pbs--2020-01-22--Trump says U.S. will soon expand travel ban

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Wednesday the U.S. would soon be imposing visa restrictions on more countries — though it ’ s not clear yet how many nations will be affected by his expansion of the travel ban .
Seven additional nations were listed in a draft of the proposed restrictions — but the countries were notified by Homeland Security officials that they could avoid being included if they make changes before the announcement is made , according to two administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations .
The tentative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Myanmar , Nigeria , Sudan and Tanzania , according to the officials and a person familiar with the draft proposal .
But several countries are believed to have taken action or demonstrated good faith efforts to comply in order to avoid inclusion , the officials said .
The steps include better border security , better sharing of identification information among nations and better travel document security , one official said .
It ’ s not clear how many nations will wind up on the final list .
Trump told reporters at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that he ’ s doing it to protect the United States .
“ We ’ re adding a couple of countries to it , ” he said .
“ We have to be safe .
Our country has to be safe .
You see what ’ s going on in the world .
Our country has to be safe .
So we have a very strong travel ban and we ’ ll be adding a few countries to it.
” The current ban suspends immigrant and non-immigrant visas to applicants from five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Somalia , Syria and Yemen , as well as Venezuela and North Korea .
But it allows exceptions , including for students and those who have established “ significant contacts ” in the U.S.. And it represents a significant softening from Trump ’ s initial order , which had suspended travel from Iraq , Iran , Libya , Somalia , Sudan and Yemen for 90 days , blocked refugee admissions for 120 days and suspended travel from Syria .
READ MORE : What Americans think of Trump ’ s ‘ go back ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately blocked by the courts , prompting a months-long effort by the administration to develop clear standards and federal review processes to try to pass legal muster .
Under the current system , restrictions are targeted at countries that Homeland Security says fail to share sufficient information with the U.S. or haven ’ t taken necessary security precautions , such as issuing electronic passports with biometric information and sharing information about travelers ’ terror-related and criminal histories .
Iraq , Sudan and Chad had been affected by the original order , which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the administration released a watered-down version intended to withstand legal scrutiny .
They were not part of the pared-down version .
During his 2016 campaign , Trump had floated the idea of a ban to keep all Muslims from entering the country and he criticized his Justice Department for the subsequent changes .
Several of the people said they expected the announcement to be timed to coincide with Monday ’ s third anniversary of the first , explosive travel ban , announced without warning on Jan. 27 , 2017 , just days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked an uproar , with massive protests across the nation and chaos at airports where passengers were detained .
Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report from Davos .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Wednesday the U.S. would soon be imposing visa restrictions on more countries — though it’s not clear yet how many nations will be affected by his expansion of the travel ban.
Seven additional nations were listed in a draft of the proposed restrictions — but the countries were notified by Homeland Security officials that they could avoid being included if they make changes before the announcement is made, according to two administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations.
The tentative list featured Belarus, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania, according to the officials and a person familiar with the draft proposal. But several countries are believed to have taken action or demonstrated good faith efforts to comply in order to avoid inclusion, the officials said. The steps include better border security, better sharing of identification information among nations and better travel document security, one official said. It’s not clear how many nations will wind up on the final list.
Trump told reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he’s doing it to protect the United States.
“We’re adding a couple of countries to it,” he said. “We have to be safe. Our country has to be safe. You see what’s going on in the world. Our country has to be safe. So we have a very strong travel ban and we’ll be adding a few countries to it.”
The current ban suspends immigrant and non-immigrant visas to applicants from five majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as Venezuela and North Korea.
But it allows exceptions, including for students and those who have established “significant contacts” in the U.S.. And it represents a significant softening from Trump’s initial order, which had suspended travel from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocked refugee admissions for 120 days and suspended travel from Syria.
READ MORE: What Americans think of Trump’s ‘go back’ to your country tweets
That order was immediately blocked by the courts, prompting a months-long effort by the administration to develop clear standards and federal review processes to try to pass legal muster. Under the current system, restrictions are targeted at countries that Homeland Security says fail to share sufficient information with the U.S. or haven’t taken necessary security precautions, such as issuing electronic passports with biometric information and sharing information about travelers’ terror-related and criminal histories.
Iraq, Sudan and Chad had been affected by the original order, which the Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 vote after the administration released a watered-down version intended to withstand legal scrutiny. They were not part of the pared-down version.
During his 2016 campaign, Trump had floated the idea of a ban to keep all Muslims from entering the country and he criticized his Justice Department for the subsequent changes.
Several of the people said they expected the announcement to be timed to coincide with Monday’s third anniversary of the first, explosive travel ban, announced without warning on Jan. 27, 2017, just days after Trump took office. That order sparked an uproar, with massive protests across the nation and chaos at airports where passengers were detained.
Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report from Davos.


pbs--2020-01-22--Watchdog group claims pro-Sanders nonprofit violated campaign finance law

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The watchdog group Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday , alleging that Our Revolution , a political nonprofit organization founded by Bernie Sanders , violated campaign finance law by accepting donations in excess of federal limits while boosting his White House ambitions .
The complaint comes after The Associated Press reported earlier this month about the donations .
Our Revolution has denied any wrongdoing .
A spokesman declined to comment .
Sanders ’ campaign also did not respond to a request for comment .
The campaign finance act says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not spend or raise money for federal electoral activity that exceeds the limitations of the law .
Those contributions are currently set at $ 2,800 for candidates and $ 5,000 for political action committees .
Additionally , such groups can not spend money raised in excess of those limits on federal elections .
Our Revolution has taken in nearly $ 1 million from donors whose donations exceeded those limits and whose identities it hasn ’ t fully disclosed , according to tax filings for 2016 , 2017 and 2018 .
Much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sums .
The group has paid for some social media ads backing Sanders ’ campaign and is working to turn out voters who will support the senator in the Democratic presidential primary .
The group will not have to disclose its 2020 spending until after the election .
“ Because Sanders set up Our Revolution and they have raised and spent money in candidate elections , Our Revolution is required to comply with contribution limits , register with the FEC and disclose its donors — but it hasn ’ t , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common Cause .
“ It ’ s his establishment of the group that triggers these laws .
That means a $ 5,000 limit , full donor disclosure and no contributions from prohibited sources.
” Candidates are barred from accepting contributions from corporations , labor unions , federal contractors and foreign nationals .
The group does not fully disclose who its contributors are .
For years , Sanders has railed against the torrent of money allowed to flood the political system in the wake of the Supreme Court ’ s landmark 2010 Citizens United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ire for super political action committee , or super PACs .
READ MORE : What does Bernie Sanders believe ?
Where the candidate stands on 9 issues Our Revolution is not a super PAC .
But the tax-exempt political nonprofit functions much like one — but without having to reveal its donors .
Like super PACs , these nonprofits were similarly empowered to raise and spend unlimited sums after the Citizens United decision .
But such groups must take steps to keep their activities separate from the candidates they support .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than has been suggested , and that Our Revolution will be able to show Sanders is no longer affiliated , ” said Dan Petalas , a former FEC attorney now in private practice who previously represented Our Revolution .
“ And even if that ’ s incorrect , Our Revolution should be able to demonstrate that they used money in ways that comply with the law.
” Sanders on Sunday sought to distance himself from Our Revolution during a candidate forum with New Hampshire Public Radio .
While he acknowledged that he founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that , ” he also suggested he was legally prevented telling them to stop .
“ If I got on the phone and I told them what to do , that would be a violation of campaign finance law , ” Sanders said .
However , legal experts say there ’ s nothing preventing him from asking them to stop .
“ It ’ s dubious , ” said Adav Noti , a former FEC lawyer who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington .
“ A full disavowal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside group spending money from secret , wealthy donors to support my election ’ — there ’ s nothing in the law that would prohibit a candidate from saying that.
” Sanders founded Our Revolution to further the political movement galvanized by his unsuccessful 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination , though Our Revolution leaders say he hasn ’ t held a formal role since its first governing board was appointed in 2016 .
The group , which also includes hundreds of local affiliates across the U.S. , initially backed a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 midterms .
But after he entered the 2020 contest , its focus has shifted toward him .
Nina Turner , a former Ohio state senator and a co-chair of Sanders ’ campaign , was president of the group until she took a leave of absence to work on his presidential bid .
In May , she resigned from the role , which paid her $ 187,000 in 2018 .
Other Sanders surrogates , including radio commentator Jim Hightower and Palestinian rights activist Jim Zogby , have also served on the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , between Our Revolution and people in Sanders ’ orbit .
Sanders ’ wife , Jane O ’ Meara Sanders , was a founding director of Our Revolution , according to business filings .
In August 2018 , the group also subleased Washington office space to Sanders ’ Senate campaign , Friends of Bernie Sanders , Inc. , a financial disclosure shows .
Our Revolution also provided a $ 105,000 seed loan to the Sanders Institute , a think tank founded by O ’ Meara Sanders and her son , David Driscoll .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Sanders launched his 2020 campaign , paid Driscoll $ 100,000 a year to serve as its executive director .
Driscoll previously was an executive for Nike and the Vermont snowboarding firm Burton , but had no previous nonprofit experience , according to his LinkedIn profile .
The loan was paid off in 2018 .
While Our Revolution doesn ’ t fully disclose donors , it does list many of them on its website , though they do not include donation amounts .
They do grant anonymity , however , to donors who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity .
Still , other tax filings and FEC records reveal who some of the top contributors are .
National Nurses United for Patient Protection , a super PAC that supported Sanders ’ 2016 run , disclosed in a 2016 that it donated $ 300,000 to Our Revolution .
Sixteen Thirty Fund , a nonprofit group that allows donors to anonymously funnel large contributions to progressive and liberal causes , was the source of a $ 100,000 contribution in 2017 .

