theguardian--2020-01-29--Democrat who defected lives it up with Trump – but has he sold his soul?

In December , the Democratic congressman Jeff Van Drew , facing a tough re-election campaign in New Jersey , defected to the Republican party .
On Tuesday , in return for his fealty , Van Drew was rewarded with an appearance at a Donald Trump campaign rally in his home state .
For Democrats contemplating their own switch before 2020 , however , the evening revealed the cost of such a pact with Trump .
Van Drew has acquired some of Trump ’ s supporters , and managed to draw the eye of the nation ’ s media to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Van Drew has been forced to give public , full-throated praise for Trump , and required to loudly espouse the nationalistic “ America first ” rhetoric his former colleagues fear and despise .
Thousands of Trump supporters had spent hours on Tuesday shivering outside a convention center in Wildwood , a tired seaside resort on the south-eastern tip of New Jersey .
A line of supporters , swaddled in sleeping bags and blankets and plonked into camping chairs , snaked back from the boardwalk .
An illuminated ferris wheel and a rollercoaster promising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the distance .
Trump knows New Jersey well enough – he bankrupted three casinos here in the 1990s – but this was his first campaign event in the reliably Democratic state since becoming president .
It was a real coup for Van Drew , in his first term in the House of Representatives .
The 66-year-old was a Democratic politician in New Jersey for almost 20 years before he jumped ship in December .
Van Drew ’ s congressional district voted for Trump in 2016 , and the Republican party in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge him in the November 2020 election .
Faced with being booted out of Congress , Van Drew jumped .
In a choreographed meeting at the White House after the loyalty switch , Van Drew said Trump had his “ undying support ” , always .
Trump , in turn , said he endorsed Van Drew .
The benefits became apparent almost immediately , when the wealthy Republican planning to run against Van Drew instead switched his focus to a neighboring district .
But the defection has left a sour taste in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Betrayed , disappointed , ” was how Betty Keller , 73 , described her feelings toward Van Drew .
“ He was a lovely man , but he ’ s sold his soul.
” Keller was standing outside the center with her husband , Bill Keller .
They weren ’ t there to see Trump .
They were conducting a mild-mannered , low-key protest , which involved holding a cardboard sign that said : “ Remove.
” “ He copped out because locally he was going to get decimated by the Republicans anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His future was gone if he didn ’ t go with Trump .
That ’ s what he thought.
” Bill Keller , a 71-year-old Vietnam war veteran , said some people had expressed “ gratitude ” to the couple for their protest .
The Guardian didn ’ t see any evidence of this , but did witness a man in a red baseball cap take umbrage with the Kellers ’ sign .
“ Remove who ?
Remove Trump ?
You don ’ t like it , pack your shit and get out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rally , Trump avoided mentioning the impeachment trial – minutes before he went on stage it emerged Republicans may not have the votes to block witnesses from appearing before the Senate , which could stretch the trial for weeks – and instead praised Van Drew as “ a courageous leader ” .
“ Jeff had the guts to defy the leftwing fanatics in his own party and to stand tall , ” Trump said .
“ He ’ s a great guy .
He ’ s a brave guy .
He shares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Van Drew does share some values .
He has a 100 % rating from the National Rifle Association , and as a New Jersey state senator voted against legalizing same-sex marriage , and against raising the state minimum wage .
Van Drew was also opposed to impeaching Trump .
The Van Drew case reveals the decision some other politicians face , too .
Do they embrace Trump and accept the benefits , or attempt to take a stand against the president , and risk losing their seat ?
Justin Amash , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latter when he ditched the GOP in July to become an independent .
Amash ’ s chances of winning re-election are currently rated as a “ toss-up ” by the polling expert Larry Sabato .
It has been less than two months since Van Drew switched sides , but on Tuesday he showed he has quickly adapted to the Republicans ’ strategy of flattering Trump at every turn .
“ Our president has made it clear by restoring our military , protecting our economy and by not allowing any other nation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to keep it that way ?
” Van Drew asked the crowd .
Adopting Trump ’ s own rhetoric , Van Drew said the US is “ a great nation , the greatest nation that civilization has ever known ” .
As the crowd cheered , Van Drew asked : “ Are we going to allow ourselves just to be like any other nation in the world or are we going to keep America great ?
” It prompted a chant , not for the first time of the night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” But Van Drew may find himself more flustered when he is forced to confront New Jersey voters disgusted by his volte-face .
“ There are a lot of good people who put quite a bit of money and effort into electing him on the premise of who he was and he misrepresented himself , ” said Mike Freihofer , who was standing outside the rally with a sign that said “ No kids in cages ” , a protest at Trump ’ s hardline immigration policies , including across the US-Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Van Drew in 2018 .
Like Betty Keller , he said he felt “ betrayed ” by Van Drew .
“ It was a very dishonorable thing to do .
At the very least .
”

In December, the Democratic congressman Jeff Van Drew, facing a tough re-election campaign in New Jersey, defected to the Republican party. On Tuesday, in return for his fealty, Van Drew was rewarded with an appearance at a Donald Trump campaign rally in his home state.
For Democrats contemplating their own switch before 2020, however, the evening revealed the cost of such a pact with Trump.
Van Drew has acquired some of Trump’s supporters, and managed to draw the eye of the nation’s media to his congressional district. But in exchange, Van Drew has been forced to give public, full-throated praise for Trump, and required to loudly espouse the nationalistic “America first” rhetoric his former colleagues fear and despise.
Thousands of Trump supporters had spent hours on Tuesday shivering outside a convention center in Wildwood, a tired seaside resort on the south-eastern tip of New Jersey. A line of supporters, swaddled in sleeping bags and blankets and plonked into camping chairs, snaked back from the boardwalk. An illuminated ferris wheel and a rollercoaster promising an “adrenaline rush!” loomed in the distance.
Trump knows New Jersey well enough – he bankrupted three casinos here in the 1990s – but this was his first campaign event in the reliably Democratic state since becoming president.
It was a real coup for Van Drew, in his first term in the House of Representatives. The 66-year-old was a Democratic politician in New Jersey for almost 20 years before he jumped ship in December.
Van Drew’s congressional district voted for Trump in 2016, and the Republican party in New Jersey had conjured a strong candidate to challenge him in the November 2020 election. Faced with being booted out of Congress, Van Drew jumped.
In a choreographed meeting at the White House after the loyalty switch, Van Drew said Trump had his “undying support”, always. Trump, in turn, said he endorsed Van Drew. The benefits became apparent almost immediately, when the wealthy Republican planning to run against Van Drew instead switched his focus to a neighboring district. But the defection has left a sour taste in the mouth of New Jersey Democrats.
“Betrayed, disappointed,” was how Betty Keller, 73, described her feelings toward Van Drew. “He was a lovely man, but he’s sold his soul.”
Keller was standing outside the center with her husband, Bill Keller. They weren’t there to see Trump. They were conducting a mild-mannered, low-key protest, which involved holding a cardboard sign that said: “Remove.”
A Trump supporter outside the campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey. Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Reuters
“He copped out because locally he was going to get decimated by the Republicans anyway,” Bill Keller said. “His future was gone if he didn’t go with Trump. That’s what he thought.”
Bill Keller, a 71-year-old Vietnam war veteran, said some people had expressed “gratitude” to the couple for their protest. The Guardian didn’t see any evidence of this, but did witness a man in a red baseball cap take umbrage with the Kellers’ sign.
“Remove who? Remove Trump? You don’t like it, pack your shit and get out,” the man said.
Inside the rally, Trump avoided mentioning the impeachment trial – minutes before he went on stage it emerged Republicans may not have the votes to block witnesses from appearing before the Senate, which could stretch the trial for weeks – and instead praised Van Drew as “a courageous leader”.
“Jeff had the guts to defy the leftwing fanatics in his own party and to stand tall,” Trump said. “He’s a great guy. He’s a brave guy. He shares our values.”
A relatively conservative Democrat, Van Drew does share some values. He has a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association, and as a New Jersey state senator voted against legalizing same-sex marriage, and against raising the state minimum wage. Van Drew was also opposed to impeaching Trump.
The Van Drew case reveals the decision some other politicians face, too.
Do they embrace Trump and accept the benefits, or attempt to take a stand against the president, and risk losing their seat? Justin Amash, a Republican congressman from Michigan, decided on the latter when he ditched the GOP in July to become an independent. Amash’s chances of winning re-election are currently rated as a “toss-up” by the polling expert Larry Sabato.
It has been less than two months since Van Drew switched sides, but on Tuesday he showed he has quickly adapted to the Republicans’ strategy of flattering Trump at every turn.
“Our president has made it clear by restoring our military, protecting our economy and by not allowing any other nation to take advantage of us again. Do we want to keep it that way?” Van Drew asked the crowd.
Adopting Trump’s own rhetoric, Van Drew said the US is “a great nation, the greatest nation that civilization has ever known”.
As the crowd cheered, Van Drew asked: “Are we going to allow ourselves just to be like any other nation in the world or are we going to keep America great?”
It prompted a chant, not for the first time of the night, of “USA! USA! USA!”
But Van Drew may find himself more flustered when he is forced to confront New Jersey voters disgusted by his volte-face.
“There are a lot of good people who put quite a bit of money and effort into electing him on the premise of who he was and he misrepresented himself,” said Mike Freihofer, who was standing outside the rally with a sign that said “No kids in cages”, a protest at Trump’s hardline immigration policies, including across the US-Mexico border.
Friehofer, 54, voted for Van Drew in 2018. Like Betty Keller, he said he felt “betrayed” by Van Drew.
“It was a very dishonorable thing to do. At the very least.”


