global growth has helped push down Treasury yields in recent weeks. Other factors include persistently soft inflation, which has limited one of the main threats to the value of longer-term Treasurys, analysts said.
Investors have also grown more comfortable buying 30-year bonds because they view them as insurance against losses in riskier assets, said Jon Hill, a U.S. interest-rates strategist at BMO. Prices of 30-year bonds increase more for every one-percentage point decline in yields than those of shorter-term bonds. That means on days like Thursday, when investors are selling stocks and buying bonds, the holders of 30-year bonds are well-hedged, Mr. Hill said.
Thursdayās level doesnāt represent the lowest point that the 30-year bond yield has ever reached. Last August, it settled as low as 1.941%, but yields rose again before the next 30-year auction in September.
In recent years, low Treasury yields have, at times, caused U.S. officials to flirt with issuing bonds with maturities beyond 30 years to lock in low interest rates for a longer period.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said last September that the Treasury Department was āvery seriously consideringāĀ issuing a 50-year bond. The department, however, dropped that idea due to a lack of interest from bond dealers. Instead, it recently announced plans toĀ issue 20-year bonds, which havenāt been issued regularly since the 1980s.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-to-sell-30-year-bonds-at-record-low-yield-11581614475
Story 4: Just Walk Away From Two Party Tyranny Big Government Parties — Walk Away Renee — Videos
Walk Away Renee – The left Banke
The lot we used to pass by every day
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Still finds a way to haunt me, though they’re so small
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
Tucker: Our ruling class is authoritarian, not Trump
Federal budget deficit to hit $1 trillion in 2020: CBO forecast
George Carlin – It’s a Big Club and You Ain’t In It! The American Dream
Walk Away RenƩe + The Left Banke + Lyrics
The Left Banke
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Left BankeĀ is an AmericanĀ baroque popĀ band, formed inĀ New York CityĀ in 1965.[1]Ā They are best remembered for their two US hit singles, “Walk Away RenĆ©e” and “Pretty Ballerina“.[2]Ā The band often used what theĀ music pressĀ referred to as “baroque” string arrangements, which led to their music being variously termed as “Bach-rock” or “baroque rock“.[3]Ā The band’sĀ vocal harmoniesĀ borrowed from contemporaries such asĀ The Beatles,Ā The Zombies, and otherĀ British InvasionĀ groups.[1]
In 2004,Ā Rolling StoneĀ placed “Walk Away RenĆ©e” at #220 in its list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time“.[4]
Contents
History
1965ā69: early years and disbandment
The Left Banke was formed in 1965 and consisted ofĀ keyboard player/songwriterĀ Michael Brown,Ā drummer/singerĀ George Cameron,Ā bass guitarist/singerĀ Tom Finn,Ā singerĀ Steve MartinĀ (who also used the name Steve Martin Caro), andĀ drummerĀ Warren David-Schierhorst. Brown’s father,Ā Harry Lookofsky, a well-knownĀ sessionĀ violinist, ran a studio in New York and took an interest in the band’s music, acting asĀ producer,Ā managerĀ andĀ publisher.[5]After some initialĀ recording sessions, David-Schierhorst was ousted, with Cameron switching to drums and Jeff Winfield on guitar. Brown’s song, “Walk Away Renee”, was sold toĀ Smash Records, a subsidiary ofĀ Mercury Records, and became a huge hit in late 1966. The band’s secondĀ single, “Pretty Ballerina”, also written by Brown, charted in early 1967, and The Left Banke released anĀ albumĀ entitledĀ Walk Away Renee/Pretty Ballerina, by which time, Rick Brand had replaced Winfield on guitar.
