theguardian--2020-01-28--I thought Bernie's Iowa numbers seemed unrealistically high. Then I saw his rallies | Art Cullen

Three political rallies in a small north-west Iowa town over the weekend convinced me that the polls showing Bernie Sanders leading among likely caucus-goers have it about right .
Some 400 people packed into a ballroom in Storm Lake , Iowa , on Sunday to hear Michael Moore , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the disheveled senator from Vermont raise the roof for a political revolution .
Polls going into the weekend showed Sanders with 25 % of the likely crowd at the caucuses on 3 February .
Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren trail closely , while Amy Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is getting some interest .
Bernie had momentum on Sunday .
People were hooting and hollering and clapping for Moore , the documentarian , when he said the rich will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle .
He cited Paul ’ s letter to the Corinthians urging unity over factionalism .
The revival meeting lapped it up .
The night before , Buttigieg appeared at Buena Vista University to a crowd of 220 with half the enthusiasm of the Sanders affair .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but nobody was going wild .
His biggest applause line came when he complained that “ everybody needs a second job ” .
After Sanders ’ s rally in the afternoon , Yang made his first appearance in Storm Lake to a crowd of about 100 .
He had them laughing , and got them worrying about artificial intelligence eliminating 40,000 manufacturing jobs in Iowa .
Truckers may be a thing of the past .
It got everyone ’ s attention .
The New York businessman has his facts and figures – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s retail business , and that the erosion of local news is undermining democracy – down into a compelling narrative about how capital and technology conspire to leave huge swaths of America behind .
Yang ’ s solution , as articulated , is to give everyone $ 1,000 per month , and to take back democracy .
He thinks he can “ rewire the economy ” to bring something back to those lost places in the swing states where jobs , people and prospects keep getting drained to the coasts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest economic transformation in our nation ’ s history , ” Yang said to his largest applause .
In fact , that may explain why Sanders is leading .
“ We ’ re going to win because working people are tired of being ignored , working two or three jobs , ” Sanders proclaimed to heads nodding and amens .
The ballroom echoed in boos when Sanders detailed how 12 years ago “ Congress bailed out crooks on Wall Street , and then Trump gave them a trillion dollars in tax breaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Boo !
A man up front said his health insurance premiums are $ 1,400 per month .
Sanders said that the average $ 60,000 household in Iowa would pay that much per year on healthcare taxes with Medicare for All .
No premiums .
No deductibles .
They cheered harder .
Healthcare is the top issue cited by likely caucus-goers in a state where you can choose Wellmark Blue Cross or Wellmark Blue Cross .
Climate change is the number two issue .
“ It is real , and it is underestimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a beautiful country , is on fire , ” Sanders thundered as the crowd roared back .
“ Crop production will decline .
Climate refugees are around the world in the millions , leading to more war .
And we have a president who denies it all.
” The Smith sisters , Paula and Lou , buried their mother with a Hillary Clinton sticker a few years ago .
They fell into the Bernie bandwagon at that rally .
Their brother Rob was waffling among Sanders , Buttigieg , Biden and Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ a banker for Bernie ” as he was four years ago , but he will walk into the caucus as a Yang supporter .
If Yang is not viable with the necessary 15 % , he will bail to Bernie .
Tim Gallagher , who works for Buena Vista University , says he might vote for any one of them , and will decide on caucus day .
“ A lot can happen in a week , ” he said .
Such as : Warren was endorsed by the largest newspaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on Sunday .
She danced a jig on hearing the news Saturday night in Muscatine in eastern Iowa , after taking selfies with hundreds .
She has an elaborate , well-tuned organization apparatus in all parts of the state that she is banking will deliver for her .
So does Sanders , obviously .
The front rows on Sunday were impressive in their relative diversity : people of color .
Young people , old people .
Conservative-looking farmers who came out to listen to a democratic socialist .
Sanders said his Berniecrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds on Saturday – over 100,000 homes .
“ There ’ s nobody in the state with a stronger grassroots volunteer movement , ” Sanders said .
“ Our agenda speaks to the questions and pain that people have in their lives [ … ] I ’ ve talked to too many people in Iowa who are making 10 to 12 bucks an hour.
” He lit them up again .
That ’ s what this caucus cycle is about .
Sanders has tapped into a vein of frustration that elected Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give him a look .
Pundits ’ warnings about a Sanders “ ceiling ” have begun to sound like the products of people who fear his potential strength .
• None Art Cullen is the editor of the Storm Lake Times in north-west Iowa , where he won the Pulitzer prize for editorial writing .
He is a columnist for Guardian US and is author of the book Storm Lake : Change , Resilience , and Hope in America ’ s Heartland , out this month in paperback

Three political rallies in a small north-west Iowa town over the weekend convinced me that the polls showing Bernie Sanders leading among likely caucus-goers have it about right.
Some 400 people packed into a ballroom in Storm Lake, Iowa, on Sunday to hear Michael Moore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the disheveled senator from Vermont raise the roof for a political revolution.
Polls going into the weekend showed Sanders with 25% of the likely crowd at the caucuses on 3 February. Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren trail closely, while Amy Klobuchar is building support late and Andrew Yang is getting some interest.
Bernie had momentum on Sunday. People were hooting and hollering and clapping for Moore, the documentarian, when he said the rich will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle. He cited Paul’s letter to the Corinthians urging unity over factionalism. The revival meeting lapped it up.
The night before, Buttigieg appeared at Buena Vista University to a crowd of 220 with half the enthusiasm of the Sanders affair. He spoke about healing wounds, too, but nobody was going wild. His biggest applause line came when he complained that “everybody needs a second job”.
After Sanders’s rally in the afternoon, Yang made his first appearance in Storm Lake to a crowd of about 100. He had them laughing, and got them worrying about artificial intelligence eliminating 40,000 manufacturing jobs in Iowa. Truckers may be a thing of the past. It got everyone’s attention. The New York businessman has his facts and figures – that Amazon wiped out 30% of our state’s retail business, and that the erosion of local news is undermining democracy – down into a compelling narrative about how capital and technology conspire to leave huge swaths of America behind.
Yang’s solution, as articulated, is to give everyone $1,000 per month, and to take back democracy. He thinks he can “rewire the economy” to bring something back to those lost places in the swing states where jobs, people and prospects keep getting drained to the coasts.
Michael Moore at the Storm Lake rally. Photograph: John Locher/AP
“We are in the midst of the greatest economic transformation in our nation’s history,” Yang said to his largest applause.
In fact, that may explain why Sanders is leading.
“We’re going to win because working people are tired of being ignored, working two or three jobs,” Sanders proclaimed to heads nodding and amens.
The ballroom echoed in boos when Sanders detailed how 12 years ago “Congress bailed out crooks on Wall Street, and then Trump gave them a trillion dollars in tax breaks”. And Amazon pays no tax. Boo!
A man up front said his health insurance premiums are $1,400 per month.
Sanders said that the average $60,000 household in Iowa would pay that much per year on healthcare taxes with Medicare for All. No premiums. No deductibles. They cheered harder.
Healthcare is the top issue cited by likely caucus-goers in a state where you can choose Wellmark Blue Cross or Wellmark Blue Cross.
Climate change is the number two issue.
“It is real, and it is underestimated in its speed and severity. Australia, a beautiful country, is on fire,” Sanders thundered as the crowd roared back. “Crop production will decline. Climate refugees are around the world in the millions, leading to more war. And we have a president who denies it all.”
The Smith sisters, Paula and Lou, buried their mother with a Hillary Clinton sticker a few years ago. They fell into the Bernie bandwagon at that rally. Their brother Rob was waffling among Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden and Yang.
Dan Berglund said he probably will be “a banker for Bernie” as he was four years ago, but he will walk into the caucus as a Yang supporter. If Yang is not viable with the necessary 15%, he will bail to Bernie.
Tim Gallagher, who works for Buena Vista University, says he might vote for any one of them, and will decide on caucus day. “A lot can happen in a week,” he said.
Such as: Warren was endorsed by the largest newspaper in Iowa, the Des Moines Register, on Sunday. She danced a jig on hearing the news Saturday night in Muscatine in eastern Iowa, after taking selfies with hundreds. She has an elaborate, well-tuned organization apparatus in all parts of the state that she is banking will deliver for her.
So does Sanders, obviously. The front rows on Sunday were impressive in their relative diversity: people of color. Young people, old people. Conservative-looking farmers who came out to listen to a democratic socialist.
Sanders said his Berniecrats knocked on an Iowa door every two seconds on Saturday – over 100,000 homes.
“There’s nobody in the state with a stronger grassroots volunteer movement,” Sanders said. “Our agenda speaks to the questions and pain that people have in their lives […] I’ve talked to too many people in Iowa who are making 10 to 12 bucks an hour.”
He lit them up again.
That’s what this caucus cycle is about. Sanders has tapped into a vein of frustration that elected Trump, and is getting people of all stripes to give him a look. Pundits’ warnings about a Sanders “ceiling” have begun to sound like the products of people who fear his potential strength.


theguardian--2020-01-28--Impeachment day six: 'Nothing in Bolton revelations', says Trump lawyer – video

The president 's defence team avoided mention of a new book written by former security adviser John Bolton .
The @ @ @ @ @ by Alan Dershowitz , who said : 'Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if @ @ @ @ @ the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offence . '
Kenneth Starr @ @ @ @ @ serial investigations of Bill Clinton culminated in Clinton ’ s impeachment , argued that the @ @ @ @ @ a surfeit of impeachment .

The president's defence team avoided mention of a new book written by former security adviser John Bolton. The exception came in a monologue by Alan Dershowitz, who said: 'Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offence.' Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose serial investigations of Bill Clinton culminated in Clinton’s impeachment, argued that the United States was suffering from a surfeit of impeachment.


theguardian--2020-01-28--Impeachment: GOP leaders reportedly say they lack votes to block witnesses – live

Joe Biden won ’ t commit to endorsing Bernie Sanders as the presidential nominee The tension between the former vice president and the progressive Vermont senator has been building as the Iowa caucus approaches next week .
Though Biden had previously committed to endorsing the Democratic nominee , “ regardless ” of who wins the primaries , he appears to be vacillating on Sanders .
The two have clashed over foreign policy , trade , and social security .
Last week , Biden ’ s campaign released an ad accusing Sanders of negative attacks on the former vice president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
Sanders ’ campaign lobbed back that it was Biden who was going negative .
Sanders did apologize after a supporter ’ s op-ed in The Guardian called Biden “ corrupt ” .
The two frontrunners are fighting off Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg ahead of the Iowa caucus .
“ I ’ m not going to make judgments now , ” Biden told reporters in Iowa , where he has been campaigning this week .
“ I just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

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

29 Jan 2020 00.51 GMT FOIA reveals Rick Perry’s talking points for Zelenskiy inauguration NEW: The Department of Energy just released 139 pages of records to American Oversight in response to our FOIA lawsuit — including what appears to be Secretary Rick Perry's briefing book for his May 2019 delegation to Ukraine. https://t.co/FvyzrVK8kp pic.twitter.com/xwXWytYth0 — American Oversight (@weareoversight) January 29, 2020 A watchdog group’s FOIA request to the Energy Department yielded emails, messages, and notes as well as the talking point that former energy secretary Rick Perry took to attend the inauguration of Ukrainian president Vlodomry Zelenskiy. Perry was one of the “three amigos” involved in Ukraine policy, and became a kew figure in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.
29 Jan 2020 00.12 GMT As Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders spar on the campaign trail, the former vice president’s campaign maintains that he’s committed to backing the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at Jeno’s Little Hungary in Davenport, Iowa. Photograph: Matt Rourke/AP The tension between the former vice president and the progressive Vermont senator has been building as the Iowa caucus approaches next week. Though Biden had previously committed to endorsing the Democratic nominee, “regardless” of who wins the primaries, he appeared to be vacillating on Sanders. The two have clashed over foreign policy, trade, and social security. Last week, Biden’s campaign released an ad accusing Sanders of negative attacks on the former vice president’s and mischaracterizing his record on social security. Sanders’ campaign lobbed back that it was Biden who was going negative. Sanders did apologize after a supporter’s op-ed in The Guardian called Biden “corrupt”. The two frontrunners are fighting off Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg ahead of the Iowa caucus. “I’m not going to make judgments now,” Biden told reporters in Iowa, where he has been campaigning this week. “I just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee.” The Associated Press and other outlets interpreted this as vacillation. But Biden’s campaign contested reports that he wouldn’t back the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. What he actually said:
Reporter: Will the party unite behind Bernie if he's the nominee? The whole party?
Biden: We have to. I'm not gonna make judgments now but I just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee. — Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) January 28, 2020
Updated at 00.43 GMT
28 Jan 2020 23.31 GMT Though Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has reportedly told senators privately that he doesn’t have votes to block new witnesses in the impeachment trial, per multiple reports, there are still several days till senators would vote on the matter. Senate Republicans may still block witnesses, and some GOP lawmakers are confident they’ll be able to do so, according to CNN. While the votes aren't secured yet, GOP leaders are growing confident they can defeat a vote on witnesses following the initial alarm the Bolton book caused among Senate Rs. Many Rs amenable to argument that witnesses would drag it out with no clear end https://t.co/LKsAaRHEaS — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 28, 2020
28 Jan 2020 23.06 GMT Lev Parnas’ lawyer is expected to attend the Senate trial tomorrow. Joseph Bondy asked Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer for gallery tickets, according to The Daily Beast, which first reported the news. Bondy’s co-counsel Stephanie Schuman is also expected to appear. Parnas himself may not be able to, as he wears an ankle monitor and electronics are banned in the trial chamber. Lev Parnas attorney on attending Senate trial: “We are attending the trial w/ or w/o Mr. Parnas bc we believe our presence is important in reminding senators that indeed there should be witnesses heard and evidence taken and that anything short of that would not be a fair trial” — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 28, 2020
28 Jan 2020 22.39 GMT Feinstein clarifies her statement: ‘It’s clear the president’s actions were wrong’ The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020 An Axios reporter who initially posed a question about acquittal to the senator today further clarified: Feinstein was open to potentially acquitting Donald Trump before, but is less so now. I think the @latimes has this story backwards. I was the reporter who asked @SenFeinstein these questions. She told me she was initially going to vote against impeachment "before this"
But when I asked her to clarify, she said she's changed her opinion https://t.co/sJeYl2VkNl — Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) January 28, 2020
Updated at 22.44 GMT
28 Jan 2020 22.22 GMT Is Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein open to acquittal? Dianne Feinstein speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP After the president’s defense team concluded their arguments today, Feinstein, a Democrat of California, seemed to suggest she’s not entirely opposed to acquittal. “Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein told the LA Times. “That was my view and it still is my view.” Per the LA Times: Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.” Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.” At 86, Feinstein is the oldest member of the Senate. She’s expected to retire after she completes the remaining four years of her term — so she doesn’t necessarily need to consider how going against the grain will affect her chances of reelection in Blue-state California. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the only other Senate Democrat whose vote to remove Trump from office isn’t assured. On Fox News, he said, “I am totally undecided,” on how he’ll vote.
Updated at 22.43 GMT
28 Jan 2020 22.04 GMT Evening summary That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours. Here’s where the day stands so far: Trump ’s lawyers concluded their opening arguments in the impeachment trial, advising senators to vote for acquittal and “end the era of impeachment for good.”
’s lawyers concluded their opening arguments in the impeachment trial, advising senators to vote for acquittal and “end the era of impeachment for good.” The president’s lawyers argued that John Bolton ’s manuscript was “inadmissible” for the impeachment trial because it included an “unsourced allegation,” a claim that impeachment managers said only emphasized the need for the former official to testify.
’s manuscript was “inadmissible” for the impeachment trial because it included an “unsourced allegation,” a claim that impeachment managers said only emphasized the need for the former official to testify. Senate Republicans continued to wrestle with whether to support calling witnesses in the impeachment trial, although Susan Collins reiterated that she was “very likely” to support the proposal.
continued to wrestle with whether to support calling witnesses in the impeachment trial, although reiterated that she was “very likely” to support the proposal. John Kelly, the president’s former chief of staff, said he believes Bolton, who reportedly claimed in his forthcoming book that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
the president’s former chief of staff, said he believes Bolton, who reportedly claimed in his forthcoming book that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of The Trump administration unveiled its Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal, which was automatically rejected by Palestinian leaders. Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
28 Jan 2020 21.57 GMT Speaking to CNN, Jared Kushner, the president’s adviser and son-in-law who spearheaded the crafting of the administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal, warned Palestinians against rejecting the deal. “The Palestinian leadership have to ask themselves a question: do they want to have a state? Do they want to have a better life?” Kushner said. He then presented an ultimatum to the Palestinians. Kushner said, “If they do, we have created a framework for them to have it, and we’re going to treat them in a very respectful manner. If they don’t, then they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.” Jared Kushner, senior adviser to the President, says the White House's Middle East plan is "a great deal" and if Palestinians reject it, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.” pic.twitter.com/ABAI3gKjig — CNN (@CNN) January 28, 2020 But the Palestinian president has already rejected any possibility of agreeing to the White House’s proposal. “We say a thousand times, no, no, no to the deal of the century,” Mahmoud Abbas said. “We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct.”
28 Jan 2020 21.30 GMT Echoing her earlier comments, Republican senator Susan Collins told CBS News that she is “very likely” to support calling witnesses for the impeachment trial. EXCLUSIVE: Republican @SenatorCollins says it’s “very likely” that she will vote to hear witnesses in the Senate Impeachment trial.
“I, for one, believe that there's some gaps, some ambiguities that need to be cleared up” pic.twitter.com/8Rwbwk9ytm — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 28, 2020 Collins said she and her Republican colleagues have had “a lot more conversations” about witness testimony since the publications of the report about John Bolton’s book, which reportedly includes an allegation that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats. Asked whether they were four Republicans who would support calling witnesses, Collins said, “I don’t know the answer to that question yet.” But she added, “I, for one, believe that there’s some gaps, some ambiguities that need to be cleared up, and more information tends to be helpful when you’re making such a weighty decision.”
28 Jan 2020 21.14 GMT Exiting a meeting with fellow Republican senators, John Cornyn said the caucus had not reached a decision on calling witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial. “No final decision” on witnesses, Cornyn says after GOP conference meeting — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 28, 2020


