pbs--2020-01-20--AP fact check: The distortions in Trump's legal defense

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump ’ s defense against impeachment charges , as laid out in his legal argument released Monday , has distortions at its core .
Trump through his lawyers assails Democrats for trying to upend the results of an election , which is precisely the point of impeachment in the Constitution .
The case asserts Trump committed no crime , a benchmark for impeachment that the Constitution ’ s authors avoided adopting in a well-documented debate .
Here ’ s a look at some statements by Trump and his legal team as opening arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President .
… House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election.
” This is an odd reading of constitutional history .
Removing a duly elected president is exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause , not a perversion of it .
The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president , which the House has done , and the Senate the responsibility of convicting or acquitting that president , which the Senate trial will do .
Trump on Democrats who want witnesses to testify : “ They didn ’ t want John Bolton and others in the House .
They were in too much of a rush .
Now they want them all in the Senate .
Not supposed to be that way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s false .
Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , refused to testify .
Democrats wanted him to .
But they chose not to pursue a subpoena and risk an extended struggle in court .
Bolton has signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he ’ s subpoenaed .
“ The practical application of the Impeachment Clause by Congress supports the conclusion that an impeachable offense requires especially egregious conduct that threatens the constitutional order and , specifically , that it requires a violation of established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But impeachment does not require a crime to have been commited .
The Constitution ’ s framers had a vigorous and well-documented debate over just that point .
Constitutional scholars say the grounds for impeachment and removal from office — “ Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors ” — are a catch-all designed to redress any consequential abuse of power so long as that abuse hurts the country at large .
Months after the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia , Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis of impeachment .
Offenses meriting that step “ are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL , as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
” To be sure , the commission of an actual crime can strengthen the hand of those seeking to remove a president , and the articles of impeachment against Trump do not accuse him of a crime .
Even so , the Government Accountability Office , a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress , concluded last week that the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved .
READ MORE : The full watchdog report on Ukraine aid withholding Its report said “ the President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law.
” The money was held up last summer on orders from Trump but released in September after Congress pushed for its release and a whistleblower ’ s complaint about Trump ’ s July call with the Ukrainian leader became public .
“ Individuals who have stated for the record that they spoke to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine , the President said : ‘ I want nothing .
I want no quid pro quo.
’ ” — Trump ’ s initial legal response , released Saturday by his lawyers .
He omits key context on what Sondland told House investigators .
As one of the officials most deeply involved in trying to get Ukraine to do Trump ’ s bidding , Sondland testified that there was indeed a quid pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in the loop.
” Specifically , Sondland said it was understood that Ukraine ’ s new president would only get a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office if he publicly pledged to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats .
“ Was there a ‘ quid pro quo ?
’ Sondland asked in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee .
” As I testified previously , with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting , the answer is yes.
” Moreover , on the more serious matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country investigated Democrats , Sondland testified that a this-for-that explanation was the only one that made sense to him .
Testimony from other officials shored up the picture of a president and his associates systematically trying to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted during a period when the military assistance approved by Congress was put on hold without explanation .
“ House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right , including the right to have counsel present , the right to cross-examine witnesses.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ ’ We demand fairness ’ shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats , yet the Dems in the House wouldn ’ t let us have 1 witness , no lawyers or even ask questions.
” — tweet on Jan. 13 , referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Not true .
The House Judiciary Committee , which produced the articles of impeachment , invited Trump or his legal team to come .
He declined .
Absent White House representation , the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do : Time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask questions and engage in the debate .
Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses , among them an academic called forward by Republicans .
The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases , conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation .
Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation , then rejected representation when the next committee offered it .
Associated Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s defense against impeachment charges, as laid out in his legal argument released Monday, has distortions at its core.
Trump through his lawyers assails Democrats for trying to upend the results of an election, which is precisely the point of impeachment in the Constitution. The case asserts Trump committed no crime, a benchmark for impeachment that the Constitution’s authors avoided adopting in a well-documented debate.
Here’s a look at some statements by Trump and his legal team as opening arguments approach in the Senate impeachment trial.
Trump’s legal brief:
“Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President. … House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election.”
The facts
This is an odd reading of constitutional history. Removing a duly elected president is exactly the goal of the Constitution’s impeachment clause, not a perversion of it.
The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president, which the House has done, and the Senate the responsibility of convicting or acquitting that president, which the Senate trial will do.
Trump on Democrats who want witnesses to testify:
“They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!” — tweet Monday.
The facts
That’s false. Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, refused to testify. Democrats wanted him to. But they chose not to pursue a subpoena and risk an extended struggle in court. Bolton has signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he’s subpoenaed.
Trump’s legal brief:
“The practical application of the Impeachment Clause by Congress supports the conclusion that an impeachable offense requires especially egregious conduct that threatens the constitutional order and, specifically, that it requires a violation of established law.”
The facts
Egregious conduct, yes. But impeachment does not require a crime to have been committed.
The Constitution’s framers had a vigorous and well-documented debate over just that point.
Constitutional scholars say the grounds for impeachment and removal from office — “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — are a catch-all designed to redress any consequential abuse of power so long as that abuse hurts the country at large.
Months after the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a commonly understood crime need not be the basis of impeachment. Offenses meriting that step “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
To be sure, the commission of an actual crime can strengthen the hand of those seeking to remove a president, and the articles of impeachment against Trump do not accuse him of a crime.
Even so, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded last week that the Trump administration broke the law by freezing military aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved.
READ MORE: The full watchdog report on Ukraine aid withholding
Its report said “the President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law.” The money was held up last summer on orders from Trump but released in September after Congress pushed for its release and a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s July call with the Ukrainian leader became public.
Trump:
“Individuals who have stated for the record that they spoke to the President about the subject actually exonerate him. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, the President said: ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’” — Trump’s initial legal response, released Saturday by his lawyers.
The facts
He omits key context on what Sondland told House investigators.
As one of the officials most deeply involved in trying to get Ukraine to do Trump’s bidding, Sondland testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo in the matter and “everyone was in the loop.” Specifically, Sondland said it was understood that Ukraine’s new president would only get a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office if he publicly pledged to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats.
“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ Sondland asked in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. ”As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Moreover, on the more serious matter of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless the country investigated Democrats, Sondland testified that a this-for-that explanation was the only one that made sense to him.
Testimony from other officials shored up the picture of a president and his associates systematically trying to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted during a period when the military assistance approved by Congress was put on hold without explanation.
Trump:
“House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to cross-examine witnesses.” — response to impeachment charges Saturday.
“’We demand fairness’ shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats, yet the Dems in the House wouldn’t let us have 1 witness, no lawyers or even ask questions.” — tweet on Jan. 13, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The facts
Not true. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.
Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time is split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.
The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.
Associated Press writer Lynn Berry contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-20--Who's arguing the case against Trump? Meet the House managers