theguardian--2020-01-29--How the impeachment trial is upending Democrats' race for Iowa

By 4am on Monday morning Amy Klobuchar was headed to the airport to catch a flight from Iowa , where she packed a dizzying six campaign events into a 36-hour window , back to Washington DC , where her presence was required at the US Capitol for day six of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
As soon as the proceedings in the Senate finished for the day , shortly after 9pm , the Minnesota senator dialed into a “ tele-town hall ” with Iowa voters .
“ I never thought that I wouldn ’ t be there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on the conference call .
“ I hope you understand that.
” Such is the life of a US senator running for president while on jury duty for an impeachment trial , only the third in American history .
Instead of barnstorming Iowa ’ s 99 counties in the final days before the caucuses on 3 February , she is locked up in a room for hours on end with 99 other senators – three of whom are also running for president .
For the next several days and possibly weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of whether to call witnesses , and ultimately moves to a vote on whether to remove the president from office , Klobuchar and her colleagues Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont , Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Michael Bennet of Colorado must continue to balance their “ constitutional duty ” with their responsibilities as a presidential candidate at a critical moment before voting begins .
The rules of the trial effectively prohibit double-duty : senators must be in their seats six days a week .
No cellphones .
And absolutely no talking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of imprisonment ” .
The situation has forced the Democrats to get creative about how they campaign from hundreds of miles away , in a state where voters famously like to meet their candidates before making a decision .
While the senators are holding town halls by phone and video , dashing to TV hits during trial breaks and chartering last-minute flights timed to the crack of the gavel concluding the day ’ s session , two of their top rivals , Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg , crisscross Iowa on dueling bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been going on for some time and voters know the candidates by now , there is still nothing like having the candidate there to rally the troops in that last week , ” said David Redlawsk , a political scientist and author of Why Iowa : How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process .
In their stead , the senators have dispatched a range of high-profile supporters such as the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( Sanders ) and former housing secretary Julián Castro ( Warren ) as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , activists and even an Olympic curling coach ( Klobuchar ) .
This week , Warren ’ s husband , Bruce Mann , will travel across Iowa on her behalf with their golden retriever , Bailey , while Sanders ’ wife , Jane , will stand in for him at a rally and concert .
And Klobuchar ’ s daughter , Abigail Bessler , last week kicked off the first in a series of locally hosted “ Hotdish House Parties ” .
Less than a week away from the caucuses , the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even the smallest changes could have an impact .
Polling shows an unusually large share of Democrats are still uncommitted , overwhelmed by the historically large field and gripped by a fear of nominating a candidate who can ’ t beat Trump .
A recent Monmouth University poll found that nearly half of Iowa voters could change their minds before the caucuses .
Andrew Yang , a tech entrepreneur and dark horse presidential candidate , joked at a Bloomberg News reporter roundtable in Des Moines on Wednesday that campaigning in Iowa “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the caucuses ” should be the “ decisive criterion ” for support .
Striking a more serious tone , Yang said his rivals clearly faced a “ disadvantage ” by not being in the state .
“ Imagine knowing you want to be in Iowa talking to voters , furthering this campaign that you ’ ve been working towards in many cases for years or decades , and you ’ re not here , ” he said .
“ I feel terrible for them.
” Even before the trial began last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
At the heart of the trial are revelations that Trump solicited help from Ukrainian officials to damage Biden , the Democratic frontrunner .
Trump and his legal team have repeatedly accused the former vice-president without evidence of seeking to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma , a natural gas company that employed his son Hunter Biden while he was in office .
Senator Joni Ernst , a Republican from Iowa , told reporters after a presentation by Trump ’ s defense team that centered on Hunter Biden that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters ” .
“ Will they be supporting Vice-President Biden at this point ?
” she asked .
At his events this week in Iowa , voters said the allegations – which most believed to be baseless – would not dissuade them from voting for Biden .
But there were some who voiced concern that the accusations could cast a cloud over Biden ’ s candidacy the way the email scandal hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Biden , who has highlighted his electability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election , cited Ernst ’ s as proof that the president fears running against him .
“ She spilled the beans , ” he told voters at a campaign stop in Muscatine on Tuesday .
“ The whole impeachment trial for Trump is just a political hit job to try to smear me because he is scared to death to run against me .
And he has good reason to be concerned.
” With the caucuses days away , the senators have stepped up their outreach from afar .
The Sanders campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with livestreamed events and a new video published on Tuesday that responds gleefully to the mounting concerns from within the Democratic party that the Vermont senator could actually win the caucuses , if not the nomination .
Warren on Tuesday hosted a tele-town hall .
More than 20,000 Iowans participated , according to her campaign .
The timing is especially inconvenient for Klobuchar , who has staked her campaign on a strong performance in Iowa .
Though she lacks the financial firepower or national prominence of Sanders and Warren , her campaign has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , earning a handful of high-profile endorsements from regional and national editorial boards and is climbing in some recent polls .
“ We ’ re seeing a lot of momentum for our campaign just when I can ’ t be there , ” Klobuchar said to the more than 11,000 people who dialed in to the call , according to her campaign .
Before signing off for the night , she implored them that an upset in Iowa was within her grasp .
“ Every sign is that I can , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help me make that extra , extra , extra push.
” But Klobuchar was leaving nothing to chance .
After an unexpectedly early close to Tuesday ’ s proceedings , Klobuchar slipped out of the Capitol and on to a flight bound for Council Bluffs .