WASHINGTON (AP) — The watchdog group Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, alleging that Our Revolution, a political nonprofit organization founded by Bernie Sanders, violated campaign finance law by accepting donations in excess of federal limits while boosting his White House ambitions.
The complaint comes after The Associated Press reported earlier this month about the donations.
Our Revolution has denied any wrongdoing. A spokesman declined to comment. Sanders’ campaign also did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign finance act says groups established by federal officeholders or candidates cannot spend or raise money for federal electoral activity that exceeds the limitations of the law. Those contributions are currently set at $2,800 for candidates and $5,000 for political action committees. Additionally, such groups cannot spend money raised in excess of those limits on federal elections.
Our Revolution has taken in nearly $1 million from donors whose donations exceeded those limits and whose identities it hasn’t fully disclosed, according to tax filings for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Much of it came from donors who contributed six-figure sums.
The group has paid for some social media ads backing Sanders’ campaign and is working to turn out voters who will support the senator in the Democratic presidential primary. The group will not have to disclose its 2020 spending until after the election.
“Because Sanders set up Our Revolution and they have raised and spent money in candidate elections, Our Revolution is required to comply with contribution limits, register with the FEC and disclose its donors — but it hasn’t,” said Paul S. Ryan, an attorney for Common Cause. “It’s his establishment of the group that triggers these laws. That means a $5,000 limit, full donor disclosure and no contributions from prohibited sources.”
Candidates are barred from accepting contributions from corporations, labor unions, federal contractors and foreign nationals. The group does not fully disclose who its contributors are.
For years, Sanders has railed against the torrent of money allowed to flood the political system in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United decision. But he has saved special ire for super political action committee, or super PACs.
READ MORE: What does Bernie Sanders believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues
Our Revolution is not a super PAC. But the tax-exempt political nonprofit functions much like one — but without having to reveal its donors. Like super PACs, these nonprofits were similarly empowered to raise and spend unlimited sums after the Citizens United decision.
But such groups must take steps to keep their activities separate from the candidates they support.
“I believe that the analysis is more complicated than has been suggested, and that Our Revolution will be able to show Sanders is no longer affiliated,” said Dan Petalas, a former FEC attorney now in private practice who previously represented Our Revolution. “And even if that’s incorrect, Our Revolution should be able to demonstrate that they used money in ways that comply with the law.”
Sanders on Sunday sought to distance himself from Our Revolution during a candidate forum with New Hampshire Public Radio. While he acknowledged that he founded the group and had “no apologies for that,” he also suggested he was legally prevented telling them to stop.
“If I got on the phone and I told them what to do, that would be a violation of campaign finance law,” Sanders said.
However, legal experts say there’s nothing preventing him from asking them to stop.
“It’s dubious,” said Adav Noti, a former FEC lawyer who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington. “A full disavowal — ‘I do not want an outside group spending money from secret, wealthy donors to support my election’ — there’s nothing in the law that would prohibit a candidate from saying that.”
Sanders founded Our Revolution to further the political movement galvanized by his unsuccessful 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, though Our Revolution leaders say he hasn’t held a formal role since its first governing board was appointed in 2016.
The group, which also includes hundreds of local affiliates across the U.S., initially backed a series of candidates in Sanders’ mold during the 2018 midterms. But after he entered the 2020 contest, its focus has shifted toward him.
Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and a co-chair of Sanders’ campaign, was president of the group until she took a leave of absence to work on his presidential bid. In May, she resigned from the role, which paid her $187,000 in 2018. Other Sanders surrogates, including radio commentator Jim Hightower and Palestinian rights activist Jim Zogby, have also served on the board.
There are other connections, too, between Our Revolution and people in Sanders’ orbit.
Sanders’ wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, was a founding director of Our Revolution, according to business filings. In August 2018, the group also subleased Washington office space to Sanders’ Senate campaign, Friends of Bernie Sanders, Inc., a financial disclosure shows.
Our Revolution also provided a $105,000 seed loan to the Sanders Institute, a think tank founded by O’Meara Sanders and her son, David Driscoll. The Sanders Institute, which was mothballed after Sanders launched his 2020 campaign, paid Driscoll $100,000 a year to serve as its executive director. Driscoll previously was an executive for Nike and the Vermont snowboarding firm Burton, but had no previous nonprofit experience, according to his LinkedIn profile. The loan was paid off in 2018.
While Our Revolution doesn’t fully disclose donors, it does list many of them on its website, though they do not include donation amounts. They do grant anonymity, however, to donors who don’t want to reveal their identity.
Still, other tax filings and FEC records reveal who some of the top contributors are.
National Nurses United for Patient Protection, a super PAC that supported Sanders’ 2016 run, disclosed in a 2016 that it donated $300,000 to Our Revolution.
Sixteen Thirty Fund, a nonprofit group that allows donors to anonymously funnel large contributions to progressive and liberal causes, was the source of a $100,000 contribution in 2017.


pbs--2020-01-22--Utah bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ children

SALT LAKE CITY — The discredited practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ children is now banned in Utah , making it the 19th state and one of the most conservative to prohibit it .
Supporters navigated a winding path to passage and some dissent remains , but barring it in Utah could give a boost to similar efforts in other right-leaning states , said Shannon Minter , legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights .
“ It ’ s really given people a lot of hope , ” said Minter , whose group has pushed for bans around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the issue could also come up in this year in Texas and Kentucky , he said .
The change in Utah comes after the state hammered out a regulatory rule that had the support of the influential Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints .
Leaders had opposed a previous version because it didn ’ t have certain exceptions for clergy .
“ This is no longer a partisan cause , we all agree on how important it is to protect children from suicide , ” said Cliff Rosky , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council for the group Equality Utah .
He said he ’ s also been contacted by advocates in Iowa and Nebraska .
Republican Gov .
Gary Herbert took the unusual step of calling on regulators after a proposed law was derailed by changes made by conservative lawmakers .
State officials confirmed the rule became final late Tuesday .
“ Ultimately , I ’ m grateful to live in a state like Utah where we say you matter to everyone , ” said Nathan Dalley , a 20-year-old student who underwent so-called conversion therapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culminated in a suicide attempt .
The original sponsor of the proposal , GOP Utah Rep. Craig Hall , applauded the rule going into effect , saying it prohibits dangerous practices while protecting healthcare professionals .
“ It will simply save lives , ” he said .
Conversion therapy is a practice used to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity .
Many people who have been through it say it deepened feelings of depression and increased thoughts of suicide .
The new rule bans licensed Utah therapists from subjecting LGBTQ minors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association has said is not based in science and is harmful to mental health .
The Utah Psychological Association also spoke in favor of the rule at a news conference on Thursday .
Still , the ban has drawn pushback in Utah .
Opponents argued it would prevent parents from getting help for children with “ unwanted ” gay feelings and keep therapists from even talking about sexuality with their kids .
The rule could become an issue during the 2020 legislative session .
Utah ’ s predominant faith , known widely as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and teaches that intimate same-sex relationships are a sin .
But it also urges members to be kind and compassionate to LGBTQ people .
The religion holds tremendous influence in Utah , where the majority of state lawmakers and nearly two-thirds of the state ’ s 3.1 million residents are members .
The faith got behind the conversion therapy ban after supporters included assurances that church leaders and members who are therapists would be allowed to provide spiritual counseling for parishioners or families .
If you or anyone you know is in crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK , or text the word Home to 741741 from your mobile phone .

SALT LAKE CITY — The discredited practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ children is now banned in Utah, making it the 19th state and one of the most conservative to prohibit it.
Supporters navigated a winding path to passage and some dissent remains, but barring it in Utah could give a boost to similar efforts in other right-leaning states, said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
“It’s really given people a lot of hope,” said Minter, whose group has pushed for bans around the U.S. Virginia is considering a ban, and the issue could also come up in this year in Texas and Kentucky, he said.
“It will simply save lives.”
The change in Utah comes after the state hammered out a regulatory rule that had the support of the influential Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Leaders had opposed a previous version because it didn’t have certain exceptions for clergy.
“This is no longer a partisan cause, we all agree on how important it is to protect children from suicide,” said Cliff Rosky, a law professor who sits on the advisory council for the group Equality Utah. He said he’s also been contacted by advocates in Iowa and Nebraska.
Republican Gov. Gary Herbert took the unusual step of calling on regulators after a proposed law was derailed by changes made by conservative lawmakers. State officials confirmed the rule became final late Tuesday.
“Ultimately, I’m grateful to live in a state like Utah where we say you matter to everyone,” said Nathan Dalley, a 20-year-old student who underwent so-called conversion therapy as a teenager and has said it culminated in a suicide attempt.
The original sponsor of the proposal, GOP Utah Rep. Craig Hall, applauded the rule going into effect, saying it prohibits dangerous practices while protecting healthcare professionals.
“It will simply save lives,” he said.
Conversion therapy is a practice used to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people who have been through it say it deepened feelings of depression and increased thoughts of suicide. The new rule bans licensed Utah therapists from subjecting LGBTQ minors to the practice that the American Psychological Association has said is not based in science and is harmful to mental health. The Utah Psychological Association also spoke in favor of the rule at a news conference on Thursday.
Still, the ban has drawn pushback in Utah. Opponents argued it would prevent parents from getting help for children with “unwanted” gay feelings and keep therapists from even talking about sexuality with their kids. The rule could become an issue during the 2020 legislative session.
Utah’s predominant faith, known widely as the Mormon church, opposes same-sex marriage and teaches that intimate same-sex relationships are a sin. But it also urges members to be kind and compassionate to LGBTQ people. The religion holds tremendous influence in Utah, where the majority of state lawmakers and nearly two-thirds of the state’s 3.1 million residents are members.
The faith got behind the conversion therapy ban after supporters included assurances that church leaders and members who are therapists would be allowed to provide spiritual counseling for parishioners or families.
If you or anyone you know is in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK, or text the word Home to 741741 from your mobile phone.


pbs--2020-01-22--U.S. to impose visa restrictions for pregnant women

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration is unveiling new visa restrictions aimed at restricting “ birth tourism , ” in which women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport .
The State Department plans to publicize the rules Thursday , according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity .
The rules would make it more difficult for pregnant women to travel on a tourist visa .
In one draft of the regulations , they would have to clear an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing a consular officer they have another legitimate reason to come to the U.S .
The Trump administration has been restricting all forms of immigration , but the president has been particularly plagued by the issue of birthright citizenship – anyone born in the U.S. is considered a citizen , under the Constitution .
He has railed against the practice and threatened to end it , but scholars and members of his administration have said it ’ s not so easy to do .
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant women is one way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant to begin with , and whether a woman could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her .
Counselor officers right now aren ’ t told to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so .
But they would have to determine whether a visa applicant would be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth .
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out advertisements and charge up to $ 80,000 to facilitate the practice , offering hotel rooms and medical care .
Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the U.S .
The U.S. has been c racking down on the practice since before Trump took office .
Although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion , coming to the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal .
And women are often honest about their intentions when applying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with doctors and hospitals .
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth .
The Center for Immigration Studies , a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws , estimated that in 2012 , about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the U.S. , then left the country .
The draft rule is “ intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism , including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry , ” a State Department spokesperson @ @

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is unveiling new visa restrictions aimed at restricting “birth tourism,” in which women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport.
The State Department plans to publicize the rules Thursday, according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity. The rules would make it more difficult for pregnant women to travel on a tourist visa. In one draft of the regulations, they would have to clear an additional hurdle before obtaining the visa — convincing a consular officer they have another legitimate reason to come to the U.S.
The Trump administration has been restricting all forms of immigration, but the president has been particularly plagued by the issue of birthright citizenship – anyone born in the U.S. is considered a citizen, under the Constitution. He has railed against the practice and threatened to end it, but scholars and members of his administration have said it’s not so easy to do.
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant women is one way to get at the issue, but it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant to begin with, and whether a woman could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her.
Counselor officers right now aren’t told to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so. But they would have to determine whether a visa applicant would be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth.
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in both the U.S. and abroad. American companies take out advertisements and charge up to $80,000 to facilitate the practice, offering hotel rooms and medical care. Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the U.S. The U.S. has been c racking down on the practice since before Trump took office.
Although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion, coming to the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal. And women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals.
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth. The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws, estimated that in 2012, about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the U.S., then left the country.
The draft rule is “intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry,” a State Department spokesperson said.


pbs--2020-01-23--WATCH: Rep. Garcia explains why Democrats believe Biden did nothing wrong

Rep. Sylvia Garcia , one of the seven House impeachment managers , laid out reasons that she said debunks the Republicans ’ argument that former vice president Joe Biden fired Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to shield his son , Hunter Biden , from being investigated for his work with the Ukrainian natural gas company , Burisma holdings .
Biden pressed for Shokin ’ s removal during his time as vice president in the spring of 2016 , amid pressure from U.S. lawmakers and allies who believed the official was corrupt .
Shokin had previously led an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served on the board of Burisma until last April .
“ Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Biden was following official U.S. policy in calling for Shokin ’ s removal , ” said Garcia , who noted that the move was supported by a bipartisan group of senators , including Republicans Rob Portman and Ron Johnson .
She added that there is “ Simply no evidence…in the record to support ” the “ baseless allegation ” that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for Shokin ’ s removal .
Additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens for his own personal political gain , not because he wanted to crack down on corruption , as Trump ’ s lawyers have claimed .
“ President Trump asked Ukraine for something that benefited only himself , ” said Garcia , D-Texas .
“ In putting himself above our country , he put his country at risk , and that is why his actions are so dangerous , ” she added .
Garcia made the arguments as part of the Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course of three days to present their case .
The White House will then make its defense .
The House of Representatives impeached the president in December on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The trial will determine whether Trump is convicted of those charges and removed from office , or acquitted .

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, one of the seven House impeachment managers, laid out reasons that she said debunk the Republicans’ argument that former vice president Joe Biden fired Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to shield his son, Hunter Biden, from being investigated for his work with the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma holdings.
Biden pressed for Shokin’s removal during his time as vice president in the spring of 2016, amid pressure from U.S. lawmakers and allies who believed the official was corrupt. Shokin had previously led an investigation into Burisma’s owner. Hunter served on the board of Burisma until last April.
“Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Biden was following official U.S. policy in calling for Shokin’s removal,” said Garcia, who noted that the move was supported by a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans Rob Portman and Ron Johnson.
She added that there is “Simply no evidence…in the record to support” the “baseless allegation” that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for Shokin’s removal.
Additionally, Garcia said that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens for his own personal political gain, not because he wanted to crack down on corruption, as Trump’s lawyers have claimed.
“President Trump asked Ukraine for something that benefited only himself,” said Garcia, D-Texas. “In putting himself above our country, he put his country at risk, and that is why his actions are so dangerous,” she added.
Garcia made the arguments as part of the Trump’s impeachment trial. House managers have been allowed 24 hours over the course of three days to present their case. The White House will then make its defense. The House of Representatives impeached the president in December on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The trial will determine whether Trump is convicted of those charges and removed from office, or acquitted.


pbs--2020-01-23--Trump poses 'continuing threat' to national interests, say House managers

Ukraine is the only country in Europe at war .
For five years , Ukrainian soldiers have faced off against @ @ @ @ @ times , Russian soldiers .
They have fought in farmland and in muddy trenches that @ @ @ @ @ 100 years ago .
Most of Ukraine 's weapons are American or U.S.-funded , and @ @ @ @ @ Democrats today accused President Trump of — quote — `` extorting '' Ukraine 's government @ @ @ @ @ million in military aid and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to @ @ @ @ @ into the 2016 election and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .

Nick Schifrin:
Ukraine is the only country in Europe at war. For five years, Ukrainian soldiers have faced off against Russian-backed separatists and, at times, Russian soldiers.
They have fought in farmland and in muddy trenches that are throwbacks to wars of 100 years ago. Most of Ukraine's weapons are American or U.S.-funded, and its soldiers are U.S.-trained.
Democrats today accused President Trump of — quote — "extorting" Ukraine's government by withholding nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into the 2016 election and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.


pbs--2020-01-23--WATCH: 'Bogus' Ukraine theory led to Trump's abuse, Dems argue in impeachment trial

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Democratic House prosecutors argued Thursday in Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial that the president was swept up by a “ completely bogus ” Ukraine theory pushed by attorney Rudy Giuliani and that led to his abuse of presidential power and then impeachment .
As the Democrats pressed their case for a second day before skeptical Republican Senate jurors , they displayed video images of the nation ’ s top FBI and Homeland Security officials warning the public off the theory that it was Ukraine , not Russia , that interfered in the 2016 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wanted investigated or announced — this completely bogus Kremlin-pushed conspiracy theory , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is leading the prosecution .
Trump is accused of seeking the investigation — and probes of political foe Joe Biden and Biden ’ s son — for his own political benefit while holding back congressionally approved military aid as leverage .
Schiff said , “ You an imagine what a danger that presents to this country.
” Trump is facing trial in the Senate after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him of abusing his office by asking Ukraine for the investigations while withholding the aid from a U.S. ally at war with bordering Russia .
Trump faces a second article of impeachment accusing him of obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe .
Republicans , growing tired of the long hours of proceedings , have defended Trump ’ s actions as appropriate and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in the midst of his reelection campaign .
Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and acquittal is considered likely .
The Democrats ’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year .
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding , Democrats argued on Thursday that Trump ’ s motives were clear .
“ No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections , ” Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York , the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s founders would be shocked .
“ The president ’ s conduct is wrong .
It is illegal .
It is dangerous.
” They scoffed at Trump ’ s claims that he had good reasons for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political foes .
It was Trump who engaged in a shocking abuse of power , not former Vice President Biden or other Trump foes , said Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas .
There is “ no evidence , nothing , nada ” to suggest that Biden did anything improper in dealings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump , with Giuliani , pursued investigations of Biden and his son , Hunter , who served on a Ukrainian gas company ’ s board , sought the probe of debunked theories of what nation was guilty of interference in the 2016 U.S. election .
The president ’ s defense waited its turn , which may come on Saturday .
“ We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both fact and rebutting what they said , ” said attorney Jay Sekulow at the Capitol .
Ahead of the day ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri said the Democrats were putting forward “ admirable presentations.
” But he said , “ They ’ ve basically got about one hour of presentation , and they gave it six times on Tuesday and eight times yesterday .
There ’ s just not much new here.
” The top Senate Democrat , Chuck Schumer , acknowledged that many senators “ really don ’ t want to be here.
” But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case abou t Trump ’ s pressure on Ukraine and the scheme to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hearing it for only the first time .
He contended they can ’ t help but be “ glued ” to his testimony .
Once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year , Democrats are now marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge .
Trump blasted the proceedings in a Thursday morning tweet , declaring them the “ Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history !
” Campaigning in Iowa , Biden said , “ People ask the question , ‘ Isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronger and harder to beat if he survives this ?
’ Yes , probably .
But Congress has no choice , ” He said senators must cast their votes and “ live with that in history.
” Each side has up to three days to present its case .
After the House prosecutors finish , likely Friday , the president ’ s lawyers will have as much as 24 hours .
It ’ s unclear how much time they will actually take , but Trump ’ s team promises not only to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ case .
The Senate is expected to take only Sunday off and push into next week .
After that senators will face the question of whether they do , or do not , want to call witnesses to testif y .
Senators were permitted Thursday to review supplemental testimony submitted by an aide to Vice President Mike Pence , Jennifer Williams , who testified in the House impeachment inquiry .
Democrats said the supplemental testimony , which is classified , bolsters their impeachment case .
A lawyer for Williams declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention proved difficult for the Democrats Most senators sat at their desks throughout , as the rules stipulate , though some stretched their legs , standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber .
Sometimes they yawned .
Republicans sometimes quietly smirked .
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election .
Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail , seated as jurors .
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not , 45 % to 40 % .
But a sizable percentage , 14 % , said they didn ’ t know enough to have an opinion .
One issue with wide agreement : Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial .
About 7 in 10 said so , including majorities of Republicans and Democrats , according to the poll .
The strategy of more witnesses , though , seemed all but settled .
Republicans rejected Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security adviser John Bolton , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week .
Senators were likely to repeat that rejection next week , shutting out any chance of new testimony .
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick , Alan Fram , Andrew Taylor , Laurie Kellman , Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Bill Barrow in Osage , Iowa , contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House prosecutors argued Thursday in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial that the president was swept up by a “completely bogus” Ukraine theory pushed by attorney Rudy Giuliani and that led to his abuse of presidential power and then impeachment.
As the Democrats pressed their case for a second day before skeptical Republican Senate jurors, they displayed video images of the nation’s top FBI and Homeland Security officials warning the public off the theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.
“That’s what Donald Trump wanted investigated or announced — this completely bogus Kremlin-pushed conspiracy theory,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is leading the prosecution.
Trump is accused of seeking the investigation — and probes of political foe Joe Biden and Biden’s son — for his own political benefit while holding back congressionally approved military aid as leverage. Schiff said, “You an imagine what a danger that presents to this country.”
Trump is facing trial in the Senate after the House impeached him last month, accusing him of abusing his office by asking Ukraine for the investigations while withholding the aid from a U.S. ally at war with bordering Russia. Trump faces a second article of impeachment accusing him of obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe.
Republicans, growing tired of the long hours of proceedings, have defended Trump’s actions as appropriate and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken him in the midst of his reelection campaign. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and acquittal is considered likely.
The Democrats’ challenge is clear as they try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year.
With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, Democrats argued on Thursday that Trump’s motives were clear.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told the senators. He said the nation’s founders would be shocked. “The president’s conduct is wrong. It is illegal. It is dangerous.”
They scoffed at Trump’s claims that he had good reasons for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political foes.
It was Trump who engaged in a shocking abuse of power, not former Vice President Biden or other Trump foes, said Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas. There is “no evidence, nothing, nada” to suggest that Biden did anything improper in dealings with Ukraine, said the former judge.
Trump, with Giuliani, pursued investigations of Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on a Ukrainian gas company’s board, sought the probe of debunked theories of what nation was guilty of interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
The president’s defense waited its turn, which may come on Saturday.
“We will be putting on a vigorous defense of both fact and rebutting what they said,” said attorney Jay Sekulow at the Capitol.
Ahead of the day’s proceedings, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri said the Democrats were putting forward “admirable presentations.” But he said, “They’ve basically got about one hour of presentation, and they gave it six times on Tuesday and eight times yesterday. There’s just not much new here.”
The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, acknowledged that many senators “really don’t want to be here.”
But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case abou t Trump’s pressure on Ukraine and the scheme to cover up the charges and many Republicans are hearing it for only the first time. He contended they can’t help but be “glued” to his testimony.
Once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year, Democrats are now marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge.
Trump blasted the proceedings in a Thursday morning tweet, declaring them the “Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!”
Campaigning in Iowa, Biden said, “People ask the question, ‘Isn’t the president going to be stronger and harder to beat if he survives this?’ Yes, probably. But Congress has no choice,” He said senators must cast their votes and “live with that in history.”
Each side has up to three days to present its case. After the House prosecutors finish, likely Friday, the president’s lawyers will have as much as 24 hours. It’s unclear how much time they will actually take, but Trump’s team promises not only to defend the president but to take apart the Democrats’ case. The Senate is expected to take only Sunday off and push into next week.
After that senators will face the question of whether they do, or do not, want to call witnesses to testif y.
Senators were permitted Thursday to review supplemental testimony submitted by an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Jennifer Williams, who testified in the House impeachment inquiry. Democrats said the supplemental testimony, which is classified, bolsters their impeachment case. A lawyer for Williams declined to comment.
Holding the room’s attention proved difficult for the Democrats Most senators sat at their desks throughout, as the rules stipulate, though some stretched their legs, standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber. Sometimes they yawned. Republicans sometimes quietly smirked.
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. Four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45% to 40%. But a sizable percentage, 14%, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.
One issue with wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.
The strategy of more witnesses, though, seemed all but settled. Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week.
Senators were likely to repeat that rejection next week, shutting out any chance of new testimony.
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Bill Barrow in Osage, Iowa, contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-23--WATCH: Schumer says witnesses and documents still needed for fair impeachment trial