Tension between Brown and the rest of the band soon began to surface. When “Walk Away Renee” belatedly became a hit, the original band had become inactive. Brown decided to capitalize on the single’s success by assembling a new version of The Left Banke for touring purposes, withĀ Bert SommerĀ onĀ lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member ofĀ Spinal Tap)Ā Michael McKeanĀ on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy”Ā b/wĀ “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group ofĀ session musicians.[6][7]Ā The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged theirĀ fan clubĀ to boycott the record,[8]Ā which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio andĀ Smash RecordsĀ ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group calledĀ The Cherry PeopleĀ and became a minor hit.[9]Ā McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & Shirley,Ā This Is Spinal Tap,Ā Better Call Saul).
In late 1967, the original group reunited and recorded more material, including the single “Desiree.” Brown left the group permanently shortly thereafter and was replaced for touring purposes by Emmett Lake. Cameron, Finn and Martin continued to record and tour, with Tom Feher replacing Lake on keyboards and writing half of the band’s new material. The songs recorded by various incarnations of the group in 1967 and 1968 were assembled into a secondĀ LP,Ā The Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a youngĀ Steven TylerĀ (who later became the lead singer ofĀ Aerosmith) on “Nice To See You”, “My Friend Today” and “Dark Is The Bark”. The band continued playing live in 1969, without Martin, but soon disbanded due to lack of success and financial problems. Later that same year, Brown and Martin reunited in the studio to record another single as The Left Banke, “Myrah” b/w “Pedestal”, which was their final single for Smash Records.
1971āpresent: various reunions
In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movieĀ Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single onĀ Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producerĀ Les FradkinĀ offered to produce the group for a project onĀ Bell Records. Although these sessions were not released at the time, one of the songs, “I Could Make It Last Forever”, composed by Fradkin and Diane Ellis, was released on Fradkin’sĀ Goin’ BackĀ soloĀ CDĀ in 2006. It was a rare recording since it featured Caro, Finn, Cameron and Brown, along with Brown’s father, violinist Harry Lookofsky. Fradkin sang and playedĀ 12-string guitarĀ on the sessions. In 1978, Martin, Cameron and Finn reunited as The Left Banke to record an album’s worth of material which unfortunately was not released at the time. However, a single from these 1978 sessions, “Queen of Paradise” (b/w “And One Day”), was released in late 1978 with modest success. The album was eventually issued byĀ Relix RecordsĀ in 1986 under the titleĀ Strangers on a TrainĀ (Voices CallingĀ in Europe). However, the album did little to restore the popularity of the group.
After leaving The Left Banke in 1967, Michael Brown helped form the band,Ā Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10]Ā The band released one self-titled album in 1969, which included a re-recording of The Left Banke song “Desiree”, before Brown left. Brown’s next project was the bandĀ Stories, featuring singerĀ Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on theĀ BillboardĀ Hot 100 charts.[5]Ā However, Brown had left the group after their 2nd album “About Us”, but before the success of “Brother Louie”. Brown’s next project was with The Beckies, although the band achieved only modest success and Brown soon left.
In 1992,Ā Mercury RecordsĀ released a Left BankeĀ compilationĀ titledĀ There’s Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966ā1969. It was intended to bring together the band’s entire recorded output from the years 1966 to 1969, although a 1969Ā outtakeĀ titled “Foggy Waterfall”, which had previously appeared on two earlier compilations, was not included.