By 4am on Monday morning Amy Klobuchar was headed to the airport to catch a flight from Iowa, where she packed a dizzying six campaign events into a 36-hour window, back to Washington DC, where her presence was required at the US Capitol for day six of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump.
As soon as the proceedings in the Senate finished for the day, shortly after 9pm, the Minnesota senator dialed into a “tele-town hall” with Iowa voters.
“I never thought that I wouldn’t be there with all of you,” she said on the conference call. “I hope you understand that.”
Such is the life of a US senator running for president while on jury duty for an impeachment trial, only the third in American history. Instead of barnstorming Iowa’s 99 counties in the final days before the caucuses on 3 February, she is locked up in a room for hours on end with 99 other senators – three of whom are also running for president.
For the next several days and possibly weeks, as the Senate grapples with the thorny question of whether to call witnesses, and ultimately moves to a vote on whether to remove the president from office, Klobuchar and her colleagues Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Michael Bennet of Colorado must continue to balance their “constitutional duty” with their responsibilities as a presidential candidate at a critical moment before voting begins.
The rules of the trial effectively prohibit double-duty: senators must be in their seats six days a week. No cellphones. And absolutely no talking, archaically but loosely enforced on “pain of imprisonment”.
The situation has forced the Democrats to get creative about how they campaign from hundreds of miles away, in a state where voters famously like to meet their candidates before making a decision.
While the senators are holding town halls by phone and video, dashing to TV hits during trial breaks and chartering last-minute flights timed to the crack of the gavel concluding the day’s session, two of their top rivals, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, crisscross Iowa on dueling bus tours.
“Even though this race has been going on for some time and voters know the candidates by now, there is still nothing like having the candidate there to rally the troops in that last week,” said David Redlawsk, a political scientist and author of Why Iowa: How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process.
Bernie Sanders is greeted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a rally in Ames, Iowa, on 25 January. Photograph: UPI/Barcroft Media
In their stead, the senators have dispatched a range of high-profile supporters such as the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Sanders) and former housing secretary Julián Castro (Warren) as well as lesser-known family members, local officials, activists and even an Olympic curling coach (Klobuchar).
This week, Warren’s husband, Bruce Mann, will travel across Iowa on her behalf with their golden retriever, Bailey, while Sanders’ wife, Jane, will stand in for him at a rally and concert. And Klobuchar’s daughter, Abigail Bessler, last week kicked off the first in a series of locally hosted “Hotdish House Parties”.
Less than a week away from the caucuses, the race is bunched so tightly at the top that even the smallest changes could have an impact. Polling shows an unusually large share of Democrats are still uncommitted, overwhelmed by the historically large field and gripped by a fear of nominating a candidate who can’t beat Trump. A recent Monmouth University poll found that nearly half of Iowa voters could change their minds before the caucuses.
Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur and dark horse presidential candidate, joked at a Bloomberg News reporter roundtable in Des Moines on Wednesday that campaigning in Iowa “every weekday for the two weeks before the caucuses” should be the “decisive criterion” for support.
Striking a more serious tone, Yang said his rivals clearly faced a “disadvantage” by not being in the state.
“Imagine knowing you want to be in Iowa talking to voters, furthering this campaign that you’ve been working towards in many cases for years or decades, and you’re not here,” he said. “I feel terrible for them.”
Bailey the golden retriever is led by her husband, Bruce Mann, and son, Alex, in Waterloo, Iowa, on 29 January. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
Even before the trial began last week, it was transforming the race in other ways.
At the heart of the trial are revelations that Trump solicited help from Ukrainian officials to damage Biden, the Democratic frontrunner. Trump and his legal team have repeatedly accused the former vice-president without evidence of seeking to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a natural gas company that employed his son Hunter Biden while he was in office.
Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, told reporters after a presentation by Trump’s defense team that centered on Hunter Biden that she was “really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters”.
“Will they be supporting Vice-President Biden at this point?” she asked.
At his events this week in Iowa, voters said the allegations – which most believed to be baseless – would not dissuade them from voting for Biden. But there were some who voiced concern that the accusations could cast a cloud over Biden’s candidacy the way the email scandal hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Biden, who has highlighted his electability as an asset against Trump in a general election, cited Ernst’s as proof that the president fears running against him.
“She spilled the beans,” he told voters at a campaign stop in Muscatine on Tuesday. “The whole impeachment trial for Trump is just a political hit job to try to smear me because he is scared to death to run against me. And he has good reason to be concerned.”
With the caucuses days away, the senators have stepped up their outreach from afar.
The Sanders campaign has leveraged his massive social media following with livestreamed events and a new video published on Tuesday that responds gleefully to the mounting concerns from within the Democratic party that the Vermont senator could actually win the caucuses, if not the nomination.
Elizabeth Warren is surrounded by reporters during the impeachment trial of Donald Trump at the Capitol in Washington DC on 28 January. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
Warren on Tuesday hosted a tele-town hall. More than 20,000 Iowans participated, according to her campaign.
The timing is especially inconvenient for Klobuchar, who has staked her campaign on a strong performance in Iowa. Though she lacks the financial firepower or national prominence of Sanders and Warren, her campaign has showed signs of strength in recent weeks, earning a handful of high-profile endorsements from regional and national editorial boards and is climbing in some recent polls.
“We’re seeing a lot of momentum for our campaign just when I can’t be there,” Klobuchar said to the more than 11,000 people who dialed in to the call, according to her campaign. Before signing off for the night, she implored them that an upset in Iowa was within her grasp.
“Every sign is that I can,” she said. “I just need you to help me make that extra, extra, extra push.”
But Klobuchar was leaving nothing to chance.
After an unexpectedly early close to Tuesday’s proceedings, Klobuchar slipped out of the Capitol and on to a flight bound for Council Bluffs.


theguardian--2020-01-29--Deployment of new US nuclear warhead on submarine a dangerous step, critics say

The US has deployed its first low-yield Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine that is currently patrolling the Atlantic Ocean , it has been reported , in what arms control advocates warn is a dangerous step towards making a nuclear launch more likely .
According to the Federation of American Scientists , the USS Tennessee – which left port in Georgia at the end of last year – is the first submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead , commissioned by Donald Trump two years ago .
It has an explosive yield of five kilotons , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Little Boy ” bomb dropped on Hiroshima and considerably lower than the 90- and 455-kiloton warheads on other US submarine-launched ballistic missiles .
The Trump administration ’ s nuclear posture review ( NPR ) in February 2018 , portrays this warhead as a counter to a perceived Russian threat to use its own “ tactical ” nuclear weapons to win a quick victory on the battlefield .
Advocates of W76-2 argued that the US had no effective deterrent against Russian tactical weapons because Moscow assumed Washington would not risk using the overwhelming power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for fear of escalating from a regional conflict to a civilian-destroying war .
Critics of the warhead say it accelerates a drift towards thinking of nuclear weapons as a means to fight and win wars , rather than as purely a deterrent of last resort .
And the fielding of a tactical nuclear weapon , they warn , gives US political and military leaders a dangerous new option in confronting adversaries other than Russia .
Trump ’ s NPR says the US could use nuclear weapons in response to “ significant non-nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to “ attacks on US , allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure ” .
The US Navy and Strategic Command did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Hans Kristensen , the director of the nuclear information project at FAS , said the report on the arming of the USS Tennessee is based on briefings from officials .
“ We have had conversations with people inside , and they ’ ve been pretty clear that this has happened , ” Kristensen said .
“ They see a need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because if people don ’ t know it ’ s out there , then how can it deter ?
” “ This is a very rapid mind quick turnaround for a nuclear weapon , and that ’ s obviously because it was a fairly simple adjustment of an existing warhead , ” he added .
“ They have argued that this is to deter Russia , but it also has clear implications or potential use against other adversaries , not least North Korea and Iran.
” Kristensen said : “ Certainly the low-yield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapon would be very beneficial to a military officer who was going to advise to the president whether we should cross the nuclear threshold .
”

The US has deployed its first low-yield Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine that is currently patrolling the Atlantic Ocean, it has been reported, in what arms control advocates warn is a dangerous step towards making a nuclear launch more likely.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the USS Tennessee – which left port in Georgia at the end of last year – is the first submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead, commissioned by Donald Trump two years ago.
It has an explosive yield of five kilotons, a third of the power of the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima and considerably lower than the 90- and 455-kiloton warheads on other US submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
The Trump administration’s nuclear posture review (NPR) in February 2018, portrays this warhead as a counter to a perceived Russian threat to use its own “tactical” nuclear weapons to win a quick victory on the battlefield.
Advocates of W76-2 argued that the US had no effective deterrent against Russian tactical weapons because Moscow assumed Washington would not risk using the overwhelming power of its intercontinental ballistic missiles in response, for fear of escalating from a regional conflict to a civilian-destroying war.
Critics of the warhead say it accelerates a drift towards thinking of nuclear weapons as a means to fight and win wars, rather than as purely a deterrent of last resort. And the fielding of a tactical nuclear weapon, they warn, gives US political and military leaders a dangerous new option in confronting adversaries other than Russia.
Trump’s NPR says the US could use nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks”, including but not limited to “attacks on US, allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure”.
The US Navy and Strategic Command did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at FAS, said the report on the arming of the USS Tennessee is based on briefings from officials.
“We have had conversations with people inside, and they’ve been pretty clear that this has happened,” Kristensen said. “They see a need to talk about it to some extent, because if people don’t know it’s out there, then how can it deter?”
“This is a very rapid mind quick turnaround for a nuclear weapon, and that’s obviously because it was a fairly simple adjustment of an existing warhead,” he added. “They have argued that this is to deter Russia, but it also has clear implications or potential use against other adversaries, not least North Korea and Iran.”
Kristensen said: “Certainly the low-yield collateral effect that would come from this weapon would be very beneficial to a military officer who was going to advise to the president whether we should cross the nuclear threshold.”


theguardian--2020-01-30--Why Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale ‘wants to know who you are’

Donald Trump ’ s election campaign manager has told of his ambition to build a data-gathering juggernaut based around the principle : “ We want to know who you are and how you think.
” Brad Parscale , regarded by critics as an apologist for a uniquely dangerous and divisive US president , described to the Guardian a targeted advertising operation immensely more sophisticated than four years ago .
Every time someone donates to the Trump re-election campaign , buys some of its merchandise , registers on its mailing list , enters one of its competitions or attends one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an opportunity to hoover up an email address and other details that will come in useful later .
“ The campaign is all about data collection , ” Parscale said in a phone interview with the Guardian .
“ Every aspect of this campaign .
Everything we do , if you go to a coalition event , you sign up for a thing , you touch it .
“ If we touch you digitally , we want to know who you are and how you think and get you into our databases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and relearn and understand what ’ s happening.
” Parscale , who in 2016 was digital director of the insurgent Trump campaign , offered a metaphor .
“ Imagine it like it ’ s a gigantic highway but the only time people drive down it is when there ’ s a big event .
Say you live on the north side , all you do is go to the grocery store but every once in a while there ’ s a huge football game and that ’ s the time you drive downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run a billboard at that time for my best sporting thing when we know all the sports people are coming down the street .
It ’ s the same principle , right ?
And so what we want to do is blow things up when we know the people are on the highway.
” Parscale ’ s efforts , including ads that make misleading claims and clickbait that exploits voters ’ grievances , pose a hefty challenge to Democrats .
Michael Slaby , who was Barack Obama campaign ’ s chief technology officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer in 2012 , recently warned the left had suffered “ over-confidence ” while Trump ’ s social media strategy forged ahead .
Asked if he believes Democrats will try to assemble a similar model , Parscale replied : “ We have no idea what they ’ re going to build .
That ’ s up to you guys to go figure out .
We do have an advantage in time .
The president was extremely smart the day after the election to say why take our foot off the gas ?
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the fight .
It was the start of the fight .
And let ’ s just keep going .
Let ’ s keep fundraising .
Let ’ s keep building .
This is a fight for eight years .
This isn ’ t a fight just for a few months.
” At 44 years of age , and 6ft 8in in height , the bearded Parscale , who is from San Antonio , Texas , has become an improbable and recognizable figure at campaign rallies , warming up the crowd before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has three objectives there .
“ I ’ m the first one that ’ s getting up there and saying , we ’ re almost there , hang with us .
It takes hours to get all those people through all the mags [ metal detector ] .
Two , is to rah rah them a little bit , get them pumped up , help them understand the importance of their state and give them just a little bit of boost right before .
“ And then lastly is to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all memorise 88022 .
I make them chant it and memorise it and my goal is to make everybody in America know that number 88022 .
There is no better methodology to contact voters and raise money than cellphone text messaging.
” For all the tools and screens of the digital age , it was clear in 2016 that Trump ’ s rallies carried an old-fashioned power of live theatre .
People in long-forgotten small towns queued for hours to see him , saying they were grateful to be remembered at last .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and neighbors about the “ once in a lifetime ” experience .
Yet the crowds at Trump rallies are overwhelmingly white .
The president has sometimes fired them up with racist rhetoric towards immigrants or Ilhan Omar , one of the first Muslim women in Congress .
He stands accused of deepening divisions in what some have called a cold civil war .
Parscale denies the premise and blames the media .
“ The news and the media has one job : to sensationalise everything to make money .
They ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re there to make money and they have stock prices now and they have ratings reviews and they have everything and telling that America is boring doesn ’ t sell anything .
People turn off the news.
” But is Trump racist ?
“ Well , 100 % he ’ s not a racist .
It ’ s upsetting , obviously , when someone tells you something that is demeaning and almost vulgar to say about you.
” Last month the president was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden , one of his 2020 election rivals .
His Senate trial is currently under way , putting his misconduct under a microscope .
But Parscale does not believe it will inflict lasting political damage .
“ I ’ ll tell you that nothing that ’ s occurred over the last couple of months has driven down his numbers at all .
According to the numbers , he ’ s actually gone up from this and his approval numbers have [ too ] .
”

Donald Trump’s election campaign manager has told of his ambition to build a data-gathering juggernaut based around the principle: “We want to know who you are and how you think.”
Brad Parscale, regarded by critics as an apologist for a uniquely dangerous and divisive US president, described to the Guardian a targeted advertising operation immensely more sophisticated than four years ago.
Every time someone donates to the Trump re-election campaign, buys some of its merchandise, registers on its mailing list, enters one of its competitions or attends one of the president’s rallies, there is an opportunity to hoover up an email address and other details that will come in useful later.
“The campaign is all about data collection,” Parscale said in a phone interview with the Guardian. “Every aspect of this campaign. Everything we do, if you go to a coalition event, you sign up for a thing, you touch it.
“If we touch you digitally, we want to know who you are and how you think and get you into our databases so that we can model off it and relearn and understand what’s happening.”
Parscale, who in 2016 was digital director of the insurgent Trump campaign, offered a metaphor. “Imagine it like it’s a gigantic highway but the only time people drive down it is when there’s a big event. Say you live on the north side, all you do is go to the grocery store but every once in a while there’s a huge football game and that’s the time you drive downtown.
“Well, we want to run a billboard at that time for my best sporting thing when we know all the sports people are coming down the street. It’s the same principle, right? And so what we want to do is blow things up when we know the people are on the highway.”
Parscale’s efforts, including ads that make misleading claims and clickbait that exploits voters’ grievances, pose a hefty challenge to Democrats.
Michael Slaby, who was Barack Obama campaign’s chief technology officer in 2008 and chief integration and innovation officer in 2012, recently warned the left had suffered “over-confidence” while Trump’s social media strategy forged ahead.
Asked if he believes Democrats will try to assemble a similar model, Parscale replied: “We have no idea what they’re going to build. That’s up to you guys to go figure out. We do have an advantage in time. The president was extremely smart the day after the election to say why take our foot off the gas?
“Election day 2016 wasn’t the end of the fight. It was the start of the fight. And let’s just keep going. Let’s keep fundraising. Let’s keep building. This is a fight for eight years. This isn’t a fight just for a few months.”
At 44 years of age, and 6ft 8in in height, the bearded Parscale, who was born in Topeka, Kansas, and spent his working life in San Antonio, Texas, has become an improbable and recognizable figure at campaign rallies, warming up the crowd before Trump’s arrival. He said he has three objectives there.
“I’m the first one that’s getting up there and saying, we’re almost there, hang with us. It takes hours to get all those people through all the mags [metal detector]. Two, is to rah rah them a little bit, get them pumped up, help them understand the importance of their state and give them just a little bit of boost right before.
“And then lastly is to get the data so I make them try to all memorise 88022. I make them chant it and memorise it and my goal is to make everybody in America know that number 88022. There is no better methodology to contact voters and raise money than cellphone text messaging.”
For all the tools and screens of the digital age, it was clear in 2016 that Trump’s rallies carried an old-fashioned power of live theatre. People in long-forgotten small towns queued for hours to see him, saying they were grateful to be remembered at last. He encouraged them to tell their friends and neighbors about the “once in a lifetime” experience.
Yet the crowds at Trump rallies are overwhelmingly white. The president has sometimes fired them up with racist rhetoric towards immigrants or Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women in Congress. He stands accused of deepening divisions in what some have called a cold civil war. Parscale denies the premise and blames the media.
“The news and the media has one job: to sensationalise everything to make money. They’re not there to give us news. They’re there to make money and they have stock prices now and they have ratings reviews and they have everything and telling that America is boring doesn’t sell anything. People turn off the news.”
But is Trump racist? “Well, 100% he’s not a racist. It’s upsetting, obviously, when someone tells you something that is demeaning and almost vulgar to say about you.”
Last month the president was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, one of his 2020 election rivals. His Senate trial is currently under way, putting his misconduct under a microscope. But Parscale does not believe it will inflict lasting political damage.
“I’ll tell you that nothing that’s occurred over the last couple of months has driven down his numbers at all. According to the numbers, he’s actually gone up from this and his approval numbers have [too].”


theguardian--2020-01-30--Trump impeachment: Republicans aim to block witnesses as key vote approaches – as it happened

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is now trying another strategy to dissuade senators from indicting the president : He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ office was deepen political divisions .
“ Families are broken up , friends won ’ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Dershowitz said .
“ I ’ m not suggesting that the .
impeachment @ @ @ @ @ brought that on us —perhaps it ’ s merely a symptom.
” He urged those @ @ @ @ @ s conduct to “ campaign against the president ” , noting that Democrats could rid @ @ @ @ @ a mere eight months .
Dershowitz was responding to a softball question from GOP Senators @ @ @ @ @ tossed at him : “ What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic @ @ @ @ @ ”

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier)