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — House Democrats pressed into the second day of arguments in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment case focused intently on the charge of abuse of power , which top prosecutor Adam Schiff said would leave senators with no choice but a finding of “ guilt and conviction.
” Schiff , the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , acknowledged as he stood before restless senators forced to sit silently for another long day there would be “ some repetition of information ” from the overview heard on day one .
But he promised a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitable conclusion .
“ You ’ ve now heard hundreds of hours of depositions and live testimony from the House , ” Schiff said .
‘ We will now show these facts and many others and how they are interwoven … to a finding of guilt and conviction.
” The challenge is clear as Democrats try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year .
The top Senate Democrat , Chuck Schumer , acknowledged Thursday that many senators “ really don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case about Trump ’ s pressure on Ukraine and the scheme to cover up the charges and many Republicans are hearing it for only the first time .
He contended they can ’ t help but be “ glued ” to his testimony .
Once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year , Democrats are now marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge .
They are one-third of the way through 24 hours of opening arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday morning tweet , declaring them the “ Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history !
” House Democrats impeached Trump last month , arguing he abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding crucial military aid .
They also charged him with obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe .
Republicans have defended Trump ’ s actions as appropriate and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , Biden stood by the effort to remove Trump from office .
“ People ask the question , ‘ Isn ’ t the president going to be stronger and harder to beat if he survives this ?
’ Yes , probably .
But Congress has no choice , ” he said .
Senators must cast their votes and “ live with that in history.
” Each side has up to three days to present its case .
After the House prosecutors finish , likely Friday , the president ’ s lawyers will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear how much time they will actually take , but Trump ’ s team promises not only to defend the president but to take apart the Democrats ’ case .
The Senate is expected to take only Sunday off and push into next week .
“ There ’ s a lot of things I ’ d like to rebut , ” said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow at the Capitol , “ and we will rebut.
” After that senators will face the question of whether they do , or do not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the first day of opening arguments , Schiff appealed to senators not to be “ cynical ” about politics , but to draw on the intent of the nation ’ s Founding Fathers in providing the remedy of impeachment and removal .
He spoke directly to Republicans to join in voting to oust Trump from office to “ protect our democracy.
” Holding the room proved difficult .
Most senators sat at their desks throughout , as the rules stipulate , though some stretched their legs , standing behind the desks or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sometimes they yawned .
Republicans sometimes quietly smirked at the presentation from Schiff and the lesser-known House Democrats prosecuting the case .
Nearing nine long hours of arguments , the empty seats became glaringly apparent .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif. , was under the weather and left early .
Some lawmakers dashed down the hall to appear on television .
Visitors thinned from the galleries , one briefly interrupting in protest and being removed by Capitol police .
GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters he was “ hearing exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatsoever.
” But another Republican , Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana , acknowledged that the case against the president is probably new information for most of them .
“ Nine out of 10 senators will tell you that they have not read the transcript of the proceedings of the House .
And the 10th senator who says he has is lying.
” The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election .
All four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail , seated as jurors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ d seen no evidence to support the allegations against Trump even though , just 24 hours earlier , they had rejected subpoenas for additional witnesses as well as documents .
Democrats , meanwhile , described the evidence against the president as overwhelming but said senators had a duty to gather more .
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not , 45 % to 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , said they didn ’ t know enough to have an opinion .
One issue with wide agreement : Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial .
About 7 in 10 said so , including majorities of Republicans and Democrats , according to the poll .
The strategy of more witnesses , though , seemed all but settled .
Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides including former national security adviser John Bolton , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week .
Senators were likely to repeat that rejection next week , shutting out any chance of new testimony .
Some Republicans expressed disdain for it all .
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa spoke sarcastically about how excited she was to hear the “ overwhelming evidence ” the House Democrats promised against Trump .
“ And once we ’ ve heard that overwhelming evidence , ” she said , raising her voice mockingly , “ I don ’ t know that we ’ ll need to see additional witnesses , but let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Republicans remained eager for a swift trial .
Yet Trump ’ s legal team passed on an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday , an acknowledgment that there were not enough Republican votes to support it .
The White House legal team , in its court filings and presentations , has not disputed Trump ’ s actions .
But the lawyers insist the president did nothing wrong .
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick , Alan Fram , Andrew Taylor , Laurie Kellman , Matthew Daly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Osage , Iowa , contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats pressed into the second day of arguments in President Donald Trump’s impeachment case focused intently on the charge of abuse of power, which top prosecutor Adam Schiff said would leave senators with no choice but a finding of “guilt and conviction.”
Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged as he stood before restless senators forced to sit silently for another long day there would be “some repetition of information” from the overview heard on day one.
But he promised a stitching together of the facts to an inevitable conclusion.
“You’ve now heard hundreds of hours of depositions and live testimony from the House,” Schiff said. ‘We will now show these facts and many others and how they are interwoven … to a finding of guilt and conviction.”
The challenge is clear as Democrats try to convince not just fidgety senators but an American public divided over the Republican president in an election year.
The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, acknowledged Thursday that many senators “really don’t want to be here.”
But Schumer said Schiff has been outlining a compelling case about Trump’s pressure on Ukraine and the scheme to cover up the charges and many Republicans are hearing it for only the first time. He contended they can’t help but be “glued” to his testimony.
Once reluctant to take on impeachment during an election year, Democrats are now marching toward a decision by the Senate that the American public also will judge. They are one-third of the way through 24 hours of opening arguments.
Trump blasted the proceedings in a Thursday morning tweet, declaring them the “Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!”
House Democrats impeached Trump last month, arguing he abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding crucial military aid. They also charged him with obstructing Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe. Republicans have defended Trump’s actions as appropriate and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.
Campaigning in Iowa, Biden stood by the effort to remove Trump from office.
“People ask the question, ‘Isn’t the president going to be stronger and harder to beat if he survives this?’ Yes, probably. But Congress has no choice,” he said. Senators must cast their votes and “live with that in history.”
Each side has up to three days to present its case. After the House prosecutors finish, likely Friday, the president’s lawyers will launch their 24 hours. It’s unclear how much time they will actually take, but Trump’s team promises not only to defend the president but to take apart the Democrats’ case. The Senate is expected to take only Sunday off and push into next week.
“There’s a lot of things I’d like to rebut,” said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow at the Capitol, “and we will rebut.”
After that senators will face the question of whether they do, or do not, want to call witnesses to testify.
On the first day of opening arguments, Schiff appealed to senators not to be “cynical” about politics, but to draw on the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers in providing the remedy of impeachment and removal. He spoke directly to Republicans to join in voting to oust Trump from office to “protect our democracy.”
Holding the room proved difficult. Most senators sat at their desks throughout, as the rules stipulate, though some stretched their legs, standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber. Sometimes they yawned. Republicans sometimes quietly smirked at the presentation from Schiff and the lesser-known House Democrats prosecuting the case.
Nearing nine long hours of arguments, the empty seats became glaringly apparent. Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., was under the weather and left early. Some lawmakers dashed down the hall to appear on television. Visitors thinned from the galleries, one briefly interrupting in protest and being removed by Capitol police.
GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters he was “hearing exactly what they said yesterday…. nothing new whatsoever.”
But another Republican, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, acknowledged that the case against the president is probably new information for most of them. “Nine out of 10 senators will tell you that they have not read the transcript of the proceedings of the House. And the 10th senator who says he has is lying.”
The impeachment trial is set against the backdrop of the 2020 election. All four senators who are Democratic presidential candidates are off the campaign trail, seated as jurors.
Several GOP senators said Wednesday they’d seen no evidence to support the allegations against Trump even though, just 24 hours earlier, they had rejected subpoenas for additional witnesses as well as documents. Democrats, meanwhile, described the evidence against the president as overwhelming but said senators had a duty to gather more.
A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed the public slightly more likely to say the Senate should convict and remove Trump from office than to say it should not, 45% to 40%. But a sizable percentage, 14%, said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion.
One issue with wide agreement: Trump should allow top aides to appear as witnesses at the trial. About 7 in 10 said so, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats, according to the poll.
The strategy of more witnesses, though, seemed all but settled. Republicans rejected Democratic efforts to get Trump aides including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify in back-to-back votes earlier this week.
Senators were likely to repeat that rejection next week, shutting out any chance of new testimony.
Some Republicans expressed disdain for it all. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa spoke sarcastically about how excited she was to hear the “overwhelming evidence” the House Democrats promised against Trump.
“And once we’ve heard that overwhelming evidence,” she said, raising her voice mockingly, “I don’t know that we’ll need to see additional witnesses, but let’s hear about that overwhelming evidence.”
Republicans remained eager for a swift trial. Yet Trump’s legal team passed on an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss the case on Wednesday, an acknowledgment that there were not enough Republican votes to support it.
The White House legal team, in its court filings and presentations, has not disputed Trump’s actions. But the lawyers insist the president did nothing wrong.
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Bill Barrow in Osage, Iowa, contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-23--5 video moments to watch from the House managers' second day of oral arguments

House managers on Thursday spent their second day of oral arguments in the Senate impeachment trial explaining why President Donald Trump ’ s efforts to pressure Ukraine to look into his political opponents qualify as abuse of power– the first article of impeachment brought against him .
Much of the managers ’ eight-hour presentation repurposed testimony and evidence followers have become familiar with over the last several months .
But the strategy shifted from the previous day ’ s descriptions of Trump ’ s actions , to connecting the president ’ s behavior to the argument he abused the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal experts who testified before the House Judiciary Committee — those invited by the Democrats and those invited by the Republicans all agreed that the conduct we have charged , constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors , ” said Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , a House manager and chair of the House Judiciary Committee .
“ We can predict what the president ’ s lawyers will say over the next few days .
You will hear accusations and name calling … But you will not hear a refutation of the evidence .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony you have seen , ” Nadler continued .
Here are five key moments for the second day of oral arguments in the Senate trial : In a preview of their defense filed Monday , Trump ’ s legal team argued House Democrats failed to demonstrate that the president committed a statutory crime or violated the law .
“ [ Trump ] argues that even if we disapprove of his misconduct , we can not remove him for it , ” said Nadler on the Senate floor .
This idea is “ terrifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirms that this president sees no limits on his power , or on his ability to use his public office for private gain.
” During his remarks , Nadler said the evidence produced by the House impeachment inquiry overwhelmingly supports his removal .
“ No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections .
Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct , and rightly so , ” Nadler said .
The White House will give its defense after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the course of three days to present their case .
Nadler outlined three points to clarify why impeachment is the proper response to Trump ’ s actions on Ukraine : 1 ) Impeachment is not for petty offenses , 2 ) Trump ’ s conduct shows he is a continuing threat , and 3 ) Trump ’ s conduct is recognizably wrong , Nadler said .
“ We fully recognize that impeachment does not exist for a mistake .
It does not apply to acts that are merely unwise or unpopular .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president to embark on a course of conduct that betrays his oath of office and does violence to the Constitution , ” Nadler said .
Trump ’ s own officials said his conduct was improper , Schiff says Lead House manager and California Rep. Adam Schiff turned to comments made by several witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry late last year .
They include Alexander Vindman , the National Security Council ’ s top Ukraine expert , who said Trump ’ s July 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wrong.
” Jennifer Williams , Vice President Mike Pence ’ s special adviser for Europe and Russia , also characterized the phone call as “ unusual ” and “ inappropriate.
” “ Why did President Trump ’ s own officials — not so-called ‘ Never Trumpers , ’ not Democrats or Republicans , but career public servants — report this conduct in real time ?
Because they knew it was wrong , ” Schiff said .
Trump and his defenders claim that one of the president ’ s interests in Ukraine included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election .
The roots of these allegations surfaced before Trump actually won the election .
The suggestion that Ukraine was the source of election interference has been discredited by U.S. intelligence and foreign affairs officials , including former White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill , who testified in the House impeachment hearings .
But that theory still persists in the White House .
“ There is no real dispute that Russia — not Ukraine — attacked our elections , ” said Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , one of the House managers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake conspiracy theory just because it would be beneficial and helpful to his own reelection campaign , ” Garcia said .
Several of the House managers zeroed in on Trump ’ s personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , and his involvement in Ukraine policy .
Testimony and House Intelligence evidence highlight Giuliani ’ s attempts to coordinate with U.S. and Ukrainian officials , which House Democrats argue took place on Trump ’ s behalf .
House manager and California Rep. Zoe Lofgren recounted a timeline of communications by Giuliani , who several impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump in Ukraine .
“ There ’ s evidence of President Trump himself demanding that Ukraine conduct the investigations , but President Trump also delegated his authority to his political agent , Rudy Giuliani to oversee and direct this scheme , ” Lofgren said .

House managers on Thursday spent their second day of oral arguments in the Senate impeachment trial explaining why President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to look into his political opponents qualify as abuse of power– the first article of impeachment brought against him.
Much of the managers’ eight-hour presentation repurposed testimony and evidence followers have become familiar with over the last several months. But the strategy shifted from the previous day’s descriptions of Trump’s actions, to connecting the president’s behavior to the argument he abused the power of his office.
“All of the legal experts who testified before the House Judiciary Committee — those invited by the Democrats and those invited by the Republicans all agreed that the conduct we have charged, constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors,” said Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a House manager and chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
“We can predict what the president’s lawyers will say over the next few days. You will hear accusations and name calling … But you will not hear a refutation of the evidence. You will not hear testimony to refute the testimony you have seen,” Nadler continued.
Here are five key moments for the second day of oral arguments in the Senate trial:
Nadler says Trump’s defense is ‘terrifying’
In a preview of their defense filed Monday, Trump’s legal team argued House Democrats failed to demonstrate that the president committed a statutory crime or violated the law.
“[Trump] argues that even if we disapprove of his misconduct, we cannot remove him for it,” said Nadler on the Senate floor. This idea is “terrifying,” he continued. “It confirms that this president sees no limits on his power, or on his ability to use his public office for private gain.”
During his remarks, Nadler said the evidence produced by the House impeachment inquiry overwhelmingly supports his removal.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections. Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct, and rightly so,” Nadler said.
The White House will give its defense after the House managers have been allowed 24 hours over the course of three days to present their case.
Trump is a continuing threat, Rep. Nadler says
Nadler outlined three points to clarify why impeachment is the proper response to Trump’s actions on Ukraine: 1) Impeachment is not for petty offenses, 2) Trump’s conduct shows he is a continuing threat, and 3) Trump’s conduct is recognizably wrong, Nadler said.
“We fully recognize that impeachment does not exist for a mistake. It does not apply to acts that are merely unwise or unpopular. Impeachment is reserved for deliberate decisions by the president to embark on a course of conduct that betrays his oath of office and does violence to the Constitution,” Nadler said.
Trump’s own officials said his conduct was improper, Schiff says
Lead House manager and California Rep. Adam Schiff turned to comments made by several witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry late last year. They include Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, who said Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president was “wrong.”
Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser for Europe and Russia, also characterized the phone call as “unusual” and “inappropriate.”
“Why did President Trump’s own officials — not so-called ‘Never Trumpers,’ not Democrats or Republicans, but career public servants — report this conduct in real time? Because they knew it was wrong,” Schiff said.
Trump perpetuated debunked Russian conspiracy about Ukraine, Garcia says
Trump and his defenders claim that one of the president’s interests in Ukraine included investigating whether the country interfered in the 2016 election.
The roots of these allegations surfaced before Trump actually won the election. The suggestion that Ukraine was the source of election interference has been discredited by U.S. intelligence and foreign affairs officials, including former White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill, who testified in the House impeachment hearings. But that theory still persists in the White House.
“There is no real dispute that Russia — not Ukraine — attacked our elections,” said Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, one of the House managers. “President Trump continued to promote this fake conspiracy theory just because it would be beneficial and helpful to his own reelection campaign,” Garcia said.
Rep. Lofgren: Trump used Giuliani to seek election interference
Several of the House managers zeroed in on Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and his involvement in Ukraine policy. Testimony and House Intelligence evidence highlight Giuliani’s attempts to coordinate with U.S. and Ukrainian officials, which House Democrats argue took place on Trump’s behalf.
House manager and California Rep. Zoe Lofgren recounted a timeline of communications by Giuliani, who several impeachment witnesses have said was a central figure for Trump in Ukraine.
“There’s evidence of President Trump himself demanding that Ukraine conduct the investigations, but President Trump also delegated his authority to his political agent, Rudy Giuliani to oversee and direct this scheme,” Lofgren said.


pbs--2020-01-23--Puerto Ricans protest in anger over unused emergency aid amid earthquakes

SAN JUAN , Puerto Rico ( AP ) — Hundreds of people joined a protest Thursday organized by Puerto Rican singer René Pérez of Calle 13 fame in a demonstration reminiscent of those that ousted the island ’ s former governor last year .
Anger is growing over emergency aid that until recently sat unused in a warehouse amid ongoing earthquakes .
Protesters gathered under the heavy rain at the governor ’ s mansion as they waved flags and banged on pots , demanding the ouster of Gov .
Wanda Vázquez .
“ This is not the end !
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the protest organizers yelled to a cheering crowd , which had marched to the mansion from the Capitol building .
The newest protest unleashed debate about whether Puerto Ricans should try to oust Vázquez as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from a recent 6.4 magnitude earthquake that killed one person and damaged hundreds of homes in the island ’ s southern region .
Officials are still awaiting millions of dollars in federal funds for Hurricane Maria , a Category 4 storm that hit in September 2017 .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iris Guardiola as she waved a tiny Puerto Rican flag .
“ The people are tired of the abuse… of the lack of humanity .
I am here helping those who can not be here.
” One former protest leader , Rey Charlie , who jumped to fame after leading hundreds of motorcycle riders in a demonstration last summer , said he will not participate in the most recent one .
“ A massive demonstration like the one last year would cause great damage , damage that I think would be irreparable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding up the economy , you are holding up aid supplies to victims in the southern region , you are paralyzing the country…You have to think of the consequences.
” Charlie and other critics of the recent protests argue that the most effective strategy is to vote in the upcoming general elections in November , in which Vázquez is seeking a second term as governor .
But first , she will face Pedro Pierluisi , a veteran politician who served as the island ’ s representative in Congress , in the primary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in briefly as governor last year before the island ’ s Supreme Court ruled that Vázquez was constitutionally next in line after former Gov .
Ricardo Rosselló resigned following massive demonstrations .
Vázquez has only briefly addressed the recent protests , warning of people who want to talk about “ negative issues.
” “ We can not allow groups with other interests to divert our attention , ” she told reporters on Wednesday .
“ We ’ re in a moment of helping people in the south , not of creating controversy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an online blogger posted a live feed of a warehouse in the southern coastal city of Ponce filled with water , cots , baby food and other supplies dating from Hurricane Maria .
A group of people broke into the warehouse and began distributing supplies to those affected by the recent 6.4 magnitude quake that prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to approve a major disaster declaration for more than a dozen municipalities in the island ’ s southern region .
More than 4,500 people remain in shelters .
The governor fired the director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency shortly after the incident , as well as the secretaries of the department of housing and family , as she blamed them in part for not distributing the aid .
The Puerto Rican singer , Pérez , said people should not wait until the general elections to express their discontent .
“ We ’ re not going to wait until November because the politicians in this country are not going to wait until November to steal .
They ’ re going to steal starting now , ” he said .
Pérez was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina .
Concerns over alleged corruption and mismanagement have delayed federal funds to Puerto Rico and led U.S. officials to impose new restrictions as the island struggles to emerge from a 13-year recession .
Carmen Velázquez , a 71-year-old retiree , said she doubts the protests will accomplish what they did last year , “ but I can ’ t remain sitting at home .
The lies and the cheating are still going on.
” She dismissed concerns that the protest would create more uncertainty in Puerto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unstable , ” she said .

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Hundreds of people joined a protest Thursday organized by Puerto Rican singer René Pérez of Calle 13 fame in a demonstration reminiscent of those that ousted the island’s former governor last year. Anger is growing over emergency aid that until recently sat unused in a warehouse amid ongoing earthquakes.
Protesters gathered under the heavy rain at the governor’s mansion as they waved flags and banged on pots, demanding the ouster of Gov. Wanda Vázquez.
“This is not the end! It’s just the beginning!” one of the protest organizers yelled to a cheering crowd, which had marched to the mansion from the Capitol building.
The newest protest unleashed debate about whether Puerto Ricans should try to oust Vázquez as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from a recent 6.4 magnitude earthquake that killed one person and damaged hundreds of homes in the island’s southern region. Officials are still awaiting millions of dollars in federal funds for Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 storm that hit in September 2017.
READ MORE: Discovery of unused disaster supplies angers Puerto Rico
“We’ve had enough,” said 82-year-old Iris Guardiola as she waved a tiny Puerto Rican flag. “The people are tired of the abuse… of the lack of humanity. I am here helping those who cannot be here.”
One former protest leader, Rey Charlie, who jumped to fame after leading hundreds of motorcycle riders in a demonstration last summer, said he will not participate in the most recent one.
“A massive demonstration like the one last year would cause great damage, damage that I think would be irreparable,” he said. “You are holding up the economy, you are holding up aid supplies to victims in the southern region, you are paralyzing the country…You have to think of the consequences.”
Charlie and other critics of the recent protests argue that the most effective strategy is to vote in the upcoming general elections in November, in which Vázquez is seeking a second term as governor. But first, she will face Pedro Pierluisi, a veteran politician who served as the island’s representative in Congress, in the primary of their pro-statehood party. Pierluisi was sworn in briefly as governor last year before the island’s Supreme Court ruled that Vázquez was constitutionally next in line after former Gov. Ricardo Rosselló resigned following massive demonstrations.
Vázquez has only briefly addressed the recent protests, warning of people who want to talk about “negative issues.”
“We cannot allow groups with other interests to divert our attention,” she told reporters on Wednesday. “We’re in a moment of helping people in the south, not of creating controversy.”
Vázquez came under fire on Saturday after an online blogger posted a live feed of a warehouse in the southern coastal city of Ponce filled with water, cots, baby food and other supplies dating from Hurricane Maria. A group of people broke into the warehouse and began distributing supplies to those affected by the recent 6.4 magnitude quake that prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to approve a major disaster declaration for more than a dozen municipalities in the island’s southern region. More than 4,500 people remain in shelters.
The governor fired the director of Puerto Rico’s emergency management agency shortly after the incident, as well as the secretaries of the department of housing and family, as she blamed them in part for not distributing the aid.
The Puerto Rican singer, Pérez, said people should not wait until the general elections to express their discontent.
“We’re not going to wait until November because the politicians in this country are not going to wait until November to steal. They’re going to steal starting now,” he said.
Pérez was joined by Chicago Cubs shortstop Javier Báez and St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina.
Concerns over alleged corruption and mismanagement have delayed federal funds to Puerto Rico and led U.S. officials to impose new restrictions as the island struggles to emerge from a 13-year recession.
Carmen Velázquez, a 71-year-old retiree, said she doubts the protests will accomplish what they did last year, “but I can’t remain sitting at home. The lies and the cheating are still going on.”
She dismissed concerns that the protest would create more uncertainty in Puerto Rico.
“It’s already unstable,” she said.