theguardian--2020-01-28--Trump team’s opening arguments: the key takeaways

Defense lawyers at Donald Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial concluded their opening arguments on Tuesday .
Here are six key takeaways : The president ’ s defense argued on Monday that Trump ’ s conduct toward Ukraine did not stem from a desire to smear the former vice-president Joe Biden , but from Trump ’ s personal concerns about corruption in Ukraine and burden-sharing with Europe .
Trump ’ s lawyers sought to cast the furore over his Ukraine conduct as a policy dispute .
“ To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended , ” said Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow .
But on Tuesday the defense went further , to argue that even if everything reportedly charged in a forthcoming book by the former national security adviser John Bolton is true – that Trump conditioned military aid for Ukraine on the receipt by him of personal political favors – that would still not be impeachable .
“ Even if everything in there was true , it constitutionally doesn ’ t rise to that level ” of an impeachable offense , said Sekulow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case off the Senate floor : Probably not .
Sekulow argued that reports about Bolton ’ s book were “ inadmissible ” as hearsay , but the defense team simultaneously argued that no witnesses should be called .
That ’ s not how the public feels about it , however , according to opinion polls conducted in the past week , including one released by Quinnipiac on Tuesday : Time to spare .
Lots of it Trump ’ s defense was spread across three days , but the first and third days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday and an outro on Tuesday .
All told , the defense used about 10 of its 24 hours allotted for opening arguments – less than half the time House managers used to present evidence against Trump .
The majority leader , Mitch McConnell , said the Senate would convene at 1pm Wednesday to begin a question period , which could last for a maximum of 16 hours spread over two days .
Senators will submit written questions to be read by the supreme court ’ s chief justice , John Roberts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit their responses to five minutes apiece .
The Senate was on track to hold at least one major vote on Friday , on the question of whether to vote on individual witnesses .
If the Senate decides against witnesses , then the big vote – whether to convict or acquit the president – could follow soon after .
If Trump has his way , the impeachment process could be concluded by the weekend , well in advance of his State of the Union address scheduled on Tuesday 4 February .

Defense lawyers at Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial concluded their opening arguments on Tuesday. Here are six key takeaways:
The ‘policy dispute’ defense
The president’s defense argued on Monday that Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine did not stem from a desire to smear the former vice-president Joe Biden, but from Trump’s personal concerns about corruption in Ukraine and burden-sharing with Europe.
Trump’s lawyers sought to cast the furore over his Ukraine conduct as a policy dispute. “To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute? That’s not what the framers intended,” said Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow.
Gliding past Bolton
But on Tuesday the defense went further, to argue that even if everything reportedly charged in a forthcoming book by the former national security adviser John Bolton is true – that Trump conditioned military aid for Ukraine on the receipt by him of personal political favors – that would still not be impeachable.
“Even if everything in there was true, it constitutionally doesn’t rise to that level” of an impeachable offense, said Sekulow.
Republican Mike Braun of Indiana made the case off the Senate floor:
We are soon coming to the biggest binary decision we'll make in the whole process: convict or acquit.
Even if you take everything in the Bolton revelation as truth, would that make the difference and take you over the hump to where you'd convict a President on such a shaky case? pic.twitter.com/57n4uvA9PB — Senator Mike Braun (@SenatorBraun) January 28, 2020
Can I get a witness?
Probably not. Sekulow argued that reports about Bolton’s book were “inadmissible” as hearsay, but the defense team simultaneously argued that no witnesses should be called.
That’s not how the public feels about it, however, according to opinion polls conducted in the past week, including one released by Quinnipiac on Tuesday:
This is a very big number for GOP to ignore: Voters say 75 to 20 percent that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial, according to Quinnipiac poll — Chris Jansing (@ChrisJansing) January 28, 2020
Time to spare. Lots of it
Trump’s defense was spread across three days, but the first and third days were short ones – an intro on Saturday and an outro on Tuesday. All told, the defense used about 10 of its 24 hours allotted for opening arguments – less than half the time House managers used to present evidence against Trump.
Questions are next
The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said the Senate would convene at 1pm Wednesday to begin a question period, which could last for a maximum of 16 hours spread over two days. Senators will submit written questions to be read by the supreme court’s chief justice, John Roberts, who encouraged the counsels on Tuesday to limit their responses to five minutes apiece.
Big day on Friday
The Senate was on track to hold at least one major vote on Friday, on the question of whether to vote on individual witnesses. If the Senate decides against witnesses, then the big vote – whether to convict or acquit the president – could follow soon after. If Trump has his way, the impeachment process could be concluded by the weekend, well in advance of his State of the Union address scheduled on Tuesday 4 February.


theguardian--2020-01-28--McConnell says Republicans do not have votes to block witnesses – reports

Republicans do not yet have the needed votes to block witnesses from appearing at the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump , the majority leader , Mitch McConnell , told his caucus in a meeting on Tuesday night , according to multiple reports .
With an unknown number of Republican senators still undecided on the question of calling witnesses , McConnell could still get the votes he needs to block witnesses and stop the trial from reeling off into unpredictable – and potentially hazardous – territory for the president .
At least four Republicans would need to join Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense team and his Republican allies have argued vehemently against the inclusion of witnesses at the trial , saying they already had enough information to decide the case and that the Senate should not be burdened by what they have framed as an incomplete process in the House of Representatives .
But those arguments appear not to have been persuasive to the necessary number of senators .
Trump ’ s lawyers concluded their opening arguments on Tuesday .
Led by Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow , the defense team dismissed objections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ policy disagreements ” and warned senators not to “ lower the bar of impeachment ” by voting to convict the president .
The defense team briefly grappled with charges reportedly appearing in an unpublished manuscript written by the former national security adviser John Bolton that Trump had conditioned security aid for Ukraine on the delivery of personal political favors .
Even if Trump did that , his lawyers said , it would not be impeachable .
But reports about the Bolton book were in any case “ inadmissible ” as evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secondhand nature of those reports .
“ You can not impeach a president based on an unsourced allegation , ” Sekulow said .
“ Responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says – if you want to call that evidence , I don ’ t know what you want to call that – I ’ d call that inadmissible.
” A two-thirds majority of voting senators is required to convict Trump .
An acquittal , much more likely , could be voted on as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visible hurdle remaining between Trump and acquittal , senators planned to vote , also on Friday , on whether to call witnesses in the case .
Before McConnell told his caucus that he was short on votes , Republicans had threatened to respond to witnesses called by Democrats with a call for witnesses whom Democrats say are irrelevant to the case but whom Trump has been very much focused on : former vice-president Joe Biden , his son Hunter Biden , the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry and potentially others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial , which began last week and so far has had a brief run by historical standards , into next month and potentially beyond .
But if Sekulow ’ s argument sounded like a call for Bolton to testify , that was an aberration from the strong posture of the defense team against witnesses and in favor of ending the trial as quickly as possible .
The White House was reportedly spreading the word to senators on Tuesday that calling Bolton or other witnesses would result in a court battle that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to meet on Tuesday afternoon to discuss strategy for the next phase of the trial , a two-day question period in which queries submitted by senators in writing will be read aloud by the chief justice , John Roberts , who is presiding .
It is still far from certain that witnesses including Bolton will testify , but since Sunday night , when Bolton ’ s manuscript was first reported , some more moderate Republican senators have voiced openness to the prospect , a sticking point for congressional Democrats in the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago [ the chance of witnesses being called ] was zero and now it ’ s something , ” Republican strategist Rob Jesmer told the Guardian .
“ I think that will massively prolong the trial.
” In a Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday , 75 % of registered voters responding said that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial , versus 20 % who did not want witnesses .
Support for witness testimony included 49 % of Republicans .
Congress was still digesting the news , reported by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton says Trump told him he wanted to keep withholding nearly $ 400m of security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate political rivals including former vice-president Joe Biden and his family .
On Monday night , the New York Times returned to the well , reporting that in the forthcoming book The Room Where It Happened , Bolton writes that he told the attorney general , William Barr , he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for autocratic foreign leaders .
News of Bolton ’ s book has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine – to signal openness to supporting the calling of witnesses .
On Tuesday , the minority leader , Chuck Schumer , said the “ drip , drip , drip ” of information from Bolton ’ s manuscript was “ reminiscent of Watergate ” , the scandal that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon .
Sekulow found another construction to describe the impeachment proceedings in his closing statement on Tuesday : “ Danger , danger , danger.
” He said : “ To lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that constitution for generations .
“ To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute ?
That ’ s not what the framers intended.
” While Trump ’ s lawyers have painted Trump ’ s alleged efforts to force the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Biden as a “ policy ” , Democrats have argued it amounted to election tampering , with the goal of providing Trump with a means to smear his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense team could be pressed during the next question period of the trial to explain why not hearing from Bolton personally is preferable to calling Bolton , who has pre-emptively agreed to testify , as a witness .

Daniel Strauss in Washington and Tom McCarthy in New York

Republicans do not yet have the needed votes to block witnesses from appearing at the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, told his caucus in a meeting on Tuesday night, according to multiple reports.
With an unknown number of Republican senators still undecided on the question of calling witnesses, McConnell could still get the votes he needs to block witnesses and stop the trial from reeling off into unpredictable – and potentially hazardous – territory for the president. At least four Republicans would need to join Democrats to force witness testimony.
Trump’s defense team and his Republican allies have argued vehemently against the inclusion of witnesses at the trial, saying they already had enough information to decide the case and that the Senate should not be burdened by what they have framed as an incomplete process in the House of Representatives.
But those arguments appear not to have been persuasive to the necessary number of senators. Trump’s lawyers concluded their opening arguments on Tuesday.
Led by Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, the defense team dismissed objections to Trump’s conduct towards Ukraine as “policy disagreements” and warned senators not to “lower the bar of impeachment” by voting to convict the president.
The defense team briefly grappled with charges reportedly appearing in an unpublished manuscript written by the former national security adviser John Bolton that Trump had conditioned security aid for Ukraine on the delivery of personal political favors.
02:06 Trump lawyers urge senators to 'end the age of impeachment' and acquit Trump – video
Even if Trump did that, his lawyers said, it would not be impeachable. But reports about the Bolton book were in any case “inadmissible” as evidence, Sekulow argued, owing to the secondhand nature of those reports.
“You cannot impeach a president based on an unsourced allegation,” Sekulow said. “Responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says – if you want to call that evidence, I don’t know what you want to call that – I’d call that inadmissible.”
A two-thirds majority of voting senators is required to convict Trump. An acquittal, much more likely, could be voted on as early as Friday. In the final visible hurdle remaining between Trump and acquittal, senators planned to vote, also on Friday, on whether to call witnesses in the case.
Before McConnell told his caucus that he was short on votes, Republicans had threatened to respond to witnesses called by Democrats with a call for witnesses whom Democrats say are irrelevant to the case but whom Trump has been very much focused on: former vice-president Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry and potentially others.
Hearing from numerous witnesses could extend the impeachment trial, which began last week and so far has had a brief run by historical standards, into next month and potentially beyond.
But if Sekulow’s argument sounded like a call for Bolton to testify, that was an aberration from the strong posture of the defense team against witnesses and in favor of ending the trial as quickly as possible.
The White House was reportedly spreading the word to senators on Tuesday that calling Bolton or other witnesses would result in a court battle that would prolong the trial indefinitely. Republican senators were to meet on Tuesday afternoon to discuss strategy for the next phase of the trial, a two-day question period in which queries submitted by senators in writing will be read aloud by the chief justice, John Roberts, who is presiding.
It is still far from certain that witnesses including Bolton will testify, but since Sunday night, when Bolton’s manuscript was first reported, some more moderate Republican senators have voiced openness to the prospect, a sticking point for congressional Democrats in the impeachment trial.
“Certainly a few days ago [the chance of witnesses being called] was zero and now it’s something,” Republican strategist Rob Jesmer told the Guardian. “I think that will massively prolong the trial.”
Chuck Schumer speaks to the media on Tuesday. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
In a Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday, 75% of registered voters responding said that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial, versus 20% who did not want witnesses. Support for witness testimony included 49% of Republicans.
Congress was still digesting the news, reported by the New York Times on Sunday, that Bolton says Trump told him he wanted to keep withholding nearly $400m of security aid to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate political rivals including former vice-president Joe Biden and his family.
On Monday night, the New York Times returned to the well, reporting that in the forthcoming book The Room Where It Happened, Bolton writes that he told the attorney general, William Barr, he was concerned Trump was doing personal favors for autocratic foreign leaders.
News of Bolton’s book has spurred some more moderate Republican senators – Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine – to signal openness to supporting the calling of witnesses.
On Tuesday, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said the “drip, drip, drip” of information from Bolton’s manuscript was “reminiscent of Watergate”, the scandal that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon.
The longer it goes on, the more likely that more new evidence will come out that further implicates the president Chuck Schumer
Sekulow found another construction to describe the impeachment proceedings in his closing statement on Tuesday: “Danger, danger, danger.”
He said: “To lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that constitution for generations.
“To have a removal of a president based on a policy dispute? That’s not what the framers intended.”
While Trump’s lawyers have painted Trump’s alleged efforts to force the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Biden as a “policy”, Democrats have argued it amounted to election tampering, with the goal of providing Trump with a means to smear his potential 2020 rival.
Trump’s defense team could be pressed during the next question period of the trial to explain why not hearing from Bolton personally is preferable to calling Bolton, who has pre-emptively agreed to testify, as a witness.


theguardian--2020-01-28--Trump praises Pompeo for rant against NPR reporter: ‘You did a good job on her’

Donald Trump has praised Mike Pompeo for his treatment of a prominent radio journalist , who the secretary of state reportedly swore at and called a liar after she asked questions about Ukraine .
“ I think you did a good job on her , actually , ” the president said .
Trump was referring to Mary Louise Kelly , the host of a news programme on National Public Radio , whose interview with Pompeo on Friday triggered what Kelly described as an obscenity-laden rant from the secretary of state , during which he asked her : “ Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and challenged her to find Ukraine on a world map .
Kelly had asked Pompeo about his failure to defend the former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , who was abruptly ousted from her post on Trump ’ s order last May .
After the interview , Pompeo summoned Kelly to his private quarters in the state department and launched into a foul-mouthed tirade that she said lasted as long as the interview itself .
After Kelly went on air to talk about the encounter , Pompeo issued an extraordinary statement through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , emails between Kelly and state department officials showed that she , not Pompeo , had told the truth when she said she had notified his office that she would raise the subject of Ukraine .
Pompeo did not deny he had delivered the tirade described by Kelly , but claimed that the meeting after the interview was off the record .
Kelly said she was told by a staffer not to bring a recording device into the room but “ she did not say we were off the record , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo implied that Kelly had failed to identify Ukraine on an unlabelled world map , and had pointed to Bangladesh instead .
Kelly , who has a master ’ s degree in European studies from Cambridge University and many years experience as a foreign correspondent , said she pointed to it right away .
After the NPR issued a statement supporting Kelly ’ s reporting , the state department barred an NPR correspondent from the travelling press party flying with Pompeo to Europe this week .
The correspondent , Michele Kelemen , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all radio outlets .
At a White House appearance on Tuesday which was supposed to mark the launch of a US plan for the Middle East , Trump praised Pompeo for his work on the issue .
“ That was very impressive , Mike .
That reporter couldn ’ t have done too good a job on you yesterday [ sic ] .
I think you did a good job on her , actually , ” the president said , drawing laughter from officials in the room .
After Pompeo ’ s attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s future into question .
On Sunday , he retweeted a rightwing pundit as asking : “ Why does NPR still exist ?
Why are we paying for this big-government Democrat Party propaganda operation.
” “ A very good question !
” Trump added in a tweet of his own .

Donald Trump has praised Mike Pompeo for his treatment of a prominent radio journalist, who the secretary of state reportedly swore at and called a liar after she asked questions about Ukraine.
“I think you did a good job on her, actually,” the president said.
Trump was referring to Mary Louise Kelly, the host of a news programme on the National Public Radio (NPR), whose interview with Pompeo on Friday triggered what Kelly described as an obscenity-laden rant from the secretary of state, during which he asked her: “Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?” and challenged her to find Ukraine on a world map.
“For the record, I did,” Kelly wrote in an op-ed published in the New York Times on Tuesday.
“Journalists don’t sit down with senior government officials in the service of scoring political points,” Kelly wrote. “We do it in the service of asking tough questions, on behalf of our fellow citizens. And then sharing the answers – or lack thereof – with the world.”
Kelly had asked Pompeo about his failure to defend the former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was abruptly ousted from her post on Trump’s order last May.
After the interview, Pompeo summoned Kelly to his private quarters in the state department and launched into a tirade that she said lasted as long as the interview itself. After Kelly went on air to talk about the encounter, Pompeo issued an extraordinary statement through the state department calling her a liar.
However, emails between Kelly and state department officials showed that she, not Pompeo, had told the truth when she said she had notified his office that she would raise the subject of Ukraine.
Pompeo did not deny he had delivered the tirade described by Kelly, but he claimed that the meeting after the interview was off the record. Kelly said she was told by a staffer not to bring a recording device into the room but “she did not say we were off the record, nor would I have agreed”.
Pompeo implied that Kelly had failed to identify Ukraine on an unlabelled world map and had pointed to Bangladesh instead. Kelly, who has a master’s degree in European studies from the University of Cambridge and many years of experience as a foreign correspondent, said she pointed to it right away.
After NPR issued a statement supporting Kelly’s reporting, the state department barred an NPR correspondent from the travelling press party flying with Pompeo to Europe this week. The correspondent, Michele Kelemen, had been poised to provide pooled coverage for all radio outlets.
On Tuesday, the news organization’s president, John Lansing, sent a letter to the state department seeking “clarification” on why Kelemen was blocked, and what it meant for future trips. The department has not yet responded, according to NPR.
At a White House appearance on Tuesday that was supposed to mark the launch of a US plan for the Middle East, Trump praised Pompeo for his work on the issue.
“That was very impressive, Mike. That reporter couldn’t have done too good a job on you yesterday. I think you did a good job on her, actually,” the president said, drawing laughter from officials in the room.
After Pompeo’s attack on Kelly, Trump, who has previously proposed eliminating federal funding for public broadcasting, once again called NPR’s future into question.
On Sunday, he retweeted a rightwing pundit as asking: “Why does NPR still exist? Why are we paying for this big-government Democrat Party propaganda operation.”
“A very good question!” Trump added in a tweet of his own.