30 Jan 2020 04.16 GMT Summary The Senate trial has adjourned for the day. Today’s question-and-answer session focused on whether or not to call witnesses – especially John Bolton – and the motivations behind Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.
– and the motivations behind Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Over eight hours, senators often lobbed softball questions in order to give their side a chance to reiterate their case for or against removing Donald Trump from office.
from office. The president’s lawyers contended that the president was right and reasonable to investigate his political rivals, and reiterated their view that nothing short of a statutory crime was grounds for impeaching a president. House managers hit back that the defense’s position ran counter to that of a consensus of legal scholars.
contended that the president was right and reasonable to investigate his political rivals, and reiterated their view that nothing short of a statutory crime was grounds for impeaching a president. hit back that the defense’s position ran counter to that of a consensus of legal scholars. As the Iowa caucus approaches, Democratic senators who are running for president have had to get creative about how they campaign.
who are running for president have had to get creative about how they campaign. The trial will resume at 1pm ET tomorrow. Witnesses in doubt: the key takeaways from the eighth day of impeachment Read more
Updated at 04.17 GMT
30 Jan 2020 03.57 GMT Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is now trying another strategy to dissuade senators from indicting the president: He’s arguing removing Donald Trump from office was deepen political divisions. “Families are broken up, friends won’t speak to each other,” Dershowitz said. “I’m not suggesting that the. impeachment decision by the House has brought that on us —perhaps it’s merely a symptom.” He urged those who object to Trump’s conduct to “campaign against the president”, noting that Democrats could rid the country of Trump in a mere eight months. Dershowitz was responding to a softball question from GOP Senators Wicker, McSally and Moran tossed at him: “What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic, to its citizens?”
Updated at 03.59 GMT
30 Jan 2020 03.24 GMT Senators took another brief recess before resuming the question and answer session. Most often, senators have been fishing for answers. Democratic senators have given House managers a chance to reiterate the key arguments they laid out during their opening statement. Republican senators have been giving Trump’s defense team many chances to double down on the Bidens and Burisma. For instance, Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat of Michigan, asked to House managers: “Does an impeachable abuse of power require that a President’s corrupt plan actually succeed?” and gave Zoe Lofgren a chance to reiterate what the managers have been saying all along — the plan need not have panned out, it’s the intention that’s impeachable. Right after, GOP Senators Barrasso, Risch, Hawley and Moran asked the president’s counsel, almost rhetorically: “Can the Senate convict the US sitting President of obstruction of Congress for exercising the President’s Constitutional authorities or rights.”
30 Jan 2020 02.41 GMT Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz has argued that it was right for Donald Trump to decide to investigate Joe Biden and his family after Biden announced his presidential campaign. At that point, Biden’s went from being “has-been” to a public figure deserving of scrutiny, Derschowitz said, seemingly leaning into the Democrats’ argument that Trump abused power by asking Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. If a presidential candidate has a “corrupt” son there’s a “good reason for upping the interest in his son”, Dershowitz said.
Updated at 02.49 GMT
30 Jan 2020 02.18 GMT The question of whether or not to call witnesses – especially John Bolton – has, as Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow noted, been “un undercurrent” of today’s impeachment proceedings. Impeachment managers and Trump’s defense have continued to clash over the issue. The Guardian’s Tom McCarthy notes: If the Senate votes to call witnesses, Trump’s legal team warned, “that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings” and could lead to court challenges that would draw the trial out. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, argued that Roberts, “a perfectly good chief justice”, could make fast rulings that would prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial. “They could no longer contest the facts,” Schiff said of Trump’s defense team. “So now they have fallen back on, ‘You shouldn’t hear any further evidence on this subject.’ Think about the precedent you would be setting if you don’t allow witnesses in a trial.” The relatively fast-paced question period, which allowed five minutes per response to each of 54 questions before the dinner break, came after a week in which the two sides made strictly siloed opening arguments, speaking for multiple days each to lay out their cases to the senators. Impeachment trial: House managers and Trump team in first direct clash Read more
Updated at 02.38 GMT
30 Jan 2020 01.42 GMT The last two questions have come from presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders asked: “Why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?” He noted that the media have documented “thousands of lies” from Trump, and forcing Chief Justice John Roberts to read out the tally: “more than 16,200 as of Jan. 20.” Warren posed a hypothetical: “If Ukrainian president Zelenskiy called President Trump and offered dirt on President Trump’s political rivals in exchange for Trump handing over hundreds of millions in military aid, that would clearly be bribery and an impeachable offense. So why would it be more acceptable and somehow not impeachable for the reverse?” More on how the impeachment trial is affecting the Democratic primary race: How the impeachment trial is upending Democrats' race for Iowa Read more
Updated at 02.13 GMT
30 Jan 2020 01.20 GMT Donald Trump’s defense has argued that if senators were to call witnesses, the trial would drag on for too long. “I want Adam Schiff. I want Hunter Biden. I want Joe Biden. I want the whistleblower,” said Jay Sekulow, the lead attorney defending Trump. “If we get anybody we want, we’ll be here for a very long time.”
He added: “The fact of the matter is, we’re not here to argue witnesses tonight, but obviously it is an undercurrent.” Lead House manager Adam Schiff, in turn, appealed to the floor: “Don’t be thrown off by this claim that if we call witnesses, we will make you pay.” Appealing to senators, once again, to consider calling former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness, Schiff added: “I’m no fan of John Bolton but I like him a little more than I used to.”
30 Jan 2020 01.14 GMT Alabama Senator Doug Jones was surrounded by reporters in the Senate subway. Photograph: Erik S Lesser/EPA Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama, told reporters during the dinner break that he’s “keeping an open mind to hear all the evidence” in the trial. Jones has been viewed as a potential swing vote on the question of whether to acquit or indict Donald Trump. “I’m open to acquit, I’m open to convict,” he said. “Okay? I want to hear all the evidence, I want to hear witnesses.” Still, Jones seemed unimpressed with Trump’s defense team, taking issue with their focus on the Bidens. “If they wanted to go after the Bidens, they should have done it a long time ago and nobody did that. Nobody did that, ever,” he said. He also seemed unconvinced by Alan Dershowitz’s argument that nothing short of a crime was ground for impeachment. “We should probably just abolish the Supreme Court and let professor Dershowitz be the Supreme Court justice,” Jones snarked.
30 Jan 2020 00.43 GMT Senator Rand Paul’s question has been rejected, possibly because it names the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry. Sen. Paul’s question deals with the whistleblower and names the alleged whistleblower, per sources
Chief Justice Roberts has, to this point, rejected the question - which he’d have to read.
No sense Paul is backing down on asking, likely to be discussed during dinner. — Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) January 30, 2020 Chief Justice John Roberts essentially refused to read the question out, according to reports. Rand Paul just asked about what his question says: “It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” he told reporters — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 30, 2020 Donald Trump has his supporters have previously publicized the alleged name of the whistleblower, and have called for the whistleblower to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
Updated at 00.53 GMT
30 Jan 2020 00.21 GMT Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general who was fired by Donald Trump in 2018 has waded into the debate over whether John Bolton should testify in the Senate trial. With regard to the @AmbJohnBolton situation, let me just say this: I did not write a book or go on CNN or criticize @realDonaldTrump for 3 VERY IMPORTANT REASONS… — Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) January 29, 2020 Bolton’s behavior “is an act of disloyalty to the administration one serves and tends to undermine the unity and teamwork needed to reach the highest level of effectiveness,” Sessions wrote in a series of tweets. Trump has said he never would have named Sessions Attorney General had he known that Sessions would recuse himself from the investigation into Russian election interference. Since then, Sessions has endeavored to repair his relationship with Trump, especially now that he is campaigning to take back his former Senate seat in Alabama. An endorsement from Trump could give Sessions a huge boost in a competitive primary battle.
29 Jan 2020 23.40 GMT Senator Joe Manchin posed a question pointed toward Alan Dershowitz, noting that “high crimes and misdemeanors” clearly doesn’t refer to a statutory crime. “What has happened in the past 22 years to change the original intent of the framers?” he asked. Dershowitz’s response: “What happened was that the current president was impeached.” Democrats have been repeatedly harkening back to comments Dershowitz made more two decades ago, during Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Back then, Dershowitz said that “if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need technical crime.” Throughout Trump’s impeachment trial, Dershowitz has said his views have evolved since, insisting that despite a consensus of legal scholars arguing otherwise, nothing short of a criminal act is grounds to impeach a president. At one point, the Trump lawyer and Harvard Law professor took aim at one of his Harvard colleagues, Laurence Tribe, who has advised House Democrats on impeachment. “Professor Tribe got woke, and with no apparent new research, he came to the conclusion, ‘Oh, but this president can be charged while sitting in office.’ That’s not the kind of scholarship that should influence your decision,” Dershowitz said. House manager Adam Schiff hit back: “I don’t think you can write off the consensus of constitutional opinion by saying they’re all Never Trumpers.” The Senate has now taken a 45-minute dinner break.
Updated at 00.07 GMT
29 Jan 2020 23.17 GMT Senators are still weighing whether to call John Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images As senators mull the merits of calling John Bolton as a witness, an attorney for the former national security adviser has issued a statement. “I have received no response whatever to my urgent request for the NSC’s immediate guidance as to any concerns it may have with respect to the chapter of the manuscript dealing with Ambassador Bolton’s involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” said Charles Cooper, an attorney for Bolton. Cooper also shared his reply to a National Security Council letter saying Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information. “We do not believe that any of the information could reasonably be considered classified,” he wrote in an emailed response. The lawyer requested “urgent” guidance from the NSC given that Bolton may be called to testify in the Senate trial. “If he is asked to testify, it seems certain he will be asked questions that will elicit much of the information contained in the chapter of the manuscript dealing with his involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” Cooper wrote.
Updated at 23.23 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-30--Witnesses in doubt: the key takeaways from the eighth day of impeachment