pbs--2020-01-23--California bill would make utilities pay some blackout costs

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( AP ) — Californians left in the dark by electric companies that shut off their power to prevent wildfires could get paid for things such as lost wages or spoiled food under a bill that advanced Thursday in the Legislature .
In the state plagued by catastrophic blazes started by strong winds knocking down power lines , large investor-owned utilities have been aggressively shutting off power for millions of customers ahead of windstorms .
Utility companies cite public safety for the practice but also do it to protect their bottom line .
Pacific Gas & Electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric utility , filed for bankruptcy last year after facing an estimated $ 50 billion in damages from several Northern California wildfires that were linked to its equipment .
including one blaze in 2018 that killed 85 people and destroyed 19,000 buildings .
PG & E shut off power for more than 2 million customers in October .
The blackouts caused major disruptions throughout the region , closing schools and businesses and making it more difficult for people who rely on medical devices powered by electricity .
State Sen. Scott Wiener , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability issue acts as a financial incentive for electric companies to err on the side of large blackouts covering more people for longer periods of time .
Wiener said he designed his bill to act as an incentive for utility companies to have smaller , more targeted blackouts .
The bill would require investor-owned utilities to reimburse customers and local governments for some costs associated with blackouts .
It would require an electric company ’ s shareholders — not its customers — to put money into a fund to reimburse customers within two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also ban electric companies from raising rates to cover losses from a blackout .
The California Public Utilities Commission would oversee the fund and decide how big it should be .
The measure would also let the commission fine power companies up to $ 250,000 an hour for every 50,000 customers impacted by a power shutoff if regulators determine the utility “ failed to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.
” If the penalties had been in effect last fall , PG & E could have faced fines of more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis of the proposal .
“ It ’ s about giving utilities an incentive to use planned blackouts as a scalpel and not as a sledgehammer , ” Wiener said .
Others worry the bill would spook electric companies into being too cautious with blackouts , thus increasing the risk of deadly wildfires .
“ I believe it gives perverse incentives that could harm people , ” said state Sen. Bill Dodd , a Democrat from Napa .
The bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday , clearing the way for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bill must pass the Senate by Jan. 31 to have a chance at becoming law this year .
In a letter to committee members on Wednesday , PG & E Chief of State Government Relations DaVina Flemings said the company proactively turns off power “ for one reason only and that is keeping customers and communities safe.
” However , Flemings said the bill “ would put customers and communities in a very dangerous position by penalizing the utilities for deploying a public safety power shutoff.
” Wiener said the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ they can save lives and property.
” Instead , he said it is to “ incentivize the right behavior.
” “ Those costs are real , ” Wiener said .
“ For a lot of people , if you lose your refrigerator contents , that ’ s your food for the month .
”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians left in the dark by electric companies that shut off their power to prevent wildfires could get paid for things such as lost wages or spoiled food under a bill that advanced Thursday in the Legislature.
In the state plagued by catastrophic blazes started by strong winds knocking down power lines, large investor-owned utilities have been aggressively shutting off power for millions of customers ahead of windstorms.
Utility companies cite public safety for the practice but also do it to protect their bottom line. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the nation’s largest electric utility, filed for bankruptcy last year after facing an estimated $50 billion in damages from several Northern California wildfires that were linked to its equipment. including one blaze in 2018 that killed 85 people and destroyed 19,000 buildings.
PG&E shut off power for more than 2 million customers in October. The blackouts caused major disruptions throughout the region, closing schools and businesses and making it more difficult for people who rely on medical devices powered by electricity.
READ MORE: California governor urges judge to reject PG&E bankruptcy plan
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, says the liability issue acts as a financial incentive for electric companies to err on the side of large blackouts covering more people for longer periods of time. Wiener said he designed his bill to act as an incentive for utility companies to have smaller, more targeted blackouts.
The bill would require investor-owned utilities to reimburse customers and local governments for some costs associated with blackouts. It would require an electric company’s shareholders — not its customers — to put money into a fund to reimburse customers within two weeks of a blackout. It would also ban electric companies from raising rates to cover losses from a blackout.
The California Public Utilities Commission would oversee the fund and decide how big it should be. The measure would also let the commission fine power companies up to $250,000 an hour for every 50,000 customers impacted by a power shutoff if regulators determine the utility “failed to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.”
If the penalties had been in effect last fall, PG&E could have faced fines of more than $1 billion, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.
“It’s about giving utilities an incentive to use planned blackouts as a scalpel and not as a sledgehammer,” Wiener said.
Others worry the bill would spook electric companies into being too cautious with blackouts, thus increasing the risk of deadly wildfires.
“I believe it gives perverse incentives that could harm people,” said state Sen. Bill Dodd, a Democrat from Napa.
The bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, clearing the way for a vote in the full Senate next week. The bill must pass the Senate by Jan. 31 to have a chance at becoming law this year.
In a letter to committee members on Wednesday, PG&E Chief of State Government Relations DaVina Flemings said the company proactively turns off power “for one reason only and that is keeping customers and communities safe.”
However, Flemings said the bill “would put customers and communities in a very dangerous position by penalizing the utilities for deploying a public safety power shutoff.”
Wiener said the bill would not ban planned blackouts, saying “they can save lives and property.” Instead, he said it is to “incentivize the right behavior.”
“Those costs are real,” Wiener said. “For a lot of people, if you lose your refrigerator contents, that’s your food for the month.”


pbs--2020-01-23--WATCH LIVE: Trump impeachment trial

WATCH LIVE: Trump impeachment trial -- January 24

House Democrats are expected Friday to conclude three days of arguments in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ to resume at 1 p.m .
ET .
Watch live in the video player .
@ @ @ @ @ , the seven House managers , who act as prosecutors during the trial , have @ @ @ @ @ shows Trump committed impeachable offenses when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and then @ @ @ @ @ House-led investigation into his conduct .
The House managers were given 24 hours over three @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s lawyers will then have the same amount of time to mount @ @ @ @ @ impeached Trump on two articles–abuse of power and obstruction of Congress–in December .
The Senate @ @ @ @ @ convict or acquit the president of those charges .

House Democrats are expected Friday to conclude three days of arguments in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
The impeachment trial is expected to resume at 1 p.m. ET. Watch live in the video player.
Over the past two days, the seven House managers, who act as prosecutors during the trial, have outlined the evidence they say shows Trump committed impeachable offenses when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and then refused to cooperate with a House-led investigation into his conduct.
The House managers were given 24 hours over three days to make their case. Trump’s lawyers will then have the same amount of time to mount their defense.
The House impeached Trump on two articles–abuse of power and obstruction of Congress–in December. The Senate must now determine whether to convict or acquit the president of those charges.


pbs--2020-01-23--How senators and the White House are reacting to Democrats' abuse of power argument

That 's right .
They did .
As Nick reported , they were focusing on abuse of power , but they were also sort of laying out how they arrived at that conclusion .
Specifically , Judy , Adam Schiff said there were 10 points of evidence that proved the president 's intent was his own self-interest or corruption .
So we have kind of summarized some of these 10 points .
Essentially , according to Adam Schiff , the first one is that the president basically focused only on the Bidens and the 2016 election as to the investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he defied the previous U.S. foreign policy in regards to Ukraine and , also , that it required he look to outside the regular channels to try and get done sort of his bidding .
Two more points that Adam Schiff brought up , that the Ukrainians saw what was going on as political from President Trump — this is the argument Schiff is making — and that Trump 's own words in his call with President Zelensky and the White House 's attempt , in Schiff 's words , to bury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had corrupt intent .
What the Democrats are doing today , Judy , is to try and lay out an organized case in front of the Senate .
They 're also using a little bit of humor we have n't seen so far .
In fact , just a few minutes ago , Representative Hakeem Jeffries made a joke about Derek Jeter and how he did not — he did n't get one vote in the Hall of Fame bid and how that was an outrage .
So they 're trying to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more organization into their arguments today .

Lisa Desjardins:
That's right. They did.
As Nick reported, they were focusing on abuse of power, but they were also sort of laying out how they arrived at that conclusion. Specifically, Judy, Adam Schiff said there were 10 points of evidence that proved the president's intent was his own self-interest or corruption.
So we have kind of summarized some of these 10 points. Essentially, according to Adam Schiff, the first one is that the president basically focused only on the Bidens and the 2016 election as to the investigations he wanted.
Also, Schiff said, he defied the previous U.S. foreign policy in regards to Ukraine and, also, that it required he look to outside the regular channels to try and get done sort of his bidding.
Two more points that Adam Schiff brought up, that the Ukrainians saw what was going on as political from President Trump — this is the argument Schiff is making — and that Trump's own words in his call with President Zelensky and the White House's attempt, in Schiff's words, to bury that call all prove that the president had corrupt intent.
What the Democrats are doing today, Judy, is to try and lay out an organized case in front of the Senate. They're also using a little bit of humor we haven't seen so far.
In fact, just a few minutes ago, Representative Hakeem Jeffries made a joke about Derek Jeter and how he did not — he didn't get one vote in the Hall of Fame bid and how that was an outrage.
So they're trying to, I guess, bring more humanity and more organization into their arguments today.


pbs--2020-01-24--David Brooks and Karen Tumulty on Senate impeachment trial and Jim Lehrer

New York Times columnist David Brooks and The Washington Post ’ s Karen Tumulty join Judy Woodruff to discuss the @ @ @ @ @ , including how effective House impeachment managers are at making the case for President Trump @ @ @ @ @ latest 2020 campaign dynamics in Iowa and the loss and legacy of NewsHour co-founder Jim @ @

David Brooks:
Well, both, and ing, exhausting.
But I think, overall, they have to feel satisfied. I think Adam Schiff proved to be the highlight, just a very good prosecutor, speaker, very clear, knows when to hammer a point home.
I have to say, if I graded them, I would give them an A on proving that Trump did it. I think the evidence was overwhelming before walking in, but they presented it clearly.
I would give them a lower grade on, should he be removed from office?
And to me, for doubting Republicans, if there are any, that's the more important argument to make. I thought they hit that less hard, and, frankly, less well. All my friends loved Adam Schiff's closing comments last night.
I was a little less impressed. I mean, the two main arguments were — that's when he directly addressed why this is worth removing. And it was, well, Trump believed Giuliani, and not his own intelligence agencies, and he did it out of self-interest.
That strikes me as true, not a big crime. And then he said, you can't trust Trump in the 2020 election, when China may interfere.
But you can't impeach for something that hasn't already happened. And so I think the removal part is still a slightly weak case. All Republicans secretly know he did it, some, if there any honest brokers out there, little doubtful about removal.