In 1994, Michael Brown and his wife Yvonne Vitale produced and released an album titledĀ On This Moment. Between 2001 and 2006, Brown hosted a series of recording sessions at his home studio with Ian Lloyd (vocals), Tom Finn (bass guitar/vocals), Jim McAllister (guitar), and Jon Ihle (drums).[11]
In 2005,Ā Alice CooperĀ included a cover version of “Pretty Ballerina” on his albumĀ Dirty Diamonds. In 2006, ex-member ofĀ The BanglesĀ Susanna HoffsĀ andĀ Matthew Sweet, as Sid ‘n’ Susie, covered “She May Call You Up Tonight” for their first albumĀ Under the Covers, Vol. 1. In addition,Ā Stuart MurdochĀ of the bandĀ Belle and SebastianĀ has cited The Left Banke as one of the early influences on the sound of the band.[12]
Former guitarist Jeff Winfield died of complications from pneumonia on June 13, 2009, at age 60.[3]
2011ā12
The previous touring version of The Left Banke featured one original member, George Cameron. Initially, Tom Finn and George Cameron reformed The Left Banke in March 2011, tapping New York City’s Mike Fornatale (already a veteran of numerous other 60s band reunions, including The Monks and Moby Grape) to sing lead vocals in Steve Martin Caro’s stead. The reunited group also featured new players: Paul Alves (lead guitar, backing vocals), Charly Cazalet (bass), Mickey Finn (keyboards), Rick Reil (drums, percussion, backing vocals) and second keyboardist/synth player Joe McGinty (replaced by John Spurney in 2012). They appeared live at Joe’s Pub in New York City on March 5, 2011, and March 6, 2011, to sold-out audiences. In April 2011, Tom Finn revealed in a Facebook posting that he had reformed the group,[13]Ā with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15]Ā Tom Finn only performed with the re-formed group in 2011, after which he left due to disagreements with Cameron and due to back trouble.
In early 2011,Ā SundazedĀ released reissues of the two Smash vinyl albums on CD and LP, utilizing the original running order and artwork.
In February 2012, Tom Finn notified the YouTube community that the Left Banke was in the process of creating a new record featuring contributions from co-founder Michael Brown.
George Cameron (3rd from left) and Tom Finn (Center, 4th from left) with band during their 2012 reunion tour.
On April 29, 2012, Brown joined the reunited Left Banke on stage at B.B. King’s in New York City for a version of his “Pretty Ballerina.” His performance was greeted with a standing ovation. Rick Brand, guitarist with the band in 1966-67 was also in attendance. Tom Finn sang a newly written song called “City Life” which showed a heavier rock version of the Left Banke with baroque string section intact. No new recordings begun in 2012 were ever released, and Brown died in 2015.
At the beginning of their reunion dates, the group was joined onstage by a two or three-piece string section and even a guest oboe player for one or two shows. Both Michael Brown and George Cameron were in touch with Steve Martin Caro, who wanted to rejoin the group, but was unable to tour in 2012 due to previous commitments.
Unrealized reunions
On March 18, 2015, the day before Mike Brown’s death, it was announced that original vocalist Steve Martin Caro officially rejoined the current touring version of The Left Banke. Photos on The Left Banke official Facebook and Twitter pages displayed Steve signing a contract. Two 2015 shows featured co-headlinerĀ Ian LloydĀ ofĀ StoriesĀ and Sam Kogon as vocalist. The re-formed Cameron band played for the last time twice in 2015; once in Sellersville, PA and once in Natick, MA. No shows under any Left Banke configuration have been performed since 2015, and by 2020 the major players of 1966 were all deceased except for the disabled Tom Finn.
In January, 2018, it was announced on the official Facebook page operated by Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron that they were planning a tour. Several photos of Steve Martin Caro rehearsing with George Cameron and guitarist Sam Kogon were posted with a message which stated “it was Steve’s first time behind the microphone in over 15 years. We went through and workshopped much of the Left Banke catalog.” However, Cameron passed away five months later, before any performances could take place under this collaboration.
Deaths
Michael Brown died from heart disease on March 19, 2015, at age 65. Brown had been writing new material and planned to participate in the 2015 reunion of The Left Banke with Steve Martin Caro and George Cameron. Brown’s funeral and memorial service was held on March 25, 2015 at Fort Lee Gospel Church in Fort Lee, New Jersey.[16]
Justo George Cameron (born October 16, 1947 in New York City) died of cancer at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan on June 24, 2018, at age 70.[17]Ā Thomas Leo Feher died from heart failure on August 5, 2018.[18]Ā Steve Martin Caro died from heart disease on January 14, 2020. He was 71.[19]Ā This left Tom Finn (later a renowned disc jockey) as the only surviving member from the original “Walk Away RenĆ©e” lineup.
Band members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Banke
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1392-1399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )