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 — Videos — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

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, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

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

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

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

Johnny Mathis – 12th of Never

Why Wasn’t Andrew McCabe Charged?

The proof that he willfully deceived investigators appears strong, but the Justice Department likely felt there were too many obstacles to convicting him.

The Justice Department announced Friday that it is closing its investigation of Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s 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) report concluded that he repeatedly and blatantly lied — or, as the Bureau lexicon puts it, “lacked candor” — when questioned, including under oath.

I emphasize Flynn’s intent because purported lack of intent is McCabe’s principal defense, too. 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 — 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 Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric, a two-tiered justice system that rewards the well-connected is alive and well, consider the following.

In fact, the Bureau’s 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 Horowitz’s report, McCabe orchestrated the leak “to advance his personal interests” — to paint himself in a favorable light in comparison to Justice Department officials amid an internal dispute about the Clinton Foundation probe (specifically, about the Obama Justice Department’s pressure on the Bureau to drop it). As the IG put it: “McCabe’s disclosure was an attempt to make himself look good by making senior department leadership . . . look bad.”

McCabe’s account has been contradicted by Comey, a witness who is otherwise sympathetic to him and hostile to the Trump Justice Department, and whose actions — like his — are being examined in prosecutor John Durham’s probe of the Trump-Russia investigation. Comey’s testimony is directly at odds with McCabe’s version of events, and the IG painstakingly explained why the former director’s version was credible while his deputy’s was not. (Comey was, nevertheless, exceedingly complimentary of McCabe after the IG report was published.)

Page is regarded by McCabe backers as key to his defense. She reportedly told the grand jury that, because McCabe had authority to approve media disclosures, he had no motive to lie about the leak. That’s laughable. McCabe did serially mislead investigators, so plainly he had some reason for doing so. But even putting that aside, the IG’s 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 Bureau’s investigative integrity. That said, Page’s account does illuminate a problem for prosecutors: It’s tough to win a case when your witnesses are spinning for the defendant. (Oh, and have you seen Page’s tweet toasting McCabe in the aftermath of the news that the DOJ had closed the investigation?)

McCabe’s Multiple False Statements

Barrett’s Journal 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 Comey’s telling, credited by the IG, McCabe “definitely” did not acknowledge that he had approved the leak.

Thereafter, the FBI’s 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 Barrett’s 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 “no idea where [the leaked information] came from” or “who the source was.”

On July 28, 2017, McCabe was interviewed by the IG’s office — 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 30 Journal 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 Page’s communications with Barrett. Consequently, the IG concluded that McCabe’s denials were “demonstrably false.”

Clearly concerned about the hole he had dug for himself, McCabe called the IG’s 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 Bureau’s top media liaison, and follow-up with the Journal about some of its prior reporting.

As the IG observed, this “attempt to correct his prior false testimony” was the “appropriate” 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, had 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 the Journal 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 McCabe’s version of events was “demonstrably false.”

McCabe Covers His Tracks

As an old trial lawyer, I’d be remiss if I failed to rehearse my favorite part of the IG’s report — the part that would tell a jury everything they needed to know about good ol’ Andy McCabe.

Again, the Journal story generated by McCabe’s leak was published on October 30, a Sunday. Late that afternoon, McCabe called the head of the FBI’s Manhattan office. Why? Well . . . to ream him out over media leaks, that’s why. McCabe railed that New York agents must be the culprits. He also made a similar call to the Bureau’s Washington field office, warning its chief to “get his house in order” and stop these terribly damaging leaks.

It is worth remembering McCabe’s October 30 scolding of subordinates when you think about how he later claimed that, on the very next day, he’d 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 FBI’s 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 nation’s top law-enforcement agency we’re talking about, here.

The Non-Prosecution Decision

We may never get a satisfying explanation for the Justice Department’s decision to drop the McCabe probe. That’s 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. 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 who reportedly grew frustrated by her supervisors’ 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 jury’s term lapsed. Meanwhile, the Justice Department endorsed Liu’s 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 — the sort of crime that is rarely prosecuted. Craig was swiftly acquitted. Reportedly, 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 McCabe’s leak would have drawn attention to pressure DOJ officials had put on the Bureau over the Clinton Foundation investigation (which, 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 — made to meet a deadline set by District Judge Reggie Walton, which may explain the timing of the non-prosecution announcement — indicate that the Justice Department and FBI did not comply with regulations in what appears to be the rushed termination of McCabe, adding heft to the former deputy director’s 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, as he did this week, that he has the constitutional power to intervene in Justice Department matters. But that means he is subject to the same legal obligations that inhibit his Justice Department subordinates. Those obligations include protecting McCabe’s right to a fair trial — 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. As Politico reports, he had this to say about President Trump’s commentary on the McCabe investigation:

The public is listening to what’s going on, and I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. . . . I just think it’s 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. . . . It’s just, it’s very disturbing that we’re in the mess that we’re 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 it’s very unfortunate. And I think as a government and as a society we’re 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 president’s tweets are undermining the Justice Department’s pursuit of its law-enforcement mission, Judge Walton’s words are worth heeding. 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 — 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. attorney’s 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 FBI’s 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 won’t charge ex-FBI official McCabe, a Trump target

an hour ago
 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) — Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether the longtime target of President Donald Trump’s ire lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabe’s 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. attorney’s 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 president’s tweets about the Stone case and other matters were making his job “impossible.”

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 McCabe’s attorneys in a phone call and a letter that they were closing the case. The letter, signed by the chief of the office’s public corruption unit, did not give a precise reason but said the decision was reached after “careful consideration” and “based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time.”

McCabe’s lawyers, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, said they were gratified by the decision.

“At long last, justice has been done in this matter,” the lawyers said in a statement. “We 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.”

Speaking Friday on CNN, where he works as a contributor, McCabe said it was an “absolute disgrace” that the investigation had taken so long and that he was relieved to be done with a process that he described as “so unbelievably tense.”

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 Trump’s attacks, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called “lack of candor” — was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector general’s 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 Trump’s comments about the Justice Department were undercutting his political agenda and raising questions about the department’s 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 Comey’s 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 weren’t 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 Jensen’s 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 — 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 general’s 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.

“During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me,” McCabe has said in a statement. “And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.”

McCabe has been a target of Trump’s attacks since even before he was elected, after news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabe’s 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’

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.”
Image: Andrew McCabe, acting director of the FBI, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington on May 11, 2017.

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

By 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,” J.P. Cooney of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., told McCabe’s attorneys in a letter Friday. “Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the government at this time, we consider the matter closed.”

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 Barr pushed back against criticism 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 of revenge tirade 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 — Videos 

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

Jan 28, 2019

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

Oct 1, 2019

Huawei probed for security, espionage risk

Oct 7, 2012

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’

  • DoJ brought new charges against Huawei in indictment unsealed on Thursday 
  • Accuses 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 charges 

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 against 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

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.  She is pictured wearing a court-ordered ankle monitor last month

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.  She is pictured wearing a court-ordered ankle monitor last month

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou arrives at extradition hearing

The new indictment also 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

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)

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.

 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, is widely assumed to be the heiress of her billionaire father Ren Zhengfei who founded Huawei in 1987

 

Meng Wanzhou, 46, 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 (£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 Débutantes 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

See the source image

Walk Away Renee – The left Banke

Walk Away Renee
And when I see the sign that points one way
The lot we used to pass by every day
Just walk away Renee
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 tears that I’m forced to cry
From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Your name and mine inside a heart upon a wall
Still finds a way to haunt me, though they’re so small
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Bob Calilli / Mike Brown / Tony Sansone
Walk Away Renee lyrics © Warner Chappell Music, Inc, Round Hill Music Big Loud Songs, BMG Rights Management, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Carlin America Inc
See the source image

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 Renée + The Left Banke + Lyrics

George Carlin Politicians

See the source image

Image result for the public sucksSee the source image

The Left Banke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Left Banke
The Left Banke 1966.jpg

The Left Banke in 1966
Background information
Origin New YorkNew York, U.S.
Genres Baroque pop[1]
Years active
  • 1965–1969
  • 1971
  • 1978
  • 2011–2012
  • 2015–present
Labels
Associated acts
  • Christopher & The Chaps
  • The Magic Plants
  • Montage
  • Stories
  • The Beckies
  • Sam Kogon
Members

The Left Banke is an American baroque pop band, formed in New York City in 1965.[1] They are best remembered for their two US hit singles, “Walk Away Renée” and “Pretty Ballerina“.[2] The band often used what the music press referred to as “baroque” string arrangements, which led to their music being variously termed as “Bach-rock” or “baroque rock“.[3] The band’s vocal harmonies borrowed from contemporaries such as The BeatlesThe Zombies, and other British Invasion groups.[1]

In 2004, Rolling Stone placed “Walk Away Renée” at #220 in its list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time“.[4]

Contents

History

1965–69: early years and disbandment

The Left Banke was formed in 1965 and consisted of keyboard player/songwriter Michael Browndrummer/singer George Cameron, bass guitarist/singer Tom Finnsinger Steve Martin (who also used the name Steve Martin Caro), and drummer Warren David-Schierhorst. Brown’s father, Harry Lookofsky, a well-known session violinist, ran a studio in New York and took an interest in the band’s music, acting as producermanager and publisher.[5]After some initial recording sessions, David-Schierhorst was ousted, with Cameron switching to drums and Jeff Winfield on guitar. Brown’s song, “Walk Away Renee”, was sold to Smash Records, a subsidiary of Mercury Records, and became a huge hit in late 1966. The band’s second single, “Pretty Ballerina”, also written by Brown, charted in early 1967, and The Left Banke released an album entitled 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, with Bert Sommer on lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member of Spinal TapMichael McKean on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy” b/w “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group of session musicians.[6][7] The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged their fan club to boycott the record,[8] which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio and Smash Records ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make the Billboard Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group called The Cherry People and became a minor hit.[9] McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & ShirleyThis Is Spinal TapBetter 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 second LPThe Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a young Steven Tyler (who later became the lead singer of 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.

1971–present: various reunions

In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movie Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single on Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producer Les Fradkin offered to produce the group for a project on 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’s Goin’ Back solo CD 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 played 12-string guitar 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 by Relix Records in 1986 under the title Strangers on a Train (Voices Calling 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, Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10] 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 band Stories, featuring singer Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.[5] 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, Mercury Records released a Left Banke compilation titled There’s Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966–1969. It was intended to bring together the band’s entire recorded output from the years 1966 to 1969, although a 1969 outtake 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 titled 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, Alice Cooper included a cover version of “Pretty Ballerina” on his album Dirty Diamonds. In 2006, ex-member of The Bangles Susanna Hoffs and Matthew Sweet, as Sid ‘n’ Susie, covered “She May Call You Up Tonight” for their first album Under the Covers, Vol. 1. In addition, Stuart Murdoch of the band Belle and Sebastian 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]

2011–12

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] with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15] 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, Sundazed 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-headliner Ian Lloyd of Stories 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] Thomas Leo Feher died from heart failure on August 5, 2018.[18] Steve Martin Caro died from heart disease on January 14, 2020. He was 71.[19] This left Tom Finn (later a renowned disc jockey) as the only surviving member from the original “Walk Away Renée” 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 Fed’s 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: CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS

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 big jump in the number of confirmed cases in the country’s 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.

Thursday’s level doesn’t 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 “very seriously considering” 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 to issue 20-year bonds, which haven’t 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

See the source image

Walk Away Renee – The left Banke

Walk Away Renee
And when I see the sign that points one way
The lot we used to pass by every day
Just walk away Renee
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 tears that I’m forced to cry
From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
Now as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
For me it cries
Your name and mine inside a heart upon a wall
Still finds a way to haunt me, though they’re so small
Just walk away Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Bob Calilli / Mike Brown / Tony Sansone
Walk Away Renee lyrics © Warner Chappell Music, Inc, Round Hill Music Big Loud Songs, BMG Rights Management, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Carlin America Inc
See the source image

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 Renée + The Left Banke + Lyrics

The Left Banke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Left Banke
The Left Banke 1966.jpg

The Left Banke in 1966
Background information
Origin New YorkNew York, U.S.
Genres Baroque pop[1]
Years active
  • 1965–1969
  • 1971
  • 1978
  • 2011–2012
  • 2015–present
Labels
Associated acts
  • Christopher & The Chaps
  • The Magic Plants
  • Montage
  • Stories
  • The Beckies
  • Sam Kogon
Members

The Left Banke is an American baroque pop band, formed in New York City in 1965.[1] They are best remembered for their two US hit singles, “Walk Away Renée” and “Pretty Ballerina“.[2] The band often used what the music press referred to as “baroque” string arrangements, which led to their music being variously termed as “Bach-rock” or “baroque rock“.[3] The band’s vocal harmonies borrowed from contemporaries such as The BeatlesThe Zombies, and other British Invasion groups.[1]

In 2004, Rolling Stone placed “Walk Away Renée” at #220 in its list of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time“.[4]

Contents

History

1965–69: early years and disbandment

The Left Banke was formed in 1965 and consisted of keyboard player/songwriter Michael Browndrummer/singer George Cameron, bass guitarist/singer Tom Finnsinger Steve Martin (who also used the name Steve Martin Caro), and drummer Warren David-Schierhorst. Brown’s father, Harry Lookofsky, a well-known session violinist, ran a studio in New York and took an interest in the band’s music, acting as producermanager and publisher.[5]After some initial recording sessions, David-Schierhorst was ousted, with Cameron switching to drums and Jeff Winfield on guitar. Brown’s song, “Walk Away Renee”, was sold to Smash Records, a subsidiary of Mercury Records, and became a huge hit in late 1966. The band’s second single, “Pretty Ballerina”, also written by Brown, charted in early 1967, and The Left Banke released an album entitled 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, with Bert Sommer on lead vocals, original drummer Warren David, and (future member of Spinal TapMichael McKean on guitar. Brown also recorded a single, “Ivy, Ivy” b/w “And Suddenly” as The Left Banke, with Sommer and a group of session musicians.[6][7] The remaining members of the band hired attorneys to issue a cease and desist order and urged their fan club to boycott the record,[8] which led to confusion among radio stations over which “Left Banke” to support. Radio and Smash Records ultimately removed their support from the single, which subsequently failed to make the Billboard Hot 100. The “New” Left Banke never performed live. “And Suddenly” was eventually recorded by a group called The Cherry People and became a minor hit.[9] McKean would later find fame as an actor (Laverne & ShirleyThis Is Spinal TapBetter 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 second LPThe Left Banke Too, which was released in November 1968. This album featured backing vocals by a young Steven Tyler (who later became the lead singer of 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.

1971–present: various reunions

In 1971, Brown, Cameron, Finn and Martin reunited briefly to record two songs for the movie Hot Parts. The songs, “Love Songs in the Night” and “Two by Two”, were released as a Steve Martin solo single on Buddah Records, despite featuring contributions from four founding members of The Left Banke. In 1972, producer Les Fradkin offered to produce the group for a project on 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’s Goin’ Back solo CD 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 played 12-string guitar 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 by Relix Records in 1986 under the title Strangers on a Train (Voices Calling 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, Montage. Although Brown was never an official member of Montage, his presence is unmistakable in its music.[10] 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 band Stories, featuring singer Ian Lloyd. The band had a hit in 1973 with “Brother Louie“, which reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.[5] 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, Mercury Records released a Left Banke compilation titled There’s Gonna Be a Storm: The Complete Recordings 1966–1969. It was intended to bring together the band’s entire recorded output from the years 1966 to 1969, although a 1969 outtake 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 titled 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, Alice Cooper included a cover version of “Pretty Ballerina” on his album Dirty Diamonds. In 2006, ex-member of The Bangles Susanna Hoffs and Matthew Sweet, as Sid ‘n’ Susie, covered “She May Call You Up Tonight” for their first album Under the Covers, Vol. 1. In addition, Stuart Murdoch of the band Belle and Sebastian 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]

2011–12

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] with two shows planned for July in New York City.[14][15] 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, Sundazed 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-headliner Ian Lloyd of Stories 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] Thomas Leo Feher died from heart failure on August 5, 2018.[18] Steve Martin Caro died from heart disease on January 14, 2020. He was 71.[19] This left Tom Finn (later a renowned disc jockey) as the only surviving member from the original “Walk Away Renée” lineup.

Band members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Banke

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392-1399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1395, February 10, 2020, Story 1: Media Opinion Polls Manipulating American Public Opinion — Ignore The Big Lie Media Mob — Trump Should Win In Landslide Victory in 2020 — 70 Million Popular Votes and 330 Electoral College Votes — Revolution — Give Peace A Chance — Imagine — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Talks To America’s Governors At Business Summit — Videos — Story 3: Coronavirus Has Killed Killed 910 in China and Exceeds SARS Death Toll — Videos

Posted on February 11, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Abortion, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, China, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Diseases, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Empires, Employment, European Union, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Flu, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Labor Economics, Law, Life, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Networking, News, People, Pete Buttigieg, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Spying on American People, Subversion, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Treason, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019

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

See the source imageSee the source imageMore than 40,000 people have been infected with the virus and 910 are confirmed to have died, all but two of them in ChinaSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

 

Story 1: Media Opinion Polls Manipulating American Public Opinion — Ignore The Big Lie Media Mob — Trump Should Win In Landslide Victory on Election Day November 3, 2020 — 70 Million Popular Votes and 330 Electoral College Votes — The Only Poll That Counts — Give Peace A Chance — Videos

See the source image

The Beatles – Revolution

Revolution

The Beatles

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We all doing what we can
But if you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
Source: Musixmatch

Byron York on more bad news for Joe Biden

Is Donald Trump’s Iowa Poll Lead A Death Knell for 2020 Democrats

Give Peace A Chance – Plastic Ono Band (official music video HD)

[youtub e=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U]

Give Peace a Chance

Plastic Ono Band

Two, one-two-three-four!
Ev’rybody’s talking ’bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Hit it
C’mon, ev’rybody’s talking about
Ministers, sinisters, banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Popeyes and bye-bye, bye-byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now
Ev’rybody’s talking ’bout
Revolution, evolution, masturbation, flagellation, regulation, integrations
Meditations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Ev’rybody’s talking ’bout
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna, Hare, Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: John Lennon
Give Peace a Chance lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, BMG Rights Management

Imagine – John Lennon & The Plastic Ono Band (w the Flux Fiddlers) (official music video HD long v)

Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today (ah ah ah)
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: John Winston Lennon
Imagine lyrics © Downtown Music Publishing

 

Election 2020 Presidential Polls

Monday, February 10
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary CNN/UNH Sanders 29, Buttigieg 22, Klobuchar 7, Warren 10, Biden 11, Yang 4, Gabbard 5, Steyer 1, Patrick, Bennet 0 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 27, Buttigieg 19, Klobuchar 14, Warren 12, Biden 12, Yang 3, Gabbard 3, Steyer 2, Patrick 1, Bennet 0 Sanders +8
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 30, Buttigieg 23, Klobuchar 14, Warren 11, Biden 10, Yang 4, Gabbard 2, Steyer 2, Patrick 1, Bennet 1 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary UMass Lowell Sanders 25, Buttigieg 17, Klobuchar 8, Warren 15, Biden 14, Yang 3, Gabbard 4, Steyer 5, Patrick 1, Bennet 1 Sanders +8
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Biden 17, Sanders 25, Warren 14, Bloomberg 15, Buttigieg 10, Klobuchar 4, Yang 2, Gabbard 1, Steyer 1, Bennet 0, Patrick 0 Sanders +8
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 51, Trump 43 Sanders +8
General Election: Trump vs. Warren Quinnipiac Warren 48, Trump 44 Warren +4
General Election: Trump vs. Bloomberg Quinnipiac Bloomberg 51, Trump 42 Bloomberg +9
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg Quinnipiac Buttigieg 47, Trump 43 Buttigieg +4
General Election: Trump vs. Klobuchar Quinnipiac Klobuchar 49, Trump 43 Klobuchar +6
Sunday, February 9
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary CNN/UNH Sanders 28, Buttigieg 21, Klobuchar 6, Warren 9, Biden 12, Yang 4, Gabbard 5, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Herald/FPU Sanders 23, Buttigieg 20, Klobuchar 6, Warren 16, Biden 14, Yang 3, Gabbard 0, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 1 Sanders +3
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 24, Buttigieg 22, Klobuchar 9, Warren 13, Biden 10, Yang 3, Gabbard 2, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +2
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 30, Buttigieg 20, Klobuchar 13, Warren 12, Biden 11, Yang 4, Gabbard 3, Steyer 2, Patrick 1, Bennet 0 Sanders +10
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary CBS News/YouGov Sanders 29, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 10, Warren 17, Biden 12, Yang 1, Gabbard 2, Steyer 1, Patrick 1, Bennet 0 Sanders +4
Saturday, February 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary CNN/UNH Sanders 28, Buttigieg 21, Klobuchar 5, Warren 9, Biden 11, Yang 3, Gabbard 6, Steyer 3, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 24, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 6, Warren 14, Biden 11, Yang 3, Gabbard 2, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 1 Buttigieg +1
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 31, Buttigieg 24, Klobuchar 9, Warren 11, Biden 11, Yang 3, Gabbard 5, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +7
Friday, February 7
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary NBC News/Marist Sanders 25, Buttigieg 21, Klobuchar 8, Warren 14, Biden 13, Yang 4, Gabbard 3, Steyer 4, Patrick 1, Bennet 1 Sanders +4
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 24, Buttigieg 23, Klobuchar 6, Warren 13, Biden 11, Yang 3, Gabbard 4, Steyer 3, Patrick 1, Bennet 1 Sanders +1
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 32, Buttigieg 23, Klobuchar 9, Warren 13, Biden 11, Yang 2, Gabbard 6, Steyer 2, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +9
Thursday, February 6
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Monmouth Sanders 24, Buttigieg 20, Klobuchar 9, Warren 13, Biden 17, Yang 4, Gabbard 4, Steyer 3, Patrick 0, Bennet 1 Sanders +4
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 25, Buttigieg 19, Klobuchar 6, Warren 11, Biden 12, Yang 2, Gabbard 5, Steyer 4, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +6
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 31, Buttigieg 21, Klobuchar 11, Warren 12, Biden 12, Yang 5, Gabbard 5, Steyer 1, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +10
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 37, Steyer 19, Sanders 14, Warren 8, Buttigieg 4, Yang 3, Gabbard 2, Klobuchar 2, Bloomberg 1 Biden +18
North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Biden 25, Sanders 16, Bloomberg 14, Warren 12, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 5, Yang 5, Steyer 2, Gabbard Biden +9
Tennessee: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Trump 55, Biden 39 Trump +16
Tennessee: Trump vs. Sanders Mason-Dixon Trump 57, Sanders 37 Trump +20
Tennessee: Trump vs. Warren Mason-Dixon Trump 57, Warren 36 Trump +21
Tennessee: Trump vs. Buttigieg Mason-Dixon Trump 55, Buttigieg 38 Trump +17
Tennessee: Trump vs. Bloomberg Mason-Dixon Trump 54, Bloomberg 39 Trump +15
Wednesday, February 5
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 24, Buttigieg 15, Klobuchar 6, Warren 10, Biden 15, Yang 3, Gabbard 5, Steyer 5, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +9
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 32, Buttigieg 17, Klobuchar 11, Warren 11, Biden 13, Yang 6, Gabbard 6, Steyer 2, Patrick 1, Bennet 0 Sanders +15
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 24, Sanders 19, Warren 18, Bloomberg 9, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 6, Yang 3, Gabbard 3, Steyer 2, Bennet 1, Patrick 0 Biden +5
Tuesday, February 4
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary St. Anselm Sanders 19, Buttigieg 14, Klobuchar 11, Warren 11, Biden 19, Yang 4, Gabbard 3, Steyer 5, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Tie
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WCVB/UMass Amherst Sanders 25, Buttigieg 12, Klobuchar 5, Warren 17, Biden 20, Yang 4, Gabbard 5, Steyer 5, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +5
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders 24, Buttigieg 11, Klobuchar 6, Warren 13, Biden 18, Yang 3, Gabbard 5, Steyer 4, Patrick 1, Bennet 1 Sanders +6
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 32, Buttigieg 12, Klobuchar 12, Warren 13, Biden 13, Yang 5, Gabbard 4, Steyer 5, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +19
Monday, February 3
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary Boston Herald/FPU Sanders 31, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 4, Warren 17, Biden 24, Yang 1, Gabbard 3, Steyer 0, Patrick 0, Bennet 1 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary UMass Lowell Sanders 23, Buttigieg 12, Klobuchar 6, Warren 19, Biden 22, Yang 2, Gabbard 5, Steyer 6, Patrick, Bennet 0 Sanders +1
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 29, Buttigieg 13, Klobuchar 8, Warren 12, Biden 14, Yang 7, Gabbard 7, Steyer 8, Patrick 0, Bennet 0 Sanders +15
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Morning Consult Biden 28, Sanders 24, Warren 14, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 3, Yang 4, Gabbard 2, Steyer 3, Bennet 1, Patrick 1 Biden +4
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Harvard-Harris Biden 31, Sanders 20, Warren 12, Bloomberg 13, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 3, Yang 3, Gabbard 1, Steyer 2, Bennet, Patrick Biden +11
Sunday, February 2
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Emerson Sanders 28, Biden 21, Buttigieg 15, Warren 14, Klobuchar 11, Yang 5, Steyer 4, Gabbard 1, Bloomberg Sanders +7
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus DFP/Civiqs Sanders 28, Biden 15, Buttigieg 15, Warren 21, Klobuchar 8, Yang 5, Steyer 2, Gabbard 2, Bloomberg Sanders +7
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus FRA/David Binder (D) Sanders 17, Biden 15, Buttigieg 19, Warren 15, Klobuchar 11, Yang 1, Steyer 3, Gabbard 3, Bloomberg 1 Buttigieg +2
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Post and Courier Biden 25, Steyer 18, Sanders 20, Warren 11, Buttigieg 7, Yang 3, Gabbard 3, Klobuchar 2, Bloomberg Biden +5
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Sanders 49, Trump 45 Sanders +4
General Election: Trump vs. Warren NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Warren 48, Trump 45 Warren +3
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Buttigieg 46, Trump 45 Buttigieg +1
Friday, January 31
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 26, Sanders 27, Warren 15, Bloomberg 9, Buttigieg 7, Klobuchar 5, Yang 4, Gabbard 2, Steyer 2, Bennet 0, Patrick 1 Sanders +1
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Biden 26, Sanders 19, Warren 13, Bloomberg 8, Buttigieg 7, Klobuchar 3, Yang 4, Gabbard 1, Steyer 2, Bennet 1, Patrick 0 Biden +7
Washington Democratic Primary KING-TV/SurveyUSA Sanders 26, Biden 21, Warren 16, Bloomberg 12, Buttigieg 8, Yang 4, Klobuchar 3, Steyer 2 Sanders +5
General Election: Trump vs. Biden IBD/TIPP Biden 49, Trump 48 Biden +1
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 47, Trump 49 Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Warren IBD/TIPP Warren 46, Trump 50 Trump +4
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg IBD/TIPP Buttigieg 45, Trump 48 Trump +3
General Election: Trump vs. Bloomberg IBD/TIPP Bloomberg 48, Trump 47 Bloomberg +1

 

February 10, 2020 – Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Primary As Biden Falls, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Bloomberg Rises In Primary, Runs Strong Against Trump Quinnipiac University Polling Logo

PDF format
Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail

In the wake of the Iowa caucuses and heading into the New Hampshire primary, there is a dramatic shift in the Democratic primary race for president as Senator Bernie Sanders claims frontrunner status for the first time, overtaking former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Sanders gets 25 percent of the vote among Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic, while Biden gets 17 percent, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg receives 15 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren gets 14 percent, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg receives 10 percent, and Senator Amy Klobuchar gets 4 percent. No other candidate tops 2 percent.

In a January 28th poll, prior to the Iowa caucuses, Biden had a modest lead with 26 percent of the vote while Sanders got 21 percent, Warren had 15 percent, Bloomberg received 8 percent, Klobuchar got 7 percent, and Buttigieg received 6 percent.

“Biden scrambles to bounce back in frigid New Hampshire after an icy slide to 17 percent, his lowest national number,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Analyst Tim Malloy.

“Is the Bloomberg camp prepping the white horse for him to ride to the rescue? Maybe not yet, but without setting foot in Iowa or New Hampshire, he is suddenly a looming shadow over the primary field,” Malloy added.

Among moderate and conservative Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is now a close race for the top spot. This group had favored Biden by a wide margin, but his challengers are making inroads. Today, Biden receives 22 percent, Bloomberg gets 21 percent, Sanders gets 17 percent, and Buttigieg receives 12 percent.

Biden no longer dominates on the key question of electability, as 27 percent say Biden has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, while 24 percent say Sanders, 17 percent say Bloomberg, and 9 percent say Buttigieg. In the January 28th poll, Biden led on this question with 44 percent, followed by Sanders at 19 percent and Bloomberg at 9 percent.

“Clearly Biden’s fourth place finish in Iowa has hurt the perception of what was his biggest strength – electability,” Malloy said.

THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Among all registered voters, Democratic candidates lead President Trump in general election matchups by between 4 and 9 percentage points, with Bloomberg claiming the biggest numerical lead against Trump:

  • Bloomberg tops Trump 51 – 42 percent;
  • Sanders defeats Trump 51 – 43 percent;
  • Biden beats Trump 50 – 43 percent;
  • Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 – 43 percent;
  • Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 – 44 percent;
  • Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 – 43 percent.

President Trump’s favorability rating is underwater, as 42 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of him, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view of him. However, it is his best favorability rating since a March 7th, 2017 poll, when his favorability rating was a negative 43 – 53 percent.

Like President Trump, the top four Democratic candidates in the primary are viewed more unfavorably than favorably. Warren has the worst net score (favorable minus unfavorable) among all registered voters, with Biden close behind. Biden’s favorability numbers have been declining over the last year since his positive 53 – 33 percent favorability rating in a December 19th, 2018 poll. In today’s poll:

  • Warren gets a negative 39 – 47 percent favorability rating;
  • Biden gets a negative 43 – 50 percent;
  • Bloomberg gets a negative 34 – 40 percent, with 25 percent who haven’t heard enough about him;
  • Sanders gets a negative 44 – 49 percent;
  • Buttigieg gets a positive 36 – 32 percent, and 31 percent haven’t heard enough about him;
  • Klobuchar gets a positive 32 – 22 percent, with 44 percent who haven’t heard enough about her.

TRUMP JOB APPROVAL

Less than a week after President Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial and delivered his State of the Union address, the president’s job approval continues to match his highest approval number, with 43 percent of voters saying they approve of the job President Trump is doing and 53 percent saying they disapprove. This remains essentially unchanged since mid-December 2019. Broken down along party lines, Republicans approve 89 – 9 percent, Democrats disapprove 94 – 4 percent, and independents are split with 46 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving.

Looking at how President Trump compares to his two predecessors at the same point in their re-election years, voters gave President Obama a slightly negative 45 – 49 percent job approval rating in February of 2012, and President Bush a slightly positive 48 – 45 percent job approval rating in February of 2004. Unlike President Trump, though, both presidents had hit higher approval ratings in their previous years in office. President Obama had hit a high of 59 percent approval in 2009, and President Bush received a high of 83 percent approval in 2001.

“Fresh from acquittal by the Senate, feistily throwing haymakers in every direction, the president presumably has a strong economy to ride all the way to Election Day. The Democrats are facing a reinvigorated and formidable Trump,” added Malloy.

THE ECONOMY

President Trump continues to score high marks on his handling of the economy. Voters approve 54 – 42 percent of his handling of the economy, compared to his all-time high of 57 – 38 percent on January 13th, 2020. Republicans approve 97 – 3 percent, Democrats disapprove 81 – 15 percent, and independents approve 59 – 37 percent.

When asked about their personal financial situations, voters say 59 – 20 percent that they are better off financially than they were in 2016, the last presidential election year, while 19 percent say their financial situation is the same. This compares to a December 10th, 2019 survey that found 57 percent were better off, 22 percent were worse off, and 19 percent were the same.

Overall, 70 percent of voters describe the nation’s economy as excellent or good and 29 percent describe it as not so good or poor. That is just slightly lower than the all-time high set on December 16th, 2019, when 73 percent said excellent or good and 25 percent said not so good or poor.

POST-IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

American voters are evenly split, 49 – 49 percent, on the Senate’s decision to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment. Republicans approve 95 – 4 percent, independents approve 53 – 45 percent, and Democrats disapprove 90 – 8 percent.

Despite the acquittal, voters say 55 – 40 percent that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump does not clear him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter. Republicans say 81 – 12 percent that the acquittal clears the president of wrongdoing, while Democrats 91 – 6 percent and independents 54 – 40 percent say it does not. By 51 – 46 percent, voters say the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial.

Voters say 59 – 35 percent that the Senate impeachment trial was conducted unfairly.

From February 5 – 9, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,519 self-identified registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. The survey includes 665 Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than a dozen states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.

Visit poll.qu.edu or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll

Email poll@qu.edu, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.

1. How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
A lot                54%    59%    61%    45%    53%    55%    60%    51%
Some                 28     25     26     35     29     28     27     30
Only a little        12     11      8     15     11     13      9     12
None at all           5      4      5      5      7      4      4      6
DK/NA                 -      1      -      -      -      1      -      -
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
A lot                36%    49%    60%    66%    54%    57%    56%    51%    50%
Some                 37     36     25     18     30     27     28     33     22
Only a little        18     10     11     11      9     12     10     12     22
None at all           9      5      3      5      7      4      5      4      6
DK/NA                 -      -      1      1      -      -      -      1      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
A lot                59%    77%    55%    53%    58%    59%    64%    49%    69%    57%
Some                 28     18     33     31     29     28     25     36     23     28
Only a little         8      5      9      9      5     10      6     10      6      7
None at all           5      1      3      7      8      3      5      5      2      9
DK/NA                 -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
A lot                61%    50%    43%    56%    60%    69%    60%    59%    60%
Some                 26     36     39     31     29     18     24     28     31
Only a little         8      8     11      6     10      7     11      6      8
None at all           5      6      7      7      1      6      5      8      1
DK/NA                 -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
 

TREND: How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?

                                     OnlyA   None
                     A lot   Some    Little  AtAll   DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         54      28      12       5       - 
Jan 28, 2020         50      28      15       7       1
Jan 13, 2020         51      28      14       8       -
Dec 16, 2019         54      25      14       7       - 
Dec 10, 2019         51      29      15       6       -
Nov 26, 2019         49      29      15       7       1
Oct 24, 2019         51      27      14       7       -
Oct 14, 2019         54      25      11       9       - 
Oct 08, 2019         53      24      15       8       -
Sep 25, 2019         48      25      17       8       1

See additional trend information at top of page

2. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Biden                17%     5%    14%    22%    14%    19%    14%    27%    16%    12%
Sanders              25     44     27     17     32     20     22     19     17     30
Warren               14     27     20      6     10     16     16      8     17     13
Klobuchar             4      1      3      6      5      4      6      -      8      4
Gabbard               1      1      -      1      2      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg            10      8     11     12     10     11     14      4     16     10
Yang                  2      -      4      3      3      2      2      1      1      4
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Steyer                1      -      -      1      -      1      1      -      1      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg            15      4     12     21     13     16     15     22     16     12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1      5      -      -      -      2      -      4      -      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      1      1      -      2      2      1      2      -      -      4
DK/NA                10      5      9     11     10     10      9     13      8     10
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Biden                19%     9%     6%    13%    18%    27%    15%    17%    17%
Sanders              24     26     54     30     11      8     31     26     18
Warren               13     16     15     16     15     12     12     14     17
Klobuchar             4      4      2      4      4      6      2      7      4
Gabbard               1      -      2      1      -      -      1      -      1
Buttigieg             9     17      6     10     16      9     11      9     11
Yang                  3      1      5      2      -      1      2      3      2
Bennet                -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      1
Steyer                -      2      1      -      1      1      1      1      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg            14     17      5     13     18     22     11     18     16
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1      -      -      4      -      -      3      -      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      1      2      1      1      1      1      1      -      2
DK/NA                10      7      4      5     16     13      9      7      9
 
                     PREFER CANDIDATE Q6
                     Shares Most
                     Views  Elect
 
Biden                14%    18%
Sanders              35     15
Warren                9     18
Klobuchar             1      7
Gabbard               2      -
Buttigieg             7     14
Yang                  3      2
Bennet                -      -
Steyer                1      -
Patrick               -      -
Bloomberg            14     16
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      2      1
DK/NA                 9     10
 

TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote? (Trend information is available upon request back through Mar 2019)

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Feb 10  Jan 28  Jan 13  Dec 16  Dec 10  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Oct 08
                     2020    2020    2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019  
                             
Biden                17      26      25      30      29      24      21      27      26    
Sanders              25      21      19      16      17      13      15      11      16    
Warren               14      15      16      17      15      14      28      30      29    
Klobuchar             4       7       4       3       3       3       3       2       2    
Gabbard               1       1       1       1       2       1       1       -       -    
Buttigieg            10       6       8       9       9      16      10       8       4    
Yang                  2       3       5       3       4       2       1       2       3    
Bennet                -       -       1       -       1       2       -       1       1    
Steyer                1       2       1       1       1       -       1       2       -    
Patrick               -       -       1       -       -       -      na      na      na    
Bloomberg            15       8       6       7       5       3      na      na      na    
Delaney              na       -       -       -       1       -       -       -       -    
Booker               na      na       1       2       1       2       1       2       2    
Castro               na      na      na       1       1       2       1       1       1    
Williamson           na      na      na       -       1       -       -       -       -    
Bullock              na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -    
Harris               na      na      na      na      na       3       5       4       3    
Sestak               na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -    
Messam               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
O'Rourke             na      na      na      na      na      na       1       2       1    
Ryan                 na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       1    
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
SMONE ELSE            1       -       -       -       -       -       1       -       1    
WLDN'T VOTE           1       -       1       -       1       1       1       2       1    
DK/NA                10      11      11      10      11      11       9       8       8    
 
 

2a. (If candidate chosen q2) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................
                     CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q2................................
                            CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Tot    Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Made up              42%    46%    60%      30%     28%        25%
Might change         56     54     39       69      70         73
DK/NA                 1      1      1        1       2          2
 

TREND: (If candidate chosen) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
                     CANDIDATE CHOSEN.....
                     MadeUp  Change  DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         42      56       1
Jan 28, 2020         43      55       1
Jan 13, 2020         35      63       1
Dec 16, 2019         38      61       1
Dec 10, 2019         39      59       2
Nov 26, 2019         33      64       3
Sep 25, 2019         34      63       3
 
 

2b. (If candidate chosen q2) Who is your second choice?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................
                            CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Tot    Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Biden                15%     -     20%       8%     19%        33%
Sanders              11     19      -       33      11          4
Warren               16     13     37        -      26          7
Klobuchar             7     10      -        7      26          5
Gabbard               -      -      -        -       1          -
Buttigieg            13     17      7       25       -         21
Yang                  4      -     11        4       5          1
Bennet                -      -      -        -       -          1
Steyer                1      3      2        -       -          3
Patrick               1      -      -        4       -          -
Bloomberg             6     21      4        3       9          -
No first choice      12      -      -        -       -          -
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1      -      -        -       1          4
DK/NA                13     17     18       14       2         21
 

TREND: (If candidate chosen) Who is your second choice?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..................
                     Feb 10  Jan 28  Jan 13  Dec 16  Dec 10  Nov 26
                     2020    2020    2020    2019    2019    2019
                                                     
Biden                15      15      13      13      13      12
Sanders              11      11      18      14      11      11
Warren               16      17      19      21      16      20
Klobuchar             7       7       3       5       5       4
Gabbard               -       1       1       1       -       1
Buttigieg            13      12       7       9      11      10
Yang                  4       4       2       2       3       2
Bennet                -       -       -       -       -       -
Steyer                1       2       2       1       1       1
Patrick               1       -       1       -       1       -
Bloomberg             6       5       7       6       4       2
Delaney              na       -       -       -       -       -
Booker               na      na       4       3       4       2
Castro               na      na      na       1       -       -
Williamson           na      na      na       -       1       -
Bullock              na      na      na      na      na       -
Harris               na      na      na      na      na       6
Sestak               na      na      na      na      na       -
No first choice      12      12      12      10      12      12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1       -       1       -       1       -
DK/NA                13      13      11      14      16      16
 
 

3. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – would be the best leader?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Biden                22%    16%    23%    23%    17%    25%    17%    38%    20%    13%
Sanders              22     37     21     17     28     18     19     16     14     27
Warren               14     27     17      8     10     17     18      7     20     14
Klobuchar             3      2      3      5      4      3      5      1      6      4
Gabbard               1      1      -      1      2      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg            10      6     10     12     12      9     13      3     15     11
Yang                  2      1      3      2      4      1      2      1      1      4
Bennet                -      -      1      -      1      -      -      2      -      -
Steyer                1      -      -      1      -      1      1      -      1      1
Patrick               -      1      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Bloomberg            13      3     12     16     14     12     15     12     17     12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                11      6      9     14      7     14      9     18      6     15
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Biden                24%    15%    12%    20%    23%    30%    20%    25%    18%
Sanders              21     26     49     27     10      6     26     24     16
Warren               14     17     14     20     15      9     12     13     21
Klobuchar             4      3      1      4      4      4      3      5      3
Gabbard               1      -      2      1      -      -      1      -      1
Buttigieg             9     13      8     10     13      8      7     12     13
Yang                  2      1      5      2      -      2      2      2      3
Bennet                1      -      -      1      1      -      1      -      1
Steyer                -      3      1      -      1      1      1      -      1
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -
Bloomberg            13     15      6     10     15     20     11     14     14
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
DK/NA                12      8      4      5     17     19     15      6      9
 

TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think would be the best leader? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Feb 10  Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02
                     2020    2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019  
                                             
Biden                22      31      32      26      28      32      33      36      26    
Sanders              22      18      14      12      13       9      13      12      15    
Warren               14      17      19      19      24      28      22      17      15    
Klobuchar             3       6       3       3       3       2       1       1       1    
Gabbard               1       1       1       -       -       -       1       -       1    
Buttigieg            10       5       6      12       8       7       5       5       4    
Yang                  2       2       2       2       1       1       1       1       -    
Bennet                -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Steyer                1       1       1       -       -       1       -       -      na    
Patrick               -       -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na    
Bloomberg            13       9       8       3      na      na      na      na      na    
Delaney              na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Booker               na      na       2       1       1       1       2       1       3    
Castro               na      na       1       -       -       1       1       -       1    
Williamson           na      na       -       -       -       -       -       1       -    
Bullock              na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Harris               na      na      na       4       4       4       7       9      16    
Sestak               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Messam               na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -    
O'Rourke             na      na      na      na       1       1       1       1       1    
Ryan                 na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -    
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -    
SMONE ELSE            -       -       -       1       1       1       -       -       -    
DK/NA                11      11      12      15      13      11      12      15      15    
 
 

4. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best policy ideas?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Biden                14%     5%    12%    18%    13%    14%    11%    25%    13%     7%
Sanders              27     45     35     17     31     24     26     23     21     34
Warren               16     31     22      9     14     18     20     11     24     13
Klobuchar             4      -      4      6      5      4      7      1      7      5
Gabbard               1      1      -      1      2      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             9      6      7     11     10      8     12      3     14      9
Yang                  4      1      5      5      6      3      3      3      2      4
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Steyer                1      2      1      1      1      2      1      2      2      1
Patrick               -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Bloomberg            10      6      7     13      9     12      9     17      9     10
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1
DK/NA                13      3      7     18      9     15     10     15      7     16
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Biden                14%    14%     6%    11%    15%    20%    10%    17%    11%
Sanders              28     25     50     33     18     10     32     29     22
Warren               16     17     15     19     18     13     11     15     24
Klobuchar             4      6      1      3      6      7      2      7      5
Gabbard               1      -      2      1      -      -      1      -      1
Buttigieg             8     11      5      8     11      9      9      7     11
Yang                  4      6      7      5      2      2      4      4      5
Bennet                -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      1
Steyer                1      2      1      1      3      1      3      1      1
Patrick               -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -      1
Bloomberg            11      9      5      7     12     17     12     10      9
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      -      -      -      1      1      -      -
DK/NA                14      8      8     11     14     19     16     10      8
 

TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best policy ideas? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Feb 10  Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02
                     2020    2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019  
                             
Biden                14      18      23      15      15      16      17      21      11    
Sanders              27      22      19      15      20      12      16      16      18    
Warren               16      21      19      23      30      40      32      26      31    
Klobuchar             4       6       3       4       3       2       1       1       1    
Gabbard               1       -       1       -       -       -       1       1       1    
Buttigieg             9       6       8      14       9       6       5       5       3    
Yang                  4       3       4       3       2       2       1       2       -    
Bennet                -       -       -       1       -       -       -       -       -    
Steyer                1       2       1       1       -       1       -       -      na    
Patrick               -       -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na    
Bloomberg            10       6       4       -      na      na      na      na      na    
Delaney              na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Booker               na      na       2       -       1       1       1       1       2    
Castro               na      na       1       1       -       -       -       1       1    
Williamson           na      na       -       -       -       -       -       1       -    
Bullock              na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Harris               na      na      na       2       4       1       5       6       8    
Sestak               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Messam               na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -    
O'Rourke             na      na      na      na       1       2       1       1       -    
Ryan                 na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -    
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na      na       1       -       -    
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -    
SMONE ELSE            -       -       -       1       1       -       -       -       -    
DK/NA                13      16      16      19      13      16      17      20      22    
 
 

5. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Biden                27%    22%    32%    26%    24%    28%    23%    40%    22%    24%
Sanders              24     48     19     18     35     17     24     14     20     30
Warren                5      9      5      4      4      6      6      2      7      5
Klobuchar             1      1      3      1      1      2      2      -      3      1
Gabbard               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             9      8      6     11      8     10     11      4     12      9
Yang                  1      -      1      1      2      -      -      1      -      -
Bennet                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Steyer                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Patrick               -      1      -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -
Bloomberg            17      3     17     22     15     18     17     25     20     12
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      1      -      -      1      1      -      1      1
DK/NA                15      8     17     17     12     18     16     11     15     18
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Biden                29%    16%    22%    23%    26%    30%    27%    27%    23%
Sanders              23     28     56     27     14      8     29     23     22
Warren                4      9      4      3      6      7      5      5      6
Klobuchar             1      3      1      2      -      2      1      2      1
Gabbard               -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Buttigieg             8     10      7     11     12      5      9      8     10
Yang                  1      2      1      2      -      1      1      -      1
Bennet                -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      1
Steyer                -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -      -
Patrick               -      -      -      -      -      1      -      -      -
Bloomberg            17     16      4     18     23     22     12     19     21
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      -      -      1      -      1      -      1      1
DK/NA                15     17      5     13     19     23     15     13     13
 

TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Feb 10  Jan 28  Dec 16  Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02
                     2020    2020    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019  
                                             
Biden                27      44      44      46      42      48      49      51      42    
Sanders              24      19      15      10      14       7      12      10      13    
Warren                5       7       9      10      20      21       9       8       9    
Klobuchar             1       2       1       1       1       -       -       -       -    
Gabbard               -       -       1       1       -       -       -       -       1    
Buttigieg             9       2       3       6       2       2       1       1       1    
Yang                  1       1       1       1       -       -       1       -       -    
Bennet                -       -       -       1       -       -       -       -       -    
Steyer                -       1       -       -       1       1       -       -      na    
Patrick               -       -       -       -      na      na      na      na      na    
Bloomberg            17       9       7       3      na      na      na      na      na    
Delaney              na       -       -       -       -       -       -       1       -    
Booker               na      na       -       -       1       1       1       1       1    
Castro               na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Williamson           na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Bullock              na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Harris               na      na      na       1       3       1       6       8      14    
Sestak               na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Messam               na      na      na      na       -       -       -       -       -    
O'Rourke             na      na      na      na       -       1       2       -       -    
Ryan                 na      na      na      na       -       -       1       -       -    
de Blasio            na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gillibrand           na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Gravel               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Hickenlooper         na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Inslee               na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Moulton              na      na      na      na      na      na       -       -       -    
Swalwell             na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na       -    
SMONE ELSE            -       -       -       -       1       -       1       -       -    
DK/NA                15      16      19      20      15      16      17      20      17    
 
 

6. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Shares views         46%    49%    49%    43%    47%    45%    37%    62%    32%    47%
Most electable       49     44     49     53     48     50     59     31     65     47
DOESN'T MATTER(VOL)   1      1      1      1      -      1      1      1      1      1
DK/NA                 4      6      -      3      5      3      3      5      2      5
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Shares views         46%    46%    68%    50%    40%    28%    56%    44%    39%
Most electable       50     49     28     44     55     68     40     51     59
DOESN'T MATTER(VOL)   1      -      -      2      -      1      1      1      -
DK/NA                 4      4      4      4      5      3      3      4      2
 

TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..
                     Shares  Most    DOESN'T
                     views   elect   MATTER  DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         46      49       1       4
Aug 06, 2019         46      50       1       3
Mar 28, 2019         51      45       1       3
 
 

7. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Do you think Iowa should continue to be the first state in the nation to vote in the presidential nomination process, or don’t you think so?

                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Yes/Should continue  17%    14%    14%    20%    18%    16%    16%    17%    12%    22%
No                   64     71     66     61     67     62     65     68     68     59
DK/NA                19     15     20     19     15     22     20     15     20     18
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Yes/Should continue  16%    19%    30%    14%    14%    12%    19%    20%    12%
No                   65     61     59     65     70     64     67     58     67
DK/NA                19     20     11     21     16     24     14     21     21
 
 

8. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Biden                50%     6%    92%    48%    43%    57%    54%    33%
Trump                43     92      4     41     49     37     40     60
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      -      -      3      2      2      2      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      -      3      5      3      3      2      3
DK/NA                 2      2      1      2      2      1      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Biden                55%    52%    43%    54%    39%    48%    44%    81%    62%
Trump                32     39     52     44     56     45     50     12     29
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       5      2      1      -      1      3      2      2      1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      5      4      3      -      3      2      2      4      3
DK/NA                 3      2      1      1      2      2      2      1      4
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Biden                99%    85%      94%     99%        96%
Trump                 1      3        -       1          2
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1        -       -          1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -     10        6       1          -
DK/NA                 -      1        -       -          1
 

TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                     SMONE   WLD'T
                     Biden   Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         50      43       2       3       2
Dec 10, 2019         51      42       2       2       3
Oct 08, 2019         51      40       2       3       4
Aug 28, 2019         54      38       1       2       4
Jun 11, 2019         53      40       1       2       4
Sep 24, 2015         51      40       1       4       4
Aug 27, 2015         48      40       2       5       5
Jul 30, 2015         49      37       3       6       5
 
 

9. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Sanders              51%     4%    93%    48%    45%    57%    52%    35%
Trump                43     92      4     43     50     38     41     61
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1      -      -      2      1      1      2      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      2      1      2      2      2      1      2      1
DK/NA                 3      2      1      4      2      3      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Sanders              64%    53%    43%    50%    38%    49%    44%    85%    64%
Trump                31     41     53     44     56     46     51     10     31
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      1      1      1      1      1      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      1      2      1      2      2      1      2      1      1
DK/NA                 3      3      2      2      2      2      2      3      4
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Sanders              92%    100%     98%     97%        83%
Trump                 1       -       -       -         10
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -       -       -       -          2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3       -       2       3          2
DK/NA                 4       -       -       -          3
 

TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                     SMONE   WLD'T
                     Sanders Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         51      43       1       2       3
Dec 10, 2019         51      43       2       2       3
Oct 08, 2019         49      42       2       3       4
Aug 28, 2019         53      39       1       3       4
Jun 11, 2019         51      42       1       2       4
Jun 01, 2016         48      39       3       6       5
Mar 23, 2016         52      38       2       5       3
Feb 18, 2016         48      42       2       5       4
Feb 05, 2016         49      39       2       6       5
Dec 22, 2015         51      38       1       6       4

See additional trend information at top of page

10. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Warren               48%     4%    94%    41%    40%    56%    52%    31%
Trump                44     92      4     46     53     36     41     62
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      1      -      2      2      2      2      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      2      -      1      6      2      3      2      3
DK/NA                 3      3      1      5      3      3      3      3
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Warren               53%    49%    42%    51%    35%    47%    41%    85%    56%
Trump                34     42     53     45     60     44     51     10     35
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       5      1      1      2      1      3      2      -      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      4      2      2      1      2      3      2      3      2
DK/NA                 4      5      2      1      3      3      3      3      5
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Warren               93%    94%      100%    98%        89%
Trump                 1      2         -      -          6
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1         -      -          2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      1         -      2          2
DK/NA                 6      1         -      -          2
 

TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                     SMONE   WLD'T
                     Warren  Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         48      44       2       2       3
Dec 10, 2019         50      43       2       2       3
Oct 08, 2019         49      41       2       3       4
Aug 28, 2019         52      40       1       3       4
Jun 11, 2019         49      42       1       3       5
 
 

11. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Buttigieg            47%     6%    88%    43%    37%    57%    56%    33%
Trump                43     90      6     42     52     36     38     61
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      1      -      2      3      1      1      1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      -      3      4      4      1      1      1
DK/NA                 5      3      2      9      5      5      3      4
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Buttigieg            49%    48%    42%    52%    37%    51%    44%    72%    48%
Trump                40     37     52     43     57     44     50     13     34
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       3      2      1      1      1      1      1      3      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      5      2      1      2      1      1      5      4
DK/NA                 5      8      3      4      3      4      4      7     11
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................                     
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Buttigieg            87%    82%      96%     100%       87%
Trump                 3      9        1        -         7
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      2        -        -         1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      4      6        3        -         1
DK/NA                 4      1        -        -         5
 

TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                     Butti-          SMONE   WLD'T
                     gieg    Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         47      43       2       3       5
Dec 10, 2019         48      43       2       2       4
Aug 28, 2019         49      40       2       3       7
Jun 11, 2019         47      42       1       3       7
 
 

12. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Klobuchar            49%     6%    92%    43%    40%    57%    55%    33%
Trump                43     91      5     42     51     36     40     60
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      -      -      3      2      2      1      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      2      1      1      5      3      1      1      1
DK/NA                 4      2      2      7      4      4      3      4
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Klobuchar            51%    50%    43%    52%    38%    49%    44%    80%    57%
Trump                35     39     52     44     57     44     50     13     31
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       5      1      1      1      1      2      2      1      2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      4      1      -      2      1      1      2      4
DK/NA                 6      6      3      3      3      4      4      4      6
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Klobuchar            97%    87%      97%     99%        90%
Trump                 -      6        -       -          6
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1        -       -          1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      1      5        -       1          -
DK/NA                 2      1        3       -          4
 

TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                     Klobu-          SMONE   WLD'T
                     char    Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         49      43       2       2       4
Dec 10, 2019         47      43       2       2       5
 
 

13. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Bloomberg            51%     6%    92%    48%    42%    59%    56%    36%
Trump                42     90      3     41     49     35     39     59
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       2      -      -      2      2      1      1      1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      1      3      4      3      2      2      2
DK/NA                 3      3      1      5      4      2      3      3
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Bloomberg            56%    52%    45%    53%    39%    52%    46%    86%    53%
Trump                32     38     50     44     55     44     49      7     34
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       4      1      -      1      1      1      1      -      4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      3      4      3      -      2      1      2      6      3
DK/NA                 4      5      2      2      3      2      3      2      6
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
                     CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
                     Biden  Sanders  Warren  Buttigieg  Bloomberg
 
Bloomberg            97%    85%      95%     96%        100%
Trump                 1      4        1       1           -
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      2        1       -           -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      2      7        3       3           -
DK/NA                 1      2        -       -           -
 

TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                     Bloom-          SMONE   WLD'T
                     berg    Trump   ELSE    VOTE    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         51      42       2       3       3
Dec 10, 2019         48      42       2       3       5
 
 

14. Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            43%    10%    75%    43%    37%    48%    47%    30%
Unfavorable          50     84     21     49     54     46     48     63
Hvn't hrd enough      5      4      3      7      6      5      4      5
REFUSED               2      2      1      2      3      1      1      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            34%    49%    38%    50%    35%    42%    39%    72%    45%
Unfavorable          52     45     56     44     59     52     56     20     46
Hvn't hrd enough     11      4      4      4      5      4      4      7      9
REFUSED               3      2      1      2      1      2      2      2      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            75%    63%    76%    80%    69%    79%    76%    82%    79%    73%
Unfavorable          21     36     22     15     27     17     20     11     19     23
Hvn't hrd enough      3      1      2      5      4      3      2      7      2      3
REFUSED               1      -      -      1      -      1      1      1      -      2
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            75%    75%    48%    81%    79%    89%    70%    76%    77%
Unfavorable          21     20     46     17     16      8     26     19     21
Hvn't hrd enough      3      5      6      2      4      2      3      5      2
REFUSED               1      -      -      -      1      1      1      -      1
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         43      50       5       2
Dec 10, 2019         44      47       7       2
Oct 14, 2019         41      43      14       3
Sep 25, 2019         45      45       9       2
May 21, 2019         49      39      11       2
Dec 19, 2018         53      33      12       2 
Jan 17, 2018         53      29      17       1 
Sep 24, 2015         50      34      14       1
Aug 27, 2015         48      39      11       1
Jul 30, 2015         49      39      10       2

See additional trend information at top of page, including Democratic/Democratic leaner trends

15. Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            44%     8%    76%    44%    43%    46%    41%    32%
Unfavorable          49     88     18     50     51     47     54     62
Hvn't hrd enough      5      4      5      4      4      6      3      5
REFUSED               1      1      1      2      1      1      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            60%    48%    34%    39%    35%    38%    37%    71%    63%
Unfavorable          34     45     60     51     60     56     58     20     26
Hvn't hrd enough      5      6      4      8      4      5      4      6     10
REFUSED               -      1      2      1      1      1      1      2      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            76%    91%    79%    68%    79%    74%    71%    80%    70%    73%
Unfavorable          18      9     13     25     15     20     23     12     25     20
Hvn't hrd enough      5      1      5      6      4      5      4      5      3      5
REFUSED               2      -      2      2      2      1      1      3      1      1
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            76%    74%    85%    78%    69%    72%    77%    78%    70%
Unfavorable          18     19     11     18     24     19     13     20     24
Hvn't hrd enough      5      3      2      4      3      8      8      1      4
REFUSED               1      4      1      -      4      1      2      1      2
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         44      49       5       1
Dec 10, 2019         44      48       7       1
Oct 14, 2019         39      47      12       2
Sep 25, 2019         40      51       8       2
May 21, 2019         41      48       8       3
Dec 19, 2018         44      42      12       3
Jan 17, 2018         48      38      13       1
Mar 23, 2016         50      37      12       1
Feb 18, 2016         51      36      12       1 
Feb 05, 2016         44      35      19       2

See additional trend information at top of page, including Democratic/Democratic leaner trends

16. Is your opinion of Elizabeth Warren favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            39%     4%    77%    33%    34%    43%    44%    26%
Unfavorable          47     84     13     49     53     41     48     58
Hvn't hrd enough     13     11     10     16     11     15      8     15
REFUSED               1      1      -      2      1      -      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            45%    39%    36%    40%    31%    38%    35%    65%    40%
Unfavorable          41     43     53     48     59     48     53     16     39
Hvn't hrd enough     14     17     11     11     10     13     12     17     21
REFUSED               -      1      1      1      1      1      1      2      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            74%    87%    75%    70%    75%    74%    76%    73%    78%    73%
Unfavorable          14     10     15     16     14     14     15      8     17     13
Hvn't hrd enough     11      3      9     14     10     12      8     17      4     15
REFUSED               -      -      1      -      1      -      -      1      -      -
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            77%    64%    82%    71%    78%    75%    75%    75%    73%
Unfavorable          13     17     13     13     12     12      9     17     19
Hvn't hrd enough     10     18      5     17      8     12     15      8      8
REFUSED               -      2      -      -      2      -      -      -      -
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Elizabeth Warren favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         39      47      13       1 
Dec 10, 2019         38      45      16       1
Oct 14, 2019         36      39      23       2
Sep 25, 2019         39      41      19       1 
May 21, 2019         32      41      25       2
Dec 19, 2018         30      37      31       2
Jul 08, 2014         24      15      61       -
Dec 11, 2013         17      19      63       1 
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

17. Is your opinion of Pete Buttigieg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            36%    10%    59%    38%    33%    39%    49%    27%
Unfavorable          32     56     13     29     39     26     30     38
Hvn't hrd enough     31     34     26     32     27     34     20     34
REFUSED               1      1      2      1      1      1      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            32%    37%    37%    39%    36%    40%    38%    38%    27%
Unfavorable          31     29     34     34     39     29     34     16     27
Hvn't hrd enough     36     34     28     26     24     30     27     42     46
REFUSED               1      1      2      1      1      1      1      3      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            60%    62%    62%    60%    60%    60%    71%    42%    77%    61%
Unfavorable          13     30      7     10     18     10     11     13     11     11
Hvn't hrd enough     26      8     28     29     21     28     18     42     12     28
REFUSED               1      1      2      1      1      2      1      4      1      -
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            59%    64%    47%    57%    68%    66%    53%    57%    71%
Unfavorable          13     13     30     15      6      6     16     13     13
Hvn't hrd enough     26     23     23     27     23     27     31     30     13
REFUSED               2      -      -      1      3      1      -      1      3
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Pete Buttigieg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         36      32      31       1
Dec 10, 2019         31      29      39       1
Sep 25, 2019         28      28      43       1
May 21, 2019         23      19      57       1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

18. Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            32%    10%    58%    28%    30%    35%    43%    20%
Unfavorable          22     45      9     13     27     18     19     28
Hvn't hrd enough     44     44     33     58     42     47     38     50
REFUSED               1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            25%    29%    34%    41%    30%    33%    32%    50%    27%
Unfavorable          19     19     25     23     27     20     23      8     17
Hvn't hrd enough     54     50     40     35     43     45     44     43     56
REFUSED               2      1      -      1      1      1      1      -      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            57%    62%    51%    59%    57%    56%    63%    56%    68%    55%
Unfavorable           8     17      5      6     13      5      6      5      6      7
Hvn't hrd enough     35     19     44     34     30     38     30     38     25     37
REFUSED               1      1      -      1      1      1      1      -      1      1
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            58%    51%    41%    52%    64%    69%    51%    63%    59%
Unfavorable           9      6     17      9      6      2      9      4     12
Hvn't hrd enough     33     41     41     38     30     29     40     33     28
REFUSED               1      1      1      1      -      -      -      -      1
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         33      22      44       1
Dec 10, 2019         24      23      51       1
Sep 25, 2019         20      25      54       1
May 21, 2019         16      19      64       1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

19. Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            34%     8%    58%    35%    30%    39%    40%    22%
Unfavorable          40     71     18     35     46     34     39     50
Hvn't hrd enough     25     21     23     29     24     26     20     28
REFUSED               -      -      -      1      -      -      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            29%    34%    35%    40%    27%    34%    31%    60%    28%
Unfavorable          36     38     42     40     50     39     44     11     36
Hvn't hrd enough     35     27     22     20     22     26     24     29     36
REFUSED               -      1      1      -      -      1      1      -      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            58%    41%    57%    65%    50%    63%    60%    63%    65%    52%
Unfavorable          18     36     17     11     25     13     17      7     17     16
Hvn't hrd enough     24     22     26     24     25     23     22     30     18     30
REFUSED               -      2      -      -      -      1      1      -      -      2
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            58%    56%    38%    54%    66%    70%    50%    62%    61%
Unfavorable          18     15     36     20      8      6     19     16     20
Hvn't hrd enough     23     27     25     25     25     24     30     21     19
REFUSED               -      2      -      -      1      -      -      1      -
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hav't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         34      40      25       -
Dec 10, 2019         21      40      37       1
Dec 19, 2018         22      32      44       2
Feb 18, 2016         21      26      50       2
Feb 05, 2016         20      25      53       2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

20. Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            28%    10%    44%    29%    30%    26%    32%    23%
Unfavorable          20     36     11     15     22     19     21     24
Hvn't hrd enough     51     53     45     55     48     54     46     53
REFUSED               1      1      1      1      1      1      1      -
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            37%    26%    25%    26%    30%    26%    28%    26%    31%
Unfavorable          15     18     22     24     22     22     22     11     10
Hvn't hrd enough     48     54     54     50     48     51     49     63     59
REFUSED               -      2      -      1      1      1      1      -      -
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            43%    59%    46%    37%    51%    38%    47%    26%    48%    46%
Unfavorable          11     14      4     12     10     11     11     10     11     11
Hvn't hrd enough     46     27     50     51     39     50     41     64     40     43
REFUSED               -      -      -      1      -      1      1      -      1      -
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            44%    42%    54%    35%    42%    42%    38%    44%    49%
Unfavorable          11      7     12     10      9     13     11     10     13
Hvn't hrd enough     45     52     35     54     49     46     51     46     38
REFUSED               1      -      -      1      -      -      -      -      -
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hav't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         28      20      51       1
Sep 25, 2019         20      27      52       1
May 21, 2019          8      13      76       2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

21. Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            17%     3%    31%    17%    16%    18%    21%    12%
Unfavorable          25     45     13     19     28     21     23     30
Hvn't hrd enough     58     51     55     64     55     60     55     57
REFUSED               1      1      1      1      1      1      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            12%    11%    21%    23%    16%    18%    17%    23%    12%
Unfavorable          21     20     29     27     29     24     27     13     21
Hvn't hrd enough     67     68     50     49     54     58     56     65     67
REFUSED               -      1      -      1      1      1      1      -      1
 
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
                            POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY                             WHITE......
                            LIBERAL.....  Mod/                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Very   Smwht  Cons   Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Yes    No
 
Favorable            32%    37%    32%    30%    32%    32%    36%    27%    38%    33%
Unfavorable          12     19     10     11     15     10     13     10     14     12
Hvn't hrd enough     56     44     58     59     52     58     50     63     48     54
REFUSED               1      -      -      1      1      1      1      -      -      1
 
                     PARTYID.....  AGE IN YRS..............    INCOME.............
                     Dem    DemLn  18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    <50k   50-100 100k+
 
Favorable            31%    35%    21%    19%    45%    42%    31%    31%    32%
Unfavorable          13      5     14     15      7     12     12      9     16
Hvn't hrd enough     55     58     65     65     48     44     56     60     51
REFUSED               1      2      1      1      -      2      -      -      1
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hav't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         17      25      58       1
Sep 25, 2019          7      22      69       1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page 
 
 
                  
 
 

22. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Favorable            42%    89%     4%    41%    50%    35%    38%    58%
Unfavorable          55      9     95     55     48     62     60     37
Hvn't hrd enough      1      -      1      2      1      1      1      1
REFUSED               2      2      -      2      2      2      1      3
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Favorable            33%    37%    52%    42%    54%    43%    48%    12%    31%
Unfavorable          63     59     47     54     43     54     49     86     64
Hvn't hrd enough      3      -      1      1      -      1      1      1      3
REFUSED               2      3      -      2      2      2      2      1      2
 

TREND: Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

                                     Hvn't
                     Fav     Unfav   HrdEn   REF
 
Feb 10, 2020         42      55       1       2
Dec 10, 2019         40      57       2       2
Oct 14, 2019         39      56       2       3
Sep 25, 2019         38      55       4       3
May 21, 2019         38      57       2       3
Jan 15, 2019         41      56       2       2
Dec 19, 2018         40      56       2       2
Feb 21, 2018         37      59       2       2
Jan 17, 2018         38      58       3       1
Oct 11, 2017         39      57       2       2

See additional trend information at top of page

23. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG   Wht  
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No     Evang
                                                                                  
Approve              43%    89%     4%    46%    51%    36%    41%    60%    79%  
Disapprove           53      9     94     50     46     60     58     36     19   
DK/NA                 3      2      2      4      3      3      1      4      1   
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              37%    41%    51%    42%    57%    45%    51%    10%    32%
Disapprove           59     56     47     54     41     52     47     86     62
DK/NA                 4      3      2      4      2      3      2      4      5
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?

                     App     Dis     DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         43      53       3 
Jan 28, 2020         43      52       5 
Jan 13, 2020         43      52       5 
Dec 16, 2019         43      52       5 
Dec 10, 2019         41      55       4
Nov 26, 2019         40      54       6
Oct 23, 2019         38      58       5
Oct 14, 2019         41      54       5
Oct 08, 2019         40      54       6
Sep 30, 2019         41      53       6

See additional trend information at top of page

23a. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove q23) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG   Wht  
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No     Evang
                                                                                  
Approve strongly     35%    77%     3%    30%    40%    30%    30%    51%    69%  
Approve smwht         9     12      1     15     11      6     11      9     10   
Disapprove smwht      6      4      6      8      6      7      4      6      3   
Disapprove strongly  47      4     88     42     40     53     53     30     16   
DK/NA                 4      2      3      5      4      4      1      4      2   
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve strongly     25%    29%    42%    38%    45%    37%    40%     7%    23%
Approve smwht        11     12      9      4     13      8     10      3      9
Disapprove smwht     12      6      4      4      5      5      5      8     10
Disapprove strongly  47     49     42     50     36     47     42     77     51
DK/NA                 4      4      3      4      2      3      3      5      6
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?

                     APPROVE......   DISAPPROVE.....
                     Strngly Smwht   Smwht   Strngly DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         35       9       6      47       4 
Jan 28, 2020         34       8       6      47       5
Jan 13, 2020         34       9       6      46       6
Dec 16, 2019         34       9       5      46       6
Dec 10, 2019         31      10       5      49       4
Nov 26, 2019         32       7       4      50       6
Oct 23, 2019         28       9       4      53       5
Oct 14, 2019         31      10       5      48       5
Oct 08, 2019         29      11       6      47       7
Sep 30, 2019         35       6       4      48       7 

See additional trend information at top of page

24. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Approve              39%    81%     8%    36%    43%    36%    34%    53%
Disapprove           57     16     89     59     54     59     63     42
DK/NA                 4      3      2      4      4      5      2      5
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              35%    34%    45%    41%    46%    41%    43%    16%    35%
Disapprove           59     62     52     54     51     55     53     82     53
DK/NA                 6      4      3      6      3      4      4      2     12
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?

                     App     Dis     DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         39      57       4 
Dec 16, 2019         37      57       7 
Nov 26, 2019         32      60       8
Oct 14, 2019         28      64       8
Sep 30, 2019         33      61       6
Jun 12, 2019         27      66       7
Mar 05, 2019         27      66       8
Jan 29, 2019         30      65       6
Jan 15, 2019         29      63       8
Dec 19, 2018         28      63       9

See additional trend information at top of page

25. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Approve              37%     5%    73%    28%    31%    43%    41%    25%
Disapprove           60     94     25     69     67     54     57     73
DK/NA                 3      1      2      3      2      3      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              33%    39%    33%    44%    29%    36%    33%    63%    41%
Disapprove           63     59     66     52     69     61     65     34     53
DK/NA                 4      2      1      4      2      3      2      3      7
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?

                     App     Dis     DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         37      60       3
Dec 16, 2019         39      56       5
Nov 26, 2019         36      57       8
Oct 14, 2019         35      58       8
Sep 30, 2019         32      62       6
Jun 12, 2019         34      59       7
Mar 05, 2019         38      56       6
Jan 29, 2019         38      57       5
Jan 15, 2019         37      56       7
Dec 19, 2018         32      59       9

See additional trend information at top of page

26. Would you say that Donald Trump – is honest, or not?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes                  37%    82%     4%    31%    40%    33%    32%    53%
No                   58     12     95     63     54     63     63     42
DK/NA                 5      6      1      6      6      4      5      6
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes                  27%    30%    45%    41%    45%    40%    42%    10%    26%
No                   68     65     50     55     49     56     52     86     70
DK/NA                 5      5      5      4      6      5      5      3      4
 

TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump is honest, or not?

                     Yes     No      DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         37      58       5
Sep 30, 2019         37      57       6
Mar 05, 2019         30      65       5 
Jan 15, 2019         34      61       5
Nov 20, 2018         36      58       5
Sep 10, 2018         32      60       9
Jul 03, 2018         38      58       4
Jun 06, 2018         35      59       6
Mar 21, 2018         38      57       5
Jan 25, 2018         35      60       5

See additional trend information at top of page

27. Would you say that Donald Trump – has good leadership skills, or not?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes                  43%    88%     8%    40%    50%    37%    36%    63%
No                   55     11     90     57     48     61     61     36
DK/NA                 2      1      1      3      2      2      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes                  43%    37%    49%    42%    54%    45%    49%    14%    33%
No                   56     60     50     55     44     53     49     86     64
DK/NA                 1      2      1      3      2      2      2      1      3
 

TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump has good leadership skills, or not?

                     Yes     No      DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         43      55       2
Mar 05, 2019         39      58       3
Jan 15, 2019         39      58       3
Nov 20, 2018         42      55       3
Sep 10, 2018         38      57       5
Jul 03, 2018         43      55       2
Jun 06, 2018         41      56       4
Mar 21, 2018         41      56       3
Jan 25, 2018         38      59       3
Jan 10, 2018         39      59       2

See additional trend information at top of page

28. Would you say that Donald Trump – cares about average Americans, or not?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes                  44%    91%     5%    43%    50%    38%    40%    61%
No                   55      8     94     54     48     61     59     38
DK/NA                 2      1      2      3      2      2      2      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes                  35%    39%    53%    44%    55%    46%    50%    12%    34%
No                   63     59     46     54     43     53     49     86     63
DK/NA                 2      2      1      2      2      1      1      2      3
 

TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump cares about average Americans, or not?

                     Yes     No      DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         44      55       2
Mar 05, 2019         39      58       3 
Jan 15, 2019         43      55       2
Nov 20, 2018         42      53       4
Sep 10, 2018         41      55       4
Jul 03, 2018         43      55       2
Jun 06, 2018         42      55       3
Mar 21, 2018         43      53       4
Jan 25, 2018         40      57       3
Jan 10, 2018         38      59       2

See additional trend information at top of page

29. Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as president, or doing more to divide the country as president?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Unite                37%    82%     3%    34%    43%    32%    32%    55%
Divide               57     12     95     57     51     62     63     38
DK/NA                 6      6      2      9      5      6      5      7
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Unite                31%    32%    45%    39%    49%    39%    43%     9%    29%
Divide               66     61     49     55     45     55     51     88     67
DK/NA                 4      7      6      6      6      6      6      2      4
 

TREND: Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as President, or doing more to divide the country as President? (Prior to Feb 22, 2017 “will do more”)

                     Unite   Divide  DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         37      57       6
Aug 28, 2019         30      62       8 
Jul 03, 2018         36      58       5
Feb 07, 2018         35      60       6
Jan 17, 2018         31      64       5
Dec 12, 2017         32      62       7
Oct 11, 2017         37      58       5
Sep 27, 2017         35      60       5
Aug 23, 2017         31      62       7
Apr 19, 2017         36      59       6

See additional trend information at top of page

30. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – the economy?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Approve              54%    97%    15%    59%    62%    47%    50%    70%
Disapprove           42      3     81     37     34     49     47     27
DK/NA                 4      1      4      4      4      5      3      3
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              50%    54%    59%    52%    66%    55%    60%    28%    46%
Disapprove           44     42     39     44     31     42     37     69     44
DK/NA                 5      4      2      4      3      3      3      3     10
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the economy?

                     App     Dis     DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         54      42       4
Jan 13, 2020         57      38       5 
Dec 10, 2019         54      42       4
Oct 23, 2019         48      48       4
Oct 14, 2019         49      46       5
Sep 25, 2019         48      47       5
Aug 28, 2019         46      49       5
May 21, 2019         48      45       7
Mar 05, 2019         49      45       7
Jan 29, 2019         46      51       3

See additional trend information at top of page

31. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – foreign policy?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Approve              43%    90%     5%    43%    51%    37%    40%    61%
Disapprove           53      8     92     54     47     58     58     36
DK/NA                 3      2      3      3      2      5      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              36%    42%    51%    42%    57%    45%    50%     9%    33%
Disapprove           59     55     48     53     43     51     47     87     57
DK/NA                 4      3      2      5      1      4      2      3     10
 

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling foreign policy?