theguardian--2020-01-28--Ivanka Trump attacks 'smug elites' of CNN in row over viral clip

Ivanka Trump has waded into a row over a CNN segment in which host Don Lemon laughed as two guests ridiculed supporters of her father .
The president ’ s daughter said : “ The arrogance , mocking accents and smug ridicule of this nation ’ s ‘ real elites ’ is disgusting.
” Amid backlash to the CNN clip and Ivanka ’ s Tuesday morning tweet , one of the CNN guests , Rick Wilson , a Republican consultant turned Trump critic and author , responded with characteristic force .
Wilson said in a message to the Guardian : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to Chapin and never worked for anyone not called Daddy.
” Chapin is an exclusive all-girls school in Manhattan , which the first daughter attended before boarding at Choate Rosemary Hall in Connecticut .
She joined the Trump Organization from college , appeared with her billionaire father on TV in The Apprentice and is now a senior White House adviser .
The CNN footage was broadcast on Saturday night but came to attention on Monday when an excerpt was tweeted by the media analyst Steve Krakauer .
In the footage , Wilson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ali joined Lemon to discuss secretary of state Mike Pompeo ’ s public clash with NPR over a reporter ’ s questions about Ukraine .
Pompeo , Wilson said , “ knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn ’ t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it .
He knows that this is an administration defined by actual ignorance of the world.
” Lemon burst into laughter , lowering his head to his desk and mopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wilson continued , was “ playing to [ the Republican ] base .
You know , the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump that thinks Donald Trump ’ s the smart one and ” – he adopted an exaggerated accent – “ Y ’ all elitists are dumb.
” Amid laughter , Ali interjected : “ You elitists , with your geography and your maps and your spelling.
” After more remarks and more laughter , Ali said : “ Sorry , I apologise .
It was Rick ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , Lemon said : “ That was a good one .
I needed that.
” In his tweet , Krakauer wrote : “ The arrogance , the dismissiveness , the smug cackling , the accents .
If Donald Trump wins re-election this year , I ’ ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened.
” On Monday , a story on the footage was duly published by the conservative news site the Daily Caller , which said in an accompanying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what CNN thinks of you.
” Donald Trump , a president who has by one count made more than 16,000 false or misleading claims since entering office , has excoriated CNN as a bastion of supposed “ Fake News ” media .
On Monday night he retweeted the clip and criticized Lemon in familiar fashion , calling him “ the dumbest man on television ( with terrible ratings ! )
” .
“ I believe we have ‘ triggered ’ the ‘ snowflakes ’ just by doing a short segment on TV with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Did I use the terminology correctly ?
” Things took a more serious turn in Ali ’ s penultimate tweet of the night , however , when he wrote : “ Trump tweeted our CNN clip from [ two ] days ago .
Friends are now concerned about my safety .
I refuse to be intimidated [ and ] bullied by bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood , whining about a harmless , silly 30-second clip while endorsing Trump , a cruel vulgarian who debases everyone .
”

Ivanka Trump has waded into a row over a CNN segment in which host Don Lemon laughed as two guests ridiculed supporters of her father.
The president’s daughter said: “The arrogance, mocking accents and smug ridicule of this nation’s ‘real elites’ is disgusting.”
Amid backlash to the CNN clip and Ivanka’s Tuesday morning tweet, one of the CNN guests, Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant turned Trump critic and author, responded with characteristic force.
Wilson said in a message to the Guardian: “Her hypocrisy is breathtaking. She went to Chapin and never worked for anyone not called Daddy.”
Chapin is an exclusive all-girls school in Manhattan, which the first daughter attended before boarding at Choate Rosemary Hall in Connecticut. She joined the Trump Organization from college, appeared with her billionaire father on TV in The Apprentice and is now a senior White House adviser.
The CNN footage was broadcast on Saturday night but came to attention on Monday when an excerpt was tweeted by the media analyst Steve Krakauer.
In the footage, Wilson and the New York Times columnist Wajahat Ali joined Lemon to discuss secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s public clash with NPR over a reporter’s questions about Ukraine.
Pompeo, Wilson said, “knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is an administration defined by actual ignorance of the world.”
Lemon burst into laughter, lowering his head to his desk and mopping his eyes with a handkerchief.
Pompeo, Wilson continued, was “playing to [the Republican] base. You know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump that thinks Donald Trump’s the smart one and” – he adopted an exaggerated accent – “Y’all elitists are dumb.”
Amid laughter, Ali interjected: “You elitists, with your geography and your maps and your spelling.”
After more remarks and more laughter, Ali said: “Sorry, I apologise. It was Rick’s fault. I blame Rick.”
Collecting himself, Lemon said: “That was a good one. I needed that.”
In his tweet, Krakauer wrote: “The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents. If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened.”
On Monday, a story on the footage was duly published by the conservative news site the Daily Caller, which said in an accompanying tweet: “America, this is what CNN thinks of you.”
Donald Trump, a president who has by one count made more than 16,000 false or misleading claims since entering office, has excoriated CNN as a bastion of supposed “Fake News” media. On Monday night he retweeted the clip and criticized Lemon in familiar fashion, calling him “the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)”.
Amid predictable furore, Wilson and Ali responded in kind.
“I believe we have ‘triggered’ the ‘snowflakes’ just by doing a short segment on TV with some levity,” Ali wrote. “Did I use the terminology correctly?”
Things took a more serious turn in Ali’s penultimate tweet of the night, however, when he wrote: “Trump tweeted our CNN clip from [two] days ago. Friends are now concerned about my safety. I refuse to be intimidated [and] bullied by bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood, whining about a harmless, silly 30-second clip while endorsing Trump, a cruel vulgarian who debases everyone.”


theguardian--2020-01-28--Trump unveils 'ultimate deal' for Middle East peace – video

The US president launches his plan for peace in the Middle East , saying the 80-page proposal offers a 'realistic @ @ @ @ @ already been agreed to by Israel as the basis for negotiations .
Despite the absence @ @ @ @ @ the launch , Trump says the US will support Palestine if the president , Mahmoud @ @ @ @ @ to peace '

The US president launches his plan for peace in the Middle East, saying the 80-page proposal offers a 'realistic two-state solution' that has already been agreed to by Israel as the basis for negotiations. Despite the absence of a Palestinian presence at the launch, Trump says the US will support Palestine if the president, Mahmoud Abbas, 'chooses the path to peace'


theguardian--2020-01-29--Trump praises Pompeo for rant against NPR reporter: ‘You did a good job on her’