The eighth full day of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the US Senate has concluded .
Here are five key takeaways : While impeachment managers led by Adam Schiff , the intelligence committee chair , urged senators to call former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness at the trial , the few Republican senators who might be open to that gave no new indication that they would vote in favor of witnesses .
Trump ’ s defense team argued , meanwhile , that calling witnesses would change “ the nature and scope of the proceedings ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would draw the trial out .
Schiff challenged the point , but Republicans aimed to end the trial after only two weeks .
After a week of siloed opening statements , the format of Wednesday ’ s session – with lawyers getting five minutes to reply to questions posed by senators in writing – allowed for the two sides to engage in debate almost immediately on contested points .
When Trump ’ s team asserted that the president withheld aid to Ukraine out of concern for corruption , the House managers pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ukraine until Joe Biden announced a presidential bid .
And when Trump ’ s team said the House did not seek Bolton ’ s testimony , Schiff corrected them .
Elsewhere , the two sides clashed over whether impeachment must be based on an underlying criminal offense , and whether House subpoenas of the executive branch were valid .
Presiding at the trial , chief justice John Roberts was not called on to make significant rulings about permissible questions or testimony – with one exception : Roberts reportedly informed senators , behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a question posed by Rand Paul of Kentucky that named the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry .
“ We agree to be bound by the chief justice , ” Schiff said , urging a move to call witnesses .
“ We will not seek to appeal an adverse ruling .
Will the president ’ s counsel do the same ?
… They ’ re afraid he ’ ll be fair… that should tell you something about the weakness of their position.
” Schiff said Trump ’ s team was arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial indefinitely .
“ If you dare to want witnesses in a trial , ” Schiff paraphrased the defense as saying , “ we are going to make you pay for it with endless delay.
” Schiff argued that Roberts , “ a perfectly good chief justice ” , could make fast rulings that would prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial .
Early in the session , Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz erected an extremely broad defense of Trump ’ s conduct , arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is good for the country , that president can not be impeached for using his power to promote his own reelection , because by definition the president would be acting on behalf of the country , in his own eyes .
“ If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment , ” Dershowitz said .

The eighth full day of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the US Senate has concluded. Here are five key takeaways:
Witnesses in doubt
While impeachment managers led by Adam Schiff, the intelligence committee chair, urged senators to call former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness at the trial, the few Republican senators who might be open to that gave no new indication that they would vote in favor of witnesses.
Trump’s defense team argued, meanwhile, that calling witnesses would change “the nature and scope of the proceedings” and could lead to court challenges that would draw the trial out. Schiff challenged the point, but Republicans aimed to end the trial after only two weeks.
Actual debate
After a week of siloed opening statements, the format of Wednesday’s session – with lawyers getting five minutes to reply to questions posed by senators in writing – allowed for the two sides to engage in debate almost immediately on contested points.
When Trump’s team asserted that the president withheld aid to Ukraine out of concern for corruption, the House managers pointed out that Trump never expressed concern about corruption in Ukraine until Joe Biden announced a presidential bid. And when Trump’s team said the House did not seek Bolton’s testimony, Schiff corrected them.
Elsewhere, the two sides clashed over whether impeachment must be based on an underlying criminal offense, and whether House subpoenas of the executive branch were valid.
Roberts’ role
Presiding at the trial, chief justice John Roberts was not called on to make significant rulings about permissible questions or testimony – with one exception: Roberts reportedly informed senators, behind the scenes, that he would not take a question posed by Rand Paul of Kentucky that named the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry.
“We agree to be bound by the chief justice,” Schiff said, urging a move to call witnesses. “We will not seek to appeal an adverse ruling. Will the president’s counsel do the same? … They’re afraid he’ll be fair… that should tell you something about the weakness of their position.”
Debate over timeline
Schiff said Trump’s team was arguing against witnesses by threatening to draw out the trial indefinitely. “If you dare to want witnesses in a trial,” Schiff paraphrased the defense as saying, “we are going to make you pay for it with endless delay.”
Schiff argued that Roberts, “a perfectly good chief justice”, could make fast rulings that would prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial.
Aggressive Dershowitz defense
Early in the session, Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz erected an extremely broad defense of Trump’s conduct, arguing that if a president thinks his reelection is good for the country, that president cannot be impeached for using his power to promote his own reelection, because by definition the president would be acting on behalf of the country, in his own eyes.
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.


theguardian--2020-01-30--California lawmakers fail to pass a bill that would combat the housing crisis

California lawmakers have failed to pass the most ambitious proposal yet to combat a growing housing crisis , voting down legislation on Wednesday that would have eliminated zoning restrictions near transportation and job centers to enable the construction of more high-density housing .
California faces a crippling housing crisis that has driven up rents and led to a surge in homelessness .
Senate Bill 50 ( SB50 ) was meant to address an estimated shortage of 3.5m homes , overriding local zoning laws in order to let developers build small apartment buildings in neighborhoods reserved for single-family homes .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three votes .
However , the California state senate voted to give it “ reconsideration ” , meaning lawmakers could vote on it again on Thursday .
The deadline for the bill to pass is Friday , but the state senate is not scheduled to meet that day .
The bill was authored by state senator Scott Wiener , a Democrat from San Francisco , home to some of the highest housing prices in the country .
“ We ’ re going to do everything in our power to pass SB50 tomorrow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wiener had been working on the measure since last year , saying lawmakers “ have a responsibility to take bold action to make people ’ s lives better by ensuring we have enough housing for everyone who needs it ” .
“ Restrictive zoning puts a hard cap , full stop , on our ability to build enough housing to get out of this crisis , ” Wiener said .
Less than a quarter of the developable land in much of California is zoned for multifamily housing .
That lack of space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprawl of single-family homes has led to high housing costs , community displacement and a growing number of super commuters – people who commute upwards of hundreds of miles to work a day because they can ’ t afford to live near their jobs .
But Weiner was unable to overcome strong opposition from local governments , including the influential League of California Cities , that said the bill would “ greatly undermine ” their authority to regulate growth .
Critics also argued that the majority of housing units created by SB50 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s simply unaffordable for the majority of people in need in the area .
“ None of these units are going to be subject to rent control , ” Deepa Varma , the executive director of the San Francisco Tenants Union , said ahead of the vote .
“ It doesn ’ t create housing that ’ s going to house the homeless , it doesn ’ t stabilize the people who are already there , it doesn ’ t encourage the units that are going to be built to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Democratic senator Ben Hueso of San Diego , were motivated by the state ’ s high cost of living and housing shortage .
“ I don ’ t know how people can afford to live in our state , ” Hueso said .
“ I can ’ t explain why we don ’ t have a greater supply of apartments under construction.
” But opponents , such as Democratic senator Harry Stern from Calabasas , worried the bill would increase building in areas prone to wildfires , which have become larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate change .
“ What we are going to be doing is burning more and more Californians ’ homes down the more we build down there , ” said Stern , who lost his home in a devastating 2018 wildfire in southern California .
Wiener had changed the measure to give local governments two years to come up with their own housing plans that could have exempted cities from many of the law ’ s requirements .
But it wasn ’ t enough for approval in the senate .
California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill , said he was not giving up .
“ We ’ re going to get something big done this calendar year , this legislative session , ” Newsom told reporters .
“ We are going to continue to work aggressively to address production in this state.
” Its demise highlights the difficulty of passing major housing legislation in California .
Many of lawmakers ’ most sweeping ideas have failed to pass the legislature .
An exception was a new law that took effect in January that limits rent increases for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation .

California lawmakers have failed to pass the most ambitious proposal yet to combat a growing housing crisis, voting down legislation on Wednesday that would have eliminated zoning restrictions near transportation and job centers to enable the construction of more high-density housing.
California faces a crippling housing crisis that has driven up rents and led to a surge in homelessness. Senate Bill 50 (SB50) was meant to address an estimated shortage of 3.5m homes, overriding local zoning laws in order to let developers build small apartment buildings in neighborhoods reserved for single-family homes.
The bill failed to pass on Wednesday by three votes. However, the California state senate voted to give it “reconsideration”, meaning lawmakers could vote on it again on Thursday. The deadline for the bill to pass is Friday, but the state senate is not scheduled to meet that day.
The bill was authored by state senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, home to some of the highest housing prices in the country.
“We’re going to do everything in our power to pass SB50 tomorrow,” Wiener said.
Less than a quarter of the developable land in much of California is zoned for multifamily housing. That lack of space for new affordable housing combined with the sprawl of single-family homes has led to high housing costs, community displacement and a growing number of super commuters – people who commute upwards of hundreds of miles to work a day because they can’t afford to live near their jobs.
But Weiner was unable to overcome strong opposition from local governments, including the influential League of California Cities, that said the bill would “greatly undermine” their authority to regulate growth.
Critics also argued that the majority of housing units created by SB50 would be sold at market-rate – a cost that’s simply unaffordable for the majority of people in need in the area.
“None of these units are going to be subject to rent control,” Deepa Varma, the executive director of the San Francisco Tenants Union, said ahead of the vote. “It doesn’t create housing that’s going to house the homeless, it doesn’t stabilize the people who are already there, it doesn’t encourage the units that are going to be built to get cheaper.”
Supporters in the senate, such as Democratic senator Ben Hueso of San Diego, were motivated by the state’s high cost of living and housing shortage.
“I don’t know how people can afford to live in our state,” Hueso said. “I can’t explain why we don’t have a greater supply of apartments under construction.”
But opponents, such as Democratic senator Harry Stern from Calabasas, worried the bill would increase building in areas prone to wildfires, which have become larger and more frequent in recent years because of climate change.
“What we are going to be doing is burning more and more Californians’ homes down the more we build down there,” said Stern, who lost his home in a devastating 2018 wildfire in southern California.
Wiener had changed the measure to give local governments two years to come up with their own housing plans that could have exempted cities from many of the law’s requirements. But it wasn’t enough for approval in the senate.
California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, who supports the bill, said he was not giving up.
He said: “We’re going to get something big done this calendar year, this legislative session.”


theguardian--2020-01-30--Impeachment trial: House managers and Trump team in first direct clash

The opposing legal teams in Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial locked horns directly for the first time on Wednesday , as an interrogation period began in which senators submitted questions in writing to be read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding .
The format set up clashes over Trump ’ s motivations , the power of Congress to call witnesses from the executive branch and , most of all , the need – or not – for the former national security adviser John Bolton and possibly other witnesses to testify at the trial .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drew ever nearer to a crossroads , expected on Friday , at which the senators will decide whether to call witnesses – or to move on to a vote for Trump ’ s acquittal .
If the Senate votes to call witnesses , Trump ’ s legal team warned , “ that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings ” and could lead to court challenges that would draw the trial out .
Adam Schiff , the lead impeachment manager , argued that Roberts , “ a perfectly good chief justice ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial .
“ They could no longer contest the facts , ” Schiff said of Trump ’ s defense team .
“ So now they have fallen back on , ‘ You shouldn ’ t hear any further evidence on this subject.
’ Think about the precedent you would be setting if you don ’ t allow witnesses in a trial.
” The relatively fast-paced question period , which allowed five minutes per response to each of 54 questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week in which the two sides made strictly siloed opening arguments , speaking for multiple days each to lay out their cases to the senators .
Apart from the legal clashes , the question-and-answer format requiring Roberts to read the senators ’ queries produced some awkwardness , as when Kamala Harris , a California Democrat , said that Trump appeared to believe that being president gave him unlimited powers , including the ability to stonewall Congress .
“ Nixon said ‘ when the president does it it ’ s not illegal ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s question .
“ President Trump said , ‘ When you ’ re a star , they let you do it , you can do anything.
’ ” The words in the chief justice ’ s mouth were from the Access Hollywood tape that surfaced a month before Trump was elected .
Trump was impeached for abuse of power for allegedly conditioning military aid for Ukraine on the receipt of personal political favors , and for obstruction of Congress for attempting to cover the scheme up .
Trump ’ s defense team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Ukraine out of a desire to combat internal corruption in the country , although prosecutors in the case have pointed out that nowhere else in his life or presidency has Trump taken up anti-corruption measures as a priority .
Any senators with lingering questions about Trump ’ s motives for suspending aid to Ukraine have an easy solution at hand , Schiff said : call Bolton to testify .
In a manuscript to be published in March , Bolton reportedly describes a conversation with Trump in August 2019 in which Trump said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Ukraine until the country announced investigations , including one into the former vice-president Joe Biden .
“ Don ’ t wait for the book , ” Schiff urged the Senate .
“ Don ’ t wait for March 17 when it is in black and white .
Find out the answer to your question.
” Patrick Philbin , a Trump lawyer , warned that as a former national security adviser , Bolton ’ s testimony could be protected by “ an absolute privilege of confidentiality ” .
“ To suggest that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just subpoena him , he ’ ll come and it ’ ll be no problem – that ’ s not the way it would work because there ’ s a vital constitutional privilege there , ” Philbin said .
“ There would be grave issues raised attempting to have a national security adviser to come.
” But there were few signs that the tug-of-war over Bolton ’ s testimony would come to a clash of constitutional principles .
Democrats still seemed to lack the firm support of the three Republican senators they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Wednesday , one moderate Republican , Cory Gardner of Colorado , announced he would vote against witnesses .
The three Republicans under the most intense scrutiny on both sides of the aisle – Susan Collins of Maine , Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – posed the first question of the session , asking whether Trump ’ s conduct toward Ukraine would be impeachable if he was acting out of both public and personal motives .
“ If there is something that shows a possible public interest , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
Once you ’ re into mixed motive land , their case fails.
” Invited by minority leader Chuck Schumer to reply , Schiff pounced , arguing that “ if any part of the president ’ s motive was a corrupt motive , that is enough to convict ” .
“ There is a witness a subpoena away who can answer that question , ” Schiff said , in one of many calls to subpoena Bolton ’ s testimony .
Republicans control the Senate with a 53-seat majority .
A two-thirds majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove Trump from office .
As the evening wore on , the two sides fell into a pattern of directing questions exclusively to their own sides – Democrats to the House managers , Republicans to Trump ’ s legal team .
“ It ’ s highly unlikely that you ’ ll see either side asking a question of the other side , ” the Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina explained during a break .
“ You don ’ t want to see someone just drone on .
”

The opposing legal teams in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial locked horns directly for the first time on Wednesday, as an interrogation period began in which senators submitted questions in writing to be read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding.
The format set up clashes over Trump’s motivations, the power of Congress to call witnesses from the executive branch and, most of all, the need – or not – for the former national security adviser John Bolton and possibly other witnesses to testify at the trial.
In its eighth full day, the trial drew ever nearer to a crossroads, expected on Friday, at which the senators will decide whether to call witnesses – or to move on to a vote for Trump’s acquittal.
If the Senate votes to call witnesses, Trump’s legal team warned, “that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings” and could lead to court challenges that would draw the trial out.
Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, argued that Roberts, “a perfectly good chief justice”, could make fast rulings that would prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial.
“They could no longer contest the facts,” Schiff said of Trump’s defense team. “So now they have fallen back on, ‘You shouldn’t hear any further evidence on this subject.’ Think about the precedent you would be setting if you don’t allow witnesses in a trial.”
The relatively fast-paced question period, which allowed five minutes per response to each of 54 questions before the dinner break, came after a week in which the two sides made strictly siloed opening arguments, speaking for multiple days each to lay out their cases to the senators.
Apart from the legal clashes, the question-and-answer format requiring Roberts to read the senators’ queries produced some awkwardness, as when Kamala Harris, a California Democrat, said that Trump appeared to believe that being president gave him unlimited powers, including the ability to stonewall Congress.
“Nixon said ‘when the president does it it’s not illegal’,” Roberts said, reading Harris’s question. “President Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.’” The words in the chief justice’s mouth were from the Access Hollywood tape that surfaced a month before Trump was elected.
Trump was impeached for abuse of power for allegedly conditioning military aid for Ukraine on the receipt of personal political favors, and for obstruction of Congress for attempting to cover the scheme up.
Trump’s defense team has argued that the president withheld aid from Ukraine out of a desire to combat internal corruption in the country, although prosecutors in the case have pointed out that nowhere else in his life or presidency has Trump taken up anti-corruption measures as a priority.
Any senators with lingering questions about Trump’s motives for suspending aid to Ukraine have an easy solution at hand, Schiff said: call Bolton to testify.
In a manuscript to be published in March, Bolton reportedly describes a conversation with Trump in August 2019 in which Trump said he did not want to release aid for Ukraine until the country announced investigations, including one into the former vice-president Joe Biden.
The White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin answers a question during the trial. Photograph: AP
“Don’t wait for the book,” Schiff urged the Senate. “Don’t wait for March 17 when it is in black and white. Find out the answer to your question.”
Patrick Philbin, a Trump lawyer, warned that as a former national security adviser, Bolton’s testimony could be protected by “an absolute privilege of confidentiality”.
“To suggest that the national security adviser, we’ll just subpoena him, he’ll come and it’ll be no problem – that’s not the way it would work because there’s a vital constitutional privilege there,” Philbin said. “There would be grave issues raised attempting to have a national security adviser to come.”
But there were few signs that the tug-of-war over Bolton’s testimony would come to a clash of constitutional principles. Democrats still seemed to lack the firm support of the three Republican senators they would need to advance the witnesses question. On Wednesday, one moderate Republican, Cory Gardner of Colorado, announced he would vote against witnesses.
The three Republicans under the most intense scrutiny on both sides of the aisle – Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – posed the first question of the session, asking whether Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine would be impeachable if he was acting out of both public and personal motives.
“If there is something that shows a possible public interest,” argued Philbin, “that destroys their case. Once you’re into mixed motive land, their case fails.”
Invited by minority leader Chuck Schumer to reply, Schiff pounced, arguing that “if any part of the president’s motive was a corrupt motive, that is enough to convict”.
“There is a witness a subpoena away who can answer that question,” Schiff said, in one of many calls to subpoena Bolton’s testimony.
Republicans control the Senate with a 53-seat majority. A two-thirds majority of voting senators would be required to remove Trump from office.
As the evening wore on, the two sides fell into a pattern of directing questions exclusively to their own sides – Democrats to the House managers, Republicans to Trump’s legal team.
“It’s highly unlikely that you’ll see either side asking a question of the other side,” the Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina explained during a break. “You don’t want to see someone just drone on.”