                     App     Dis     DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         43      53       3
Jan 13, 2020         43      53       4
Dec 10, 2019         40      56       4
Oct 23, 2019         35      61       4
Oct 14, 2019         37      57       5
Sep 25, 2019         37      57       6
Aug 28, 2019         38      56       6
May 21, 2019         37      58       6
Mar 05, 2019         38      56       6
Jan 29, 2019         37      58       5

See additional trend information at top of page

32. Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Excellent            25%    55%     3%    20%    30%    20%    24%    34%
Good                 45     38     46     51     48     42     53     44
Not so good          21      5     35     21     17     26     16     16
Poor                  8      1     15      6      5     10      7      5
DK/NA                 2      1      1      2      -      3      1      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Excellent            15%    20%    31%    29%    33%    25%    29%     6%    14%
Good                 48     49     40     43     49     48     49     30     47
Not so good          28     20     22     18     13     17     16     42     32
Poor                  7      9      7      8      3      8      6     21      4
DK/NA                 2      2      1      1      -      2      1      1      3
 

TREND: Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?

                                     Not so
                     Exclnt  Good    Good    Poor    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         25      45      21       8       2
Dec 16, 2019         26      47      19       6       2 
Dec 10, 2019         22      47      22       8       2
Oct 23, 2019         17      44      26      10       2
Sep 25, 2019         16      43      28      11       2
Aug 28, 2019         18      43      27      10       2
Jun 11, 2019         19      51      20       8       1
May 21, 2019         22      49      20       8       1
Jan 15, 2019         15      49      26       9       2
Dec 18, 2018         14      51      25      10       1

See additional trend information at top of page

33. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going for you financially; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Very satisfied       37%    64%    20%    36%    39%    36%    42%    42%
Smwht satisfied      38     29     44     40     41     36     42     37
Smwht dissatisfied   14      4     23     13     12     17      8     14
Very dissatisfied     8      2     12     10      7      9      6      6
DK/NA                 2      2      1      2      2      2      1      1
 
                    AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Very satisfied       23%    40%    43%    41%    42%    42%    42%    15%    34%
Smwht satisfied      47     38     34     37     44     36     40     38     34
Smwht dissatisfied   23     14     11     12      9     13     11     25     24
Very dissatisfied     6      6     11      7      4      7      6     19      6
DK/NA                 1      2      1      2      1      2      1      2      1
 
 

34. Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Better off           59%    84%    36%    60%    67%    52%    60%    68%
Worse off            20      3     33     21     17     22     16     15
SAME(VOL)            19     11     29     18     15     24     22     16
DK/NA                 2      2      1      1      2      2      2      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Better off           68%    60%    60%    49%    73%    56%    64%    37%    56%
Worse off            15     22     22     19     12     19     16     41     20
SAME(VOL)            16     17     16     28     14     24     19     21     22
DK/NA                 2      1      1      4      1      2      2      1      3
 

TREND: Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?

                     Better  Worse
                     off     off     SAME    DK/NA
 
Feb 10, 2020         59      20      19       2
Dec 10, 2019         57      22      19       2
Sep 25, 2019         50      25      22       3
May 21, 2019         52      21      23       4
 
 

35. As you may know, the Senate has voted to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment, which means he will remain in office. Do you approve or disapprove of the Senate’s decision?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Approve              49%    95%     8%    53%    57%    43%    45%    68%
Disapprove           49      4     90     45     42     55     52     31
DK/NA                 2      1      1      2      2      2      3      1
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Approve              45%    47%    56%    47%    62%    52%    57%    16%    39%
Disapprove           51     51     43     51     36     47     42     83     57
DK/NA                 3      2      1      2      2      2      2      1      3
 
 

36. As you may know, the articles of impeachment were based on President Trump’s actions involving Ukraine. Do you think that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump clears him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter, or don’t you think so?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes/Clears him       40%    81%     6%    40%    46%    34%    36%    56%
No                   55     12     91     54     49     60     59     40
DK/NA                 5      7      3      6      5      6      5      4
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes/Clears him       29%    37%    48%    40%    52%    41%    46%    14%    31%
No                   65     57     47     55     45     53     49     81     62
DK/NA                 6      5      4      5      3      6      5      5      7
 
 

37. Regardless of the Senate’s verdict, do you think the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial, or would you say the charges were not serious enough for him to have been impeached and put on trial?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Serious enough       51%     8%    89%    49%    44%    57%    54%    36%
Not serious enough   46     91      9     49     52     40     44     60
DK/NA                 3      2      2      3      3      3      2      3
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Serious enough       59%    54%    42%    52%    38%    52%    45%    79%    54%
Not serious enough   36     44     56     46     59     46     52     21     39
DK/NA                 5      2      2      3      4      2      3      1      6
 
 

38. Do you think that the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was conducted fairly or unfairly?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Fairly               35%    54%    18%    39%    40%    30%    34%    41%
Unfairly             59     41     78     56     56     62     61     54
DK/NA                 6      5      4      6      4      8      5      5
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Fairly               29%    32%    41%    35%    41%    34%    37%    21%    34%
Unfairly             65     61     54     58     56     59     58     74     54
DK/NA                 6      7      5      7      3      7      5      5     12
 
 

39. Are you concerned that President Trump will seek help from a foreign government in his 2020 presidential re-election campaign, or aren’t you concerned about that?

                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes/Concerned        47%     6%    85%    45%    40%    54%    53%    32%
No                   50     92     13     53     58     44     46     65
DK/NA                 3      1      2      2      2      3      1      2
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes/Concerned        47%    51%    41%    52%    36%    49%    43%    73%    43%
No                   50     47     57     45     63     49     56     23     52

;

Story 2: President Trump Talks To America’s Governors At Business Summit — Videos

Trump Addresses State Governors At Business Summit | White House | 2 10 20

Trump speaks to governors at business summit

 

Story 3: Coronavirus Has Killed Killed 910 in China and Exceeds SARS Death Toll — Videos

 

Coronavirus overtakes SARS death toll

 

Death toll from killer coronavirus is 10 TIMES higher than average in China’s Hubei province because thousands of patients with mild symptoms are not seeking help, scientists claim

  • Officials have repeatedly claimed the death toll in China is around two per cent
  • But virologists tracking the outbreak say the case-fatality ratio is higher in Hubei
  • Imperial College London researchers believe it is closer to the 18 per cent mark
  • This is because only the most severe patients are coming forward to be treated 
  • More than 40,000 patients have been infected, with at least 900 patients dead
  • Do you have a story about coronavirus? Email connor.boyd@mailonline.co.uk 

ust under a fifth of cases of the killer coronavirus in Hubei – the deserted Chinese province at the centre of the outbreak – result in death, leading scientists have today claimed.

Officials have repeatedly claimed the death toll is around two per cent, making the SARS-like infection far less deadly than similar coronaviruses and more severe than the flu.

But virologists tracking the escalating outbreak say the case-fatality ratio is much higher in Hubei than elsewhere in China because only the most severe patients are coming forward to be treated.

Figures show the actual toll in Hubei – the province home to Wuhan – is 871 deaths from 29,631 infected patients. But Imperial College London researchers believe it will be closer to the 18 per cent mark.

More than 40,000 people across the world have now caught the unnamed infection, with eight cases now recorded in the UK, 12 in the US and 15 in Australia. The virus is spread on surfaces and through coughs and sneezes.

It comes as the World Health Organization chief today warned the coronavirus crisis publicised so far could ‘only be the tip of the iceberg’ amid fears that thousands of cases are going missing.

Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus in China yesterday on the deadliest day of the six-week outbreak so far. But the number of new patients diagnosed appears to be dropping day-by-day.

More than 40,000 people have been infected with the virus and 910 are confirmed to have died, all but two of them in China

More than 40,000 people have now caught the killer coronavirus – nearly 99 per cent of the cases have been recorded in China

WUHAN CORONAVIRUS: WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR

What is this virus?

The virus has been identified as a new type of coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of pathogens, most of which cause mild lung infections such as the common cold.

But coronaviruses can also be deadly. SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, is caused by a coronavirus and killed hundreds of people in China and Hong Kong in the early 2000s.

Can the Wuhan coronavirus kill?

Yes – 910 people have so far died after testing positive for the virus.

What are the symptoms?

Some people who catch the Wuhan coronavirus may not have any symptoms at all, or only very mild ones like a sore throat or a headache.

Others may suffer from a fever, cough or trouble breathing.

And a small proportion of patients will go on to develop severe infection which can damage the lungs or cause pneumonia, a life-threatening condition which causes swelling and fluid build-up in the lungs.

How is it detected?

The virus’s genetic sequencing was released by scientists in China and countries around the world have used this to create lab tests, which must be carried out to confirm an infection.

Delays to these tests, to test results and to people getting to hospitals in China, mean the number of confirmed cases is expected to be just a fraction of the true scale of the outbreak.

How did it start and spread?

The first cases identified were among people connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.

Cases have since been identified around China and are known to have spread from person to person.

What are countries doing to prevent the spread?

Countries all over the world have banned foreign travellers from crossing their borders if they have been to China within the past two weeks. Many airlines have cancelled or drastically reduced flights to and from mainland China.

Is it similar to anything we’ve ever seen before?

Experts have compared it to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The epidemic started in southern China and killed more than 700 people in mainland China, Hong Kong and elsewhere.

In comparison to other coronaviruses, the new strain, first found in Wuhan and thought to have spread to humans from a traditional wet market, is much less deadly.

Figures show the highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which also began in China, killed around 10 per cent of the 8,000 patients it struck during a worldwide epidemic in 2002/03.

And the World Health Organization says the death rate for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) is even higher – at around 34 per cent. It was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012.

One of the world’s deadliest diseases, Ebola, kill around half of all patients it strikes. Ebola is much different to this new coronavirus because it is caused by a separate family of viruses.

The Imperial College London team, who has tracked the coronavirus outbreak first began six weeks ago, said they estimate the overall case-fatality ratio is still likely to be around one per cent.

Experts have repeatedly said potentially thousands of patients may not go to their doctor for treatment because they may have such minor symptoms – such as a cough and fever – that they do not need to seek help.

Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the Imperial team, wrote: ‘Outside mainland China, countries alert to the risk of infection being imported via international travel have instituted surveillance for 2019-nCoV infection with a broader set of clinical criteria for defining a suspected case, typically including a combination of symptoms (cough and fever) combined with recent travel history to the affected region (Wuhan/Hubei).

‘Such surveillance is therefore likely to pick up clinically milder cases as well as the more severe cases also being detected in mainland China.

‘However, by restricting testing to those with a travel history or link, it is also likely to miss other symptomatic cases (and possibly hospitalised cases with atypical pneumonia) that have occurred through local transmission or through travel to other affected areas of China.’

The researchers added: ‘It is important to note that the differences in these estimates does not reflect underlying differences in disease severity between countries.

‘CFRs seen in individual countries will vary depending on the sensitivity of different surveillance systems to detect cases of differing levels of severity and the clinical care offered to severely ill cases.

‘All CFR estimates should be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in mainland China is unclear.’

Figures also show 910 people have now died across the world, with all but two deaths recorded in mainland China

Figures also show 910 people have now died across the world, with all but two deaths recorded in mainland China

HOW THE CORONAVIRUS HAS SPREAD OVER TIME

The vast majority of coronavirus cases have been in mainland China, but more than 25 other countries and territories have declared infections:

  • Belgium: 1 case, first case February 4
  • Spain: 2 case, first case January 31
  • Sweden: 1 case, first case January 31
  • Russia: 2 cases, first case January 31
  • UK: 8 cases, first case January 31
  • India: 3 cases, first case January 30
  • Philippines: 3 cases, first case January 30
  • Italy: 3 cases, first case January 30
  • Finland: 1 case, first case January 29
  • United Arab Emirates: 7 cases, first case January 29
  • Germany: 14 cases, first case Jan 27
  • Sri Lanka: 1 case, first case Jan 27
  • Cambodia: 1 case, first case Jan 27
  • Canada: 7 cases, first case Jan 25
  • Australia: 15 cases, first case Jan 25
  • Malaysia: 18 cases, first case Jan 25
  • France: 11 cases, first case January 24
  • Nepal: 1 case, first case January 24
  • Vietnam: 14 cases, first case Jan 24
  • Singapore: 43 cases, first case January 23
  • Macau: 10 cases, first case Jan 22
  • Hong Kong: 36 cases, first case January 22
  • Taiwan: 18 cases, first case Jan 21
  • USA: 12 cases, first case January 20
  • South Korea: 27 cases, first case January 20
  • Japan: 156 cases, first case January 16
  • Thailand: 32 cases, first case Jan 13

Professor Ferguson added: ‘It’s not more severe in Hubei than elsewhere. It’s just that they’re only detecting and reporting the most severe cases there. We estimate there are at least 10 times more cases than reported in Hubei. Most of which likely have rather milder symptoms.’

In other developments today, police in the UK have been given the power to seize people trying to escape coronavirus quarantine and force them back into isolation in handcuffs.

A law-change was revealed after an patient staying at Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China.

Government sources said those who returned to the UK on the evacuation flights on January 31 were given a ‘very clear choice’ and had to sign contracts saying they would remain in isolation for a fortnight.

But a source involved with the Arrowe Park incident said: ‘We found we didn’t have the necessary enforcement powers to make sure they didn’t leave.’

Police will now be able to force people to remain in the units and, if they leave, to arrest them for committing an offence and take them back to the quarantine facility, MailOnline understands.

The new rule comes as England today announced its fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth cases of the virus – all of the three men and a woman are linked to the fourth patient, who has now been dubbed a ‘super-spreader’.

The fourth patient was a businessman who returned to the UK from a conference in Singapore via a ski chalet in France, where other Britons were subsequently taken ill with the virus.

The Department of Health today declared the outbreak a ‘serious and imminent’ threat to the British public as it announced new powers to fight the spread.

In other developments to the outbreak today:

  • World Health Organization chief warns coronavirus outbreak could ‘only be the tip of the iceberg’ amid fears thousands of cases are going missing
  • Just under a fifth of known cases of the new coronavirus in China may be resulting in death, a new report estimates
  • The coronavirus can survive on door handles and bus or train poles for up to nine days – more than four times longer than flu, according to research
  • London’s FTSE 100 weakened after Mr Hancock declared the coronavirus outbreak a serious and imminent threat to public health
  • Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus in China yesterday on the deadliest day of the six-week outbreak so far
  • Amazon and Sony are the latest companies to pull out of this month’s Mobile World Congress, due to be held in Barcelona, because of the coronavirus outbreak
  • Sixty-six more passengers on a cruise ship in Japan have been diagnosed the killer infection, taking the ship’s toll to around 136

A total of five people have now been diagnosed in Brighton. The four new cases have been linked to the first man who was diagnosed there after returning from the Alps

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE DEADLY CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA?

Someone who is infected with the Wuhan coronavirus can spread it with just a simple cough or a sneeze, scientists say.

At least 910 people with the virus are now confirmed to have died and more than 40,640 have been infected in at least 28 countries and regions. But experts predict the true number of people with the disease could be 100,000, or even as high as 350,000 in Wuhan alone, as they warn it may kill as many as two in 100 cases.  Here’s what we know so far:

What is the Wuhan coronavirus?

A coronavirus is a type of virus which can cause illness in animals and people. Viruses break into cells inside their host and use them to reproduce itself and disrupt the body’s normal functions. Coronaviruses are named after the Latin word ‘corona’, which means crown, because they are encased by a spiked shell which resembles a royal crown.

The coronavirus from Wuhan is one which has never been seen before this outbreak. It is currently named 2019-nCoV, and does not have a more detailed name because so little is known about it.

Dr Helena Maier, from the Pirbright Institute, said: ‘Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that infect a wide range of different species including humans, cattle, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and wild animals.

‘Until this new coronavirus was identified, there were only six different coronaviruses known to infect humans. Four of these cause a mild common cold-type illness, but since 2002 there has been the emergence of two new coronaviruses that can infect humans and result in more severe disease (Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses).

‘Coronaviruses are known to be able to occasionally jump from one species to another and that is what happened in the case of SARS, MERS and the new coronavirus. The animal origin of the new coronavirus is not yet known.’

The first human cases were publicly reported from the Chinese city of Wuhan, where approximately 11million people live, after medics first started seeing infections on December 31.

By January 8, 59 suspected cases had been reported and seven people were in critical condition. Tests were developed for the new virus and recorded cases started to surge.

The first person died that week and, by January 16, two were dead and 41 cases were confirmed. The next day, scientists predicted that 1,700 people had become infected, possibly up to 7,000.

Just a week after that, there had been more than 800 confirmed cases and those same scientists estimated that some 4,000 – possibly 9,700 – were infected in Wuhan alone. By that point, 26 people had died. 

By January 27, more than 2,800 people were confirmed to have been infected, 81 had died, and estimates of the total number of cases ranged from 100,000 to 350,000 in Wuhan alone.

By January 29, the number of deaths had risen to 132 and cases were in excess of 6,000.  

By February 5, there were more than 24,000 cases and 492 deaths.

Where does the virus come from?

According to scientists, the virus has almost certainly come from bats. Coronaviruses in general tend to originate in animals – the similar SARS and MERS viruses are believed to have originated in civet cats and camels, respectively.

The first cases of the virus in Wuhan came from people visiting or working in a live animal market in the city, which has since been closed down for investigation.

Although the market is officially a seafood market, other dead and living animals were being sold there, including wolf cubs, salamanders, snakes, peacocks, porcupines and camel meat.

A study by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, published in February 2020 in the scientific journal Nature, found that the genetic make-up virus samples found in patients in China is 96 per cent similar to a coronavirus they found in bats.

There may have been an animal which acted as a middle-man, contracting it from a bat before then transmitting it to a human, researchers suggested, although details of this are less clear.

Dr Michael Skinner, a virologist at Imperial College London, was not involved with the research but said: ‘The discovery definitely places the origin of nCoV in bats in China.

‘We still do not know whether another species served as an intermediate host to amplify the virus, and possibly even to bring it to the market, nor what species that host might have been.’

So far the fatalities are quite low. Why are health experts so worried about it? 

Experts say the international community is concerned about the virus because so little is known about it and it appears to be spreading quickly.

It is similar to SARS, which infected 8,000 people and killed nearly 800 in an outbreak in Asia in 2003, in that it is a type of coronavirus which infects humans’ lungs.

Another reason for concern is that nobody has any immunity to the virus because they’ve never encountered it before. This means it may be able to cause more damage than viruses we come across often, like the flu or common cold.

Speaking at a briefing in January, Oxford University professor, Dr Peter Horby, said: ‘Novel viruses can spread much faster through the population than viruses which circulate all the time because we have no immunity to them.

‘Most seasonal flu viruses have a case fatality rate of less than one in 1,000 people. Here we’re talking about a virus where we don’t understand fully the severity spectrum but it’s possible the case fatality rate could be as high as two per cent.’

If the death rate is truly two per cent, that means two out of every 100 patients who get it will die.

‘My feeling is it’s lower,’ Dr Horby added. ‘We’re probably missing this iceberg of milder cases. But that’s the current circumstance we’re in.

‘Two per cent case fatality rate is comparable to the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 so it is a significant concern globally.’

How does the virus spread?

The illness can spread between people just through coughs and sneezes, making it an extremely contagious infection. And it may also spread even before someone has symptoms.

It is believed to travel in the saliva and even through water in the eyes, therefore close contact, kissing, and sharing cutlery or utensils are all risky.

Originally, people were thought to be catching it from a live animal market in Wuhan city. But cases soon began to emerge in people who had never been there, which forced medics to realise it was spreading from person to person.

There is now evidence that it can spread third hand – to someone from a person who caught it from another person.

What does the virus do to you? What are the symptoms?

Once someone has caught the virus it may take between two and 14 days for them to show any symptoms – but they may still be contagious during this time.

If and when they do become ill, typical signs include a runny nose, a cough, sore throat and a fever (high temperature). The vast majority of patients – at least 97 per cent, based on available data – will recover from these without any issues or medical help.

In a small group of patients, who seem mainly to be the elderly or those with long-term illnesses, it can lead to pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection in which the insides of the lungs swell up and fill with fluid. It makes it increasingly difficult to breathe and, if left untreated, can be fatal and suffocate people. 

What have genetic tests revealed about the virus? 

Scientists in China have recorded the genetic sequences of around 19 strains of the virus and released them to experts working around the world.

This allows others to study them, develop tests and potentially look into treating the illness they cause.

Examinations have revealed the coronavirus did not change much – changing is known as mutating – much during the early stages of its spread.

However, the director-general of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gao Fu, yesterday said the virus was mutating and adapting as it spread through people.

This means efforts to study the virus and to potentially control it may be made extra difficult because the virus might look different every time scientists analyse it.

More study may be able to reveal whether the virus first infected a small number of people then change and spread from them, or whether there were various versions of the virus coming from animals which have developed separately.

How dangerous is the virus?  

The virus has so far killed 910 people out of a total of at least 40,640 officially confirmed cases – a death rate of around two per cent. This is a similar death rate to the Spanish Flu outbreak which, in 1918, went on to kill around 50million people.

However, experts say the true number of patients is likely considerably higher and therefore the death rate considerably lower. Imperial College London researchers estimate that there were 4,000 (up to 9,700) cases in Wuhan city alone up to January 18 – officially there were only 444 there to that date. If cases are in fact 100 times more common than the official figures, the virus may be far less dangerous than currently believed, but also far more widespread.

Experts say it is likely only the most seriously ill patients are seeking help and are therefore recorded – the vast majority will have only mild, cold-like symptoms. For those whose conditions do become more severe, there is a risk of developing pneumonia which can destroy the lungs and kill you.  

Can the virus be cured?

The Wuhan coronavirus cannot currently be cured and it is proving difficult to contain.

Antibiotics do not work against viruses, so they are out of the question. Antiviral drugs can, but the process of understanding a virus then developing and producing drugs to treat it would take years and huge amounts of money.

No vaccine exists for the coronavirus yet and it’s not likely one will be developed in time to be of any use in this outbreak, for similar reasons to the above.

The National Institutes of Health in the US, and Baylor University in Waco, Texas, say they are working on a vaccine based on what they know about coronaviruses in general, using information from the SARS outbreak. But this may take a year or more to develop, according to Pharmaceutical Technology.

Currently, governments and health authorities are working to contain the virus and to care for patients who are sick and stop them infecting other people.

People who catch the illness are being quarantined in hospitals, where their symptoms can be treated and they will be away from the uninfected public.

And airports around the world are putting in place screening measures such as having doctors on-site, taking people’s temperatures to check for fevers and using thermal screening to spot those who might be ill (infection causes a raised temperature).

However, it can take weeks for symptoms to appear, so there is only a small likelihood that patients will be spotted up in an airport.

Is this outbreak an epidemic or a pandemic?

The outbreak is an epidemic, which is when a disease takes hold of one community such as a country or region.

Although it has spread to dozens of countries, the outbreak is not yet classed as a pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as the ‘worldwide spread of a new disease’.

The head of WHO’s global infectious hazard preparedness, Dr Sylvie Briand, said: ‘Currently we are not in a pandemic. We are at the phase where it is an epidemic with multiple foci, and we try to extinguish the transmission in each of these foci,’ the Guardian reported.

She said that most cases outside of Hubei had been ‘spillover’ from the epicentre, so the disease wasn’t actually spreading actively around the world.

Death toll from killer coronavirus is 10 TIMES higher than average in China’s Hubei province

Coronavirus’s deadliest day yet: 97 people are killed in 24 hours in China, bringing global death toll to 910, smashing hopes that disease control measures were working

  • China reported another 3,062 cases on Sunday, halting a series of daily declines
  • The death toll has now risen to 908 in mainland China with two elsewhere 
  • It comes as millions of people return to work today after Lunar New Year break 

Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus yesterday on the deadliest day of the outbreak so far.  

The death toll in mainland China rose by 97, taking the number of global fatalities to 910.

Another 3,062 cases were reported in China yesterday – an increase of 15 per cent compared to Saturday which put an end to a series of daily declines.

The latest surge in deaths is a setback to hopes that China’s drastic quarantine measures might be working.

Two people wearing face masks walk along a a street in Shanghai today as millions of people in China were returning to work after an extended Lunar New Year break

Workers disinfect closed shops in the city of Wuhan at the centre of the outbreak today, where millions of people remain under quarantine

Workers disinfect closed shops in the city of Wuhan at the centre of the outbreak today, where millions of people remain under quarantine

‘Authorities disinfect Wuhan’ as coronavirus continues to spread

Roads in Beijing and Shanghai had significantly more traffic than in recent days and the city of Guangzhou was resuming normal public transport today.

However, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said 60 per cent of its member companies were planning mandatory work-from-home policies.

Tens of millions of people in Hubei province were not returning to work, as the province at the centre of the outbreak remained under lockdown.

China has built two hospitals for virus patients in Wuhan and sent thousands of extra doctors, nurses and other health care workers to the city of 1 million people.

Most access to Wuhan was suspended on January 23 and restrictions have expanded since then to cities with a total of 60 million people.

China said today that 27 foreigners had been infected with the virus in the country, including two of the country’s 908 deaths.

Two people have died outside mainland China, one in Hong Kong and the other in the Philippines, taking the global toll to 910.

More than 360 cases of the virus have been confirmed outside China, bringing the total to at least 40,531.  

The fatality toll has passed the 774 people believed to have died in the 2002-03 SARS outbreak, another viral outbreak that originated in China. 

The total of more than 40,000 confirmed cases of the new virus vastly exceeds the 8,098 sickened by SARS. 

Chinese man appears to be forcefully taken by authorities
A security officer suited in protective gear checks passports of passengers boarding a cargo plane in Wuhan

A security officer suited in protective gear checks passports of passengers boarding a cargo plane in Wuhan

Medical workers in protective suits attend to novel coronavirus patients at the intensive care unit of a hospital in Wuhan

Medical workers in protective suits attend to novel coronavirus patients at the intensive care unit of a hospital in Wuhan

Hong Kong has reported seven more cases, raising its total to 36 after the virus spread at a family gathering attended by two relatives from mainland China.

Meanwhile in Japan, another 60 people on the Diamond Princess cruise ship were today confirmed to have the virus, taking the total to around 130.

Passengers on the ship have been confined to their cabins in a two-week lockdown with confirmed virus patients taken to hospital on the mainland.

World Health Organisation chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said there are tentative signs the virus was stabilising, but said there may be more infections abroad in people who have never travelled to China.

Asian stock markets slid today amid signs that optimism over China’s disease control might be premature.

Chinese businesses are reeling from anti-disease measures that closed shops, restaurants and factories and disrupted travel.

The government has promised tax cuts and subsidies to farmers, supermarkets, producers of medical supplies and companies that contribute to anti-disease work.

WHO confirms coronavirus team heading to China to study outbreak

Doctors scan a patient's lungs at Huoshenshan temporary hospital built for patients diagnosed with coronavirus in Wuhan

Doctors scan a patient’s lungs at Huoshenshan temporary hospital built for patients diagnosed with coronavirus in Wuhan

A passenger stands at the balcony of the cruise ship Diamond Princess anchored off the Yokohama Port in Japan where another 60 cases have been confirmed

A passenger stands at the balcony of the cruise ship Diamond Princess anchored off the Yokohama Port in Japan where another 60 cases have been confirmed

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392-1395

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 )

The Pronk Pops Show 1387, January 29, 2020, Part 1 of 2 — Story 1: Trump’s Legal Team Concludes Opening Arguments With Three Presentations — The Fools on The Hill — Long and Winding Road to Election Day November 3, 2020 — Power To The People — Videos

Posted on January 31, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, American History, Banking System, Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, College, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Elizabeth Warren, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Great Britain, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Joe Biden, Killing, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Spying, Spying on American People, Subornation of perjury, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Ukraine, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020

Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1349 October 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1348 October 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1347 October 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019

 Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

See the source image

See the source image

ElectoralCollege2020.svg

 

Part 1 of 2 — Story 1: Trump’s Legal Team Concludes Opening Arguments With Three Presentations — The Fools on The Hill  –Long and Winding Road to Election Day November 3, 2020 and People Power — Videos

Image result for cartoons senate trump impeachment nearsend

Trump defense concludes opening arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 7

WATCH: Dershowitz says charges against Trump are ‘outside’ of impeachment offenses

Helen Reddy The Fool On The Hill

The Long And Winding Road (Remastered 2009)

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1387

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 )

The Pronk Pops Show 1372, December 10, 2019, 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 — 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 — Videos

Posted on December 13, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Consitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, European History, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Fraud, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, IRS, Joe Biden, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Middle East, Military Spending, MIssiles, National Interest, News, Obama, People, Politics, Privacy, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Spying on American People, Subornation of perjury, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Terror, Terrorism, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1349 October 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1348 October 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1347 October 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019

 Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1330 September 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1329 September 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1328 September 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1327 September 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1326 September 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1325 September 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1324 September 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1323 September 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1322 September 18 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1321 September 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1320 September 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1319 September 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1318 September 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1317 September 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1316 September 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1315 September 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

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

See the source image

See the source image

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 Senate 
  • ‘The President will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated,’ press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement 
  • 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 charges 
  • 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
  • Matter then moves to the Senate for Trump’s trial

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. 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.  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 the 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,  flanked by Reps. Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Richard Neal and Adam Schiff, formally announce impeachment charges into Trump

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,  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

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 ‘markup’ 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 Clinton’s 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,’ said 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

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:  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 of 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

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

Pelosi, Nadler and Democratic lawmakers head to their announcement+13

Pelosi, Nadler and Democratic lawmakers head to their announcement

Speaker Pelosi - on her way to the Democrats' news conference with her fellow lawmakers could schedule an impeachment vote in the House next week+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

 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

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff arrives at Speaker Pelosi’s office on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler held a nine-hour impeachment hearing Monday+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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7776505/Democrats-reveal-TWO-articles-impeachment-against-Donald-Trump.html

 

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 —   Video

See the source image

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

]

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1372

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1363-1371

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1352-1362

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1343-1351

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1335-1342

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1326-1334

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1318-1325

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1310-1317

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1300-1309

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1370, December 6, 2019, Story 1: Good Solid Jobs Report with 266,000 New Jobs Created, U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.5%, and Labor Participation Rate of 63.2%, Not in Labor Force Increased to 95,616,000 With Total Employed 158,593,000 — Videos — Story 2: Saudi Air Force Aviation Student Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani  Kills Three and Then Killed at  Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida — Videos — Story 3: Schiff Extracted Journalist Solomon Phone Number from Guiliani Records — Invasion of Privacy —  Videos — Story 4: American People Oppose  Democrat Party Impeachment of President Trump — Videos

Posted on December 10, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Abortion, Addiction, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, European Union, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, France, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Great Britain, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Islam, James Comey, Japan, Joe Biden, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Mass Shooting Homicides, Media, Mental Illness, Movies, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Pro Abortion, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Resources, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Spying, Spying on American People, Subornation of perjury, Subversion, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Ukraine, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1361 November 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1360 November 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1359 November 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1349 October 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1348 October 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1347 October 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019

 Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1330 September 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1329 September 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1328 September 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1327 September 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1326 September 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1325 September 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1324 September 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1323 September 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1322 September 18 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1321 September 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1320 September 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1319 September 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1318 September 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1317 September 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1316 September 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1315 September 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

One of the Navy's most historic and storied bases, Naval Air Station Pensacola sprawls along the waterfront southwest of the city's downtown

This map shows the location of the sprawling Naval Air Station Pensacola

 

Story 1: Good Solid Jobs Report with 266,000 New Jobs Created, U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.5%, and Labor Participation Rate of 63.2%, Not in Labor Force Increased to 95,616,000 With Total Employed 158,593,000 — Videos

See the source image

Ingraham: The last laugh

Watch six experts break down the November jobs report

Watch CNBC’s full interview with Larry Kudlow after a robust November jobs report

266,000 jobs added in November, unemployment rate ticks down to 3.5%

Jobs Report: 266K jobs added in November

Jim Cramer: These are the best jobs numbers of our lives

Cramer’s week ahead: ‘Amazing’ jobs report gives us a break from China trade news

December jobs report on deck

Porcelli: “People need to reorient their thinking on the payroll report, job growth is going

to slow

Ep. 518: Another Trumped up Jobs Report

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

 

Public Commentary on Unemployment

Unemployment Data Series   subcription required(Subscription required.)  View  Download Excel CSV File   Last Updated: December 6th, 2019

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for November 2019 is 20.9%.

Republishing our charts:  Permission, Restrictions and Instructions (includes important requirements for successful hot-linking)

Civilian Labor Force Level

164,404,000

 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 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 157053(1) 156663 156626 157017 157616 157014 157008 157165 156745 157188 157502 158080
2016 158371(1) 158705 159079 158891 158700 158899 159150 159582 159810 159768 159629 159779
2017 159693(1) 159854 160036 160169 159910 160124 160383 160706 161190 160436 160626 160636
2018 161123(1) 161900 161646 161551 161667 162129 162209 161802 162055 162694 162821 163240
2019 163229(1) 163184 162960 162470 162646 162981 163351 163922 164039 164364 164404
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.2%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
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 62.7 62.9 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.4 62.5 62.6 62.7
2016 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.7 62.8 62.7
2018 62.7 63.0 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.9 62.9 63.1
2019 63.2 63.2 63.0 62.8 62.8 62.9 63.0 63.2 63.2 63.3 63.2

Employment Level

158,593,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 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 148150(1) 148053 148122 148491 148802 148765 148815 149175 148853 149270 149506 150164
2016 150622(1) 150934 151146 150963 151074 151104 151450 151766 151877 151949 152150 152276
2017 152128(1) 152417 152958 153150 152920 153176 153456 153591 154399 153847 153945 154065
2018 154482(1) 155213 155160 155216 155539 155592 155964 155604 156069 156582 156803 156945
2019 156694(1) 156949 156748 156645 156758 157005 157288 157878 158269 158510 158593
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

U-3 Unemployment Rate

3.5%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

 

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
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 4.7 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 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 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

U-6 Unemploymen Rate

6.9%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (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:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       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
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 10.8 10.9 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.9
2016 9.8 9.7 9.8 9.7 9.9 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.2
2017 9.3 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.1
2018 8.2 8.2 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.6
2019 8.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.9

 Not In Labor Force

95,616,000

Series Id:           LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status:  Not in labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 69142 69120 69338 69267 69853 69876 70398 70401 70645 70782 70579 70488
2001 70088 70409 70381 70956 71414 71592 71526 72136 71676 71817 71876 72010
2002 72623 72010 72343 72281 72260 72600 72827 72856 72554 73026 73508 73675
2003 73960 74015 74295 74066 74268 73958 74767 75062 75249 75324 75280 75780
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
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 92671 93237 93454 93249 92839 93649 93868 93931 94580 94353 94245 93856
2016 94026 93872 93689 94077 94475 94498 94470 94272 94281 94553 94911 94963
2017 94389 94392 94378 94419 94857 94833 94769 94651 94372 95330 95323 95473
2018 95657 95033 95451 95721 95787 95513 95633 96264 96235 95821 95886 95649
2019 95010 95208 95577 96223 96215 96057 95874 95510 95599 95481 95616

Unemployment Level

5,881,000

 

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14013 13820 13737 13957 13855 13962 13763 13818 13948 13594 13302 13093
2012 12797 12813 12713 12646 12660 12692 12656 12471 12115 12124 12005 12298
2013 12471 11950 11689 11760 11654 11751 11335 11279 11270 11136 10787 10404
2014 10202 10349 10380 9702 9859 9460 9608 9599 9262 8990 9090 8717
2015 8903 8610 8504 8526 8814 8249 8194 7990 7892 7918 7995 7916
2016 7749 7771 7932 7928 7626 7795 7700 7817 7933 7819 7480 7503
2017 7565 7437 7078 7019 6991 6948 6927 7115 6791 6588 6682 6572
2018 6641 6687 6486 6335 6128 6537 6245 6197 5986 6112 6018 6294
2019 6535 6235 6211 5824 5888 5975 6063 6044 5769 5855 5811

 

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until	              USDL-19-2105
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 6, 2019

Technical information: 
 Household data:	(202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:	(202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:	        (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2019


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 266,000 in November, and the unemployment rate
was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and technical services.
Employment rose in manufacturing, reflecting the return of workers from a strike. 

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two
surveys, see the Technical Note.

Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate, at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at
5.8 million, changed little in November. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.2 percent),
adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.0 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks
(5.5 percent), Asians (2.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no
change in November. (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 essentially unchanged in November and accounted for 20.8 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.2 percent in November. The
employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the third consecutive month. (See
table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million, changed
little in November. 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 November, 1.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
432,000 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 325,000 discouraged workers in November, down
by 128,000 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 921,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in November
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 rose by 266,000 in November. Job growth has averaged
180,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain of 223,000 in
2018. In November, notable job gains occurred in health care and in professional and
technical services. Employment also increased in manufacturing, reflecting the return
of workers from a strike. Employment continued to trend up in leisure and hospitality,
transportation and warehousing, and financial activities, while mining lost jobs. (See
table B-1.)

In November, health care added 45,000 jobs, following little employment change in October
(+12,000). The November job gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+34,000)
and in hospitals (+10,000). Health care has added 414,000 jobs over the last 12 months.

Employment in professional and technical services increased by 31,000 in November and by
278,000 over the last 12 months. 

Manufacturing employment rose by 54,000 in November, following a decline of 43,000 in the
prior month. Within manufacturing, employment in motor vehicles and parts was up by 41,000
in November, reflecting the return of workers who were on strike in October. 

In November, employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up (+45,000). The
industry has added 219,000 jobs over the last 4 months. 

Employment in transportation and warehousing continued on an upward trend in November
(+16,000). Within the industry, job gains occurred in warehousing and storage (+8,000)
and in couriers and messengers (+5,000). 

Financial activities employment also continued to trend up in November (+13,000), with
a gain of 7,000 in credit intermediation and related activities. Financial activities
has added 116,000 jobs over the last 12 months. 

Mining lost jobs in November (-7,000), largely in support activities for mining (-6,000).
Mining employment is down by 19,000 since a recent peak in May. 

In November, employment in retail trade was about unchanged (+2,000). Within the industry,
employment rose in general merchandise stores (+22,000) and in motor vehicle and parts
dealers (+8,000), while clothing and clothing accessories stores lost jobs (-18,000).

Employment in other major industries--including construction, wholesale trade, information,
and government--showed little change over the month. 

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 7 cents to $28.29. Over the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
3.1 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees rose by 7 cents to $23.83. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4
hours in November. In manufacturing, the average workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 40.5
hours, while overtime decreased by 0.1 hour to 3.1 hours. 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 September was revised up by 13,000 from
+180,000 to +193,000, and the change for October was revised up by 28,000 from +128,000
to +156,000. With these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were
41,000 more 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
205,000 over the last 3 months.
 
_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 10, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



  _____________________________________________________________________________________
 |                                                                                     |
 |             Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                   |
 |                                                                                     |
 | In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation news release for        |
 | December 2019, scheduled for January 10, 2020, will incorporate annual revisions to |
 | seasonally adjusted household survey data. Seasonally adjusted data for the most    |
 | recent 5 years are subject to revision.                                             |
 |_____________________________________________________________________________________|

  _____________________________________________________________________________________
 |										       |
 |                       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-sex and same-sex marriages. Prior to January 2020, these estimates|
 | include 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.	       |
 |_____________________________________________________________________________________|



 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Nov.
2018
Sept.
2019
Oct.
2019
Nov.
2019
Change from:
Oct.
2019-
Nov.
2019

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

258,708 259,638 259,845 260,020 175

Civilian labor force

162,821 164,039 164,364 164,404 40

Participation rate

62.9 63.2 63.3 63.2 -0.1

Employed

156,803 158,269 158,510 158,593 83

Employment-population ratio

60.6 61.0 61.0 61.0 0.0

Unemployed

6,018 5,769 5,855 5,811 -44

Unemployment rate

3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 -0.1

Not in labor force

95,886 95,599 95,481 95,616 135

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 -0.1

Adult men (20 years and over)

3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.0

Adult women (20 years and over)

3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 0.0

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

12.0 12.5 12.3 12.0 -0.3

White

3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.0

Black or African American

6.0 5.5 5.4 5.5 0.1

Asian

2.7 2.5 2.9 2.6 -0.3

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

4.5 3.9 4.1 4.2 0.1

Total, 25 years and over

3.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 0.0

Less than a high school diploma

5.6 4.8 5.6 5.3 -0.3

High school graduates, no college

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 0.0

Some college or associate degree

3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 -0.1

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

2,842 2,572 2,674 2,806 132

Job leavers

697 840 849 777 -72

Reentrants

1,880 1,669 1,703 1,664 -39

New entrants

577 677 627 586 -41

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,128 1,868 1,968 2,020 52

5 to 14 weeks

1,842 1,781 1,749 1,757 8

15 to 26 weeks

865 819 899 872 -27

27 weeks and over

1,259 1,314 1,264 1,224 -40

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

4,781 4,350 4,438 4,322 -116

Slack work or business conditions

2,882 2,588 2,754 2,633 -121

Could only find part-time work

1,562 1,322 1,287 1,268 -19

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,909 21,573 21,549 21,534 -15

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,678 1,299 1,229 1,246

Discouraged workers

453 321 341 325

– 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.

Table of Contents

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Story 2: Saudi Air Force Aviation Student Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani  Kills Three and Then Killed at  Naval Air Station

Pensacola, Florida — Videos

Trump on shooting, impeachment, prisoner exchange

‘Radicalized’ Pensacola killer held mass-shooting video party the night before attack: FBI hunts missing Saudi servicemen linked to shooter and probes his trip to New York two days earlier

  • Saudi military student Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani, 21, killed three people and injured 12 when he opened fire at Navy Station Pensacola on Friday
  • Another Saudi student allegedly videotaped the attack, while two others watched from a nearby car
  • The FBI have detained 10 Saudi students for questioning, but are still searching for ‘several’ others who have not been seen since the attack 
  • Air Force bases have been ordered to increase their security as of Saturday evening
  • Al-Shamrani and three fellow Saudi students  traveled to NYC just days before the attack, and investigators are now hunting anyone they may have met with
  • Officials have not yet deemed the shooting as ‘terrorism’, but FBI terrorism investigators are on the scene in Pensacola 
  • Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, Mohammed Haitham, 19, and Cameron Scott Walters, 21, have been named as the three victims of the attack

Military bases across the United States have been put on high alert in the wake of Friday’s mass shooting at Navy Station Pensacola.

US Northern Command, also known as NORTHCOM, sent out an advisory calling for an increase in security checks on Saturday night, according to Fox News.

It comes as the FBI  continues to hunt for several Saudi military students from Pensacola, who have seemingly vanished in the wake of Friday’s attack.

Fellow Saudi Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani, 21, killed three and wounded 12 others at the base before he was shot dead by police.

Investigators have now detained 10 Saudi military students from the base – a number revised up from six – but several others remain unaccounted for.

Authorities have not revealed the number of Saudi students they are still looking for, and they have not stated whether they are a risk to the public.

The New York Times reports that al-Shamrani and three fellow Saudi students traveled from Pensacola to New York last week, where they visited several museums and are thought to have watched the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree lighting ceremony.

The tree lighting, attended by thousands of people, took place on Wednesday evening – just 36 hours before the shootings occurred.

According to one source, investigators are probing the motive for the group’s trip to the city. They also want to know who the men met with while they were there.

Meanwhile, sources with knowledge of the investigation say that three Saudi serviceman joined al-Shamrani for a dinner party on Thursday night to watch videos of mass shootings.

In the hours leading up to the attack, the shooter appeared to have posted criticism of U.S. wars in the Middle East to social media, saying he hated Americans for ‘committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity’ and for the country’s support of Israel.

He also posted a quote from assassinated al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to SITE Intelligence Group. The shooter’s Twitter account was taken down subsequent to the attack.

Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani, 21, killed three and wounded 12 others in the attack before he was shot dead by police. This picture was released by the FBI on Saturday evening

Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani, 21, killed three and wounded 12 others in the attack before he was shot dead by police. This picture was released by the FBI on Saturday evening

It has also been reported that one Saudi student allegedly videotaped al-Shamrani’s attack, while two others watched from a nearby car. It’s believed that those three Saudis are among the 10 who have been detained.

While Friday’s shooting his has not yet been officially deemed a terror attack,  FBI terrorism investigators have been pictured investigating at the Pensacola base.

US Naval Academy graduate Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, was among the three victims

Military student Mohammed Haitham, 19, has been identified as one of the victims of the shooting

US Naval Academy graduate, Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, (left) and military student Mohammed Haitham, 19, (right) have been identified as two of the victims of Friday’s shooting

Naval apprentice Cameron Scott Walters, 21, was named as the third victim

Naval apprentice Cameron Scott Walters, 21, was named as the third victim

The latest: Military bases are put on high alert

US Northern Command, also known as NORTHCOM, issued the alert on Saturday in the wake of Friday’s attack at Pensacola, and a separate, unrelated attack at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on Wednesday.

A sailor whose submarine was docked at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, opened fire on three civilian employees Wednesday, killing two before taking his own life.

‘Given the recent attacks at two military installations, the Commander, US Northern Command has directed all DoD [Defense Department] installations, facilities and units within the US Northern Command area of responsibility to immediately assess force protection measures and implement increased random security measures appropriate for their facilities,’ Lieutenant Commander Michael Hatfield told Fox News.

‘The advisory also told leaders to remind their workforce to remain alert and if they see something, to say something by immediately reporting to appropriate authorities any suspicious activity they may observe,’ Hatfield said.

The FBI Evidence Response Team is pictured continuing their methodical search for clues at the base on Saturday.  FBI terrorism investigators have been also been investigating, according to reports

The FBI Evidence Response Team is pictured continuing their methodical search for clues at the base on Saturday.  FBI terrorism investigators have been also been investigating, according to reports

Naval Air Station Pensacola  will remain closed until further notice, officials said Saturday. The building where the shooting took place is pictured

 

Naval Air Station Pensacola  will remain closed until further notice, officials said Saturday. The building where the shooting took place is pictured

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7768107/FBI-hunt-missing-Saudi-soldiers-Pensacola-Naval-base-shooting.html

 Who was gunman Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani?

Al-Shamrani was a second lieutenant attending the aviation school at Navy Station Pensacola.  The Pentagon say his training with the US military began in August 2016, and was due to finish in August 2020.

AL- SHAMRANI’S DISTURBING TWITTER ACCOUNT AND HIS PRE-SHOOTING ‘MANIFESTO’

The now-deactivated Twitter account purportedly belonging to al- Shamrani included:

– A variety of anti-Israel postings and a quote from deceased al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden

– A lengthy manifesto posted at 4:39am  Friday, less than two hours the shooting. The manifesto read in part:

 I’m against evil, and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil.

‘I’m not against you for just being American, I don’t hate you because [of] your freedoms, I hate you because every day you [are] supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims, but also humanity….

One of al-Shamrani’s uncles told CNN on Saturday that he was shocked by the attack, as his nephew was ‘likable and mannered towards his family and the community’.

‘He had his religion, his prayer, his honesty and commitments’, the uncle stated.

Meanwhile, it’s been revealed that al-Shamrani used a handgun in the shooting, which he purchased from a dealer in Pensacola.

Non-citizens are prohibited from purchasing guns in the United States, unless they are equipped with a hunting license.

According to NBC, al-Shamrani was equipped with such a license.

The gun has been described as a Glock 45 9-millimeter handgun with an extended magazine.

al-Sharami allegedly had four to six other magazines in his possession at the time of his shooting.

Elsewhere, the FBI is examining social media posts and investigating whether al-Shamrani acted alone or was connected to any broader group.

On Friday evening, the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist media, claimed they had tracked a Twitter account belonging to al- Shamrani which featured a disturbing manifesto written just hours before the shooting.

Investigators are working to determine if it was in fact written by the shooter

Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani was a Saudi aviator training at the U.S. naval station

Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani was a Saudi aviator training at the U.S. naval station

SAUDI ARABIA’S TERROR LINK

15 of the 19 men associated with the al-Qaeda 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. A number of them received their aviation training at bases in the US. 

al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, hailed from a prominent Saudi family. 

The US investigated some Saudi diplomats and others with Saudi government ties who knew hijackers after they arrived in the US, according to documents that have been declassified.

The Saudi government has repeatedly denied any involvement in the attacks. 

The 9/11 Commission report found ‘no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded’ the attacks that al-Qaeda masterminded, but the commission also noted ‘the likelihood’ that Saudi government-sponsored charities did.  

In 2017, families of 800 victims and 1,500 first responders file a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia accusing the country’s officials of aiding hijackers in 9/11 attacks. The lawsuit is ongoing.

Saudi Arabia is the richest and geographically largest Middle Eastern country – and a key US ally.

According to the State Department, Saudi Arabia is the second leading source of imported oil for the United States, providing just under one million barrels per day of oil to the US market    

 Saudi money is also widely invested in the US, with billions of private cash invested on Wall Street and beyond.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a member of the ruling al-Saud family, has stakes in a huge range of big  businesses including Citigroup, 21st Century Fox, and the Plaza Hotel in New York.  

Many the country’s citizens also come to study at US colleges, with Saudis the fourth-largest source of foreign students, trailing only China, India and South Korea, according to The New York Times.  

The US has long had a robust training program for Saudis, with 852 Saudi nationals currently in the country  training under the Pentagon’s security cooperation agreement.    

Saudi Arabia was not one of the seven countries included in President Trump’s 2017  ‘travel ban’   

The three victims are publicly named

US Naval Academy graduate Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, military student Mohammed Haitham, 19, and naval apprentice Cameron Scott Walters, 21, have been named as the three men who were shot and killed by al-Shamrani.

Watson was the first victim to be named, with his family confirming his death on Saturday morning.

In a heartbreaking tribute on Facebook, Watson’s brother wrote that he ‘saved countless lives today with his own.’

‘After being shot multiple times he made it outside and told the first response team where the shooter was and those details were invaluable. He died a hero,’ wrote brother Adam Watson.

Watson was a native of Enterprise, Alabama who was actively involved in JROTC and National Honor Society in high school.

On Saturday evening, the family of Haitham also confirmed that he was among the three killed.

Haitham, known as ‘Mo’ to those who knew him, was a track and field star from Lakewood, Florida, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

He graduated from high school in 2018 and joined the Navy soon afterward. Haitham completed boot camp and was assigned to flight crew training in Florida.

Evelyn Brady, his mother who herself is a Navy veteran and who now works for the Veterans’ Administration, said she was informed of her son’s death.

‘The commander of his school did call me,’ she said.

‘He told me my son did try to stop the shooter.’

Meanwhile, naval apprentice Walters, 21, from Richmond Hill, Georgia was confirmed as the third victim late Saturday.

Friends paid tribute on social media, saying he was a ‘kind-hearted’ and ‘wonderful’ person.

Ensign Joshua Watson graduates from the US Naval Academy in 2019
A SURVIVOR’S STORY

Among the 12 who were wounded was airman Ryan Blackwell, 27, who works at Naval Base Pensacola processing paperwork for international students. 

Ryan Blackwell, 27, was shot and injured on Friday

Ryan Blackwell, 27, was shot and injured on Friday

He remains in intensive care after being shot in his pelvis and his right arm . His intestines were severed by a ricocheting bullet. 

Speaking to  Pensacola News Journal from his hospital bed on Saturday, Blackwell recalled how he and his two colleagues were shot through a glass door. 

‘My adrenaline was pumping so much,’ he recalled. ‘I was worried about getting us to safety and getting us out of there’

Blackwell and his colleagues jumped out of a window and ran to safety, despite the fact they had all been shot and were ‘bleeding out’. 

‘We could have been three more casualties if we didn’t escape,’ Blackwell recalled. 

How US and Saudi officials have reacted to the attack

On Saturday, President Donald Trump told reporters: ‘We’re finding out what took place, whether it’s one person or a number of people. We’ll get to the bottom of it very quickly.’

He had faced criticism on Friday evening for his initial response to the shooting, which perceived as a defense of Saudi Arabia.

After news of the shooting broke, Trump tweeted his condolences to the families of the victims and noted that he had received a phone call from Saudi King Salman.

‘The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people,’ Trump wrote.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Saturday that he had spoken with Saudi Foreign Minister Al-Saud, who ‘expressed his condolences and sadness’ at the shooting.

However, not all US politicians have been as conciliatory.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suggested Saudi Arabia should offer compensation to the victims.

‘The government of Saudi Arabia needs to make things better for these victims, and I think they’re going to owe a debt here given that this is one of their individuals,’ DeSantis said on Friday.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suggested Saudi Arabia should offer compensation to the victims

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suggested Saudi Arabia should offer compensation to the victims

One of the Navy’s most historic and storied bases, Naval Air Station Pensacola sprawls along the waterfront southwest of the city’s downtown and dominates the economy of the surrounding area.

Part of the base resembles a college campus, with buildings where 60,000 members of the Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard train each year in multiple fields of aviation.

The base is also the home of the Navy’s revered Blue Angels aerial demonstration team

Weapons are not allowed on the base Naval Air Station Pensacola, which will remain closed until further notice.

One of the Navy's most historic and storied bases, Naval Air Station Pensacola sprawls along the waterfront southwest of the city's downtown

One of the Navy’s most historic and storied bases, Naval Air Station Pensacola sprawls along the waterfront southwest of the city’s downtown

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7768107/FBI-hunt-missing-Saudi-soldiers-Pensacola-Naval-base-shooting.html

Pensacola Shooting: Police Give Update On Victims, White House Reacts | NBC News

NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA SHOOTING UPDATE

 

Six Saudis are arrested over Pensacola naval base shooting including three who FILMED the attack by countryman who killed three and wounded eight before being shot dead – as FBI probes terror link

  • Shooting took place on base early Friday morning, sparking a lockdown  
  • Sources identified the suspected gunman as Saudi Air Force aviation student Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani
  • As of Friday evening, six Saudi nationals have been detained for questioning 
  • It’s reported that three of them filmed the shooting as it happened 
  • Rep Matt Gaetz, a Republican representing Pensacola, called the shooting ‘an act of terrorism’  
  • President Trump tweeted that King Salman told him ‘the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter…’ 
  • Three other people were shot and killed during incident inside classroom building on base 

The Air Force trainee who killed three and injured eight when he opened fire at a naval base in Florida assailed the United States as ‘a nation of evil’ before he went on his shooting rampage, AFP reports.

The man, first identified by NBC News as Saudi national Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, opened fire inside a classroom at  Naval Air Station in Pensacola early Friday morning. Police quickly responded to the scene and he was shot dead.

US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said the suspect was a second lieutenant attending the aviation school at the base.

Meanwhile six other Saudi nationals were arrested near the base shortly after the attack, as investigators began to probe a terror link.

Three of the six were seen filming the entire incident as it unfolded, a source told The New York Times on Friday evening.

No officials have yet stated whether any of them were students inside the classroom where the shooting occurred.

Florida news outlets, citing sources, on Friday afternoon identified the suspected gunman as Saudi second lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani and released this photo that purports to show the alleged shooter (pictured by NBC 6 South Florida)

Military from around the globe attend the Naval Air Station in Pensacola for flight training.

President Donald Trump this afternoon tweeted that he spoke on the phone with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, who he said expressed ‘sincere condolences’ to those impacted by the shooting.

Trump added that King Salman informed him the Saudi people love Americans and ‘are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter…’

Shortly before 8pm Eastern Time, Saudi officials condemned the shooting and claimed they are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

The shooter opened fire in a classroom building shortly before 7am Friday. The attack left four people dead, including the assailant, and eight others wounded. 

A gunman opened fire at Naval Air Station Pensacola Friday morning, killing three people and injuring eight others before being shot dead by sheriff's deputies

A gunman opened fire at Naval Air Station Pensacola Friday morning, killing three people and injuring eight others before being shot dead by sheriff’s deputies

Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan said at a press conference on Friday two of his deputies engaged the gunman and took him out

Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan said at a press conference on Friday two of his deputies engaged the gunman and took him out

Heavy police presence was reported at the scene of the shooting Friday morning

Heavy police presence was reported at the scene of the shooting Friday morning

Heavy police presence was reported at the scene of the shooting Friday morning

During an afternoon press briefing, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis confirmed the shooter was from Saudi Arabia, which has long relied on the US to train it military officers.

‘There’s obviously going to be a lot of questions about this individual being a foreign national, being a part of the Saudi air force and then to be here training on our soil,’ DeSantis told reporters.

‘Obviously the government of Saudi Arabia needs to make things better for these victims. And I think they are going to owe a debt here given that this is one of their individuals.’

Of the 19 men involved in the September 11 attacks, 15 were Saudi and some of them attended flight school in Florida.

In recent weeks, 18 naval aviators and two aircrew members from the Royal Saudi Naval Forces were training with the US Navy, including at Pensacola, according to a November 15 press release from the Navy. It was not clear if the suspected shooter was part of that delegation.

The delegation came under a Navy program that offers training to US allies, known as the Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity.

A person familiar with the program said that Saudi Air Force officers selected for military training in the United States are intensely vetted by both countries.

An ambulance is seen arriving at the scene of the mass shooting at NAS Pensacola

n ambulance is seen arriving at the scene of the mass shooting at NAS Pensacola

An armored vehicle is pictured on the scene during Friday's shooting that claimed three innocent lives

An armored vehicle is pictured on the scene during Friday’s shooting that claimed three innocent lives

A medical helicopter is seen in the skies over Pensacola, Florida, Friday morning

A medical helicopter is seen in the skies over Pensacola, Florida, Friday morning

In the 2018 fiscal year, some 62,700 foreign military students from 155 countries participated in U.S.-run training, the total cost of which was approximately $776.3 million, according to DoD records.