Donald Trump has praised Mike Pompeo for his treatment of a prominent radio journalist , who the secretary of state reportedly swore at and called a liar after she asked questions about Ukraine .
“ I think you did a good job on her , actually , ” the president said .
Trump was referring to Mary Louise Kelly , the host of a news programme on the National Public Radio , whose interview with Pompeo on Friday triggered what Kelly described as an obscenity-laden rant from the secretary of state , during which he asked her : “ Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and challenged her to find Ukraine on a world map .
“ For the record , I did , ” Kelly wrote in an op-ed published in the New York Times on Tuesday .
“ Journalists don ’ t sit down with senior government officials in the service of scoring political points , ” Kelly wrote .
“ We do it in the service of asking tough questions , on behalf of our fellow citizens .
And then sharing the answers – or lack thereof – with the world.
” Kelly had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , who was abruptly ousted from her post on Trump ’ s order last May .
After the interview , Pompeo summoned Kelly to his private quarters in the state department and launched into a tirade that she said lasted as long as the interview itself .
After Kelly went on air to talk about the encounter , Pompeo issued an extraordinary statement through the state department calling her a liar .
However , emails between Kelly and state department officials showed that she , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she said she had notified his office that she would raise the subject of Ukraine .
Pompeo did not deny he had delivered the tirade described by Kelly , but he claimed that the meeting after the interview was off the record .
Kelly said she was told by a staffer not to bring a recording device into the room but “ she did not say we were off the record , nor would I have agreed ” .
Pompeo implied that Kelly had failed to identify Ukraine on an unlabelled world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kelly , who has a master ’ s degree in European studies from the University of Cambridge and many years of experience as a foreign correspondent , said she pointed to it right away .
After NPR issued a statement supporting Kelly ’ s reporting , the state department barred an NPR correspondent from the travelling press party flying with Pompeo to Europe this week .
The correspondent , Michele Kelemen , had been poised to provide pooled coverage for all radio outlets .
On Tuesday , the news organization ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to the state department seeking “ clarification ” on why Kelemen was blocked , and what it meant for future trips .
The department has not yet responded , according to NPR .
At a White House appearance on Tuesday that was supposed to mark the launch of a US plan for the Middle East , Trump praised Pompeo for his work on the issue .
“ That was very impressive , Mike .
That reporter couldn ’ t have done too good a job on you yesterday .
I think you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually , ” the president said , drawing laughter from officials in the room .
After Pompeo ’ s attack on Kelly , Trump , who has previously proposed eliminating federal funding for public broadcasting , once again called NPR ’ s future into question .
On Sunday , he retweeted a rightwing pundit as asking : “ Why does NPR still exist ?
Why are we paying for this big-government Democrat Party propaganda operation.
” “ A very good question !
” Trump added in a tweet of his own .

Julian Borger in Washington and Maanvi Singh in San Francisco


theguardian--2020-01-29--Impeachment: GOP leaders reportedly say they lack votes to block witnesses – as it happened

As Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders spar on the campaign trail , the former vice president ’ s campaign maintains that he ’ s committed to backing the Democratic nominee , whoever it is .
The tension between the former vice president and the progressive Vermont senator has been building as the Iowa caucus approaches next week .
Though Biden had previously committed to endorsing the Democratic nominee , “ regardless ” of who wins the primaries , he appeared to be vacillating on Sanders .
The two have clashed over foreign policy , trade , and social security .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ released an ad accusing Sanders of negative attacks on the former vice president ’ s and mischaracterizing his record on social security .
Sanders ’ campaign lobbed back that it was Biden who was going negative .
Sanders did apologize after a supporter ’ s op-ed in The Guardian called Biden “ corrupt ” .
The two frontrunners are fighting off Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg ahead of the Iowa caucus .
“ I ’ m not going to make judgments now , ” Biden told reporters in Iowa , where he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just think that it depends upon how we treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee.
” The Associated Press and other outlets interpreted this as vacillation .
But Biden ’ s campaign contested reports that he wouldn ’ t back the Democratic nominee , whoever it is .
What he actually said : Reporter : Will the party unite behind Bernie if he 's the nominee ?
The whole party ?
Biden : We have to .
I 'm not gon na make judgments now but I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat one another between now and the time we have a nominee .


theguardian--2020-01-29--The Clean Water Act was a staggering bipartisan achievement. Now Trump is gutting it | Blan Holman

It may be hard to remember these days , but the nation that led the world on to the stage of modern environmental protection was the United States .
Starting in the early 70s , the US Congress enacted bold bipartisan laws to protect America ’ s wildlife , air and water .
America ’ s skies cleared .
Waterfronts across the nation went from blighted dumping grounds into vital civic hearts .
And , in this journey from smog to light , America ’ s economy thrived .
Our environment improved even as our economy grew .
Both Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean environment , and it endured for decades .
Following the 2016 election , polluting-industry veterans commandeered the country ’ s environmental agencies with one central aim : make pollution free again .
The assaults have been fast , furious and many .
But the latest one stands out above , or below , the others .
Administration officials have now targeted the Clean Water Act , perhaps the most fundamental environmental law ever enacted by the US Congress .
The law ’ s main mechanism is simple : before discharging waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polluters must first try to clean it up .
So how did the former lobbyists running the agencies sabotage the act ?
By radically shrinking it .
By its terms , the act only protects waters “ of the United States ” .
But according to this administration , waters “ of ” the United States does not mean waters in the United States .
In their view , the Clean Water Act only applies to a subset of waters , and the rest are unprotected .
The scope of the contraction is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 80 % of stream miles would lose their protection .
Drinking water sources for millions of Americans would be at risk from pollution .
The administration ’ s redefinition would leave millions of acres open for destruction – wetlands that buffer communities from storms , serve as homes for wildlife and nurseries for fish and shellfish , and act as natural water filters .
This is the single largest loss of clean water protections that America has ever seen .
And the timing couldn ’ t be worse .
From lead contamination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of toxic industrial chemicals , new threats to water quality are emerging daily .
Science should drive the response to these threats .
In this administration , however , scientists are not in the driver ’ s seat .
They ’ re not even in the vehicle .
They have been exiled far away .
Ideology is at the wheel instead .
The lovely city where I live – Charleston , South Carolina – faces a fragile future due to rising seas , powerful hurricanes and “ rain-bomb ” storms .
Wetlands are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acre can absorb a million gallons or more of floodwater .
Yet even in Charleston ’ s most flood-prone watershed , where homes are so routinely flooded that the city is buying some residents out , developers seek to fill hundreds of acres of wetlands and build more in these areas that naturally flood .
Those wetlands are far more likely to be destroyed without federal protection .
By providing a nationwide floor of protection , the Clean Water Act provides a level playing field for the 50 states .
Who loses when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living downstream .
They will have dirtier drinking water and more flooding .
This is especially true in the south , where state environmental agency staff are routinely underfunded , understaffed and overwhelmed by pro-polluting politics and industries .
That is exactly why Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 .
The nation ’ s waters were an open sewer , with some rivers literally catching fire with pollution .
Fed-up with state-by-state inaction , the nation demanded a national response – and got it .
Now the administration wants to scrap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest rivers and declaring open season on the smaller tributaries upstream .
That ’ s like trying to address heart disease by ignoring the blood that travels through it .
Fortunately , citizens are entitled to a second opinion .
Whether the administration ’ s moves to gut the Clean Water Act are legal and based on the proper factors will be decided in court .
Likely to start soon , the cases could take years to resolve and ultimately reach the US supreme court .
How much damage this self-inflicted wound will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen .
• None Blan Holman is a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston , South Carolina