theguardian--2020-01-30--Trump’s ‘peace’ deal flagrantly tramples on Palestinian rights and freedoms | Yara Hawari

At the White House on Tuesday , Donald Trump laid out his “ deal of the century ” : a plan for total Palestinian capitulation .
It calls on Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state with all of Jerusalem as its capital , to give up the right of return that would allow Palestinian refugees to live in Israel , to accept the annexation of the Jordan Valley and the illegal Israeli settlements there , and to live in a series of Bantustans connected by roads and tunnels that would all essentially be controlled by Israel .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only is the plan simply a continuation of the Trump administration ’ s policy towards Israel and Palestine since the day he took office , but it comes after decades of disregard towards Palestinian aspirations of freedom and sovereignty .
When the Oslo peace accords were signed in 1993 , they were hailed as the foundation for a negotiated peace between Israel and Palestine – a stance that most international actors and bodies have continued to hold in the decades since .
At the time , however , the Palestinian scholar Edward Said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian Versailles ” , a degrading spectacle that undermined the liberation struggle and any hopes for future Palestinian sovereignty .
Unfortunately , he has been proven right .
The division of the West Bank into Areas A , B and C under the accords allowed Israel to dominate the latter two areas while the former became pockets of limited Palestinian autonomy .
In other words , it facilitated the complete Bantustanisation of the West Bank and the isolation of Gaza .
Meanwhile , the accords failed to properly address the key issues of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and security ; instead , they were designated “ final status issues ” , to be resolved as part of some future peace deal .
Inadvertently , then , the PLO ( Palestinian Liberation Organisation ) , led by Yasser Arafat , allowed them to become disputed issues , rather than ones central to the Palestinian struggle and defined clearly in international law .
This was clear at the White House yesterday when , standing at Trump ’ s side , Benjamin Netanyahu said that talk of the occupation as “ illegal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House ; indeed , Jared Kushner , Trump ’ s son-in-law and the architect of this plan , barely bothered to speak to any Palestinians .
And there is no mention in Trump ’ s plan of Palestinian rights .
Instead Palestinians are promised economic incentives , namely $ 50bn of investment over the next 10 years , in exchange for their internationally enshrined rights – another all too familiar component of previous “ peace ” plans .
As if paying Palestinians off would make them forget the rights to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and towns of origin or to live as equal and full human beings .
It is thus clear that Trump ’ s plan is not only an assault on Palestinian rights and freedom but also an attempt to put forward a new world order that completely undermines international law .
Whatever the White House might say , it never expected the Palestinian leadership would accept this plan or even consider some of its terms and conditions .
And that means it can continue to buy into the decades-old and quite frankly racist narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwilling to negotiate .
That was evident in Kushner ’ s comments : if the Palestinians don ’ t accept this deal , he argued , “ they ’ re going to screw up another opportunity like they ’ ve screwed up every other opportunity that they ’ ve ever had in their existence ” .
Depressing as the Trump plan may be , it does suggest one possible opportunity .
It stipulates that while negotiations take place , the PLO is not to take part in any action against Israel at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the recent war crimes probe opened by the court ’ s chief prosecutor .
This reveals that Israel is genuinely scared of such a move , if any international actors are brave enough to seek it .
However , none of this changes the reality on the ground : there is effectively one entity spanning from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea , where two groups of people live vastly unequal and separate lives .
Israel and the US are working hard to consolidate and to finalise this – and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international community , they will .
Yet the other part of the reality is that Palestinians are not going anywhere .
They continue to live in their millions in Haifa , Jaffa , Jerusalem , Ramallah , Hebron and beyond .
They have to drastically change their current reality , by mobilising and demanding more from their leadership , and imagining a radically different future even when it seems impossible .
• Yara Hawari is a senior policy fellow at Al Shabaka , the Palestinian Policy Network

At the White House on Tuesday, Donald Trump laid out his “deal of the century”: a plan for total Palestinian capitulation. It calls on Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state with all of Jerusalem as its capital, to give up the right of return that would allow Palestinian refugees to live in Israel, to accept the annexation of the Jordan Valley and the illegal Israeli settlements there, and to live in a series of Bantustans connected by roads and tunnels that would all essentially be controlled by Israel.
None of this should be surprising. Not only is the plan simply a continuation of the Trump administration’s policy towards Israel and Palestine since the day he took office, but it comes after decades of disregard towards Palestinian aspirations of freedom and sovereignty.
When the Oslo peace accords were signed in 1993, they were hailed as the foundation for a negotiated peace between Israel and Palestine – a stance that most international actors and bodies have continued to hold in the decades since. At the time, however, the Palestinian scholar Edward Said dubbed the much celebrated accords “a Palestinian Versailles”, a degrading spectacle that undermined the liberation struggle and any hopes for future Palestinian sovereignty. Unfortunately, he has been proven right. The division of the West Bank into Areas A, B and C under the accords allowed Israel to dominate the latter two areas while the former became pockets of limited Palestinian autonomy. In other words, it facilitated the complete Bantustanisation of the West Bank and the isolation of Gaza.
Meanwhile, the accords failed to properly address the key issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders and security; instead, they were designated “final status issues”, to be resolved as part of some future peace deal. Inadvertently, then, the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation), led by Yasser Arafat, allowed them to become disputed issues, rather than ones central to the Palestinian struggle and defined clearly in international law. This was clear at the White House yesterday when, standing at Trump’s side, Benjamin Netanyahu said that talk of the occupation as “illegal” was outrageous.
There were no Palestinians at the White House; indeed, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and the architect of this plan, barely bothered to speak to any Palestinians. And there is no mention in Trump’s plan of Palestinian rights. Instead Palestinians are promised economic incentives, namely $50bn of investment over the next 10 years, in exchange for their internationally enshrined rights – another all too familiar component of previous “peace” plans. As if paying Palestinians off would make them forget the rights to Jerusalem, to return to their villages and towns of origin or to live as equal and full human beings.
02:16 Trump unveils 'ultimate deal' for Middle East peace – video
It is thus clear that Trump’s plan is not only an assault on Palestinian rights and freedom but also an attempt to put forward a new world order that completely undermines international law. Whatever the White House might say, it never expected the Palestinian leadership would accept this plan or even consider some of its terms and conditions. And that means it can continue to buy into the decades-old and quite frankly racist narrative that the Palestinian people are rejectionist and unwilling to negotiate. That was evident in Kushner’s comments: if the Palestinians don’t accept this deal, he argued, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence”.
Depressing as the Trump plan may be, it does suggest one possible opportunity. It stipulates that while negotiations take place, the PLO is not to take part in any action against Israel at the international criminal court – in a nod to the recent war crimes probe opened by the court’s chief prosecutor. This reveals that Israel is genuinely scared of such a move, if any international actors are brave enough to seek it.
However, none of this changes the reality on the ground: there is effectively one entity spanning from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea, where two groups of people live vastly unequal and separate lives. Israel and the US are working hard to consolidate and to finalise this – and with the help of a paralysed and cowardly international community, they will. Yet the other part of the reality is that Palestinians are not going anywhere. They continue to live in their millions in Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron and beyond. They have to drastically change their current reality, by mobilising and demanding more from their leadership, and imagining a radically different future even when it seems impossible.