Among them is a contingent Saudis who recently arrived at Naval Air Station Pensacola.

In recent weeks, 18 naval aviators and two aircrew members from the Royal Saudi Naval Forces were training with the U.S. Navy, including a stint at Pensacola, according to a November 15 press release from the Navy.

It was not clear if the suspected shooter was part of that delegation.

The delegation came under a Navy program that offers training to U.S. allies, known as the Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity.

A person familiar with the program said that Saudi Air Force officers selected for military training in the United States are intensely vetted by both countries.

The Saudi personnel are ‘hand-picked’ by their military and often come from elite families, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they did not have permission to speak to a reporter. Trainees must speak excellent English, the person said.

Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington did not respond to questions.

Saudi Arabia, a major purchaser of U.S. arms, accounts for a massive portion of America’s spending on foreign military training.

In the 2018 fiscal year, the U.S. trained 1,753 Saudi military members at an estimated cost of $120,903,786, according to DoD records.

For fiscal year 2019, the State Department planned to train roughly 3,150 Saudis in the U.S.

-Keith Griffith for DailyMail.com and Reuters

The Saudi personnel are ‘hand-picked’ by their military and often come from elite families, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they did not have permission to speak to a reporter. Trainees must speak excellent English, the person said.

Officials announced Friday morning that the shooter was killed by two Escambia County Sheriff’s deputies, who were injured during the exchange.

Three of the fatally injured people were pronounced dead at the scene and the fourth passed away at the hospital.

‘This was an act of terrorism,’ Rep Matt Gaetz, a Republican representing Pensacola, told the station WEAR.

The congressman said the investigation into the shooting has been handed over from NCIS to the FBI, signaling that it was ‘not an act of workplace violence,’ but rather an act of terror.

After news broke that the suspect was a Saudi national, Donald Trump tweeted that ‘King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place in Pensacola, Florida.’

The President continued: ‘The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.’

 

Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan said a 911 call was received at 6.51am central time reporting an active shooter on base.

Two deputies confronted the gunman inside a classroom building and exchanged gunfire, killing the perpetrator.

It has since been revealed that the gunman was armed with a handgun.

One of the officers suffered a gunshot wound to the arm, while the other was shot in the knee and underwent surgery.

Morgan said both deputies are expected to recover.

In total, eight people were taken to Baptist Health Care in Pensacola, one of whom later died.

Law enforcement and US Navy officials declined to release any information concerning the identities of the shooter and the victims pending the notification of next of kin.

Commanding officer Timothy Kinsella said the base’s security forces first responded to the shooting before outside police agencies arrived.

The facility, which is used for training and made up mostly of classrooms, ‘is shut down until further notice,’ he said.

Florida State Troopers block traffic over the Bayou Grande Bridge leading to the Pensacola Naval Air Station

This map shows the location of the sprawling Naval Air Station Pensacola

This map shows the location of the sprawling Naval Air Station Pensacola

 

Sheriff Morgan said the crime scene was spread over two floors, which were left littered with spent shell casings.

‘Walking through the crime scene was like being on the set of a movie,’ he revealed.

Federal agencies are investigating, authorities said, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

St. John’s Catholic School, located directly outside the air station, was placed on lockdown as a precaution.

Eight people were taken to Baptist Health Care in Pensacola from the site of the shooting

Eight people were taken to Baptist Health Care in Pensacola from the site of the shooting

A Facebook message from NAS Pensacola this morning confirmed an active shooter situation

A Facebook message from NAS Pensacola this morning confirmed an active shooter situation

PREVIOUS MASS SHOOTINGS AT  US MILITARY FACILITIES

While mass shootings in the United States are common, those at military facilities are rare.

In July 2015, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez carried out an attack at two military installations in Tennessee that killed four Marines and a sailor, with the FBI concluding that the violence was inspired by a “foreign terrorist group.”

Two years earlier, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people and wounded eight others at the Washington Navy Yard, just two miles (three kilometers) from the US Capitol building, before being shot dead by officers.

Four years before that, Major Nidal Hasan, a US Army psychiatrist, killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood.

He was considered a “lone wolf” who supported terror network Al-Qaeda.

Supporters of tighter gun laws seized on the latest shooting.

‘Our veterans and active-duty military put their lives on the line to protect us overseas — they shouldn’t have to be terrorized by gun violence at home,’ Cindy Martin, a volunteer with the Florida chapter of Moms Demand Action whose daughter works at the naval base, said in a statement.

                                                                                                                                   Source: AFP 

NAS Pensacola employs more than 16,000 military and 7,400 civilian personnel, according to its website.

One of the Navy’s most historic and storied bases, it sprawls along the waterfront southwest of downtown Pensacola and dominates the economy of the surrounding area.

It’s home to the Blue Angels flight demonstration team, and includes the National Naval Aviation Museum, a popular regional tourist attraction.

The shooting in Pensacola comes less than 48 hours after an active duty US sailor opened fire at Pearl Harbor’s naval shipyard in Hawaii, killing two civilian workers and injuring a third, before taking his own life.

 

Nightly News Broadcast (Full) – December 6th, 2019 | NBC Nightly News

PBS NewsHour full episode December 6, 2019

 

Story 3: Schiff Extracted Journalist Solomon Phone Number from Guiliani Records — Invasion of Privacy —  Videos

Solomon says Schiff extracted his number after requesting Giuliani records

Nunes reacts to Schiff releasing his personal phone calls

John Solomon (political commentator)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John F. Solomon is an American media executive, and a conservative political commentator. He was an editorialist and executive vice president of digital video for The Hill[1] and as of October 2019, is a contributor to Fox News.[2] He was formerly employed as an executive and as editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[3]

While he won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism in the 1990s and 2000s,[4][5] he has in recent years been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy.[6][7][8] During Donald Trump’s presidency, he has been known for advancing Trump-friendly stories. He played a role in advancing conspiracy theories about wrongdoing involving Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and Ukraine; Solomon’s stories about the Bidens influenced Trump to request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky launch an investigation into the elder Biden, which led to an impeachment inquiry.[2]

Contents

Career

Solomon graduated from Marquette University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and sociology.[9]

From May 1987 to December 2006, Solomon worked at the Associated Press, where he became the assistant bureau chief in Washington, helping to develop some of the organization’s first digital products, such as its online elections offering.

In 2007, he served as The Washington Post’s national investigative correspondent.

The Washington Times

Executive Editor

In February 2008, Solomon became editor-in-chief of The Washington Times.[10] Under Solomon, the Times changed some of its style guide to conform to more mainstream media usage. The Times announced that it would no longer use words like “illegal aliens” and “homosexual,” and instead opt for “more neutral terminology” such as “illegal immigrants” and “gay,” respectively. The paper also decided to stop using “Hillary” when referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, and to stop putting the word “marriage” in the expression “gay marriage” in quotes.[11] He also oversaw the redesign of the paper’s website and the launch of the paper’s national weekly edition. A new television studio was built in the paper’s Washington DC headquarters, and the paper also launched a syndicated three-hour morning drive radio news program.[8]

Solomon left the paper in November 2009 after internal shakeups and financial uncertainty among the paper’s ownership.[12]

Return

After a three-and-a-half-year hiatus, most of which was spent at Circa News, Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013 to oversee the newspaper’s content, digital and business strategies.[13] He helped to craft digital strategies to expand online traffic, created new products and partnerships, and led a reorganization of the company’s advertising and sales team. He also helped launch a new subscription-only national edition targeted for tablets, cellphones and other mobile devices, and helped push a redesign of the paper’s website.

Solomon left the paper in December 2015 to serve as chief creative officer of the mobile news application Circa, which was relaunching at that time.[3]

Packard Media Group

Solomon was president of Packard Media Group from November 2009 to December 2015.[14] Solomon also served as journalist in residence at the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit organization that specializes in investigative journalism, from March 2010 to June 2011.[8] He was also named executive editor of the Center for Public Integrity in November 2010 and helped oversee the launch of iWatch News, but resigned quickly after to join Newsweek/The Daily Beast in May 2011.[15][16][8]

Washington Guardian

In 2012, Solomon and former Associated Press executives Jim Williams and Brad Kalbfeld created the Washington Guardian, an online investigative news portal. It was acquired by The Washington Times when Solomon returned to the paper in July 2013.[3]

Circa

After leaving The Washington Times, Solomon became chief creative officer for Circa News. Circa is a mobile news application founded in 2011 that streams updates on big news events to users. In June 2015, it shut down, but its relaunch was announced after its acquisition by Sinclair Broadcast Group.[3]

As chief of Circa, he wrote and published a number of political articles, often defending the Trump administration[17] and former U.S. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty in February 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.[18] He left in July 2017.

The Hill

Upon leaving Circa, Solomon became executive vice president of digital video for The Hill.[1][19] Until May 2018, he worked on news and investigative pieces for The Hill.[19] According to the New York Times, Solomon tended to push narratives about alleged misdeeds by Trump’s political enemies.[20]

In October 2017, Solomon published an article in The Hill about the Uranium One controversy where he insinuated that Russia made payments to the Clinton Foundation at the time when the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.[21] Solomon’s story also focused on the alleged failures of the Department of Justice to investigate and report on the controversy, suggesting a cover-up.[21] Subsequent to Solomon’s reporting, the story “took off like wildfire in the right-wing media ecosystem,” according to a 2018 study by scholars at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & SocietyHarvard University.[21] No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrongdoing has surfaced.[21]

In January 2018, it was reported that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[22][23][24] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill‘s reputation.[22][23] They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship with conservative Fox News personality Sean Hannity, on whose TV show Hannity he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[22] In May 2018, the editor-in-chief of The Hill announced that Solomon would become an “opinion contributor” at The Hill while remaining executive vice president of digital video.[19] He frequently appeared on Fox News, which continued to describe him as an investigative reporter, even after he became an opinion contributor.[24]

Pro-Donald Trump opinion pieces

Solomon published a story alleging that women who had accused Trump of sexual assault had sought payments from partisan donors and tabloids.[24]

On June 19, 2019, The Hill published an opinion piece written by Solomon alleging that the FBI and Robert Mueller disregarded warnings that evidence used against Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort may have been faked.[25] His source was Nazar Kholodnytsky, a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor, and Konstantin Kilimnik, who has been linked to Russian intelligence and who happens to be Manafort’s former business partner.[26]

Solomon’s part in the Trump–Ukraine scandal

In April 2019, The Hill published two opinion pieces by Solomon regarding allegations by Ukrainian officials that “American Democrats” and particularly former Vice-President Joe Biden of collaborating with “their allies in Kiev” in “wrongdoing…ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes.”[27][28] Solomon’s stories attracted attention in conservative media.[23] Fox News frequently covered Solomon’s claims;[29] Solomon also promoted these allegations on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.[23] According to The Washington Post Solomon’s pieces “played an important role in advancing a flawed, Trump-friendly tale of corruption in Ukraine, particularly involving Biden and his son Hunter”, and inspired “the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to pressure Ukraine’s government into digging up dirt on Trump’s Democratic rivals.”[23] On the same day that The Washington Post published its article, The Hill published another opinion piece by Solomon in which Solomon states that there are “(h)undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents…(that) conflict with Biden’s narrative.”[30]

Solomon’s stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as “an outright fabrication”, but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon’s claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon’s claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon’s Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]

Prior to the publication of a story where Solomon alleged that the Obama administration had pressured the Ukrainian government to stop investigating a group funded by George Soros, Solomon sent the full text of his report to Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and the two pro-Trump lawyers and conspiracy theorists Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing.[34] Solomon said he did so for fact-checking, but Parnas, DiGenova and Toensing were not mentioned in the text, nor did Solomon send individual items of the draft for vetting (but rather the whole draft).[34]

During October 2019 hearings for the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, two government officials experienced in Ukraine matters — Alexander Vindman and George Kent — testified that Ukraine-related articles Solomon had written and that were featured in conservative media circles contained a “false narrative” and in some cases were “entirely made up in full cloth.”[35][36]

Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani – Trump’s personal attorney – 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 Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate). 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]

Solomon and the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

Solomon has been mentioned in a draft report by the House Intelligence Committee pubished Dec. 3, 2019, documenting President Trump’s alleged abuse of office for his personal and political gain by using congressionally approved military aid to induce Ukraine initiate investigations against Trump’s domestic political rival. The report documented phone records showing Solomon was in frequent contact with Lev Parnas, a now indicted associate of Giuliani, exchanging “at least 10 calls” during the first week in April.[37]

Advertising controversy

Solomon was accused of breaking the traditional ethical “wall” that separated news stories from advertising at The Hill. In October 2017, Solomon negotiated a $160,000 deal with a conservative group called Job Creators Network to target ads in The Hill to business owners in Maine. He then had a quote from the group’s director inserted into a news story about a Maine senator’s key role in an upcoming vote on the Trump administration’s tax bill. Solomon “pops by the advertising bullpen almost daily to discuss big deals he’s about to close,” Johanna Derlega, then The Hill’s publisher, wrote in an internal memo at the time, according to Pro Publica. “If a media reporter gets ahold of this story, it could destroy us.”[2]

Departure

In September 2019, the Washington Examiner reported that Solomon would leave The Hill at the end of the month to start his own media firm.[38] In October 2019, it was reported he was joining Fox News as an opinion contributor.[39]

Reception

Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[7] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon “has a history of bending the truth to his storyline,” and that he “was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”[8][23] During the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Thomas Lang wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review that a Solomon story for the Associated Press covered criticism of John Kerry’s record on national security appeared to mirror a research report released by the Republican National Committee. Lang wrote that Solomon’s story was “a clear demonstration of the influence opposition research is already having on coverage of the [presidential] campaign.”[40][41]

The Washington Post wrote in September 2019 that Solomon’s “recent work has been trailed by claims that it is biased and lacks rigor.”[23] The Post noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.[23] According to Foreign Policy magazine, Solomon had “grown into a prominent conservative political commentator with a somewhat controversial track record.”[31]

In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post, criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon’s reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[6] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgressMedia Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon’s reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[42][43][44] According to The InterceptJust Security and The Daily Beast, Solomon helps to advance right-wing and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.[26][24][45] The New Republic described Solomon’s columns for The Hill as “right-wing fever dreams.”[46] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing fake scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[47] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[8]

In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the newspaper.[48] According to the Huffington Post, Solomon’s reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, “Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week.”[48]

Awards

Solomon has received a number of prestigious awards for investigative journalism, among them the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalists’ National Investigative Award together with CBS News’ 60 Minutes for Evidence of Injustice;[5][49] in 2002, the Associated Press’s Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award for What The FBI Knew Before September 11, 2001, and the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award for his coverage of the war on terrorism;[49] in 1992, the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for an investigative series on Ross Perot.[50]

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

Story 4: American People Oppose  Democrat Party Impeachment of President Trump — Videos

Growing opposition to impeachment in battleground states as House Judiciary gears up for hearings

Rep. Ratcliffe: This is why Dems are gunning for an impeachment vote

Rush Limbaugh on impeachment: We are watching pure, raw hatred

Geraldo warns impeachment is a ‘disastrous idea’ for Dems

Stephanie Grisham: Dems hate Trump more than they love the country

 

Dec. 3, 2019 at 6:00 a.m. CST

Throughout more than two months of the Democrats’ House impeachment inquiry, two critical questions have loomed: How will the American public react to what it uncovers? And will it help or hurt President Trump’s chances at reelection in 2020?

So far, four dozen national and state polls have been conducted since the inquiry was announced, and together they offer some clear answers.

After an initial rise, support stayed divided on impeaching and removing Trump.

Impeaching Trump was clearly unpopular this summer, standing at 39 percent supporting and 48 opposing in a Washington Post average of nationally representative polls from June through late September. But later in September — after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the impeachment inquiry following a CIA whistleblower complaint about Trump’s request to the Ukrainian president to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son — support jumped to an even split at 46 percent in support and opposition.

Image without a caption

Since that initial jump, however, support for impeachment has been stable. The Post’s average of nationally representative polls conducted since the start of the House’s public hearings on Nov. 13 finds 47 percent of Americans support impeaching and removing Trump, while 43 percent are opposed. That level of support is little different from the 47 percent support in the two weeks before hearings began and 48 percent support earlier in October.

Independents also are divided on impeachment.

Political independents have been a key group to follow in impeachment polls, since several surveys this summer showed independents opposed to impeaching Trump by a margin of more than 20 percentage points, the clearest signal of political risk to Democrats if they launched hearings.

National polls since the start of public hearings show independents are now divided: 42 percent in support and 44 percent opposed.

Image without a caption

Democrats and Republicans are mirror opposites on the issue, with an average of 86 percent of Democrats supporting impeachment, compared with 9 percent of Republicans. Democrats have grown more united in their support for impeachment since before the inquiry began, when polls showed roughly two-thirds supported impeachment. Among Republicans, an average of 87 percent are opposed, while 8 percent of Democrats say the same.

In key general election states, fewer voters support impeachment.

Battleground state polls show a more negative reaction to the impeachment inquiry, signaling more risk to Democrats and potential benefit for Trump. An average of 44 percent supported impeachment, with 51 percent opposed, averaging across a dozen October and November polls in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. That’s a flip from an average of national polls that finds support for impeachment narrowly edging opposition, 47 percent to 43 percent.

Image without a caption

The depressed support for impeachment in key states was first signaled by a series of New York Times-Siena College polls conducted in mid-October, which found between 51 and 53 percent opposing impeachment in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

But several other polls also have found that support for impeachment in key 2020 states lags the country overall. At the most negative, a mid-November Marquette University Law School poll in Wisconsin found 40 percent of registered voters support impeaching and removing Trump, while 53 percent are opposed. Fox News polls in North Carolina and Nevada showed opposition to impeachment outpacing support by eight and seven points, respectively. The best results in key states have shown voters divided over impeachment, such as a Muhlenberg College poll of Pennsylvania voters.

Trump’s approval rating has hardly budged.

Overall job approval ratings are the essential baseline measure of a president’s political support, and Trump’s trendline in job approval is the clearest sign of whether his popularity has increased or decreased amid the impeachment inquiry. And it has barely moved over the past few months in national polling, including the period in which impeachment support increased in late September.

In Gallup polling from mid-September to mid-November, Trump’s approval has tiptoed between 39 percent and 43 percent approving. In Quinnipiac University polls, the story is no different: Between 38 percent and 41 percent of registered voters approved of Trump from late September to late November.

Image without a caption

The stability of Trump’s approval ratings affirms just how locked-in Americans are in their views toward Trump, even as some independents and Democrats changed their opinion on whether Congress should impeach and remove him from office. The lack of movement in this essential measure of Trump’s political standing also indicates that while most Americans think Trump did something wrong in his dealings with Ukraine, news and congressional testimony about this issue have not shifted how people feel about the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/03/americans-are-split-impeachment-just-like-they-were-before-public-hearings/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1363-1370

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1352-1362

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1343-1351

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1335-1342

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1326-1334

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1318-1325

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1310-1317

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1300-1309

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9