It may be hard to remember these days, but the nation that led the world on to the stage of modern environmental protection was the United States.
Starting in the early 70s, the US Congress enacted bold bipartisan laws to protect America’s wildlife, air and water. America’s skies cleared. Waterfronts across the nation went from blighted dumping grounds into vital civic hearts.
And, in this journey from smog to light, America’s economy thrived. Our environment improved even as our economy grew. Both Republican and Democratic administrations upheld this commitment to a clean environment, and it endured for decades.
Following the 2016 election, polluting-industry veterans commandeered the country’s environmental agencies with one central aim: make pollution free again.
The assaults have been fast, furious and many. But the latest one stands out above, or below, the others. Administration officials have now targeted the Clean Water Act, perhaps the most fundamental environmental law ever enacted by the US Congress.
The law’s main mechanism is simple: before discharging waste into the nation’s waters, polluters must first try to clean it up.
So how did the former lobbyists running the agencies sabotage the act? By radically shrinking it. By its terms, the act only protects waters “of the United States”. But according to this administration, waters “of” the United States does not mean waters in the United States. In their view, the Clean Water Act only applies to a subset of waters, and the rest are unprotected.
The scope of the contraction is staggering. In some states out west, 80% of stream miles would lose their protection. Drinking water sources for millions of Americans would be at risk from pollution. The administration’s redefinition would leave millions of acres open for destruction – wetlands that buffer communities from storms, serve as homes for wildlife and nurseries for fish and shellfish, and act as natural water filters.
This is the single largest loss of clean water protections that America has ever seen. And the timing couldn’t be worse. From lead contamination in drinking water to the proliferating threat of toxic industrial chemicals, new threats to water quality are emerging daily.
Science should drive the response to these threats. In this administration, however, scientists are not in the driver’s seat. They’re not even in the vehicle. They have been exiled far away. Ideology is at the wheel instead.
The lovely city where I live – Charleston, South Carolina – faces a fragile future due to rising seas, powerful hurricanes and “rain-bomb” storms.
In this administration, however, scientists are not in the driver's seat. They’re not even in the vehicle. They have been exiled far away
Wetlands are vital for flood protection – a single acre can absorb a million gallons or more of floodwater. Yet even in Charleston’s most flood-prone watershed, where homes are so routinely flooded that the city is buying some residents out, developers seek to fill hundreds of acres of wetlands and build more in these areas that naturally flood.
Those wetlands are far more likely to be destroyed without federal protection. By providing a nationwide floor of protection, the Clean Water Act provides a level playing field for the 50 states.
Who loses when that protection is removed? The people living downstream. They will have dirtier drinking water and more flooding. This is especially true in the south, where state environmental agency staff are routinely underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed by pro-polluting politics and industries.
That is exactly why Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. The nation’s waters were an open sewer, with some rivers literally catching fire with pollution. Fed-up with state-by-state inaction, the nation demanded a national response – and got it.
Now the administration wants to scrap all that by only defending the very largest rivers and declaring open season on the smaller tributaries upstream. That’s like trying to address heart disease by ignoring the blood that travels through it.
Fortunately, citizens are entitled to a second opinion. Whether the administration’s moves to gut the Clean Water Act are legal and based on the proper factors will be decided in court. Likely to start soon, the cases could take years to resolve and ultimately reach the US supreme court. How much damage this self-inflicted wound will cause in the meantime remains to be seen.


theguardian--2020-01-29--Remain in Mexico: 80% of migrants in Trump policy are victims of violence

A staggering 80 % of asylum seekers sent to Mexico to await US court hearings report being victims of violence , according a survey by Doctors Without Borders ( MSF ) .
In one month – September – three-quarters of asylum seekers seen by MSF physicians in Nuevo Laredo reported having been kidnapped for ransom , according to the figures released on Wednesday .
Some 44 % of MSF patients also reported having been victims of violence in the week leading up to their consultations .
Wednesday marked the first anniversary of a scheme officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking asylum in the United States are sent to Mexico to wait as their cases wind their way through US courts .
Under the scheme , also known as “ remain in Mexico ” , more than 57,000 non-Mexican asylum seekers have been sent to wait in cities along the border – many of which have been plagued by drug-war violence for years .
Migrants – who stand out because of their appearance and accents – are routinely targeted for abduction outside migration offices and bus terminals , and held until relatives back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The US continues to send asylum seekers back into danger and into the hands of the cartels that control the migration routes in Mexico , ” said Sergio Martín , MSF general coordinator in Mexico .
“ The Mexican government lacks the ability to provide the most minimum of conditions for thousands of people who are being sent to its territory , ” he said .
Migrants are at risk along the entire border , “ but mainly in places like Nuevo Laredo , where there is serious violence – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime , ” Martín said .
Nuevo Laredo is considered so insecure that the US government has issued a Level 4 : “ Do not travel ” alert to its citizens for the city and surrounding state of Tamaulipas – the same as war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan .
The Cartel del Noreste – an offshoot of the blood thirsty Zetas cartel – “ operates a sophisticated kidnapping business that targets asylum seekers – many of whom are women and children – who enter the city , ” said Stephanie Leutert , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Strauss Center at the University of Texas .
“ The kidnappers charge several thousand dollars for each kidnapped asylum seeker and operate with almost complete impunity.
” The Mexican government promised to provide asylum seekers with shelter , work permits and access to health services , but observers say many of the migrants have been left to fend for themselves .
On Wednesday , the US department of homeland security announced that the scheme would be expanded to include Brazilians .
Brazilian arrivals at the border have tripled in the past year @

A staggering 80% of asylum seekers sent to Mexico to await US court hearings report being victims of violence, according a survey by Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
In one month – October – three-quarters of asylum seekers seen by MSF physicians in Nuevo Laredo reported having been kidnapped for ransom, according to the figures released on Wednesday.
Some 44% of MSF patients also reported having been victims of violence in the week leading up to their consultations.
Wednesday marked the first anniversary of a scheme officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), under which migrants seeking asylum in the United States are sent to Mexico to wait as their cases wind their way through US courts.
Under the scheme, also known as “remain in Mexico”, more than 57,000 non-Mexican asylum seekers have been sent to wait in cities along the border – many of which have been plagued by drug-war violence for years.
Migrants – who stand out because of their appearance and accents – are routinely targeted for abduction outside migration offices and bus terminals, and held until relatives back home wire ransom payments to the kidnappers.
“The US continues to send asylum seekers back into danger and into the hands of the cartels that control the migration routes in Mexico,” said Sergio Martín, MSF general coordinator in Mexico.
“The Mexican government lacks the ability to provide the most minimum of conditions for thousands of people who are being sent to its territory,” he said.
Migrants are at risk along the entire border, “but mainly in places like Nuevo Laredo, where there is serious violence – and migrants are ‘merchandise’ for organised crime,” Martín said.
Nuevo Laredo is considered so insecure that the US government has issued a Level 4: “Do not travel” alert to its citizens for the city and surrounding state of Tamaulipas – the same as war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan.
The Cartel del Noreste – an offshoot of the blood thirsty Zetas cartel – “operates a sophisticated kidnapping business that targets asylum seekers – many of whom are women and children – who enter the city,” said Stephanie Leutert, director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the Strauss Center at the University of Texas.
“The kidnappers charge several thousand dollars for each kidnapped asylum seeker and operate with almost complete impunity.”
The Mexican government promised to provide asylum seekers with shelter, work permits and access to health services, but observers say many of the migrants have been left to fend for themselves.
On Wednesday, the US department of homeland security announced that the scheme would be expanded to include Brazilians. Brazilian arrivals at the border have tripled in the past year.


theguardian--2020-01-29--Trump impeachment: White House claims John Bolton book contains top secret information – live

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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

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