Seven House lawmakers will be front and center this week when they make the Democrats ’ case for impeachment in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump .
The group of House managers appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi includes some familiar faces from last month ’ s impeachment hearings , as well as a few lesser-known Democrats .
The lawmakers have varied backgrounds in prosecution , law enforcement and private-practice litigation , making them fitting candidates to argue the Democrats ’ position .
Here ’ s what you need to know about all the House impeachment managers : Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate trial , meaning he will likely take charge of the opening arguments outlining the case against Trump .
As chair of the House Intelligence Committee , Schiff was one of the most visible figures in the impeachment inquiry , and has become a top target of Trump ’ s criticism .
Schiff served as a lead manager for the impeachment trials of two federal judges — one who was removed and another who resigned .
Before joining Congress in 2001 , Schiff served in the California State Senate .
Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six years in the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in Los Angeles .
In that role , he prosecuted the first FBI official to be indicted and convicted of espionage .
Nadler presided over the Judiciary Committee last month as members debated the evidence against Trump and , ultimately , decided to recommend articles of impeachment for a full House vote .
Nadler has also served as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution , Civil Rights and Civil Liberties .
Prior to joining Congress in 1992 , Nadler was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing parts of the president ’ s hometown of New York City .
Nadler and Trump have a decades-old feud going back to the 1980s , when Nadler opposed a development project Trump planned for Manhattan ’ s West Side .
In 1998 , Nadler was a vocal supporter of then-President Bill Clinton during his impeachment investigation .
Lofgren participated in the Clinton impeachment hearings as a member of the House Judiciary Committee .
Lofgren also had a front-row seat to former President Richard Nixon ’ s impeachment proceedings as a Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lofgren is chair of the Committee on House Administration , as well as a member of the House Judiciary Committee .
As chair of the House Democratic Caucus , Jeffries is the No .
4 Democrat in the House .
He joined Congress in 2013 , and is currently a member of the House Judiciary Committee .
Before serving in Congress , Jeffries served in the New York State Assembly for six years .
He is also a former corporate litigator .
Demings is one of two Democrats who sits on both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently serving her second term in Congress , after working for 27 years in the Orlando Police Department .
She became the department ’ s first female police chief in 2007 .
In September , Crow was one of seven freshman Democratic lawmakers who grabbed headlines by penning a Washington Post op-ed expressing support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump .
Crow is an Army veteran who served three tours as a ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan .
After his military service , Crow worked as a litigator in Colorado .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the House Armed Services Committee .
In contrast to the other House managers , he has not participated in any of the high-profile hearings so far on impeachment .
A former judge , Garcia became one of Texas ’ first two Latina congresswomen in 2019 , and is a member of the House Judiciary Committee .
She served in the Texas State Senate from 2013 to 2019 .
Previously , Garcia worked as the director of the Houston Municipal System and as the Houston city controller .
She was later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Court .

Seven House lawmakers will be front and center this week when they make the Democrats’ case for impeachment in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump.
The group of House managers appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi includes some familiar faces from last month’s impeachment hearings, as well as a few lesser-known Democrats. The lawmakers have varied backgrounds in prosecution, law enforcement and private-practice litigation, making them fitting candidates to argue the Democrats’ position.
Here’s what you need to know about all the House impeachment managers:
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Schiff will act as the lead House manager in the Senate trial, meaning he will likely take charge of the opening arguments outlining the case against Trump. As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff was one of the most visible figures in the impeachment inquiry, and has become a top target of Trump’s criticism. Schiff served as a lead manager for the impeachment trials of two federal judges — one who was removed and another who resigned.
Before joining Congress in 2001, Schiff served in the California State Senate. Schiff is a former federal prosecutor who spent six years in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles. In that role, he prosecuted the first FBI official to be indicted and convicted of espionage.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
Nadler presided over the Judiciary Committee last month as members debated the evidence against Trump and, ultimately, decided to recommend articles of impeachment for a full House vote. Nadler has also served as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Prior to joining Congress in 1992, Nadler was a New York State assemblyman for 16 years representing parts of the president’s hometown of New York City. Nadler and Trump have a decades-old feud going back to the 1980s, when Nadler opposed a development project Trump planned for Manhattan’s West Side. In 1998, Nadler was a vocal supporter of then-President Bill Clinton during his impeachment investigation.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
Lofgren participated in the Clinton impeachment hearings as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Lofgren also had a front-row seat to former President Richard Nixon’s impeachment proceedings as a Judiciary Committee staffer in the 1970s. Currently, Lofgren is chair of the Committee on House Administration, as well as a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
As chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Jeffries is the No. 4 Democrat in the House. He joined Congress in 2013, and is currently a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Before serving in Congress, Jeffries served in the New York State Assembly for six years. He is also a former corporate litigator.
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla.
Demings is one of two Democrats who sits on both the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. She is currently serving her second term in Congress, after working for 27 years in the Orlando Police Department. She became the department’s first female police chief in 2007.
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.
In September, Crow was one of seven freshman Democratic lawmakers who grabbed headlines by penning a Washington Post op-ed expressing support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump. Crow is an Army veteran who served three tours as a ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. After his military service, Crow worked as a litigator in Colorado. He joined Congress in 2019, and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. In contrast to the other House managers, he has not participated in any of the high-profile hearings so far on impeachment.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas
A former judge, Garcia became one of Texas’ first two Latina congresswomen in 2019, and is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served in the Texas State Senate from 2013 to 2019. Previously, Garcia worked as the director of the Houston Municipal System and as the Houston city controller. She was later elected to the Harris County Commissioner’s Court.


pbs--2020-01-20--Trump heads to Davos as Senate readies for impeachment trial

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — When President Donald Trump ’ s historic impeachment trial is called to order in the Senate this week , he won ’ t be watching from inside the chamber or on television from the White House .
He ’ ll be thousands of miles away at the Davos economic forum in the Swiss Alps , trying to charm global CEOs over dinner .
Trump ’ s participation in the annual World Economic Forum will provide a conspicuous split-screen moment in a presidency familiar with them .
His two-day visit to Switzerland will test his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a desire to project leadership on the world stage .
Administration officials say Trump remains focused on serving the public .
“ The president ’ s work doesn ’ t stop just because of the impeachment sham , ” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in an email .
Trump , who departs Washington on Monday night , said he ’ s going to Davos to encourage businesses to invest in the U.S. “ We ’ re now where the action is , ” he said at a farmers ’ convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will be his second appearance at the annual Swiss economic forum , Trump was scheduled to arrive at the ski resort early Tuesday and jet back on Wednesday to a Washington that will be consumed by the impeachment trial .
Trump will give a speech at the forum and meet with world leaders and business executives .
The Democratic-controlled House impeached the Republican president last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after it was revealed that he had pressed Ukraine ’ s president to announce investigations into former Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political rival .
Trump withheld foreign aid that Congress had approved for the Eastern European nation and dangled the prospect of an Oval Office meeting as leverage .
Trump denies any wrongdoing and argues that Democrats want to remove him from office because they know they can ’ t deny him reelection in November .
Trump would be forced to leave office if convicted , but the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to acquit him .
Trump said he would attend the Davos forum despite the awkward timing because he wants to encourage businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world , ” he said at the White House last week .
“ There ’ s nothing even close .
I ’ ll be meeting the biggest business leaders in the world , getting them to come here.
” The White House has not named any of the business leaders Trump is set to meet with .
But he will hold talks with the leaders of Iraq , Pakistan , Switzerland and Iraq ’ s self-governing Kurdish region , as well as the forum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Monday .
Trump also will have his first meeting with the new European Commission president , Ursula von der Leyen , the first woman to hold the position .
That meeting could be the most significant , said analyst Matt Goodman , given Trump ’ s many disagreements with Europe over tax and trade policy , like a new digital levy by the French that will force American tech giants such as Amazon and Google to pay up .
“ She ’ s new and she ’ s formidable , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies .
“ It could either go very well or very badly , ” Goodman said .
Trump has smarted over the French tax , and his administration has announced plans to impose retaliatory tariffs of up to 100 % on cheese , wine , lipstick and other French imports .
France has threatened to fight back .
But after speaking to Trump on Monday , French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted that they had a “ great discussion ” about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a good agreement to avoid tariff escalation.
” The U.S. has also threatened to impose retaliatory duties on $ 7.5 billion worth of European airplanes , cheese , wine and other goods in a separate dispute over subsidies for Airbus , a competitor to Chicago-based Boeing Co. Trump also has sought to wring trade concessions from the EU by threatening tariffs on German autos , including BMW and Mercedes-Benz .
Trump heads to Switzerland as just the third American president , after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton , to face a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both acquitted by the Senate .
There is precedent for international travel by an impeached U.S. leader .
During his impeachment over an affair with a White House intern , Clinton visited Japan , South Korea , Israel and the Palestinian Authority .
He traveled to Jordan for King Hussein ’ s funeral in February 1999 , just a few days before he was acquitted by the Senate .
Two days after acquittal , Clinton went to Mexico on a state visit .
Trump is planning to make his first visit to India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the conclusion of his impeachment trial .
He also has talked about traveling soon to Beijing , although he has given no dates , to open a new round of trade talks with China .

