theguardian--2020-02-07--Why are the Oscars still so white?

Why are the Oscars still so white?

Following a strikingly white and male list of Bafta nominees , this year ’ s Academy Awards shortlists are barely more diverse .
It ’ s a chronic problem in an industry running out of excuses for its slow pace of change .
Lanre Bakare examines why the Oscars are still so white .
Plus : Joan E Greve on a hectic week of US politics When the lists of nominees for the major film awards in 2020 were announced , there was , once again , a glaring anomaly .
Not a single person of colour was nominated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscars managed only Cynthia Erivo for her part in Harriet .
It is an issue that the industry is well aware of : in 2015 , the ceremony saw # OscarsSoWhite trending on Twitter , while actors such as Eddie Murphy were rebuking the academy from the stage back in the 1990s .
So what explains the glacial pace of change ?
Guardian arts and culture correspondent Lanre Bakare tells Anushka Asthana that there have been plenty of false dawns over the years in the quest for greater diversity .
Also today : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of US politics after Donald Trump was formally acquitted in his impeachment trial and the Democratic party ’ s Iowa caucuses descended into farce .

Presented by Anushka Asthana with Lanre Bakare and Joan E Greve;  produced by Sam ColbertCourtney Yusuf  and Axel Kacoutié; executive producers Phil Maynard and Nicole Jackson

Following a strikingly white and male list of Bafta nominees, this year’s Academy Awards shortlists are barely more diverse. It’s a chronic problem in an industry running out of excuses for its slow pace of change. Lanre Bakare examines why the Oscars are still so white. Plus: Joan E Greve on a hectic week of US politics
When the lists of nominees for the major film awards in 2020 were announced, there was, once again, a glaring anomaly. Not a single person of colour was nominated in the Bafta acting categories, while the Oscars managed only Cynthia Erivo for her part in Harriet.
It is an issue that the industry is well aware of: in 2015, the ceremony saw #OscarsSoWhite trending on Twitter, while actors such as Eddie Murphy were rebuking the academy from the stage back in the 1990s. So what explains the glacial pace of change? Guardian arts and culture correspondent Lanre Bakare tells Anushka Asthana that there have been plenty of false dawns over the years in the quest for greater diversity.
Also today: Joan E Greve on a hectic week of US politics after Donald Trump was formally acquitted in his impeachment trial and the Democratic party’s Iowa caucuses descended into farce.
With clips from: BBC, STX Entertainment, Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, Marvel, Universal Pictures, NBC and Focus Features


theguardian--2020-02-07--Iowa caucus results in full – county by county

Iowa voters kicked off the long process of choosing the Democratic and Republican party ’ s presidential nominees Monday , ahead of the November election .
Following a shock delay , the first partial results were released on Tuesday and continued to trickle in through Wednesday and Thursday .
What is a caucus and how is it different to a primary ?
Most US states hold primary elections , in which voters go to a polling place , mail in their ballots or otherwise vote remotely .
But a handful of states hold caucuses – complicated , hours-long meetings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victor .
And the process is different for Democrats and Republicans .
How do the Democratic caucuses work and why are they important ?
Iowans aged 18 and over who are registered with the party will gather in caucus venues such as school gyms and churches in their designated precinct .
They start voting publicly at 7pm CT ( 8pm ET ) by splitting into groups based on their preferred candidate .
Voters have to go and stand in the area where their candidate is represented .
So Joe Biden supporters would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another and Bernie Sanders supporters in another .
Everyone is tallied .
If a particular candidate does not attract 15 % of total voters present , they are taken off the ballot , and their voters are free to throw their weight behind another candidate .
Once voting is over at a caucus site , the support for viable candidates ( those with more than 15 % of the votes ) is translated into a number of “ state delegate equivalents ” .
That result is used to calculate the number of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually choose the nominee at the Democratic convention in July .
On the night of the caucuses , the candidate with the most SDEs is considered the winner .
How do the Republican caucuses work ?
With all the attention being paid to the Democratic side , it is easy to forget that there is a Republican primary happening , too .
Trump is facing challenges from the former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld and former US representative Joe Walsh , but it ’ s extremely unlikely that they , or the others ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 153 people are running for president as Republicans ) will win against the president .
In the Iowa Republican caucus , people still have to physically show up at a location .
They then cast a straightforward vote , secretly .
The votes are tallied up , and the delegates are dished out in the same manner .
In the Republican caucuses , there is no 15 % threshold , meaning candidates with relatively little support could still pick up delegates .

Iowa voters kicked off the long process of choosing the Democratic and Republican party’s presidential nominees Monday, ahead of the November election.
Following a shock delay, the first partial results were released on Tuesday and continued to trickle in through Wednesday and Thursday. The Associated Press said it was unable to declare a winner Thursday evening.
*Election results source: Associated Press
What is a caucus and how is it different to a primary?
Most US states hold primary elections, in which voters go to a polling place, mail in their ballots or otherwise vote remotely. But a handful of states hold caucuses – complicated, hours-long meetings, which continue until one candidate emerges as victor. And the process is different for Democrats and Republicans.
How do the Democratic caucuses work and why are they important?
Iowans aged 18 and over who are registered with the party will gather in caucus venues such as school gyms and churches in their designated precinct. They start voting publicly at 7pm CT (8pm ET) by splitting into groups based on their preferred candidate.
Voters have to go and stand in the area where their candidate is represented. So Joe Biden supporters would be in one corner, Elizabeth Warren in another and Bernie Sanders supporters in another. Everyone is tallied.
If a particular candidate does not attract 15% of total voters present, they are taken off the ballot, and their voters are free to throw their weight behind another candidate.
Once voting is over at a caucus site, the support for viable candidates (those with more than 15% of the votes) is translated into a number of “state delegate equivalents”. That result is used to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate receives. National delegates eventually choose the nominee at the Democratic convention in July.
On the night of the caucuses, the candidate with the most SDEs is considered the winner.
How do the Republican caucuses work?
With all the attention being paid to the Democratic side, it is easy to forget that there is a Republican primary happening, too.
Trump is facing challenges from the former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld and former US representative Joe Walsh, but it’s extremely unlikely that they, or the others (according to the Federal Election Commission, 153 people are running for president as Republicans) will win against the president.
In the Iowa Republican caucus, people still have to physically show up at a location. They then cast a straightforward vote, secretly. The votes are tallied up, and the delegates are dished out in the same manner.
In the Republican caucuses, there is no 15% threshold, meaning candidates with relatively little support could still pick up delegates.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Qassim al-Rimi: US forces killed al-Qaida leader in Yemen, Trump confirms

Donald Trump confirmed on Thursday that a counter-terrorism operation in Yemen killed Qassim al-Rimi , an al-Qaida leader who claimed responsibility for last year ’ s deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola , where a Saudi aviation trainee killed three American sailors .
Unconfirmed reports of his death , including indicative tweets from the president , have been circulating since 31 January , but the neither the Department of Defense nor the CIA had issued official confirmation .
Al-Rimi was a founder of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula ( AQAP ) .
The affiliate has long been considered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its attempts to carry out attacks on the US mainland .
Trump said the US and its allies were safer as a result of his death .
“ We will continue to protect the American people by tracking down and eliminating terrorists who seek to do us harm , “ Trump said .
While Trump confirmed reports that al-Rimi had been killed , he did not say when the US operation was conducted or offer any details about how it was carried out .
But in late January , a suspected US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militants in eastern Yemen .
Also on 1 February , Trump retweeted several other tweets and media reports that seemed to offer confirmation .
Al-Rimi had said in an 18-minute video that his group was responsible for the 6 December shooting at the base .
He called the shooter , the Saudi air force officer Mohammed Alshamrani , a “ courageous knight ” and a “ hero ” .
The shooter opened fire inside a classroom at the base , killing three people and wounding two sheriff ’ s deputies before one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also hurt .
The shooting focused public attention on the presence of foreign students in American military training programs and exposed shortcomings in the screening of cadets .
In January , the US sent home 21 Saudi military students , saying the trainees had jihadist or anti-American sentiments on social media pages or had “ contact ” with child abuse images , including in internet chatrooms .
Al-Rimi was considered a potential successor to Ayman al-Zawahiri , the Egyptian leader of al-Qaida ’ s strategic operations who is believed to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other AQAP members escaped from prison in Yemen to establish what the US considered to be one of al-Qaida ’ s most vigorous local branches , orchestrating attacks on pipelines carrying oil and gas to terminals in the south of the country .
In 2013 , in a message “ to the American nation ” , al-Rimi said : “ Your security is not achieved by despoiling other nations ’ security or by attacking and oppressing them.
” Americans should “ leave us with our religion , land and nations and mind your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Al-Rimi reportedly became leader of AQAP following a 2015 drone strike that killed Nasir al-Wuhayshi .
In 2017 , days after a special forces raid on a compound in Yemen in which 31 civilians and a US soldier was killed , al-Rimi taunted Trump , saying in a recorded message : “ The new fool of the White House received a painful slap across his face.
” In an attempt to prevent al-Qaida from establishing a secure base in Yemen , the US recorded 131 strikes there in 2017 and 36 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials said a CIA drone strike killed Ibrahim al-Asiri , a senior al-Qaida bomb maker behind the “ underwear bomb ” attempt on a flight on Christmas Day in 2009 .
In January last year , a US strike killed Jamal al-Badawi , an al-Qaida operative linked to the 2000 attack on the USS Cole while it was being refuelled in Aden .
Yemen has been gripped by civil war since 2015 .
Last week , Mike Pompeo , the secretary of state , said the US was “ alarmed ” by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The violence “ produces instability that terrorist groups and other malign actors can exploit for their own purposes ” , Pompeo said .

Donald Trump confirmed on Thursday that a counter-terrorism operation in Yemen killed Qassim al-Rimi, an al-Qaida leader who claimed responsibility for last year’s deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola, where a Saudi aviation trainee killed three American sailors.
Unconfirmed reports of his death, including indicative tweets from the president, have been circulating since 31 January, but the neither the Department of Defense nor the CIA had issued official confirmation.
Al-Rimi was a founder of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The affiliate has long been considered the global network’s most dangerous branch for its attempts to carry out attacks on the US mainland. Trump said the US and its allies were safer as a result of his death.
“We will continue to protect the American people by tracking down and eliminating terrorists who seek to do us harm,“ Trump said.
While Trump confirmed reports that al-Rimi had been killed, he did not say when the US operation was conducted or offer any details about how it was carried out.
But in late January, a suspected US drone strike destroyed a building housing al-Qaida militants in eastern Yemen. Also on 1 February, Trump retweeted several other tweets and media reports that seemed to offer confirmation.
Al-Rimi had said in an 18-minute video that his group was responsible for the 6 December shooting at the base. He called the shooter, the Saudi air force officer Mohammed Alshamrani, a “courageous knight” and a “hero”.
The shooter opened fire inside a classroom at the base, killing three people and wounding two sheriff’s deputies before one of the deputies killed him. Eight others were also hurt.
The shooting focused public attention on the presence of foreign students in American military training programs and exposed shortcomings in the screening of cadets.
In January, the US sent home 21 Saudi military students, saying the trainees had jihadist or anti-American sentiments on social media pages or had “contact” with child abuse images, including in internet chatrooms.
Al-Rimi was considered a potential successor to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian leader of al-Qaida’s strategic operations who is believed to be in Pakistan.
In 2006, al-Rimi and other AQAP members escaped from prison in Yemen to establish what the US considered to be one of al-Qaida’s most vigorous local branches, orchestrating attacks on pipelines carrying oil and gas to terminals in the south of the country.
In 2013, in a message “to the American nation”, al-Rimi said: “Your security is not achieved by despoiling other nations’ security or by attacking and oppressing them.”
Americans should “leave us with our religion, land and nations and mind your own internal affairs”, he said.
Al-Rimi reportedly became leader of AQAP following a 2015 drone strike that killed Nasir al-Wuhayshi.
In 2017, days after a special forces raid on a compound in Yemen in which 31 civilians and a US soldier was killed, al-Rimi taunted Trump, saying in a recorded message: “The new fool of the White House received a painful slap across his face.”
In an attempt to prevent al-Qaida from establishing a secure base in Yemen, the US recorded 131 strikes there in 2017 and 36 in 2018. In that year, US officials said a CIA drone strike killed Ibrahim al-Asiri, a senior al-Qaida bomb maker behind the “underwear bomb” attempt on a flight on Christmas Day in 2009.
In January last year, a US strike killed Jamal al-Badawi, an al-Qaida operative linked to the 2000 attack on the USS Cole while it was being refuelled in Aden.
Yemen has been gripped by civil war since 2015. Last week, Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, said the US was “alarmed” by a recent increase in violence in Yemen.
The violence “produces instability that terrorist groups and other malign actors can exploit for their own purposes”, Pompeo said.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Love the billionaire bucks flooding US 2020 elections? Thank Charles Koch | Lisa Graves

When Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race , some declared his $ 60bn fortune an asset for taking on Donald Trump , who once claimed he was going to self-fund his own campaign .
Trump and his party raised a record-shattering nearly half a billion dollars in disclosed donations last year – a number that does not include the hundreds of millions in dark money non-profit groups will spend on social media and TV ads .
How did we end up with such a broken system where billionaires can openly or anonymously spend millions to distort election results in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mega-corporation Koch Industries is running a PR campaign with the tagline “ We made that ” – helped make that , or rather helped break that .
Newly uncovered documents reveal Trump and Bloomberg owe thanks in part to Koch for the power to tap their enormous personal fortunes to run for office .
Koch claimed in 2014 that “ it was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
” The truth is he got involved in elections and trying to overcome election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Koch funding for the Libertarian party helped subsidize the legal effort that resulted in the infamous Buckley v Valeo decision , which equated spending money with free speech .
Buckley also created a loophole that allowed David Koch to self-fund his campaign for vice-president in 1980 , establishing perhaps one of the most extreme examples of privilege in politics today : most Americans can ’ t afford to max out in campaign contributions , but a couple of billionaire white guys have what amounts to a supreme court-divined right to spend an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until now , however , few people outside the Koch inner circle knew it was really Charles who was bankrolling that political party and its attacks on federal election laws , before David ’ s failed run .
After Buckley , the FEC gave the Libertarian party an advisory opinion to allow Koch to give the party 25 times the limit Congress had adopted .
Koch then bundled money with his family to become that political party ’ s biggest donor , giving it an amount that seems small now but was big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger .
Two years later , he pledged to match at least $ 50,000 raised by the party ( despite the $ 25,000 limit ) .
The year after that , he was one of the largest donors helping to fund lawsuits attacking federal campaign laws .
Buckley litigation also laid the foundation for the discredited Citizens United decision .
Since that ruling in 2010 , American elections have been conducted like the Koch-funded Libertarian wishlist circa 1976 : the uber-rich have virtually no real limits on how much they can spend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can deploy non-profits to escape donation and disclosure rules applicable to candidates , political parties , and Pacs .
As a result , non-profit groups collectively spent more than all candidates in 28 congressional midterm races , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .
The $ 2.6bn in “ independent expenditures ” in 2018 also exceeded spending by both political parties combined .
And , just days ago , Koch ’ s operatives announced their biggest election effort ever for 2020 .
Koch spending down the ballot will help buoy Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did in the 2016 Senate races .
Koch ’ s use of secret billionaires ’ cash to secure the Senate and states is not new .
To win in 2016 , Koch planned to amass and spend $ 889m – Koch Industries even bought the URL : 889million.com .
The new reality is that billionaire-funded dark money groups , like the ones run by Charles Koch ’ s network with its sophisticated voter databases , can operate like a shadow political party but they are more powerful , unbound by donation limits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because personnel is policy , this means Koch often gets the policies – and judges – he wants .
Despite Charles ’ s public posture of disdain for the president , Trump policy is largely Koch ’ s .
When Charles Koch decided that Trump represented a “ once-in-a-generation ” chance to change the tax code to slash taxes for the richest few , Koch got it .
The same goes for Koch helping to pack the supreme court , which Charles flagged as another top priority for his network of billionaires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leo , who sits at the helm of a dark money operation that has spent more than $ 250m to change the makeup of the federal and state courts through the secretive funding of groups like the Judicial Crisis Network .
Leo recently bragged to donors that America is on the precipice of a revolution to roll back nearly a century of legal precedents .
If successful that revolution would mark a return to the robber-baron era of limited democratic control over corporations , which Koch fueled in innumerable ways .
But with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more is at stake than the chains he and Leo want to put on the power of American democracy .
We are in a continuing constitutional crisis , where the big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans .
And Charles Koch helped make that .
• None Lisa Graves is the former chief counsel for nominations on the US Senate judiciary committee and is the founder of the new watchdog group True North Research , where she manages the new clearinghouse website about Charles Koch , KochDocs.org

When Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race, some declared his $60bn fortune an asset for taking on Donald Trump, who once claimed he was going to self-fund his own campaign.
Trump and his party raised a record-shattering nearly half a billion dollars in disclosed donations last year – a number that does not include the hundreds of millions in dark money non-profit groups will spend on social media and TV ads.
How did we end up with such a broken system where billionaires can openly or anonymously spend millions to distort election results in our representative democracy?
Charles Koch – whose mega-corporation Koch Industries is running a PR campaign with the tagline “We made that” – helped make that, or rather helped break that.
Newly uncovered documents reveal Trump and Bloomberg owe thanks in part to Koch for the power to tap their enormous personal fortunes to run for office.
Koch claimed in 2014 that “it was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.” The truth is he got involved in elections and trying to overcome election laws 45 years ago.
Archives show that Koch funding for the Libertarian party helped subsidize the legal effort that resulted in the infamous Buckley v Valeo decision, which equated spending money with free speech.
Buckley also created a loophole that allowed David Koch to self-fund his campaign for vice-president in 1980, establishing perhaps one of the most extreme examples of privilege in politics today: most Americans can’t afford to max out in campaign contributions, but a couple of billionaire white guys have what amounts to a supreme court-divined right to spend an unlimited amount on their own elections.
The big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans
Until now, however, few people outside the Koch inner circle knew it was really Charles who was bankrolling that political party and its attacks on federal election laws, before David’s failed run.
After Buckley, the FEC gave the Libertarian party an advisory opinion to allow Koch to give the party 25 times the limit Congress had adopted. Koch then bundled money with his family to become that political party’s biggest donor, giving it an amount that seems small now but was big then and was the start of something bigger.
Two years later, he pledged to match at least $50,000 raised by the party (despite the $25,000 limit). The year after that, he was one of the largest donors helping to fund lawsuits attacking federal campaign laws.
Buckley litigation also laid the foundation for the discredited Citizens United decision.
Since that ruling in 2010, American elections have been conducted like the Koch-funded Libertarian wishlist circa 1976: the uber-rich have virtually no real limits on how much they can spend to influence the outcome of our elections because they can deploy non-profits to escape donation and disclosure rules applicable to candidates, political parties, and Pacs.
As a result, non-profit groups collectively spent more than all candidates in 28 congressional midterm races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $2.6bn in “independent expenditures” in 2018 also exceeded spending by both political parties combined.
And, just days ago, Koch’s operatives announced their biggest election effort ever for 2020. Koch spending down the ballot will help buoy Trump, without naming him, as it did in the 2016 Senate races.
Koch’s use of secret billionaires’ cash to secure the Senate and states is not new. To win in 2016, Koch planned to amass and spend $889m – Koch Industries even bought the URL: 889million.com.
The new reality is that billionaire-funded dark money groups, like the ones run by Charles Koch’s network with its sophisticated voter databases, can operate like a shadow political party but they are more powerful, unbound by donation limits and disclosure rules that govern parties.
And because personnel is policy, this means Koch often gets the policies – and judges – he wants. Despite Charles’s public posture of disdain for the president, Trump policy is largely Koch’s. When Charles Koch decided that Trump represented a “once-in-a-generation” chance to change the tax code to slash taxes for the richest few, Koch got it.
The same goes for Koch helping to pack the supreme court, which Charles flagged as another top priority for his network of billionaires.
Koch has touted the help of Leonard Leo, who sits at the helm of a dark money operation that has spent more than $250m to change the makeup of the federal and state courts through the secretive funding of groups like the Judicial Crisis Network. Leo recently bragged to donors that America is on the precipice of a revolution to roll back nearly a century of legal precedents.
If successful that revolution would mark a return to the robber-baron era of limited democratic control over corporations, which Koch fueled in innumerable ways. But with the devastating climate changes under way, more is at stake than the chains he and Leo want to put on the power of American democracy.
We are in a continuing constitutional crisis, where the big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans. And Charles Koch helped make that.


theguardian--2020-02-07--From the Iowa caucuses to the Barnes and Noble fiasco, it's clear: tech cannot save us

Every four years , journalists from around the world are drawn to the Iowa caucuses like podcasters to a murder .
The blatantly anti-democratic tradition appeals to certain journalistic biases : the steadfast belief of the political press that rural Americans are more authentically American than the vast majority of Americans who live in cities and suburbs – and the irresistible opportunity to pedantically explain arcane rules .
You can also get something called a “ pie shake ” in Iowa , which is , truly , delicious .
I understand the appeal .
In 2008 , as a graduate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was so enthusiastic about the caucuses that I stayed in town through winter break during the snowiest Iowa winter on record , rather than risk missing my chance to caucus for Barack Obama .
( This was long before I had even considered journalism as a career . )
The exercise in “ democracy ” that I ended up experiencing was patently absurd .
The Democratic party caucuses drew a record turnout in 2008 , and mine was packed .
Crammed into a campus lecture hall with theater-style seating , none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that advised sending each candidate ’ s supporters to a different corner of the room applied .
The vast majority of people in the room supported Obama , but figuring out exactly how many people that was eluded the party officials in charge .
They told the volunteers coordinating the Obama group to come up with their count – and do it quickly .
Those volunteers had come prepared ; they had written the numbers one to 500 on slips of construction paper , which they planned to give to each Obama supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total vote count .
It was a perfectly reasonable plan that fell apart the moment someone got impatient and broke the single , numerically-ordered stack , into multiple stacks .
Thus ensued much shouting and recrimination , futile attempts to claw back the cards , and vague threats from the party officials .
By the time we were ready to start the second stage of caucusing – when those who opt for candidates with insufficient support can switch to their second choice – results from around the state were already being reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people ’ s decisions .
It was a mess .
That ill-fated stack of cards in my caucus was a kind of analog version of the now infamous app that set off the Democratic party ’ s woes in Iowa this week : a perfectly fine idea stymied by poor execution , impatience , and a tendency to seek shortcuts .
Silicon Valley is the current spiritual home of hucksters selling plausible-sounding , technological “ solutions ” to complicated societal problems , so it ’ s not exactly surprising that the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a group that exemplifies this unhappy intersection .
Acronym , and its affiliated Super Pac , Pacronym , racked up glowing press by selling the idea that Democrats could win back the White House with better digital ads and a propaganda operation designed to appeal to Facebook users .
I ’ m sure that their pitch sounded very convincing .
Advanced technology so often does .
Just this week , America ’ s largest bookseller allowed artificial intelligence to convince it that the heroine of the Secret Garden – the child of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to be raised by her uncle in an English manor house – could be anything other than white .
We are a country that allowed Theranos to perform blood tests on actual patients without ever proving its product worked ; that has confronted the epidemic of school shootings with invasive digital surveillance of students ’ email accounts .
We have become untenably susceptible to the idea that AI is a substitute for judgment and that technological shortcuts are a viable strategy .
They aren ’ t .
Pulling the US back from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be accomplished with Facebook ads and liberal propaganda masquerading as local news .
It ’ s going to take incredibly hard work from political and community organizers persuading those under the spell of Trump ’ s demagoguery , motivating the unmotivated to vote – and working precinct by precinct to counteract the well-funded systematic efforts to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate .
There are no shortcuts to reviving American ’ s democracy .
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something .
• None ‘ They know us better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracked my last two years of reading , by the Guardian ’ s Kari Paul .
• None The billion-dollar disinformation campaign to reelect the president , by the Atlantic ’ s McKay Coppins .
• None On Facebook , anti-vaxxers pushed a mom not to give her son tamiflu .
He later died , by NBC News ’ s Brandy Zadrozny .
• None Silicon Valley ’ s new extreme : the 2.30am tech bus from Salida , by Lauren Hepler .

Every four years, journalists from around the world are drawn to the Iowa caucuses like podcasters to a murder. The blatantly anti-democratic tradition appeals to certain journalistic biases: the steadfast belief of the political press that rural Americans are more authentically American than the vast majority of Americans who live in cities and suburbs – and the irresistible opportunity to pedantically explain arcane rules. You can also get something called a “pie shake” in Iowa, which is, truly, delicious.
I understand the appeal. In 2008, as a graduate student at the University of Iowa, I was so enthusiastic about the caucuses that I stayed in town through winter break during the snowiest Iowa winter on record, rather than risk missing my chance to caucus for Barack Obama. (This was long before I had even considered journalism as a career.) The exercise in “democracy” that I ended up experiencing was patently absurd.
The Democratic party caucuses drew a record turnout in 2008, and mine was packed. Crammed into a campus lecture hall with theater-style seating, none of the “how to caucus” tutorials that advised sending each candidate’s supporters to a different corner of the room applied. The vast majority of people in the room supported Obama, but figuring out exactly how many people that was eluded the party officials in charge. They told the volunteers coordinating the Obama group to come up with their count – and do it quickly. Those volunteers had come prepared; they had written the numbers one to 500 on slips of construction paper, which they planned to give to each Obama supporter. The last card distributed would equal the total vote count.
It was a perfectly reasonable plan that fell apart the moment someone got impatient and broke the single, numerically-ordered stack, into multiple stacks. Thus ensued much shouting and recrimination, futile attempts to claw back the cards, and vague threats from the party officials. By the time we were ready to start the second stage of caucusing – when those who opt for candidates with insufficient support can switch to their second choice – results from around the state were already being reported and discussed in our room, influencing some people’s decisions. It was a mess.
That ill-fated stack of cards in my caucus was a kind of analog version of the now infamous app that set off the Democratic party’s woes in Iowa this week: a perfectly fine idea stymied by poor execution, impatience, and a tendency to seek shortcuts.
Silicon Valley is the current spiritual home of hucksters selling plausible-sounding, technological “solutions” to complicated societal problems, so it’s not exactly surprising that the company that bungled the caucus app is tied to a group that exemplifies this unhappy intersection. Acronym, and its affiliated Super Pac, Pacronym, racked up glowing press by selling the idea that Democrats could win back the White House with better digital ads and a propaganda operation designed to appeal to Facebook users.
I’m sure that their pitch sounded very convincing. Advanced technology so often does. Just this week, America’s largest bookseller allowed artificial intelligence to convince it that the heroine of the Secret Garden – the child of British colonists in India who was sent home to be raised by her uncle in an English manor house – could be anything other than white. We are a country that allowed Theranos to perform blood tests on actual patients without ever proving its product worked; that has confronted the epidemic of school shootings with invasive digital surveillance of students’ email accounts.
We have become untenably susceptible to the idea that AI is a substitute for judgment and that technological shortcuts are a viable strategy. They aren’t. Pulling the US back from the brink of authoritarianism is not going to be accomplished with Facebook ads and liberal propaganda masquerading as local news. It’s going to take incredibly hard work from political and community organizers persuading those under the spell of Trump’s demagoguery, motivating the unmotivated to vote – and working precinct by precinct to counteract the well-funded systematic efforts to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate.
There are no shortcuts to reviving American’s democracy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
What I’m reading …


theguardian--2020-02-06--Trump unleashed: what's next for a president who feels invincible?

Even recently , Donald Trump has shown some capacity to be constrained .
In September , he released security aid to Ukraine when Congress began asking questions .
In October , after awarding his own Florida golf resort a contract to host a G7 summit , Trump reversed course under Republican pressure .
The repeated demands he made in November and December for a “ full ” Senate trial were rebuffed .
But on Wednesday , Trump was acquitted by the Senate on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , with many Republicans echoing an argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense .
In the wake of that acquittal , Democrat impeachment managers warned , the country may learn the true meaning of Trump unleashed .
“ A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way .
He has done it before and he will do it again , ” the House intelligence committee chair , Adam Schiff , told the Senate .
“ What are the odds if he is left in office that he will continue to try to cheat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
” Warnings during the impeachment trial about how and where Trump might “ cheat ” focused on the upcoming 2020 presidential election .
Any sense that those warnings were misplaced curdled about one hour after the acquittal vote , with an announcement by Senate Republicans that they would open an investigation of Hunter Biden , the son of Trump ’ s perceived 2020 rival Joe Biden .
Two Senate committees will investigate “ potential conflicts of interest posed by the business activities of Hunter Biden and his associates during the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a letter .
The investigations could supply Trump with headlines akin to the Hillary Clinton investigation headlines that helped drag him over the wire in 2016 .
Trump surrogates including his sons and campaign manager , meanwhile , eagerly spread the charge this week that the Democrats ’ own nomination process was “ rigged ” following confusion in the Iowa caucuses .
The attack on election integrity probably previews what seemed a sure campaign by Trump to brand any 2020 election result he does not like as “ fake ” – his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a focus on how Trump might try to cheat in the 2020 election could reveal a lack of appreciation for the breadth of Trump ’ s vision and the levers of power in his hands , and conceal the potential downside of dangerous fallout from a Trump unbound .
Already in the weeks leading up to his acquittal , Trump was revisiting and expanding some of the most controversial actions of his early presidency , many of which were blocked or partially blocked by courts .
Last month , Trump diverted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to construction of his border wall , in a rush to demonstrate progress on his signature campaign promise in an election year .
Last week , Trump expanded his travel ban to six additional countries , in a move Amnesty International called “ offensive and actually harmful to our national security ” .
On Tuesday , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , said in an interview that Trump “ absolutely , 100 % , ” must continue to lean on Ukraine for a Biden investigation .
On Wednesday , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 823m for a clean energy program it unsuccessfully tried to cut .
What ’ s next for Trump unbound ?
Many eyes are on the justice department , whose head , the attorney general , William Barr , hastened to claim he had no role in the Ukraine scheme after it was revealed that Trump told the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to coordinate with Barr .
The question is how much resistance remains inside the justice department to Trump ’ s open desire to investigate his perceived political enemies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A year after his election , Trump complained that he was “ not supposed to be involved with the justice department , ” calling it “ the saddest thing ” .
Trump appears to have now exchanged that bout of self-pity for a can-do attitude about controlling the justice department .
Last May , Trump said that talking with Barr about opening an investigation of the Bidens would be “ appropriate ” .
An announcement by Barr this week of new restrictions on any politically sensitive investigations including into presidential campaigns was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of such investigations , or alarming , because it raised the possibility of such investigations and because it was a reaction to an investigation widely seen as entirely appropriate , of the Trump campaign ’ s ties to Russia As the continuing Ukraine episode illustrated , Trump ’ s will to power has driven out public servants who do not share his expansive view of executive influence .
The continued loss of those rank-and-file employees could accelerate his takeover – especially if he wins re-election .
On Thursday , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s personal ambitions , Marie Yovanovitch , the former ambassador to Ukraine , wrote in the Washington Post about what the events surrounding Trump ’ s impeachment meant for the national future .
“ I had always thought that our institutions would forever protect us against individual transgressors , ” Yovanovitch wrote .
“ But it turns out that our institutions need us as much as we need them ; they need the American people to protect them or they will be hollowed out over time , unable to serve @ @ @ @ @ @

Even recently, Donald Trump has shown some capacity to be constrained.
In September, he released security aid to Ukraine when Congress began asking questions. In October, after awarding his own Florida golf resort a contract to host a G7 summit, Trump reversed course under Republican pressure. The repeated demands he made in November and December for a “full” Senate trial were rebuffed.
But on Wednesday, Trump was acquitted by the Senate on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, with many Republicans echoing an argument made by Trump’s legal team: that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
In the wake of that acquittal, Democrat impeachment managers warned, the country may learn the true meaning of Trump unleashed.
“A man without character or ethical compass will never find his way. He has done it before and he will do it again,” the House intelligence committee chair, Adam Schiff, told the Senate. “What are the odds if he is left in office that he will continue to try to cheat? I will tell you: 100%.”
Warnings during the impeachment trial about how and where Trump might “cheat” focused on the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Any sense that those warnings were misplaced curdled about one hour after the acquittal vote, with an announcement by Senate Republicans that they would open an investigation of Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s perceived 2020 rival Joe Biden.
Two Senate committees will investigate “potential conflicts of interest posed by the business activities of Hunter Biden and his associates during the Obama administration”, their committee chairman wrote in a letter.
The investigations could supply Trump with headlines akin to the Hillary Clinton investigation headlines that helped drag him over the wire in 2016.
Trump appears to have now exchanged a bout of self-pity for a can-do attitude about controlling the justice department
Trump surrogates including his sons and campaign manager, meanwhile, eagerly spread the charge this week that the Democrats’ own nomination process was “rigged” following confusion in the Iowa caucuses. The attack on election integrity probably previews what seemed a sure campaign by Trump to brand any 2020 election result he does not like as “fake” – his precise play when it comes to news.
But a focus on how Trump might try to cheat in the 2020 election could reveal a lack of appreciation for the breadth of Trump’s vision and the levers of power in his hands, and conceal the potential downside of dangerous fallout from a Trump unbound.
Already in the weeks leading up to his acquittal, Trump was revisiting and expanding some of the most controversial actions of his early presidency, many of which were blocked or partially blocked by courts.
Last month, Trump diverted an additional $7.2bn of military funding to construction of his border wall, in a rush to demonstrate progress on his signature campaign promise in an election year. Last week, Trump expanded his travel ban to six additional countries, in a move Amnesty International called “offensive and actually harmful to our national security”.
On Tuesday, Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said in an interview that Trump “absolutely, 100%,” must continue to lean on Ukraine for a Biden investigation. On Wednesday, Democrats announced the Trump administration was withholding $823m for a clean energy program it unsuccessfully tried to cut.
What’s next for Trump unbound? Many eyes are on the justice department, whose head, the attorney general, William Barr, hastened to claim he had no role in the Ukraine scheme after it was revealed that Trump told the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to coordinate with Barr.
The question is how much resistance remains inside the justice department to Trump’s open desire to investigate his perceived political enemies, and how long that resistance will last. A year after his election, Trump complained that he was “not supposed to be involved with the justice department,” calling it “the saddest thing”.
Trump appears to have now exchanged that bout of self-pity for a can-do attitude about controlling the justice department. Last May, Trump said that talking with Barr about opening an investigation of the Bidens would be “appropriate”.
An announcement by Barr this week of new restrictions on any politically sensitive investigations including into presidential campaigns was either reassuring, because it could narrow the possibility of such investigations, or alarming, because it raised the possibility of such investigations and because it was a reaction to an investigation widely seen as entirely appropriate, of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia
As the continuing Ukraine episode illustrated, Trump’s will to power has driven out public servants who do not share his expansive view of executive influence. The continued loss of those rank-and-file employees could accelerate his takeover – especially if he wins re-election.
On Thursday, one of those lifetime employees whose career fell casualty to Trump’s personal ambitions, Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, wrote in the Washington Post about what the events surrounding Trump’s impeachment meant for the national future.
“I had always thought that our institutions would forever protect us against individual transgressors,” Yovanovitch wrote. “But it turns out that our institutions need us as much as we need them; they need the American people to protect them or they will be hollowed out over time, unable to serve and protect our country.”


theguardian--2020-02-06--'A pretence of justice': the global press on Trump's acquittal

The international media were scathing in their verdict on Donald Trump ’ s acquittal in his Senate trial , portraying it as a bitter charade that would allow the president to continue his onslaught on American democracy – with potential global consequences .
Germany ’ s Die Zeit said the outcome of the impeachment process was “ a triumph for Trump – not just over the Democrats , but over democracy ” .
The end of this “ historic yet absurd process ” had made abundantly clear “ how seriously damaged the US political system now is ” , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president who knows no borders ” , did not begin this attack on democracy , it said , “ but he recognised it and accelerated it .
He took advantage of the smouldering distrust of institutions and norms , proffering lies and slander to all who oppose him .
Trump , his followers and the majority of the Republicans are , together and wilfully , breaking down the foundations of democracy .
“ Parliament as the supervisor of the president ?
No , they argue , the Democrats were just trying to overthrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an independent pillar of the state ?
No , not if it decides against Trump .
The press , a factual corrective for political propaganda ?
No , whoever criticises the man in the White House is an enemy of the people .
Intelligence agencies , advisers , the whole government apparatus is justified only as long as it supports the truths of power.
” France ’ s Libération said the curtain had fallen “ not before time ” on a process that for the past fortnight had “ offered the American public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacle .
A hollow pretence of justice , without testimony or an ounce of impartiality , it ended as expected – in the president ’ s acquittal.
” The US Senate , once known as the world ’ s greatest deliberative body , “ did not deliberate at all .
Not for a moment .
In refusing to allow witnesses to be called , the Republican bloc , more subservient to Trump than ever , ensured the evidence against him would simply not be examined.
” What would future historians make of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they see a turning point in the way the executive branch accounts for itself to Congress ?
The ultimate splintering of American politics ?
The abandonment by Senate Republicans of their pledge to defend the constitution ?
Or a strategic error by the Democrats ?
The answer will largely depend on the outcome of the presidential election on 3 November.
” In Australia , the Age warned of the wider consequences of the acquittal .
“ Even taking into account Trump ’ s positives , his negatives – corruption , his reliance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his disregard for the spirit and letter of the law – are destructive for constitutional democracy , ” it said .
“ With Republicans unwilling to check his power , Trump functions more like a ruler , a mob boss , or a kingpin than an elected official .
Disregard for the law should be of deep concern to citizens of democracies everywhere .
It creates a world where status matters more than the law .
The impeachment trial of Donald Trump marks a shift .
It marks a dangerous turn for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In the Netherlands , De Volkskrant ’ s Washington correspondent agreed , saying the outcome of the impeachment process was never in doubt : “ If it has made one thing very clear , it ’ s that he has the undivided support of his party – and that if he wins in November , he will be accountable only to himself.
” Trump was going from strength to strength , the paper said : “ He exhibits behaviour that has never been seen before in US presidents : the lies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he puts people under pressure , the demonstrable corruption .
But no one is put off .
The traditional values of honour and respect , an inherent part of the Republican party for so long , have been abandoned in a staggeringly short space of time.
” Spain ’ s El País said this had been the most partisan impeachment process ever , with only a heroic Mitt Romney breaking party lines .
“ The Republican defence rose like an unshakable wall , ” the paper said : regardless of whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump should not be impeached .
“ The founding fathers were aware the president would accumulate so much power that the constitution had to be given an instrument to remove him under certain circumstances , ” it said .
“ On Wednesday , a divided Senate decided Trump would complete the 349 days he has left in office .
On the street , there was no noise , no great protest .
There have not been in the entire trial .
”

The international media were scathing in their verdict on Donald Trump’s acquittal in his Senate trial, portraying it as a bitter charade that would allow the president to continue his onslaught on American democracy – with potential global consequences.
Germany’s Die Zeit said the outcome of the impeachment process was “a triumph for Trump – not just over the Democrats, but over democracy”. The end of this “historic yet absurd process” had made abundantly clear “how seriously damaged the US political system now is”, the paper said.
Trump, “a president who knows no borders”, did not begin this attack on democracy, it said, “but he recognised it and accelerated it. He took advantage of the smouldering distrust of institutions and norms, proffering lies and slander to all who oppose him. Trump, his followers and the majority of the Republicans are, together and wilfully, breaking down the foundations of democracy.
“Parliament as the supervisor of the president? No, they argue, the Democrats were just trying to overthrow the rightful ruler. The judiciary, an independent pillar of the state? No, not if it decides against Trump. The press, a factual corrective for political propaganda? No, whoever criticises the man in the White House is an enemy of the people. Intelligence agencies, advisers, the whole government apparatus is justified only as long as it supports the truths of power.”
France’s Libération said the curtain had fallen “not before time” on a process that for the past fortnight had “offered the American public, and the world, a desperate spectacle. A hollow pretence of justice, without testimony or an ounce of impartiality, it ended as expected – in the president’s acquittal.”
The US Senate, once known as the world’s greatest deliberative body, “did not deliberate at all. Not for a moment. In refusing to allow witnesses to be called, the Republican bloc, more subservient to Trump than ever, ensured the evidence against him would simply not be examined.”
What would future historians make of it, the paper wondered. “Will they see a turning point in the way the executive branch accounts for itself to Congress? The ultimate splintering of American politics? The abandonment by Senate Republicans of their pledge to defend the constitution? Or a strategic error by the Democrats? The answer will largely depend on the outcome of the presidential election on 3 November.”
In Australia, the Age warned of the wider consequences of the acquittal. “Even taking into account Trump’s positives, his negatives – corruption, his reliance on lying, the numerous sexual assault allegations, his disregard for the spirit and letter of the law – are destructive for constitutional democracy,” it said.
“With Republicans unwilling to check his power, Trump functions more like a ruler, a mob boss, or a kingpin than an elected official. Disregard for the law should be of deep concern to citizens of democracies everywhere. It creates a world where status matters more than the law. The impeachment trial of Donald Trump marks a shift. It marks a dangerous turn for the fate of democracy across the globe.”
In the Netherlands, De Volkskrant’s Washington correspondent agreed, saying the outcome of the impeachment process was never in doubt: “If it has made one thing very clear, it’s that he has the undivided support of his party – and that if he wins in November, he will be accountable only to himself.”
Trump was going from strength to strength, the paper said: “He exhibits behaviour that has never been seen before in US presidents: the lies, the lack of decorum, the way he puts people under pressure, the demonstrable corruption. But no one is put off. The traditional values of honour and respect, an inherent part of the Republican party for so long, have been abandoned in a staggeringly short space of time.”
Spain’s El País said this had been the most partisan impeachment process ever, with only a heroic Mitt Romney breaking party lines. “The Republican defence rose like an unshakable wall,” the paper said: regardless of whether or not the accusations against him were true, Trump should not be impeached.
“The founding fathers were aware the president would accumulate so much power that the constitution had to be given an instrument to remove him under certain circumstances,” it said. “On Wednesday, a divided Senate decided Trump would complete the 349 days he has left in office. On the street, there was no noise, no great protest. There have not been in the entire trial.”


theguardian--2020-02-08--Trump impeachment witness Alexander Vindman fired from White House job – live

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , an adviser on the national security counsel who testified in the impeachment trial , was fired from his post .
“ Today , Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House where he has dutifully served his country and his President , ” said his attorney , David Pressman in a statement .
“ LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.
” The news comes just hours after Donald Trump told reporters that he is “ not happy with him ” and made vague comments saying “ they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would be keeping his job .
Later , Trump retweeted posts on Twitter that called on him to fire Vindman .
Vindman was considered the top expert on Ukraine on the national security counsel .
During his testimony in Congress , Vindman expressed concerns about a call Trump had with the president of Ukraine where he demanded an investigation into Joe Biden .
“ It was improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigation of a US citizen and a political opponent , ” Vindman said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is largely respected as a veteran who came to the United States when he was three after his family fled Ukraine .
He served multiple tours overseas and was wounded by a roadside bomb during a combat deployment in Iraq , earning him a Purple Heart .
He went on to earn a master ’ s degree in Russian from Harvard and served at US embassies in Kyiv and Moscow .
During his testimony , Vindman outlined why he felt comfortable coming forward with the information he had through a message to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here today , in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family , ” he said .
“ Do not worry .
I will be fine for telling the truth .
”

Lois Beckett (now) and Lauren Aratani and Paul Owen (earlier)

8 Feb 2020 01.23 GMT Evening Summary An updated evening summary of today’s key political news as we close this blog for tonight. But as one blog closes, another opens: You can follow the Democratic presidential debate live blog for continued live updates. Two key witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial were fired by the White House: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and European Union ambassaor Gordon Sondland . Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying that he was escorted out of the White House. He “was asked to leave for telling the truth,” his lawyer said. Vindman’s twin brother, a lawyer for the National Security Council, was also fired.
and European Union ambassaor . Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying that he was escorted out of the White House. He “was asked to leave for telling the truth,” his lawyer said. Vindman’s twin brother, a lawyer for the National Security Council, was also fired. Pundits dubbed the firings a “ Friday Night Massacre, ” in reference to the Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973.
” in reference to the Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973. Democrats condemned the firings; Republican lawmakers said “good riddance.”
Meanwhile, Bill Taylor , another witness in the impeachment trial, went on CNN to defend Marie Yovanovitch , former ambassador to Ukraine, who was subject to a smear campaign that led to her own firing. “It of course bothers me any time I see someone like Masha Yovanovitch or Alex Vindman unfairly attacked,” Taylor said.
, another witness in the impeachment trial, went on CNN to defend , former ambassador to Ukraine, who was subject to a smear campaign that led to her own firing. “It of course bothers me any time I see someone like Masha Yovanovitch or Alex Vindman unfairly attacked,” Taylor said. Trump spoke at an event in North Carolina this afternoon where he mocked Democrats for messing up the Iowa caucus and said that he would continue to hold rallies even if he wins the 2020 election.
spoke at an event in North Carolina this afternoon where he mocked Democrats for messing up the Iowa caucus and said that he would continue to hold rallies even if he wins the 2020 election. As Democratic presidential candidates prepared for another televised debate, the feud between Iowa front-runners Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg started to gear up today. Sanders slammed Buttigeg for having “the most exclusive billionaire donors of any Democrat.” #PetesBillionaires was trending on Twitter this afternoon.
8 Feb 2020 00.31 GMT Do you remember what it was like when all major breaking news did not happen simultaneously? It would be pretty cool to have a Friday Night Massacre playing out during a debate to end this week of all weeks. — Amanda Becker (@AmandaBecker) February 8, 2020
8 Feb 2020 00.21 GMT Welcome to Trump's Friday Night Massacre On a Saturday evening in October 1973, in the midst of the scandal that would lead to his resignation, President Richard Nixon demanded that his attorney general fire the special counsel assigned to investigate Watergate. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general refused, and resigned. Then solicitor general Robert Bork became the acting attorney general, and he did what Nixon wanted: he fired special counsel Archibald Cox, who had refused to go along with the White House’s plan to turn over only summarized material from the White House Watergate tapes to Cox’s investigation. The forced resignation and firing became known as Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.” Political pundits are already calling this Friday evening in Washington Trump’s “Friday Night Massacre,” with two of the witnesses who testified in the impeachment inquiry against Trump already fired by 7 p.m. in the evening. Other commentators, like Rachel Maddow, are arguing that it’s not quite an accurate comparison. Thanks to @senatorcollins, @senatemajldr, and friends for this Friday Night Massacre. https://t.co/R5O7xR3EMS — Ezra Levin (@ezralevin) February 7, 2020 The Friday Night Massacre continues.
First Vindman. Now Sondland. Who's next? https://t.co/9q4ZonG1lV — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 7, 2020 It's only a Friday Night Massacre if people actually resign on principle rather than carry out these kinds of orders.
No sign of that thus far tonight.
But it's early yet. — Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) February 8, 2020
7 Feb 2020 23.57 GMT Report: White House Fires Another Impeachment Witness, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland The White House has moved to fire another person who testified in the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Gordon Sondland, who also testified about the president’s efforts to pressure top Ukranian officials to investigate his political rivals, the New York Times reports. “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement just hours after the White House fired a top National Security expert on Ukraine, Lt Col Alexander Vindman, who had also testified, the Times reported. Sondland expressed gratitude in the statement to Mr. Trump “for having given me the opportunity to serve.” In November, Sondland delivered what had been characterized as “bombshell” public testimony against Trump, saying, “Was there a ‘quid pro quo [with Ukraine]?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” Breaking: Gordon Sondland says he has been recalled as ambassador to EU, hours after the Vindman brothers were escorted by security from the White House. https://t.co/fwaafSS2gs — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) February 7, 2020
7 Feb 2020 23.47 GMT Just a reminder: there are 269 days until the 2020 presidential election! Tonight, the Democratic presidential primary continues with a televised debate. My colleague Joan Greave has more details on our debate night live blog.
7 Feb 2020 23.34 GMT In a week marked by impunity and vengeance in Washington, my colleague Ed Pilkington has a story on a black radical who has finally won his freedom. The release of the final incarcerated member of the Move 9 comes more than three decades after Philadelphia police dropped an incendiary bomb on a row house where black activists lived, resulting in the deaths of eleven people, including five children, and a fire that razed dozens of homes in a predominantly black neighborhood. One of the great open wounds of the black liberation struggle of the 1970s has finally been healed with the release of the last member of the Move 9, the group of radicals rounded up in a Philadelphia police siege in 1978 and held behind bars for more than four decades. Chuck Sims Africa, 59, walked free from the Fayette state correctional institution in La Belle, Pennsylvania, on Friday morning. The youngest of the incarcerated group, he has been in custody since shortly after he turned 18. His freedom marked his reunion with his family for the first time in almost 42 years. BREAKING: History has been made. The Move 9, Philadelphia black radicals imprisoned 42 years ago in the black liberation struggle, are now ALL FREE https://t.co/v8BdtVyXK8 — Ed Pilkington (@Edpilkington) February 7, 2020


theguardian--2020-02-07--Sanders and Buttigieg to go head to head in first debate since Iowa tie

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg are set to go head to head with five fellow contenders in a live televised debate in Manchester , New Hampshire , after the chaotic Iowa caucuses saw both men declare victory in a contest that was too close to call .
Ahead of the New Hampshire primary vote next week , there is still no clear frontrunner in the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee who will take on Donald Trump in November ’ s election , though recent polling has shown both Sanders and Buttigieg leading days ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 11 remaining candidates qualified for the Friday night debate .
They include Sanders , Buttigieg , the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and the former vice-president Joe Biden , who are considered to be the four leading contenders , as well as the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar , the billionaire activist Tom Steyer and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang .
“ There are a lot of New Hampshire voters who are still undecided so the debate gives voters an opportunity for a check on some – not all – of the candidates and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said the former New Hampshire Democratic party chair Kathy Sullivan .
But Sullivan also warned that this close to an election , a mistake during the debate “ could be a problem ” .
The debate , just four days before the primary contest on Tuesday , is a ripe setting for Sanders and Buttigieg to spar .
Both candidates declared victory out of the Iowa Democratic caucuses on Monday night and both are hoping to cement themselves as the frontrunner in the primary by winning the New Hampshire primary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he planned to direct his attacks at Buttigieg .
Earlier in the day the Sanders campaign sent out a fundraising email titled “ Billionaires ❤ Pete Buttigieg.
” That fundraising pitch matched earlier comments the Vermont senator made on Friday morning at a “ Politics and Eggs ” breakfast in Manchester , when he framed the former South Bend mayor as unacceptably close to billionaires .
That sniping underscores the growing tension between the more centrist Buttigieg and Sanders , the most liberal candidate in the Democratic primary .
The Friday debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice-president Joe Biden , once regarded as the undeniable frontrunner in the Democratic primary .
But Biden appears to have placed fourth in the Iowa contest , far behind Sanders , Buttigieg and Warren .
At a recent event in New Hampshire .
Biden conceded that the Iowa results were a “ gut punch ” to his campaign .

Daniel Strauss Manchester, New Hampshire

Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Friday night in a tense televised debate that was dominated by attacks against Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, the two candidates who declared victory after the Iowa caucuses.
In the week that Donald Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial and days ahead of the New Hampshire primary, the competing visions for the Democratic party were on show as moderate candidates challenged the progressives, and those with more Washington experience called out the relative political newcomers.
Donald Trump's 'incredible' week in three minutes - video report
Sanders fielded criticism from his fellow candidates over his support for his Medicare for All universal healthcare proposal, a government-run health insurance plan favored by progressives that would revolutionize the US system, while Buttigieg was forced to fend off criticism over his youth and inexperience.
“How much is it going to cost? Who’s going to pay for it?” the former vice-president Joe Biden asked Sanders while contrasting his own healthcare plan with the Vermont senators’.
The Friday night debate was a key test for Biden, who has long been regarded as the undeniable frontrunner in the Democratic primary race. But he appeared to have placed fourth in the Iowa contest, far behind Sanders, Buttigieg and the Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Opening the debate, Biden acknowledged he “took a hit” in Iowa, and he predicted that he would “probably take a hit” in New Hampshire too, casting himself as an underdog in the Granite state considering Sanders’ strong finish there in 2016.
But Biden warned that Sanders represented a risk because of his self-description as a “democratic socialist”, and that Buttigieg has not proved he has the experience to be president.
Biden’s longterm prospects appear to increasingly depend on how he performs in the South Carolina primary on 29 February, where he polls very favorably among the state’s large Democratic African American population.
The debate discussion moved to race and South Carolina, as the billionaire activist Tom Steyer went on the offensive against Biden by highlighting controversial comments from one of his surrogates in an apparent bid to challenge him for that support. The spectacle of white men bickering over who has the most support from African Americans was not lost on some observers. But Biden shot back, saying: “I have more support in South Carolina, the Black Caucus and the black community than anybody else. Double what you have and anybody else.”
Buttigieg, who has struggled to appeal to non-white voters, repeatedly deflected a question about the rate of arrests of African Americans increasing while he was mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Moderator Linsey Davis asked Warren if Buttigieg’s answer was sufficient. “No,” Warren replied, in one of very few standout moments of the night, prompting applause. “We cannot just say that criminal justice is the only time we want to talk about race,” she added.
Ahead of the New Hampshire primary vote, there is still no clear frontrunner in the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee who will take on Donald Trump in November’s election, though recent polling has shown both Sanders and Buttigieg leading.
Seven of the 11 remaining leading candidates took to the stage on Friday night; Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren and Biden, as well as the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, Steyer and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang.
Klobuchar, a moderate who has been trailing the others but enjoyed several strong moments on the debate stage on Friday, presented herself as the person to challenge Trump and work across the aisle, warning that Sanders’ healthcare proposal isn’t supported by “two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate” and that it would “kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance in four years”.
When the debate veered toward a discussion on experience, 38-year-old Buttigieg – a former mayor and veteran of the war in Afghanistan – contrasted himself with Biden, Klobuchar and Sanders, saying he represented experience outside of Washington. But Klobuchar, 59, shot back that “we have a newcomer in the White House, look where it got us”.
She also called out Buttigieg for saying he had found watching the impeachment trial “exhausting” (as senators, Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders and long shot candidate Michael Bennet had all been in Washington to attend instead of campaigning in Iowa).
“That’s not leadership, to just suck up to a room and make a joke so everyone laughs at it about switching [the channel] to watch cartoons. I think that’s degrading of the work that people do,” she told CNN after the debate.
At another point during the debate, Buttigieg took a veiled swipe at Biden and his “politics of the past”.
Biden responded by touting his work in the Obama administration: “I don’t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad.”
Meanwhile, Warren struggled to cut through, speaking far less than in previous debates. Speaking afterwards, she told MSNBC: “I just didn’t say enough, didn’t fight hard enough, didn’t tell you how bad I want this and how good we can make it if we just come together.”
It’s unclear how much impact a messy debate on a Friday will have among New Hampshire voters.
“There are a lot of New Hampshire voters who are still undecided so the debate gives voters an opportunity for a check on some – not all – of the candidates and an opportunity to help make up their mind,” said the former New Hampshire Democratic party chair Kathy Sullivan. But Sullivan also warned that this close to an election, a mistake during the debate “could be a problem”.
Ahead of the debate Sanders strongly signalled that he planned to direct his attacks at Buttigieg. Earlier in the day the Sanders campaign sent out a fundraising email titled “Billionaires [heart] Pete Buttigieg”.
After the New Hampshire primary, the next televised debate will be held in Las Vegas on 19 February, a few days ahead of the Nevada caucuses.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Democratic debate: 2020 candidates to face off following Iowa debacle – live

This will also be the first Democratic debate since Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial , a topic @ @ @ @ @ to bring up .
Trump was acquitted on both articles of impeachment on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ victory lap with a divisive White House statement in which he attacked his enemies and @ @ @ @ @ allegations against him .
But it now appears the White House is engaging in a @ @ @ @ @ witnesses from the impeachment inquiry .
Lt Col Alexander Vindman , who raised concerns about @ @ @ @ @ with the Ukrainian president , and Gordon Sondland , the US ambassador to the EU @ @ @ @ @ s actions toward Ukraine constituted a quid pro quo , have been both reassigned or @ @ @ @ @ It appears the country will be dealing with the fallout from Trump ’ s impeachment @ @ @ @ @ , and it could distract from tonight ’ s debate .

8 Feb 2020 04.42 GMT Debate summary That’s it from me tonight after the eighth Democratic presidential debate. Here’s how the night played out: Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg came under renewed scrutiny after their strong finishes in Iowa, with Sanders being attacked as too far left to win in a general election and Buttigieg being questioned over his relative lack of experience.
and came under renewed scrutiny after their strong finishes in Iowa, with Sanders being attacked as too far left to win in a general election and Buttigieg being questioned over his relative lack of experience. Amy Klobuchar was widely praised for her performance, as she repeatedly conveyed herself as a middle lane between a longtime establishment figure like Joe Biden and a “political newcomer” like Buttigieg ahead of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
was widely praised for her performance, as she repeatedly conveyed herself as a middle lane between a longtime establishment figure like and a “political newcomer” like Buttigieg ahead of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. Those moments of direct confrontation between the candidates made this arguably the most contentious Democratic debate yet.
The candidates engaged in one of the longest discussions about race of any debate so far, but commentators noted that conversation was taking place on a mostly-white stage because many candidates of color have already dropped out of the field.
The latest New Hampshire poll, released shortly after the debate concluded, showed Buttigieg and Sanders leading in the second voting state, but Buttigieg appears to be on the rise while Sanders is holding steady. The blog will be back on Monday, so tune back in for more election updates then. And thanks for following our debate coverage.
8 Feb 2020 04.16 GMT Latest New Hampshire poll shows Buttigieg and Sanders tied As the New Hampshire debate concluded, another poll of the second voting state was released, showing Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders virtually tied for the lead. According to the latest WBZ/Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll, Buttigieg hit 25% with New Hampshire Democrats compared to Sanders’ 24%. That difference is well within the poll’s 4.4% margin of error, but it interestingly represented a 2-point increase for Buttigieg, while Sanders remained steady at 24%. Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden each rose 2 points as well to 16% and 13%, respectively, but they will need to gain more ground to contest Buttigieg and Sanders, who were also the top two finishers in Iowa.
8 Feb 2020 04.10 GMT Klobuchar goes after Buttigieg in post-debate interview Speaking after her widely praised debate performance, Amy Klobuchar once again went after Pete Buttigieg over the young former mayor’s relative lack of experience. Klobuchar offered Buttigieg the backhanded compliment of being a “beautiful speaker,” but she reiterated, “You don’t need another newcomer in the White House.” She specifically said Buttigieg’s description of the impeachment hearings as exhausting to watch was like a “gut punch,” arguing that leadership is more than being able to “suck up to a room.” “I bring the receipts,” Klobuch said of her experience compared to Buttigieg’s. “He talks about it, but I have won with Republicans and independents.” Klobuchar finished fifth in Iowa, while Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are locked in a race for first, so the Minnesota senator is likely trying to pick off some of the former mayor’s supporters before the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
8 Feb 2020 03.57 GMT Going into tonight’s debate, some commentators predicted one of the candidates would launch a particularly devastating attack against a frontrunner, as Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio at the Republican New Hampshire debate in 2016. Rubio uses same line about Obama three times in Republican debate But while there were no moments comparable to “Marcobot,” some predicted Amy Klobuchar’s strong performance, combined with her criticism of Pete Buttigieg’s relative lack of experience, would serve a similar purpose of stalling the young former mayor’s momentum after a strong finish in Iowa. So there was nothing close to a Christie/Rubio moment, but I’m wondering if these initial glowing reviews of Klobuchar will translate to a last-minute boost and stall Buttigieg’s momentum just as it was picking up, as Christie’s attack did to Rubio. — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) February 8, 2020
8 Feb 2020 03.50 GMT As the debate was concluding, Trump’s reelection campaign sent out an email attacking Bernie Sanders for voting against the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Trump's re-election campaign just sent out an email blast attacking Bernie for not supporting USMCA. pic.twitter.com/SVhphhGymH — Daniel Marans (@danielmarans) February 8, 2020 Sanders, who has been consistently skeptical of trade deals, said at a past debate that the renegotiated North American trade agreement was an improvement but felt it still fell short on protecting US manufacturing jobs.
8 Feb 2020 03.41 GMT Klobuchar wins praise for her debate performance After the debate ended, Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar won some immediate praise for her performance: I’ve said a few times IRL that Klobuchar has been kind of a middling version of a great candidate (with Pete being the opposite). I thought that was a lot better than middling tonight, and while idk if it’s enough I think that’s the best she’s got — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 8, 2020 Jon Karl, the first analyst/reporter to speak on ABC after the debate, says it was a “breakthrough night for Amy Klobuchar.” Also says Pete Buttigieg did well. — Max Tani (@maxwelltani) February 8, 2020 tldr tonight: New Hampshire, meet Amy Klobuchar. — Ali Vitali (@alivitali) February 8, 2020 Klobuchar came in fifth in Iowa, but her performance exceeded expectations, and she’s hoping to build upon that with Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary. Her campaign has already said it was the best fundraising night of any Democratic debate so far for the candidate: FUNDRAISING UPDATE: Our campaign has already raised more money than during any other #DemDebate (and from all 50 states)! — Tim Hogan (@timjhogan) February 8, 2020
Updated at 03.46 GMT
8 Feb 2020 03.35 GMT The final tallies are in, and Bernie Sanders spoke more than any other candidate on stage, with Joe Biden closely on his heels. Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg racked up the most speaking time in the third hour of the #DemDebate. https://t.co/HIF5D7iu99 pic.twitter.com/8XvBMfJ9ah — NPR (@NPR) February 8, 2020 In the middle of the debate, Elizabeth Warren’s chief strategist complained about her getting less time to speak than Biden, who performed worse than her in Iowa. Current status: guy who came 4th in Iowa has gotten to speak for more than 50% more time in the debate than the woman who finished above above him — Joe Rospars (@rospars) February 8, 2020
8 Feb 2020 03.29 GMT Eighth Democratic debate concludes The eighth Democratic debate has concluded. The next major event in the election calendar is the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
8 Feb 2020 03.28 GMT Some candidates, including Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, are using the final question about child poverty to deliver a broader answer about the rationale behind their candidacies. Sanders spoke about the need to change the US economy so that it rewarded working families rather than those at the top. Klobuchar briefly noted she has a plan to eradicate child poverty in a generation but then shifted to say she has the record to enact her proposals, refocusing the question on electability. The Minnesota senator also took one parting shot at Pete Buttigieg, saying she is not a “political newcomer with no record.”
Updated at 08.17 GMT
8 Feb 2020 03.23 GMT The last question of the debate is on child poverty, an homage to the late broadcaster Cokie Roberts, who asked a similar question in 1999. Andrew Yang took the question first, and he emphasized that his campaign promise of universal basic income would help to lift children out of poverty.


theguardian--2020-02-07--Alexander Vindman: witness who spoke out against Trump fired from job

In an accelerating assault on Donald Trump ’ s critics in the days since his impeachment acquittal , Lt Col Alexander Vindman , who defied Trump to deliver public testimony during the impeachment inquiry , was removed from his White House post on Friday afternoon .
Vindman , a Ukraine expert on the national security council , had been scheduled to rotate out of his White House assignment this summer , but he was suddenly fired and escorted out of the building on Friday , a lawyer ’ s statement said .
Lawyer David Pressman said : “ He followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he served his country .
And for that , the most powerful man in the world – buoyed by the silent , the pliable , and the complicit – has decided to exact revenge .
“ There is no question in the mind of any American why this man ’ s job is over , why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House .
LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.
” Vindman ’ s firing was the latest in a string of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the impeachment inquiry .
An hour after Trump ’ s acquittal , Senate Republicans announced an investigation of Hunter Biden , whose former employment with a Ukrainian gas company Trump has made the centerpiece of a political attack on his father , Joe Biden , the former vice-president .
Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr have also repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney of Utah in the past week , the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump on abuse of power .
Romney voted to acquit Trump on obstruction of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ argument for Trump ’ s removal was a warning that if he faced no retribution for his misconduct , Trump would expand the pace and scope of his power abuses .
Most of the dozen witnesses who testified in public impeachment hearings had already left their posts in the Trump administration before testifying .
But Vindman continued to work in the White House after he testified about internal White House shock at Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme .
A line from Vindman ’ s testimony about the supposed strength of the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ here , right matters ” – became a refrain in the prosecution of Trump at the Senate impeachment trial , which ended on Wednesday .
The lead impeachment manager , Adam Schiff , urged the senators to reflect on Vindman ’ s words as they weighed the charges against Trump .
Trump was acquitted on both articles of impeachment on a party-line vote , with the exception of Romney ’ s vote to convict on abuse of power .
In the opening statement that Vindman gave when testifying to the House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he planned to describe his concerns that the president ’ s plot to weaken rival Biden by strong-arming the Ukrainian government into investigating him was undermining US foreign policy in Ukraine .
Vindman ’ s testimony was a dramatic moment in the inquiry .
At one point he delivered a message to his father , who fled the former Soviet Union with the family to settle in New York .
“ Dad , my sitting here today , in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family , ” he said .
“ Do not worry .
I will be fine for telling the truth.
” Why do you have the confidence to “ tell your dad not to worry ?
” Representative Sean Maloney asked Vindman .
“ Congressman , because this is America , ” he replied , without hesitating .
“ This is the country I have served and defended , that all of my brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters .
”

In an accelerating assault on Donald Trump’s critics in the days since his impeachment acquittal, the administration fired Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, shortly after removing Lt Col Alexander Vindman from his White House post on Friday.
Sondland and Vindman delivered damaging testimony during the impeachment inquiry, in defiance of Trump.
“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement.
Hours earlier, Vindman, a Ukraine expert on the national security council who had been scheduled to rotate out of his White House assignment this summer, was suddenly fired and escorted out of the building on Friday, according to a statement from his lawyer.
The attorney, David Pressman, said: “He followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country. And for that, the most powerful man in the world – buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit – has decided to exact revenge.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth.”
Sondland and Vindman’s firings were the latest in a string of moves by Trump against his perceived antagonists from the impeachment inquiry.
Donald Trump's 'incredible' week in three minutes - video report
An hour after Trump’s acquittal, Senate Republicans announced an investigation of Hunter Biden, whose former employment with a Ukrainian gas company Trump has made the centerpiece of a political attack on his father, Joe Biden, the former vice-president. Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr have also repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney of Utah in the past week, the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump on abuse of power. Romney voted to acquit Trump on obstruction of Congress.
Central to the House impeachment managers’ argument for Trump’s removal was a warning that if he faced no retribution for his misconduct, Trump would expand the pace and scope of his power abuses.
The president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr, seemingly confirmed that Sondland and Vindman’s removal was in retaliation for their cooperation with the Democrats’ investigation. Were it not for the lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s “crack investigation skills”, the president “might have had a tougher time unearthing who all needed to be fired”, he wrote in a tweet.
Sondland’s bombshell testimony was a turning point in the impeachment inquiry. Asserting that he and other officials “followed the president’s orders” to negotiate a quid pro quo with Ukraine, Sondland implicated Trump and several other senior officials.
Gordon Sondland testifies before the House intelligence committee on Capitol Hill in November. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP
After initially denying a pressure campaign in Ukraine, Sondland revised his testimony, admitting that he told a senior official in Ukraine that nearly $400m in US aid hinged on an announcement that the country was investigating Trump’s political rivals.
Sondland also said that an Oval Office meeting with Trump depended on Ukranian officials publicly declaring investigations into Burisma, a gas company linked to the 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Ukraine planted evidence on a Democratic party server to make it appear that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
Throughout his shocking televised testimony, Sondland remained calm, even jovial. When, during his questioning, he was told that another witness referred to him as “the Gordon problem”, Sondland responded: “That’s what my wife calls me.”
The wealthy hotelier and Trump donor, who has been described as one of the so-called “three amigos” who bypassed usual state department channels in Ukraine, had no foreign policy experience prior to his appointment as ambassador.
Most of the dozen witnesses who testified in public impeachment hearings had already left their posts in the Trump administration before testifying. But both Sondland and Vindman continued to work in the administration after they testified about Trump’s Ukraine scheme.
A line from Vindman’s testimony about the supposed strength of the rule of law in the United States – “here, right matters” – became a refrain in the prosecution of Trump at the Senate impeachment trial, which ended on Wednesday.
Schiff, urged the senators to reflect on Vindman’s words as they weighed the charges against Trump. Trump was acquitted on both articles of impeachment on a party-line vote, with the exception of Romney’s vote to convict on abuse of power.
In the opening statement that Vindman gave when testifying to the House of Representatives last October, he outlined how he planned to describe his concerns that the president’s plot to weaken rival Biden by strong-arming the Ukrainian government into investigating him was undermining US foreign policy in Ukraine.
Vindman’s testimony was a dramatic moment in the inquiry. At one point he delivered a message to his father, who fled the former Soviet Union with the family to settle in New York.
“Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family,” he said.
“Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth.”
Why do you have the confidence to “tell your dad not to worry?” Representative Sean Maloney asked Vindman.
“Congressman, because this is America,” he replied, without hesitating. “This is the country I have served and defended, that all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters.”
Schiff echoed Vindman’s words once more in response to the news of his firing. “He upheld his oath when others would not,” Schiff said in a tweet. “Right matters to him. And to us.”