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment trial is called to order in the Senate this week, he won’t be watching from inside the chamber or on television from the White House.
He’ll be thousands of miles away at the Davos economic forum in the Swiss Alps, trying to charm global CEOs over dinner.
Trump’s participation in the annual World Economic Forum will provide a conspicuous split-screen moment in a presidency familiar with them. His two-day visit to Switzerland will test his ability to balance his anger over being impeached with a desire to project leadership on the world stage.
His two-day visit to Switzerland will test his ability to balance his anger over being impeached with a desire to project leadership on the world stage.
Administration officials say Trump remains focused on serving the public.
“The president’s work doesn’t stop just because of the impeachment sham,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in an email.
Trump, who departs Washington on Monday night, said he’s going to Davos to encourage businesses to invest in the U.S.
“We’re now where the action is,” he said at a farmers’ convention Sunday in Texas.
Swooping in for what will be his second appearance at the annual Swiss economic forum, Trump was scheduled to arrive at the ski resort early Tuesday and jet back on Wednesday to a Washington that will be consumed by the impeachment trial.
Trump will give a speech at the forum and meet with world leaders and business executives.
The Democratic-controlled House impeached the Republican president last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after it was revealed that he had pressed Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, a Trump political rival. Trump withheld foreign aid that Congress had approved for the Eastern European nation and dangled the prospect of an Oval Office meeting as leverage.
Trump denies any wrongdoing and argues that Democrats want to remove him from office because they know they can’t deny him reelection in November. Trump would be forced to leave office if convicted, but the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to acquit him.
Trump said he would attend the Davos forum despite the awkward timing because he wants to encourage businesses to come back to the U.S.
“Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world,” he said at the White House last week. “There’s nothing even close. I’ll be meeting the biggest business leaders in the world, getting them to come here.”
The White House has not named any of the business leaders Trump is set to meet with. But he will hold talks with the leaders of Iraq, Pakistan, Switzerland and Iraq’s self-governing Kurdish region, as well as the forum’s founder, the White House said Monday.
Trump also will have his first meeting with the new European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, the first woman to hold the position.
That meeting could be the most significant, said analyst Matt Goodman, given Trump’s many disagreements with Europe over tax and trade policy, like a new digital levy by the French that will force American tech giants such as Amazon and Google to pay up.
“She’s new and she’s formidable,” said Goodman, who studies international economic policy as a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
He predicted a difficult year ahead for U.S.-EU relations.
“It could either go very well or very badly,” Goodman said.
Trump has smarted over the French tax, and his administration has announced plans to impose retaliatory tariffs of up to 100% on cheese, wine, lipstick and other French imports. France has threatened to fight back.
But after speaking to Trump on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted that they had a “great discussion” about the digital tax and “will work together on a good agreement to avoid tariff escalation.”
The U.S. has also threatened to impose retaliatory duties on $7.5 billion worth of European airplanes, cheese, wine and other goods in a separate dispute over subsidies for Airbus, a competitor to Chicago-based Boeing Co.
Trump also has sought to wring trade concessions from the EU by threatening tariffs on German autos, including BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Trump heads to Switzerland as just the third American president, after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, to face a Senate impeachment trial. Johnson and Clinton were both acquitted by the Senate.
There is precedent for international travel by an impeached U.S. leader.
During his impeachment over an affair with a White House intern, Clinton visited Japan, South Korea, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He traveled to Jordan for King Hussein’s funeral in February 1999, just a few days before he was acquitted by the Senate.
Two days after acquittal, Clinton went to Mexico on a state visit.
Trump is planning to make his first visit to India at the end of February, probably after the conclusion of his impeachment trial. He also has talked about traveling soon to Beijing, although he has given no dates, to open a new round of trade talks with China.


pbs--2020-01-20--Read House managers' arguments in Trump impeachment trial

The House managers in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump argue in a legal brief that the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ worst nightmare ” of the framers of the Constitution .
In an 111-page document released @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who will serve as the prosecutors during the trial say if Trump is not @ @ @ @ @ will “ continue to endanger our national security , jeopardize the integrity of our elections @ @ @ @ @ constitutional principles.
” The White House filed its counter-arguments on Monday .
Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ inquiry “ irredeemably flawed ” and argues the Democrats have no evidence to support their @ @

The House managers in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump argue in a legal brief that the president’s conduct constitutes the “worst nightmare” of the framers of the Constitution.
In an 111-page document released Saturday, the seven House Democrats who will serve as the prosecutors during the trial say if Trump is not removed from office, he will “continue to endanger our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections, and undermine our core constitutional principles.”
WATCH LIVE: Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate
The White House filed its counter-arguments on Monday. Trump’s defense team calls the impeachment inquiry “irredeemably flawed” and argues the Democrats have no evidence to support their claims.
Read the arguments.


pbs--2020-01-20--Read the White House's arguments in Trump impeachment trial

President Donald Trump ’ s legal team on Monday rejected the House of Representatives ’ impeachment charges as “ flimsy ” and called on senators to “ swiftly reject ” them in the trial set to begin Tuesday .
The president ’ s lawyers argue in a legal brief submitted to the Senate on Monday that the articles of impeachment against the president violate the Constitution and set a dangerous precedent , since they do not state a specific violation of law .
( Congress has the sole authority to determine what is an impeachable offense , and a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not been committed . )
The brief does not deny that the president pressured Ukraine to open investigations into the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son .
But the president ’ s legal team argues that he had legitimate reasons for raising both issues in an effort to fight corruption in Ukraine .
The president ’ s attorneys also assert that the way House Democrats presented abuse of power in the articles “ is not an impeachable offense.
” The brief also argues the president did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the House impeachment process , and instead claims the president was exercising his legal rights by resisting the congressional subpoenas .

President Donald Trump’s legal team on Monday rejected the House of Representatives’ impeachment charges as “flimsy” and called on senators to “swiftly reject” them in the trial set to begin Tuesday.
The president’s lawyers argue in a legal brief submitted to the Senate on Monday that the articles of impeachment against the president violate the Constitution and set a dangerous precedent, since they do not state a specific violation of law. (Congress has the sole authority to determine what is an impeachable offense, and a president can be impeached even if a crime has not been committed.)
The brief does not deny that the president pressured Ukraine to open investigations into the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. But the president’s legal team argues that he had legitimate reasons for raising both issues in an effort to fight corruption in Ukraine.
The president’s attorneys also assert that the way House Democrats presented abuse of power in the articles “is not an impeachable offense.” The brief also argues the president did not obstruct Congress by blocking testimony and documents in the House impeachment process, and instead claims the president was exercising his legal rights by resisting the congressional subpoenas.
Read the full brief.


pbs--2020-01-20--Trump lawyers call impeachment case flimsy in 110-page brief

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump ’ s legal team asserted Monday that he did “ absolutely nothing wrong , ” calling the impeachment case against him “ flimsy ” and a “ dangerous perversion of the Constitution.
” The lawyers decried the impeachment process as rigged and insisted that abuse of power was not a crime .
The brief from Trump ’ s lawyers , filed before arguments expected this week in the Senate impeachment trial , offered the most detailed glimpse of the lines of defense they intend to use against Democratic efforts to convict the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his dealings with Ukraine .
It is meant as a counter to a filing two days ago from House Democrats that summarized weeks of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses in laying out the impeachment case .
The 110-page filing from the White House shifted the tone toward a more legal response .
It still hinged on Trump ’ s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit a crime — even though impeachment does not depend on a material violation of law but rather on the more vague definition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as established in the Constitution .
The document says the two articles of impeachment brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — don ’ t amount to impeachment offenses .
It asserts that the impeachment inquiry , centered on Trump ’ s request that Ukraine ’ s president open an investigation into Democratic rival Joe Biden , was never about finding the truth .
“ Instead , House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election , ” Trump ’ s legal team wrote .
“ All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.
” The prosecution team of House managers was expected to spend another day on Capitol Hill preparing for the trial , which will be under heavy security .
Before the filing , House prosecutors arrived on Capitol Hill to tour the Senate chamber .
The impeachment case accuses Trump of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine at the same time that the president was seeking an investigation into Biden , and of obstructing Congress by instructing aides to not participate .
But Trump ’ s team contended Monday that even if Trump were to have abused his power in withholding the Ukraine military assistance , it would not be impeachable , because it did not violate a specific criminal statute .
Opening arguments are expected within days following a debate Tuesday over rules , including about whether witnesses are to be called in the trial .
Trump signaled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ They didn ’ t want John Bolton and others in the House .
They were in too much of a rush .
Now they want them all in the Senate .
Not supposed to be that way !
” That ’ s a reference to former national security adviser John Bolton , who was not subpoenaed by the House in its impeachment inquiry but has said he is willing to testify in the Senate if he is subpoenaed .
The White House brief argues that the articles of impeachment passed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they charge multiple acts , creating “ a menu of options ” as possible grounds for conviction .
The Trump team claims that the Constitution requires that senators agree “ on the specific basis for conviction ” and that there is no way to ensure that the senators agree on which acts are worthy of removal .
The Trump lawyers accused Democrats of diluting the standards for impeachment , an argument that echoed the case made Sunday by one of Trump ’ s attorneys , Alan Dershowitz , who contended in talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal-like conduct.
” That assertion has been rejected by scholars , and Rep. Adam Schiff , the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , called it an “ absurdist position .
”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s legal team asserted Monday that he did “absolutely nothing wrong,” calling the impeachment case against him “flimsy” and a “dangerous perversion of the Constitution.” The lawyers decried the impeachment process as rigged and insisted that abuse of power was not a crime.
The brief from Trump’s lawyers, filed before arguments expected this week in the Senate impeachment trial, offered the most detailed glimpse of the lines of defense they intend to use against Democratic efforts to convict the president and oust him from office over his dealings with Ukraine.
It is meant as a counter to a filing two days ago from House Democrats that summarized weeks of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses in laying out the impeachment case.
The 110-page filing from the White House shifted the tone toward a more legal response. It still hinged on Trump’s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit a crime — even though impeachment does not depend on a material violation of law but rather on the more vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as established in the Constitution.
“It is a constitutional travesty,” the lawyers wrote.
The document says the two articles of impeachment brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — don’t amount to impeachment offenses. It asserts that the impeachment inquiry, centered on Trump’s request that Ukraine’s president open an investigation into Democratic rival Joe Biden, was never about finding the truth.
“Instead, House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”
The prosecution team of House managers was expected to spend another day on Capitol Hill preparing for the trial, which will be under heavy security. Before the filing, House prosecutors arrived on Capitol Hill to tour the Senate chamber.
The impeachment case accuses Trump of abusing power by withholding military aid from Ukraine at the same time that the president was seeking an investigation into Biden, and of obstructing Congress by instructing aides to not participate. But Trump’s team contended Monday that even if Trump were to have abused his power in withholding the Ukraine military assistance, it would not be impeachable, because it did not violate a specific criminal statute.
Opening arguments are expected within days following a debate Tuesday over rules, including about whether witnesses are to be called in the trial.
Trump signaled his opposition to witnesses, tweeting Monday: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!”
That’s a reference to former national security adviser John Bolton, who was not subpoenaed by the House in its impeachment inquiry but has said he is willing to testify in the Senate if he is subpoenaed.
The White House brief argues that the articles of impeachment passed by the House are “structurally deficient” because they charge multiple acts, creating “a menu of options” as possible grounds for conviction.
The Trump team claims that the Constitution requires that senators agree “on the specific basis for conviction” and that there is no way to ensure that the senators agree on which acts are worthy of removal.
The Trump lawyers accused Democrats of diluting the standards for impeachment, an argument that echoed the case made Sunday by one of Trump’s attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, who contended in talk shows that impeachable offenses must be “criminal-like conduct.”
That assertion has been rejected by scholars, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called it an “absurdist position.”


pbs--2020-01-20--White House and prosecutors lay out arguments ahead of impeachment trial

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump ’ s defense team and the prosecutors of his impeachment are laying out their arguments over whether his conduct toward Ukraine warrants his removal from office .
Trump ’ s lawyers on Sunday previewed their impeachment defense with the questionable assertion that the charges against him are invalid , adopting a position rejected by Democrats as “ nonsense.
” The trial resumes on Tuesday with what could be a fight over the ground rules .
By then , both sides will have submitted briefs and four Democratic presidential candidates will have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominating states to join every other senator in silence , sans phones , on the Senate floor .
What they ’ re likely to hear in this extraordinary setting is the House Democrats ’ impeachment articles that charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his pressure on Ukraine for political help .
From the White House , the senator-jurors are expected to hear that Trump committed no crime , the impeachment articles are invalid and he ’ s the victim of Democrats who want to overturn his election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Alan Dershowitz , a constitutional lawyer on Trump ’ s defense team .
Dershowitz said he will be making the same argument to the Senate and if it prevails , there will be “ no need ” to pursue the witness testimony or documents that Democrats are demanding .
But the “ no crime , no impeachment ” approach has been roundly dismissed by scholars and Democrats , who were fresh off a trial brief that called Trump ’ s behavior the “ worst nightmare ” of the country ’ s founders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” is vague and open-ended in the Constitution and meant to encompass abuses of power that aren ’ t necessarily illegal .
The White House is pushing an “ absurdist position , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , the lead Democratic prosecutor of the impeachment case .
“ That ’ s the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead set against you.
” Rep. Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , another impeachment prosecutor , called it “ arrant nonsense ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct is overwhelming .
The back-and-forth came as all concerned agitated for the Senate to get on with the third impeachment trial in the nation ’ s history .
Behind the scenes .
the seven House managers were shoring up which prosecutor will handle which parts of the case and doing a walk-through of the Senate .
No senators were more eager to get going than the four Democratic presidential candidates facing the prospect of being marooned in the Senate ahead of kickoff nominating votes in Iowa and New Hampshire .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on New Hampshire Public Radio while campaigning Sunday in Concord .
During the trial , Sanders and other senators are required to sit for perhaps six grueling hours of proceedings daily — except Sundays , per Senate rules — in pursuit of the “ impartial justice ” they pledged to pursue .
But there was scant evidence that anyone ’ s mind was really open about whether Trump earned vindication or ouster .
Mystery , however , abounded over the trial ’ s ground rules .
Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no light on how the proceedings will follow — and differ from — the precedent of President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial in 1999 .
“ The president deserves a fair trial .
The American people deserve a fair trial .
So let ’ s have that fair trial , ” said Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado , one of the seven impeachment prosecutors .
But what ’ s fair is as vigorously disputed as the basic question of whether Trump ’ s pressure on Ukraine to help him politically merits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The stakes are enormous , with historic influence on the fate of Trump ’ s presidency , the 2020 presidential and congressional elections and the future of any presidential impeachments .
Whatever happens in the Senate , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , has said , Trump will “ be impeached forever.
” Members of Trump ’ s team countered that if they win a vindication for Trump , it means “ there will be an acquittal forever as well , ” Trump attorney Robert Ray said Sunday .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the suspense over the trial ’ s structure and nature , some clues on what ’ s to come sharpened on Sunday .
The president ’ s lawyers bore down on the suggestion that House impeachment is invalid unless the accused violated U.S. law .
Dershowitz ’ s argument , backed up by Ray , refers to an 1868 speech by Benjamin Curtis , who after serving as a Supreme Court justice acted as the chief lawyer for Andrew Johnson at his Senate impeachment trial .
Johnson was ultimately acquitted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment parameters allege that crimes have been committed , treason , bribery , and things like that , in other words , other high crimes and misdemeanors , ” Ray said Sunday .
Republicans have long signaled the strategy , which has , in turn , been disputed by other scholars .
“ Rubbish , ” said Frank Bowman , a University of Missouri law professor and author of his own book about the history of impeachment for the Trump era .
“ It ’ s comically bad .
Dershowitz either knows better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said he had been Dershowitz ’ s student as a law professor at Harvard .
Even as he made the case for Trump ’ s acquittal , Dershowitz on Sunday distanced himself from the rest of Trump ’ s defense team and said he would merely speak about the Constitution at the trial .
He refused to endorse the strategy pursued by other members of that team or defend Trump ’ s conduct and said he didn ’ t sign onto the White House left brief filed Saturday , which called impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election .
“ I ’ m a liberal Democrat … I ’ m here as a constitutional lawyer , ” Dershowitz said .
“ I ’ m here to lend my expertise on that issue and that issue alone.
” Democrats , meanwhile , are pushing for witnesses and documents that weren ’ t part of the House proceedings .
A few Republicans said they want to know more before deciding .
It ’ s relevant because new information from Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
At the same time , Senate Democrats want to call John Bolton , the former national security adviser , among other potential eyewitnesses , after the White House blocked officials from appearing in the House .
With Republicans controlling the Senate 53-47 , they can set the trial rules — or any four Republicans could join with Democrats to change course .
Crow spoke on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” and Dershowitz was on CNN and ABC ’ s “ This Week.
” Ray was on Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Futures.
” Schiff appeared on ABC and Nadler on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation .
”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s defense team and the prosecutors of his impeachment are laying out their arguments over whether his conduct toward Ukraine warrants his removal from office.
Trump’s lawyers on Sunday previewed their impeachment defense with the questionable assertion that the charges against him are invalid, adopting a position rejected by Democrats as “nonsense.”
The trial resumes on Tuesday with what could be a fight over the ground rules. By then, both sides will have submitted briefs and four Democratic presidential candidates will have been forced back to Washington from the early nominating states to join every other senator in silence, sans phones, on the Senate floor.
What they’re likely to hear in this extraordinary setting is the House Democrats’ impeachment articles that charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his pressure on Ukraine for political help. From the White House, the senator-jurors are expected to hear that Trump committed no crime, the impeachment articles are invalid and he’s the victim of Democrats who want to overturn his election.
“Criminal-like conduct is required,” said Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer on Trump’s defense team. Dershowitz said he will be making the same argument to the Senate and if it prevails, there will be “no need” to pursue the witness testimony or documents that Democrats are demanding.
But the “no crime, no impeachment” approach has been roundly dismissed by scholars and Democrats, who were fresh off a trial brief that called Trump’s behavior the “worst nightmare” of the country’s founders. In their view, the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vague and open-ended in the Constitution and meant to encompass abuses of power that aren’t necessarily illegal.
The White House is pushing an “absurdist position,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead Democratic prosecutor of the impeachment case. “That’s the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead set against you.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., another impeachment prosecutor, called it “arrant nonsense” and said evidence of Trump’s misconduct is overwhelming.
WATCH LIVE: Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate
The back-and-forth came as all concerned agitated for the Senate to get on with the third impeachment trial in the nation’s history. Behind the scenes. the seven House managers were shoring up which prosecutor will handle which parts of the case and doing a walk-through of the Senate.
No senators were more eager to get going than the four Democratic presidential candidates facing the prospect of being marooned in the Senate ahead of kickoff nominating votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“I’d rather be here,” said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on New Hampshire Public Radio while campaigning Sunday in Concord.
During the trial, Sanders and other senators are required to sit for perhaps six grueling hours of proceedings daily — except Sundays, per Senate rules — in pursuit of the “impartial justice” they pledged to pursue. But there was scant evidence that anyone’s mind was really open about whether Trump earned vindication or ouster.
Mystery, however, abounded over the trial’s ground rules. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shed no light on how the proceedings will follow — and differ from — the precedent of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999.
“The president deserves a fair trial. The American people deserve a fair trial. So let’s have that fair trial,” said Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, one of the seven impeachment prosecutors.
But what’s fair is as vigorously disputed as the basic question of whether Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to help him politically merits a Senate conviction and removal from office. The stakes are enormous, with historic influence on the fate of Trump’s presidency, the 2020 presidential and congressional elections and the future of any presidential impeachments.
Whatever happens in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said, Trump will “be impeached forever.” Members of Trump’s team countered that if they win a vindication for Trump, it means “there will be an acquittal forever as well,” Trump attorney Robert Ray said Sunday. “That is the task ahead.”
For all of the suspense over the trial’s structure and nature, some clues on what’s to come sharpened on Sunday.
The president’s lawyers bore down on the suggestion that House impeachment is invalid unless the accused violated U.S. law. Dershowitz’s argument, backed up by Ray, refers to an 1868 speech by Benjamin Curtis, who after serving as a Supreme Court justice acted as the chief lawyer for Andrew Johnson at his Senate impeachment trial.
Johnson was ultimately acquitted by the Senate.
“The core of the impeachment parameters allege that crimes have been committed, treason, bribery, and things like that, in other words, other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Ray said Sunday.
Republicans have long signaled the strategy, which has, in turn, been disputed by other scholars.
“Rubbish,” said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of his own book about the history of impeachment for the Trump era.
“It’s comically bad. Dershowitz either knows better or should,” said Bowman, who said he had been Dershowitz’s student as a law professor at Harvard.
Even as he made the case for Trump’s acquittal, Dershowitz on Sunday distanced himself from the rest of Trump’s defense team and said he would merely speak about the Constitution at the trial. He refused to endorse the strategy pursued by other members of that team or defend Trump’s conduct and said he didn’t sign onto the White House left brief filed Saturday, which called impeachment a “brazen” attempt to overturn the 2016 election.
“I’m a liberal Democrat … I’m here as a constitutional lawyer,” Dershowitz said. “I’m here to lend my expertise on that issue and that issue alone.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing for witnesses and documents that weren’t part of the House proceedings. A few Republicans said they want to know more before deciding. It’s relevant because new information from Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is being incorporated in the House case. At the same time, Senate Democrats want to call John Bolton, the former national security adviser, among other potential eyewitnesses, after the White House blocked officials from appearing in the House.
With Republicans controlling the Senate 53-47, they can set the trial rules — or any four Republicans could join with Democrats to change course.
Crow spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union” and Dershowitz was on CNN and ABC’s “This Week.” Ray was on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” Schiff appeared on ABC and Nadler on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”


pbs--2020-01-20--MLK Day draws presidential hopefuls to South Carolina

COLUMBIA , S.C. ( AP ) — Democratic presidential contenders celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s legacy at a Baptist church Monday and linked arms with each other and civil rights leaders in a march of tens of thousands to the Statehouse .
At Zion Baptist Church before the march , Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren engaged in the handshake that didn ’ t happen in the frosty aftermath of the last debate .
“ This is THE handshake , ” presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard said as Sanders and Warren reached across her to shake hands in the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended the service before they joined Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg and other contenders in the march to the Statehouse .
In last week ’ s debate , Warren and Sanders clashed in an exchange over what was said during a private conversation about a woman ’ s chances of becoming president .
Sanders extended his hand afterward , and Warren pulled back .
Now , in the closing days before the first votes are cast in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest , the party ’ s leading hopefuls are splitting their time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina and Iowa at events celebrating King .
The march brought together more candidates than engaged in the last two debates .
They arrived at the Statehouse as King ’ s iconic “ I have a dream ” speech played over loudspeakers .
While Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats vote first for their nominee , South Carolina ’ s first-in-the-South primary is a crucial proving ground for a candidate ’ s mettle with black voters .
The state ’ s showcase holiday celebration , Columbia ’ s King Day at the Dome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sanders spokesman Michael Wukela said the King event in South Carolina was about “ respect pure and simple , ” noting that racial inequality in areas including criminal justice and poverty highlights the relevance of commemorating a civil rights icon here .
“ If you can ’ t stand shoulder to shoulder with people who face these challenges every day yet still manage to embrace a vision of hope and grace , then you don ’ t deserve their respect , much less their vote , ” he said .
King Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reaction to state lawmakers ’ decision that year to keep the Confederate battle flag flying from the Statehouse ’ s copper-covered cupola , a place of prominence that drew opposition .
Tens of thousands of people marched through Columbia ’ s downtown from the prayer service to the Statehouse .
Lawmakers eventually agreed to a compromise that moved the flag to a flagpole , albeit one prominently situated in front of the building .
The deal also recognized Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the state and created Confederate Memorial Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nine Bible study participants at a historic black church in Charleston , lawmakers voted to remove the flag from the grounds .
In years past many Democratic presidential hopefuls have made their way to the north-facing facade of the Statehouse , including John Edwards , Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton .
Last year , Sanders and Sen. Cory Booker , who has dropped out of the 2020 race , attended .
Many of the candidates in the wide field planned to travel to Des Moines , Iowa , on Monday for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the nation ’ s oldest minority-focused presidential candidate events of its kind .
Traditionally a debate , the event in recent years has been more of a one-on-one candidate forum .
Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg , who is not competing in the early-voting states but has put some of his multimillion-dollar ad spending there — plans to join a King Day parade in Little Rock , Arkansas .
Tech businessman Andrew Yang is in the midst of a 17-day bus tour of Iowa and plans to remain there .

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Democratic presidential contenders celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy at a Baptist church Monday and linked arms with each other and civil rights leaders in a march of tens of thousands to the Statehouse.
At Zion Baptist Church before the march, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren engaged in the handshake that didn’t happen in the frosty aftermath of the last debate.
“This is THE handshake,” presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard said as Sanders and Warren reached across her to shake hands in the front row. They and rival Amy Klobuchar attended the service before they joined Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and other contenders in the march to the Statehouse.
In last week’s debate, Warren and Sanders clashed in an exchange over what was said during a private conversation about a woman’s chances of becoming president. Sanders extended his hand afterward, and Warren pulled back.
Now, in the closing days before the first votes are cast in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, the party’s leading hopefuls are splitting their time between the critical early-voting states of South Carolina and Iowa at events celebrating King.
The march brought together more candidates than engaged in the last two debates. They arrived at the Statehouse as King’s iconic “I have a dream” speech played over loudspeakers.
While Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats vote first for their nominee, South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primary is a crucial proving ground for a candidate’s mettle with black voters. The state’s showcase holiday celebration, Columbia’s King Day at the Dome, is a notable event for Democratic politicians.
Sanders spokesman Michael Wukela said the King event in South Carolina was about “respect pure and simple,” noting that racial inequality in areas including criminal justice and poverty highlights the relevance of commemorating a civil rights icon here.
“If you can’t stand shoulder to shoulder with people who face these challenges every day yet still manage to embrace a vision of hope and grace, then you don’t deserve their respect, much less their vote,” he said.
King Day at the Dome began in 2000 as a reaction to state lawmakers’ decision that year to keep the Confederate battle flag flying from the Statehouse’s copper-covered cupola, a place of prominence that drew opposition. Tens of thousands of people marched through Columbia’s downtown from the prayer service to the Statehouse.
Lawmakers eventually agreed to a compromise that moved the flag to a flagpole, albeit one prominently situated in front of the building. The deal also recognized Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the state and created Confederate Memorial Day.
In 2015, following the racist massacre of nine Bible study participants at a historic black church in Charleston, lawmakers voted to remove the flag from the grounds.
In years past many Democratic presidential hopefuls have made their way to the north-facing facade of the Statehouse, including John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Last year, Sanders and Sen. Cory Booker, who has dropped out of the 2020 race, attended.
Many of the candidates in the wide field planned to travel to Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday for the Brown and Black Forum, recognized as one of the nation’s oldest minority-focused presidential candidate events of its kind. Traditionally a debate, the event in recent years has been more of a one-on-one candidate forum.
Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is not competing in the early-voting states but has put some of his multimillion-dollar ad spending there — plans to join a King Day parade in Little Rock, Arkansas. Tech businessman Andrew Yang is in the midst of a 17-day bus tour of Iowa and plans to remain there.


pbs--2020-01-21--Social media disinformation leads election security concerns, poll finds

Four years after Russia launched a cyber campaign to disrupt and influence the 2016 presidential campaign , about a third of Americans say misleading stories on social media pose the biggest threat to the safety of U.S. elections , and half think President Donald Trump encourages election interference , according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll .
And while a majority of Americans say spotting the difference between fact and false information on social media is difficult and gotten harder since 2016 , few feel confident that technology companies will prevent the misuse of social media to influence the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot ?
The new survey from PBS NewsHour , NPR and Marist Poll found that 59 percent of Americans say it is hard to identify false information — intentionally misleading and inaccurate stories portrayed as truth — on social media .
Another 37 percent disagreed , saying it is easy to spot .
Furthermore , with the 2020 presidential campaign about to pick up in earnest , more than half of U.S. adults said discerning these fake or deceptive stories has become increasingly difficult over the last four years .
That sentiment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 55 percent of independents and a slightly lower proportion of Republicans at 44 percent .
Misinformation is evolving on different platforms and messages are becoming more nuanced and images more realistic .
“ Deep fake ” videos , while relatively rare in the false information ecosystem , have been identified as an emerging threat against people ’ s sense of what is real and what is not .
The fact that Americans are aware of the threat of misinformation is important , said Brendan Nyhan , a political scientist at Dartmouth University who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks .
But it is “ unreasonable ” to expect an average person to fact-check “ off the top of their head ” every piece of information whizzing past them as they scroll through their social media feeds , he said .
“ Everyday people don ’ t follow politics very closely , ” he said .
“ Fact-checking is very difficult work.
” Misinformation can be dangerous .
Months before the 2016 election of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump , misleading stories were used to manufacture rage among unsuspecting users on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theory about then- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton inspired a man to travel from North Carolina to a pizzeria in Washington , D.C. , with an AR-15 assault rifle , expecting to confront a child sex ring .
Research has shown that false information travels faster than the truth on social media .
In 2018 , a study from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology said misinformation moved six times faster than the truth on Twitter .
Researchers analyzed 126,000 cascades of tweets , shared by 3 million people more than 4.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used six independent fact-checkers to sort tweets as true or false .
Their results suggested human Twitter-users trafficked inaccurate stories more frequently than bots , or computer-operated social media accounts that share content .
Who does the public see as truth ’ s gatekeeper ?
Thirty-nine percent of Americans say the news media is responsible for vetting misleading information .
Another 18 percent say companies like Facebook , Twitter or Google are responsible .
And 15 percent say the government ’ s primary job is to reduce the public ’ s exposure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough ?
Seventy-five percent of U.S. adults have little confidence in Facebook , Twitter , Google and YouTube to stop the spread of misinformation .
Only 5 percent of survey-takers said they felt “ very confident ” these companies would prevent the viral spread of false narratives .
The public lacks confidence in major social media companies despite tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter having promised to take steps to prevent election interference on their platforms .
In April 2018 , Facebook founder and chairman Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress about election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet ’ s most popular social media platforms with 2.38 billion monthly users , has said it will do a better job of removing misleading political ads ahead of the 2020 presidential election .
Twitter said it will ban political ads altogether .
Americans are skeptical that social media companies will honor these promises , said Cameron Hickey , who has researched the role misinformation plays in people ’ s media consumption habits for Harvard University ’ s Shorenstein Center for Media , Politics and Public Policy .
Americans also “ know platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the spread of misinformation , Hickey said .
In May 2018 , Facebook created a political ad archive to identify and investigate potentially problematic ads , Hickey said , but that automated system is not flawless .
In 2020 , 35 percent of U.S. adults say misleading information is the biggest threat to keeping the nation ’ s elections safe and accurate .
That sentiment was held by 39 percent of independent voters , followed by 31 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats .
While misinformation ranked as the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressing to members of the two main parties .
Republicans were significantly more likely to suspect voter fraud as a threat than Democrats or Independents , while Democrats were more likely to be wary of voter suppression than Republicans or independents .
Roughly half of Americans — 51 percent — say they think the president himself is encouraging election interference .
Another 39 percent say they think he is making the nation ’ s systems safer and an additional 10 percent say they are unsure .
More than a third of U.S. adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country will tamper with votes to try to alter 2020 election results .
Their suspicions are manifesting elsewhere in real time .
In October , Trump asked China to investigate former vice president and 2020 contender , Joe Biden and his son , Hunter .
And as Congress launches a Senate trial following Trump ’ s House impeachment to explore his dealings with Ukraine , the Associated Press reported that Russian military agents hacked into Burisma Holdings in November .
Hunter Biden served on the Ukrainian gas company ’ s board .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to find , the timing may be tied to digging up political dirt on Trump ’ s rival in this year ’ s race for the White House .
PBS NewsHour , NPR and Marist conducted a survey Jan. 7-12 that polled 1,259 U.S. adults with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points and 1,064 registered voters with a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points .

Four years after Russia launched a cyber campaign to disrupt and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, about a third of Americans say misleading stories on social media pose the biggest threat to the safety of U.S. elections, and half think President Donald Trump encourages election interference, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.
And while a majority of Americans say spotting the difference between fact and false information on social media is difficult and gotten harder since 2016, few feel confident that technology companies will prevent the misuse of social media to influence the 2020 elections.
Is misinformation getting harder to spot?
The new survey from PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist Poll found that 59 percent of Americans say it is hard to identify false information — intentionally misleading and inaccurate stories portrayed as truth — on social media. Another 37 percent disagreed, saying it is easy to spot.
Furthermore, with the 2020 presidential campaign about to pick up in earnest, more than half of U.S. adults said discerning these fake or deceptive stories has become increasingly difficult over the last four years. That sentiment was shared by 58 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents and a slightly lower proportion of Republicans at 44 percent.
Misinformation is evolving on different platforms and messages are becoming more nuanced and images more realistic. “Deep fake” videos, while relatively rare in the false information ecosystem, have been identified as an emerging threat against people’s sense of what is real and what is not.
The fact that Americans are aware of the threat of misinformation is important, said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College who studies false information, persuasion and social networks. But it is “unreasonable” to expect an average person to fact-check “off the top of their head” every piece of information whizzing past them as they scroll through their social media feeds, he said.
“Everyday people don’t follow politics very closely,” he said. “Fact-checking is very difficult work.”
Misinformation can be dangerous. Months before the 2016 election of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, misleading stories were used to manufacture rage among unsuspecting users on social media. In one instance, a false conspiracy theory about then- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton inspired a man to travel from North Carolina to a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., with an AR-15 assault rifle, expecting to confront a child sex ring.
Research has shown that false information travels faster than the truth on social media. In 2018, a study from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology said misinformation moved six times faster than the truth on Twitter. Researchers analyzed 126,000 cascades of tweets, shared by 3 million people more than 4.5 million times between 2006 and 2017, and used six independent fact-checkers to sort tweets as true or false. Their results suggested human Twitter-users trafficked inaccurate stories more frequently than bots, or computer-operated social media accounts that share content.
Who does the public see as truth’s gatekeeper? Thirty-nine percent of Americans say the news media is responsible for vetting misleading information. Another 18 percent say companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google are responsible. And 15 percent say the government’s primary job is to reduce the public’s exposure to misinformation.
Are social media companies doing enough?
Seventy-five percent of U.S. adults have little confidence in Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube to stop the spread of misinformation. Only 5 percent of survey-takers said they felt “very confident” these companies would prevent the viral spread of false narratives.
The public lacks confidence in major social media companies despite tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter having promised to take steps to prevent election interference on their platforms. In April 2018, Facebook founder and chairman Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress about election security. Facebook, one of the planet’s most popular social media platforms with 2.38 billion monthly users, has said it will do a better job of removing misleading political ads ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Twitter said it will ban political ads altogether.
Americans are skeptical that social media companies will honor these promises, said Cameron Hickey, who has researched the role misinformation plays in people’s media consumption habits for Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy. Americans also “know platforms aren’t doing enough to stop” the spread of misinformation, Hickey said. In May 2018, Facebook created a political ad archive to identify and investigate potentially problematic ads, Hickey said, but that automated system is not flawless.
In 2020, 35 percent of U.S. adults say misleading information is the biggest threat to keeping the nation’s elections safe and accurate. That sentiment was held by 39 percent of independent voters, followed by 31 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats.
While misinformation ranked as the top threat, other voting-related issues seemed more pressing to members of the two main parties. Republicans were significantly more likely to suspect voter fraud as a threat than Democrats or Independents, while Democrats were more likely to be wary of voter suppression than Republicans or independents.
Roughly half of Americans — 51 percent — say they think the president himself is encouraging election interference. Another 39 percent say they think he is making the nation’s systems safer and an additional 10 percent say they are unsure. More than a third of U.S. adults think it is likely that a foreign country will tamper with votes to try to alter 2020 election results.
Their suspicions are manifesting elsewhere in real time. In October, Trump asked China to investigate former vice president and 2020 contender, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. And as Congress launches a Senate trial following Trump’s House impeachment to explore his dealings with Ukraine, the Associated Press reported that Russian military agents hacked into Burisma Holdings in November. Hunter Biden served on the Ukrainian gas company’s board. While it remains unclear what the Russian hackers wanted to find, the timing may be tied to digging up political dirt on Trump’s rival in this year’s race for the White House.
PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist conducted a survey Jan. 7-12 that polled 1,259 U.S. adults with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points and 1,064 registered voters with a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.


pbs--2020-01-20--Gun-rights advocates turn out in huge numbers to protest proposed Virginia restrictions

Gun rights supporters gathered in huge numbers today in Richmond , Virginia .
They 're protesting a wave of gun @ @ @ @ @ the newly elected Democratic majority in the state .
William Brangham is in Richmond today @ @ @ @ @ with him from the scene in a bit .
But , first , William has @ @ @

William Brangham:
It's a very good question, because we don't know how much of that is symbolism and how much of that is really going to show up in practice, where the rubber hits the road.
The lawmakers that we have talked to, Democratic lawmakers, think it's largely a symbolic statement, that it's not really going to — that, when push comes to shove, that law enforcement officials will actually follow the law.
According to legal experts that we have spoken with, these are not really legally binding votes that are taken. They're symbolic votes, but many people we have spoken to said, symbolism matters and it's important for us to have registered in the vast majority of counties in this state that we don't like what we're hearing coming out of the legislature.


pbs--2020-01-20--Former Defense Sec. William Cohen on partisanship and impeachment evidence

Well , people tend to forget , it was very partisan back in 1974 as well .
Tensions were high .
Passions were certainly high as well .
There were bomb threats , death threats , a lot going on .
But it was n't as deep and angry as it is today , and we did n't have social media back then , and we did n't have FOX News back then .
I think the combination of FOX and social media has contributed to driving us even further apart , making us angrier than we were even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different atmosphere .
It 's difficult for members of Congress to go against President Trump .
He punishes anyone who criticizes him .
And even his own intelligence community , his own — our institutions are being politicized on a regular basis , from looking at the intelligence community , looking at the military , looking at the Justice Department .
You can go through all of the institutions , and anyone who disagrees with him is publicly shamed .
And so it 's more difficult for members today to go against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — quote — `` moderates '' left in the Republican Party to make a difference .

William Cohen:
Well, people tend to forget, it was very partisan back in 1974 as well.
Tensions were high. Passions were certainly high as well. There were bomb threats, death threats, a lot going on.
But it wasn't as deep and angry as it is today, and we didn't have social media back then, and we didn't have FOX News back then. I think the combination of FOX and social media has contributed to driving us even further apart, making us angrier than we were even in the past.
So it's a different atmosphere. It's difficult for members of Congress to go against President Trump. He punishes anyone who criticizes him. And even his own intelligence community, his own — our institutions are being politicized on a regular basis, from looking at the intelligence community, looking at the military, looking at the Justice Department.
You can go through all of the institutions, and anyone who disagrees with him is publicly shamed. And so it's more difficult for members today to go against him, and there aren't as many — quote — "moderates" left in the Republican Party to make a difference.


pbs--2020-01-20--As Iowa approaches, 2020 Democrats highlight differences but push for unity

As the impeachment trial is set to start this next phase , we do not want to lose focus on @ @ @ @ @ House .
We are today exactly one year from the next president 's inauguration and @ @ @ @ @ Iowa caucuses .
But , as Amna Nawaz reports , in South Carolina today , @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic contenders hides deeper divisions on the trail .

Judy Woodruff:
As the impeachment trial is set to start this next phase, we do not want to lose focus on the race for the White House.
We are today exactly one year from the next president's inauguration and just two weeks from the Iowa caucuses.
But, as Amna Nawaz reports, in South Carolina today, a show of unity among the Democratic contenders hides deeper divisions on the trail.


pbs--2020-01-20--Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on Iowa caucus dynamics, impeachment politics

It 's not a topic you hear all that much about .
And I think , for so many voters , it 's like watching a baseball game where you know what the final score is going to be , so you wonder , should you really tune in to watch the entire process ?
I do think there is a worry here from folks who are fans of some of the senators who have to go back to Washington that they are going to be blanked out for these really critical weeks .
I do wonder , does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up here ?
After all , if you turn on television in Des Moines , you see lots and lots of ads .
So they have a presence here .
But then — but we have to remember that the people who show up and vote at these caucuses , it 's a very , very small percent of the overall Democratic electorate .
These are the most active voters , so they are the people showing up and going to events and seeing these candidates one-on-one .
They are using these events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being here carries more weight than , say , if it were a traditional primary .
And the other really important piece is not just that the senators are trapped in Washington and they ca n't come to Iowa , but they have to be silent during this entire trial .
This is not like what we saw , say , at the Kavanaugh hearings , where senators were getting a really big soapbox to be able to make their case , and then those clips got aired on the news over and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they 're basically off the air and out of people 's minds , or at least out of their TV sets .
They might not be out of their minds , but they 're not getting that level of coverage that they would be getting if they were an Iowa or if they were doing something back in Washington where they had an ability to make their case .

Amy Walter:
Well, with four candidates really bunched at the top, Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, we can't quite figure out — no one has figured out what is going to help one of those candidates ultimately break through.
Normally, by this time, you can sort of feel maybe a trend starting or maybe someone having some momentum as we get into these last days. You just don't feel it, at least now. Again, I have only been here a couple of days, so don't want to make too much of a blanket statement.
But I think that everybody is trying to find a way to break out. And one of the ways to do that is to show differences between you and your opponent. For Bernie Sanders, the debate over Social Security and Medicare goes not just to that issue, but really to the heart of the argument that Bernie Sanders has been making now for years, which is, he is the most authentic candidate, the candidate who will not compromise on core issues.
Everybody else in the race either has been willing to compromise in their career, they have taken positions that now they say they wouldn't, or they won't pledge to do the sorts of things that Bernie Sanders is pledging to do — so to make that really clear-cut here in these last couple of weeks.
Joe Biden really leaning into electability, really focusing on the fact — he mentioned in South Carolina this week that it's not just putting him on the top of the ballot to get a Democrat in the White House, but, with Biden on the top of the ballot, it's also going to help candidates underneath.
If you want a Democratic Senate, he says, you want me on the top of the ballot, because I will help to bring those other Democrats along, especially in those states that aren't quite blue, but are leaning red.


pbs--2020-01-21--WATCH: Senate kills impeachment amendment to subpoena White House documents

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to kill an amendment that would have required the Senate to subpoena White House documents and witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
The amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was the first of several amendments Democrats are proposing to Sen. Mitch McConnell ’ s “ organizing resolution ” that determines the rules of the trial .
The vote indicated it was unlikely the Senate would subpoena any additional evidence or witnesses before House managers—the seven Democrats who act as prosecutors—and Trump ’ s legal team present their cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53 to 47 , along party lines .
READ MORE : Your guide to the Trump impeachment trial Sen. Susan Collins , a moderate Republican from Maine , said she plans to vote against any efforts to subpoena documents or witnesses before the Senate hears opening arguments and has the opportunity to ask questions .
“ While I need to hear the case argued and the questions answered , I anticipate that I would conclude that having additional information would be helpful .
It is likely that I would support a motion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial just as I did in 1999 , ” Collins said referring to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton .
Earlier in the day , McConnell changed his resolution so that House managers and Trump ’ s lawyers are allowed make 24 hours ’ worth of arguments spread over three days instead of two .
The change was made after Collins and other Republican senators raised concerns about requiring the arguments be made in 12-hour segments over two days , which would have pushed the Senate trial sessions late into the night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours .

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to kill an amendment that would have required the Senate to subpoena White House documents and witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
The amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was the first of several amendments Democrats are proposing to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s “organizing resolution” that determines the rules of the trial.
The vote indicated it was unlikely the Senate would subpoena any additional evidence or witnesses before House managers—the seven Democrats who act as prosecutors—and Trump’s legal team present their cases.
Schumer’s amendment was defeated 53 to 47, along party lines.
READ MORE: Your guide to the Trump impeachment trial
Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, said she plans to vote against any efforts to subpoena documents or witnesses before the Senate hears opening arguments and has the opportunity to ask questions.
“While I need to hear the case argued and the questions answered, I anticipate that I would conclude that having additional information would be helpful. It is likely that I would support a motion to subpoena witnesses at that point in the trial just as I did in 1999,” Collins said referring to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.
Earlier in the day, McConnell changed his resolution so that House managers and Trump’s lawyers are allowed make 24 hours’ worth of arguments spread over three days instead of two.
The change was made after Collins and other Republican senators raised concerns about requiring the arguments be made in 12-hour segments over two days, which would have pushed the Senate trial sessions late into the night, or even into the early morning hours.